[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7739-H7799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to section 3 of House
Resolution 574, proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on the
legislative day of Wednesday, October 9, 2002, all time for debate on
the joint resolution, as amended, under section 1 of House Resolution
574 had expired.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 107-724.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 1 Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by
Ms. Lee:
Strike the preamble and insert in lieu thereof the matter
preceding the resolved clause, below, and strike the text and
insert in lieu thereof the matter following the resolved
clause, below:
Whereas on April 6, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq
accepted the provisions
[[Page H7740]]
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3,
1991) bringing a formal cease-fire into effect;
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution
687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal,
or rendering harmless of ``all chemical and biological
weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems
and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities related thereto'', and ``all
ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and
fifty kilometers, and related major parts and repair and
production facilities'';
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution
687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop
any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material,
nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related
research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;
Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the
creation of a United Nations special commission to ``carry
out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological,
chemical, and missile capabilities'' and to assist and
cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in
carrying out the ``destruction, removal or rendering
harmless'' of all nuclear-related items and in developing a
plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's
compliance;
Whereas United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) between
1991 and 1998 successfully uncovered and destroyed large
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and production
facilities, nuclear weapons research and development
facilities, and Scud missiles, despite the fact that the
Government of Iraq sought to obstruct their work in numerous
ways;
Whereas in 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn
from Iraq and have not returned since;
Whereas Iraq is not in compliance with United Nations
Security Council Resolution 687, United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1154, and additional United Nations
resolutions on inspections, and this noncompliance violates
international law and Iraq's ceasefire obligations and
potentially endangers United States and regional security
interests;
Whereas the true extent of Iraq's continued development of
weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by such
development to the United States and allies in the region are
unknown and cannot be known without inspections;
Whereas the United Nations was established for the purpose
of preventing war and resolving disputes between nations
through peaceful means, including ``by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
resort to regional arrangements, or other peaceful means'';
Whereas the United Nations remains seized of this matter;
Whereas the President has called upon the United Nations to
take responsibility to assure that Iraq fulfills its
obligations to the United Nations under existing United
Nations Security Council resolutions;
Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of
thousands of people at risk, including members of the United
States armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and
civilian populations in neighboring countries;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against
Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to
reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those
responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against
Iraq may also undermine United States diplomatic relations
with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with
many other allies;
Whereas a preemptive unilateral United States first strike
could both set a dangerous international precedent and
significantly weaken the United Nations as an institution;
and
Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral
United States military action against Iraq and subsequent
occupation may be significant in terms of United States
casualties, the cost to the United States treasury, and harm
to United States diplomatic relations with other countries:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
United States should work through the United Nations to seek
to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing
weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the
resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound
question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international
relations in the 21st century.
Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and
death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority
to commit this Nation to war.
Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is
further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new
foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a
unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have
utilized our diplomatic options.
My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal
is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It
provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the
American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction.
The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic
process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections
and enhanced containment.
It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term
consequences for the United States of codifying the President's
announced doctrine of preemption.
The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before
we have even tried to pursue them.
We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what
we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its
people, we do not need this resolution.
If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere,
the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our
defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United
Nations Charter.
Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little
chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S.
forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become
much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This
is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires
sober thought and careful reflection.
President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law,
the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It
will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries
maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan?
China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?
I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge
other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This
approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces
of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for
peace in the region.
Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we
should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast
commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we
move into the 21st century.
As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations
do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a
chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in
eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam
Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors
destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of
mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process.
In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring
through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear
materials or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance
technology on the border to detect such materials.
As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries
bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations
Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in
the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on
nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
[[Page H7741]]
All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake
and which can lead to success.
What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century
international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism
and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our
choice.
During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear.
They still should.
I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is
contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a
terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global
stability and for our own moral authority.
We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where
they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as
representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action
will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of
lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have
choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give
U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work.
What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the
United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations
inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the
doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own
security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not
unilateral attack.
I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United
Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
It does not foreclose any future options.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do
not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the
House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment
suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin
who has just been hit by a freight train.
Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is
employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable
scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children
of Iraq. He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support
for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that
support them.
In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for
constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy
Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq, including
three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected
tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest,
imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape.
On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a
growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used
to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across
broad areas.
While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council
resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and
the world does nothing.
So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to
Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With
conciliation and negotiation.
For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just
that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During
the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts
were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up.
The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should
work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush
administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force
Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last
analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a
failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security
Council veto by Russia, China or France.
The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the
previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign
Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly
recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the
President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no
incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear
and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to
the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute
action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a
goal.
The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for
inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so
dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam
Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international
community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity,
enough fraud, enough deception. Enough.
I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither
conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued
containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive,
effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can
work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those
inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam
Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not
hide it.
These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000
munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors,
dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production
complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the
removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons
program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility.
Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This
cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of-
the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is
wrong.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the
ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying
Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the
ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction,
the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills
several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using
biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next
June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by
Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a
bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they
dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the
return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. We have done that. They say,
let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's
engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that.
Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom
are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has
demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is
the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a
broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and
oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By
rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise
to uphold the rule of law
[[Page H7742]]
and to protect the peace-loving people of the world actually has
meaning.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and as a
cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment asks what the American people
want. They want us to work through the United Nations, work through
that process, and I want to report and you all know the United Nations
has said yes, we will work with you, we will go in, we will have
unfettered inspections and we will work and come back. It is not an
``if'' kind of situation, it is an ``is.'' And the ``is'' is that the
American people want the United Nations involved and they want the
inspections to go forward and at a date determined to come back and
report. Our CIA, our intelligence agency, has reported to this Congress
and this Nation that there is no imminent threat that Saddam Hussein
will attack America. He does not have the capability. Let the U.N.
process work, and that is what the Lee amendment asks.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution entrusts to Congress
alone the power to declare war, a power we should invoke with great
care on evidence of a clear and present danger to our country.
President Bush has asked Congress to cede that power to him to be
wielded against Iraq at a time of his choosing, with or without United
Nations support, in a unilateral, preemptive strike of his own
determination of the level of threat Iraq poses to our national
security.
I will not surrender our constitutional authority. I will not vote
for the committee resolution which confers upon the President fast-
track war-making power. The President should first win U.N. Security
Council approval of a new, more rigorous round of arms inspections in
Iraq.
If Iraq resists the international inspectors and the mandated
inspections fail, the President should then obtain a Security Council
authorization of force, as was done in 1990, following which he should
ask Congress for approval to wage war against Iraq. The resolution
offered by the gentlewoman from California respects the Constitution
and the American people and will give renewed diplomacy a chance.
The Committee Resolution grants the President a new foreign policy
and national security tool that charts us on a fundamental departure
from historic U.S. foreign policy toward a dangerous precedent of first
strike military authority for future Presidents. Once established, this
resolution has enormous global consequences and will set the standard
for other nations to attack preemptively, without restraint.
This policy is contrary to our entire national tradition. The United
States did not pursue a policy of first strike military authority
against the Soviet Union during the Cold War when the Soviets had
nuclear weapons directed at U.S. cities and military targets. Nor did
the United States strike first against Iraq in 1990-1991.
For most U.S. citizens, the real threat to the nation is our
deteriorating domestic security: unemployment, the loss of retirement
income, access to affordable prescription drugs, and corporate
misfeasance and malfeasance that are eroding workers' retirement and
health care security.
Our domestic economy is in serious decline. Congress and the
President should, as our top priority, mobilize investments in
infrastructure and job training to put the unemployed back to work. We
have to mount new strategies to counter unfairly-traded imports that
undermine our national security through loss of jobs and income.
Earlier this year, the President made important recommendations in
this Section 201 Steel Remedy plan. Since then, however, he has
backtracked, granting numerous exemptions to allow significant
subsidized steel imports to pour into our nation undermining our
domestic steel and iron ore industries. These are essential national
security issues.
Our national security begins with domestic security, expressed in a
living wage, job security, livable communities, investments in
education, health care, and transportation that will ensure a better
future for our nation.
The Administration's obsession with Iraq has deflected our national
energies from the need to shore up domestic security. We must not allow
the pursuit of terrorists at home and abroad, nor vigilance over the
threat from Iraq divert our attention from critically urgent domestic
priorities.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lee amendment. In effect,
the Lee amendment says that if there are weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, we must work to seek and destroy these weapons with our allies in
the United Nations.
The amendment further indicates that we will not provide our stamp of
approval for a unilateral, preemptive strike unless the administration
can verify an imminent threat to our Nation.
Why should we change our national policy from being defenders of
freedom and democracy to that of first-strike aggressors?
This amendment does not prevent the President from performing his
constitutional duties. He is still the commander in chief of this great
Nation. However, it is our constitutional duty to declare war. We must
not delegate our authority to declare war to the executive branch.
Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the authority of this amendment and
the preceding speakers, I really believe that adopting this amendment
would be worse for America than taking no action at all. Adopting this
amendment would sanction and legitimize the shameful gamesmanship that
Saddam Hussein has shown for 11 years. Saddam views diplomacy without
force as his personal game without rules.
We cannot, we dare not ignore his history.
Remember, the world builds an Oil for Food program and Saddam Hussein
turns it into a way to rebuild his military and to amass personal
wealth. The world builds a no-fly zone to protect innocents from Iraqi
aggression. Yet Iraqi forces have fired on coalition planes hundreds of
times this year alone.
The world demands and Saddam agrees to destroy his biological and
chemical weapons. Yet every objective observer says he still has them
and he is building more.
The world demands and Iraq agrees to bring in international weapons
inspectors, but when they arrive, they are told that thousands of
buildings are off limits. They are delayed, they are hassled until they
go home in frustration.
Finally, Saddam declares with a smile that he does not support
terrorism. Yet every day, including today, we learn more and more about
the training, the resources, the protection that Saddam gives al Qaeda
and others.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment, with its ambiguous references to
negotiation and resumption of weapons inspections, would continue that
game. In fact, it would have this House legitimize that game.
The gentlewoman from California speaks of the dangers of war, and she
is right. War is very dangerous. But the last 11 years have shown that
giving Saddam Hussein diplomatic cover to build weaponry, terrible
weaponry, is even more dangerous.
There is a middle path: diplomacy with teeth. It is the underlying
resolution that I support. Let us show that we have learned our
lessons. As many have said here today and yesterday, and will say later
today, the American people are watching what we do. So is the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, so is Saddam Hussein. Let us
show Saddam Hussein that the games are over. They will go on no more.
Let us vote against and reject the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we should support the Lee amendment by
giving unfettered, unconditional support for U.N. inspections for
disarmament.
[[Page H7743]]
Our government has a history of undermining the United Nations and
has been particularly bad regarding Iraq. In 1990, we bribed and
threatened and punished the Security Council to force a vote endorsing
our war. We bribed poor countries with cheap Saudi oil. We bribed China
with diplomatic rehabilitation and new development aid.
And we told Yemen, the only Arab country on the Council, that its
vote against our war would be ``the most expensive vote you ever
cast.'' And then we punished Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab
world, with a cutoff of our entire $70 million aid package.
As we try to impose our war again on a reluctant United Nations, I
fear that the Yemen precedent is being recalled at the U.N. today. I
hope that our friends and our allies who might be considering a
different approach in the U.N. will not be intimidated by our
unilateral abuse of this multilateral institution.
The President can always call us back, if he is ready. He says he is
not ready. He says war is not imminent. So why are we giving him such
an order?
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from The Guardian
entitled ``The U.S. Has Been Seeking to Prevent a Resolution of the
Iraq Crisis for the Past 8 Years.''
[From the Guardian, Oct. 8, 2002]
The U.S. Has Been Seeking To Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis
for the Past Eight Years
(By George Monbiot)
There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war
with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked
his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to
consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror
to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House
as the singing of the birds.
Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but
necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our
consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence
which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all
those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No
task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies
contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely
that ``the United States does not desire military conflict,
because we know the awful nature of war'' and ``we hope that
Iraq complies with the world's demands''. Mr. Bush appears to
have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from
complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that
military conflict becomes inevitable.
On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of
the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the
return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN
inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the
screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of
capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to
the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was
preparing ``a major air campaign and land invasion'' to
``topple President Saddam Hussein''. The talks immediately
collapsed.
Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the
head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi
officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-
entering the country. The US Airforce launched bombing raids
on Basra, in southern Iraq, destroying a radar system. As the
Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely
have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time
the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding he
inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to let
the UN back in. The State Department immediately announced,
with more candor than elegance, that it would ``go into
thwart mode''.
It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft
resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN
Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan
for unopposed invasion. The decision about which sites should
be ``inspected'' would no longer be made buy the UN alone,
but also by ``any permanent member of the security council'',
such as the United States. The people inspecting these sites
could also be chosen by the US, and they would enjoy
``unrestricted rights to free, unrestricted and immediate
movement'' within Iraq, ``including unrestricted access to
presidential sites''. They would be permitted to establish
``regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq'', where
they would be ``accompanied . . . by sufficient U.S.
security forces to protect them''. They would have the
right to declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and
``ground and air transit corridors''. They would be
allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and
surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up
``encrypted communication'' networks and to seize ``any
equipment'' they choose to lay hands on.
The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to
remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the U.N. team in
1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector
Scott Ritter maintain that the weapons inspectors were joined
that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the
U.N.'s special access to collect information and encourage
the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain
and the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not
to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.
As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the U.S.
has been undermining disarmament for years. The U.N.'s
principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the
security council's resolution 687, which promised that
economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to
possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994,
Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state, unilaterally
withdrew this promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to
comply. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright,
insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam
remained in power.
The U.S. government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled
the U.N. inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true.
On October 30, 1998, the U.N. rejected a new U.N. proposal by
again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On
the following day, the Iraqi government announced that it
would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it
permitted them to continue working, and over the next six
weeks they completed around 300 operations.
On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection
team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of
the report recorded that over the past month ``the majority
of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing
monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation'',
but his well-publicized conclusion was that ``no progress''
has been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On
December 15, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. warned him that
his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled
out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq.
From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow U.N.
inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani,
the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His
organization had not been involved in the messy business of
1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and
complete the job the U.N. had almost finished. The U.S.
responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal.The other member
states agreed to depose him only after the United States
threatened to destroy the organization if he stayed. Now Hans
Blinx, the head of the new U.N. inspectorate, may also be
feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take
his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after
an hour-long meeting with U.S. officials, he agreed with the
Americans that there should be no inspections until a new
resolution had been approved.
For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help,
appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the
crisis in Iraq. It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice,
as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion
demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest
mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far
failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more
necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all
peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the
peaceful means have been averted.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution for
several reasons.
First, it retains Congress' constitutional authority and obligation
to publicly act on any commitment of American troops or resources to
military action. Unlike the other two resolutions before us, it does
not endow the President with powers that do not exist in the
Constitution.
Secondly, it promotes a multilateral solution to the world's
problems. It repudiates the administration's recently announced
preemptive doctrine, which would change the United States from a
worldwide defender of democracy into a first-strike aggressor on the
world stage.
Lastly and most importantly, it does not preclude any further action
by Congress, should circumstances change, despite the hand-wringing
that has gone on about our inability to deal with future instances.
Of course, the President is free to come back and ask the Congress
for action. This is best of the three resolutions before us, and I hope
my colleagues will support it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
I have been very disappointed with a number of my colleagues who have
suggested to me that the Lee amendment is not viable. I submit to them
that
[[Page H7744]]
they must not have read what the Lee amendment says.
It simply says that we resolve that the United States should work
through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring
that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction through
mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation,
inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other peaceful means.
This is a peace resolution, a desire to do everything that is
reasonably possible through peaceful means before we resort to what is
really an unviable option, and that unviable option is war.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to this
resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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, let me thank the distinguished
gentlewoman from California for yielding time and express the reason
that I come to this floor because it is with a heavy heart. I remind my
colleagues, as I know all of them are very conscious of, it is a
question of life and death. That is why I rise to support the Lee
amendment, because I believe it does not preclude the constitutional
duties that this Congress has, and that is the singular duty to declare
war.
Might I note in her amendment that she specifically notes that Iraq
is not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council
resolution. She acknowledges that the additional United Nations
resolutions on inspections, that they are in noncompliance and that
they violate international law. Iraq cease-fire obligations potentially
endanger the United States and regional security interests.
We know the dangers of Iraq. But what we also say to this body is
that the President of the United States has every authority to be able
to protect the United States upon the basis of imminent danger, of
immediate danger. But what the President does not have, what we are
seeking to do is to give him authority for a first strike without the
constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war. I rise to support
the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment
because it recognizes that in this time of crisis we have the
opportunity to pursue a new vision for the world. This vision affirms
the character of our Nation and refutes mistaken attempts to use
violence to bring about peace. We have been down that road before. It
is time to choose a new way. My constituents understand this. They are
overwhelmingly opposed to the war. In fact, they wish I had more than
one vote today.
A woman from Santa Rosa wrote to a local paper asking, and I quote,
what would war with Iraq accomplish? U.S. aggression would only create
more homeless and victimized refugees, more hatred of the United States
by the rest of the world, and the death of our sons and daughters in
the military. She continues: Violence only creates more violence. The
United States is the greatest, the most powerful country in the world.
We have the opportunity to be leaders of peace.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Lee resolution and oppose
authorizing force in Iraq.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is a woman
of courage, a woman of peace. We thank her for her leadership.
I heard the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, earlier worry
about our status as a sovereign Nation if this motion passes. This is a
motion which makes our sovereign Nation safer. In the 21st century, the
wars against terrorism, those wars require and will require
international cooperation. We cannot go it alone in the 21st century.
We cannot go it alone in a war against terrorism. We must have the
world community with us.
We will be less safe if we do not pass this resolution. America will
be less safe if we pass the resolution that the President wants. We
dilute our war against terrorism, we increase the possibility of
terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. The al Qaeda I would
think would be cheering the passage of the underlying resolution
because the instability of the area, for example, in Pakistan would
more likely give them a nuclear weapon. Let us work with the
international community. Let us work with the United Nations. Let us
follow the path of peace. Let us support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend, chairman of the committee, for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my friend and colleague from
California for her active and valuable contribution to the work of the
Committee on International Relations and to the work of this House. I
appreciate the views of my colleague from California and I share her
view that we must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means for
disarming Saddam Hussein, and we all agree that war can be only our
very last resort. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before us
supports the diplomatic process at the United Nations and it requires
the President to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war.
Our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is working nonstop
at the United Nations to move towards a peaceful and diplomatic
resolution of this crisis, and I fully support Secretary Powell's
efforts.
However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our diplomacy will
achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of
Damocles hangs over its head. Our joint bipartisan resolution
represents that statement of resolve.
I am also concerned that my friend's amendment disregards the very
serious threat posed by Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism,
clearly a serious danger to the security and safety of the United
States.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan and bicameral
agreement reached with the White House is approaching a final decision
in both the House and the Senate. Our chances of obtaining the support
of friends and allies will be dramatically increased by our show of
decisiveness and unity in this House. This is not the time to unravel
an agreement that is on the verge of ratification. It is for these and
many other reasons that I regretfully and respectfully oppose the
gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the
resolution, the amendment by my distinguished colleague and neighbor,
the gentlewoman from California. The reason we should support her
amendment is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence that any
thinking person could give that says we are in any danger from Saddam
Hussein today. You are in more danger from the snipers running around
in Prince Georges County that we cannot find.
If you vote against the Lee substitute, you are automatically
sentencing, some of you old men who have never been in service or never
worn a uniform like the last speaker, thousands of Americans to sure
death. You know that the President wants blood. He wants to go to war.
That is why we are going through this. And so you are giving an
inexperienced, desperate young man in the White House the execution
lever to kill thousands of Americans. Some of you did that and you
could look at the 50,000 names on the wall down on the Mall. And is
Vietnam still in business? The last time I looked. Don't do it again.
Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and wanted to say there is a curious suggestion here that the
people in the U.N. care more about American
[[Page H7745]]
citizens than their own representatives. That seems to be a theme that
I am hearing over and over again. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as we debate this,
there is also a second suggestion, that this resolution today, well
thought of, well debated not just during the course of the summer and
the previous months but in fact going back to 1990, that this is
something new, that suddenly we have decided that Iraq is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional action on Iraq goes back to 1990, to
the 101st Congress, the 102nd Congress, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and
now 107th, and there are resolutions after resolutions of instruction,
of threat, of demands against Iraq and the people because of the
repression they had. That is just the United States Congress, Mr.
Speaker. Then let us go to the U.N. itself.
Keep in mind America is a sovereign Nation. Unlike the supporters of
this amendment, I do not believe that we need to have the U.N.'s
permission to defend our own national interests. That is what nations
do. We cannot get mad at Germany or France if they do not stand up for
something that is not in their national interest. But I do not think
the U.N. should interfere with something that is in our national
interest, because this attack, this terrorist attack that we are
suffering from, 9-11, happened in the United States of America.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us also think about Kosovo. This Congress
agreed for President Clinton to bomb Kosovo because of repression of
the Muslim population by the largely Christian population, and we in
America sided with the Muslims. And President Clinton, I do not know
how the supporters of this amendment voted on that, but he did not sit
around and say, ``I'd like to take some action in Kosovo. Gee whiz,
what would the U.N. say?'' I did not hear that cry and hue from the
supporters of this amendment at that time. But if we were to go to the
U.N., going back to U.N. Resolution 660, violated; U.N. Resolution 678
on November 1990; Resolution 686 in March 1991; Resolution 687, April
1991; Resolution 688, April 1991; Resolution 707, August 15, 1991;
October 11, 1991, Resolution 715.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. I would like to submit
these for the Record. But the reality is that the U.N. has been calling
for Iraq to act and to comply and to discontinue certain activities
which they have flagrantly ignored. It is not time to go back to the
U.N. for one more resolution. If the U.N. was going to act, they would
have done it. They have had countless opportunities since 1991.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998.
The minimum agreement here between the hawks and the doves, if you
will, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is near
nuclear capability. The minimum agreement is they are anti-American,
they are dangerous, they are a barbaric regime. The minimum agreement,
they have violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now, not waiting on the U.N.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
[From the Congressional Research Service, Oct. 1, 2002]
Congressional Action on Iraq 1990-2002: A Compilation of Legislation
(By Jeremy M. Sharp)
Summary
This report is a compilation of legislation on Iraq from
1990 to the present. The list is composed of resolutions and
public laws relating to military action and/or diplomatic
pressure to be taken against Iraq. The list does not include
foreign aid appropriations bills passed since FY 1994 that
deny U.S. funds to any nation in violation of the United
Nations sanctions regime against Iraq. Also, measures that
were not passed only in either the House or the Senate are
not included (with the exception of the proposals in the
107th Congress). For a more in-depth analysis of U.S. action
against Iraq, see CRS Issue Brief IB92117, Iraq, Compliance,
Sanctions and U.S. Policy. This report will be updated as
developments unfold.
Congressional Action on Iraq 1990-2002
101st Congress
House
H. Con. Res. 382: Expressed the sense of the Congress that
the crisis created by Iraq's invasion and occupation of
Kuwait must be addressed and resolved on its own terms
separately from other conflicts in the region. Passed in the
House: October 23, 1990.
H. J. Res. 658: Supported the actions taken by the
President with respect to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and
confirmed United States resolve. Passed in the House: October
1, 1990.
Senate
S. Res. 318: Commended the President for his actions taken
against Iraq and called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces
from Kuwait, the freezing of Iraqi assets, the cessation of
all arms shipments to Iraq, and the imposition of sanctions
against Iraq. Passed in the Senate: August 2, 1990.
Public Laws
P.L. 101-509: (H.R. 5241). Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 630).
Urged the President to ensure that coalition allies were
sharing the burden of collective defense and contributing
financially to the war effort. Became public law: November 5,
1990.
P.L. 101-510: (H.R. 4739). Defense Authorization Act FY
1991 (Section 1458). Empowered the President to prohibit any
and all products of a foreign nation which has violated the
economic sanctions against Iraq. Became public law: November
5, 1990.
P.L. 101-513: (H.R. 5114). The Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990
(Section 586). Imposed a trade embargo on Iraq and called for
the imposition and enforcement of multilateral sanctions in
accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-515: (H.R. 5021). Department of Commerce, Justice,
and State Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 608 a & b).
Restricted the use of funds to approve the licensing for
export of any supercomputer to any country whose government
is assisting Iraq develop its ballistic missile program, or
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capability. Became
public law: November 5, 1990.
102nd Congress
Public Laws
P.L. 102-1: (H.J. Res. 77). Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Gave Congressional
authorization to expel Iraq from Kuwait in accordance with
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, which called
for the implementation of eleven previous Security Council
Resolutions. Became public law: January 12, 1991.
P.L. 102-138: (H.R. 1415). The Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for FY 1992 (Section 301). Stated that the
President should propose to the Security Council that members
of the Iraqi regime be put on trial for war crimes. Became
public law: October 28, 1991.
P.L. 102-190: (H.R. 2100). Defense Authorization Act for
FY1992 (Section 1095). Supported the use of ``all necessary
means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1).''
Became public law: December 5, 1991.
103rd Congress
Public Laws
P.L. 103-160: (H.R. 2401). Defense Authorization Act FY
1994 (Section 1164). Denied defectors of the Iraqi military
entry into the United States unless those persons had
assisted U.S. or coalition forces and had not committed any
war crimes. Became public law: November 30, 1993.
P.L. 103-236: (H.R. 2333). Foreign Relations Authorization
Act FY 1994, 1995 (Section 507). Expressed the sense of
Congress that the United States should continue to advocate
the maintenance of Iraq's territorial integrity and the
transition to a unified, democratic Iraq. Became public law:
April 30, 1994.
104th Congress
House
H. Res. 120: Urged the President to take ``all appropriate
action'' to secure the release and safe exit from Iraq of
American citizens William Barloon and David Daliberti, who
had mistakenly crossed Iraq's border and were detained.
Passed in the House: April 3, 1995.
Senate
S. Res. 288: Commended the military action taken by the
United States following U.S. air strikes in northern Iraq
against Iraqi radar and air defense installations. This
action was taken during the brief Kurdish civil war in 1996.
Passed in the Senate: September 5, 1996.
105th Congress
House
H. Res. 322: Supported the pursuit of peaceful and
diplomatic efforts in seeking Iraqi compliance with United
Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding the
destruction of Iraq's capability to deliver and produce
weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail,
``multilateral military action or unilateral military action
should be taken.'' Passed in the House: November 13, 1997.
H. Res. 612: Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the
United States to support efforts to remove the regime of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime. Passed in the
House: December 17, 1998.
H. Con. Res. 137: Expressed concern for the urgent need of
a criminal tribunal to try members of the Iraqi regime for
war crimes. Passed in the House: January 27, 1998.
Senate
S. Con. Res. 78: Called for the indictment of Saddam
Hussein for war crimes. Passed in the Senate: March 13, 1998.
Public Laws
P.L. 105-174: (H.R. 3579). 1998 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions Act (Section 17). Expressed the sense of
Congress that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
[[Page H7746]]
made available by this act be used for the conduct of
offensive operations by the United States Armed Forces
against Iraq for the purpose of enforcing compliance with
United Nations Security Council Resolutions, unless such
operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after
the date of the enactment of this act. Became public law: May
1, 1998.
P.L. 105-235: (S.J. Res. 54). Iraqi Breach of International
Obligations. Declared that by evicting weapons inspectors,
Iraq was in ``material breach'' of its cease-fire agreement.
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.'' Became public law: August 14,
1998.
P.L. 105-338 (H.R. 4655): Iraq Liberation Act of 1988
(Section 586). Declared that it should be the policy of the
United States to ``support efforts'' to remove Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq and replace him with a democratic
government. Authorized the President to provide the Iraqi
democratic opposition with assistance for radio and
television broadcasting, defense articles and military
training, and humanitarian assistance. Became public law:
October 31, 1998.
107th Congress
House
H.J. Res. 75: Stated that Iraq's refusal to allow weapons
inspectors was a material breach of its international
obligations and constituted ``a mounting threat to the United
States, its friends and allies, and international peace and
security.'' Passed in the House: December 20, 2001.
Senate
S. 1170 (H.R. 4): Would prohibit the direct or indirect
importation of Iraqi-origin petroleum into the United States,
notwithstanding action by the Committee established by United
Nations Security Council Resolution 661 authorizing the
export of petroleum products from Iraq in exchange for
humanitarian assistance. Last major action: July 12, 2001
(Referred to Senate Committee on Finance).
S. Con. Res. 133: Expresses the sense of Congress that
``the United States should not use force against Iraq,
outside of the existing rules of engagement, without specific
statutory authorization or a declaration of war under Article
I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United
States.'' Last major action: July 30, 2002 (Referred to
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
S.J. Res. 41: Calls for the ``consideration and vote on a
resolution for the use of force of the United States against
Iraq before such force is deployed.'' Last major action: July
18, 2002 (Referred to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990--VIOLATED!
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's
illegal invasion of Kuwait) ``and all subsequent relevant
resolutions.''
Authorizes UN Member States ``to use all necessary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent
relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area.''
UNSCR 686--March 3, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf
War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for
damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687--April 3, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction,
removal or rendering harmless ``under international
supervision'' of all ``chemical and biological weapons and
all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and
components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities.''
Iraq must ``unconditionally agree not acquire or develop
nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material'' or any
research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction,
removal or rendering harmless ``under international
supervision'' of all ``ballistic missiles with a range
greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and
production facilities.''
Iraq must not ``use, develop, construct or acquire'' any
weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to
verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear
weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction
programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow
terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead
Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf
War.
UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991--VIOLATED!
``Condemns'' repression of Iraqi civilian population, ``the
consequences of which threaten international peace and
security.''
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian
population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international
humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707--August 15, 1991--VIOLATED!
``Condemns'' Iraq's ``serious violation'' of UNSCR 687.
``Further condemns'' Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the
Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all
aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile
programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass
destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors to conduct
inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical
support for U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
unscr 715--October 11, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
unscr 949--october 15, 1994--violated!
``Condemns'' Iraq's recent military deployments toward
Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a
hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations
in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern
Iraq.
unscr 1051--March 27, 1996--violated!
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to
weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
unscr 1060--June 12, 1996--violated!
``Deplores'' Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N.
inspectors and Iraq's ``clear violations'' of previous U.N.
resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
unscr 1115--June 21, 1997--violated!
``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow
access'' to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``clear and
flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to
interview.
unscr 1134--October 23, 1997--violated!
``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow
access'' to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``flagrant
violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to
interview.
unscr 1137--November 12, 1997--violated!
``Condemns the continued violations by Iraq'' of previous
U.N. resolutions, including its ``implicit threat to the
safety of'' aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and its
tampering with U.N. inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of
U.N. inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
unscr 1154--March 2, 1998--violated!
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons
inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have
the ``severest consequences for Iraq.''
unscr 1194--September 9, 1998--violated!
``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend
cooperation with'' U.N. and IAEA inspectors, which
constitutes ``a totally unacceptable contravention'' of its
obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons
inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access.
unscr 1205--November 5, 1998--violated!
``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease
cooperation'' with U.N. inspectors as ``a flagrant
violation'' of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide ``immediate, complete and unconditional
cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
unscr 1284--December 17, 1999--violated!
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon
inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War
prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical
supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable
Iraqis without discrimination.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
[[Page H7747]]
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, give the United Nations inspectors a chance.
That is what the Lee amendment asks.
What does it do? It sets out the potential threat posed by Iraq. She
says that there are dangers and that we must eliminate these weapons of
mass destruction. But it gives the United Nations inspectors a process
to go through diplomatically. It rejects the idea, though, of a
unilateral, preemptive first strike in the absence of a verified
imminent threat to the United States.
What it does not do, it does not limit the President's authority if
we are in danger of a verified, imminent threat. It does not preclude
pursuing other paths such as those proposed by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Let us make it clear, the Lee amendment simply says, let us push for
peace, let us destroy those weapons of mass destruction if they are
there; and we think they are, but let us give diplomacy a chance. Let
us not be preemptive. Let us not use first strike. Let us try to see
if, with our power, we can have peace through power.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment
being offered by the gentlewoman from California entitled The
Alternative to War. It could not be more aptly named. It seeks to
commit the United States to fully engaging the diplomatic processes and
to work multilaterally through the United Nations to achieve unfettered
inspections of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
capabilities, disarm and, indeed, dismantle.
There is no one in this Chamber who does not believe that the world
would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But the President has not
made a convincing case that the Hussein regime in Iraq indeed poses an
immediate threat. In fact, our own intelligence experts tell us that
the most likely threat of the use of such weapons of mass destruction
by Iraq would occur if the United States invaded Iraq.
What that suggests is that we should not be authorizing the President
to act unilaterally, sending our brave young men and women into harm's
way. Indeed, the President has most recently said that war should be
the last resort.
This amendment certainly puts peace first and puts war as a last
resort. Support this amendment to the resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it will reward us to read the resolution we are
being asked to vote upon. It is self-refuting. This resolution would
have this Congress find that Iraq and Saddam Hussein unconditionally
accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, their obligation to
destroy their chemical and biological weapons. That was unconditional.
The resolution has us find that Iraq unconditionally accepted its
obligation not to proceed with the development of nuclear weapons. The
resolution has us find that Iraq agreed to immediate and unconditional
inspections.
The resolution goes on to have us find that Iraq has failed to comply
with these obligations over a period of more than a decade. The
resolution has us find that Iraq obstructed the inspectors and
ultimately expelled them in 1998.
Finally, the resolution has us find that this noncompliance with the
United Nations Security Council resolutions, including specifically
Resolution 687, quote, ``endangers U.S. security.''
That is the preamble in this resolution. That is the predicate. Then
what would the resolution have us do? Pass yet one more U.N. resolution
which, by its terms, lacks enforcement. Only a U.N. resolution that
lacks enforcement would be acceptable if we were to pass the resolution
that is before us.
What have we learned in 11 years? Surely, without at least the threat
of military force, we will get exactly the same result that we have had
16 times in a row. There is a cost, indeed a much heavier cost of doing
nothing, of temporizing, of adding a 17th, toothless U.N. resolution to
the 16 that Saddam Hussein has already violated.
And to the charge that what we are doing is unilateral, we must say,
we have already earned the cooperation of Britain, Turkey, Canada,
Poland, Romania, Israel, Bulgaria, Australia, Singapore, Japan and
others. If we vote to deny the President of the United States the
backing of this Congress at this moment and think that then he can win
the support of other nations, we are delusional.
All of us must surely hope that the United Nations passes its next
resolution, that Saddam Hussein will, this time, finally see reason and
disarm. But as the proverb says, He who lives only by hope will die in
despair.
My colleagues, let us unite hope with reason and practicality and a
willingness to act. Let us defeat this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee
amendment.
What is our goal? Our goal is to end the threat of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction through comprehensive and unfettered inspections and
disable their ability to develop or deliver them.
How do we get there? Until the Lee amendment, most suggested, with a
military stick. I think a carrot is more likely to succeed.
What carrot? The carrot of lifting economic sanctions on Iraq in
exchange for comprehensive and unfettered inspections. Offering to lift
economic sanctions in exchange for unfettered inspections will rally
support within Iraq and among our allies.
This positive incentive to get Iraq to comply has not and is
currently not being offered by the Congress of the United States. But
until we make this overture and change our policy of only lifting
economic sanctions after a regime change, we will not have exhausted
all peaceful means and alternatives to force.
Give peace a chance, Mr. Speaker. Nonviolence, negotiations and
inspections deserve a chance. Lift economic sanctions on the people of
Iraq in exchange for unfettered inspections in Iraq. It will gain
support within Iraq and amongst our allies.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment
which would give the U.N. inspections process and multilateral
diplomacy time and opportunity to work.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House without the
Lee amendment takes this country and the world on a dangerous and
potentially tragic course.
It is so, first of all, because the resolution violates our own
Constitution because it devolves war-making authority from the Congress
to the executive branch. It also puts us in violation of our
commitments to the United Nations.
But fundamentally it puts us on a dangerous and potentially tragic
course because if we follow the resolution, if that resolution is
prosecuted by the administration and attacks Iraq unilaterally, that
action will galvanize the most fundamental, radical elements of Islam.
It strengthens Wahhabism and it will bring to their cause tens of
thousands of new recruits who are prepared to wage war against this
country in the way it was waged on September 11 of last year. That will
be the end result of the passage and prosecution of the resolution,
absent the Lee amendment.
We must pass this amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
[[Page H7748]]
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I rise as an educator, a teacher who for 7 years spent my
time in the schools of Pennsylvania, someone who desperately does not
want to see war occur.
But I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what we are
hearing on the other side, there are times when you have to stand up
and you have to be bold and you have to lay down a marker.
The reason I ran for public office in the first place was that my
hometown of 5,000 people had become overwhelmed by the Pagans
motorcycle gang. Sixty-five of them lived in my neighborhood; all of
their drug dealing was controlled from my town. If I listened to the
other side, maybe to solve the problem, I should have got them all in a
circle, held hands and we should have sang Kum Bay Yah. The problem is,
the Pagans do not want to sing Kum Bay Yah. The Pagans do not deal in
reality. The Pagans were only concerned with harming people and selling
their drugs.
{time} 1000
Saddam Hussein is a pagan. Saddam Hussein does not want to deal in
realistic terms. We need to give the President the authority to rally
the world opinion and the U.N. to follow through on not just the
inspections but on disarming weapons of mass destruction.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side where were they during
the 1990s when 37 times, 37 times, we had evidence of technology being
transferred from Russia and China to Iraq and Iran? Where were they
when the administration then only imposed sanctions four times? Where
were they when nine times we saw chemical and biological technology
being transferred into Iraq and Iran and we sat on our hands? Where
were they?
Where were they in 1995 when we caught these going from Russia to
Iraq? These are guidance systems for missiles, a violation of the NTCR.
Because Clinton did not want to embarrass Yeltsin we never imposed the
required sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, this did not just happen. This technology has been
flowing for years. Now we have Saddam equipped with chemical and
biological and potentially nuclear capability. He has missiles which he
has now enhanced, the same missile that sent 28 young Americans home in
body bags in 1991.
Mr. Speaker, everyone wants peace. No one wants war, but there are
times where we have to stand up and we have to lay down a marker and
back it up with force just as I had to do as a teacher when I ran for
mayor and became mayor of my hometown. The pagans did not want to
listen to reason. The pagans did not want to respond to what was in the
best interests of the citizens. If I had listened to the other side,
somehow I would come together and somehow convince them to change their
ways, and that did not happen. We fought them with force and we won,
and today my hometown is prospering because the pagans no longer have
their residence there.
We have to stand together and show the world with the support of this
President that we will stand up to the aggression of Saddam, we will
stand up to his use of chemical agents on his people, we will stand up
to his potential use of biological weapons, and we will lay the
foundation for a more peaceful world where the Iraqi people can enjoy
the benefits of a new government.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this alternative offers a nonviolent and
diplomatic way to wage the peace. We should be serious about this
process of waging the peace with U.N. inspections. We should not take a
bargain basement approach to U.N. inspections. We are willing to talk
casually about spending billions of dollars for war. Let us spend what
we need to have these U.N. inspections be credible.
I refer my colleagues to Nightline of last night, Wednesday, October
9, where the inspection process was presented in a way which ridiculed
it and showed that a handful of inspectors, scientists and college
professors were bullied and harassed and we sent the wrong signal to
Saddam Hussein about inspections. Let us have inspections, let us
pursue the diplomatic and the nonviolent alternative with the same
vigor and seriousness that we will pursue a violent alternative.
Let us have full administrative support, full logistical support,
transportation, everything the inspectors need to go in and conduct
large numbers of inspections all over Iraq at the same time and have a
chain of command that goes right to the Security Council.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment
the gentlewoman from California for all of her leadership on this
issue.
One of the prior speakers asked where we were in 1991 and pulled out
all these examples of what war was all about. I do not know where he
was in 1991, but in 1991 I was back being a prosecutor in Cuyahoga
County, but had I been here I would have said let us push and continue
to push to reach a resolution and a peaceful resolution.
I am not going to down anybody for their religion. I happen to be
Baptist. I happen to be a Protestant, but whatever it is people are we
all are a part of this world, and in this United States we talk about
freedom of religion and our entitlement to be whoever we are, but all
of us want peace, and if we are the big bully, if we are the big dog on
the street, then we can afford to be the big dog and sit back and say
come on to the table, let us use all of our resources.
I question whether or not the United States has, in fact, in many
instances, put all of its power to the U.N. to allow the U.N. to be as
strong as it should be. Support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me the time.
For 40 years our policy was to contain and deter Joseph Stalin and
the Soviets, to detain and deter Fidel Castro and the Cubans, to detain
and deter and restrain Communist aggression by the Chinese, always
without invasion. We were able to detain and deter the Soviets and the
Chinese and the Communists in Cuba without invasion, but if we go first
strike into Iraq the message to the world and to Putin is he can go
into Georgia and chase down the Chechnyan rebels and the message to
China is they can go into Taiwan and they can come down harder on Tibet
and the message to the Pakistanis and the Indians is they can go into
Kashmir, maybe even with their nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, go slow. Mr. President, we need aggressive, unfettered
inspections in Iraq, complete, thorough, aggressive, unfettered
inspections. Then go back to the United Nations. War should be a last
resort.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Lee amendment.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The Chair reminds Members to
address the Chair in their remarks and not directly the President when
addressing the House.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last evening we completed the work on the Defense
appropriations bill. That measure is designed to provide the funding
whereby America is able to carry forward its responsibility in the
world as the force for peace in our world. I am very pleased with the
results of that bill, and while we were not discussing this with the
other body yesterday, I could not help but from time to time watch the
discussions of this measure on the floor.
This resolution is a very, very important statement by the American
Congress. It has been crafted by some of the most capable people in
both of our bodies, and I want to congratulate the chairman, as well as
others who have been so involved.
[[Page H7749]]
I could not help but come to the floor as I watched this discussion
begin regarding some substitutes for this resolution. I must say, Mr.
Speaker, it is most important that we reject those alternatives for the
resolution is designed simply to give our Commander-in-Chief some
flexibility as he goes forward in projecting our responsibilities for
peace in the world.
Indeed, there are those who presume that this automatically means a
war in Iraq. This resolution does not automatically take us to war. As
a matter of fact, it is a tool for the Commander-in-Chief to indeed go
forth with those efforts that are most important in terms of our future
hopes for peace.
There is little doubt that America focused again upon the importance
of our strength as a result of 9/11 just 1 year ago. There is little
doubt that the world understands that a strong America is very
important for peace.
I would suggest to my colleagues that the one thing that we could do
to undermine that strength is to pass a resolution like this one that
is before us at this moment. Indeed, my colleagues, there is much
discussion about what the Commander-in-Chief has not done. In the past,
there was a lot of discussion about the fact that perhaps his advisers
were not as good as some would like.
We look at the Vice President, we look at the Secretary of State, we
look at the Secretary of Defense. The community not so long ago was
amazed at how great their strength might be. Do we presume that they
have not been giving advice and counsel to the Commander-in-Chief?
Indeed, I believe they have a plan that will strengthen our ability
to be a force in the world for the good.
Resolutions like this will take us exactly in the opposite direction.
Let us not by actions today undermine the President's ability to lead.
At the same time, let me say that most of my colleagues know that I
am a strong believer in a bipartisan force in this House. Let us not as
a result of these votes today have one of our parties be the party
working with the President for peace and have the other party be the
party of the United Nations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of the Lee amendment and commend my colleague from California
for all of her work on behalf of this peaceful effort to resolve this
issue.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that he who
lives by the sword shall eventually die by the sword.
The first call that I got this morning was from a woman named Barbara
Mullarkey who said, ``Danny, vote for peace.''
I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment because it gives me the
opportunity to vote the will of the people in my Congressional district
who do not believe that we have made the case to go to war. The
President has all of the flexibility that he needs to protect us. What
he does not have is the flexibility to declare war. That flexibility is
left to this Congress.
Vote for the Lee amendment. Vote for peace.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Lee amendment, and I am really surprised
after listening to the debate for the last 17 hours why anybody would
attack it. Indeed, the Lee amendment and the Lee resolution is the same
as what the President has in his resolution if we see in section 2
where the President urges the support of the United States diplomatic
efforts to strictly enforce through the United Nations, to obtain
prompt and decisive action by the Security Council in the United
Nations, that essentially this is the same thing that the Lee amendment
does.
It seems to me that anybody who can support the President's amendment
ought to support the Lee amendment. What the Lee amendment does not do
is it does not leap before it looks. It says look before we leap into
war, and I think the message here is very strong, that if the United
States is going to leap into war before it looks. What kind of trust
are we going to have with the rest of the arrangements around the world
with the agreements we have had on treaties and trade treaties? What is
going to happen to people who are traveling in the country? Is anybody
going to be able to trust our country because we can say, well, if we
do not like something we can go it alone?
It is very wise to support the Lee amendment. It is a good look
before we leap.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I understand the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). That is correct.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
My alternative gives the United Nations a chance to do its job while
we think through the ramifications of our actions, how many lives would
be lost, what will this cost our economy. It provides a very pragmatic
opportunity to step back and explain to the American people the
implications of authorizing a war. It will give us an opportunity to
explain to the American people what our own intelligence agency means,
and let me quote this, ``Our intelligence agency says should Saddam
conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, the
probability would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist
action.''
Our action today could cause a reaction of catastrophic proportions,
not only in terms of Saddam Hussein but in the destabilization of the
Middle East and the setting of a dangerous precedent.
I plead with my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally
wrong, it is financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national
security interest. We must wait, we must ask these questions, we must
know what the economic impact is. We must know what this does in terms
of the loss of lives of our young men and women.
This is a day that we must urge reflection. We must urge this body to
become attentive to the unanswered questions that are out there. If our
own intelligence agencies say to us that authorizing the President's
resolution to go to war; that is, supporting that effort to wage war,
could be a provocative act against our country, that it could
destabilize the region, that it could lead to possible terrorist
action, that is very terrifying, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1015
I believe that the House of Representatives must say no to
establishing this dangerous precedent. We must not rush to war. We must
give the United Nations time to do its work. Inspections worked in the
1990s. We must use the time that the United Nations needs, use that
time for us to think through, to debate, and to be truthful to the
American people. They deserve it. We need to be truthful with them as
to what the cost of this rush to war would mean.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Lee
amendment. This amendment is another abdication of the United States'
leadership in the world. It is tantamount to saying that Congress
should contract out decisions on national security to foreign
governments: Paris, Beijing, Damascus.
The United Nations is not an autonomous authority. It is a place to
conduct diplomacy between nations. Our Nation's security and
sovereignty are inextricably intertwined. We do not subrogate our
sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States, as the sole
remaining superpower, must have a policy of restraint to international
conflict management, but we
[[Page H7750]]
never give up our ability to act unilaterally in the world if we must
move into a region to bring stability.
This amendment ties the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. We should
never, ever do that. The President has spoken prudently, talking about
bilateral action, meaning bringing other nations with us. Those who
have been speaking here for the last hour in support of this amendment
have been talking as if the United States is somehow wanting to
unilaterally march off to war. They use the phrase ``give peace a
chance.''
Mr. Speaker, we are the peaceful Nation. We want to work
cooperatively with other nations around the world, and that is what the
President is going to do. So when my colleagues say ``give peace a
chance,'' it has been 10 years. We have these 16 U.N. resolutions. Let
us go back into this regime of the United Nations and weapons
inspections. When we look at that, the U.N. was and is hesitant to back
up the violations of these 16 U.N. resolutions. Their response has been
tepid.
Also, I would ask my colleagues to look with regard to how the
inspectors were undermined, as Iraq would appeal directly to the
sympathetic Council members and to the Secretary General. Iraq worked
consistently to erode the credibility and the positions of these U.N.
inspectors over the last 10 years. They would complain to the Security
Council, and then the challenges of the claims of the weapons
inspectors would suffice. Unfettered access was strictly a myth.
Respect for Iraqi concerns relating to national security, sovereignty
and dignity took precedence over the findings and destroying of
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Effectively, the actions
of the Secretary General, when he intervened, made the Iraqis and the
inspectors equal in presenting their case before the Security Council.
With regard to Saddam Hussein's motive for having weapons of mass
destruction, he believes that they are vital to his power. The regime
has two experiences in which it feels its very survival is linked to
the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz pointed out that hitting cities deep in Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war with long-range missiles and countering human wave
attacks with the massive use of chemical munitions saved Iraq in the
Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, Baghdad believes that its possession of
biological and chemical weapons during the 1991 Gulf War helped deter
the United States from marching on to Baghdad.
Now, that is their dimension. That is their understanding. So Saddam
will do everything he possibly can to maintain a stockpile of weapons
of mass destruction. So this thing about give peace a chance, well, we
have given peace a chance. The President has also used words of saying
that military force will be the means of last resort.
So I think the President has been very clear. We will show the United
States has the resolve and power to stand up against Iraq, seek their
compliance, force their word in their violations of the cease-fire; but
if they do not, then the world will act and disarm Saddam Hussein and
change the regime, if necessary, to bring peace and stability to the
Middle East as a region.
We should vote down the Lee amendment and support the sovereignty and
national dignity of this country.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support today of
the Lee substitute, which I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of. I
wholeheartedly support the principles of this substitute, and believe
they contain a much more humane answer to the grave issue of Iraq.
Like Congresswoman Barbara Lee I urge the United States to re-engage
in the diplomatic process of diplomacy. I also would like to urge our
country to remain committed to the UN inspector process. I am also in
complete agreement with the Lee substitute's premise that there will
likely be horrific consequences of our actions if the United States
delivers a first strike against Iraq, particularly without the support
of the United Nations.
Like Congresswoman Lee and many of my colleagues in the Congressional
Black Caucus, I stand in strong opposition to a unilateral first strike
by the U.S. without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of
attack on the United States. I would also like to emphasize that I
categorically believe that we must not declare war until every
diplomatic option is completely exhausted. The Bush Resolution
authorizes the potential use of force immediately, long before
diplomatic options have been exhausted or even fully explored.
Furthermore, a unilateral first-strike would undermine the moral
authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life,
destabilize the Mideast region and undermine the ability of our nation
to address unmet domestic priorities.
The President is asking Congress to give him a blank check. And I say
today Mr. President, that your account, has come back overdrawn. This
blank check gives him too much power. A blank check that forces
Congress to waive its constitutional duty to declare war. A blank check
that lets the President declare war, and not consult Congress until 48
hours after the attack has begun.
Not only has the President economically taken us to deficit, but
there is deficit in his arguments. Why Iraq, and why today??
You know, in my 10 years of serving in Congress, this is the most
serious vote I've taken. And I have to say, the Resolution on Iraq the
White House drafted is intentionally misleading. It misleads the
American public, the international community, and yes, even the United
States Congress.
This is a sad day. Almost as sad as it was 627 days ago when the
Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the President. You know, the
White House talks about dictators, but we haven't done anything to
correct what has happened right here in the United States. It amazes me
that we question other governments, when in our own country, we did not
have a fair election.
I recently traveled to Russia, China, and South Korea, and believe it
would be most unfortunate to damage the good will our nation was
receiving after September 11th because of the Bush Administration's
reckless actions. We are on our own; NO ONE in the international
community is behind us.
I have not seen any new information demonstrating that Iraq poses a
threat to our country any more now than it did ten years ago, and
certainly am without reason to believe we should attack unilaterally,
without the support of the U.N.
In fact, recent poll numbers released suggest that many Americans do
not support the way the President is handling the situation with Iraq
either. Indeed, polls indicates what I imagined all along; namely, that
a majority of Americans believe President Bush and Congress are
spending too much time discussing Iraq, while neglecting domestic
problems like health care and education. Many also said that they did
not want the United States to act without support from allies and by a
two to one margin, did not want the U.S. to act before U.N. weapons
inspectors had an opportunity to enter Iraq and conduct further
investigations.
Although the Administration is attempting to convince the American
public otherwise, they have shown me little evidence of a connection
between Iraq and 9-11. And little evidence that Iraq poses an immediate
threat to our country.
Iraq's government is not democratic, but neither are many other
countries listed on the State Department's terrorist list: like Iran,
Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan.
I reiterate my opposition to this Resolution, and to this war.
To my colleagues, it is in your hands. I do believe the world has
good and evil, and what you are about to do here today, will tilt it in
a negative direction. It will set us on a course, and I hope I'm wrong,
but it could set us on a course, that our children's children, will pay
for. That the entire world will pay for. And that will put thousands of
American soldiers in harm's way.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment.
I am particularly supportive of this amendment because it would place
the emphasis where it ought to be--which is in multinational diplomacy
and within the context of a strong commitment to the U.N. inspection
process--in this important campaign to disarm Iraq and protect our
allies national security.
Questions have been raised about our ability to do unfettered and
complete inspections, and whether or not we were able to find anything
that Sadaam Hussein did not want us to find the first time around.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, that if we have not learned from past
experience with Iraq, and if we do not have the technology to search
out, find and destroy biological or chemical weapons, or weapons of
mass destruction, then we are also not prepared to go to war with Iraq.
Many of us have spoken over the past week about the dangerous
precedent that would be set by the United States employing a unilateral
first strike against Iraq. The other grave concern of many which was
supported by the recently released CIA report, is that whatever weapons
Sadaam had would be deployed in desperate retaliation bringing
unimaginable death and destruction to us and our allies.
[[Page H7751]]
Mr. Speaker and colleagues. We must not set such a dangerous
precedent, or commit our young men and women to an unjustified
conflict. We must use our resources to strengthen our economy, and to
invest in the needs of people here at home, and devote more effort to
creating the kind of society that will increase U.S. moral authority
and the respect of our world. And we must not weaken our democracy by
ceding our authority to the executive branch.
Vote against H.J. Res. 114, and vote aye on the Lee amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment recognizes that diplomacy
is an option that is not yet exhausted. The Administration's Resolution
makes a number of assertions that are questionable at best; the clauses
in this Amendment, on the other hand, are indisputable. Surely, we can
get the United Nations to reinstate newly-empowered weapons inspectors,
who can keep a step ahead of Baghdad--inspectors that are allowed to
inspect Saddam's presidential sites without notice. We must build a
coalition of nations with the support of the United Nations, a
coalition similar to that formed by the former President Bush.
It is the duty of responsible nations to give a convincing case to
the world before embarking on any military action on another country.
And the world is not convinced. War is a last resort, and is recognized
as such by Democrat and Republican alike. Because we are not yet at
that point, I support the Lee amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All debate time on this
amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 72,
nays 355, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 452]
YEAS--72
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doggett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Morella
Napolitano
Oberstar
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
NAYS--355
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Clay
Roukema
Sandlin
Stump
{time} 1047
Messrs. SMITH of Texas, KELLER, GRAVES, Ms. CUBIN, Messrs. GREENWOOD,
EHLERS, GRAHAM, BARTON of Texas, BOYD, DOOLEY of California, WALSH,
WATKINS of Oklahoma, NETHERCUTT and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Wynn changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 107-724.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered By Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute which is next made in order by the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of substitute offered by Mr.
Spratt:
Strike the preamble and insert in lieu thereof the matter
preceding the resolved clause, below, and strike the text and
insert in lieu thereof the matter following the resolved
clause, below:
Whereas the Government of Iraq, without cause or
provocation, invaded and occupied the country of Kuwait on
August 2, 1990;
Whereas, in reaction to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait,
President George H. W. Bush assembled a coalition of nations
to liberate Kuwait and to enforce a series of United Nations
Security Council resolutions adopted in opposition to Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council passed
Resolution 660, condemning the invasion of Kuwait and
demanding Iraq's immediate withdrawal, and thereafter passed
Resolutions 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 670, 674, and 677,
further demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait;
Whereas the Government of Iraq defied the United Nations,
flouting and violating each of these resolutions;
[[Page H7752]]
Whereas Iraq's defiance resulted in the adoption of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which authorized the
use of all means necessary to repel Iraq from Kuwait and to
compel its compliance with the above-referenced resolutions;
Whereas allied forces, led by the United States, attacked
Iraqi forces on January 16, 1991, and drove them out of
Kuwait;
Whereas, after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq
entered into a cease-fire agreement sponsored by the United
Nations, pursuant to which Iraq agreed--
(1) to destroy, remove, or render harmless all chemical and
biological weapons and stocks of agents and all related
subsystems and components and all research, development,
support, and manufacturing facilities related thereto;
(2) to destroy, remove, or render harmless all ballistic
missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and
related major parts and production facilities;
(3) not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-
weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or
components, or nuclear-related research, development,
support, or manufacturing facilities; and
(4) to permit immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's
biological, chemical, and missile capabilities, and assist
the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the
destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all nuclear-
related items and in developing a plan for ongoing monitoring
and verification of Iraq's compliance;
Whereas, in flagrant violation of the cease-fire agreement,
Iraq sought to thwart the efforts of arms inspectors to
uncover and destroy Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range ballistic missiles, and the means
of producing such weapons and missiles;
Whereas, because of Iraq's demonstrated will to attack
neighboring countries and arm itself with weapons of mass
destruction, the United Nations Security Council passed
Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137,
1154, 1194, and 1205, demanding that Iraq destroy all weapons
of mass destruction, cease further development of chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, stop the acquisition of
ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 150 kilometers, and
end its support of terrorism;
Whereas Iraq has continued to defy resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council and to develop weapons of
mass destruction, has not stopped its support of terrorism,
has refused to cooperate with arms inspectors of the United
Nations, and since December 1998 has barred and denied all
such inspectors any access to Iraq;
Whereas Iraq has materially breached its international
obligations by retaining and continuing to develop chemical
and biological weapons, by actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150
kilometers, and by supporting international terrorism;
Whereas the attacks of September 11, 2001, underscores the
extent of the threat posed by international terrorist
organizations, and makes clear the gravity of the threat if
they obtain access to weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas the House of Representatives (in H. J. Res. 658 of
the 101st Congress and H. Res. 322 in the 105th Congress) and
the Senate (in S. Con. Res. 147 of the 101st Congress and S.
J. Res. 54 in the 105th Congress) have declared support for
international action to halt Iraq's defiance of the United
Nations;
Whereas in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), Congress
called upon ``the President [to] consult closely with the
partners of the United States in the Desert Storm coalition
and with the members of the United Nations Security Council
in order to present a united front of opposition to Iraq's
continuing noncompliance with Security Council Resolution
687'';
Whereas in H. Res. 322 of the 105th Congress, the House of
Representatives affirmed that the ``current crisis regarding
Iraq should be resolved peacefully through diplomatic means,
but in a manner which assures full compliance by Iraq with
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the
destruction of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver
weapons of mass destruction'';
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 making clear
that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and
the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action
will be unavoidable''; and
Whereas Congress supports the efforts by the President to
enforce through the Security Council the United Nations
Security Council resolutions referenced above: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Elimination of
Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq Resolution''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should be commended for calling upon the
United Nations to address the threat to international peace
and security posed by Iraq's refusal to meet its disarmament
obligations under United Nations Security Council
resolutions;
(2) the President should persist in his efforts to obtain
approval of the Security Council for any actions taken
against Iraq; and
(3) the President should continue to seek, and the Security
Council should approve, a resolution that--
(A) demands full and unconditional compliance by the
Government of Iraq with all disarmament requirements imposed
by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, 715,
1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1154, 1194, and 1205;
(B) mandates the immediate return to Iraq of United Nations
arms inspection teams, empowered with increased staff and
resources and unconditional access to all sites they deem
necessary to uncover and destroy weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers,
and the means of producing such weapons and missiles, without
regard to any objections or conditions that Iraq may seek to
impose; and
(C) authorizes, if the President deems advisable, a
military force, formed under the auspices of the United
Nations Security Council but commanded by the United States,
to protect and support arms inspectors and make force
available in the event that Iraq impedes, resists, or in any
way interferes with such inspection teams;
(4) if the United Nations Security Council fails to pass a
resolution that satisfies the conditions of paragraph (3),
and if the President determines that use of the United States
Armed Forces is necessary to compel Iraq to comply with all
such disarmament requirements, the President should seek
authorization from Congress to use military force to compel
such compliance by invoking the expedited procedures set
forth in section 5;
(5) if the United States must resort to force, the
President should endeavor to form a coalition of allies as
broadly based as practicable to support and participate with
United States Armed Forces, and should also seek multilateral
cooperation and assistance, specifically including Arab and
Islamic countries, in the post-conflict reconstruction of
Iraq; and
(6) if the United States resorts to force, Congress will
provide all possible support to the members of the United
States Armed Forces and their families.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.
The President is authorized to use United States Armed
Forces pursuant to any resolution of the United Nations
Security Council adopted after September 12, 2002, that
provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150
kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and
missiles. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be
construed to prevent or otherwise limit the authority of the
Armed Forces to use all appropriate force for self defense
and enforcement purposes.
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS.
In the event that the United Nations Security Council does
not adopt a resolution as described in section 3, or in the
event that such a resolution is adopted but does not sanction
the use of force sufficient to compel Iraq's compliance, and
if the President determines that use of the United States
Armed Forces is necessary for such compliance, the President
should seek authorization from Congress to use military force
to compel such compliance by invoking the expedited
procedures set forth in section 5 after the President submits
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate a certification that--
(1)(A) the United States has sought passage by the United
Nations Security Council of a resolution described in section
3, and the Security Council has failed to pass such a
resolution, and no other action taken by the United Nations
Security Council has been sufficient to compel Iraq to comply
with the Security Council resolutions referred to in section
2; or
(B) the United Nations Security Council has passed a
resolution that does not sanction the use of force sufficient
to compel compliance, and--
(i) the United Nations Security Council is unlikely to take
further action that will result in Iraq's compliance with
such resolution; and
(ii) the use of military force against Iraq is necessary to
compel compliance;
(2) the use of military force against Iraq will not impair
international cooperation in the fight against terrorism or
participation in United States military actions undertaken
pursuant to Public Law 107-40; and
(3) the United States is in the process of establishing, or
has established, a coalition of other countries as broadly
based as practicable to support and participate with the
United States in whatever action is taken against Iraq.
SEC. 5. EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF JOINT
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FORCE.
(a) Qualifying Resolution.--(1) This section applies with
respect to a joint resolution of the Senate or House of
Representatives--
(A) that is a qualifying resolution as described in
paragraph (2); and
(B) that is introduced (by request) by a qualifying Member
not later than the next legislative day after the date of
receipt by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
[[Page H7753]]
and the President pro tempore of the Senate of a
certification by the President under section 4.
(2) For purposes of this section, a qualifying resolution
is a joint resolution--
(A) that does not have a preamble;
(B) the title of which is the following: ``Joint resolution
authorizing the President to use all necessary means,
including the Armed Forces of the United States, to compel
the Government of Iraq to comply with certain United Nations
Security Council resolutions.'' and
(C) the text of which is as follows: ``The President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate means,
including the Armed Forces of the United States, to compel
the Government of Iraq to comply with the disarmament
provisions in the United Nations Security Council Resolutions
687, 707, 715, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1154, 1194, and 1205
and with any other resolution of the United Nations Security
Council adopted after September 12, 2002, that requires the
elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and
the means of producing such weapons and missiles.''.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, a qualifying Member
is--
(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
majority leader or minority leader of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) in the case of the Senate, the majority leader or
minority leader of the Senate.
(b) Placement on Calendar.--Upon introduction in either
House of a resolution described in subsection (a), the
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the
House involved.
(c) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--(1) A
resolution described in subsection (a) shall be considered in
the House of Representatives in accordance with the
provisions of this subsection.
(2) On or after the first legislative day after the day on
which such a resolution is introduced, it is in order (even
though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) for any Member of the House of Representatives
to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution.
All points of order against the resolution (and against
consideration of the resolution) are waived. Such a motion is
privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the motion
is not in order. It shall not be in order to move to postpone
the motion or to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution is
agreed to, the House of Representatives shall immediately
proceed to consideration of the resolution without
intervening motion, and the resolution shall remain the
unfinished business of the House of Representatives until
disposed of.
(3) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not more
than a total of 20 hours, which shall be divided equally
between the majority leader and the minority leader or their
designees. A motion to further limit debate is not debatable.
An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not
in order.
(6) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on
the resolution, the vote on final passage of the resolution
shall occur.
(7) A motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution
is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order.
(d) Consideration in Senate.--(1) A resolution described in
subsection (a) shall be considered in the Senate in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
(2) On or after the first legislative day after the day on
which such a resolution is introduced, such a resolution, it
is in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect
has been disagreed to) for any Member of the Senate to move
to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. All points
of order against the resolution (and against consideration of
the resolution) are waived. The motion is privileged and is
not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, or to
a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall
not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration
of the resolution is agreed to, the Senate shall immediately
proceed to consideration of the resolution without
intervening motion, order, or other business, and the
resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the Senate
until disposed of.
(3) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable motions
and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not
more than a total of 20 hours, which shall be divided equally
between the majority leader and the minority leader or their
designees. A motion to further limit debate is not debatable.
An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not
in order.
(6) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a
resolution and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the
debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the
Senate, the vote on final passage of the resolution shall
occur.
(7) A motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution
is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order.
(8) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the
application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a resolution described in subsection (a) shall be
decided without debate.
(e) Action on Measure From Other House.--(1) If, before the
passage by one House of a resolution of that House described
in subsection (a), that House receives from the other House a
resolution described in subsection (a), then the following
procedures shall apply:
(A) The resolution of the other House shall not be referred
to a committee and may not be considered in the House
receiving it except as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii).
(B) With respect to a resolution described in subsection
(a) of the House receiving the resolution--
(i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no
resolution had been received from the other House; but
(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution
of the other House.
(2) Upon disposition pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii) of a
resolution described in subsection (a) that is received by
one House from the other House, it shall no longer be in
order to consider such a resolution that was introduced in
the receiving House.
(f) Legislative Day Defined.--For the purposes of this
section, with respect to either House of Congress, a
legislative day is a calendar day on which that House is in
session.
(g) Section Enacted as Exercise of Rulemaking Power of the
Two Houses.--The provisions of this section (other than
subsection (h)) are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and, as such,
shall be considered as part of the rules of either House and
shall supersede other rules only to the extent they are
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to
the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of that House.
(h) Presidential Recall of Congress.--In the event that
Congress is not in session upon submission of a Presidential
certification under section 4, the President is authorized to
convene a special session of the Congress to allow
consideration of a joint resolution under this section.
SEC. 6. WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Specific Statutory Authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that--
(1) section 3 of this joint resolution is intended to
constitute specific authorization within the meaning of
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution; and
(2) if a joint resolution described in section 5(a)(2) is
enacted into law, such resolution is intended to constitute
specific authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(b) Applicability of Other Requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall transmit
to Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution. The President shall include in such report an
estimate of expenditures by the United States and allied
nations to compel Iraq's compliance with the above referenced
United Nations Security Council resolutions and any
reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including those actions
described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-338; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note).
SEC. 8. INHERENT RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.
Nothing in this joint resolution is intended to derogate or
otherwise limit the authority of the President to use
military force in self-defense pursuant to the Constitution
of the United States and the War Powers Resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on grave occasions like this when we pass a war powers
resolution, surely, surely one of the things we should seek is a broad
base of support. The amendment I propose in the nature of a substitute
seeks to broaden the base for this resolution. If we adopt it, I
believe that H.J. Res. 114 will gain votes and pass this House by an
even bigger majority.
I want to make it clear that we have not broadened the appeal of this
resolution by watering it down. My substitute unflinchingly supports
the President's campaign and the Security Council for beefing up arms
inspection and backing them up with force, and if the Iraqis defy the
new inspectors and the Security Council responds with military action,
as it should, it authorizes the use of our Armed Forces. It empowers
President Bush to use our Armed Forces just as his father did in 1991
in the Persian Gulf War in a military action sanctioned by the Security
[[Page H7754]]
Council. If on the other hand the Iraqis defy the inspectors and the
Security Council fails to take action, fails to respond, the U.S. will
be faced with going it alone.
In these dramatically different circumstances my amendment calls for
a second vote by the Congress to approve an attack of the use of force,
but it ensures the President a fast track for its consideration. There
are various differences between these two resolutions. The preamble is
different, but this is the key difference, and it is an important
difference.
I want to make clear, however, that there is no difference with
respect to our assessment of Saddam Hussein. Those of us who support
this substitute see him as a menace and a threat. We agree with the
President in demanding that the Security Council enforce its resolution
and allow him no quarter. But for several reasons we do not want to see
the United States act alone, and this is not just our concern. Over the
last several weeks we have spent days talking to retired general
officers who have experience in this field, to General Hoar and General
Zinni, former commanders of Central Command, to General Clark and
General Boyd, former Commanders of Europe, and they have agreed on this
much. If we act alone, they told us, instead of being the United
Nations versus Iraq, any war that happens, instead of being a war
legitimated by the U.N. Charter, this will be the United States versus
Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and Muslim world.
That is why one general officer told us ``I fear if we go it alone we
may pay a terrible price.''
Point number two, in any conceivable military confrontation with Iraq
with or without allies, the United States will win. But having allies,
especially allies in the region, could be a big tactical advantage,
like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and it will make it easier to achieve
victory and less costly in money and, most importantly, less costly in
human life.
Three, the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the
hardest part, and it is far less certain. We do not want to win this
war only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate
us. A broad-based coalition will raise our chances of success even more
in the post-war period.
I know that some will say this is an imposition on the President's
power, a second vote, but in truth it is nothing more than the age-old
system of checks and balances built in our Constitution. It is one way
that Congress can say what we believe, that any action against Iraq
should have the sanction of the Security Council and the support of a
broad-based coalition, and if it does not, we should have a further say
on it.
Others will say that this resolution relies too heavily on the
Security Council, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, the precedent it follows
was the precedent set by President Bush in 1991. He turned to the
United Nations first. He secured a series of resolutions from the
Security Council that culminated in Resolution 678. He did not threaten
not to go elsewhere, he went straight to the Security Council. The end
was a successful military action and I think a model worth emulating.
My substitute does just that. I urge my colleagues to follow the
precedent set by President Bush in 1991 and support my substitute
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. First and foremost, this
substitute neither recognizes nor protects American sovereignty. It
clearly yields to the United Nations the right and obligation to
protect America. It relies on the U.N. first as a trigger mechanism.
The President must wait until the U.N. acts or if it does not act or if
it does not act properly, and God only knows how long that will take,
then the President must return to Congress for further authorization
for the use of force. And then once authorization is obtained, the use
of force is limited to dealing with weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missile threats, but what about other threats to the U.S.
national security such as the use of conventional weapons or Iraqi
terrorism?
Iraq is a terrorist nation. Evidence exists that Iraqi operatives met
with al Qaeda terrorists. This amendment does not allow the President
to use force now even if an immediate or imminent terrorist threat is
present. When the U.N. fails to act or does not act properly, the
President must come back to Congress and seek authorization to use
military force, but first he must certify to Congress that the U.N. has
failed to pass a resolution or the U.N. has passed an insufficient
resolution and the use of military force against Iraq ``will not impair
international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.'' In other
words, if a Nation, say Iran, North Korea or Syria, maintains that it
will no longer cooperate in the war against terrorism, then
international cooperation has been impaired. How can the President make
such a certification? At that point is he unable to ask Congress for
the authorization to use force? Why would we want to have these types
of roadblocks impeding our President at a time when he is trying to
defend the national security of the United States? This amendment
imposes a steeple chase on the President with one hurdle after another.
In conclusion, this substitute amendment would strike the bipartisan
agreement that we have worked so hard to bring about and which is
reflected in House Joint Resolution 114. Its primary focus is on
approval of the U.N. before any military action can be taken against
Iraq. It does not recognize the sovereignty of the United States, and
it fails to acknowledge the President's warning in his speech on Monday
that the danger from the Iraqi regime is an imminent and urgent threat
to the United States. I do not propose that we subordinate our foreign
policy to the Security Council whose permanent members include France,
China, and Russia, and I urge a no on this amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself to read what
the text of the resolution would provide: ``The President is authorized
to use all necessary and appropriate means, including the Armed Forces
of the United States, to compel Iraq to comply with the disarmament
provisions of the U.N.,'' and it cites those, ``and any other
resolution to require the elimination of weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles and the means of producing such weapons.''
That is pretty sufficient language.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the proposal by my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Several weeks ago the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and
I drafted a resolution for the use of the minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in negotiations with the White
House. That draft contained a number of important principles, focusing
on the role of the United Nations, on more narrowly defining the threat
posed by Iraq as to its weapons of mass destruction, and on planning
for what will be needed after the conflict, if military action should
be taken.
These principles do not undermine, rather, they strengthen, American
national security. Many of these principles have now been included in
the resolution offered by the Speaker and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt).
On Tuesday night, I expressed my support for that resolution as it
represents a significant improvement over the original draft submitted
by the White House. But the Spratt substitute perfects a number of the
principles contained in the base bill.
It connects American efforts more strongly to those of the United
Nations. This resolution urges the President to work with the United
Nations to enforce Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations.
If the United Nations authorizes the use of force to achieve these
goals, the Spratt resolution provides immediate congressional
[[Page H7755]]
authorization. But if the United Nations cannot, or will not, act, then
this Congress must consider the benefits of unilateral action under a
second resolution using expedited procedures.
The Spratt resolution does not tie the President's hands. U.S.
national security will be protected. This resolution sends a strong
message to Iraq that the Congress insists that it comply with its
obligations.
It also sends a strong message to the United Nations and to our
friends and to our allies all around the world that we are committed to
acting with them to the greatest extent possible to meet this threat.
In these ways, the Spratt substitute improves the resolution already
before us.
I urge my colleagues to vote with me to support it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern in my opposition to this
resolution, because I have such high regard for my friend, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who just spoke in favor of the
resolution. But I have read the resolution carefully, and I think this
is a step backward in all of our actions. It really restricts, rather
than broadens, the use of force against Iraq that already is authorized
under current law.
Section 3 is even narrower than Public Law 102-1, which already
authorizes the United States to use force to restore international
peace and security. We are already authorized to stop Iraq from
supporting terrorism. We are already authorized to prevent Iraq from
threatening its neighbors. We have already authorized the United States
to protect Iraq's own civilian population.
I believe you can read this resolution clearly. All of those things
would no longer be authorized. I think you cannot even continue to
enforce the no-fly zone under this resolution.
Section 3 would require the United States to wait for the United
Nations Security Council to act before the President could take action
to protect our national security interests against the dangers of
weapons of mass destruction posed by Iraq. Even the United Nations
Security Council approval of section 3 would not authorize the United
States to act. We would have to have United Nations action, and then we
would have to have a second vote in this Congress.
The vote in the Congress is restricted by the substitute.
This is a step backward. It sends a muddy signal about our resolve.
It completely replaces the Gephardt-Hastert resolution that is before
us, and really postpones a critical question to another day.
We have put this question off too long already. This resolution asks
us to put it off yet longer. I encourage my colleagues to join me in
rejecting this Spratt substitute resolution and moving forward to pass
the Hastert-Gephardt resolution later today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I support the Spratt amendment because I
believe that we should not rush into war without seeking the support of
our allies. We should not send American troops into combat before
making a good-faith effort to put U.N. inspectors back into Iraq under
a more forceful resolution. We should not turn to a policy of
preemptive attack without first providing a limited time option for
peaceful resolution of the threat.
This amendment would authorize the use of U.S. forces in support of a
new U.N. resolution mandating the elimination by force, if necessary,
of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. If the Security Council does
not pass such a resolution, the amendment calls on the President to
then seek authorization for unilateral military action.
The Spratt amendment demonstrates our preference for a peaceful
solution and coalition support without ruling out unilateral military
force if it becomes necessary.
America has long stood behind the principle of exhausting diplomacy
before resorting to war, and at times like this, we must lead by
example.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations for yielding me time.
First, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the most valued of this House, on a very
thoughtful and creative amendment. I believe, however, that the
amendment would weaken the hand of our Secretary of State in
international negotiations that are occurring as we speak.
Every Member of this body prefers a diplomatic and peaceful solution.
Every Member of this body prefers to have as many nations, friends,
allies and others come with us as possible. But to enhance the
prospects for a peaceful solution, both the Security Council and Saddam
Hussein must perceive that diplomatic failure will lead to military
action. This amendment fails to convey that critical message.
Mr. Speaker, the Spratt amendment requires the President to certify
``that the use of military force against Iraq will not impair
international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.'' This
amendment effectively asks the President of the United States to
certify the unknowable.
The initial impact of action in Iraq on international cooperation is
uncertain. It may be argued that it will diminish it or it will enhance
it. But one thing we are all certain of: Once Iraq is disarmed,
international cooperation against terrorism will skyrocket, and
international terrorism itself will have been dealt a severe blow.
While the principles behind the amendment and the underlying text
have some similarities, I must oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker,
because I believe at this stage we must support the bipartisan-
bicameral agreement reached with the White House.
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this well-intentioned
amendment. It would unravel the agreement which is on the verge of
ratification, and it would undermine our goal of speaking with a strong
and united voice.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Spratt resolution would permit the use of military
force, but only to eliminate the real danger we face, Iraq's possession
of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons. The President's
resolution would allow the administration to use military force to seek
regime change in Iraq, a very dangerous course of action.
It is one thing to say to Saddam Hussein, we are going to disarm you
of your weapons of mass destruction. It is another thing to say, we are
going to kill you, which is what regime change means. Faced with that
threat, with that assurance, there would be nothing to deter Saddam
Hussein from deciding, like Sampson in the Philistine temple, that he
might as well pull down the world around him. Why should he not go down
in history as an Arab hero by attacking Israel with chemical or
biological weapons? Israel may then feel well to retaliate, and no one
can calculate the course of escalation from there.
Just the other day the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned the
Senate that ``if Saddam Hussein concluded the survival of his regime
were threatened, he probably would become much less constrained in
adopting terrorist action.''
The Spratt substitute is the most effective way to go about disarming
Saddam Hussein, while avoiding tactics that could very well end up in
regional conflagration. It grants more limited, but still sufficient,
power to the administration to meet the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
program. It allows for the President to use force in conjunction with
the U.N. if it becomes necessary.
It does not, however, grant the President a blank check, on the model
of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, as the main resolution before us
does.
I am proud to support this resolution. It maximizes the chances we
will disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate the real danger, without
getting into a major conflagration.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
[[Page H7756]]
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first say to my friend, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and to all of the participants in this
historic debate how much I appreciate their leadership and their
ability to debate this issue in a very courteous and effective manner.
One hundred thirty-eight Members of this House were present back when
we debated the original Gulf resolution. Those of us who were here at
the time, including myself, remember that as one of the historic times
in this Chamber. We return today in many ways to debate some of the
very same issues we debated so many years ago.
All of us, I think, feel a tremendous sense of honor to have an
opportunity to debate these issues before us. But ultimately the
substitute offered by my friend from South Carolina fails to put us in
a position to be as effective as we were back in 1991. Indeed, it
probably takes us a step backward.
If you look at the U.N. resolutions, 16 resolutions ultimately in
that language, there is the ability of the world to go after Saddam
without another U.N. resolution, without another resolution passed by
the Congress. Yet the President came to the leadership of our body and
requested that the Congress give this kind of authority. That is
exactly what our leadership did.
My hat is off to the Speaker and to the minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for coming together and putting
together a bipartisan resolution that should be supported.
This is a serious matter, that Saddam Hussein has continued to resist
our efforts. Let us reject this substitute, pass the underlying
resolution, stand firm, as we did back some 11 years ago, and send a
signal that the United States and our allies will perform adequately.
{time} 1115
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt
alternative resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Spratt's
alternative to this resolution authorizing military force against Iraq.
First of all, I would like to say that there is no question that Saddam
Hussein is evil personified. He is Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin
rolled into one reprehensible dictator. This world would no doubt be a
better place without him.
But this record of cruelty does not give a lawful reason to attack
Iraq without proof that their activities pose an imminent threat to the
security of the United States. So I must ask: Why must we pass this
resolution now? I still have not received a clear, convincing answer to
that question.
I have asked it, and many other questions of those who support this
resolution, including the Secretary of State. They have failed to make
an effective case as to why Congress should authorize a historic shift
in policy from containment and deterrence to that of pre-emptive
attacks.
As far as I know Saddam Hussein has committed no new evil acts, since
President Bush was sworn into office almost two years ago. Why didn't
the President ask for this resolution at that time? During his
campaign, President Bush himself said that the United States should not
be the ``world's policeman.'' Why the shift in policy? When the
President first started talking about using military force against
Iraq, it was said that Saddam Hussein was linked with September 11th,
but then British and U.S. intelligence revealed that wasn't true. Also,
when the President first started talking about removing Saddam Hussein,
he claimed that he had the authority to do so under a 1998 resolution.
However, now we are here considering the authorization of military
forces at the President's request. Furthermore, the President was
prepared to go it alone, and then he decided to ask for the support of
as many allies as possible, including the United Nations. These are
just some examples of the mixed messages from the Administration. The
President's approach to the Iraq situation has had numerous changes in
a short span of time.
Due to the President's disjointed approach, the lack of answers to
many questions that various colleagues and I have, and the fact that
containment of Saddam Hussein has worked for the past decade, I cannot
support this resolution.
I have tried very hard to support the President and this resolution
because I believe the President is sincere and truly thinks that
military force is the only way to deal with Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he
is right, but I cannot in good conscience support military force until
we first seek U.N. weapons inspections and the support of the
international community. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting Congressman Spratt's substitute resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the
arguments made on the other side. First, they claim that this bill
somehow, even though there is not a word in it, supplants Public Law
102-1, which has the authority to go after terrorists, which is not
true, and then they say that we are wrong in saying to the President,
we do not want to dilute the focus on terrorism; we want you to certify
to us that if we go to war in Iraq, it will in no way impair our first
priority, and that is to get al Qaeda. We have to decide which way we
want to go.
We say, that is still the law of the land, 102-1. We backed it then,
we support it now, and we want to make al Qaeda our first priority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes), a Vietnam veteran and a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise this morning in strong support of this substitute. As I said
yesterday, many of us know that there is a better way, and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has focused our efforts with
his leadership and with his guidance. He has led the way to a carefully
constructed and well thought out resolution, one that takes into
account the dynamic and the potentially dangerous situation in which we
find ourselves today.
Unilateral action, Mr. Speaker, would cost billions of dollars and
possibly thousands of lives. Carelessly stepping into a conflict is not
something that should be undertaken lightly. I do not think that the
administration, as I said yesterday, has made the case for this type of
action. This appropriate resolution supports the President's request of
the Security Council for arms inspections that is backed by force. This
resolution authorizes President Bush to use the same Armed Forces of
the United States as his father did in the Persian Gulf War in military
action that is sanctioned by the Security Council. If the Iraqis defy
the inspectors and the U.N. will not authorize force, this Congress
will expedite a vote for a new resolution to authorize that force.
Saddam Hussein and his regime are a menace to our security, and I
agree with the President that the Security Council should enforce
resolutions and put a stop to his system of ``cheat and retreat.'' The
Security Council should compel Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass
destruction and its means of producing such weapons, and if armed force
is necessary, it should be with their concurrence as well.
This bill sets the stage for a prudent process to accomplish these
objectives. More importantly, it emphasizes the tenet that war should
be a last resort and not a first resort.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Let us remember those words, and as I hear this debate they come back
to me: ``Gentlemen may cry `peace,' `peace,' but there is no peace. The
war has actually begun.''
Those are the words, of course, of Patrick Henry, who spurred on our
people to fight for their liberty and fight for our country's security.
And when all is said and done, America's security and our freedom is in
the hands of our people. We do not choose to put the future of this
country and the security of this country into the hands of the United
Nations. As we debate this amendment, which again puts even more
responsibility in the hands of the United Nations, let us take a brutal
look at that organization and what this amendment accomplishes.
This amendment requires the United States to have the permission of
the Communist Chinese and gangsters of other regimes to do what is
necessary
[[Page H7757]]
for our own security. That is ridiculous. Quit idealizing the United
Nations for what it is not. It is not an international body that is run
by saints. Instead, it is run by ordinary democratic countries, but
also by despicable regimes which terrorize their own population.
Requiring the President, our President to get permission from the
United Nations means we are requiring our President to make deals with
governments like the Communist Chinese before doing what is necessary
for our own security. No wonder the repressed people of China, like the
Falun Gong, who had their demonstration here yesterday, like the people
of Tibet, like the people of East Turkistan are afraid that our
President may well make an agreement with the bosses in Beijing who
terrorize them at the expense of those people who long for freedom.
We should not be relying on the United Nations. No, we should be
relying on our strength and our commitment to those ideals that our
Founding Fathers set forth so many years ago and have been fought for
so many times by Americans. Let us remember what George Washington told
us: ``Put only Americans on guard tonight.''
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I wish to respond to some of the comments made just now by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and earlier by the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
It is true that this resolution seeks to have the United States first
act in a multilateral basis through the U.N., but we are not
transferring the job of protecting Americans to the United Nations. In
section 8 of this resolution it says, ``inherent right to self-
defense.'' Nothing in this joint resolution, the Spratt substitute, is
intended to derogate or otherwise limit the authority of the President
to use military force and self-defense pursuant to the Constitution of
the United States and the War Powers resolution.
But there is a reason why we need to act on a multilateral basis. It
is because if we act against Saddam's weapons of mass destruction
together with allies, we are less likely to provoke an Islamic
fundamentalist uprising in the Middle East. We are more likely to
diminish the number of recruits to Osama bin Laden, not to accentuate
the number of recruits to terrorist causes.
Insofar as people have suggested this is a steeple chase or they are
roadblocks to getting the second resolution passed, it is a week-long
proposition. Come back, we have the resolution laid out in this
substitute, there are no amendments, no points of order, it comes to
the floor, we will have a debate of 20 hours, and it will be done.
This is critical. This is as important a vote as the vote on final
passage, and I urge Members to support the Spratt substitute.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by our
friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). The amendment
in the nature of a substitute basically puts us in a position of having
to go to the U.N. and get a resolution of support or, if the U.N.
cannot act or will not act, requires the Congress to come back and to
have another vote.
I think one of the points that is missing in this debate is that it
seems as though people think the President is not acting in a
unilateral way.
We are the only superpower on the face of the Earth. We as a Nation,
as a result, have a responsibility to lead. I think that the underlying
resolution does, in fact, strengthen the President's hand to lead and
to continue to build multilateral support. I believe that the amendment
offered today basically undercuts the President's ability to continue
to lead us and to build a multilateral action.
Secondly, the President is being very deliberate about this. This
effort has been under way for the last 8 weeks. The President continues
to consult with Members of Congress in both bodies, continues to work
with our allies, continues to work with the U.N., and I think all of us
would agree that the President made a forceful case for action because
he was at the U.N.
Again, the amendment that we have before us handcuffs the President
in terms of his ability to continue to bring about positive action at
the United Nations.
Now, we have 16 amendments passed by the United Nations over the last
11 years dealing with chemical and biological weapons. What makes us
believe that Saddam Hussein or anyone else who is going to act, if in
fact the U.N. would ever act? But more importantly, why would we want
to put the security and the freedom of the people of our country at
risk or put them in the hands of the U.N. Security Council in hoping,
maybe, that they will act.
The fact is in 1991 during the Gulf War we had a debate here and we
kept hearing the same thing we are hearing now: wait, wait, wait. If we
had waited any longer in 1991, the Iraqi regime would have been into
Saudi Arabia and we would have had a much larger crisis than we have.
The fact is that we have waited for a long time to bring this regime to
a halt and to take away their threat, and I believe the underlying
resolution done by the majority leader and the Speaker, along with the
minority leader, gives the President the strongest hand possible in
terms of building a multilateral coalition and, most importantly,
protecting the American people whom we are sent here to represent.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment
as the right way to security; not having to go it alone, but with the
help of our allies.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. The decision whether or
not to send our young men and women into war is the most difficult one
a Member of Congress can face. In considering this matter, I have done
considerable research, been briefed by the White House, talked with my
colleagues and listened to the voices of the people of Maine.
It is clear that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator. He has not
hesitated to attack his neighbors, and even his own people. Since
weapons inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998, we know that
Hussein has taken steps to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
production capability. We have strong evidence that he is beginning to
rebuild his nuclear program. Based on all that we have seen, in the
past and in the present, it is clear that the Iraqi regime is a threat
to international peace and security.
I am convinced that it is in the best interests of our Nation and our
world that we eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. If Hussein
does not use them directly, I believe there is a good chance that he
will provide them to other terrorists who will. This situation cannot
stand.
The question now before us is how to achieve our common goal of
disarming Saddam Hussein. I am not supportive of a unilateral pre-
emptive strike. As President bush said on Tuesday night, force must be
our last resort, not our first. I am convinced that we will be
strongest if we address this situation with the support of a
multilateral coalition.
For that reason, I will be supporting Representative Spratt's
substitute that calls for just such a multilateral approach. This
resolution echoes the President's speech in which we urged the adoption
of a new U.N. resolution that seeks to disarm Hussein, and if that
resolution proves ineffective, calls for a coalition to disarm him.
This substitute supports the President's intention to exhaust
diplomatic approaches to disarming Iraq while still ensuring that he
will be able to take action against Iraq if these methods prove
ineffective.
To me, the most significant difference between Mr. Spratt's approach
and that of the administration is that Mr. Spratt keeps Congress
closely involved as the decision-making process moves forward, as is
consistent with our Constitutional duty. Under the substitute, the
administration will be required to return to Congress when and if it
determines that diplomatic avenues have been pursued and have failed.
At that time, expedited procedures will be in place to authorize
military action if necessary.
When we are dealing with issues of this magnitude, I believe that
there needs to be true consultation between the Congress and the
administration. Simple notification is not enough. I agree that we need
to speak with
[[Page H7758]]
one voice, and this substitute gives us the tools to do that.
The bottom line is that yes, we must take action to protect our
Nation and, indeed, the world from the weapons of mass destruction that
Saddam Hussein has developed and continues to pursue. However,
unilateral action is not, in my opinion, the most effective approach. I
believe a multilateral approach offers the best chance to effectively
disarm Saddam Hussein and put an end to his chemical and biological
weapons programs. It's important for our government to work with other
nations, and ensure that all non-military avenues have been exhausted,
before taking action on our own. We should work with the world
community and the United Nations Security Council. If these efforts
fail, I support using force in concert with our allies.
I opposed the President's original resolution, and I commend my
colleagues who have worked so hard to improve it. The underlying
resolution has come a long way in addressing my concerns. However, I
still believe that the Spratt approach is the best one at this time. It
is a workable resolution, which neither ties the President's hands nor
promotes unilateral action by the United States. I urge my colleagues
to support this responsible approach.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), also a Vietnam veteran and a member of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Those of us that support this amendment do not believe that we are
undercutting the President or somehow placing handcuffs on him. What,
in fact, we believe we are doing is responding to the great common
sense of the American people, the kind of discussions we all have at
home and Americans are having all over the country in which they see a
difference in the factual situations between America going in as an
international body in cooperation with the United Nations versus
America having to go it alone because the international community does
not want to be with us. There are differences in those two scenarios,
and the differences have different ramifications for the future of
America's national security.
In fact, what the Spratt amendment does is give additional powers to
the President not in the Constitution. It gives him the power to
schedule this vote through an expedited process.
I think the Spratt amendment in fact is the kind of approach that the
American people want us to take, to act in concert with the
international community and, if that is not successful, to come back
and expedite a way for a reevaluation by their elected representatives
as expected by the Constitution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, when you retire from Congress and the great summing up
comes with your great-grandchildren or great-great-grandchildren, and
people say, ``What did you do in Congress,'' you say, ``Well, I voted
to yield sovereignty to the United Nations. I voted to have the
decision to defend the United States national interests to the Security
Council, which is composed of five members, three of which are France,
China, and Russia.''
What a precedent, to condition our taking action by getting approval
and by getting a new resolution. What is that, Resolution No. 7,842?
No, it is only about the seventeenth resolution. A new resolution
authorizing the United States to defend its national interests?
This is not a preemptive strike. The shooting has never stopped from
Desert Storm. There was a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, in February
of 1991 and, after that, every day they shoot at us in the sky.
So this is not preemptive, it is just finishing what should have been
finished several years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce).
{time} 1130
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It is clear to me that most Members hope that the administration wins
support at the United Nations for a robust weapons inspection regime. I
am one who wishes this. That is the outcome that I think the
gentleman's amendment aims for, but it does this, however, in a way
that I believe sets the administration up for failure.
This amendment expedites congressional consideration of an
authorization to act against Saddam Hussein should the administration
be unable to secure an acceptable U.N. inspections resolution. That is
its second step, but let us think a ways down the road.
Does this Congress really want to be in the position of spotlighting
our possible failure at the U.N.? The story line for the second
congressional deliberation on Iraq this amendment mandates would be
``Failing at the U.N., Administration Forced to Try Congress Again.'' I
have a hard time seeing how our Nation could possibly be strengthened
by that.
In considering this amendment, we cannot afford wishful thinking
about the U.N. The fact, often lost in this debate, is that the United
Nations is a grouping of Nations with often differing political
interests, some that share our values, others that do not. This is one
of the reasons that, while working with the Security Council, we must
always guard against its compromising our national security policy.
This amendment, in practice, gives the edge to the U.N. Security
Council over our administration in facing the threat of Saddam. The
negotiating hand of other Council members would surely be strengthened
against the administration if they knew that our President would be
forced to return to Congress if he could not strike a Security Council
weapons inspections deal. Neither outcome, a weak weapons inspection
resolution nor if the administration must walk away, a perceived and
universally noted failure by our country to win at the U.N., is one we
should be setting our administration up for.
Secretary of State Powell told the Committee on International
Relations that his hand at the U.N. would be strengthened by a strong
congressional authorization for action against Iraq, one, in his words,
that was not watered down. I know that Secretary Powell has been
working hard to gain support at the U.N. To kick the congressional
authorization he seeks down the road, to grant it or even not grant it,
based upon the U.N. Security Council's schedule and political
landscape, is a big watering down.
It is the judgment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking
member, and the majority of Committee on International Relations
members that the bipartisan resolution we are considering this week is
the one Secretary Powell needs. That is why I urge the rejection of
this amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my very good
friends on the other side, this amendment builds on the lessons of
leadership from our success in the Persian Gulf War. Virtually no
American lives lost and our specific mission accomplished.
We want to do just what we did in 1991. President Bush waited until
after the congressional midterm elections. He secured the United
Nations Security Council authorization to use international force. We
had the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors. We did not position this
country as a target for vengeance from Arab and Muslim extremists, and
for a decade, we have contained and sanctioned Saddam.
We are fighting another war today, a war on terrorism, and our
intelligence agencies tell us these are separate wars. This amendment
focuses on winning both wars and securing our deserved position as the
unparalleled leader and inspiration of the free world.
The rest of the free world is no less determined to protect their
families and individual liberties. Let us make this war and the war on
terrorism an international and definitive success.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, some of our friends today,
in debate, have suggested that somehow adoption of the Spratt
resolution would yield American sovereignty to the U.N. or, as one
speaker put it, would subordinate foreign policy to the Security
Council.
Is it not true that under the Spratt resolution the decision of the
United
[[Page H7759]]
States to back up U.N. inspections, to back up U.N. enforcement
actions, would be ours to make and that, moreover, those troops would
remain under U.S. command? Is there any ground for treating this as
some kind of abdication of sovereignty?
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, my friend from North Carolina is absolutely
right. This amendment strengthens the position, the leadership role of
the United States. It builds on the lesson of 10 years ago that was a
success then and should be a success today.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt substitute. I
have great respect for the gentleman from South Carolina, but believe
that this resolution is very misguided. It divides, or bifurcates,
American foreign policy instead of speaking with one voice.
Nothing in the resolution put forth by the committee, led by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos), prevents the very course of action outlined by the
gentleman from South Carolina, but I fear that if this resolution
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) were adopted,
it would have the opposite effect of that intended by the gentleman;
and that is because it sends the message that the President, in his
efforts to get strong United Nations action and support from our
allies, does not have the support of our own Congress.
Between the votes on the two resolutions contemplated by the
gentleman and while the President seeks international support, we will
in effect be a cacophony of voices rather than speaking with one voice.
Many Members of Congress have differing opinions on what the U.N.
resolution should be. It is time to speak to the U.N. with one voice.
Politics must end at the water's edge.
In dealing with other Nations and especially with the United Nations,
the President must have a strong hand. He must be able to say what he
is authorized to do, if necessary, to push the U.N. to do the right
thing itself. On the other hand, the Spratt substitute sends the
message to Saddam Hussein that we are talk without action. He has
relied upon that state of affairs for the past 12 years.
This resolution is little different than the 16 U.N. resolutions, all
without consequences. This resolution demands the truth, but removes
the consequences. This resolution prevents the President of the United
States from taking action to protect our national security interests.
It ties his hands, even to do the limited things we are already doing.
The Congress needs to speak with one voice. The Congress needs to
speak now, not later, and the Congress needs to place into the hands of
the President the necessary tools to implement a unified and effective
foreign policy.
I urge my colleagues to reject this substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. McCarthy).
(Mrs. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
measure. The Spratt-Moran substitute charts the right and responsible
course.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt-Moran Substitute to H.J.
Res. 114. I join the sponsors in commending the President for calling
upon the United Nations to enforce existing Security Council
resolutions eliminating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as
his seeking approval of a new resolution establishing tougher arms
inspections. Should force be necessary, this substitute encourages the
President to make every effort to obtain U.N. Security Council
approval. It is essential that we execute a multilateral approach to
Iraq by uniting with our allies as we did this past year in
Afghanistan, and which we also did in prosecuting Desert Storm with a
minimal loss of American lives. Indeed, mobilizing a broad coalition of
nations to join us in Desert Storm helped avoid destabilizing the
Middle East, something which we may be powerless to prevent if we act
unilaterally now. It is important to acknowledge that, as with our
responsibility to nurture and support the effort to democratize and
help stabilize Afghanistan, it is also in our national interest to make
a long term commitment to assist in the transition to a new and stable
democratic government in Iraq. This is the way to build a collective
security throughout the region and enhance the prospects for a lasting
peace.
I concur with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that ``the use
of massive military force to remove the current government of Iraq
could have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has
suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo.'' In
addition to concern for the people of Iraq who have been subjugated by
Saddam Hussein and his evil regime, we must fully understand that an
attack on Iraq, particularly without support from the world community,
may have unintended, negative consequences to our global war on
terrorism. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is the worldwide
terrorist network which poses the most immediate danger to the people
of the United States. We have the support of the world in combating
terrorism. If we go it alone in Iraq, we risk destroying that support
and impeding our ability to win the war against terrorism.
That is reason enough for making a strong and diligent effort to
obtain support of the U.N. Security Council for an aggressive and
immediate program of widespread on-site inspections for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. The Spratt-Moran Substitute allows the President
to use our troops to assist the U.N. inspections. Such inspections must
be executed unrelentingly and must lead to the immediate disarmament of
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, historian Robert Dallek recently noted that during the
Presidency of Harry Truman our defense policy was one of containment
and deterrence quite unlike the policy proposed by the current
administration. President Truman felt that the best way to preserve the
peace following World War II was to contain our adversaries. Truman
said, ``There is nothing more foolish than to think that war can be
stopped by war. You don't `prevent' anything by war except peace.'' Mr.
Dallek assessed the current administration's policy as ``prevention''
by removing a head of state who has the power to do harm to us. Such a
unilateral act must be justified with facts that convince the American
people to go it alone. The Spratt-Moran Substitute calls upon the
President to justify that such force is the only option left available,
and mandates that the President seek a second vote of the Congress to
authorize use of our military might if the President determines a
regime change in Iraq is the goal. I commend my fellow Missourian, Mr.
Skelton for his efforts to assure that we adhere to our Constitution by
requiring this second vote.
Mr. Speaker, we are united in our desire to achieve peace and
stability in this region. One of the strengths of our country is our
right to express our views freely and not have our patriotism
questioned if we disagree with a particular administration or policy. I
realize my view may not be the prevailing opinion of this body or this
administration, but I truly believe it represents the view of a
majority of my constituents given the information that is available to
us.
I recognize the tremendous sacrifices of the armed forces in this
endeavor and I fully support them. The question before us is when and
how they should be engaged. I support the multilateral approach
stipulated in the substitute and the call for a vigorous, all
encompassing inspection program by the U.N., and urge my colleagues to
adopt the substitute. As anthropologist Margaret Meade wisely noted:
``We must devise a system in which peace is more rewarding than war.''
The Spratt-Moran Substitute charts the right and responsible course.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Spratt Substitute for the
Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution.
The Spratt substitute authorizes the use of U.S. armed forces to
support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the
elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing
such weapons and missiles. The substitute also calls on the president
to seek authorization from Congress in the absence of a U.N. Security
Council resolution sufficient to eliminate by force, if necessary, all
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
If we go to war with Iraq, we must do so with the approval of the
U.N. Security Council, and the general cooperation and support of the
United Nations. We risk damaging the
[[Page H7760]]
U.N. Security Council's legitimacy as an authoritative body in
international law if the United States acts unilaterally. If the
argument for involvement in Iraq is that we lead by example, then we
signal to the rest of the world that it is okay to ignore the concerns
voiced by the international community. This will only lead to further
future conflict. If the United Nations is to impose sanctions, restore
order, and be an effective international institution, it must have the
respect and cooperation of the most powerful country in the world.
Rather than initiating a war with Iraq, let's make an effort to
achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East between Israel and
the Palestinians.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, America is a great Nation because it always
at times of toil and tumble has followed great principles.
We have always matched the might of our Armed Forces with the force
of our great principles, and it is a great American principle that at
times of international trouble, we work with the international
community, not without it. It is a great American principle that we do
not launch unilateral first strikes without the support of the
international community and the vote of the U.S. Congress.
The Spratt resolution follows and upholds those great American
principles, and the underlying resolution violates them. No Congress
should give any President a blank check to start a unilateral first
strike for any reason, anytime, with or without any allies.
This Nation gave the world the great principles of freedom of speech
and freedom of religion and ought to lead the Nation in the concept of
going forward on the arc of human history which is working together for
mutual security rather than backwards to the law of the jungle.
I do not want to vote to make it the legacy of this generation of
American leaders to send us backwards where a strong nation devours the
weak, and we do not work with the international community.
There is a practical reason for doing this. As General Hoar, or
Zinni, I cannot remember which one, said, why would we supercharge
Osama bin Laden's recruiting efforts with a unilateral first strike?
The Spratt resolution imbues great American principles. We should
follow it is the American way.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to unite this body and
the Nation behind the Spratt resolution of which I am a proud
cosponsor.
The Spratt resolution both strengthens the President's hand and
demonstrates national resolve. It preserves the constitutional
authority that resides with this Congress and does not abdicate our
role to the United Nations.
Many have stepped forward, including many notable Republicans, Mr.
Scowcroft, Mr. Eagleburger, Mr. Baker, and several others, who
understand the deep importance and abiding concern that many of us on
this aisle share with not only them, but people all across this Nation.
Thomas Friedman spoke at a recent book tour about the consequences of
our doctrine, long term, and its effect, and he was struck by the one
man in the audience who came up to him and reached into his wallet and
produced but a picture of his children. It spoke volumes. We need say
nothing else.
Support the Spratt alternative.
Dick Cheney's Song of America
(By David Armstrong)
Few writers are more ambitious than the writers of
government policy papers, and few policy papers are more
ambitious than Dick Cheney's masterwork. It has taken several
forms over the last decade and is in fact the product of
several ghostwriters (notably Paul Wolfowitz and Colin
Powell), but Cheney has been consistent in his dedication to
the ideas in the documents that bear his name, and he has
maintained a close association with the ideologues behind
them. Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, and this
series of documents the Plan.
The Plan was published in unclassified form most recently
under the title of Defense Strategy for the 1990s, as Cheney
ended his term as secretary of defense under the elder George
Bush in early 1993, but it is, like ``Leaves of Grass,'' a
perpetually evolving work. It was the controversial Defense
Planning Guidance draft of 1992--from which Cheney,
unconvincingly, tried to distance himself--and it was the
somewhat less aggressive revised draft of that same year.
This June it was a presidential lecture in the form of a
commencement address at West Point, and in July it was leaked
to the press as yet another Defense Planning Guidance (this
time under the pen name of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld). It will take its ultimate form, though, as
America's new national security strategy--and Cheney et al.
will experience what few writers have even dared dream: their
words will become our reality.
The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The
overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of
domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its
overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from
rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for
dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the
United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but
that it must be absolutely powerful.
The Plan is disturbing in many ways, and ultimately
unworkable. Yet it is being sold now as an answer to the
``new realities'' of the post-September 11 world, even as it
was sold previously as the answer to the new realities of the
post-Cold War world. For Cheney, the Plan has always been the
right answer, no matter how different the questions.
Cheney's unwavering adherence to the Plan would be amusing,
and maybe a little sad, except that it is now our plan. In
its pages are the ideas that we now act upon every day with
the full might of the United States military. Strangely, few
critics have noted that Cheney's work has a long history, or
that it was once quite unpopular, or that it was created in
reaction to circumstances that are far removed from the ones
we now face. But Cheney is a well-known action man. One
has to admire, in a way, the Babe Ruth-like sureness of
his political work. He pointed to center field ten years
ago, and now the ball is sailing over the fence.
Before the Plan was about domination it was about money. It
took shape in late 1989, when the Soviet threat was clearly
on the decline, and, with it, public support for a large
military establishment. Cheney seemed unable to come to terms
with either new reality. He remained deeply suspicious of the
Soviets and strongly resisted all efforts to reduce military
spending. Democrats in Congress jeered his lack of strategic
vision, and a few within the Bush Administration were
whispering that Cheney had become an irrelevant factor in
structuring a response to the revolutionary changes taking
place in the world.
More adaptable was the up-and-coming General Colin Powell,
the newly appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As
Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Powell had seen
the changes taking place in the Soviet Union firsthand and
was convinced that the ongoing transformation was
irreversible. Like Cheney, he wanted to avoid military cuts,
but he knew they were inevitable. The best he could do was
minimize them, and the best way to do that would be to offer
a new security structure that would preserve American
military capabilities despite reduced resources.
Powell and his staff believed that a weakened Soviet Union
would result in shifting alliances and regional conflict. The
United States was the only nation capable of managing the
forces at play in the world; it would have to remain the
preeminent military power in order to ensure the peace and
shape the emerging order in accordance with American
interests. U.S. military strategy, therefore, would have to
shift from global containment to managing less-well-defined
regional struggles and unforeseen contingencies. To do this,
the United States would have to project a military ``forward
presence'' around the world; there would be fewer troops but
in more places. This plan still would not be cheap, but
through careful restructuring and superior technology, the
job could be done with 25 percent fewer troops. Powell
insisted that maintaining superpower status must be the first
priority of the U.S. military. ``We have to put a shingle
outside our door saying, `Superpower Lives Here,' no
matter what the Soviets do,'' he said at the time. He also
insisted that the troop levels be proposed were the bare
minimum necessary to do so. This concept would come to be
known as the ``Base Force.''
Powell's work on the subject proved timely. The Berlin Wall
fell on November 9, 1989, and five days later Powell had his
new strategy ready to present to Cheney. Even as decades of
repression were ending in Eastern Europe, however, Cheney
still could not abide even the force and budget reductions
Powell proposed. Yet he knew that cuts were unavoidable.
Having no alternative of his own to offer, therefore, he
reluctantly encouraged Powell to present his ideas to the
president. Powell did so the next day; Bush made no promises
but encouraged him to keep at it.
Less encouraging was the reaction of Paul Wolfowitz, the
undersecretary of defense for policy. A lifelong proponent of
the unilateralist, maximum-force approach, he shared Cheney's
skepticism about the Eastern Bloc and so put his own staff to
work on
[[Page H7761]]
a competing plan that would somehow accommodate the
possibility of Soviet backsliding.
As Powell and Wolfowitz worked out their strategies,
Congress was losing patience. New calls went up for large
cuts in defense spending in light of the new global
environment. The harshest critique of Pentagon planning came
from a usually dependable ally of the military establishment,
Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services committee. Nunn told fellow senators in March 1990
that there was a ``threat blank'' in the administration's
proposed $295 billion defense budget and that the Pentagon's
``basic assessment of the overall threat to our national
security'' was ``rooted in the past.'' The world had changed
and yet the ``development of a new military strategy that
responds to the changes in the threat has not yet occurred.''
Without that response, no dollars would be forthcoming.
Nunn's message was clear. Powell and Wolfowitz began
filling in the blanks. Powell started promoting a Zen-like
new rationale for his Base Force approach. With the
Soviets rapidly becoming irrelevant, Powell argued, the
United States could no longer assess its military needs on
the basis of known threats. Instead, the Pentagon should
focus on maintaining the ability to address a wide variety
of new and unknown challenges. This shift from a ``threat
based'' assessment of military requirements to a
``capability based'' assessment would become a key theme
of the Plan. The United States would move from countering
Soviet attempts at dominance to ensuring its own
dominance. Again, this project would not be cheap.
Powell's argument, circular though it may have been, proved
sufficient to hold off Congress. Winning support among his
own colleagues, however, proved more difficult. Cheney
remained deeply skeptical about the Soviets, and Wolfowitz
was only slowly coming around. To account for future
uncertainties, Wolfowitz recommended drawing down U.S. forces
to roughly the levels proposed by Powell, but doing so at a
much slower pace; seven years as opposed to the four Powell
suggested. He also built in a ``crisis response/
reconstitution'' clause that would allow for reversing the
process if events in the Soviet Union, or elsewhere, turned
ugly.
With these now elements in place, Cheney saw something that
might work. By combining Powell's concepts with those of
Wolfowitz, he could counter congressional criticism that his
proposed defense budget was out of line with the new
strategic reality, while leaving the door open for future
force increases. In late June, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Cheney
presented their plan to the president, and within as few
weeks Bush was unveiling the new strategy.
Bush laid out the rationale for the Plan in a speech in
Aspen, Colorado, on August 2, 1990. He explained that since
the danger of global war had substantially receded, the
principal threats to American security would emerge in
unexpected quarters. To counter those threats, he said, the
United States would increasingly base the size and structure
of its forces on the need to respond to ``regional
contingencies'' and maintain a peacetime military presence
overseas. Meeting that need would require maintaining the
capability to quickly deliver American forces to any ``corner
of the globe,'' and that would mean retaining many major
weapons systems then under attack in Congress as overly
costly and unnecessary, including the ``Star Wars'' missile-
defense program. Despite those massive outlays, Bush insisted
that the proposed restructuring would allow the United States
to draw down its active forces by 25 percent in the years
ahead, the same figure Powell had projected ten months
earlier.
The Plan's debut was well timed. By a remarkable
coincidence, Bush revealed it the very day Saddam Hussein's
Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.
The Gulf War temporarily reduced the pressure to cut
military spending. It also diverted attention from some of
the Plan's less appealing aspects. In addition, it inspired
what would become one of the Plan's key features: the use of
``overwhelming force'' to quickly defeat enemies, a concept
since dubbed the Powell Doctrine.
Once the Iraqi threat was ``contained,'' Wolfowitz returned
to his obsession with the Soviets, planning various scenarios
involved possible Soviet intervention in regional conflicts.
The failure of the hard-liner coup against Gorbachev in
August 1991, however, made it apparent that such planning
might be unnecessary. Then, in late December, just as the
Pentagon was preparing to put the Plan in place, the Soviet
Union collapsed.
With the Soviet Union gone, the United States had a choice.
It could capitalize on the euphoria of the moment by
nurturing cooperative relations and developing multilateral
structures to help guide the global realignment then taking
place; or it could consolidate its power and pursue a
strategy of unilateralism and global dominance. It chose the
latter course.
In early 1992, as Powell and Cheney campaigned to win
congressional support for their augmented Base Force plan, a
new logic entered into their appeals. The United States,
Powell told members of the House Armed Services Committee,
required ``sufficient power'' to ``deter any challenger from
ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage.'' To
emphasize the point, he cast the United States in the role of
street thug. ``I want to be the bully on the block,'' he
said, implanting in the mind of potential opponents that
``there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces
of the United States.''
As Powell and Cheney were making this new argument in their
congressional rounds, Wolfowitz was busy expanding the
concept and working to have it incorporated into U.S. policy.
During the early months of 1992, Wolfowitz supervised the
preparation of an internal Pentagon policy statement used to
guide military officials in the preparation of their forces,
budgets, and strategies. The classified document, known as
the Defense Planning Guidance, depicted a world dominated by
the United States, which would maintain its superpower status
through a combination of positive guidance and overwhelming
military might. the image was one of a heavily armed City on
a Hill.
The DPG stated that the ``first objective'' of U.S. defense
strategy was ``to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.''
Achieving this objective required that the United States
``prevent any hostile power from dominating a region'' of
strategic significance. America's new mission would be to
convince allies and enemies alike ``that they need not aspire
to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to
protect their legitimate interests.''
Another new theme was the use of preemptive military force.
The options, the DPG noted, ranged from taking preemptive
military action to head off a nuclear, chemical, or
biological attack to ``punishing'' or ``threatening
punishment of'' aggressors ``through a variety of means,''
including strikes against weapons-manufacturing facilities.
The DPG also envisioned maintaining a substantial U.S.
nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear
programs in other countries. It depicted a ``U.S.-led system
of collective security'' that implicitly precluded the
need for rearmament of any king by countries such as
Germany and Japan. And it called for the ``early
introduction'' of a global missile-defense system that
would presumably render all missile-launched weapons,
including those of the United States, obsolete. (The
United States would, of course, remain the world's
dominant military power on the strength of its other
weapons systems.)
The story, in short, was dominance by way of unilateral
action and military superiority. While coalitions--such as
the one formed during the Gulf War--held ``considerable
promise for promoting collective action,'' the draft DPG
stated, the United States should expect future alliances to
be ``ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis
being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general
agreement over the objectives to be accomplished.'' It was
essential to create ``the sense that the world order is
ultimately backed by the U.S.'' and essential that America
position itself ``to act independently when collective action
cannot be orchestrated'' or in crisis situation requiring
immediate action. ``While the U.S. cannot become the world's
policeman,'' the document said, ``we will retain the
preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those
wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of
our allies or friends.'' Among the interests the draft
indicated the United States would defend in this manner were
``access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, [and] threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism.''
The DPC was leaked to the New York Times in March 1992.
Critics on both the left and the right attacked it
immediately. Then-presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
portrayed candidate a ``blank check'' to America's allies by
suggesting the United States would ``go to war to defend
their interests.'' Bill Clinton's deputy campaign manager,
George Stephanopoulos, characterized it as an attempt by
Pentagon officials to ``find an excuse for big defense
budgets instead of downsizing.'' Delaware Senator Joseph
Biden criticized the Plan's vision of a ``Pax Americana, a
global security system where threats to stability are
suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power.'' Even those
who found the document's stated goals commendable feared that
its chauvinistic tone could alienate many allies. Cheney
responded by attempting to distance himself from the Plan.
The Pentagon's spokesman dismissed the leaked document as a
``low-level draft'' and claimed that Cheney had not seen it.
Yet a fifteen-page section opened by proclaiming that it
constituted ``definitive guidance from the Secretary of
Defense.''
Powell took a more forthright approach to dealing with the
flap: he publicly embraced the DPG's core concept. In a TV
interview, he said he believed it was ``just fine'' that the
United States reign as the world's dominant military power.
``I don't think we should apologize for that,'' he
said. Despite bad reviews in the foreign press, Powell
insisted that America's European allies were ``not
afraid'' of U.S. military might because it was ``power
that could be trusted'' and ``will not be misused.''
Mindful that the draft DPG's overt expression of U.S.
dominance might not fly, Powell in the same interview also
trotted out a new rationale for the original Base Force plan.
He argued that in a post-Soviet world, filled with new
dangers, the United States needed the ability to fight on
more than one front at a time. ``One of the most
destabilizing things we could do,'' he said, ``is to cut our
forces so much that if we're tied up in one area of the world
. . . and we are not seen to have the ability to influence
another area of
[[Page H7762]]
the world, we might invite just the sort of crisis we're
trying to deter.'' This two-war strategy provided a possible
answer to Nunn's ``threat blank.'' One unknown enemy wasn't
enough to justify lavish defense budgets, but two unknown
enemies might do the trick.
Within a few weeks the Pentagon had come up with a more
comprehensive response to the DPG furor. A revised version
was leaked to the press that was significantly less strident
in tone, though only slightly less strident in fact. While
calling for the United States to prevent ``any hostile power
from dominating a region critical to our interests,'' the new
draft stressed that America would act in concert with its
allies--when possible. It also suggested the United Nations
might take an expanded role in future political, economic,
and security matters, a concept conspicuously absent from the
original draft.
The controversy died down, and, with a presidential
campaign under way, the Pentagon did nothing to stir it up
again. Following Bush's defeat, however, the Plan reemerged.
In January 1993, in his very last days in office. Cheney
released a final version. The newly titled Defense Strategy
for the 1990s retained the soft touch of the revised draft
DPG as well as its darker themes. The goal remained to
preclude ``hostile competitors from challenging our critical
interests'' and preventing the rise of a new super-power.
Although it expressed a ``preference'' for collective
responses in meeting such challenges, it made clear that the
United States would play the lead role in any alliance.
Moreover, it noted that collective action would ``not always
be timely.'' Therefore, the United States needed to retain
the ability to ``act independently, if necessary.'' To do so
would require that the United States maintain its massive
military superiority. Others were not encouraged to follow
suit. It was kinder, gentler dominance, but it was dominance
all the same. And it was this thesis that Cheney and company
nailed to the door on their way out.
The new administration tacitly rejected the heavy-handed,
unilateral approach to U.S. primacy favored by Powell,
Cheney, and Wolfowitz. Taking office in the relative calm of
the early post--Cold War era, Clinton sought to maximize
America's existing position of strength and promote its
interests through economic diplomacy, multilateral
institutions (dominated by the United States), greater
international free trade, and the development of allied
coalitions, including American-led collective military
action. American policy, in short, shifted from global
dominance to globalism.
Clinton also failed to prosecute military campaigns with
sufficient vigor to satisfy the defense strategists of the
previous administration. Wolfowitz found Clinton's Iraq
policy especially infuriating. During the Gulf War, Wolfowitz
harshly criticized the decision--endorsed by Powell and
Cheney--to end the war once the U.N. mandate of driving
Saddam's forces from Kuwait had been fulfilled, leaving the
Iraqi dictator in office. He called on the Clinton
Administration to finish the job by arming Iraqi opposition
forces and sending U.S. ground troops to defense a base of
operation for them in the southern region of the country. In
a 1996 editorial, Wolfowitz raised the prospect of launching
a preemptive attack against Iraq. ``Should we sit idly by,''
he wrote, ``with our passive containment policy and our inept
cover operations, and wait until a tyrant possessing large
quantities of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated
delivery systems strikes out at us?'' Wolfowitz suggested it
was ``necessary'' to ``go beyond the containment strategy.''
Wolfowitz's objections to Clinton's military tactics were
not limited to Iraq. Wolfowitz had endorsed President Bush's
decision in late 1992 to intervene in Somalia on a limited
humanitarian basis. Clinton later expanded the mission into a
broader peacekeeping effort, a move that ended in disaster.
With perfect twenty-twenty hindsight, Wolfowitz decried
Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops into combat ``where
there is no significant U.S. national interest.'' He took a
similar stance on Clinton's ill-fated democracy-building
effort in Haiti, chastising the president for engaging
``American military prestige'' on an issue'' of the little or
no importance'' to U.S. interests. Bosnia presented a more
complicated mix of posturing and ideologics. While running
for president, Clinton had scolded the Bush Administration
for failing to take action to stem the flow of blood in the
Balkans. Once in office, however, and chastened by their
early misadventures in Somalia and Haiti, Clinton and his
advisers struggled to articulate a coherent Bosnia policy.
Wolfowitz complained in 1994 of the administration's failure
to ``develop an effective course of action.' He personally
advocated arming the Bosnian Muslims in their fight against
the Serbs. Powell, on the other hand, publicly cautioned
against intervention. In 1995 a U.S.-led NATO bombing
campaign, combined with a Croat-Muslim ground offensive,
forced the Serbs into negotiations, leading to the Dayton
Peace Accords. In 1999, as Clinton rounded up support for
joint U.S.-NATO action in Kosovo, Wolfowitz hectored the
president for failing to act quickly enough.
After eight years of what Cheney et al. regarded as wrong-
headed military adventures and pinprick retaliatory strikes,
the Clinton Administration--mercifully, in their view--came
to an end. With the ascension of George W. Bush to the
presidency, the authors of the Plan returned to government,
ready to pick up where they had left off. Cheney of course,
became vice president, Powell became secretary of state, and
Wolfowitz moved into the number two slot at the Pentagon, as
Donald Rumsfeld's deputy. Other contributors also
returned: Two prominent members of the Wolfowitz team that
crafted the original DPG took up posts on Cheney's staff.
I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, who served as Wolfowitz's
deputy during Bush I, became the vice president's chief of
staff and national security adviser. And Eric Edelman, an
assistant deputy undersecretary of defense in the first
Bush Administration, became a top foreign policy adviser
to Cheney.
Cheney and company had not changed their minds during the
Clinton interlude about the correct course for U.S. policy,
but they did not initially appear bent on resurrecting the
Plan. Rather than present a unified vision of foreign policy
to the world, in the early going the administration focused
on promoting a series of seemingly unrelated initiatives.
Notable among these were missile defense and space-based
weaponry, long-standing conservative causes. In addition, a
distinct tone of unilateralism emerged as the new
administration announced its intent to abandon the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in order to pursue
missile defense; its opposition to U.S. ratification of an
international nuclear-test-ban pact; and its refusal to
become a party to an International Criminal Court. It also
raised the prospect of ending the self-imposed U.S.
moratorium on nuclear testing initiated by the President's
father during the 1992 presidential campaign. Moreover, the
administration adopted a much tougher diplomatic posture, as
evidenced, most notably, by a distinct hardening of relations
with both China and North Korea. While none of this was
inconsistent with the concept of U.S. dominance, these early
actions did not, at the time, seem to add up to a coherent
strategy.
It was only after September 11 that the Plan emerged in
full. Within days of the attacks, Wolfowitz and Libby began
calling for unilateral military action against Iraq, on the
shaky premise that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network could
not have pulled off the assaults without Saddam Hussein's
assistance. At the time, Bush rejected such appeals, but
Wolfowitz kept pushing and the President soon came around. In
his State of the Union address in January, Bush labeled Iraq,
Iran, and North Korea an ``axis of evil,'' and warned that he
would ``not wait on events'' to prevent them from using
weapons of mass destruction against the United States. He
reiterated his commitment to preemption in his West Point
speech in June. ``If we wait for threats to fully materialize
we will have waited too long,'' he said. ``We must take the
battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst
threats before they emerge.'' Although it was less noted,
Bush in that same speech also reintroduced the Plan's central
theme. He declared that the United States would prevent the
emergence of a rival power by maintaining ``military
strengths beyond the challenge.'' With that, the President
effectively adopted a strategy his father's administration
had developed ten years earlier to ensure that the United
States would remain the world's preeminent power. While the
headlines screamed ``preemption,'' no one noticed the
declaration of the dominance strategy.
In case there was any doubt about the administration's
intentions, the Pentagon's new DPG lays them out. Signed by
Wolfowitz's new boss, Donald Rumsfeld, in May and leaked to
the Los Angeles Times in July, it contains all the key
elements of the original Plan and adds several complementary
features. The preemptive strikes envisioned in the original
draft DPG are now ``unwarned attacks.'' The old Powell-Cheney
notion of military ``forward presence'' is now ``forwarded
deterrence.'' The use of overwhelming force to defeat an
enemy called for in the Powell Doctrine is now labeled an
``effects based'' approach.
Some of the names have stayed the same. Missile defense is
back, stronger than ever, and the call goes up again for a
shift from a ``threat based'' structure to a ``capabilities
based'' approach. The new DPG also emphasizes the need to
replace the so-called Cold War strategy of preparing to fight
two major conflicts simultaneously with what the Los Angeles
Times refers to as ``a more complex approach aimed at
dominating air and space on several fronts.'' This, despite
the fact that Powell had originally conceived--and the first
Bush Administration had adopted--the two-war strategy as a
means of filling the ``threat blank'' left by the end of the
Cold War.
Rumsfeld's version adds a few new ideas, most impressively
the concept of preemptive strikes with nuclear weapons. These
would be earth-penetrating nuclear weapons used for attacking
``hardened and deeply buried targets,'' such as command-and-
control bunkers, missile silos, and heavily fortified
underground facilities used to build and store weapons of
mass destruction. The concept emerged earlier this year when
the administration's Nuclear Posture Review leaked out. At
the time, arms-control experts warned that adopting the NPR's
recommendations would undercut existing arms-control
treaties, do serious harm to nonproliferation efforts, set
off new rounds of testing, and dramatically increase the
prospectus of nuclear weapons being used in combat. Despite
these concerns, the administration appears intent on
developing the weapons. In a final flourish, the DPG also
directs the military to develop cyber-, laser-,
[[Page H7763]]
and electronic-warfare capabilities to ensure U.S. dominion
over the heavens.
Rumsfeld spelled out these strategies in Foreign affairs
earlier this year, and it is there that he articulated the
remaining elements of the Plan; unilateralism and global
dominance. Like the revised DPG of 1992, Rumsfeld feigns
interest in collective action but ultimately rejects it as
impractical. ``Wars can benefit from coalitions,'' he writes,
`` but they should not be fought by committee.'' And
coalitions, he adds, ``must not determine the mission.'' The
implication is the United States will determine the missions
and lead the fights. Finally, Rumsfeld expresses the key
concept of the Plan: preventing the emergence of rival
powers. Like the original draft DPG of 1992, he states that
America's goal is to develop and maintain the military
strength necessary to ``dissuade'' rivals or adversaries from
``competing.'' with no challengers, and a proposed defense
budget of $379 billion for next year, the United States would
reign over all its surveys.
Reaction to the latest edition of the Plan has, thus far,
focused on preemption. Commentators parrot the
administration's line, portraying the concept of preemptory
strikes as a ``new'' strategy aimed at combating terrorism.
In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post following Bush's
West Point address, former Clinton adviser William Galston
described preemption as part of a ``brand-new security
doctrine,'' and warned of possible negative diplomatic
consequences. Others found the concept more appealing. Loren
Thompson of the conservative Lexington Institute hailed the
``Bush Doctrine'' as ``a necessary response to the new
dangers that America faces'' and declared it ``the biggest
shift in strategic thinking in two generations.'' Wall Street
Journal editor Robert Bartley echoed that sentiment, writing
that ``no talk of this ilk has been heard from American
leaders since John Foster Dulles talked of rolling back the
Iron Curtain.''
Preemption, of course, is just part of the Plan, and the
Plan is hardly new. It is a warmed-over version of the
strategy Cheney and his coauthors rolled out in 1992 as the
answer to the end of the Cold War. Then the goal was global
dominance, and it met with bad reviews. Now it is the answer
to terrorism. The emphasis is on preemption, and the reviews
are generally enthusiastic. Through all of this, the
dominance motif remains, though largely undetected.
This country once rejected ``unwarned'' attacks such as
Pearl Harbor as barbarous and unworthy of a civilized nation.
Today many cheer the prospect of conducting sneak attacks--
potentially with nuclear weapons--on piddling powers run by
tin-pot despots.
We also once denounced those who tried to rule the world.
Our primary objection (at least officially) to the Soviet
Union as its quest for global domination. Through the
successful employment of the tools of containment,
deterrence, collective security, and diplomacy--the very
methods we now reject--we rid ourselves and the world of the
Evil Empire. Having done so, we now pursue the very thing for
which we opposed it. And now that the Soviet Union is gone,
there appears to be no one left to stop us.
Perhaps, however, there is. The Bush Administration and its
loyal opposition seem not to grasp that the quests for
dominance generate backlash. Those threatened with preemption
may themselves launch preemptory strikes. And even those who
are successfully ``preempted'' or dominated may object and
find means to strike back. Pursuing such strategies may,
paradoxically, result in greater factionalism and rivalry,
precisely the things we seek to end.
Not all Americans share Colin Powell's desire to be ``the
bully on the block.'' In fact, some believe that by following
a different path the United States has an opportunity to
establish a more lasting security environment. As Dartmouth
professors Stephen Brooks and William Woblforth wrote
recently in Foreign Affairs, ``Unipolarity makes it possible
to be the global bully--but it also offers the United States
the luxury of being able to look beyond its immediate needs
to its own, and the world's, long-term interests. . . .
Magnanimity and restraint in the face of temptation are
tenets of successful statecraft that have proved their
worth.'' Perhaps, in short, we can achieve our desired ends
by means other than global domination.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15, 2002]
Don't Attack Saddam--It Would Undermine our Antiterror Efforts
(By Brent Scowcroft)
Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether
to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for
an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush
administration vows regime change, but states that no
decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an
invasion.
It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He
terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war
on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to
rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with
weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when
he is gone.
That said, we need to think through this issue very
carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq
and our other pressing priorities--notably the war on
terrorism--as well as the best strategy and tactics available
were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.
Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the
Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.
That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But
there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist
organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed
Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who
threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make
common cause with them.
He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass
destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons
to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and
leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these
weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open
him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the
U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a
power-hungry survivor.
Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with
traditional goals for his aggression. There is little
evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an
object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the
U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions.
He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists,
but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive
designs.
Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as
his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point
be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point
should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security
priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored
repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An
attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if
not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have
undertaken.
The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military
and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk.
On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with
serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and
could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to
conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash
whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in
1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf
conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he
might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with
nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East.
Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in
Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be
followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq,
whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert
us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.
Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an
attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment
persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-
it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military
operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The
most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism.
Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious
degradation in international cooperation with us against
terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war
without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on
intelligence.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in
the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is
principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the
region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we
were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--
which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to clearly
within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there
would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen
as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to
satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.
Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well
destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically
facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a
minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and
could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the
more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more
we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-
Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international
support for going after Saddam.
If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must
remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be
found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11,
that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather
than a competing priority, and significantly shift world
opinion toward support for regime change.
In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations
Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice
inspection regime for Iraq--any time, anywhere, no permission
required. On this point, senior administration officials have
opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an
inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to
keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all
his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not
uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the
persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have.
Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons
capability could have a similar effect.
[[Page H7764]]
In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate
interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping
counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much
potential for success across the entire range of our security
interests--including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive
perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against
terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region
of the world.
____
[From the New York Times, Aug. 25, 2002]
The Right Way To Change a Regime
(By James A. Baker III)
Pinedale, Wyo.--While there may be little evidence that
Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda or to the attacks of Sept. 11,
there is no question that its present government, under
Saddam Hussein, is an outlaw regime, is in violation of
United Nations Security Council resolutions, is embarked upon
a program of developing weapons of mass destruction and is a
threat to peace and stability, both in the Middle East and,
because of the risk of proliferation of these weapons, in
other parts of the globe. Peace-loving nations have a moral
responsibility to fight against the development and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogues like
Saddam Hussein. We owe it to our children and grandchildren
to do so, and leading that fight is, and must continue to be,
an important foreign policy priority for America.
And thus regime change in Iraq is the policy of the current
administration, just as it was the policy of its predecessor.
That being the case, the issue for policymakers to resolve is
not whether to use military force to achieve this, but how to
go about it.
Covert action has been tried before and failed every time,
Iraqi opposition groups are not strong enough to get the job
done. It will not happen through internal revolt, either of
the army or the civilian population. We would have to be
extremely lucky to take out the top leadership through
insertion into Iraq of a small rapid-strike force. And this
last approach carries significant political risks for the
administration, as President Jimmy Carter found out in April
1980.
The only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is
through the application of military force, including
sufficient ground troops to occupy the country (including
Baghdad), depose the current leadership and install a
successor government. Anyone who thinks we can effect regime
change in Iraq with anything less than this is simply not
realistic. It cannot be done on the cheap. It will require
substantial forces and substantial time to put those forces
in place to move. We had over 500,000 Americans, and more
soldiers from our many allies, for the Persian Gulf war.
There will be casualties, probably quite a few more than in
that war, since the Iraqis will be fighting to defend their
homeland. Sadly, there also will be civilian deaths. We will
face the problem of how long to occupy and administer a big,
fractious country and what type of government or
administration should follow. Finding Saddam Hussein and his
top associates will be difficult. It took us two weeks to
locate Manuel Noriega in Panama, a small country where we had
military bases.
Unless we do it in the right way, there will be costs to
other Americans foreign policy interests, including our
relationships with practically all other Arab countries (and
even many of our customary allies in Europe and elsewhere)
and perhaps even to our top foreign policy priority, the war
on terrorism.
Finally, there will be the cost to the American taxpayer of
a military undertaking of this magnitude. The Persian Gulf
war cost somewhere in the range of $60 billion, but we were
able to convince our many allies in that effort to bear the
brunt of the costs.
So how should we proceed to effect regime change in Iraq?
Although the United States could certainly succeed, we
should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the
president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing
so. The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the
political risks, both domestic and international, if we end
up going it alone or with only one or two other countries.
The president should do his best to stop his advisers and
their surrogates from playing out their differences publicly
and try to get everybody on the same page.
The United States should advocate the adoption by the
United Nations Security Council of a simple and
straightforward resolution that Iraq submit to intrusive
inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and
authorizing all necessary means to enforce it. Although it is
technically true that the United Nations already has
sufficient legal authority to deal with Iraq, the failure to
act when Saddam Hussein ejected the inspectors has weakened
that authority. Seeking new authorization now is necessary,
politically and practically, and will help build
international support.
Some will argue, as was done in 1990, that going for United
Nations authority and not getting it will weaken our case. I
disagree. By proposing to proceed in such a way, we will be
doing the right thing, both politically and substantively. We
will occupy the moral high ground and put the burden of
supporting an outlaw regime and proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction on any countries that vote no. History will
be an unkind judge for those who prefer to do business rather
than to do the right thing. And even if the administration
fails in the Security Council, it is still free--citing
Iraq's flouting of the international community's resolutions
and perhaps Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which
guarantees a nation's right to self-defense--to weigh the
costs versus the benefit of going forward alone.
Others will argue that this approach would give Saddam
Hussein a way out because he might agree and then begin the
``cheat-and-retreat'' tactics he used during the first
inspection regime. And so we must not be deterred. The first
time he resorts to these tactics, we should apply whatever
means are necessary to change the regime. And the
international community must know during the Security Council
debate that this will be our policy.
We should frankly recognize that our problem in
accomplishing regime change in Iraq is made more difficult by
the way our policy on the Arab-Israeli dispute is perceived
around the world. Sadly, in international politics, as in
domestic politics, perception is sometimes more important
than reality. We cannot allow our policy toward Iraq to be
linked to the Arab-Israeli dispute, as Saddam Hussein will
cynically demand, just as he did in 1990 and 1991. But to
avoid that, we need to move affirmatively, aggressively, and
in a fair and balanced way to implement the president's
vision for a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, as laid
out in his June speech. That means, of course, reform by
Palestinians and an end to terror tactics. But it also means
withdrawal by Israeli forces to positions occupied before
September 2000 and an immediate end to settlement activity.
If we are to change the regime in Iraq, we will have to
occupy the country militarily. The costs of doing so,
politically, economically and an terms of casualties, could
be great. They will be lessened if the president brings
together an international coalition behind the effort. Doing
so would also help in achieving the continuing support of the
American people, a necessary prerequisite for any successful
foreign policy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Spratt approach is the correct approach.
It says that the President, should go to the United Nations, go to Kofi
Annan and tell him that we authorize President Bush to use all of the
Armed Forces necessary to eliminate the chemical, the biological and
the nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein; and if Kofi Annan and the U.N.
say, ``no, we will not authorize that,'' then it says that the
President can come back to the United States Congress immediately, and
then we would authorize the President to go in to Iraq with any other
Nation in the world that would want to join us, and we will ensure that
the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein are
taken from his possession.
This is the way to go. If the U.N. says no, then we can say ``yes''
but the President has an obligation to go to the United Nations first
and to find out if Kofi Annan and the U.N. we will not forcibly ensure
that these weapons of mass destruction are confiscated.
Vote yes on Spratt.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my strong support for the
gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) substitute.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am deeply concerned
by the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction,
but I also strongly believe that the United States has a responsibility
as the world's only superpower to set a standard for international
behavior. We must consider every peaceable alternative and contemplate
every possible outcome before we turn to force.
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) amendment is
invaluable because it strengthens America's position at the United
Nations in support of new Security Council resolutions that Secretary
Powell is negotiating as we speak.
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) amendment sends a
strong signal to our allies and to Saddam that the United States is
committed to defeating the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
It ensures that our actions have international legitimacy and that,
just like in 1991, we share the cost of war with our allies instead of
putting the burden solely on the American people.
If we are unable to secure resolution at the U.N., it provides for
expedited congressional consideration of a joint resolution authorizing
the use of force.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
[[Page H7765]]
{time} 1145
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my colleague.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from my home State
for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this and many other
issues in this body.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who does not
believe Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has murdered his own people,
violated U.N. sanctions, and thumbed his nose at the world community.
However, this body and our Nation are deeply divided as to the proper
course of action at this juncture.
My cosponsorship of the Spratt amendment reflects that uncertainty
among my constituents. The American people and our allies around the
world have placed calls to my office expressing overwhelming lack of
support for preemptive military action. Shoot now and ask questions
later has never been the American way and it should not be it now.
It is an awesome responsibility to have the power to set events in
motion that could forever alter another country, an entire region, not
to mention our Nation's future relationships in the world community. We
should not put the lives of our youth at risk and further fuel the
fervor of terrorist actions against our homeland. We should not duck
our responsibilities as Members of Congress. I believe this substitute
is the best action to take at this particular juncture.
Many of us lived through Vietnam and saw its wretched effects on our
Nation. This is not the time to commit to an unpopular unilateral act
of aggression, especially one with such great potential for devastating
consequences.
Mr. Speaker, just because we can do it does not mean we should.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
History is an exciting adventure. On April 28, 1999, in this very
Chamber, right where we are now, this House voted to allow the
President, President Clinton, without any U.N. resolution, to take
military action: Bombing in Kosovo. And among those who voted to allow
the President to do this, without a U.N. resolution, but to go ahead,
gung ho, was virtually everybody that has spoken on that side of the
Chamber.
Absolutely, I applaud them. I do not know what changed them, why they
now demand we process this through the U.N., but they did not feel that
way back then, in April of 1999, and I have the rollcall if anybody
cares to see it. But everybody voted to bomb Kosovo. Now, is that
because that was President Clinton? There must be some explanation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong agreement with all of the
essential premises of the Spratt resolution and urge a ``no'' vote
because of its conclusion. The Spratt resolution, like the Lee
resolution before it, spells out precisely all of the reasons that we
are here today; that Saddam Hussein and Iraq have unconditionally
agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons there, ballistic
missiles, to stop the development and the seeking of nuclear weapons;
that Iraq unconditionally agreed to immediate inspections.
The Spratt resolution goes on to say, and would have this Congress
find, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein have ``flagrantly violated these
unconditional terms.'' The Spratt resolution goes on to say that Saddam
Hussein and Iraq are currently supporting international terrorism and
continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons and actively
seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. But
here, unlike the Lee resolution before it, the Spratt resolution does
not denounce the use of force but rather says that at this time we
should have a U.N. resolution that expressly authorizes the use of
force; and, if such a U.N. resolution is adopted, then, by section 3 of
this Spratt resolution, the Congress today would have anticipatorily
authorized the use of force, expressly authorized President Bush to use
military force to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
It even provides an expedited procedure for the President to get
Congressional authority for war if the U.N. does not act. In short,
this resolution, an alternative resolution that we are now considering,
accepts every single premise of House Joint Resolution 114 that is
supported by President Bush, the Speaker of the House, the Democratic
leader of the House, the Republican leader of the Senate, and, as of
today, the Democratic leader of the Senate.
The Spratt resolution accepts the operative conclusion of House Joint
Resolution 114 that the authorization of military force is essential.
It is essential if this time we are to succeed where 16 past U.N.
resolutions have failed. So the only real difference is that this
different way of going after all of the same objectives, based on all
of the same premises, this Rube Goldberg mechanism that we have set up,
will scuttle the broad agreement that has been reached among the House,
the Senate, and the executive and legislative branches, this consensus
that America will stand as one.
This resolution will jeopardize, in fact, passage of the very U.N.
resolution that it purports to support.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is
right, there are similarities in the two resolutions. The issue,
though, is whether we are going to emphasize going together or going it
alone. The difference is whether we are going to emphasize collective
action, trying the U.N. first, or whether we are going to give to this
President now the right to act unilaterally, without going back to this
Congress.
We will strengthen the voice of the American people and we will speak
with one voice more under the Spratt resolution because there is a
division in this House under the resolution that has been brought forth
on the majority side. If we want to speak with one voice, let us say
try collective action. If it works, we will have acted together, as we
did in Bosnia through NATO. If it does not, Mr. President, come back
here on an expedited basis and we will act. That is the best chance for
one voice.
A very vital vote here today will be on the Spratt resolution. I
think it is the wise way to go and is consonant with where the American
people are.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his extraordinary leadership in presenting this option to
the House of Representatives. I also want to commend him for his
leadership as a person who speaks for our Armed Services in this
Congress, his commitment to provide for the common defense, as provided
for in the Preamble of our Constitution. Today, we are all benefiting
from his wisdom.
The Spratt substitute, Mr. Speaker, captures many of the concerns of
the American people who overwhelmingly support a multilateral approach
to dealing with Saddam Hussein. The Spratt substitute also honors the
Constitution when it says that Congress shall declare war.
Some who have opposed the Spratt substitute have done so on the basis
that we do not have time to come back to the Congress. This is simply
not true. As called for in the Spratt substitute, should the Security
Council fail to act in a satisfactory way, we come back to the
Congress.
I want to speak to the issue of time by quoting what is now
declassified but is contained in a letter from the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency to the chairman of the Senate Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, this letter, signed by George Tenet.
When asked if Saddam did not feel threatened, is it likely he would
initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction, the Director of
Central Intelligence responds in this letter and says, ``My judgment
would be that the probability of him,'' Saddam, ``initiating an attack,
let me put a time frame on it, in the foreseeable future, given the
conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.''
This is the Director of Central Intelligence saying the likelihood of
Saddam initiating an attack using weapons of mass destruction, the
likelihood, would be low. So it is not about time. It is about the
Constitution. It is about
[[Page H7766]]
this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully
aware of what the challenges are to us, and it is about respecting the
United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our
troops.
Force protection. I have been on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence for 10 years, longer than anyone. My service there is
coming to an end. But in the time that I have been there, force
protection is one of our top priorities, to protect the men and women
in uniform.
This letter goes on to say, ``If we initiate an attack,'' if he felt
he was threatened, ``if we initiate an attack and he thought he was in
extremis or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack
that he would use chemical and biological weapons?'' The response,
``Pretty high.''
We are placing our young people in harm's way in a way that can be
avoided by taking a multilateral approach first. I commend the
gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership. I will support this
with great pride, and I thank him for giving us that opportunity.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time I
have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. And the gentleman from Illinois has the right to close,
or do I have the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has
the right to close.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
respond to some arguments that have been raised. Let me go back to
Public Law 102-1; the allegation that somehow, somewhere this bill
supplants it.
Far from supplanting that bill, which was the Afghan War Powers Act,
we reassert in this legislation the primacy of our policy, and that is
to go after al Qaeda. We do that by saying to the President, before we
go off in pursuit of another armed objective, military objective, we
want you to tell us that this is not going to divert our focus from the
primary objective, which is to get the guys that did what they did in
New York on 9/11. We do not want to divert or dilute our focus from
that at all. That is in the centerpiece of this particular bill.
My good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has said that
many of us on this side of the aisle voted for action in Kosovo. I did.
And I am proud of it because we stopped another butchery in the
backyard of Europe by doing so. We did not go to the U.N. then, and the
gentleman knows why. Because the Russians are on the Security Council
and they would have blocked us.
Politics and diplomacy is a pragmatic thing. That is why we did not
go there. But it was multilateral, because it was an undertaking by
NATO, and we tried to use collective defense in that particular case.
It simply proves the points.
Now, let me say something else that I said at the outset because it
is important. A lot of good people have argued that we are relying too
much, too heavily on the U.N., and specifically on the Security
Council, because that is really the body that applies here. But I was
here in 1991, and when President Bush asked for a vote to go to war in
the Persian Gulf, I was one of 86 on this side of the aisle who said
you have got my support, Mr. President.
{time} 1200
But remember what he did then, just days after Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, President Bush said this invasion will not stand, but he also
declared his vision was nothing less than a new world order. His words,
a new world order.
He turned first to the United Nations and went to the Security
Council and got the first in a series of resolutions that culminated in
Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force. President Bush
obtained all those Security Council resolutions, with our support, but
without an express war powers resolution until literally days before
the war began.
Rather than asserting that he could go it alone, stiffing the
Security Council, he sought the Security Council approval. He sought
allies to stand with us and cover approximately $62 billion out of the
$66 billion total cost of the war. The result, a successful military
action, a successful diplomacy, and I think a model worth emulating.
And that is exactly what this resolution does.
Where does this resolution come from? A couple of weeks ago, we had
one of the last of the general officers who testified before our
committee who has experience in this area, Wes Clarke, whom I greatly
respect. He is certainly no warrior who shrinks from a fight. He was
always advocating force in Bosnia to straighten out that situation
there and in the Balkans.
Here is what he told us. He said, First of all, time is on your side
right now. Make the maximum advantage of it. First go for beefed-up
arms inspections, a more truthful inspections program. This will have a
couple of benefits. It will constrain Saddam, and it will give you
legitimacy when he ultimately bucks you.
Secondly, he said, our diplomacy will be further strengthened if we
have an act adopted by Congress expressing our resolve to use force if
necessary. But he said the resolution need not at this point authorize
the use of force. It need simply agree on the intent to authorize the
use of force if other measures fail.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done, both of those things.
Finally, he said, If efforts to resolve the problems by the United
Nations fail, seek the broadest possible coalition to bring force to
bear.
We have done what General Clark has recommended. It is embodied in
this resolution. It follows the precedent set by President Bush. It is
worthy of every Member's support, and I hope Members will vote for it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthy, appropriate debate
and could not be more serious.
The gentleman from Connecticut, a very good friend of mine whom I
admire greatly, indicated that, in his opinion, the Spratt resolution
would strengthen the hand of the President.
Here is what the President believes. He rejects that. He does not
believe that the Spratt resolution strengthens his hand.
He asked us Monday night to come together and speak with one voice.
What has happened over the last few weeks is amazing, and the American
public should rejoice in it. The Speaker of the House, the minority
leader, a group of bipartisan Senators, McCain and Lieberman and
others, have sat down with the White House and have structured a
resolution that gives a one-voice approach to a very serious problem
for our country.
I am not here to tell Members that they should follow blindly their
President or their leadership. God knows, I have never been accused of
that. But in matters such as this, we must try to achieve consensus
because so much is at stake.
Many watch what we say and do here. Please do not believe otherwise.
We will either be stronger, or weaker, in our ability to negotiate and
to make the world safer. There is strength in Hastert, Gephardt, Hyde
and Lantos. The strength comes from the Speaker, the minority leader,
committee chairmen and ranking members and the President reaching
consensus. No disrespect to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), but that is strength. The Spratt resolution would show
weakness.
It would be a defeat for the House leadership. It would be a defeat
for our President. Other Members can write the headlines tomorrow. I
choose not to write that headline because our enemies are watching, and
they read.
The Spratt resolution, I think, is ill-advised and ill-structured. To
suggest that our President is not working with the United Nations would
be wrong. The Speaker, the minority leader, and a bipartisan group of
Senators believe he is; and the facts are clear that he is. He is
working with our allies. He is trying to find a way to disarm this
terrible, evil person before he does more damage.
The resolution that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is
asking us to adopt not only would be a
[[Page H7767]]
rejection of this consensus, but it would mandate by U.S. law that the
United Nations act before the President can act.
I speak again. The U.S. Congress would be telling the President he
must go to the U.N. and he must win their political game. We would be
making our President win a political game that I do not want to put him
in.
I believe the resolution is clear on what would be required of the
President before he could act. U.N. politics takes a dominance in the
Spratt amendment, not the one we are trying to support here today.
If he loses the U.N. political battle, the President comes back to
this body, and just imagine the frenzy. Write those headlines. The
President comes back a loser in U.N. politics, and the forces in this
world will seize upon that, and we will be weaker, not stronger, more
division, a horrible scenario. Please reject it. I know many Members
want to vote yes/yes. That may be good politics, but it would be bad
for the country.
Mr. Speaker, there are forces for good in this world, none greater
than the U.S. Congress. Use our powers wisely. The world is watching.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind Members that positions
of Senators may not be characterized beyond identifying a Senator as a
sponsor of a measure.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to
H.J. Res. 114. I applaud the respected gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Spratt, for his hard work and good sense on this amendment.
This proposal is not perfect. I also question whether this amendment
will, in practice, serve as an adequate check on the Administration's
rush to act unilaterally in Iraq.
But this Amendment is by far the best option we have on the floor
today. It recognizes what the other two options on the floor do not:
that while the U.S. may ultimately need to act alone to disarm Iraq, we
should do so only if it is absolutely necessary.
The Spratt Amendment authorizes the use of the U.S. armed forces to
support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the
elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
If, in the absence of a satisfactory U.N. Security Council
resolution, the President determines it is necessary to proceed with
force, it calls on the President to seek the authorization of Congress
and provides expedited consideration for authorization.
I firmly believe that military force should not be used until after
the U.N. inspections. Force should not be used until all diplomatic
channels have been exercised. And we should clearly understand what
will be required for rebuilding the country. There are several good
aspects of the Spratt Resolution worth emphasizing: it discusses force
in the context of disarming Saddam Hussein, not as regime change; it
places the burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.N. Security
Council; and it allows the U.S. to act if the Security Council does not
adequately fulfill its responsibility.
This is a reasoned approach that rejects the use of unilateral
action, of preemptive action, and preserves the checks and balances
that are required of our government.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the Spratt amendment
because it provides many safeguards to war--it authorizes the use of
force through a new UN Security Council Resolution; however, should the
UN not adopt a resolution sanctioning the use of force or not take any
action at all, the amendment would allow the President, if he deemed
the UN Security Council's action insufficient, to come to Congress to
obtain authorization to use the United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. Most importantly, the Spratt amendment allows Congress to retain
its rightful role in the constitutional process as the body having the
authority to declare war.
The Spratt amendment is an especially important safeguard--becasue it
would give the United Nations, essentially, the World, time to examine
the threat that Hussein poses and then, in a sobering fashion, make a
determination as to whether a new resolution regarding the elimination
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be adopted or whether to
use of force is the appropriate response to the threat that Saddam
Hussein poses.
We must not move hastily to the sobering decision to use force
against another country. As it was discovered yesterday, it is now
known that the CIA has concluded Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate
a chemical or biological attack against the United States. Based on
this CIA assessment, an attack on Iraq could provide the very thing the
President claims he is trying to forestall--the use of chemical or
biological weapons by Saddam.
I believe it is extremely important that exhaust all avenues of
peace, make use of all safeguards prior to sending our troops into
battle. We cannot be injudicious, premature or inaccurate in our
decision to go to war. The Spratt amendment makes the possibility of a
unilateral attack on Iraq the last option--not the first. Lets give the
UN and the U.S. a greater ability work towards a peaceful resolution of
our concerns with Saddam Hussein.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, the substitute amendment introduced by Mr.
Spratt improves on the base resolution, H.J. Res. 114, because it
requires that the United States continue working with the United
Nations to enforce existing Security Council Resolutions and to craft
stronger resolutions addressing concerns over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. Instead of simply handing the President a blank
check to wage war, this amendment urges the President to continue
working with the UN Security Council.
I will vote for the Spratt amendment because I believe it is a better
alternative than the base resolution. I do not believe that the
amendment will pass. If it does, however, I will vote No on final
passage because I do not believe that the Spratt amendment does enough
to explore all options resorting to war.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we face today one of the most important
questions that can ever come before us as Members of Congress: whether
to authorize the use of force, and commit the men and women of our
armed forces to defend liberty and to protect the United States, at the
possible cost of their lives--and the lives of many in a country far
from our shores.
It is an issue Americans care deeply about. I have received hundreds
of calls during the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are
raising similar and very serious concerns.
They are suspicious of the timing of this debate. They see political
overtones to it, and question whether this vote is being used as
political purposes.
Many are worried about the precedent of a preemptive and unilateral
attack, and how that precedent might be used by other countries looking
to justify aggressive and hostile acts.
Others have expressed doubts about the Bush Administration's handling
of foreign policy. They point to the Administration's abysmal record on
a series of international efforts, including the Kyoto Protocol, the
Biological Weapons Convention, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
with Russia. The Administration has created its own credibility problem
by consistently going its own way instead of being the leader of a
world coalition.
Many callers have told me they don't see evidence that Saddam Hussein
poses a current threat to the United States. They think terrorism by Al
Qaeda is a greater and more immediate danger, and that Iraq is a
diversion from our failure to capture Osama bin Laden.
And over and over I've been told that war should be a last resort.
Unfortunately, to many of my constituents, the Administration has
created the perception that war with Iraq is our first and only resort.
All of those concerns have been on my mind as I've deliberated on
this vote. I've spent the good part of these last few weeks listening
to experts from this Administration, from the Clinton Administration,
and from non-partisan, independent organizations. I've tried to sort
out what we know to be true and what we just suspect to be true. And
I've tried to evaluate our best course when faced with the uncertain
but potentially catastrophic threat that Saddam poses and the
unpredictable horror a war can bring.
Eleven years ago, in the face of Saddam's aggression against Kuwait,
I voted reluctantly to oppose the use of force. I thought then that
more time should be given to diplomacy, and to the enforcement of
sanctions against Iraq. But once Congress acted, there was no question
of the commitment of all of us to the success of Desert Storm. The
liberation of Kuwait was effected; our casualties were thankfully quite
small; and stability was, for an extended period of time, restored to
the region.
To be certain, many of us thought, and fervently hoped, that the
crushing military defeat suffered by Saddam would result in his
overthrow. Other monstrous dictators--such as Milosevic in Serbia--have
crumbled in the face of far less of an onslaught. It is a mark of
Saddam's cunning and ruthlessness that he survived the upheavals in his
country that did unfold after the Gulf War, that he is still in power,
and that he is still able to oppress his people.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy
towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games
the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and
legitimate
[[Page H7768]]
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States
and our allies. Those are simply the facts.
And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last
U.N. weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of
Saddam's willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.
What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain--but
there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime
Minister of Britain, to President Bush's speech at the United Nations,
that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons
stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to
produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are
on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on
harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East,
and our friends across the globe.
We know Saddam quite well. We know he kills a lot of people, even in
his own family. We know when he gives his word it cannot be trusted. We
know he is a shameless propagandist. We recall that he held women and
children hostage for a time in Baghdad as human shields in 1990 to try
to deter armed attack to liberate Kuwait. We know what he does to his
own people in the north and south of his country and what he did to his
neighbors in Iran and Kuwait.
We also know that Saddam is the patron saint of the homicide bombers
in Israel. He pays their families when their youth go to kingdom-come
from the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Iraq, under Saddam, is
one of only seven nations designated as a state sponsor of terrorism
because of his aid and training of terrorists, according to the U.S.
State Department.
Wehter he is tied in with al-Qaeda is still subject to debate, but
they share an intense hatred for the United States, Israel, and our
allies, and in their willingness to attack civilians to achieve their
purposes.
In a perfect world the Iraqi people would have been able to seize
their destiny and liberate their country. In a perfect world the U.N.
resolutions calling for Saddam's disarmament would have been properly
enforced.
But this is not a perfect world, and so today we struggle with how
best to achieve that disarmament. That is our objective--our debate
today is over the right means to that necessary end.
Eleven years ago, the United Nations Security Council approved a
resolution calling for the liberation of Kuwait, and the disarmament of
Saddam. This occurred before we voted in Congress to authorize the use
of force against Iraq in January 1991.
Eleven years ago, in other words, we in Congress were voting to
endorse the consensus reached in the United Nations over what the world
should do to repel Saddam's aggression in the region and provide the
basis for an Iraq that could not threaten its neighbors via war or
weapons of mass destruction.
Today, the order is reversed and it is the Congress that is voting
first on a resolution of war. And that is being done in the hope that
it will help force a consensus in the United Nations so that the
world--not just the United States--can pursue these issues on the
soundest possible basis, with the strongest degree of support from as
many nations as possible.
This is why we have to get this resolution right. And this is why I
strongly support the substitute, which emphasizes action by the UN and
the international community. It outlines the importance of working with
a coalition, and before American lives are placed at risk, exhausting
all other options through diplomacy and unfettered inspections. We
should do all we can to secure a Security Council endorsement for an
invasion of Iraq, and possibly to avoid a war by forcing Saddam to
abide by the UN requirements for disarmament.
War must always be a last resort. In my view, Saddam has nearly
brought us to that point. We have tried containment and sanctions over
the last ten years, and both have failed. Sanctions hurt the people of
Iraq and Saddam did not care about them. Inspections have failed
because he has frustrated the inspectors and eventually forced them out
of his country four years ago.
We've tried surgical strikes on his facilities and no fly zones over
large parts of his territory. He has responded by continuing to try to
obtain weapons of mass destruction. He has turned the humanitarian
efforts to allow oil sales for food into a $2 billion pot of money for
weapons.
In light of all this, if the UN does not act, it not only leaves
Saddam unchecked but it undermines, perhaps fatally, the purpose of
having or supporting a UN in the first place.
If the UN does not or cannot act, the substitute does nothing to
compromise the ability of the Congress to authorize the use of force to
protect America's interests--unilaterally if necessary--if we believe
it necessary at a later time.
Under the substitute, we sacrifice none of our sovereignty--none--and
maximize every opportunity for diplomacy and consensus. The substitute
correctly recognizes that should we reach the point of last resort,
that is the time for Congress to declare war.
For all those reasons, I urge the House of Representatives to adopt
the substitute and hope it will be the course we follow. It is the
better choice and is the one most of my constituents and other
Americans support.
It is possible, however, that the substitute will be defeated. The
question, then, is whether to support the Resolution President Bush has
sent us, as modified through negotiations with Representative Richard
Gephardt, the House Democratic Leader.
Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush's domestic
policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his
conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present
course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and
when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf
and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be
even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly
outweigh the risks of action.
Despite my misgivings about the President's approach, I believe it's
essential that Congress send the strongest bipartisan signal of unity
possible so the U.N. will act. Some have even suggested that taking the
threat of force out of the equation might undermine that result.
In a post September 11 world, it is important we speak with one voice
and send one message--particularly when the lives of our men and women
in the armed forces are at stake.
And it is important that we not send a confused signal to Iraq, so
that there be no doubt about our resolve.
Mr. Speaker, the goal I want is decisive U.N. action and the
effective disarmament of Iraq. The substitute achieves that goal and
should be approved. But if it is defeated, I believe supporting the
President's proposal brings us closer to realizing that goal than
defeating the Resolution.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support the President's
resolution if it is before us.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding me this time, and for his important leadership on this
critical issue and so many others.
I support the Spratt substitute because it is simply the right
resolution for this House to adopt.
It is not soft on Iraq.
It requires that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed.
It places the decisions Congress must make in their proper order.
It strengthens the role of the United States to build consensus and
lead the international community through the U.N. Security Council.
Most importantly, the Spratt substitute ensures that war, if needed,
is the last option exercised, not the first.
And should Congress need to act on a resolution to authorize military
force, we would at least have the benefit of debating a well-defined
mission for our troops.
Unlike the current resolution that provides no clues as to what we
are actually committing our troops to do, the Spratt substitute ensures
that we in the United States Congress remain accountable to the
American people and our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities.
The Spratt amendment reflects the successful model used by then-
President Bush in 1991.
It is a model worth following.
I ask all my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the United States is both blessed and
burdened with enormous power. We have a responsibility to our
constituents, to our country, and to the world, to ensure that the
United States wields this power wisely.
That's why I rise today in support of an amendment offered by
Representative Spratt of South Carolina, which recognizes the threat
posed by Iraq and ensures that Congress deals with this threat
appropriately. This amendment challenges the United Nations to live up
to its responsibilities by forcing Iraq to abide by its commitments to
the international community. It places value in multilateral action,
but also recognizes the reality that sometimes the United States must
be prepared to act alone. This is an amendment that each of us can
support with a clear conscience.
The amendment encourages the President to continue working with the
U.N. to craft a tough Security Council Resolution that leaves no room
for Saddam Hussein to delay or impede weapons inspections on his
territory, under the threat of immediate multilateral force.
Should the U.N. shirk or fail in its duty, Congress should then
consider, in an expedited fashion, the authorization of force to be
used against Iraq. That way, we will vote with the full knowledge that
all diplomatic efforts have indeed failed. It is at that time and at
that time alone, that we, as Members of Congress entrusted with the
solemn and terrible duty to
[[Page H7769]]
send our young men and women to war, should be called upon to cast that
vote. In short, Congress should vote to authorize force when and only
when there is no other option.
We are fortunate to have before us the opportunity to craft a
sensible and responsible policy for the United States, one that
reflects, I believe, the very reasonable view of the majority of
Americans. Americans are not hungry for war. We do not seek conflict,
but neither do we shrink from our responsibilities. We will go to war
only when we must--but not a moment before.
But now Congress is faced with a vote on a resolution that asks us to
authorize a war that may not be necessary at this particular time.
That's not how Congress has dealt with issues of war and peace in the
past, and there's no reason to violate that precedent now. A premature
authorization of force is inconsistent with the traditions of the
Congress and the character of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, we can and must act to deal with the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein. But Congress should not grant this authority
prematurely, nor should we seek to do so. The Spratt amendment treats
this matter with the gravity and circumspection it deserves. I urge my
colleagues to consider carefully the alternatives before them, to vote
yes for the Spratt amendment, and no on the majority resolution.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 155,
nays 270, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 453]
YEAS--155
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--270
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Barr
Cooksey
Fletcher
Ortiz
Roukema
Stump
{time} 1228
Messrs. BAKER, FLAKE, RUSH, SCHAFFER, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to proceed
to a final period of debate on the joint resolution, as amended.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, casting a vote over whether to authorize
military action may be the most difficult decision a member of Congress
is asked to make. It certainly is for me. No matter who the opponent or
what the circumstances, the consequences of a collective ``yes'' vote
likely will be the loss of life. But failure to act holds the potential
of even more terrible outcomes. Such a vote presents an excruciating
moral dilemma.
For the past year, our nation has been engaged in a great civic
debate. How do we protect our nation from those who would do us harm?
How can we ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren here and
around the world? Should we take action against potentially hostile
nations? These are questions without simple answers.
President George W. Bush asked Congress to grant him the authority to
take military action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as
part of our war on terrorism. No member of Congress takes such a
request lightly. We may have different views and concerns, but each of
us deals with this issue very seriously and solemnly.
On such issues, persons are often characterized as hawks or doves. I
am neither. Instead, I seek to be wise as an owl. I listened to the
concerns voiced by many of my constituents. I wrote President Bush
informing him of their concerns and seeking answers to their questions
and mine. I studied Saddam Hussein and his past actions. I sought and
received extensive briefings from
[[Page H7770]]
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, the Central Intelligence Agency and others. And, because of
my scientific background, I also received a detailed scientific
briefing from civilian officials at the Pentagon about Saddam Hussein's
weapons capabilities.
This information has convinced me of several things. Saddam Hussein
continues to have dangerous, warlike ambitions. He is Hitler-like in
his methods of repression, especially in gassing his own people. He has
thumbed his nose at the United Nations by evicting inspectors and using
the UN's ``oil-for-food'' program to fund weapons rather than feed his
impoverished people.
Saddam Hussein continues, in violation of the U.N.'s sanctions and
the peace agreement he signed, to develop and produce chemical and
biological weapons for war and terror. Most troubling, he continues to
develop nuclear weapons and may be as little as a year or two away from
success. As a nuclear physicist, I know the destructive force of
nuclear weapons. If a weapon of the type he is developing was detonated
over Calder Plaza, the blast would devastate all of Grand Rapids and
the near suburbs, a firestorm would consume the rest of the suburbs and
a lethal dose of radiation would envelop much of the downwind area. All
told, upwards of 300,000 people would be killed. Saddam Hussein's
regime poses a very real threat to the safety of the United States, the
safety of his own people and, indeed, the safety of the rest of the
world.
Early in this debate, I thought President Bush and his advisers were
seeking to strike Iraq preemptively. But I found they view that as a
final alternative, not a first step. The Bush Administration continues
to work with the U.N. and our allies to build a coalition and seek a
peaceful end to this situation through inspections and disarmament.
However, we must grant the President the power to take action against
Iraq because Hussein will not acquiesce until he faces a superior
force. We may have to put troops on Iraq's border before he will
comply, but I hope, along with many others in Congress and the
Administration, that military action ultimately will not be necessary.
I abhor the idea of the U.S. making a preemptive strike. Our
philosophy has always been to take the first punch before we act. But
when the first punch can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands
of people, we must consider ways to stop that first punch.
I commend President Bush for his recent speeches in which he more
clearly stated his intentions and reasons for requesting this
resolution. I also commend him for working with Congress to craft a
resolution that is not as broad as his original proposal and meets many
of the concerns raised by Congress and our constituents. The
legislative process has worked in structuring the approach and limiting
action to only Iraq.
And so, after many days and weeks of thoughtful and prayerful
consideration, I've decided to support this resolution. In this case,
I've concluded not acting is more dangerous than acting.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my dear
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in June of 2000, President Clinton allowed
me the great honor to take some veterans back to Korea in commemoration
of the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. They were all members of the
Second Infantry Division. We left Fort Lewis, Washington, in July and
August of 1950, and we had left more men behind dead than came home.
The raggedy group of veterans that went back, all black because we
were in a segregated infantry unit, most had not gone to college, and,
like myself, some had not even finished high school, we thought then
that we were fighting for our country. But the more education I got,
the more sophisticated I got, I realized we were fighting for the
United Nations.
Then when I became a Member of Congress and I led this same group of
tattered veterans back to the same battlefields, they asked, why did
Congress send them to South Korea and expose them to North Korean and
Chinese warfare? And I had to tell them that this Congress never did
send them there. No vote was ever taken in this Congress to say that
they were at war with the people of North Korea or the People's
Republic of China.
I made a vow to them, and I am keeping it today, that never will I
delegate the responsibility of considering the dangers of war. I will
not leave it to the President, unless he brings me evidence that we are
in danger. I will not give it to the United Nations, because I do not
believe that this sacred responsibility should be transferred. And I do
believe that each and every one of those veterans, if they thought our
beloved country was in trouble, would be the first to stand up to
salute the flag and be prepared to destroy what enemy we had,
preemptive or not.
I am against this resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
I rise today in strong support of this resolution, authorizing the
use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq and the dictatorial
regime of Saddam Hussein. Our President needs the assurance of this
body that it will support his actions to keep our nation and the global
community safe, from the current Iraqi government and its demonstrated
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
As the Administration continues its negotiations with members of the
United Nations Security Council, to compel Iraqi compliance with
current U.N. resolutions, the rest of the world must know that we stand
united in our actions. The United States government can not allow
Saddam Hussein's continued development of chemical and biological
agents and weapons of mass destruction. These actions are in direct
violation of Iraq's obligations under the 1991 cease-fire agreement
that brought an end to the Gulf War.
I was a member of this body during the 102nd Congress and do not
consider lightly any congressional action that may lead to the loss of
American Servicemen's lives, or those of innocent civilians. Let us be
clear about what we are communicating with this resolution here today.
Because it is vital to United States' national security, we are
supporting the President's efforts through the UN Security Council ``to
ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and
noncompliance and promptly and strictly'' abides by all relevant
Security Council resolutions. We are calling for war.
President Bush has made clear his commitment to work with the United
Nations to address the common threat posed by the Iraqi regime but we
can not restrict his options for protecting the American people. I have
full confidence in our President and Administration to continue
productive negotiations; and, if the decision is made necessary, lead
this country in effective military action to bring an end to this clear
and present danger.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin)
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as I have traveled through Wyoming, my fellow citizens
have made their feelings very clear on the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein, the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction and the
threat posed by his support of terrorism.
They support the President's actions to ensure that Saddam Hussein's
arsenal of chemical and biological weapons is totally dismantled, his
ties to terrorist organizations are severed and the people of Iraq are
given a chance to emerge from Saddam's oppressive shadow. The people of
Wyoming hope and pray for peace, but they will not accept peace at the
price of fear.
Wyoming has a proud history of defending our Nation, from the
Peacekeeper and the Minuteman missile silos based in our State that
helped win the Cold War, to our many sons and daughters who made the
ultimate sacrifice in the defense of liberty.
One of the first casualties in our war on terror was a young man from
Cheyenne, Wyoming. His name was John Edmunds. Should we let this threat
build and tell John Edmunds' widow and his parents, Donn and Mary, that
his death was in vain, that it did not
[[Page H7771]]
mean anything? How would we explain that we lacked the will to finish
what we started? By explaining that the U.N. was not ready?
Saddam Hussein has long been an enemy of humanity and freedom. He has
murdered his own people with poison gas. He has attempted to
assassinate an American president. He heaps praise on homicide bombers
and rewards their families. Right now, as we debate in this Chamber,
agents work to provide him with nuclear weapons. Should we wait a
little longer to see if he gets it right this time?
I understand that some in Congress are concerned about international
support of his actions. But our first obligation is not to European
governments like Paris or Berlin. It is to the safety and the security
of the people of the United States of America.
In an ideal world, we would not have to go it alone, and I believe we
will not have to go it alone. But thanks to the likes of Saddam
Hussein, this is not an ideal world. Saddam has made it clear to the
world where he stands. Now Congress must let the world know where we
stand, against him and with our President.
Mr. Speaker, I end with a final question: Ask yourselves, why does
Saddam Hussein seek an atom bomb? The people of Wyoming know. I know. I
believe we all know.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a distinguished
member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was a fervent opponent of the Vietnam War
and a strong supporter of sensible detente with the Soviet Union. But
under today's circumstances, the best way to give peace a chance and to
save the most lives, American and Iraqi, is for America to stand united
and for Congress to authorize the President to use force if Saddam does
not give up his weapons of mass destruction. Confront Saddam now, or
pay a much heavier price later.
We dismissed the first World Trade Center bombing as an isolated
incident. When two embassies were bombed, we failed to see the broader
implication of those acts. When the USS Cole was attacked, still we did
not read the handwriting on the wall. It was irrational, we thought,
that madmen would grow bold enough to attack America on her own shores.
We wanted to give peace a chance.
But then came 9/11, and it is time to say ``no more.'' The Democratic
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and many of my
colleagues have told us why a yes vote is necessary.
We have brought key members of the Clinton national security team to
the Hill, architects of our past policy to contain Saddam. These
foreign policy experts from the Democratic Party have told us to a
person that containment will no longer do the job and that the policy
we are asked to endorse today is the right one for a peace-loving
people.
On the issue of Saddam Hussein, I have some experience. I begged both
the Reagan and first Bush administrations to stop selling Iraq
materials and technology that could be used for weapons of mass
destruction, to put Iraq on the terrorist list, to impose economic
sanctions. Saddam, with a nuclear weapon, is too horrifying to
contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate.
As one who has watched this man for 20 years, let me pose an analogy.
It is just an analogy, because I reject the unproven efforts to tie
Saddam to the events of 9/11.
We are on an airplane, and we know that a few passengers have
smuggled box cutters on board. We know these passengers have taken
courses to learn how to fly a jumbo jet. We know that their friends
have already flown a small plane into a building, killing hundreds of
their own neighbors. But those armed passengers have not yet lunged for
the cockpit.
What should a peace loving people do? We know that people sitting
near these dangerous passengers could be hurt if we take aggressive
action. Should we wait until they kill the pilot and take over the
airplane before we act? Of course not. We admire those with the courage
to surround the armed passengers and demand that they give up their
weapons under threat of force. That is what this resolution does.
Is the threat imminent? Well, surely Saddam has box cutters, Saddam
has a history of using them, Saddam is in the process of upgrading the
box cutters, Saddam has boarded the plane with the box cutters.
Confront Saddam now, or pay a much heavier price later.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the Chairman of our
Conference.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution
before the House today. Our Nation and our military may very well need
to right the wrongs being perpetrated from an evil dictatorship in
Iraq. Saddam Hussein poses a long-term threat that could jeopardize the
freedoms and the way of life enjoyed by Americans from coast to coast,
from border to border, a threat that grows more menacing over time.
I have listened to some of the debate over the last several hours,
over the last 24 hours. It has been said time and time again that there
is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, I would say to all that would say that, if you want
evidence, look no further than September 11, 2001.
I am pleased the President has sought congressional approval for
possible military action and has worked diligently with Congress to
craft a resolution that is both appropriate and constitutional. There
are very few things Congress is explicitly given the sole authority to
execute; to declare war is one of them. Article I, section 8 is very
clear on that point.
These 24 hours, 24-plus hours reserved for debate on this question is
more than we debated Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo combined. President Bush
should be commended for acknowledging Congress's authority with regard
to any military action in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this leads us to the merits of authorizing such a
serious action. Putting our Armed Forces into harm's way should never
be an easy decision for anyone. As one who represents a district with
two significant Air Force bases and a large Army post, I have talked
with countless active duty personnel and military families during my
service here in Congress. The pilots, the airmen, soldiers, and other
highly trained heroes at Tinker Air Force Base, Altus Air Force Base,
Fort Sill Army Post are my friends, my neighbors, they are my
constituents. I care deeply for these brave Americans.
They understand, like so many across this country, that freedom is
not free, liberty is not easy, and keeping the peace often requires
sacrifice. America did not become the leader of the Free World by
looking the other way to heinous atrocities and unspeakable evils.
The President told the Nation this past Monday that Iraq has a
massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that has never
been accounted for, that is capable of killing millions and millions of
people. Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding
facilities it used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons.
Mark my words on the latter form of destruction. The moment Saddam
Hussein acquires a nuclear weapon is the moment the world will be in
even more danger, grave danger. I hope my colleagues will reflect
deeply on this chilling possibility.
Some people have pondered whether a military strike in Iraq would be
just. Will the action of our government constitute a just war? Saint
Augustine, the father of just war theory said, ``A just war is wont to
be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or State has to
be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by
its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.''
This Congress must decide whether the situation in Iraq warrants
military response. I am with the President. I believe this vote
supports the just war theory when Saint Augustine wrote, ``We do not
seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have
peace.''
[[Page H7772]]
Saddam Hussein has murdered his own people. His record on human
rights is abysmal. He has aided and abetted terrorists. He hates
America, he hates freedom, he hates independence, he hates our allies.
He hates us.
Mr. Speaker, at this very hour, we know a tyrant in Iraq is devising
great evil. We know harm is inevitable if nuclear weapons are indeed
acquired by Saddam Hussein. As testimony by a former Iraqi scientist
before the Committee on Armed Services said, as he revealed last week,
Saddam is on a break-neck pace to acquire those very weapons. I hope my
colleagues put their trust and confidence in our military, America's
sons and daughters, who love freedom and love liberty, to wage a worthy
and just cause.
Military options are the President's last choice. But we must give
him the prerogative if the situation in Iraq requires the use of force.
I urge the House to pass this legislation to support the President,
support our Armed Forces, and support freedom throughout the world. We
will prevail. As the President said, we must prevail. Vote ``yes'' on
this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member,
distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to the occasional charge of ``hand-
wringing'' and ``weakness'' leveled at the many of us who are voting
today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this
statement: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into
an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and
political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United
States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly
hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps
barren--outcome.''
But this statement comes from American patriots, our first President
Bush and his National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, in explaining
why they rejected the approach some urge today.
As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of
Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful
arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and
military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni.
Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young
Americans who die to win this war, nor on those of the American
families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war
on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too
many will view as a new crusade against Islam.
Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote ``no''
today? We respond not just to those we represent but, most of all,
because individually we must answer to the face we see each day in the
mirror. We must answer to history. We must answer to our children and
our grandchildren.
When more than one of every four members of this House cast our vote
against this ill-considered resolution, we vote not against President
Bush, who deserves our support and respect, but aware of the
conflicting advice he is still receiving we say: listen to the voices
of your better nature. The prudent remains--first, attempt holding Iraq
accountable through effective, comprehensive international inspections.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when we went into Iraq, we thought,
our best projection was that he was 3 to 5 years away from having a
nuclear device. We found out when we got there that he was actually
only 6 months to a year away from having a nuclear device. To have
waited at that time, as many folks proposed, would have been
disastrous.
Now, the Committee on Armed Services, Democrats and Republicans, have
held now three classified briefings inviting every Member of the House
to participate to see and to understand the weapons of mass destruction
program that is ongoing and robust and working toward completion right
now in Iraq with respect to nuclear, chemical, and biological systems.
My own opinion is that there are going to be nuclear devices
manufactured in Iraq within 24 months.
To have waited in 1991 would have been disastrous. To wait today
would be disastrous. We have got one leader, one person elected by all
the people, our President, who is now our Commander in Chief. It is
time for us, having been informed, having understood the problem, to
rally behind him and take up this burden. Let us support this
resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), our distinguished
chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan
resolution. It provides the best opportunity for a peaceful resolution
by giving the President the discretion to use force if Iraq does not
permit full and comprehensive inspections of all sites that could be
used to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
I hope, as do the American people, that the President will use this
discretion wisely and that Saddam Hussein will understand that the
community of nations will not permit him to develop and maintain
weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, today's vote is a difficult one. Many House Members have
worn their country's uniform in time of war and have seen the horror of
battle firsthand. We all understand the sacrifices that we may be
asking our brave young men and women to make in the months to come.
As chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I have presided over numerous
meetings on this subject. I have listened carefully to my colleagues
and to policy experts who have followed Saddam Hussein's activities
over the years.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that the course set out in
this resolution is the wisest path for our Nation.
The resolution makes clear that our first preference is for the
President to work through the United Nations to obtain multilateral
support for a tough regime of weapons inspections. It requires the
President to report back to Congress and to consult with us on an
ongoing basis. But in the end, it gives the President the authority to
commit U.S. troops if all diplomatic efforts fail.
Mr. Speaker, giving the President this discretion is highly
appropriate. In so doing, we make clear to Saddam Hussein that it is in
his interests to permit the inspectors full and unfettered access now.
Should he fail to do so, he will face the full might of the United
States military, the strongest and finest fighting force in the world
today.
Mr. Speaker, no one wants war. We all want peace, and peace is best
achieved from a position of strength.
So I want to personally recognize the work of our Democratic leader,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in narrowing and improving
the resolution originally offered by the administration. We vote today
on a better, more focused approach because of the hours he spent
negotiating with the White House over the final product.
I want to say a word about the role of the minority in our system of
government. Some suggest that the minority's role is to automatically
oppose everything sought by the President. I disagree. The minority can
play a constructive role by working to improve a Presidential proposal
and, therefore, helping achieve a national consensus. That is
particularly true in matters of foreign policy.
So I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of how my colleagues voted
on the Spratt or Lee substitutes, to join Democrats and Republicans in
voting for this bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan resolution will send a strong, clear
signal that America is committed to ending the threat that Saddam
Hussein poses to the world through democracy, if he will allow it, but
through military action if he refuses.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
[[Page H7773]]
Kucinich), a respected member of our caucus.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, more than two millennia ago, the world
began a shift from the philosophy of an eye for an eye. We were taught
a new gospel of compassion of doing unto others as you would have them
do unto you. It is that teaching, that faith and compassion that has
sustained the human heart and this Nation.
I believe, as did Washington and Lincoln, that America has been
favored by divine providence. But what if we lose our connection to our
source by an abuse of power?
We are at a dangerous moment in human history when 20 centuries of
moral teachings are about to be turned upside down. Instead of
adherence to the Golden Rule, we are being moved toward the rule of
liquid gold: do unto others before they do unto you.
No longer are we justified by our faith; we are now justified by our
fear. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11, but some fear it was. There is
no proof Iraq worked with al Qaeda to cause 9-11, but some fear it did.
It is fear which leads us to war. It is fear which leads us to
believe that we must kill or be killed, fear which leads us to attack
those who have not attacked us, fear which leads us to ring our Nation
and the very heavens with weapons of mass destruction.
The American people need the attention of their government today.
People who have worked a lifetime are finding the American dream
slipping away. People who have saved, who have invested wisely are
suffering because of corruption on Wall Street, the failing economy,
and the declining stock market.
{time} 1300
People have lost their homes, they have lost their jobs, they have
lost their chances for a good education for their children. The
American dream is slipping away, and all the people hear from
Washington, D.C., is war talk, so loud as to drown out the voices of
the American people calling for help.
Seventy years ago, Franklin Roosevelt said, ``We have nothing to fear
but fear itself,'' calling America to a domestic agenda, a New Deal for
America. Faith in our country calls us to that again. Faith in our
country calls us to work with the world community to create peace
through inspection, not destruction. Faith in our country calls us to
use our talents and abilities to address the urgent concerns of America
today.
Let us not fear our ability to create a new, more peaceful world
through the science of human relations. Faith, America; courage,
America; peace, America.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, today Congress faces a momentous decision. We have had a
spirited and vigorous debate about an issue of the utmost importance to
this institution, to our government, and to our Nation. In the end,
each of us must decide for our constituents and for ourselves whether
or not to support authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.
President Bush has called for an end to the international appeasement
of Saddam Hussein. He has challenged the world to face up to its
responsibilities and stop this evil man with his evil designs.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we would all prefer that diplomacy could solve
this problem. At the same time, we must understand that diplomacy has
not worked with Iraq. We have been patient over this last decade, yet
Iraq continues to defy the world community. Saddam has had his
opportunity. The United States must now determine for itself how we
should protect our Nation and our citizens.
It is we, Members of Congress, the President, and the American people
who should determine the fate of our Nation. Members of Congress have
the difficult decision of determining whether or not the Nation should
go to war. As a Member of Congress, I accept my responsibilities to
weigh the evidence and to vote yea or nay, knowing full well what the
consequences may be. I take this job seriously, and am willing to do my
part to protect our Nation and ensure that Americans, both at home and
abroad, are safe.
I have concluded that, to protect the lives and safety of our country
and our people, we must act. Mr. Speaker, it is time to give the
President the authority he has requested to deal with the imminent
threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and to the world.
I hope that diplomacy will work and that Saddam will finally yield
unconditionally to international inspections for weapons of mass
destruction. I also hope that the United Nations will join the United
States in this effort.
However, we cannot, as a Nation, make our national security dependent
upon any other institution, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.
In the end, the growing coalition of countries supporting our efforts
will see the overwhelming bipartisan support in the vote today as a
symbol of the unity and commitment of this Nation to disarming Saddam
Hussein.
In the end, our actions today, Mr. Speaker, will be seen as the
correct course for our Nation and for our world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
resolution and in support of our President as we cast our votes today.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a senior member of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant to his own people and a threat to ourselves and to others.
If this were simply a referendum on him, the vote today would be
unanimous.
But the resolution before us raises two questions of fundamental
importance, questions that are agonizing for Members of this body:
First, how do we diminish the threat from Iraq without empowering
Islamic fundamentalism and creating new recruits for terrorist groups;
and, second, how do we avoid setting a dangerous global precedent for
other nations to launch unilateral preemptive attacks as a legitimate
tool of national policy?
The resolution negotiated between the President and House leadership
is still a blank check. The Spratt substitute, in its essence, said
that we are not willing to provide a blank check now for unilateral
military action, though we are willing to provide or authorize military
force multilaterally.
This resolution unwisely justifies action against Iraq under the Bush
administration's new doctrine of preemption and regime change. This
justification has the potential to create precedents that will come
back to haunt us if adopted by our Nation or by others.
Under the Constitution, the President and Congress share warmaking
powers. Yet, the underlying resolution represents an abdication of
Congress' historic role. We cannot look into the future. If we act
unilaterally, we do not know today what support we might have from some
allies, how many troops it would take, what the President has in mind.
A decision to use unilateral force should be postponed to a later date.
In the war on terrorism, we need more friends and allies and fewer
enemies. We will get to that place if we first make a commitment to
working with our allies, and only later, if necessary, authorize the
use of unilateral force.
I urge my colleagues not to give our rights away in this Congress,
and to reject the resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before: The Inter-Allied Control
Commission of inspectors were granted full freedom of movement, all
necessary facilities, documents, and designs. Three hundred thirty-
seven weapons inspectors were deployed in 11 districts.
They reported that they destroyed 33,384 cannons, 37,211,551
artillery shells, 87,000 machine guns, and 920 tons of poison gas. In
sum, they reported 97 percent of artillery and 98 percent of men under
arms were rendered ineffective.
These reports were not about Iraq, they were about post World War I
Germany, and told us not to worry. When
[[Page H7774]]
the Commission finally started reporting on German violations on
inspections, the leading French diplomat wrote to President Wilson the
following:
``Elements in each of the nations of the League will be quite
naturally inclined to deny reports disturbing to their peace of mind
and more or less consciously espouse the cause of the German government
which will deny the said reports. We must recall the opposition of
these elements at the time when Germany armed to the teeth and openly
made ready the aggression of 1870 and 1914.
``To sum up, the Germans will deny, their government will discuss,
and, meanwhile, public opinion will be divided, alarmed, and nervous.''
In the end, Germany rearmed under the eyes of 300 international
inspectors. As evidence of violations mounted, the international
community lost its nerve to impose the will of international law.
This resolution offers the best hope that Secretary Powell will get
inspectors, real inspectors, back to Iraq.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished
ranking member of our Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I speak of duty. This is the third
time that I have stood at this podium with the question of military
action in the balance. There is no more serious vote nor more sacred
duty than this, deciding to ask those who serve this great country to
go into harm's way.
So it is a decision that must be taken soberly and deliberately. It
must be taken mindful of the regional implications, and it must balance
the risks of not acting with those of not acting prudently.
Winston Churchill's book ``The Gathering Storm'' details the world's
slide into holocaust. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that his book is
subtitled ``How the English-Speaking Peoples, Through Their Unwisdom,
Carelessness, and Good Nature, Allowed the Wicked to Rearm.'' Many of
us saw firsthand the consequence of that rearmament. Never again, Mr.
Speaker, never again.
The issue of Iraq was never whether evil should be confronted, but
how. My own questioning began in a letter to the President on September
4. My concerns were to emphasize multilateral action, understanding the
implications of using military force for the United States' role in the
world.
We must have a plan for the rebuilding of the Iraqi government and
society if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary. We
must ensure that America's commitments to the war on terrorism and to
other missions throughout the globe will be upheld.
In short, to paraphrase the great military strategist, Carl von
Clausewitz, we must not take the first step in this conflict without
considering the last.
This resolution, while not perfect, is a vast improvement from that
originally sent by the White House. To my mind, this resolution makes
clear Congress's intention that America achieve its goals
multilaterally if possible. As importantly, it announces our
determination to stay the course and deal with the aftermath if
military action is taken.
Having achieved these clarifications, the question before the House
is this: Shall we stay the hand of the miscreant, or permit the world's
worst government to brandish the world's worst weapons?
I believe that, Mr. Speaker, difficult as it is, there can be only
one answer. I support the resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, as was so horribly demonstrated on September
11, the greatest threat to our country today comes not from the world's
greatest powers but, rather, from unstable and dangerous individuals
scattered across much of the world with nothing more in common than
their hatred of the United States.
Some of these individuals are itinerant phantoms, like Osama bin
Laden. A very few control territory and governments, like Mullah Omar
and Saddam Hussein.
It is for this reason that we are forced to deal with Iraq. It is not
merely that Iraq's brutal and ruthless dictatorship is hostile to
America, or that it has given comfort to the al Qaeda terrorists, or
even that it possesses the most gruesome weapons of mass murder.
Beyond all of this, Iraq's barbaric dictator, like the al Qaeda
fanatics whom he supports, is unstable and a proven killer. We cannot
deal with him or the territory that he controls by terror as if it were
a nation state like any other. It is not. Saddam Hussein does not
merely possess chemical weapons; he has used them. He does not merely
mouth hatred for the United States; it is well known that he attempted
to assassinate our President. He does not merely tolerate global
terrorism; he is one of its main incubators.
We must ask, however, is confronting Saddam Hussein worth the cost
that we will surely have to bear if we are required to make good on our
threat of force? To that we must answer that there is potentially an
even heavier cost of temporizing, of doing nothing, of adding a 17th
toothless U.N. resolution to the 16 that Saddam Hussein that is already
violated.
What we learned on September 11 is that turning a blind eye to the
metastasizing of cancer cells, of terrorist cells, is the costliest
choice we can make.
What of our friends and sometime allies, such as, for example, France
and Russia, who have accused us of going it alone? If we approve this
resolution today without their prior agreement, will we not simply
display to Saddam Hussein that the world lacks the international
agreement that is necessary to win the war on terror?
To that I am afraid we must answer that if even such great nations as
France and Russia cannot be convinced to see their own self-interest in
protecting the civilized world from the likes of Saddam Hussein, then,
in fact, the war on terrorism will indeed be compromised.
But this is not the end, it is the beginning. Just as Saddam Hussein
must know that America is serious, so, too, must our friends and
allies. If we vote to deny the President the backing of this Congress
and think that then he can win the support of additional nations, we
are delusional.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose is a good one; and we must lead. To save a
nation from terrorist rule, as with Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein,
protects not only the citizens of those countries but our own country
and the entire world. All of us must hope that when the United Nations
passes its resolution, Saddam Hussein will this time finally see reason
and disarm.
{time} 1315
But as the proverb says, he who lives only by hope will die in
despair. I ask my colleagues to unite hope with reason and practicality
and willingness to act. Let us support this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).
(Mr. LUTHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, the language of the resolution has been
improved significantly. I will vote to give this administration
authority, and I ask that this authority be exercised judiciously and
morally.
Mr. Speaker, the intense debate we are having is what the American
people deserve on a subject as serious as the matter before us.
Like most Americans, I believe Saddam Hussein has chemical and
biological weapons and that he has stepped up his nuclear program. Left
unchecked, these activities are a serious threat to Iraq's neighbors
and to the United States.
While this alone may not justify military action, we are living in a
changed world today. The new challenges we face require a new way of
thinking, and our country's leaders must make every effort to
anticipate and prevent future attacks on the people of our country.
I will therefore support the resolution to use force, if necessary,
to disarm Saddam Hussein. I am concerned that the administration
initially approached the situation in Iraq in a hasty and simplistic
manner. While the administration is now pursuing a more responsible
course of action that could over time unify the American people and the
world community, I remain concerned about the timing, ultimate
objectives, international effects, long-term consequences and human
cost of any large-scale invasion of Iraq.
[[Page H7775]]
Nevertheless, the language of the resolution has been improved
significantly since proposed by the administration and Congress will
have additional opportunities to consult and work with the President in
the future. In supporting this resolution it is my hope and expectation
that the President will use his authority in a thoughtful, measured and
responsible way consistent with the moral leadership America needs to
provide the world.
First, the Administration should work in concert with the global
community, including our allies in the Middle East, to build an
international coalition in support of our goals, as was successfully
shown by the first President Bush in the Gulf War. Any plan to go it
alone has the potential to inflame global mistrust of the United States
and increase the possibility of renewed terrorist activity.
Second, our country must get its fiscal house in order as the war on
terrorism continues. Military action is very costly and common sense
dictates that our allies and other nations that benefit from ridding
the world of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should also share the
financial burden.
Third, it is important to have a clear plan and commitment on how to
ensure stability in the region after our goals in Iraq are achieved.
Disarming Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power without a
concrete plan to ensure a stable and less hostile new regime would be a
mistake.
Finally, the administration must continue to engage the American
people, Congress, the United Nations and our international allies to
build support for the disarmament of Iraq. This course is our best hope
for achieving our goals without war.
Since coming to Congress in 1994, I have consistently supported an
activist role for the United States in the world community. I have
supported giving the administration, regardless of political party and
despite intense criticism at times, the necessary military authority
and resources to combat threats to our national security and to promote
human rights and American values around the globe. I strongly supported
our country's attacks during the 1990's on military targets in Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Sudan, and I wholeheartedly supported our country's
efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo long before the tragedy of September 11th.
I will vote to give this administration similar authority and I ask
that this authority be exercised judiciously and morally.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there are compelling, fundamental reasons why this body
should oppose this resolution. With great power comes great
responsibility, great responsibility to conduct our foreign policy in a
manner worthy of our world leadership, consistent with the
international standards of conduct that we have worked so hard to
establish for the better part of the 20th century. The United States
must continue to act in a manner that serves as an example to the rest
of the world.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress is the people's body. That is why before
we offer up the lives of our sons and daughters in the cause of war, we
must have the final say. The amendment that just failed was about
upholding the integrity of this institution and the U.S. Constitution
that must guide all our actions. We should be making Saddam Hussein
irrelevant, not marginalizing the United States Congress. We make him
irrelevant by disarming him, discovering and destroying all of his
weapons of mass destruction and his means of delivering them.
We can accomplish that objective without leaving our allies on the
sidelines or further inflaming the passions of people, especially in
the Arab and Muslim world, who do not understand or trust our noble
intent.
We are not the only people prepared to sacrifice our lives for the
family security and individual freedoms that motivate the human race.
We oppose this resolution for the same reasons the first President
Bush delayed a comparable debate until after the midterm congressional
elections a decade ago, why he pressed so hard and successfully for the
United Nations Security Council's support, and why he successfully
achieved the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a new national security strategy that,
with a policy of unilateral preemption, tramples the foundation of the
international rules of law that has been this generation's legacy to
this small planet. We should be standing on the shoulders of the great
leaders who have preceded us in this body and who are the true authors
of our existing national security strategy that remains the best hope
of peace and progress for all of mankind.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my part in this great debate as I began in
tribute to the patriotism of every Member of this body and with special
thanks to my dear friend and distinguished counterpart on the
Republican side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), a combat
veteran of World War II.
Over the course of the last 2 days, my colleagues have expressed many
different views, but all have affirmed their commitment to safeguard
our national security, to pursue peace and to wage war only as a very
last resort. The depth and dignity of the debate is worthy of this
great subject and of our great democracy.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our Democratic leader,
my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). In the
proud tradition of that great Republican Senator, Arthur Vanderberg,
half a century ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)
transcends parties and politics to craft and champion a bipartisan
resolution that best serves the interest of our Nation. His leadership
has been a true profile in courage.
Mr. Speaker, as our debate has shown, none deny the danger posed by
Saddam Hussein. We differ only in the means of addressing this mounting
threat; and in doing so, we grapple with two paradoxes. The first is
the paradox of peace: Faced with an implacable and belligerent foe, how
do we avert war? The answer, as our resolution affirms, lies not in
disavowing the use of force, but in authorizing it. It is only when the
Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war, if necessary,
that peace becomes possible. Saddam, like his mentor, Stalin, and all
dictators, recoils before strength and pounces on weakness.
The second paradox, Mr. Speaker, is the paradox of leadership. Faced
with skepticism from some friends and timid bystanders, how do we form
the broadest possible coalition to confront Saddam? Publicly, few
nations have responded to our call to arms against Iraq. Privately, as
I have learned in innumerable meetings with heads of state, foreign
ministers and ambassadors from the Arab world and beyond, the United
States enjoys strong support. Bridging the divide between public
opposition and private support requires that the United States assert
leadership. Our joint resolution will demonstrate to the world our
steadfast resolve. It will convince others that joining us is the best
hope for securing peace. If we show the courage to lead, others will
follow.
To preserve peace, we must authorize force. To build support, we must
be prepared to lead. Our resolution resolves these paradoxes and
represents the best means of averting war and of marshaling
international cooperation. It is for these reasons that I urge support
for our bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in moments we will be casting our vote and we will make
history. In so doing, we dare not repeat the history of the last
century, a history characterized too often by appeasement and inaction
in the face of tyranny. It is a history that should haunt all of us.
Let us cast a vote in favor of this resolution. It will be a vote for
American leadership. It will be a vote for peace.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I believe history tells us
that supporting this resolution and empowering the President for peace
is the surest chance to removing the threat to America without conflict
and giving the authority to defend America and freedom, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I would quote Theodore Roosevelt, from a speech he gave
in 1916 while the rest of the world was engaged in the Great War, ``The
belief that international public opinion, unbacked by force, has the
slightest effect in restraining a powerful military nation in any
course of action has been shown to be a pathetic fallacy.''
[[Page H7776]]
Mr. Speaker, in the weeks since the Iraq policy debate came to the
forefront of the national agenda, I have thought long and hard about
how I would vote if it became my responsibility. This vote is the most
important vote I will cast since I was elected to serve in Congress.
As Members of this august body, the people's house, it is the essence
of our constitutional oath to defend America against all enemies
foreign and domestic.
It is at times like these that I reflect on the words of a man who
inspired me to the cause of public service, John F. Kennedy: ``I do not
shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it.''
Mr. Speaker, in framing my thoughts on this momentous debate, I
looked to history as a guide. I am unable to escape its harsher
lessons.
I think of that lone voice in the House of Commons in the 1930s, who
tried to alert his country to a growing danger. Winston Churchill
warned against making agreements with an aggressor who had no intention
of honoring them, all in the name of ``peace.'' Others' reluctance to
confront a growing evil resulted in countless deaths and untold
suffering.
More recently, Ronald Reagan challenged America and the rest of the
free world to remember its historical roots and stand up to Soviet
expansionism. With the simple words, ``Evil Empire,'' he succinctly
characterized the nature of our adversary in the decades-old standoff
between East and West. Man in the international community believed
Ronald Reagan's abandonment of detente for his policy of peace through
strength would bring war. Instead, the Soviet Union collapsed and
because of the bold stand of an American president, countless millions
were liberated without a shot being fired and the bright light of
freedom was able to shine anew.
The age-old struggle of freedom against tyranny has entered a new
century. Yet when faced with the choice of negotiating with an
aggressor in the name of peace, or confronting aggression before it is
too late, history's lesson is clear.
Mr. Speaker, it has been our tradition to fight for freedom and
prosperity, going back to our Republic's infancy and America's lonely
fight against the Barbary Pirates on the shores of Tripoli.
It is this chapter of our history that brought to mind the
undesirable possibility that America would again have to confront evil
on its own.
I am relieved that this is not the case in our struggle with Iraq
with friends and allies like Britain, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark,
Australia, and Qatar publicly stating their support for our efforts to
rid the world of this great danger.
Yet, as we now ask the United Nations to act in the name of its own
relevancy, Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask ourselves, should
America's ability to defend her citizens be held hostage to countries
that have more to lose, because of strong commercial ties, and less to
gain from the liberation of Iraq?
We should ask ourselves, would Paris or Moscow or Beijing be in
Saddam Hussein's crosshairs or would it be New York or Washington?
I have thought seriously about the concerns that dealing with Iraq
would prove to be a distraction from the War on Terror.
But it's integral to the war on terror to remove one of the foremost
sponsors of terrorist activity in the world. It is well known that this
is a man who subsidizes suicide bombers, providing support to those who
stand in the way of progress toward Mideast peace.
The War on Terror's central tenet is, if you stand with the
terrorists, you will be treated as one.
Many are rightfully concerned about a long-term American commitment
in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, we are already committed to the region and
to Iraq. We have stationed a large military force in the region for
more than a decade. We have maintained a military force throughout the
Gulf region to keep the peace and enforce no-fly zones. We can and must
nurture an open and democratic Iraq.
Some of those whose voices are loudest in protest of an American-led
liberation of Iraq may themselves fear it will undermine their own
authoritarian regimes. Is the real fear of Iran's mullahs instability
or a free Iraq next door?
What excuses will be left to the leaders of a failed Palestinian
state once the Saddam regime joins the tyrannies of the 20th century on
the ash heap of history?
I have an 18-year-old son I took to college a little over a month
ago. It never leaves my thoughts what a war means in human terms. but
no member of this body should forget the consequences of inaction.
As Theodore Roosevelt said, ``Wars are, of course, as a rule to be
avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace.''
For all these reasons, I will pray for peace. But at the same time,
Mr. Speaker, I will vote to give President Bush the authority to needs
to defend America, to defend freedom, and keep our people safe. I pray
that by following history's guide, we will again find peace and freedom
without using force.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as we reach the conclusion of this historic and
dignified debate, now is the appropriate time to review the facts that
compel the United States to act in self-defense and in defense of the
civilized world.
The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the Iraqi regime is employing the vast
wealth of his country to develop biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons in direct violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and in
violation of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The fact is that the Iraqi regime is responsible for two wars against
its neighbors resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
The fact is that the regime's abuse of the U.N. administered Oil For
Food Program is creating catastrophic shortages of food and medicine
for thousands of Iraqi women and children.
The fact is that the regime's association with terrorists undermines
stability in the Middle East and threatens the security of the United
States of America.
The fact is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of someone
who sanctions the wholesale murder, starvation, rape and mutilation of
ethnic Kurds, Shiite Muslims and other opponents is a clear and present
danger to the security of the world.
Does the discovery by U.N. inspectors of detailed drawings for
constructing a small nuclear device in Saddam's three as-yet-
undismantled uranium enrichment facilities not sufficiently reveal the
dangerous ambitions of this dictator?
Time and time again over the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker,
these facts have been acknowledged by all of those who have spoken. And
yet opponents of this resolution continue to resist what I believe is
the obvious conclusion.
Yes, the President should continue the diplomacy, should work with
the United Nations to fashion stronger sanctions and a regime of
coercive inspections. That work is under way as I speak. But what
incentive does the Iraqi regime have to honor its international
obligations if Congress fails to give the President the tools he needs
to compel them to do so? What incentive is there for the United Nations
to act with courage and conviction if Congress fails to do so?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wish this problem away. We must save
ourselves. We must act. I support the resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my
good friend, 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, because I believe the debate
on this resolution is a matter of life or death for hundreds of
thousands of Americans and other innocent persons and believe that it
should only be done on a declaration of war by this constitutionally
constituted body, this Congress, I rise to oppose this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), my San Francisco neighbor and dear friend, our
distinguished whip, a person of extraordinary talents and
qualifications.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
his recognition and his kind words.
First, I wish to congratulate all of the Members of the House of
Representatives for the patriotism that has been demonstrated on this
floor in the last 2 days. I think the American people saw something
very special. They saw what we show every day, that people here love
our country, are committed to its value, and are committed to and
respect our men and women in uniform.
I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in
office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where
stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my
top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and
on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.
[[Page H7777]]
From that perspective, though, of 10 years on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I rise in opposition to the resolution on
national security grounds. The clear and present danger that our
country faces is terrorism. I say flat out that unilateral use of force
without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and
making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on
terrorism.
For the past 13 months, it will be 13 months tomorrow, we have stood
shoulder to shoulder with President Bush to remove the threat of
terrorism posed by the al Qaeda. Our work is not done. Osama bin Laden,
Mullah Omar and the other al Qaeda terrorist leaders have not been
accounted for. We have unfinished business. We are risking the
cooperation that we have from over 60 nations of having their
intelligence and their cooperation in fighting this war on terrorism.
{time} 1330
There are many, many costs involved in this war, and one of them is
the cost to the war on terrorism. We cannot let this coalition unravel.
Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.
Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying
to get nuclear weapons. This is a threat not only from him but from
other countries of concern in the past.
I want to call to the attention of my colleagues a statement about
Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons that was just
declassified and sent to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence.
The question is: If we initiate an attack and he thought he was an
extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our
attack that Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons?
This is a letter from George Tenet, the head of the CIA to the
committee. The response: Pretty high, if we initiate the attack.
Force protection is our top priority on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. We must protect our men and women in
uniform. They are courageous. They risk their lives for our freedom,
for our country. We cannot put them in harm's way unless we take every
measure possible to protect them. So another cost is not only the cost
on the war on terrorism but in the cost of human lives of our young
people by making Saddam Hussein the person who determines their fates.
Another cost is to our economy. The markets do not like war. They do
not like the uncertainty of war. Our economy is fragile as it is. The
President has spoken. In his speech the other night, he talked about
rebuilding Iraq's economy after our invasion. We have problems with our
own economy. We must focus on building our own economy before we worry
about Iraq's economy after we invade Iraq.
So let us do what is proportionate, what is appropriate, which
mitigates the risk for our young people.
Another cost in addition to human lives, the cost of terrorism, cost
to our economy, another cost is to our budget. This cost can be
unlimited, unlimited. There is no political solution on the ground in
Iraq. Let us not be fooled by that. So when we go in, the occupation,
which is now being called liberation, could be interminable and so
could the amount of money, unlimited that it will cost, $100-, $200
billion. We will pay any prices to protect the American people, but is
this the right way to go, to jeopardize in a serious way our young
people when that can be avoided?
We respect the judgments of our military leaders. It is a civilian
decision to go to war, but the military leaders present us with options
which they know are to be a last resort.
These costs to the war on terrorism, the loss of life, the cost to
our economy, the cost in dollars to our budget, these costs must be
answered for. If we go in, certainly we can show our power to Saddam
Hussein. If we resolve this issue diplomatically, we can show our
strength as a great country, as a great country.
Let us show our greatness. Vote no on this resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time, and I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the work
that they have done, not just on this but the whole issue of the war on
terror.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have always had to summon courage to disregard
the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false
promises of wishful thinking and appeasement. The perils of complacency
were driven home to us in September of last year. We saw in tragic
detail that evil is far more than some abstract concept. No longer
should America allow dangers to gather and multiply. No longer should
we stand idle as terrorists and terrorist states plot to murder our
citizens.
As a free society, we have to defeat dangers before they ripen. The
war on terrorism will be fought here at home, unless we summon the will
to confront evil before it attacks.
President Bush certainly understands this imperative for action. The
President is demonstrating the strong, moral leadership to find and
defeat threats to the United States before they strike. Because once a
madman like Saddam Hussein is able to deliver his arsenal, whether it
is chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, there is no telling when an
American city will be attacked at his direction or with his support.
A nuclear armed Iraq would soon become the world's largest safe haven
and refuge for the world's terrorist organizations. Waiting to act
until after Saddam has nuclear weapons will leave free nations with an
awful dilemma. Will they, on the one hand, risk nuclear annihilation by
confronting terrorists in Iraq or will they give in to fear by failing
to confront these terrorist groups?
For that reason, regime change in Iraq is a central goal of the war
on terror. It is vital because a war on terrorism that leaves the
world's leading purveyor and practitioner of terror in power would be a
bald failure.
Some call Hussein a diversion, but far from being a diversion,
confronting Saddam Hussein is a defining measure of whether we still
wage the war on terror fully and effectively. It is the difference
between aggressive action and misguided passivity.
The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was
thrust upon us. Our only choice is between victory or defeat.
And let us just be clear about it. In the war on terror, victory
cannot be secured at a bargaining table.
Iraq's vile dictator is a central power of the axis of evil.
President Bush and this Congress are committed to removing the threat
from Saddam Hussein's terrorist state. Only regime change in Iraq can
accomplish that objective. Only regime change can remove the danger
from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of
his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons
will not wind up in the hands of the terrorists.
Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a
single moment. He is trying to spread that grip of fear beyond his own
borders, and he is consumed with hatred for America.
But I am not here today to offer that definitive indictment of Iraq's
tyrant. That has already been very clearly documented and well-
established in this debate.
In the wicked litany of crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein has
composed a scarlet chapter of terror. Our only responsible option is to
confront this threat before Americans die. Time works to the advantage
of our enemies, not ours.
Under our Constitution, America speaks through the United States
Constitution; and our resolution is very, very clear. The enemies of a
free and a moral people will find no safe harbor in this world.
Today, the free world chooses strength over temporizing and timidity.
Terrorists and tyrants will see that the fruits of their evil will be
certain destruction by the forces of democracy.
Now we seek broad support, but I am telling my colleagues that
fighting this war on terrorism by committee or consensus is a certain
prescription for defeat. We will defend our country by defeating
terrorists wherever they may flee around the world.
None of us take the gravity of this vote and its ramifications
lightly, but history informs us that the dangers of complacency and
inaction far outweigh the calculated risks of confronting evil.
[[Page H7778]]
In the fullness of time, America will be proud that in our hour of
testing we chose the bold path of action, not the hollow comfort of
appeasement.
So let us just take this stand today against tyranny. Let us take
this stand against terror. Let us take this stand against fear. Let us
stand with the President of the United States.
I say to my colleagues, just trust the cherished principles on which
we were founded. Put faith in freedom and raise our voices and send
this message to the world: The forces of freedom are on the march and
terrorists will find no safe harbor in this world.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride in his judgment,
wisdom and statesmanlike leadership that I yield the balance of our
time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic
leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago, I was fortunate to be
elected by my constituents to serve in this House, and I represent
today the district in which I was born. I am proud that the people of
my district trust me to try to represent them every day. It is an honor
that I feel every day that I walk into this building, that I am
carrying the hopes and wishes of over a half a million people in
Missouri, and I know today is a moment of sacred responsibility.
We come into this building hundreds of times during the year to cast
very important votes, but on days like today, when we consider how we
will protect our Nation, our people, the districts we come from and
represent, these are the days when we must look deep inside and make
sure that what we are doing is right.
Our gravest responsibility as legislators is authorizing the
President to use military force. Part of the majesty of our democracy
is that we do not entrust this power to one human being, the President,
but we share it with a co-equal branch of this government; and in a
democracy, the decision to put American lives on the line or perhaps go
to war is ultimately a decision of the American people through their
elected representatives.
No one wants to go to war. No one wants to put our young men and
women in harm's way, and I know we hope that our actions today will
avert war. But our decision is not so simple, because we must weigh the
dangers of sending our young people into hostilities against the threat
presented by Iraq to our citizens' safety.
Every Member of Congress must make their own decision on the level of
the threat posed by Iraq and what to do to respond to that threat. I
have said many times to my colleagues that each Member should be guided
by his or her conscience, free from others trying to politicize the
issue or questioning others' motives.
This is an issue of life and death, and the preoccupation by some to
ascribe political motives to the conclusion of each of us demeans all
of us and what we are here to do.
Let me say to my colleagues and my constituents in Missouri why I
have decided to vote for this resolution.
First, September 11 has made all the difference. The events of that
tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only
seek to attack our interests abroad but also to strike us here at home.
We have clear evidence now that they even desire to use weapons of mass
destruction against us.
Before 9/11, we experienced the terrorist attacks on Khobar Towers,
the USS Cole, on two embassies in Africa, but we did not believe it
would happen here. On 9/11, it did happen here; and it can happen
again.
September 11 was the ultimate wake-up call. We must now do everything
in our power to prevent further terrorist attacks and ensure that an
attack with a weapon of mass destruction cannot happen. The
consequences of such an attack are unimaginable. We spent 50 years in a
Cold War and trillions of dollars deterring a weapon of mass
destruction attack on the United States by another country. Now we must
prevent such an attack by terrorists who, unlike our previous
adversaries, are willing to die.
{time} 1345
In these new circumstances, deterrence well may not work. With these
new dangers, prevention must work.
If my colleagues worry about terrorists getting weapons of mass
destruction or their components from countries, the first candidate we
must worry about is Iraq. The 12-year history of the U.N. effort to
disarm Iraq convinces me that Iraq is a problem that must be dealt with
diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must.
I did not come to this view overnight. It has, instead, evolved over
time, as we have learned the facts about the Iraqi regime with clarity.
As you know, I opposed the use of force against Iran in 1991 in favor
of giving sanctions more time to work. Others supported force, but
thought that by dislodging Iraq from Kuwait we would neutralize the
threat. In hindsight, both of these assessments were wrong.
In 1991, no one knew the extent to which Saddam Hussein would
sacrifice the needs of his people in order to sustain his hold on
power, deceive the international community in order to preserve his
weapons of mass destruction programs, or take hostile actions against
U.S. interests in the region.
Saddam Hussein's track record is too compelling to ignore, and we
know that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction,
including nuclear devices; and he may soon have the ability to use
nuclear weapons against other nations. I believe we have an obligation
to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these
weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their
components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent.
As I stated in a speech in June, I believe we must confront the
threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly. But given the stakes
involved, and the potential risks to our security and the region, we
must proceed carefully and deliberately. That is why I felt it was
essential to engage in negotiations in order to craft an effective and
responsible authorization for the use of force, if necessary, so we can
defend our Nation and enforce U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
At the insistence of many of us, the resolution includes a provision
urging President Bush to continue his efforts to get the U.N. to
effectively enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. I have told the
President directly, on numerous occasions, that in my view, and in the
view of a lot of us, he must do everything he possibly can to achieve
our objectives with the support of the United Nations. His speech to
the U.N. on September 12 was an excellent beginning to this effort.
Exhausting all efforts at the U.N. is essential. But let us remember
why. We started the U.N. over 50 years ago. We remain the greatest
advocate of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. We
must do everything we can to get the U.N. to succeed. It is in our own
self-interest to do that. In 1945, Harry Truman told the Senate that
the creation of the U.N. constituted, in his words, an expression of
national necessity. He said the U.N. points down the only road to
enduring peace. He said let us not hesitate to start down that road,
with God's help, and with firm resolve that we can and will reach our
goal: peace and security for all Americans.
Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that
would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and
the world's detriment. It is too high a price to pay. I am glad the
President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice
for resolving this matter.
This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President's
authority to use force. It requires Presidential determinations before
our Armed Forces may be used against Iraq, including assurances to
Congress that he has pursued all diplomatic means to address this
threat and that any military action will not undermine our ongoing
efforts against terrorism.
Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and
reporting to Congress on the administration's diplomatic and military
efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, the planning for
assistance, reconstruction, and regional stabilization efforts in a
postconflict Iraq.
The efforts we must undertake in a postconflict Iraq could be the
most enduring challenge we face in this entire endeavor, which is
another reason for doing everything humanly possible to
[[Page H7779]]
work through the U.N. to reach our goals.
Now a word on what this resolution, in my view, is not. In my view,
it is not an endorsement or an acceptance of the President's new policy
of preemption. Iraq is unique, and this resolution is a unique
response. A full discussion of the President's new preemption policy
must come at another time. But the acceptance of such a momentous
change in policy must not be inferred from the language of this
resolution.
It is also important to say that, thus far, the President's
predominant response to 9-11 has been the use of military power.
Obviously, self-defense requires the use of effective military force.
But the exercise of military power is not a foreign policy. It is one
means of implementing foreign policy. In the post-9-11 world, we must
motivate and inform our citizens about how we construct a foreign
policy that promotes universal values, improves living standards,
increases freedom in all countries and, ultimately, prevents thousands
and thousands of young people across this world from deciding to become
terrorists. We will never defeat terrorism by dealing with its
symptoms. We must get to its root causes.
In anticipation of the serious debate and vote that we have finally
reached today, I have had many conversations with my colleagues and
friends in this body, friends and colleagues that I respect deeply. I
know for many of you this resolution is not what you want, and it is
true for Democrats and some Republicans. And in some ways it is true
for me. Many of my colleagues have had compelling arguments and
important differences with this language. These differences do not
diminish my respect or my trust for my colleagues as the true
representatives of the people in this great Nation.
I believe, as a whole, the resolution incorporates the key notion
that we want to give diplomacy the best possible opportunity to resolve
this conflict, but we are prepared to take further steps, if necessary,
to protect our Nation. I have heard in this debate some Members say
they love America. I love America. I think every Member of this body
loves America. That is not the issue. The issue is how to best protect
America, and I believe this resolution does that.
I want to say a final word to those watching beyond our borders. To
our friends around the world, I say thank you for standing with us in
our time of trial. Your support strengthens the bonds of friendship
between our people and the people of the world.
To our enemies, who watch this democratic debate and wonder if
America speaks with one voice, I say have no doubt. We are united as a
people in defending ourselves and we debate the best means for doing
that. Do not mistake our resolve. Do not underestimate our
determination. Do not misunderstand that we stand here today not as
arguing Republicans and Democrats but as Americans, using the sacred
right of free speech and thought and freedom to determine our
collective course.
Finally, I thank God for those who have gone before us and used their
freedom wisely, for those who have died to protect it and have created
a stronger Nation and a better world because of their bravery. I pray
that we may act today as wisely and courageously as those who have gone
before. God bless this House. God bless America.
Mr. Speaker, as a co-author of H.J. Res. 114, I would like to take
this opportunity to address certain elements of the joint resolution in
order to clarify their intent.
As I stated in a speech I delivered in June, I believe we must
confront the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly. But
given the stakes involved and the potential risks to our security and
the region, we must proceed carefully and deliberately.
That's why I felt it was essential to engage in negotiations in order
to craft an effective and responsible authorization for the use of
force if necessary--so we can defend our nation and enforce U.N.
resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
At the insistence of many of us, the resolution includes provisions
urging President Bush to continue his efforts to get the U.N. to
effectively enforce its resolution against Iraq. I have told the
President directly, on numerous occasions, that in my view of a lot of
us, he must do everything he possibly can to achieve our objectives
with the support of the United Nations. His speech to the U.N. on
September 12 was an excellent beginning to this effort. Exhausting all
efforts at the U.N. is essential.
Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that
would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and
the world's detriment. That is too high a price to pay. I am glad the
President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice
for resolving this critical matter.
This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President's
authority to use force, unlike the Administrations original proposal.
The resolution and its accompanying report define the threat posed by
Iraq as consisting primarily of its weapons of mass destruction
programs and its support for international terrorism. They also note
that we should continue to press for Iraqi compliance with all
outstanding U.N. resolutions, but suggest that we only contemplate
using force to implement those that are relevant to our nation's
security.
As for the duration of this authorization, this resolution confines
it to the continuing threat posed by Iraq; that is, its current and
ongoing weapons programs and support for terrorists. We do not want
Congress to provide this or subsequent Presidents with open-ended
authority to use force against any future threats that Iraq might pose
to the United States that are not related to its current weapons of
mass destruction programs and support for international terrorism. The
President would need to seek a new authorization from Congress to
respond to any such future threats.
Third, this resolution requires important presidential determinations
to Congress before our Armed Forces are used against Iraq. These
include assurances by the President that he has pursued all diplomatic
and other peaceful means to address the continuing threat posed by
Iraq, and that any military action against Iraq will not undermine our
ongoing efforts against terrorism. These determinations ensure that the
Executive Branch remains accountable to Congress if it resorts to
military force, and stays focused on the broader war on terrorism that
must remain of highest priority.
Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and
reporting to Congress on the Administration's diplomatic and military
efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, on the planning for
assistance, reconstruction and regional stabilization efforts in a
post-conflict Iraq. The efforts we must undertake in a post-conflict
Iraq could be the most enduring challenge we face in this entire
endeavor, which is another reason for doing everything humanly possible
to work through the U.N. to reach our goals.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just take a moment to appreciate this body. I had
resolved to cherish my last days in this body by being as attentive as
I could to everything that I had the privilege of experiencing.
For the past 2 days, I have watched my friends in this body, from
both sides of the aisle, from both sides of the issue, conduct what has
to be regarded as one of the greatest debates we have seen in this body
during my tenure here. I have been struck in the last 2 days with the
sobriety, the thoughtfulness, the eloquence, and the respect with which
the countervailing positions have been presented. And I would like to
say thank you to my colleagues for letting me be part of this debate.
The distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), had a sentence in his speech we heard just a minute ago
where he said we had to see the facts with clarity. To see the facts
with clarity. This is not an ideological debate. This is not a debate
about philosophy. This is a debate about the sober business of safety
in the face of danger, honor in the face of fear, responsibility in the
face of timidity. We must turn to the facts when we face issues of this
gravity, and we have done that.
Intensely, for the last month or so, most of us have been looking at
the facts that we hoped we would never have to pay attention to. Let me
just relate some of my travels in this past month through the facts.
Is Saddam evil? Who could doubt it? The evils that this man
perpetrates, as described on this floor by our young colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), from a book he read from, strike
terror in the heart of the worst that we have ever seen before.
This man is evil. It is an evil that this world should never have to
observe and that the poor victims, particularly those in Iraq, should
not have to live with on a daily basis. The atrocities
[[Page H7780]]
are beyond belief, beyond tolerance. And those poor people in Iraq live
with it each day, afraid to leave their home, afraid to speak at their
own dinner table, frightened for their children who might be tortured
in order to punish the parents' careless moment.
{time} 1400
Saddam is evil. That is a fact.
Does he have dangerous assets? More so than we thought, more so than
we ever wanted to believe. And does he have an ongoing, consistent
program and plan to acquire, to enhance those evil assets that are
described by the term weapons of mass destruction, beyond what any of
us imagined?
The acquisition of the weaponry, the resources, the resourcefulness,
the ability to put together the device that would destroy hundreds of
thousands in a fell swoop has never been even mitigated against by the
commitments he made to the U.N. 11 years ago.
Can he strike our interests, our citizens, our land, and our
responsibilities with them? Irrefutably, yes. Through the conventional
means that we recognize and fear, things like SCUD missiles, yes.
American people, American citizens, American resources in his immediate
area, through the insidious means that would be deployed by his ongoing
working relationship with a myriad of evil terrorist organizations,
yes. Through simple-looking, innocent-looking little suitcases left in
a train depot, a service station, an airport in Chicago, Illinois. Yes,
he can strike us, our interests and our responsibilities. I know no
other way to put that.
America is the most unique Nation ever in the history of the world.
We have accepted responsibility for freedom, safety, and dignity of
people other than ourselves. Those proud nations with those brave
people that live as islands of freedom and hope within seas of threat
and terror look for and understand they can depend upon the protection
of the United States. That is who we are, that is who we have been, our
heroes, our parents.
They spent their heroism, they spent their life all too often on
foreign, distant lands fighting for the freedom of people other than
themselves. No other nation has ever done that like we have done.
A nation such as Israel, not exclusively Israel, but right now in the
world today, at a level of danger that is unparalleled by any other
nation of the world, Israel struggles for its freedom, safety and
dignity; and it is in imminent, immediate danger by a strike from
Saddam Hussein. And that represents a responsibility we have, not only
to what role we have played in the world, not only to our heroes who
have acted it out and sacrificed, but to the character of this Nation
that we cherish and protect.
I have said it as clearly as I can. To me, an attack on Israel is an
attack on America; and it is imminently in danger.
Will he do so? Who can doubt that? He has a record of having done so
that is deplorable in the most evil and insidious ways. The question is
when will he do so; not will he do so.
Why does one violate one's own commitments to the world, to the
United Nations accord with resolve, and consistently acquire these
resources if you have no intent to use them? Why do you deny your own
citizens the resources for food and shelter and clothing and health
care in order to divert that to the expenditure on weapons of mass
destruction and instruments of horror if you do not intend to use them?
Why would he deny his own clear volitions in actions past if he had the
resources to strike? Saddam will strike.
Is action against Saddam compliant with the character of our great
Nation? I struggled with this. It was a hurdle for me for a long time.
It all gets involved with this question of preemptive strike.
First of all, it is not a preemptive strike. This is a man who has
consistently been in violation of his own commitments to the world for
11 years. As I put it, this snake is out of his hole. We are not
striking an innocent here, we are correcting an error of complacency.
So it is not a question of a new doctrine.
But even if we were to examine the doctrine of preemptive strike, let
us not forget the Cuban missile crisis. An embargo on the high seas is
an act of war, and the threat to us I would submit was not as dangerous
as it was at that time, and it was certainly not so insidious as it is
today.
There have been other instances in our history. When necessary,
America does what it needs to do to keep America safe. America does
have a pride which is exhibited in movies like ``13 Days'' for the
courage that was displayed when the action was necessary.
There is an argument that this is a diversion from the war on
terrorism. If we are going to conduct a war on terrorism, then we must
stop that person who is most likely and most able to arm the terrorists
with those things which will frighten us the most. A strike on Saddam
is an integral part, a necessary part, of the war on terrorism.
Now we turn to questions about our ability. Can we be swift and
decisive and conduct this operation with minimal risk to the brave men
and women that we ask to carry it out?
It is possible. We saw that in Desert Storm. It is even more possible
now. It will be a difficult operation, and our people will be at risk.
But we have the resources and the resourcefulness, and we have the
ability to plan and execute an operation that rids the world of this
scourge conducted by our young men and women and their allies in such a
manner to keep them at minimal risk.
That is all we can do, the moral imperative that we have, when we ask
our brave young men and women who have volunteered to serve this Nation
and the world in the cause of freedom, to take the field of danger, we
have an obligation, and we can say we can construct the plan, outfit
you in such a way, support you in such a manner that you can carry out
this deed with minimal risk. We can do that. We will do that. We have
an administration. We have a Secretary of Defense that respects our
people.
Should we vote this resolution that says in effect that we, the
Congress of the United States, the representation of the people of the
United States, say, Mr. President, we trust you and we rely on you in a
dangerous time to be our Commander-in-Chief and to use the resources we
place at your disposal? Yes, even by two bills we will vote on later
today, to protect freedom? The answer is, yes.
Mr. President, we are about to give you a great trust. Those brave
young men and women who have volunteered in our Nation's military
services of their own free will to take their place in history
alongside the American heroes of the past deserve our respect and our
support, Mr. President. We trust that you will plan for them, use them,
care for them, and be guided by your own notion of tender mercies.
But we also have an obligation to the parents, the children, the
siblings, the grandparents of those brave young men and women. We lend
our children to the cause of liberty. I have said so many times. I do
not care if he is 240 pounds of solid muscle, the brightest kid in the
class, when he puts on that uniform, he is my baby and I have fear, and
I demand that you treat him properly as his Commander-in-Chief.
We all have that right to expect. Can we expect that from this
President? I would say so.
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking yesterday with the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer), who remembered embarking for Desert Storm, saying good-bye
to his family. At the last moment, he approached his father, proud
veteran of the Korean War with his veteran's hat. His proud father put
his hands on Steve's shoulder and looked at him and said, ``You are the
best I have to give.''
Mr. President, we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them
well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, Sleep safely,
my baby.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the President has asked this Congress to
support action that foresees the possibility of sending our loved
ones--our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and
neighbors--into combat in a foreign land. No more serious a decision
ever faces Congress.
The threat that we confront is Saddam Hussein. Saddam is in a
category of his own. No other head-of-state has been the subject of an
11-year international campaign to disarm and sanction him. He has
invaded two of his neighbors, assassinated 16 of his own family
members, tried to assassinate former President Bush, lied about his
weapons buildup, fired missiles at Israel, and gassed his own people.
The prospect that such a despot has
[[Page H7781]]
biological and chemical weapons--anthrax, sarin gas, smallpox--and is
nearing nuclear capability is a looming threat to millions.
We as a nation have the responsibility to stop him.
I would have preferred that we proceed in the manner outlined in the
Spratt substitute, which would have given the President all the
authority needed at this time to disarm Saddam. The Spratt substitute
would have allowed the UN to proceed with tough ``anytime-anywhere''
inspections, given the UN the military backing to make those
inspections work, and ensured that Saddam Hussein lost his capacity to
threaten the world.
Unfortunately, the Spratt substitute failed, and we are now faced
with a vote, up or down, on the broader resolution negotiated between
the White House, Minority Leader Gephardt, and others.
This too would accomplish the goal of giving the President sufficient
authority to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq, particularly those
that address the continuing threat posed by Iraq's possession and
development of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Although this is a broader resolution than the Spratt resolution, I
will vote for it because it represents the best remaining hope of
disarming Saddam. While the resolution does not require it, the
President has said that it is his intention to continue to work towards
a new UN resolution that can make the inspections program effective.
The President initially resisted going to the UN, but he changed
course. He initially resisted coming to Congress to explain his purpose
and to seek our support, but he changed course. We should respect the
distance he has traveled towards a multilateral, measured process that
includes the UN. We should support him as long as he remains on that
course.
I do so today knowing full well this administration's record on the
issue of nonproliferation, arms control and multilateral treaties has
often been incomprehensible. At times he has spoken and acted as if he
would prefer to act without allies and without the UN. Several weeks
ago, the President announced a strategic doctrine that embraces the
``preemptive use of force'' as its touchstone. This new Bush Doctrine
is dangerous and destabilizing in its own right. It makes it harder to
hold together the fragile international coalition on which we rely for
success in the ongoing war on terror.
The contradictions and double-standards that define his non-
proliferation policy are particularly troubling. His ``Axis of Evil''
speech, for example, lumped together Iraq, Iran and North Korea in a
turn of the phrase that is hard to untie. They have all been accused of
attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Yet our response in
Iran is not to use force, but to complain to the Russians about their
sale of reactors to Iran that could facilitate the acquisition of
nuclear weapons. And in North Korea, our response is to make our own
sale of nuclear reactors to that country. The President has also failed
to seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban, pursued new
nuclear weapons like the earth penetrating warheads, and turned his
back on the biological weapons convention. This makes no sense and
belies a lack of any coherent policy at all.
It is certainly true that George W. Bush is not the first president
to be self-contradictory regarding weapons of mass destruction. I have
spent considerable effort during the last 26 years working to prevent
the constant undermining of nonproliferation policy by both Democratic
and Republican administrations. The Carter Administration shipped
nuclear fuel to India notwithstanding that countries' ongoing
undeclared nuclear weapons program. The Reagan Administration condemned
Israel in the UN for destroying Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor. The
same administration promoted nuclear trade with the apartheid regime in
South Africa. Both President Reagan and President Clinton allowed trade
with Communist China to trump efforts to stop China from retransferring
nuclear materials and technology to Pakistan.
Now it is the Bush administration that fails to connect the dots of
weapons proliferation. When he promotes nuclear reprocessing, or
tritium production for bombs in commercial reactors, he undermines
nonproliferation. When he allows the export of sensitive nuclear
technology, discards the comprehensive test ban treaty, or fails to
negotiate progressive measures leading to global disarmament--as
mandated by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--he
strengthens the proliferators.
These decisions come back to haunt us when, as now, we find that
diplomatic options are exhausted and the use of force appears
necessary.
But even as our overall nonproliferation policy keeps lurching from
side to side, the United States and the international community have,
in the particular case of Iraq, remained focused for more than a decade
on the very real menace of Saddam's drive to acquire and use weapons of
mass destruction against his perceived enemies.
Now, after 11 years of insufficient inspections and sanctions, we
cannot stand idle. Something has to change. We have nearly exhausted
the non-violent alternatives. The sanctions are contributing to a
significant loss of innocent life daily. Saddam has built up his
chemical and biological weapons capacities during this period and he
has missiles to deliver a nuclear payload and the money to buy it. It
is apparent that but for our demonstration of resolve to follow through
the UN-sponsored goal of disarming him, Saddam Hussein intends to make
good on his pledge to acquire nuclear weapons.
I wish the resort to force were unnecessary and, if the inspections
can be made effective, armed conflict can still be avoided. But while
force is a last resort, is an option that cannot be ruled out if we
intend to deal effectively with Saddam Hussein.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues of both parties
and in both chambers, the national debate on whether or not to go to
war with Iraq, and under what circumstances, has weighed heavily on my
mind and heart.
For, clearly, sending the young men and women of our armed forces
into harm's way is one of the most serious and far reaching decisions a
member of Congress will ever have to make.
Like all Americans, I take pride in the fact that we are a peaceful
nation, but one that will defend itself if needed against real and
imminent dangers.
Like all Americans, I take very seriously our responsibility as the
world's global superpower, and realize how our words and actions can
have huge repercussions throughout the world.
For that reason, I attended briefings and studied the materials
provided us. I have listened to the administration, my constituents, my
colleagues on both sides of the issue, both sides of the aisle, and
both sides of this Congress, and I remain deeply concerned about our
march to war without a supportive coalition, nor a clear and moral
justification.
Before making a final decision on how to cast my vote, I also asked
myself, as a mother, what would I want our nation's leaders to do
before sending my son, my daughter or any loved one to war.
While I support our President's efforts to keep our nation and the
world safe, I firmly believe that the President has not made the case
for granting him the far-reaching power to declare preemptive and
unilateral war against Iraq.
There is no question that Sadam Hussein is a dangerous and
unconscionable dictator with little regard for human life. And, there
is no question that he must be disarmed and removed from power.
The facts presented thus far however, do not support the premise that
Sadam is an immediate danger to our country. For that reason, I believe
it is in the best interest of our nation and our American troops to
make every possible effort to prevent war by exhausting diplomatic
efforts, by giving United Nations weapons inspectors the resources and
opportunity to perform their work, and by establishing a United Nations
Security Council multilateral coalition to use force if necessary.
If this fails, the President can then bring his case to Congress on
the need to initiate a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq
because a blank check authorization for military force at this time is
unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience support the administration's
request for near `carte blanche' authority to wage war when the case to
do so has not been justified.
I will, however, support the resolutions of my colleagues
Representative Barbara Lee and Representative John Spratt. The Lee
resolution urges congress to work with the United Nations using all
peaceful means possible to resolve the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. The Spratt resolution includes similar requirements with
regard to the United Nations, but also authorizes the use of force if
the United Nations efforts fail.
The Spratt resolution brings responsibility and accountability to our
effort to protect our country against Sadam Hussein, and makes the
Administration and the Congress joint partners in any military action
against Iraq. The Spratt proposal honors our nation's fundamental
system of checks and balances.
And, makes it possible for me to say to my constituents, and our sons
and daughters: ``I did everything in my power to keep you from harm's
way.''
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Guam, I would
like to express my support for President Bush and the international
community in forcefully addressing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein
and his regime in Iraq. In this regard, I strongly support the efforts
of the President to seek and secure unconditional Iraqi compliance with
full-fledged arms inspections. His seeking United Nations renewal and
approval of these efforts
[[Page H7782]]
is to be commended and supported by this Congress. However, while I
believe that the United States must act to disarm Iraq, I hope that we
do not do so alone. I support efforts to gain as much international
backing as possible to meet our disarmament objective. We must act
alone only if absolutely necessary and only after the international
community has been given the full opportunity to support this important
cause.
In the course of debate on this important issue, I believe that I
must also express my concerns about the impact that an impending armed
conflict in the Middle East will have on my home island of Guam. As the
Member of Congress representing a district located closest to the area
of concern and to the theater of operation that our Armed Forces may be
increasingly engaged in as a result of this resolution, I remain
acutely aware of the challenges we find ourselves confronted with
today. As I indicated on the House floor last week, these challenges do
not affect all communities around the country in the same way. The
people of Guam will undoubtedly feel the effects of a decision to use
force against Iraq in many disproportionate ways. History proves this
to be the case.
Servicemen and women from Guam will likely find themselves
contributing to the war effort in higher numbers per capita than most
other U.S. jurisdictions. Sadly, this may result in higher casualties
for our service members than it would for other communities. During
each major war of the last century, World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War, Guam endured disproportionate
military casualties of native sons per capita in the United States.
Today, our people serve disproportionately in high numbers in the armed
services. While this demonstrates our support for the nation's
military, it also underscores our vulnerability to war's
disproportionate effects on our community.
Although, we would inevitably witness a build-up in military activity
on our island, the economy of Guam would be adversely impacted by any
decision to go to war. We are directly economically challenged by this
impending armed conflict because our economy is primarily based on
tourism. Eighty percent of our visitors come from Japan and nothing is
more disconcerting to Japanese tourists than the prospect of war and
conflict. If the situation which occurred in Guam immediately after the
Gulf War crisis or immediately after September 11 of last year again
unfolds as a result of an armed conflict with Iraq, we will see a
dramatic downturn in visitor arrivals which in turn will further weaken
our struggling economy.
However, despite these probable disproportionate effects, for which
we will prepare to cope with, I stand in strong support to the use of
force should Saddam Hussein continue to pose an imminent threat to
regional and world peace and security. His efforts to produce weapons
of mass destruction are just as troubling to us in Guam as they are for
the rest of the country. His weapons of mass destruction stockpile and
capability must be permanently eliminated. His threatening and
deplorable behavior must be confronted and stopped. His flagrant
violation of international law must be directly dealt with and his
disarmament obligation must be compelled. As a member of the House
Armed Services Committee, I understand, through voluminous testimony
that has been presented to the committee over the past few weeks, that
this is a matter of serious importance that demands our immediate
action.
Guam has time and time again done its part to support the foreign and
military policy of the United States in the Western Pacific region. In
1975, more than 115,000 evacuees from the fall of Vietnam were
repatriated via Guam as part of Operation New Life. In 1996, 6,600
Kurdish refugees who feared retaliation by Saddam Hussein were housed
and comforted on Guam as part of Operation Pacific Haven. In the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Guam has
served as a vital part of our national effort to protect our homeland
and an essential military base in the war against terrorism. Combat
aircraft capable of intercepting and diverting any unauthorized or
threatening aircraft that would approach the continental United States
from the Pacific, was quickly positioned on Guam as part of Operational
Noble Eagle. Andersen Air Force Base has served as a critical air
bridge for airlift in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Here
again, we find ourselves ready to support the nation during this urgent
situation, ready to do our part in the effort to further rid the world
of terror.
As our country prepares to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein
and his regime, I want to reiterate the people of Guam's support for
our troops and Guam's role to assist our nation in our national
security needs in the Western Pacific region.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer
my support for Mr. Spratt's Amendment to the proposed Joint resolution.
Its emphasis--on international action, the role of the United Nations
and diplomatic means to achieve full compliance with multinational
efforts to destroy Iraq's capability to produce and deliver weapons of
mass destruction--is exactly right.
This amendment includes key elements of the proposal for compulsory
arms inspections put forward by the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace to the House International Relations Committee. I
was impressed with the wisdom of that third approach then, and I am
now.
This Amendment recognizes and honors Congress' role in the initiation
of war and in monitoring its conduct. It rightly places our actions
within a broader multi-lateral framework and calls on the international
community, particularly Arab and Islamic countries, to work with the
United States in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq.
For all these reasons, I urge adoption of the Amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the more one hears of this debate in Congress
and among the American people, the more puzzling it is that the
approach in the Spratt resolution was not adopted.
The Spratt Resolution states clearly the need to act to totally
disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction.
It authorized the Use of U.S. Armed Forces within the framework of
international collective action as embodied in U.N. Security Council
resolutions seeking to disarm Iraq and providing for force by member
states to ensure compliance.
If that collective international effort fails, the Spratt resolution
spelled out an expedited procedure for the President to seek the
authorization to proceed unilaterally in a war against Iraq.
So, why not the Spratt resolution?
It would have far more effectively achieved the goal of the President
that we speak today with one voice.
The approach in the Spratt resolution would have maximized the
chances of success in disarming Saddam Hussein and minimized the
potential adverse consequences for the U.S. in going it alone, in terms
of reactions throughout the world, stability in the region, cooperation
in the war against terrorism and in broad participation in the
aftermath of a war in Iraq.
It would keep the pressure on the U.N. to act, avoiding the
inconsistency in the Administration's approach of saying to the U.N.
``act,'' ``be relevant,'' ``hold Iraq to account'' but potentially
taking it off the hook in advance because the U.S. will go it alone.
While emphasizing collective action, the Spratt alternative
explicitly did not bind the U.S. to whatever is done by the U.N., but
leaves the U.S. what it must have, final say over its policies and
actions. We are not ceding to the U.N. We are leading the world as the
remaining superpower.
So why not Spratt?
Because its emphasis is on achieving collective action rather than
proceeding unilaterally. The resistance of the Administration to that
approach is consistent with the general strategy laid out in its new
doctrine stated a few weeks ago, our use of pre-emptive first strikes
in situations short of imminent danger with only cursory effort to
proceed collectively. It is that very backdrop for the Administration's
approach on Iraq that should make us all pause.
Or, because Spratt does state clearly the objective is total
disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction. While sometimes
implying otherwise, the President's speech earlier this week make clear
that the Administration sine qua non is regime change, whatever the
success in disarming Saddam Hussein. That also must give us pause.
We should not blur these important differences.
These are the reasons that I voted for the Spratt resolution and
opposed the Administration's resolution.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the bipartisan
resolution to authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
When President Bush addressed the nation following the terrorist
attacks of September 11th, he made it entirely clear that the United
States would not tolerate nations that harbor terrorists. Like the
President, I believe a nation that provides a safe-haven for the likes
of al-Qaeda is no different than the terrorist themselves. We know
Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists in Iraq, funds terrorist training
camps, and supports the families of suicide bombers.
He possesses and continues to develop biological and chemical weapons
and seeks to build a nuclear bomb. We know he will try to use this bomb
against the United States or our allies if he gets his hands on one. He
already has unleashed biological and chemical weapons upon his own
people, killing thousands. What more do we need to know? We must stand
ready to take action before it is too late.
I want to make clear to every American, especially the folks in my
home state of Louisiana, that this decision to possibly send our
[[Page H7783]]
young service men and women into harms way is not about settling
unfinished business. Nor is it about oil or taking control of Iraqi oil
fields. This is about a grave and present threat against our people,
today.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical dictator who hates America and who
will use any means possible to attack us if given the opportunity. We
cannot allow Saddam that opportunity. Our only option is to take every
precaution to ensure the safety of our citizens.
Whether the next direct threat against the United States comes in the
form of retaliation from Iraq or from any other terrorist entity, we
must be prepared for the possibility of a biological or chemical attack
against Americans, here or abroad. Today, I can say with confidence
that America's public health emergency system is better prepared to
respond to such an attack as a result of the comprehensive bioterrorism
preparedness bill that I worked hard to help write and enact.
This sweeping legislation, signed into law by the President in June,
dramatically improves our nation's ability to respond swiftly and
effectively to new and emerging terrorist threats. This major milestone
covers everything from public health preparedness and improvements, to
enhancing controls on deadly biological agents, to protecting our food,
drug, and drinking water supplies and improving communications between
all levels of government, public health officials, first responders and
health providers.
Mr. Speaker, this threat to our national security is one we can
conquer. We have the means, and I believe as the President does that
``we must act now before waiting for final proof--the smoking gun--that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, my greatest responsibility as a Member of
Congress is to protect America against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. This responsibility includes taking preemptive action, if
necessary, to protect our homeland and national security interests. On
September 14, 2001, Congress adopted a resolution that authorized the
President to take such action.
Iraq must follow the terms it agreed to at the end of the Gulf War,
cease its attacks on U.S. and other peacekeepers in the region, end its
promotion of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and end its
persecution of its own people. Should Iraq continue to ignore the 12
U.N. Resolutions and the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War,
I will support President Bush in the actions he sees necessary to
ensure the safety of our citizens, as well as our allies and interests
abroad. The vote today makes clear to Saddam Hussein that time for Iraq
to finally meet the requirements of the international community has run
out.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to
outline my thoughts on the Resolution before the House today and the
reasons why I have decided I must vote in its favor.
Throughout the past few months, I have been supportive of efforts
that would allow our nation to first pursue Iraq's compliance with
existing U.N. resolutions and eventually engage our allies in a united
effort to force a regime change in Iraq. Early discussions and versions
of the Congressional Resolution on which we are about to vote had very
broad authorities for the President associated with the threat posed by
Iraq--something that caused concern for me and many of my colleagues on
both sides of the political aisle.
As more evidence of Iraq's growing ability to develop and deliver
weapons of mass destruction has emerged, I think it is clear that the
patience required to avoid armed conflict must be balanced against the
severe and catastrophic consequences of waiting too long to act. We
simply cannot wait to act, either with the United Nations or
unilaterally, until Iraq actually uses its weapons of mass destruction
against its enemies or completes its development of a working nuclear
weapon. I believe a recent dossier on Iraq, written by the British
Government, clearly illustrates the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Among its findings were the following:
Iraq has continued to develop chemical and biological weapons,
including anthrax, mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas;
Iraq has military plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons, some of which are deployable within 45 minutes;
Iraq has developed mobile laboratories for the production of
biological weapons;
Iraq has tried to covertly acquire technology and materials for use
in the production of nuclear weapons;
Iraq has sought uranium from South Africa despite having no active
civil nuclear power program that might need it;
Iraq is in various stages of development and deployment of a number
of missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction
over vast distances; and
Iraq has learned a great deal from past experiences with weapons
inspections and has undertaken an aggressive program to conceal
sensitive equipment and documentation in the event weapons inspectors
return in the future.
To even the most cynical critic of armed conflict, these realities
have to represent a clear and present danger to the security of the
middle-east and an undeniable threat to the security interests of the
United States.
I think it is also important to note that the development and
possession of these weapons of mass destruction by Iraq are in direct
violation of international law. Iraq, under a variety of U.N.
resolutions, is required to destroy its vast inventory of these weapons
under the supervision of the United Nations. Sadly, this is not the
only way in which Iraq has violated its international obligations. In
2002 alone, Iraqi forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots 406
times and continue this hostility every day. In addition, recently
released classified photos shows Iraq rebuilding its weapons factories
and U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently revealed
that Iraq provided training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development
and trained terrorists--information corroborated in the British
Dossier.
I want to commend President Bush and leaders of both parties of
Congress, including House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and House Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt, for working together, setting political
differences aside, and drafting the Resolution before us today. I
firmly believe this Resolution provides the President the authority he
needs to protect the American people and the rest of the world from
Saddam Hussein's growing appetite for weapons of mass destruction--
including nuclear weapons. At the same time, the Resolution leaves open
the possibility for a peaceful end to this international crisis and
places the responsibility for avoiding armed conflict directly on
Saddam Hussein. His actions over the coming weeks will determine
whether the United States, Great Britain, and a number of our allies
are forced to act to protect the world from his own aggression.
Specifically, the Resolution:
Authorizes the President to defend the U.S. by military force against
threats from Iraq, and enforce existing U.N. Security Council
resolutions;
Requires the President to determine that further diplomacy
initiatives will not adequately protect our national security;
Requires a report to Congress at least every 60 days on the status of
efforts to protect the U.S.;
Authorizes action by the President consistent with the War Powers
Resolution; and
Contains a sense of Congress resolution supporting the President's
efforts to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution to ensure that
Iraq immediately complies with all relevant Security Council
resolutions.
I want to report that this Resolution is not the blank check for war
that some of its opponents are portraying it to be. In fact, this
Resolution leaves plenty of room for a peaceful resolution to this
conflict, urges cooperation with the United Nations and our allies, and
ensures Congress's constitutional role is protected.
While I have been a proponent of seeking the participation of our
allies in any action we might take against Iraq, I think it is
important to remember that we have the right to act unilaterally in the
defense of our nation and its interests. This resolution protects that
right while recognizing the importance of securing the cooperation of
the international community.
Although I feel it is regrettable that we are now at a point where we
must consider armed conflict with Iraq to protect the world from its
aggression, it is impossible to ignore any longer the devastating risks
of continued inaction. Saddam Hussein is solely responsible for
bringing the United States and the international community to this
point. While I remain hopeful we can find a peaceful resolution to this
dispute, the overwhelming body of evidence points to only one
conclusion--Saddam Hussein must be disarmed immediately through either
his actions or our own.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in support of the
Resolution before us today and stand behind President Bush in his
efforts to protect our nation from the horrors Saddam Hussein seems
committed to unleashing on his enemies and the world.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at
a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents sat down with me.
``Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? Why
haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with
Saddam?'' His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many
other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our
servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could
threaten rather than strengthen our national security?
I will vote ``no'' on this resolution.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to
his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a
legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant
[[Page H7784]]
violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human
decency.
I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the
Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since
I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear
nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and
more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to
authorize military action against Iraq now.
As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found
myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral
American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam
Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain
destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of
mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans?
Will an attack against Iraq strengthen or weaken our more pressing
effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our
ability to promote our many other national security interests around
the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all
of these questions is a resounding no.
Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing
we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal
of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American
soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA
recently reported that Iraq is more likely to initiate a chemical or
biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a U.S.-
led invasion can no longer be deterred.
In addition, I am also concerned that a unilateral American invasion
of Iraq would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East
and ignite violent anti-Americanism, giving rise to future threats to
our national security. While I have no doubt that we can successfully
depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing
Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the
United States. And the ensuing anti-American sentiment could
reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in
the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one
that American has largely neglected.
The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime
is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also
simply failed to explain to the American public what our
responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee
the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we
guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of
billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?
This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words
of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a
new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive
military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that
would threaten the international order.
Instead, we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein not by taking unilateral military action. If we
consult actively with our allies in the region, with NATO, with the
U.N. Security Council, we will be able to undertake effective
inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the
permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need
their partnership to be successful in the long run.
As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force
at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into
Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's
presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's
threat. The United Nations and the international community may
recognize the need to take military action. The American people will
understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not.
Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must
always be our last resort.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Spratt substitute to H.J. Res. 114, the Hastert/Gephardt resolution
authorizing military action against Iraq. Nearly all of us agree that
Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer who is in control of biological and
chemical weapons of mass destruction--and reaching for nuclear weapons
as well. The Spratt substitute recognizes the grave threat that Saddam
Hussein poses to security in the Middle East and around the world. The
Spratt substitute authorizes the use of force through a prudent
multinational approach. In contrast, the Hastert/Gephardt resolution,
which I will oppose, authorizes unilateral military action on the part
of the United States without first making sure that all possible steps
have been taken to organize multinational, world-wide support against
Saddam Hussein.
I also note that I am opposed to the substitute amendment offered by
Representative Lee of California, but for the opposite reason. That
resolution does not re-enforce our commitment to wage the critically
important War on Terrorism, nor does it set out any path that would
require Saddam Hussein to rid his regime of weapons of mass
destruction. While it is clearly a mistake to act in haste, it would be
an even worse mistake to not act at all.
As Connecticut's senior member on the House Armed Services Committee,
as well as a member of the Committee's Special Oversight Panel on
Terrorism, I want to share my deep concern regarding four key issues
relating to the Hastert/Gephardt resolution on Iraq.
First, it would be a fundamental abdication of American leadership
if, before taking action against Iraq, we don't make every effort to
bring the family of nations with us, just as we did in the first Gulf
War, and have done in the War on Terrorism. Unilateral action by this
nation against Iraq raises very disturbing issues, including the
reaction of other Arab states, which could further destabilize the
Middle East, incite further terrorist hatred against us, and even
potentially metastasize the Middle East conflict into the ongoing
nuclear standout between Pakistan and India. Only a cohesive
multinational approach, most preferably under the authority of the
United Nations, would minimize these risks.
Second, it seems unlikely that unilateral war with Iraq can be
carried out without an adverse impact on the War on Terrorism. America
certainly has the ability to do militarily almost anything it wants.
The issue is prudence not capability. As President Abraham Lincoln said
during the middle of the American Civil War, when England was looking
to pick a fight with the United States, it is best to fight ``One war
at a time.'' We have successfully built a global coalition to fight
terrorism. Many nations, some even traditionally hostile to our
interests, have assisted in our efforts to destroy the al Qa'ida
network, and bring to justice the perpetrators of the September 11
attacks. This work should remain the first priority of national
security. A unilateral attack on Iraq will destroy that coalition, and
make it much more difficult--perhaps even impossible--for us to
complete our anti-terrorism efforts. Many Arab nations would break with
our coalition, and nations like Russia and China, even France, might
well follow suit.
Third, a less than fully multinational approach increases the chance
that Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us. In
a letter dated October 7, 2002, to the Senate Intelligence Committee,
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said, ``Saddam might
decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in
conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with
him.'' Should we act unilaterally, the United States would expose
ourselves to the greatly increased likelihood of a weapons of mass
destruction attack. Saddam Hussein cannot achieve the same kind of
``vengeance'' in attacking a coalition that includes fellow Arab
states. We can best mitigate the threat of Saddam Hussein using weapons
of mass destruction against us by having our actions endorsed by the
U.N. Security Council and by operating in cooperation with the nations
of the region. That is also the strategy that appears to be most likely
to produce a resolution of the matter without Saddam Hussein using
force of any kind. Saddam Hussein, facing a united, determined
opposition coalition of nations would be more likely to assent to real
inspections and disarmament if his only alternative was total defeat,
including his being stripped of the ability to single out the United
States for vengeance.
Fourth, and finally, we need a clear exit strategy for any military
engagement. The commitment to disarm Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein
brings with it, according to the best military estimates, at least a
decade of occupation and engagement in the stability and security of
that country. I have great pride and confidence in our military and its
capabilities, but there is a large danger in devoting them to such a
huge task while other major threats still persist around the world,
including North Korea and Iran, the other two nations of the ``Axis of
Evil.'' Operating in conjunction with the United Nations will provide
our forces with such a clear exit strategy. Specifically, U.N.
peacekeeping forces will be put in place following the liberation of
Iraq. The U.N. can then help bring Iraq back into the community of law-
abiding nations, which is a task properly and fully within its mission.
I have based these decisions on the series of briefings I have
attended as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, numerous
conversations with constituents and my colleagues, and my own best
judgment of what is patriotically both in the long and short-term
interests of our country. I have listened intently to all sides in the
debate, most recently meeting this morning with Secretary Rumsfeld at
the Pentagon.
Having carried out the due consideration that this issue demands, I
conclude that I cannot support the Hastert/Gephardt resolution that
would allow a pre-emptive unilateral attack without requiring that
every effort at a
[[Page H7785]]
multinational approach had been exhausted. I therefore urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the strong, but prudent and
responsible, Spratt substitute that authorizes the use of force, but
assures that such force (1) is carried out in concurrence with the
community of nations, or (2) failing to secure such concurrence, is
specifically authorized in the cold light of a future day reserved for
that purpose. Any more open-ended resolution, including that offered by
Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt, does not provide the thorough,
specific review and deliberation that the authorization of war demands
of the Congress of the United States.
I conclude by expressing my heartfelt appreciation, shared by my
colleagues on all sides of this debate, for our men and women in
uniform. Whatever the decision made today, I stand in full support of
our dedicated and courageous service men and women who may well soon
find themselves in harm's way. As a member of the Armed Services
Committee, I re-affirm to them, and all Americans, my commitment to
make sure that they continue to be the best trained, best equipped, and
best led military force in the world. I pray them God's speed and
protection in all that they do.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, this is an important--no, a critical
debate. It is right that we have it. I stand here as one who enlisted
in the Marine Corps in 1994, voted for Desert Storm, and has always
believed that the first federal dollar spent each year should go to the
military. These men and women provide for our ultimately security.
However, I am prepared to vote against this particular resolution. It
will not be a happy vote. I will be in the minority. I sadly will not
stand with my President, a man I admire so much. Yet as with literally
the thousands of votes cast in this chamber, I've found that following
one's instinct is the most honest, if not always the most politically
popular, approach.
What we're discussing is all unknown territory. We're talking about
the future--and that talk, out of necessity, means guesses, estimates,
and personal interpretation. The one thing we do know is that since
September 11, 2001, we are living in a new world. It's an unsettling
world requiring different defenses--secrecy, stealth operations, armies
without uniforms--but maybe of greatest importance, an adhesive-like
working relationship with our friends.
Following 9/11 we were told that the enemy was terrorism in all its
forms. The al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden would be hunted down, Afghanistan
was to be stabilized and rebuilt, and we were to work closely with our
allies and near-allies. We could not go it alone.
Now we hear that priorities have changed. Iraq is the prime target.
Saddam Hussein is a heinous criminal, with frightening weapons. And I
believe all that. But the question remains: what does this have to do
with terrorism, our original objective? There is little evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
I happen to be a hawk on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a disturbed,
dangerous leader. We should deal with him. But absent any immediate
threat, our eye ought to be on the security of the American people. The
fight is against terrorism in all the emerging subtle forms and that
has little to do with Saddam Hussein. So without finishing what we
started and with no sure knowledge that he is near producing nuclear
weapons, why is it that within the last few months we recalibrate our
objectives? War would be hugely costly. We already are in deep deficit.
We are not backed by the essential allies, and we could easily unleash
additional terrorism.
Last weekend I spent a whole day with Jewish and Palestinian
representatives. One Arab comment was, ``The Iraqis hate Saddam
Hussein, but remember they hate the United States more.''
Iraq is one of the few secular countries in the Middle East.
Unleashing, without careful ground work, the hatred of two mortal
internal enemies--the Sunnis and the Shi'ites--could produce another
angry fundamentalist state.
The bill in front of us says, ``The President is authorized to use
the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate . . .''
I have the greatest respect for the President. And you know what? He
may be right. But I am given the opportunity to express my opinion and
to cast my vote. I feel uncertain at this time, in this place,
sanctioning that authority.
Unilateralism scares me. We haven't shown a lot of patience since the
President's speech to the U.N. Our historic rule of thumb has been to
bring people together, not divide them. This war will not be a cake
walk. People fight differently in defense of their homeland, their
families. I worry about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and our lack
of attention to it.
I think we've got the cart before the horse. Let the U.N. first work
its will.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a right decision at the wrong time is a wrong
decision. Why don't we win the war against terrorism before we start
another fight?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, during this Congress I have been honored to
serve as Vice Chairman of the Government Reform Committee's
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations. Under Chairman Shays' leadership our Subcommittee has
conducted at least 14 hearings and briefings, many of them well before
September 11, 2001, which addressed in some measure the threat from the
proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Congress has recently conducted hearings on who missed the signals
leading to 9/11. The signals of the potential for an even greater
catastrophe have been writ large before our subcommittee over the past
two years of testimony. These hearings provided ample evidence
establishing that Iraq is one of the premier consumers--if not the--
premier consumer of the components and precursors of weapons of mass
destruction. This unprecedented build-up serves no positive purpose,
but rather demonstrates an attempt to dominate the region and threaten
our peaceful interests. Let me share with you just a few examples:
1. Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and
applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide
activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical
weapons production facilities before the Gulf War.
2. At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine
production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water
treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports
are being diverted for military purposes.
3. Saddam Hussein is continuing to seek and develop biological
weapons. In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said
he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with
stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical
specifications.
4. Saddam Hussein is continuing to seek and develop nuclear weapons.
A new repot released on September 9, 2002, from the International
Institute for Strategic Studies--an independent research organization--
concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months
if he were able to obtain fissile material.
5. Saddam Hussein is continuing to seek and develop prohibited long-
range, ballistic missiles. Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic
missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers--as prohibited by the
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Discrepancies identified by
UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a
small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of
launchers and warheads.
6. There is ample evidence that Saddam Hussein is using his
Presidential palace sites to hide prohibited WMD and missile
technologies. In December 1997 Richard Butler reported to the U.N.
Security Council that Iraq had created a new category of sites,
``Presidential'' and ``sovereign'' from which it claimed that UNSCOM
inspectors would henceforth be barred. The terms of the ceasefire in
1991 foresaw no such limitations. However, Iraq consistently refused to
allow UNSCOM inspectors access to any of these eight Presidential
sites. Many of these so-called ``palaces'' are in fact large compounds,
which are an integral part of Iraqi counter-measures designed to hide
prohibited weapons and material.
7. To implement the agreement that ended the gulf war the United
Nations Security Council passed a number of resolutions demanding that
President Saddam Hussein stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction and
allow inspectors total access to his country to verify his compliance.
In 1998 Saddam Hussein suspended cooperation with the U.N. inspectors.
The U.N. General Assembly has subsequently failed to enforce the
sixteen (16) existing Security Council Resolutions that Iraq has
violated. While the United States is working with our allies to craft
yet another resolution for consideration by the Security Council, it
should be noted that the Saddam Hussein regime has already rejected
this proposal before it has even been brought before the Security
Council.
Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly difficult decision for me,
because I recognize that it is largely the men and women of my
generation, those in their twenties or younger, who will fight this
war--if war comes. Today, Marine Lance Cpl. Antonio J. Sledd, 20 rests
in honor under our flag somewhere between Kuwait and his home in
Hillsborough County, Florida. We would be remiss in our
responsibilities if we do not acknowledge that there will be a cost,
and there is a price being paid this very day, by America's young
defenders and their families.
Opponents of military action against Iraq argue that until it is
clear that Iraq poses an imminent threat, the United States should
continue to contain and deter Saddam Hussein. Our hearings have
demonstrated that Saddam
[[Page H7786]]
Hussein is not deterred, and that the threat posed by his regime's
continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology
is in fact imminent. Today, we are at the point, very much as the
democracies of the world once were in their great confrontation with
Hitler, where we have a choice to confront or appease an aggressor. I
intend to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 114 and support
President Bush in his decision to confront Saddam Hussein and end the
threat to the United States, and the world, posed by Iraq's development
of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hastert-
Gephardt Iraq resolution, in opposition to the Spratt and Lee
amendments, and in strong support of our President.
I do not take this action lightly. No one enjoys the idea of placing
sons and daughters of America in harm's way. Twelve years ago, while
serving as an Air Force C-130 navigator, I was one of those troops on
the receiving end of a resolution like this one. I know it was an
agonizing decision for many members of Congress. I know many members
are struggling with this resolution here today. And I have received
phone calls, letters, and emails from many concerned Tennesseans on
both sides of this issue.
To all of them, I would offer the advice Margaret Thatcher gave
President George H.W. Bush in 1990: ``Now is no time to get wobbly.''
The resolution Congress passed before Desert Storm was right, both for
America and for the world. This one is too.
The Spratt amendment and the Lee amendment would each tie the
President's hands, subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the dictates of
the U.N. Security Council. United Nations opposition to removing the
corrupt Iraqi regime in 1991 is a major reason why we're here today. I
am not comfortable with China, Russia, and France having a veto on
American security decisions. America is a peaceful nation, but when our
freedom and security have been challenged in the past, we have
consistently done whatever it took to protect our way of life. We are
challenged again today, and America must take the lead against this
tyranny.
I take issue with those who call any action in Iraq ``a preemptive
strike''. It is surely not. For Saddam, the gulf war has never ended.
In the past two years, forces at his command have fired over 1,600
times at American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone Saddam
agreed to at the end of the gulf war. They've fired at our pilots more
than 60 times since September 18th, the day Saddam promised to ``allow
the return of United Nations inspectors without conditions.''
By using chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people, Saddam
has proven his ruthlessness. In invading Iran and Kuwait, he has shown
his inclination toward aggression and his ambition for dominating the
region. In violating 16 United Nations resolutions, he has consistently
lied to the world and refused to allow the Iraqi people to join the
ranks of civilized nations.
Now, financed by his immense oil wealth, Saddam has relentlessly
pursued building nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These
weapons in the hands of a ruthless tyrant like Saddam Hussein present a
direct threat we cannot ignore. He could launch an attack on Israel
that plunges many nations into war. He could also use them as blackmail
as he pursues domination of the Middle East. But his main threat to
America is as a supplier.
Intelligence reports have indicated that Saddam's people have been in
contact with al-Qaeda operatives. We know they share a common interest
in harming America and the West. If Saddam provides al-Qaeda with the
weapons of mass destruction they desire but cannot make themselves,
they will find a way to transport those weapons into this country. And
the magnitude of the subsequent attack and its casualties would rival
or exceed anything we experienced on September 11th, December 7th, or
any other tragic date in our history.
Remember President Bush's words from his State of the Union speech
earlier this year. ``America will do what is necessary to ensure our
Nation's security. We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.
I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by,
as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not
permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the
world's most destructive weapons.''
President Bush and his national security team may find a way short of
war that may force Saddam to disarm. An overwhelming vote for this
resolution could actually help the President avoid war while protecting
our citizens, by making it clear to Saddam that we are united and
complete disarmament is his only way out. During his speech in
Cincinnati this past Monday, President Bush made clear that war is not
his first option, but his last. But given Saddam's history, that last
option may be the only way to avoid the greater danger of nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons falling into the hands of those who will
use them against America.
The situation we face is not all that unlike the situation Europe
faced with the rise of another previously defeated enemy, Germany.
Winston Churchill's pleas throughout the 1930's that Europe deal with
Hitler early fell on deaf ears. Western Europe's negligence was
followed by fear, appeasement, and eventually, the most destructive war
in history.
This President is determined not to allow history to repeat itself.
The American people now face a clear choice--whether to put our head in
the sand--or draw a line in it. We will choose action over fear. The
President is right--in this battle, time in not on our side. But
freedom is. And in the end, victory will be as well. I strongly support
this resolution, and I will encourage all Americans to do the same. My
God bless our country, our President, and our men and women in uniform
at this critical time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, just off the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol
building stands a statue of a fellow Pennsylvanian by the name of John
Muhlenberg. In early 1776, this 29 year-old Lutheran Minister gave a
sermon in Woodstock, Virginia in which he called upon the men of his
congregation to join him in fighting for our Nation's independence.
Quoting the Book of Ecclesiastes, Pastor Muhlenberg said: ``There is an
appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event
under heaven . . . A time for war and a time for peace.'' Contending
that the time for war had arrived, Pastor Muhlenberg then concluded his
sermon by casting off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a
Continental Army officer. Pastor Muhlenberg went on to serve as a
general in the Continental Army.
More than a century and a half later, in an address at Chautauqua,
New York in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated, ``I hate
war.'' Yet, after Pearl Harbor roused our nation from a slumbering
isolationism, President Roosevelt knew that the time for war had come.
The actions of Pastor Muhlenberg and President Roosevelt remind us
that, from the very beginning of our great Nation to modern times, war
is always regrettable, but sometimes necessary to protect the lives of
our citizens and to secure the important principles for which our
Nation stands.
As our Nation now seeks to address the very serious and immediate
threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses to American lives, both
abroad and here at home, it remains to be seen whether war will be a
necessary part of our Nation's efforts. I certainly hope and pray that
it will not. Unfortunately, however, Saddam Hussein's actions, past and
present, do not provide much reason to believe that my hopes and
prayers will be fulfilled.
If diplomacy is to have any chance of success, Saddam Hussein must
fully and unequivocally understand that, if necessary, the United
States and other peace-loving nations will no longer stand idly by
while he further enhances his chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) and aggressively pursues the production of nuclear
weapons. Saddam Hussein must understand that, if necessary, we will use
military force to eliminate the threat that his weapons pose to our
citizens.
It is thus imperative for the United States Congress to pass
legislation authorizing President George Bush to use military force to
``defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and to ``enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' I therefore join
my Republican and Democrat colleagues in voting in favor of this
legislation, House Joint Resolution 114. Importantly, H.R. Res. 114
requires that, prior to using military force against Saddam Hussein's
regime, President Bush must officially determine that further reliance
on ``diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not
adequately protect the national security of the United States'' or will
not likely ``lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' Such determination must
be shared with the House and Senate.
My decision to support H.J. Res. 114 followed much deliberation and
was the product of countless hours of careful review of information
from many sources. I have fully considered the views and concerns of
hundreds of 19th District residents. As a member of the House
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International
Relations, I have participated in numerous classified briefings with
various Administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, and Deputy Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency John McLaughlin. I have also met overseas
and in Washington with leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a
coalition of Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish Iraqi dissidents seeking to
liberate
[[Page H7787]]
their people from Saddam Hussein's oppressive rule. Although very
diverse in their backgrounds, they are united in a common belief that
Saddam Hussein's military regime must be replaced with a more humane
government. My interactions with the INC representatives leads me to
believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein will be embraced
enthusiastically by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people--just
as the people of Afghanistan embraced their liberation from the
Taliban.
My challenge is to fully explain my support for H.J. Res. 114 when
much of the most important factual basis for this extremely serious
decision is classified information. While I cannot legally share such
classified material publicly, I can frankly and honestly state that my
review of said material has wholly convinced me that Saddam Hussein's
military regime poses a grave threat to the safety and security of
American citizens, including here at home. There is compelling evidence
of Iraq's biological and chemical capabilities and Saddam Hussein's
intended use of such weapons. There is also strong evidence of his
pursuit of nuclear weapons. Of significant concern is Iraq's growing
fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that are capable of dispensing
biological or chemical weapons. As President Bush stated in his recent
address to the Nation, our intelligence information indicates that
Saddam Hussein is ``exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions
targeting the United States.''
Please allow me to address various actions by Iraq over the past 11
years that are in the public domain. First, Iraq has a long record of
abetting terrorist groups. For example, Hussein has regularly praised
Palestinian suicide bombers who have taken the lives of countless
innocent civilians, including American citizens. He has also
financially rewarded the families of said suicide bombers. Although no
direct Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks has been proven,
there is also strong evidence that Iraq is serving as a safe harbor for
al Qaeda terrorists since the fall of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan.
Second, as part of the United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement
following the liberation of Kuwait, Iraq agreed to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and allow inspections to
ensure its compliance with the agreement. Iraq has been in continuous
violation of the cease-fire terms, playing ``cat-and-mouse'' games with
United Nations inspectors while continuing to develop WMD. Since
weapons inspectors were effectively expelled in 1998, Iraq has been
completely free to continue its pursuit of developing WMD and the means
to deliver them. Saddam Hussein has used chemical WMD in the past
against a neighboring country, Iran, as well as against his own people,
including innocent children.
Third, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated his continuing hostility
towards the United States by attempting to assassinate former President
George Bush in 1993 and firing regularly on U.S. aircraft attempting to
enforce United Nations-sanctioned ``no fly zones'' in northern and
southern Iraq, the only protection that the persecuted people in those
regions possess. In fact, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S.
and other allied aircraft enforcing the ``no fly zones'' have been
fired upon several thousand times by Iraqi military units.
Fourth, Saddam Hussein has engaged in heinous human rights violations
against his own people. He has intimated political opponents by
ordering the systematic rape of wives and mothers of said opponents and
he has forced parents to watch their children be tortured as a means of
political coercion.
``Finally, it is important to note that `'regime change'' in Iraq is
not a new policy adopted by the Bush Administration. Rather, the Iraq
Liberation Act, which states that it is the policy of the United States
government ``to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,'' was enacted in 1998. Sponsored by
Congressman Ben Gilman in the House and Senators Trent Lott and Joseph
Lieberman in the Senate, the Iraq Liberation Act passed the House by a
vote of 360-38 and the Senate unanimously. President Bill Clinton
signed this act into law on October 31, 1998.
If the use of military force against Saddam Hussein's regime does
prove to be necessary to protect our Nation's security, such military
action must be carefully designed to minimize the risk of injury and
death to Iraqi civilians and American military personnel. The enemy is
the regime of Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people.
Ideally, President Bush, working hand-in-hand with our allies and
the United Nation's Security Council, will be successful in fully
addressing the threat that Saddam Hussein and his military regime pose
to world peace and to our Nation's security without having to resort to
military force. But if diplomatic efforts fail to truly eliminate this
grave threat to American lives, then we must be prepared to act
decisively, just as our forefathers did during the Revolutionary War
and World War II.
President Bush well captured the challenge before us when he stated,
``As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But
there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of
a ruthless and aggressive dictator.''
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House
Joint Resolution 114, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. After careful consideration of the information provided
by the President it is clear that the threat posed by the current Iraqi
regime can no longer be tolerated.
Thousands of my constituents have contacted me about this resolution,
and many have expressed the earnest hope that war can be avoided. I
share that hope, and urge our President to use every means short of war
to persuade Iraq to end their violations of Security Council
resolutions, to stop developing weapons of mass destruction, and to
allow their people to live in peace and freedom. Unfortunately, the
current regime has shown no willingness to do any of these things.
The Iraqi regime, controlled by Saddam Hussein and his family, is
unique in its level of violence, both against its own people and its
neighbors. Since Mr. Hussein came to power he has invaded both Iran and
Kuwait. He has fired ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
and Israel. He has sponsored terrorist attacks against American
citizens and Iraqi dissidents abroad.
The Hussein regime is also unique in its unquenched thirst for
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has used chemical weapons against its
own people and Iran. It has developed biological weapons. Most
disturbingly, Iraq seeks to acquire nuclear weapons.
Some have said that the Iraqi weapons problem can be solved by
inspections, but Iraq consistently hindered international inspections
when they allowed them, and since 1998 has not permitted them at all.
Meanwhile they go ahead with their research program funded by illegal
oil smuggling.
An Iraq armed with nuclear armed ballistic missiles would not only be
the dominant military power of the Middle East, but it would be the
natural ally of all states and groups that oppose the United States. We
cannot allow unbridled power into the hands of such an unscrupulous
regime. America's future cannot be made dependent on a regime armed
with the ultimate weapon.
The Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein is based on the ruthless use
of force, and only responds to the use of force by those it threatens.
If force must be used to resolve this crisis, we must ask ourselves:
Should we use it now to defend peace and freedom, or later to avenge
the murder of innocent men, women, and children by Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction. I believe that the answer to this question
is clear and that our President is correct. I urge my colleagues to
join me in voting for House Joint Resolution 114.
I am grateful for those allies such as the United Kingdom, the Czech
Republic, and others who are standing with us, and remain hopeful that
other nations will join our cause. I ask our President to seek the
support of as many nations and international organizations as possible,
and to make available whatever additional intelligence or security they
need. I also must reiterate that our quarrel is with the Iraqi regime,
not its people. As we move forward I urge my fellow Americans to remain
tolerant of their neighbors and to avoid any action based on the
ethnicity or religious persuasion of others. I also urge all Americans,
and all sides in this debate, to support our troops who may be called
upon to enforce this resolution and defend their country.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are standing at the abyss of a
horrifying war. President Bush himself told us Monday night that this
war was neither ``imminent nor unavoidable.'' And yet we are pushing,
hurrying, racing against time to give the President our approval of a
future war, a war without limits or boundaries, a war waged because the
President thinks diplomacy has failed.
I do not believe diplomacy has failed. And I do not believe we have
to go to war. President Bush's speech was designed to frighten the
American people, and to intimidate the United Nations. It wasn't
address to us, the Congress, because President Bush and his advisers
already believe that they have our backing. But they don't have the
backing of the American people. The pools tell us that. Our
constituents tell us that. The phone calls and faxes and emails and
letters to our offices, running 100 to one, 500 to one against this
war, all tell us that. I, for one, am not afraid. And I do not think my
colleagues in the House and in the Senate should be afraid either. We
should not be afraid of standing up to an unnecessary war. We should
not be afraid to stand up to a President when he is wrong. We should
not be afraid of the American people; they are right.
President Bush tells us how important it is, for his campaign to win
support in the United
[[Page H7788]]
Nations, that we here in the United States speak with one voice. But we
do not have only one voice; we cannot and will not lend our voices to
support a war that we know is wrong. When my colleagues and I went to
Iraq, we went to tell the Iraqis that they must allow free and
unfettered U.N. inspections. We went to investigate the situation
facing Iraqi civilians after 12 years of crippling economic sanctions.
And we went knowing that our democracy is strengthened when we see, and
hear, and learn and debate all sides. We didn't have to go to Iraq to
know why we're against going to war against Iraq. There are plenty of
reasons back home to oppose this juggernaut towards a unilateral
preemptive strike on Iraq.
The first reason is that disarmament should be on top of our Iraq
agenda. And getting the United Nations inspectors back in should be the
first step towards accomplishing that task. The U.N. must be allowed to
take the lead; their inspectors were already close to finishing work on
the technical arrangements so they could get to work right away. Iraq
had proposed the inspection team arrive as early as October 16th.
Initial meetings between Iraqi and U.N. officials were held in March
of this year to begin discussions about the return of inspectors to
Iraq after they had been excluded for almost four years. Further
meetings were held in May and again on the 4th of July. That July
meeting was particularly useful, coming in the context of growing
international pressure on Iraq and seeming to set the stage for the
serious possibility of inspectors returning to Baghdad. But the next
day, July 5th, the Pentagon leaked its latest provocative war plan to
the New York Times, calling for a major air attack and land invasion to
``topple Saddam Hussein.'' The Iraqis pulled back.
But pressure continued to build, and in August the Iraqi Parliament
invited members of Congress to come to Baghdad with inspectors of our
choosing and to look for ourselves. On September 13th I went to New
York to meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, and told him I
would accept his invitation to Iraq with the understanding that the
inspectors I would choose to accompany me would be the UNMOVIC
inspectors themselves. We talked about the absolute necessity of the
U.N. resuming unfettered inspections in Iraq, and he said they were
ready for such inspections, and they understood that if no weapons were
found the Security Council would lift the economic sanctions. I made no
promises except to say I would come. Forty-eight hours later, on
September 16, Sabri told Kofi Annan that Iraq was prepared to accept
the inspectors back into Iraq.
Unfortunately, instead of welcoming this development, it became clear
that the Bush administration was not prepared to take Iraq's ``yes''
for an answer. The State Department's answer to the long-delayed Iraqi
acquiescence was to announce that it was now in ``thwart mode,''
determined to prevent the inspections from going forward.
There has been no solid information regarding Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction since UNSCOM and IAEA arms inspectors left Iraq in December
1998 in advance of the U.S. Desert Fox bombing operation. Prior to
leaving, the last report (November 1998) of the UNSCOM chief Richard
Butler stated explicitly that although they had been hindered by Iraqi
non-compliance in carrying out a small number of inspections, ``the
majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing
monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation.'' the IAEA
report was unequivocal that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear
program. The UNSCOM report was less definitive, but months earlier, in
March 1998, UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler said that his team was
satisfied there was no longer any nuclear or long-range missile
capability in Iraq, and that UNSCOM was ``very close'' to completing
the chemical and biological phases.
Since that time, there have been no verifiable report regarding
Iraq's WMD programs. It is important to get inspectors back into Iraq,
but U.S. threats for years made that virtually impossible by setting a
``negative incentive'' in place. This pattern has been underway for
years. It began when then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher
announced in April 1994 that the U.S. was no longer bound by the U.N.
resolution's language promising an end to sanctions when disarmament of
Iraq's WMD programs was complete. Similarly, in 1997 Christopher's
successor, Madeleine Albright, affirmed that economic sanctions would
remain as long as Saddam Hussein was in power--regardless of the U.N.
position linking sanctions only to the WMD programs. So Baghdad was
told that sanctions would remain regardless of Iraqi compliance with
U.N. disarmament requirements. Similarly, the U.S. message today is
that a U.S. military strike will likely take place regardless of Iraq's
compliance with U.N. resolutions regarding inspections, so they have no
reason to implement their own obligations. If the United States refuses
to abide by the requirements of U.N. resolutions and the rule of
international law, why are we surprised when an embattled and
tyrannical government does the same thing?
Inspections remain vitally important. Throughout the 1980s the U.S.
sent to Baghdad a lethal assortment of high-quality germ seed stock for
anthrax, botulism, E. coli, and a host of other deadly diseases. It is
certainly possible that scraps of Iraq's earlier biological and
chemical weapons programs remain in existence, but their shelf life is
likely only three or four years. More significantly, since it is also
possible (though we have see no evidence) that Iraq has manufactured
additional chemical or biological weapons material, Iraq has no
delivery system capable of using them against the U.S. or U.S. allies.
The notion that the U.S. must go to war against Iraq because of the
existence of tiny amounts of biological material, insufficient for use
in missiles or other strategic weapons and which the U.S. itself
provided during the years of the U.S.-Iraq alliance in the 1980s, is
simply unacceptable.
Regarding the nuclear level threat, the IAEA confirmed in 1998 that
Iraq had no viable nuclear weapons program. Despite constant
allegations, we still have seen no clear evidence that Iraq is anywhere
close to being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon. The breathless
claim that ``if it obtained sufficient missile material and massive
external assistance'' Iraq could manufacture a nuclear weapon in one
year is simply spurious. The same statement could be said for Cameroon
or Vanuatu--that's why we have military sanctions and that's why we
ought to hold the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other disarmament
treaties in much higher regard.
Pretty much the whole world believes that inspections and disarmament
should be our goal--not the overthrow of the government in Iraq. The
Bush administration knows it is isolated in the world on this issue: to
say that the U.S. goal is regime overthrow, rather than disarmament
would violate the UN Charter.
The second reason we should oppose this war has to do with its impact
on our relations with allies all over the world. There is virtually no
international support, at the governmental or public level, for a U.S.
attack on Iraq. Our closest allies throughout Europe, in Canada, and
elsewhere, have made clear their opposition to a military invasion.
While they recognize the Iraqi regime as a brutal, undemocratic regime,
they do not support a unilateral preemptive military assault as an
appropriate response to that regime. Our European friends are pleading
with us not to go to war, reminding us that disarmament, starting with
inspections, is their goal. Russia and China say the same thing. Are we
to simply ignore our friends' opinions and go it alone?
Throughout the Middle East, the Arab states, including our closest
allies, have made unequivocal their opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
Even Kuwait, once the target of Iraqi military occupation and
ostensibly the most vulnerable to Iraqi threats, has moved to normalize
its relations with Baghdad. The Arab League-sponsored rapprochement
between Iraq and Kuwait at the March 2002 Arab Summit is now underway,
including such long-overdue moves as the return of Kuwait's national
archives. Iraq has now repaired its relation with every Arab country,
and not a single one of Iraq's neighbors publicly supports a U.S. war.
Turkey has refused to publicly announce its agreement to allow use of
its air bases, and Jordan and other Arab countries have made clear
their urgent plea for the U.S. to abjure a military attack on Iraq.
Again, it is certain unlikely that a single government in the region
would ultimately stand against a U.S. demand for base rights, use of
airspace or overflight rights, or access to any other facilities. The
question we must answer therefore is not whether our allies will
ultimately accede to our wishes, but just how high a price are we
prepared to exact from our allies? Virtually every Arab government,
especially those most closely tied to the U.S. (Jordan and Egypt,
perhaps even Saudi Arabia) will face dramatically escalated popular
opposition. The existing crisis of legitimacy faced by these non-
representative regimes, absolute monarchies and president-for-life
style democratics, will be seriously exacerbated by a U.S. invasion of
Iraq. Region-wide instability may be expected to result, and some of
those governments might even face the possibility of being overthrown.
In the entire Middle East region, only Israel supports the U.S.
build-up to war in Iraq. Prime Minister Sharon has made no secret of
his view that the chaos caused by a U.S. attack on Iraq might well
provide him with the opportunity for a large-scale escalation against
the Palestinians.
When President Bush repeats his mantra that ``you are either with us
or with the terrorists,'' no government in the world wants to stand
defiant. But a foreign policy based on international coercion and our
allies' fear of retaliation for noncompliance, is not a policy that
will protect Americans and our place in the world.
[[Page H7789]]
Still another reason to oppose this has to do with the human toll.
During the Vietnam war, I was lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy
Medical Corps. My job, as a psychiatrist, was to treat young soldiers
who returned from that war terribly damaged by what they saw and what
they suffered. I carry those memories with me still.
While official estimates of casualties among U.S. service personnel
are not public, we can be certain they will be much higher than in the
current war in Afghanistan. We do know, from Pentagon estimates of two
years ago, the likely death toll among Iraqi civilians: about 10,000
Iraqi civilians would be killed.
The most recent leaked military plan for invading Iraq, the so-called
``inside-out'' plan based on a relatively small contingent of U.S.
ground troops with heavy reliance on air strikes, would focus first and
primarily on Baghdad. In fact, all of the leaked military plans begin
with air assaults on Baghdad. The Iraqi capital is described as being
ringed with Saddam Hussein's crack troops and studded with anti-
aircraft batteries. Those charges may or may not be true. But what is
never mentioned in the military planning documents is the inconvenient
fact that Baghdad is also a crowded city of five million or more
people; a heavy air bombardment would cause the equivalent human
catastrophe of--and look very similar to--a heavy air bombardment of
Los Angeles.
And it is here that my trip to Iraq taught me a great deal. It
reminded me again of the costs of war. I remembered again what Iraqis
would suffer with this war. My colleagues and I visited hospitals,
where we saw young cancer patients dying before their mothers eyes from
lack of chemotherapy drugs.
Further, the destruction of civilian infrastructure such as water,
electrical and communications equipment, would lead to tens, perhaps
hundreds of thousands of more civilian deaths, particularly among
children, the aged and others of the most vulnerable sectors. We can
anticipate that such targeted attacks would be justified by claims of
``dual use.'' But if we look back to the last U.S. war with Iraq, we
know that the Pentagon planned and carried out studies ahead of time,
documenting the likely impact on civilians of specific attacks. In one
case, Pentagon planners anticipated that striking Iraq's civilian
infrastructure would cause ``Increased incidence of diseases [that]
will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine,
waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and
decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. . . .'' The Defense
Intelligence Agency's document (posted on the Pentagon's Gulflink
website), is titled ``Disease Information--Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad'' and is dated 22 January 1991, just
six days after the war began. It itemized the likely outbreaks of
diseases to include: ``acute diarrhea'' brought on by bacteria such as
E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozao such as giardia,
which will affect ``particularly children,'' or by rotavirus, which
will also affect ``particularly children.'' And despite this advance
knowledge, the bombing of the water treatment systems proceeded, and
indeed, according to UNICEF figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,
``particularly children,'' died from the effects of dirty water. Just
as predicted.
I traveled with my colleagues to the southern city of Basra, where we
heard from physicians that the first question new mothers ask after
giving birth is not whether the baby is a boy or a girl, but whether it
is normal or not--because the rates of birth defects are so high. Many
think those high rates of birth defects, skyrocketing rates of leukemia
and other cancers, have something to do with the depleted uranium
weapons our military used so efficiently during the war 12 years ago.
Many of our own Gulf War veterans--and their children--are also
suffering higher than normal rates of cancers and birth defects. And
the Veterans Administration medical care budget has just been slashed.
Do we want to go to war again, a war that will cost perhaps $60 to $100
billion, and create a whole new generation of wounded veterans, along
with too many who will not come home at all? We have not yet heard an
answer from the Pentagon to the question of how they plan to protect
our men and women in uniform--as well as vulnerable Iraqi civilians--
from the danger of depleted uranium weapons. So far the Pentagon has
still not conducted the full-scale scientific study of the impact of DU
on the human body. We should not go to war to use our troops as guinea
pigs again.
I oppose this war because it is a war of empire, not of legitimate
self-defense. We claim to be a nation of laws. But too often we are
prepared to put aside the requirements of international law and the
United Nations Charter to which we hold other nations appropriately
accountable.
When it comes to policy on Iraq, the U.S. has a history of sidelining
the central role that should be played by the United Nations. This
increasingly unilateralist trajectory is one of the main reasons for
the growing international antagonism towards the U.S. By imposing its
will on the Security Council--insisting on the continuation of economic
sanctions when virtually every other country wants to lift them,
announcing its intention to ignore the UN in deciding whether to go to
war against Iraq--the U.S. isolates us from our allies, antagonizes our
friends, and sets our nation apart from the international systems of
laws that govern the rest of the world. This does not help, but rather
undermines, our long-term security interests.
International law does not allow for preemptive military strikes,
except in the case of extreme emergency to prevent an immediate attack.
President Bush himself told us on October 7th that war with Iraq is
``neither imminent nor unavoidable.'' Therefore it does not qualify as
self-defense under the UN Charter. We simply do not have the right--no
country does--to launch a war against another country that has not
attacked us. If the Pentagon had been able to scramble a jet to take
down the second plane flying into the World Trade Center last
September, that would be a legal us of preemptive self defense. An
attack on Iraq--which does not have the capacity, and has not for a
decade or more shown any specific intention or plan or effort to attack
the U.S.--violates international law and the UN Charter.
The Charter, in Article 51, outlines the terms under which a Member
State of the United Nations may use force in self-defense. That Article
acknowledges a nation's ``inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense If an armed attack occurs against a member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security.'' [Emphasis added.] The
Charter does not allow military force to be used absent an armed attack
having occurred.
Some administration spokespeople are fond of a sound bit that says
``the UN Charter is not a suicide pact.'' Others like to remind us that
Iraq (and other nations) routinely violate the Charter. Both statements
are true. But the United States has not been attacked by Iraq, and no
evidence has been brought forward that Iraq is anywhere close to being
able to carry out such an attack. The U.S. is the strongest
international power--in terms of global military reach, economic,
cultural, diplomatic and political power--that has ever existed
throughout history. If the United States--with such massive global
power--does not recognize the UN Charter and international law as the
foundation of global security and hold ourselves accountable to them,
how can we expect others to do so?
President Bush's October 7th speech was clearly designed to frighten
the American people. Once again that speech disingenuously linked the
true horror and legitimate fear of the September 11th attacks with an
implied connection to Iraq. The events of September 11 must never
happen again, the president proclaims, and we will go to war against
Iraq to make sure that they don't.
Few of us in the Congress, and too few journalists and pundits, stood
to challenge that claim, to remind the American people that no link has
been shown between Iraq and the events of September 11th. That there is
a war against terrorism that has so far failed to find the perpetrators
of those events. That of all the four thousand or more people killed in
Afghanistan, not one of them was named Osama bin Laden.
It is now clear that (despite intensive investigative efforts) there
is simply no evidence as yet of any Iraqi involvement in the terror
attacks of September 11. The most popular theory, of a Prague-based
collaboration between one of the 9/11 terrorists and an Iraqi official,
has collapsed. On July 17th, the Prague Post quoted the director
general of the Czech foreign intelligence service UZSI (Office of
Foreign Relations and Information), Frantisek Bublan, denying the much-
touted meeting between Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, and an
Iraqi agent. The Czech Republic simply had no evidence that such a
meeting ever took place, he said.
More significantly, the Iraqi regime's brutal treatment of its own
population has generally not extended to international terrorist
attacks. The State Department's own compilation of terrorist activity
in its 2001 Patterns of Global Terrorism, released May 2002, does not
document a single serious act of international terrorism by Iraq.
Almost all references are to political statements.
We are told that we must go to war preemptively against Iraq because
Baghdad might, some time in the future, succeed in crafting a dangerous
weapon and might, some time in the future, give that weapon to a
terrorist group--maybe Osama bin Laden--who might, some time in the
future, use that weapon against the U.S. The problem with this
analysis, aside from the fact that preemptive strikes are illegal under
international law, is that it ignores the widely known historic
antagonism between Iraq and bin Laden. According to the New York Times,
``shortly after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, Osama bin
[[Page H7790]]
Laden approached Prince Saltan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the Saudi defense
minister, with an unusual proposition. . . . Arriving with maps and
many diagrams, Mr. bin Laden told Prince Sultan that the kingdom could
avoid the indignity of allowing an army of American unbelievers to
enter the kingdom to repel Iraq from Kuwait. He could lead the fight
himself, he said, at the head of a group of former mujahideen that he
said could number 100,000 men.''\2\ Even if bin Laden's claim to be
able to provide those troops was clearly false, bin Laden's hostility
towards the ruthlessly secular Iraq remained evident. There is no
evidence that that has changed.
Ironically, an attack on Iraq would increase the threat to U.S.
citizens throughout the Middle East and beyond, as another generation
of young Iraqis come to identify Americans only as the pilots of high-
flying jet bombers and as troops occupying their country. While today
American citizens face no problems from ordinary people in the streets
of Baghdad or elsewhere in Iraq, as I found during my visit to Iraq in
September 2002, that situation would likely change in the wake of a
U.S. attack on Iraq. In other countries throughout the Middle East,
already palpable anger directed at U.S. threats would dramatically
escalate and would provide a new recruiting tool for extremist elements
bent on harm to U.S. interests or U.S. citizens. It would become far
more risky for U.S. citizens to travel abroad.
Many accusations have been made regarding the role of oil in this
war. What is clear is that the public statements of some in the private
sector match the undenied whispers of others, such as administration
figures themselves. those statements include the intention to render
null and void all existing oil exploration contracts signed between
Iraq and various national oil companies, particularly those of France
and Russia, when the current Iraqi regime is replaced after a U.S. war.
I do not want to support a war partly designed to redraft the global
oil markets in the interest of undermining French or Russian oil
companies and privileging our own.
Any of us who are serious about opposing this war must also be
serious about alternatives to war. We must take seriously the threat of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Disarmament must be on top of our
agenda. We must support the weapons inspection team, not undermining
it. We must support the United Nations, not threatening it with
irrelevance if its member states don't agree with our war.
And we should go beyond the existing efforts to get serious about
military sanctions. Denying Iraq access to weapons is not sufficient,
nor can it be maintained as long as Iraq is surrounded by some of the
most over-armed states in the world. U.S. weapons shipments to all
countries in the region aggravate this situation and, as the biggest
arms exporter in the world, the U.S. can change it.
We can expand the application of military sanctions as defined in UN
Resolution 687. Military sanctions against Iraq should be tightened--by
expanding them to a system of regional military sanctions, thus
lowering the volatility of this already arms-glutted region. Article 14
of resolution 687--the same resolution that calls for sanctions,
inspections and destruction of Iraq's WMD programs--points the way. It
recognizes that the disarmament of Iraq should be seen as a step
towards ``the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from
weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the
objective of a global ban on chemical weapons.
We are told we must attack Iraq preemptively so that it can never
obtain nuclear weapons. While we know from IAEA inspectors that Iraq's
nuclear program was destroyed by the end of 1998, we do not know what
has developed since. We do know, however, a few things. We know that
nuclear facilities are of necessity large, visible to surveillance
satellites, and detectable by a host of telltale chemical and
radiological footprints. Such facilities cannot be mounted on the back
of a pick-up truck. Our intelligence indicates that Iraq does not have
access to fissile material, without which any nuclear program is a
hollow shell. And we know where fissile material is. Protection of all
nuclear material, including insuring continuity of the funding for
protection of Russian nuclear material, must be an on-going priority.
We should note that U.S. officials are threatening a war against
Iraq, a country known not to possess nuclear weapons. Simultaneously,
the administration is continuing appropriate negotiations with North
Korea, which does have something much closer to nuclear weapons
capacity. Backed by IAEA inspections, the model of negotiations and
inspections is exactly what the U.S. should be proposing for Iraq.
And what about ``the day after''? There is no democratic opposition
ready to take over in Iraq. Far more likely than the creation of an
indigenous, popularly-supported democratic Iraqi government, would be
the replacement of the current regime with one virtually
indistinguishable from it except for the man at the top. In February
2002 Newsweek magazine profiled the five leaders said to be on
Washington's short list of candidates to replace Saddam Hussein. The
Administration has not publicly issued such a list of its own, but it
certainly typifies the model the U.S. has in mind. All five of the
candidates were high-ranking officials within the Iraqi military until
the mid-1990s. All five have been linked to the use of chemical weapons
by the military; at least one admits it. The legitimacy of going to war
against a country to replace a brutal military leader with another
brutal leader must be challenged.
And whoever is installed in Baghdad by victorious U.S. troops, it is
certain that a long and possibly bloody occupation would follow. The
price would be high; Iraqis know better than we do how their government
has systematically denied them civil and political rights. But they
hold us responsible for stripping them of their economic and social
rights--the right to sufficient food, clear water, education, medical
care--that together form the other side of the human rights equation.
Economic sanctions have devastated Iraqi society. After twelve years
those in Washington who believe that Iraqis accept the popular inside-
the-Beltway mantra that ``sanctions aren't responsible, Saddam Hussein
is responsible'' for hunger and deprivation in Iraq, are engaged in
wishful thinking. The notion that everyone in Iraq will welcome as
``liberators'' those whom most Iraqis hold responsible for 12 years of
crippling sanctions is simply naive. Basing military strategy on such
wishful speculation becomes very dangerous--in particular for U.S.
troops themselves.
An U.S. invasion of Iraq would risk the lives of U.S. military
personnel and kill potentially thousands of Iraqi civilians, it is not
surprising that many U.S. military officers, including some within the
Joint Chief's of Staff, are publicly opposed to a new war against Iraq.
such an attack would violate international law and the UN Charter, and
isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. An invasion
would complicate the return of UN arms inspectors, and will cost
billions of dollars urgently needed at home. And at the end of the day,
an invasion will not insure stability, let alone democracy, in Iraq or
the rest of the volatile Middle east region. Rather, it will put
American civilians at greater risk than they are today.
We need disarmament, not a war for empire, oil, or ``regime change.''
We need the UN inspectors to go in and finish their work. Until they
do, we simply don't know what weapons Iraq has or doesn't have.
Let us not go to war, in pursuit of oil or the blandishments of
empire. War is too important and its consequences too disastrous.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us
requires us to make an enormously difficult decision. There are many
cases to be made against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the only one that
justifies this debate is the danger Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
and particularly its nuclear program, pose to the United States.
Recognizing this danger, however, does not inform the appropriate
response, and in this extremely complex situation, finding the right
response is not easy.
a grave decision
There is no greater responsibility for a Member of Congress than
voting whether to initiate war. This is a responsibility I take very
seriously. For the last several weeks I have immersed myself in the
details of the situation with Iraq. I have consulted with experts and
people whole opinions I value. I have spoken with Rhode Island veterans
and have considered the opinions of the more than 1,100 constituents
who have contacted me on this matter. I have received a number of
security and intelligence briefings from Administration officials, the
National Security Advisor, the Director of Central Intelligence,
Defense Department officials and military leaders. I have been
carefully deliberating, weighing the potential risks of a war with Iraq
against the inevitable danger of a nuclear-armed Iraq.
In considering the options, I have paid careful attention to the
position of President Bush, to his speech this week and his other
statement on Iraq. Since September 11, I have consistently supported
the President's efforts to safeguard our national security and
eliminate the threat of terrorism. I believe he deserves great credit
for rallying the American people to a new challenge and building
strength from tragedy.
While giving special consideration to the request of the Commander-
in-Chief, I must also exercise my own judgment on this most critical
life and death question of war. One of the great strengths of a
democracy is that decisions that emerge from the marketplace of ideas
tend to be stronger, for they have been challenged and questioned. If
we do not question and do not challenge, if we do not carefully
deliberate, we weaken rather than strengthen our nation's purpose.
It is for this reason that the Framers of our Constitution, in their
wisdom, gave the power
[[Page H7791]]
to declare war to Congress. Congress represents the voice of the
people, and it is only the people of a democracy who should have the
power to send their sons and daughters to war. I therefore feel that it
is incumbent upon every Member of Congress, indeed on every citizen, to
carefully weigh the factors counseling for and against war with Iraq
and make a decision accordingly.
After much deliberation, I have concluded that the dangers of an Iraq
armed with nuclear weapons are so significant that we have no choice
but to act. At the same time, I recognize that a U.S. war with Iraq
could complicate our struggle against terrorism and create new, serious
risks. It is therefore clear that we must make every effort to enlist
the United Nations in our effort to disarm Iraq and address that
threat. Whether we accomplish our goals through diplomacy or by arms,
our course will be less dangerous if the world community is with us. I
will support the bipartisan resolution negotiated by President Bush and
House leaders because I believe it represents our best hope for
delivering the multilateral coalition we seek to eliminate the threat
posed by Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
the threat posed by iraq
In his address to the nation this week, his speech to the United
Nations, and his other statements, President Bush has clearly and
forcefully articulated Iraq's threat to U.S. security. Saddam Hussein
unquestionably is one of the world's most detestable tyrants. He
harbors a deep hostility towards the United States and an unquenchable
thirst for conquest and power. He has demonstrated that he does not
view weapons of mass destruction merely as deterrents, but rather as
offensive weapons to be used to further his quest for power and give
him leverage over the United States.
Given this record, it is a national security imperative that he not
develop a nuclear weapon. Nuclear non-proliferation is a longstanding
objective of this country, but nowhere is it more critical than Iraq.
Saddam Hussein has made clear that he believes a nuclear weapon would
give him the ability to act with impunity. The experts I have spoken
with from former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to former Ambassador to
the United Nations Richard Holbrooke to members of the current
Administration believe that the risk of terrorism would increase
substantially after Iraq obtained nuclear capability. Iraq would then
be more apt to provide shelter, technology, and weapons to terrorists
targeting the U.S. The large chemical and biological weapons stockpiles
would pose a much greater risk to our security at that point then they
do now. A nuclear Iraq would be an enormous danger to the U.S. and be a
major setback in our war on terrorism.
Not only would the direct threat to the U.S. be intolerable, but
acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq would roil an already volatile
region. Saddam Hussein's hegemonic ambitions for the Gulf region
virtually ensure that he would resume his military adventurism if he
believed he had a deterrent to U.S. action. Hussein said after the Gulf
War that his greatest regret was not waiting to invade Kuwait until
after he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
Experts like Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor
to President Clinton, have predicted an arms race in the Middle East in
response to the threat of a resurgent Iraq. Countries like Saudi
Arabia, Iran, and Turkey would feel a need to counter Iraq's new
strategic advantage.
In a region as unstable as the Middle East, the prospects of a
nuclear arms race should make us all shudder.
Of course, the most ominous threat is that Iraq would pass nuclear
technology to terrorists. September 11th showed us that there are
people willing to do the unspeakable. The spectre of nuclear terrorism,
which previously seemed remote and only theoretically frightening, has
suddenly become a real and horrible possibility. We can no longer count
on those Cold War limits that we assumed even our enemies shared. With
this new, visceral understanding, who is willing to take the risk that
a nuclear-armed Iraq will not share its weapons? The degree of
cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and other terrorists targeting
the U.S. is unclear, but if we wait for that unholy alliance to form,
we will have waited too long.
Unfortunately, the possibility that Iraq might develop a nuclear
weapon is not remote. Its nuclear program has been disrupted but never
fully dismantled. Current intelligence suggests that Iraq could have a
functional bomb within a year of acquiring a sufficient quantity of
highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Given the potential of acquiring
these materials from the crumbling infrastructure of the former Soviet
Union's arsenal, we cannot assume that a willing buyer will find no
seller.
The people with whom I have spoken who know the region best, from the
current Administration, from the Clinton Administration, and those who
have spent lifetimes studying the Middle East, are nearly unanimous in
concluding that we simply cannot allow Iraq to acquire nuclear
capability. The risks of nuclear terrorism, of the potentially
catastrophic destabilization of a Middle East arms race, and of future
nuclear war in the region are all too real. Our national security will
be severely compromised if we do not prevent Iraq's development of
nuclear weapons.
Many have asked, why now? For eleven years we have relied on
containment and deterrence to respond to Iraq. But Kenneth Pollack, a
former CIA analyst of Iraq, has explained that Saddam Hussein's history
suggests a streak of irrationality that makes these policies unreliable
given the stakes. Whether because he is sheltered from the facts by
underlings who tell him what he wants to hear or simply unbalanced,
Hussein has repeatedly and dramatically misjudged the reactions his
actions would generate. From his 1974 attack on Iranian-supported Kurds
that provoked a military response by Iran leading to Iraqi territorial
concessions, to his ill-fated war with Iran in 1980, to the invasion of
Kuwait, he has consistently miscalculated. Deterrence is predicated on
rational actors operating with similar sets of assumptions. These
examples raise serious questions about whether we can expect Hussein to
make rational choices, and that is a risk we cannot take when the use
of nuclear weapons hang in the balance.
President Bush has convincingly articulated the danger that Saddam
Hussein poses and his long history of undermining security in the
Middle East and throughout the world cannot be denied. We must act to
disarm Iraq, and we must act soon, before he acquires nuclear weapons
and before he writes the next chapter in a long history of irrational
and highly destructive aggression. The question is how we act.
freedom is not free
The first choice is, of course, a diplomatic solution. The goal is a
new U.N. resolution that will convince Saddam Hussein that he cannot
avoid complying with international law. We must appreciate, however,
that given Hussein's history, this process may well end in
confrontation. And so we also need to understand the many implications
of a war in Iraq.
We know, as is inscribed at the Korean War Memorial, that freedom is
not free. There are times that we are called upon to sacrifice to
protect our values, our homeland, and our way of life. When our
national security is at stake, we will not hesitate to make the
necessary sacrifice. But we know from painful experience the
consequences of launching a war without first establishing the
political will to see it through, and the American people have to know
what sacrifices they may be called upon to make.
Obviously, the risks of war would be most directly borne by the
courageous men and women who were our Nation's uniform. I know that
they stand prepared to go and fight wherever their Commander-in-Chief
sends them. I have made it a priority during my eight years in Congress
to ensure that they are the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective
fighting force in the history of the world, so that if we have to send
them into harm's way, we know they will be victorious.
Regarding a war with Iraq, we have not been told what to expect in
the way of call-ups, casualties, length of combat, and the like. Some
experts predict that the Iraqi military will overthrow Hussein rather
than face destruction and possible war crimes prosecutions. It is my
greatest hope that they prove correct. But we need to be prepared for
the possibility of combat involving chemical or biological attacks. We
may face block-by-block, building-by-building combat in Iraqi cities
that, in the words of General Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander-in-
chief of the U.S. Central Command whose area of responsibility includes
Iraq, could resemble the last fifteen minutes of ``Saving Private
Ryan.'' Planning conservatively, we have to assume that we may face a
months-long guerrilla campaign and that casualties may be far higher
than in the Gulf War.
Our armed forces are unquestionably prepared to carry out this and
any mission they might be given. Should they be called upon, they will
have my unconditional support for the duration of any armed conflict. I
will do my utmost to give the men and women who put their lives on
the line to defend our nation whatever they need to accomplish their
mission. We should not send them into battle, however, until the
American people have been fully prepared for the cost in American lives
that we may pay for victory.
The American people must also be better prepared for the long-term
consequences of action in Iraq. Even if the war goes quickly and the
worst-case scenarios do not play out, there is a consensus that an
extended American presence in Iraq will be required to maintain
stability in that ethnically and politically divided country. It is
critical that a centralized, unified Iraq emerge, and we cannot leave
that outcome to chance. If we win the war but do not win the peace, the
great risks we take and blood we shed will be for naught.
American troops will, at least initially, be responsible for
protecting Iraq's borders with
[[Page H7792]]
Iran and Syria, governing tinder-boxes on the brink of civil war, like
the city of Kirkuk, and preventing revenge-induced massacres in the
Shiite south. The economic costs will be high and the risks to our
troops serious. Although specifics may vary depending on the breadth
and impact of the war, under virtually any scenario we face the
prospect of a major, long-term reconstitution of Iraq in dollars,
energy, attention, and most importantly, lives.
I know that we are capable of meeting the challenge of rebuilding
Iraq, just as we are capable of meeting the military challenges. Like
possible economic and budgetary implications, these are not
considerations which will deter us from acting to protect our national
security, but they are consequences of war that we must be prepared to
realize.
War in Iraq and the impact on anti-terrorism efforts
As great a danger as Iraq represents, we should not pursue military
action there without considering its impact on the wider war on
terrorism that we are currently fighting. As many thoughtful
commentators have noted, a war in Iraq carries its own dangers above
and beyond the immediate risks to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
The fight against Al Qaeda is not only a military engagement at this
point, but even more so, a law enforcement and intelligence operation.
Unilateral war with Iraq runs the risk of drying up critical support in
the war on terrorism. We need the cooperation of foreign governments in
countries like Yemen and Pakistan to find and detain Al Qaeda's
leadership. The arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in Pakistan last month is
the perfect example. A suspected ringleader in the planning of the
September 11th attacks, he is now providing us with valuable
intelligence. If what is perceived to be an American imperialistic
attack on Iraq costs us allies in our struggle against terrorism, it
could become much more difficult for us to thwart future terrorist
attacks.
While an Iraqi war could cause some governments to stop working as
closely with us, more troubling is the prospect that I could cause
massive destabilization in the Middle East and surrounding areas. The
first President Bush's National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, and
others have cautioned that a war in Iraq could metastasize into a
regional war. If Iraq attacks Israel and Israel responds as promised,
the smoldering Israeli-Arab conflict could explode. Turkey, Syria, and
Iran all have substantial Kurdish populations and could be drawn into
war.
A geopolitical nightmare scenario is President Musharraf's government
in Pakistan toppling and a radical Islamic regime taking control of
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Experts have said his grip on power is
somewhat shaky. Could an American attack on Iraq prompt large street
demonstrations in Pakistan? Could that in turn lead to Musharraf's
downfall?
Middle East experts are even more concerned about the impact of a war
on the moderate government of Jordan's King Abdullah. Not only could a
change of governments there cost us a reliable ally in the fight
against terrorism, but it could lead to a cataclysm whose ripple
effects would harm us in other ways. Jordan is one of the few countries
that has signed a peace treaty with Israel. But half of its population
is made up of Palestinian refugees. If Jordan were to fall into the
hands of a radical government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could
explode into a multi-front war. An Arab-Israeli war is the surest way
to inflame Islamic militants.
Even without a deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation,
General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO,
warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that a unilateral war by the
United Sates on Iraq would ``supercharge'' Al Qaeda's recruitment.
There are a billion Muslims in the world, some of whom unfortunately
harbor a great distrust of the United States. Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda and their sympathizers would portray a U.S. attack on Iraq as an
attack on Islam, and many would view it that way.
We can assume that in the event of war, Hussein will place anti-
aircraft guns and other military targets in mosques, schools,
hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. In order to win, the U.S.
military may be forced to strike these sites, and al-Jezeera would
likely broadcast daily images of U.S. bombs destroying important
cultural, religious, and other apparently civilian buildings. Military
victory could well come at the cost of an enormous public relations
defeat, one which make us an army of new enemies willing to take their
own lives to inflict pain on Americans.
It is also far from clear that war with Iraq will reduce the threat
of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons being used against Americans
or our allies. A newly released CIA report details the danger that an
attack on Iraq could lead Hussein to aid terrorists in chemical or
biological attack as a way to exact a last measure of revenge.
We know that Iraq has mobile labs producing these potentially
devastating weapons. Can we be sure that our troops would eliminate
them before he had a chance to launch weapons at Israel or put them in
the hands of terrorists? For that matter, can we be sure they are not
already in the hands of Iraqi agents or other terrorists outside of
Iraq, awaiting a signal to use them? When you corner a dangerous
animal, you have to expect it to lash out. A war to disarm Hussein may
paradoxically increase rather than decrease Americans' vulnerability to
those very weapons.
If there is one lesson of warfare that has been true throughout human
history, it is that wars have unintended consequences. Writing 2400
years ago, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, called this
uncertainty the ``fog of war.'' We ignore this timeless truth of
warfare at our peril. It would be the hubris of the world's lone
superpower to assume that our plans will be carried out exactly as we
foresee them.
minimizing threats in iraq and elsewhere
While these dangers are real and caution us against war, inaction
still leaves us with the prospect of a nuclear Iraq in the relatively
near future. Through no choice of our own we have entered a minefield.
On one side lies the danger of Iraq with nuclear weapons. On the other,
an unfinished war against fanatics who hide in shadows and who may be
inadvertently strengthened by our actions in Iraq. We need to pick our
way carefully through this minefield, making every effort to minimize
the risks on both sides.
Obviously, our best option is to disarm Iraq without resort to war.
This outcome can only happen if the world unites in pressuring Iraq to
comply with UN resolutions. For this reason, I am pleased that the
President has brought our case to the United Nations and has been
aggressively pursuing a new, forceful resolution in the Security
Council. The Security Council should pass a new resolution, giving
weapons inspectors truly unfettered access to any site in Iraq at any
time with no conditions. I believe any new resolution should be backed
up with the realistic threat of force.
But it must act quickly. If the UN is to remain a credible
international agent of stability, it must, as the President has
insisted, begin disarming Iraq in a matter of days and weeks not months
and years. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor,
has told me that we can expect an inspections and disarmament regime to
take several years. Given the timeline for Iraq's development of a
nuclear weapon, the window for diplomatic action is therefore very
small. If we want a peaceful option to prevail, we must set down that
road immediately.
We can hope that Saddam Hussein will recognize that he has lost the
battle for world opinion and will capitulate to international law by
giving up his weapons of mass destruction. Even if diplomacy fails,
however, our national security would be much better protected if we
forcibly disarm Iraq at the head of a multilateral coalition rather
than on our own.
As the first President Bush realized, perceptions are critically
important in global diplomacy. A number of the dangers war poses to our
efforts against terrorism are exacerbated by a perception, warranted or
not, that the United States is using its military dominance to bully
Arabs or Muslims. If, on the other hand, the U.S. is seen exhausting
diplomatic efforts and any conflict is between Iraq and the community
of nations rather than just the sole superpower, a war at that point is
less likely to undermine American efforts to combat terrorism.
A multilateral war with Iraq would do less to diminish the support we
have received from Muslim nations in the war on terrorism. It would be
less risky to our fragile allies in the region. It would be harder for
the terrorists and anti-American propagandists to use to inflame young
Muslims to attack the United States.
We seek the auspices of the United Nations not because we must, but
because doing so is in the nation's best interest. As President Kennedy
said forty years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis, ``This nation is
prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and
our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum--
in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in
any other meeting that could be useful--without limiting our freedom of
action.''
We will not defer decisions of our national security to the United
Nations, but where it is useful we should take advantage of the
international structures that our nation was instrumental in creating.
In this case, it is in the overwhelming best interest of the United
States to push the UN to disarm Iraq, and I therefore stand foursquare
behind President Bush's efforts to push the Security Council to address
Iraq's lawlessness.
the debate in the house of representatives
These are the considerations I have been weighing over the past
several weeks and upon which I will cast my vote in Congress. My
decision is based on grave concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-
armed Iraq and
[[Page H7793]]
equally serious fears that a war with Iraq will create new, highly
dangerous risks of terrorism. I will vote for the resolution I feel is
most likely to lead to a multilateral disarmament of Iraq, which is the
best route to safeguard our national security.
I was troubled by the first draft of the resolution sent to Congress
because it was an extremely broad mandate that authorized any action
not only to disarm Iraq and enforce UN resolutions, but to ``restore
peace and stability in the region.'' The process of deliberation has
worked, however, Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations have subsequently
improved the resolution and led to a more thorough discussion of the
complex factors that must inform this decision.
The new resolution now requires the President to exhaust diplomatic
efforts before resorting to force. Equally important, it authorizes the
use of force in Iraq only upon certification by the President that such
action will not undermine the international war on terrorism. We walk a
fine line between the risks of a rogue Iraq on one side and hindering
our war on terrorism on the other. These two features of the new
resolution ensure that our Iraq policy walks that line if at all
possible.
President Bush has made it clear that his preferred option is to lead
the United Nations in enforcing its own resolutions. Secretary of State
Colin Powell and others in the Administration are working to convince a
reluctant Security Council that a new resolution with teeth,
authorizing unconditional access by inspectors to any site in Iraq is
the surest way to avoid armed conflict. Secretary Powell, his
predecessor, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the UN in the
Clinton Administration, Richard Holbrooke, and others have told me that
to persuade the international community to follow us, the President
needs as strong a hand as possible.
Those of us who strongly believe that America's safest path among the
dangers that confront us is a multilateral approach and who want to
avoid war must show the world that our nation is resolute in its
determination to respond to the threat in Iraq. We know that Saddam
Hussein will capitulate only if he senses that the only alternative is
destruction. A clear declaration of our unity and our determination to
eliminate the Iraqi threat to our own security and that of the
community of nations is the best way to the multilateral, diplomatic
solution that we seek.
I remain convinced that a unilateral attack by the United States on
Iraq creates grave threats to the security of our people, even while it
eliminates others. But I also agree with the President that a failure
to confront Saddam Hussein now, before he has nuclear capabilities,
would be a colossal mistake. To maximize our national security, we must
balance these two dangerous and uncertain possibilities. The resolution
before the United States Congress ensures that, to as great an extent
possible, that precarious balance is struck. Through its focus on
diplomacy, its concern for the broader war on terrorism, and the
resolve it communicates to the rest of the world, it is the most likely
vehicle to the multilateral, diplomatic disarmament of Iraq that I and
most Americans seek. I will, therefore, vote for the resolution in the
most fervent hope that the force it authorizes should never have to be
used.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to
Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. This
resolution grants to the President all the authority he needs to
protect U.S. national security interests--including the use of military
force if necessary--against the threat posed by Iraq.
After more than a decade of deception and defiance since the end of
the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein poses a new and growing threat to the
world. He has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council through many means including;
continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons; brutalizing the Iraqi people, using chemical weapons against
his own people and committing gross human rights violations and crimes
against humanity; and supporting international terrorism.
Saddam Hussein's evil regime wields a massive stockpile of chemical
and biological weapons that remains unaccounted for and is capable of
killing millions of innocent people. Evidence also reveals that Iraq is
rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and
biological weapons--and to develop nuclear weapons technology.
The facts are clear--Saddam Hussein desperately wants a nuclear
weapon--and the wretched history of his evil regime demonstrates that
he will use it.
This threat grows more dangerous with the knowledge of ties between
Hussein and Al-Qaida. Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a
common enemy--the United States of America and its allies in the War on
Terror. After September 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully
celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. But Saddam Hussein doesn't
limit his involvement in the death of innocents to merely cheering from
the sidelines. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to
$25,000 his regime's payment to families of Palestinian homicide
bombers. He continues to encourage violence in the Middle East and
hopes his funding will help the violence to continue.
I urge my colleagues to speak with one voice in support of this
bipartisan resolution. While use of military force should be used as a
last resort we must support the President and speak with one voice.
History has taught us that we can not wait. We must act now.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 114, to
provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. While
I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops to
such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to
protect U.S. national security interests.
The events of September 11th showed us that we are not protected from
an attack on our homeland. A first strike made with weapons of mass
destruction can result in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared
to act preemptively.
I did not reach this conclusion easily, Mr. Speaker. But in a world
with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, a first strike
capability carries with it the possibility that it will be the last
strike, with millions left dead in its wake.
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses and continues to
cultivate weapons of mass destruction; the U.N. weapons inspectors were
thrown out of Iraq four years ago for a reason. In addition, we know
that he is violating the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to the tune of
several billion dollars a year; rather than feeding innocent Iraqi
citizens, this is money that is undoubtedly being spent on the
development of weapons of mass destruction. And we know that if he is
able to buy a softball-sized amount of plutonium on the black market,
he will have a nuclear weapon within a year.
Some of my colleagues ask why we must act against this threat in
particular, when there are many other threats of a grave and serious
nature confronting us as we wage a global war against terror. The
answer is that this threat is unique; an evil dictator has gathered
together the most serious dangers of our time in one place. In Iraq we
see Saddam stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and I trust I need
not remind anyone that he has used such weapons already, against his
own people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East, 2nd
has struck other nations in the region, including our ally Israel,
without warning.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that disarming Hussein will
dilute the war against al-Qaeda, but I believe that the opposite is
true; these dual goals are inextricably linked. We know that Saddam has
harbored and trained high-level al-Qaeda who fled to Iraq after we
invaded Afghanistan. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Saddam and al-
Qaeda share a common enemy: The United States of America, and the
freedom we represent. And let me be clear: either could attack us at
any time.
Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of
freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam
Hussein cannot carry out such a first strike against the United States
or our allies.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues object to this Resolution because
we do not have a groundswell of international support for military
intervention. The distinguished Chairman of the international Relations
Committee has highlighted the key question as regards this issue: on
whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it
ours or do we share it with others?
While there is no doubt that unqualified support from the United
Nations is preferable, we must be prepared to defend ourselves alone.
We must never allow the foreign policy of our country to be dictated by
those entities that may or may not have U.S. interests at heart.
Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us does not mandate military
intervention in Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear
authority to invade Iraq should he determine that Saddam is not
complying with the conditions we have laid before him. Chief among
these conditions is full and unfettered weapons inspections; if Saddam
fails to comply, as has been the unfortunate historical trend, we will
have no choice but to take action. Our security demands it.
Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not
conclude that respectful disagreements on the Floor of this House
divide us; on the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of
all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look
no further than to Iraq to understand why.
Let us not forget those who continue to suffer under the evil hand of
Saddam. To take just one example, the more than one and a half million
Assyrians in Iraq have been displaced from their ancestral homes,
tortured,
[[Page H7794]]
raped, murdered and caused to suffer every conceivable degradation at
the hands of the Hussein regime. They have much to lose in any failed
effort to remove Saddam, yet they fully support President Bush.
And they certainly will not stand alone. As President Bush noted in
his address to the nation on Monday, ``When these demands are met, the
first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children.
The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others
will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new
hope will begin.'' In other words, as in Afghanistan, when given hope,
an oppressed people will rise up and seize the opportunity for freedom.
At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I have
no doubt that the world will witness the same expression of unity as
was demonstrated by Americans across the country following the attacks
on September 11th. I find comfort in the knowledge that this unity
represents a promise that we will never back down from preserving our
freedoms and protecting our homeland from those who wish to destroy us,
and our way of life.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are about to set the course
for our nation's foreign policy that will impact the rest of this
century, and we are about to decide the destiny of many of our young
men and women.
There is not doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat
to the United States. He has violated every U.N. Security Council
Resolution and has committed unspeakable atrocities against his own
people. If there is an axis of evil, then Saddam Hussein is its
lynchpin. However, the question before the Congress today is not
whether or not Saddam Hussein is a threat. The question is what do we
do about it? And when? And how?
To begin, war must be the last option, not the first solution. We
must demonstrate to the world that we will continue to exhaust
diplomatic and peaceful options to protect our security and national
interests.
As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we must demand a
Resolution that allows unhampered--any time any place--access to any
and all areas within Iraq for inspection, and we must equip the
inspection teams with thousands of coalition forces to ensure both
their protection and the United Nations' commitment to peace.
A preemptive strike will have serious repercussions on the entire
Middle East region. While the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is
obvious, it is equally obvious that any aggressive actions taken by the
United States will prompt Saddam Hussein to strike back not only on the
U.S. directly, but also on our allies and interests in the region, and
specifically, Israel.
The provocation of an Iraqi strike by the U.S. is the last thing we
should be doing as Israel continues to seek peace with the
Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon. Should Iraq attack Israel, as it did
in 1991, Israel will respond--and who can blame them?
This won't be a war that Israel has asked for, but it may well be one
they are forced to engage in. I do not want to have to explain to my
constituents why I voted for a war that guarantees the injury or death
of Israelis.
While there is not doubt in my mind that the U.S. can prosecute a war
to successful conclusion, I remind the Commander in Chief that the men
and women of our Armed Forces are already fully engaged in a war on
terrorism.
In addition to that war, we have military commitments in Japan,
Germany, and South Korea. We also have over 3 thousand troops in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, almost 5 thousand in Saudi Arabia, over 4 thousand in
Kuwait, and another 5 thousand in Serbia, to name a few. How will a war
with Iraq, and make no mistake, this will be a full-fledged war, affect
our peacekeeping and peace enforcement obligations in these and other
parts of the world?
H.J. Res 114 lacks even the barest essentials for good foreign policy
and is bereft of any consideration of global politics. It does not
include any short or long term planning. I submitted an amendment in
the nature of a substitute that authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces
against Iraq, and my Resolution included a number of preconditions that
the President would have been forced to follow, prior to receiving
authority from Congress to engage U.S. troops in war.
Those preconditions included verification that all peaceful means to
obtain compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions have been
exhausted, a commitment that the war on terrorism remain the nation's
highest priority, a plan for stabilizing a free Iraq, and a commitment
to protect the health and safety of the Iraqi people. I am sorry that
the full House was not to permitted to vote on my proposal.
We are about to determine the destiny of far too many of our nation's
young men and women. We must be absolutely certain that peaceful
options have been exhausted and that we have achievable goals for
stability in the region.
I am not yet certain that we have these plans or have exhausted these
options. I will not support H.J. Res 114, or any other Resolution that
authorizes a preemptive military strike against another nation, until
these preconditions have been met. I urge my colleagues to adhere to
these same standards.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, I came to this floor and
voted, with a heavy heart, to authorize military action against Iraq
after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Sadly, I rise today to support
another resolution which once again authorizes the use of military
force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I think everyone agrees that military action, especially unilateral
action, should never be undertaken lightly, and that judicious thought
must be given to the consequences of such action. While I strongly
believe that diplomacy is always preferable, it has become clear to me
that we can no longer afford to ignore the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein and his brutal regime.
It has been well documented by previous speakers today that since the
end of the Persian Gulf War, the threats posed by Iraq have actually
increased rather than diminished. For more than a decade, Saddam has
persisted in violating numerous United Nations resolutions designed to
ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and
security. At the same time, he has consistently tried to circumvent
U.N. economic sanctions against his brutal regime. Iraq continues to
breach its international obligations by pursuing its efforts to develop
a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively
seeking nuclear weapons capability and supporting and harboring
terrorist organizations.
Given his abysmal record for violating international obligations,
there is no reason to believe that Saddam can be trusted to abide by
his most recent promises for cooperation. Rather than making a true
commitment to international peace, his latest statements are nothing
more than ruse designed to give him ore time to further strengthen his
own arsenal of weapons to use against us and our allies.
We cannot sit idly by and let Saddam Hussein wreck havoc on the
world. Nor can we afford to wait until another terrorist attack claims
the lives of more innocent Americans. History has taught us that there
are severe consequences for inaction against a brutal dictator.
The United States is unique because it is the only country whose very
existence was based on an idea--the idea of freedom; it is an idea that
must be constantly guarded. It is a noble but a fragile thing that can
be stolen or snuffed out if not protected.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the use of military force can be
avoided but we cannot shy away from it out of fear. Giving the
president the authority to use military force as a last resort may be
the best way to avoid actually having to us it at all.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 114.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak
about the question of life or death as we have considered the steps we
will take to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The Constitution was not created for us to be silent. It is a body of
law that provides the roadmap of democracy in this country, and like
any roadmap, it is designed to be followed.
Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed his own people in
the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with
his neighbors in the region. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq
pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the gulf war,
and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be
needed in the future to defend the United States.
Right now, however, we are moving too far too quickly with many
alarmist representations yet undocumented. There is no proof that our
Nation is in imminent danger, because if there were, every single
member of this body would rightfully expect and approve of the
President acting immediately to protect the country.
It is not too late for peace. With tough weapons inspections and
strict adherence to the Security Council resolutions dealing with
weapons of mass destruction, war can still be averted if we are willing
to pursue aggressive diplomacy. Since we are a just nation, we should
wield our power judiciously--restraining where possible for the greater
good.
We should make good on the promise to the people that we made in the
passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. We should do all that we can
to assist the people of Iraq because as President Dwight Eisenhower
said, ``I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do
more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people
want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get
out of the way and let them have it.''
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, all Members of Congress agree that Saddam
Hussein is a dangerous and tyrannical man. He is the enemy of the
United States and all other civilized nations and his ability to wage
biological
[[Page H7795]]
and chemical warfare must eventually be extinguished. But this can and
must be accomplished without imperiling the security of our citizens or
the moral integrity that has characterized the United States as the
greatest democracy in the world.
Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility in the
decision to wage war and invade another country. This resolution makes
possible a unilateral declaration of war against Iraq based on the sole
determination of the President. He can do this without exhausting
multi-national efforts and for any reason he deems appropriate. This is
an overly broad delegation of authority from the legislative branch to
the executive branch which is contrary to Constitutional authority.
Mr. Speaker, the substitute offered by Congressman Spratt, which
failed today, would have told the United Nations, Saddam Hussein and
the entire world that the United States insists on unrestricted
inspections, an abbreviated and absolute inspection timetable, strict
standards of verification and accountability, and disarmament by any
appropriate means at the proper time. Under this substitute, failure to
accomplish these goals under U.N. auspices would have resulted in a
vote in the U.S. Congress on whether to proceed unilaterally. This
approach was the superior, more reasoned choice . . . both in
responsibly protecting the American people and remaining faithful to
Congress' Constitutional duties.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a smart man wins a war, a wise man
avoids a war. Today Congress did not act wisely.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, many years from now, when those so
inclined decide to examine the Congress of this era, I am confident
that they will find ours to be a thoughtful, involved House, one that
judiciously examined every issue essential to the defense and freedom
of our Nation and her allies.
For 3 days, members marched to the floor to offer their support for,
or opposition to, this bipartisan resolution. Indeed, the true essence
of democracy has been displayed on the floor of the House of
Representatives. I am proud to have been a part of the dialogue
concerning this important issue of our time.
And it was with much deliberation, consultation, and discussion that
I came to support the resolution authorizing the use of military force
against Iraq if that force becomes necessary and if all other means of
eliminating this threat fail.
Let me be clear. This is not a declaration of war from the Congress.
This was Congress ensuring that the President has the authority he
needs to deal with the very real threat of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat. He is the epitome of
malevolence. Indeed, the record of this murderous regime has been
outlined forcefully in this body, and by our Commander in Chief.
Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.
He waged war with Iran; he invaded Kuwait. For the last 11 years he has
defied the will of the entire planet as expressed in resolutions by the
United Nations Security Council.
I know of no thinking person who argues against the profound
necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology. We all agree on
the menace he poses and desire a world where he is not a factor.
Saddam Hussein's repeated defiance when it comes to permitting
weapons inspections is a strong indication that his regime poses a very
real threat to the civilized world right now.
Ultimately, I believe that Saddam Hussein is dangerous. Dangerous in
his country, dangerous to his region, and dangerous to the United
States. Therefore I feel that giving the President the authority to use
force against Iraq is an important matter of international-national
security. Iraq poses an immediate biological and chemical threat to
50,000 American troops in the Middle East. This exacerbates the already
enormous instability in the region.
However, I do not give the President this authority without
reservation. To be sure, in my view, there are still important
lingering questions that demand further discussion from the President
and this Administration.
For example, should military force be required, when what? After the
intervention, how will the situation likely evolve?
Why have more nations thus far chosen not to join us in this
coalition against the threat of Saddam? How will we share the costs of
war with those allies who have joined with us?
If Iraq is truly part of our war on terror, what about those other
nations that seem to fit this criteria of harboring terrorists and
possessing weapons of mass destruction? Will we address those threats
next, and if so, how? The President must be prepared to answer this
question of why Iraq and not others.
Further, we must make absolutely certain that whatever is done in
Iraq does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12
months ago--the war on terrorism. Al Queada has already taken thousands
of our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. We cannot waver one bit
in our pursuit of those who attacked this nation on September 11, 2001.
An we must continually emphasize that our nation must work with its
allies. It is critical that we try to attain as much international
support as possible. Working together with other nations on this front
will expedite the intervention process and enhance the chances for
post-war success.
It is this last point that I find absolutely critical. That is why I
was a cosponsor of the Spratt substitute resolution. It mandated the
administration to fully work through the possibility of securing a new
resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling for the
disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before any pursuit of
unilateral action.
Although I am disappointed that the mandate of the Spratt substitute
did not pass, I am confident that as long as Congress exercises
thorough oversight, then the president will proceed judiciously.
The resolution that passed the House today was negotiated with the
Democratic leadership. This was a bipartisan compromise, incorporating
may provisions that were left out of the President's initial draft
proposal. President Bush has shown good faith thus far in his dealings
with our party. It is time to unite behind our commander-in-chief.
Nobody wants this conflict to end up in war. Nobody fails to
comprehend the gravity of this decision. Nobody wants one American
soldier to be in harm's way.
In fact, we all hope that through the use of other means, including
exhausting our diplomatic options, Iraq can be disarmed such that the
world community determines that force is not necessary.
But shall that avenue fail, our nation must be prepared to protect
its citizens fully and completely from those who wish us harm.
Indeed, it is imperative that the United States speaks with one voice
to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve to protect
and defend this nation, and the House accomplished this today.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important
resolution. Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Campbell, home of the 101st
Airborne. These brave men and women may likely be among the first
soldiers called into duty in the event we go to war with Iraq. The
101st was called into service during Operation Desert Storm, and more
recently they continue to serve their country with pride in
Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is an evil man who cannot be trusted. Almost everyone
in this esteemed body agrees with that statement. If we allow Saddam to
develop or obtain weapons of mass destruction, how then will we be able
to stop him? As the President said on Monday night, we don't fully know
what his weapons capabilities are, and we need to have our inspectors
go to Iraq to find out. If Saddam continues to defy the will of the
United Nations Security Council and of the global community, we must
act.
No one wants to go to war with Iraq. I would prefer that the men and
women at Fort Campbell, who I represent, not be forced to leave their
families. However, I know that they are ready for another ``rendezvous
with destiny'' should they be called upon.
Four years ago, an overwhelming majority of this House, including
many of those who now speak out against action in Iraq, voted to make
regime change in Iraq the official policy of our government. What has
changed since then? Has Saddam allowed weapons inspectors full
unfettered access in Iraq? Has he destroyed his weapons of mass
destruction and stopped programs to develop these weapons? The answer
is no.
Saddam has defied the U.N. Security Council and the global community
by ignoring countless U.N. resolutions. Our Commander-in-Chief has
called upon this great body to give him the authority to hold Saddam
accountable. We must Act.
After World War II, when what some have deemed our ``greatest
generation'' fought for freedom in Europe and in the Pacific, we
promised ourselves ``never again.'' Never again would we allow
tyrannical dictators to threaten the global peace and to use unjust and
immoral force against his own or other people. Unfortunately, again may
be happening. I know that this generation will live up to its calling,
and someday, we may just be calling those brave men and women our
greatest generation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is
not only important for our security, but for the security of the entire
free world.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
Because this action could ultimately send our sons and daughters to
war, my decision to support this resolution is one I have considered
very carefully. I have spent the past several months gathering
information from experts
[[Page H7796]]
in this and previous administrations, from other experts in the field,
and from my constituents in Kansas. I have spoken to community leaders,
religious leaders, and my family.
When I began this process, I stated my belief that the President
should present to Congress, the American people, and the international
community a compelling case for intervention in Iraq. I have been
presented with evidence and intelligence--some of it classified--
regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that we
must take action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
This resolution is not the same as the measure originally proposed by
the White House. The resolution is a compromise agreed to by the
President and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. It
requires that the President exhaust all diplomatic options and notify
Congress before implementing military action. Diplomacy must be our
Nation's first priority in resolving the crisis in Iraq. I hope the use
of force won't be necessary. But in order for diplomacy to be
successful, the threat to use force must be credible.
The resolution also encourages the President to work with our allies
and the United Nations in dealing with Saddam. We were successful in
the Persian Gulf War and, more recently, in Afghanistan by working
cooperatively with our allies and the United Nations. That policy
should guide the President and Congress as we confront the threat from
Iraq.
As a father and grandfather, this decision that could send our sons
and daughters to war is the most difficult one I have faced as your
congressman. But we must confront Saddam's threat to our security. And
we must keep America safe. The resolution allows us to do that.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass
destruction in the form of chemical and biological weapons. There is
also no question that he is working to develop a nuclear capability. He
could be in possession of a working nuclear device in a matter of
several months to a few years.
There is also no question that Saddam has shown a willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction against other countries and his own people.
And there is growing evidence of his willingness to share his weapons
with terrorists and rogue agents who might use those weapons against
America.
Saddam's aggressive nature knows few bounds. He represents a clear
and present danger to the United States, our citizens, and our
interests in the world. Based upon the evidence and intelligence I have
reviewed, I believe Iraq presents a clear threat to the United States.
I will support and vote for the use of force resolution the President
and congressional leadership agreed to on October 2. This measure gives
the President the authority he needs to enforce the U.N. resolutions
Iraq has violated, while limiting the scope and duration of the
authority to address the current threats posed by Iraq.
There's an old saying: ``Politics stops at the water's edge.'' That
is the case here. We must show the world that we are united in our
determination to protect our Nation and our people from threat posed by
Iraq.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at
a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. ``Why
have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? ``Why
haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with
Saddam?'' His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many
other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our
servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could
threaten rather than strengthen our national security?
I will vote ``no'' on this resolution.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to
his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a
legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant
violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human
decency.
I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the
Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since
I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear
nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and
more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to
authorize military action against Iraq now.
As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found
myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral
American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam
Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain
destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of
mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans?
Will an attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing
effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our
ability to promote our many other national security interests around
the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all
of these questions is a resounding no.
Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing
we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal
of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American
soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA
recently reported that Iraq is much more likely to initiate a chemical
or biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a
U.S.-led invasion can no longer be deterred.
In addition, I am also concerned that an American invasion of Iraq
would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and
ignite violent anti-Americanism, giving rise to future threats to our
national security. While I have no doubt that we would successfully
depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing
Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the
United States. And the ensuing anti-American sentiment could
reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in
the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one
that America has largely neglected.
The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime
is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also
simply failed to explain to the American public what our
responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee
the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we
guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of
billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?
This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words
of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a
new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive
military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that
would threaten the international order. Instead, we can and should take
the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, not by
taking unilateral military action. If we consult actively with our
allies in the region, with NATO, with the U.N. Security Counsel, we
will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's
threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to
take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be
successful in the long run.
As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force
at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into
Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's
presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's
threat. The United Nations and the international community may
recognize the need to take military action. The American people will
understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not.
Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must
always be our last resort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery
in violation of the rules of the House and directs the Sergeant-at-Arms
to restore order.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. KUCINICH. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kucinich moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 114 to the Committee on International Relations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Page 9, after line 2, insert the following:
(c) Additional Requirement.--Prior to the exercise of the
authority granted in subsection (a) to use force, the
President shall transmit to Congress a report, in
unclassified form, that addresses the impact of such use of
force on the national security interests of the United
States. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the
following:
(1)(A) An estimate of the costs associated with military
action against Iraq, as determined by the Secretary of
Defense, and an
[[Page H7797]]
estimate of the costs associated with the reconstruction of
Iraq, as determined by the Secretary of State.
(B) An estimate by the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget of any additional funding to pay the costs
referred to in subparagraph (A) to be derived from one of
more of the following:
(i) Offsetting reductions in other Federal programs.
(ii) Increases in Federal revenues.
(iii) Increases in public borrowing.
(2) An analysis by the Secretary of the Treasury of the
impact on the United States economy likely to result from
military action against Iraq, including the impact on the
gross domestic product, the unemployment rate, the Federal
Funds rate, and the financial markets.
(3) An estimate by the Secretary of Energy of any change in
the price of crude oil and downstream products likely to
result from military action against Iraq and an analysis of
the impact of such change on the United States economy.
(4) A comprehensive plan developed by the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of State for United States
financial and political commitment to provide short-term
humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq and to provide
long-term economic and political stabilization assistance for
Iraq.
(5) An assurance by the Secretary of Defense that all
United States Armed Forces to be deployed pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in subsection (a) have been
provided with equipment to protect against chemical and
biological agents (A) in levels sufficient to meet minimum
required levels previously established by the Department of
Defense, and (B) in conditions that are neither defective nor
expired.
(6) An estimate by the Secretary of Defense of the number
of United States military casualties and Iraqi civilian
casualties that would result from military action against
Iraq, including an estimate of the number of such casualties
that would result from military actions in and around
Baghdad.
(7) A comprehensive statement by the Secretary of the
Defense and the Secretary of State that details the nature
and extent of the international support for military action
against Iraq, and the effects, if any, military action
against Iraq would have on the broader war on terrorism,
including, but not limited to, the effect on the support of
United States allies in the Middle East.
(8) An analysis by the Inspector General of the Department
of Defense, the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the Comptroller General of the assertions of the
intelligence community with respect to Iraq's current
capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass
destruction. In the preceding sentence, the term
``intelligence community'' has the meaning given that term in
section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947.
(9) A comprehensive analysis by the Secretary of State of
the effect on the stability of Iraq and the region of any
change in the government of Iraq that may occur as the result
of United States military action, including, but not limited
to, the effect on the national aspirations of the Kurds,
Turkey and its continued support for United States policy in
the region, the economic and political impact on Jordan and
the stability of the Jordanian Monarchy, and the economic and
political stability of Saudi Arabia.
(10) A comprehensive analysis by the Secretary of State of
the long-term impact of a preemptive first strike attack by
United States Armed Forces against Iraq on the stability of
the United States and the world. The analysis should include,
but not be limited to, the impact on regional conflicts
involving the Russian Federation and the Republic of Georgia,
Pakistan and India, Israel and the Palestinians, and the
People's Republic of China and Taiwan. The analysis should
also include the long-term impact on the United States of the
international sentiment that a preemptive first strike attack
by United States Armed Forces against Iraq would breach
international law.
Page 9, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
{time} 1415
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
We know that for every action there is a reaction. We do not know
what danger lies before us. Every American has the right to know what
price in terms of human lives and economic resources that they will
have to pay. We owe them some answers. This is about life or death. We
owe them answers to the questions the gentleman from Ohio has raised
and will raise, and far more. In a democracy the people have a right to
know.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), my colleague and neighbor.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
In the Committee on International Relations, I offered this language
embodied in the Kucinich recommittal motion: if we give the President
the authority to radically change, to radically change, our decades-old
military doctrine of containment and deterrence, we need answers to
questions the American people are asking. If we strike Iraq on our own,
will our coalition against terrorism fracture? Most of our allies in
the war on terror oppose U.S. unilateral action against Iraq. And what
will a unilateral strike tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to
attack Georgia to chase down Chechneyan rebels? Does it set an
international precedent for China to go into Taiwan or to deal even
more harshly with Tibet? Does it embolden India, Pakistan, or both,
each with nuclear weapons from going to war to protect their interests
in Kashmir? And if we win a unilateral war, will we be responsible for
unilaterally rebuilding Iraq?
This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the
administration can detail what it plans to do and how we deal with the
consequences of our actions. Vote ``yes'' on the recommittal motion.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
The joint resolution, H.J. Res. 114, gives the President the
authority to use all necessary force at his discretion. This motion to
recommit is neutral on this central point. And I know there are people
on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the proposition before us,
who are interested in knowing that, that that resolution does not take
a position on the underlying bill. But with power comes responsibility,
and in a democracy the responsibility is to the people. This motion to
recommit would assign the administration with the responsibility to
inform the American people on key questions raised by a use of force in
Iraq, questions that Members on both sides of this proposition have
raised.
The American people want to know what will use of force in Iraq cost,
and how will it be paid for. With budget cuts? With more borrowing?
With tax increases? The American people want to know what financial
commitment the administration is making to address humanitarian
consequences of a use of force in Iraq. The American people want to
know what impact will the use of force in Iraq have on the economy of
the United States and on the important price of oil. The American
people want to know how a use of force in Iraq will affect efforts to
prevent further terrorist attacks. The American people want to know
these things because they know that ultimately they will be required to
pay the price. They are entitled to answers, and the motion to recommit
ensures that they will get those answers before they get the bill.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on National
Security, Veterans' Affairs and International Relations of the
Committee on Government Reform, I have sat in on several meetings where
the Department of Defense, Inspector General, and the General
Accounting Office have informed the Congress that 250,000 biological
and chemical protective suits are defective; 250,000 of these suits are
defective, but the Department of Defense cannot account for them. This
motion before us would help protect our troops by requiring assurance
that the United States Armed Forces deployed have been provided with
functioning equipment to protect against chemical and biological agents
in sufficient levels and that this equipment is not defective. Mr.
Speaker, this becomes particularly urgent since the Central
Intelligence Agency has just informed the Congress that if the United
States invades Iraq, Saddam Hussein can be expected to use whatever
biological or chemical weapons he may have.
Whatever our position on the war, I am certain that we want to
protect our troops who would be called upon to put their lives on the
line to protect this
[[Page H7798]]
country. This is an example of the information which the American
people have a right to know.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate for our Nation. People
on both sides of this proposition as to whether or not the United
States should pursue action against Iraq are doing the best they can to
represent our country. All of us love our country; but our love of
country should include our desire to get answers on behalf of our
constituents, answers on behalf of those who would be called to serve
overseas. So it is in that spirit that I ask my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle and both sides of this proposition to join in
support of this motion to recommit with instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. HYDE. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit; and if
anybody wants detailed reasons, I suggest they read it. It sets up
roadblocks that I think are virtually insurmountable.
In the thousands of words we have heard in the last couple of days
uttered on Iraq, a few important truths emerge. First, Saddam Hussein
is a very dangerous person. The history of his regime is one of
unrestrained violence against Iran, against Kuwait, against the Kurds,
against the Shias, and against others whose only offense is to oppose
his despotic regime. Secondly, he hates America. Thirdly, he is making
a feverish attempt to arm with weapons of immeasurable destructive
capacity; and when he is ready, he will use them.
Do you remember the first time you saw the films of the mushroom
cloud engulfing Hiroshima and then you learned about the deadly effect
of radiation on humans? That was 1945. Does the fact that modern
thermal nuclear weapons would unleash a thousand times the destructive
power of Hiroshima worry you at all? You might ask why are we debating
this resolution at this moment in time. The answer should be apparent:
September 11, which was more than a wake-up call. It shook us out of a
long, deep sleep and held us by the throat. It taught us there are
people in the world willing to destroy themselves to gratify their
hatred and we had better take them seriously.
We tend to visualize what we call weapons of mass destruction in
terms of bombs reducing buildings to rubble, but missiles can carry
bombs with chemical and biological agents that can poison a city as
well as destroy its infrastructure. Either way, it is death and
destruction on a horrendous scale. Is such an attack imminent? Did we
know Pearl Harbor was imminent? Did we know the World Trade Center
attacks were imminent? The willingness to destroy must never marry the
capability to destroy. And Santayana was right, those who do not read
history are condemned to relive it.
In a book written sometime after, I suppose, in the 1940's by William
C. Bullit, who was our first ambassador to Russia appointed by
President Roosevelt called ``The Great Globe Itself,'' he said: ``To
beat our swords into plowshares while the spiritual descendants of
Genghis Khan stalk the earth is to die and leave no descendants.''
The world looks to us for leadership. The world looks to us for
strength and resolve. We make no demands for territory or commercial
advantage. All we want is a peaceful world. ``If you love peace,
prepare for war,'' said the ancient Romans. There are ideals and ideas
worth fighting for. They are the civilizing forces that make life worth
living, that respect the dignity that is every person's entitlement.
Those ideals and principles are under attack and we must defend them.
By supporting the President, we send a message to the forces of
conquest and chaos that America, the West, is not as decadent as they
may think. Support the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 101,
nays 325, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 454]
YEAS--101
Allen
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Green (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NAYS--325
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
[[Page H7799]]
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Gutierrez
McKinney
Ortiz
Roukema
Stump
{time} 1447
Messrs. BAIRD, GOSS, LATHAM, PORTMAN, GARY G. MILLER of California,
SMITH of Michigan, and LUTHER, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Ms. DeGETTE, and Mr. MATSUI changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454 I inadvertently voted
``nay''. I intended to vote ``yea''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296,
nays 133, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 455]
YEAS--296
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--133
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--3
Ortiz
Roukema
Stump
{time} 1505
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________