[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 137 (Thursday, October 17, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1927-E1928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. XAVIER BECERRA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 10, 2002

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, any nation engaged in a program of building 
weapons of mass destruction presents a danger to international peace 
and stability. Any leader who flouts the rule of law is a menace to 
liberty and democracy.
  Over the past couple of months the President has attempted to lay out 
the case for aggression against Iraq. I agree with the President that 
the actions of Saddam Hussein in his defiance and deception of the 
international community reveal a ``history of aggression.''
  In my mind, the President has made a strong case that Iraq must 
disarm, pursuant to the United Nations resolutions enacted following 
the close of the Persian Gulf War. But the President did not convince 
me that we should go to war and go it alone. Nor has he made the case 
that we should change our longstanding policy and defy international 
law and commit to a first strike.

[[Page E1928]]

  The threat posed by Iraq is a threat which confronts the entire 
world, not just America. The voice of the community of civilized 
nations and the legitimacy to act on their collective word reside in 
the United Nations. It is through U.N. resolutions, crafted in 
substantial measure by the U.S., that we have the license to compel 
Iraq's compliance. And it should be through the U.N. that we should 
seek to enforce such compliance.
  This resolution before us gives the President authorization to send 
American troops into Iraq to strike unilaterally and, indeed, to strike 
first when he deems it appropriate. Congress has never before granted 
this extraordinary power to any previous President. We can address the 
threat posed by Saddam Hussein without expanding Presidential authority 
beyond constitutional standards.
  The Framers of our Constitution wisely assigned the power to commit 
America to war not to the President but to the people's democratic 
representatives in Congress. Our Founding Fathers knew from experience 
and we should remember today that a declaration of war is the ultimate 
act of humankind. It presumes to endow the declarant with the right to 
kill. In many instances, it amounts to a sentence of death, not just 
for the guilty but for the innocent as well, whether civilian or 
soldier.
  The President should approach Congress and ask for a declaration of 
war when and only when he determines that war is unavoidable. The 
resolution before us leaves the question of war open-ended by both 
expressing support for diplomacy and authorizing the President to use 
force when he feels it is the correct course of action. Yet, in his own 
words, President Bush indicated that war is not unavoidable. So why, 
then, is he insisting on being given now, today, the power to go to 
war?
  We are the lone superpower economically and militarily in the world. 
Our words have meaning, our actions have consequences beyond what we 
can see.
  The implications of a unilateral first strike authorization for war 
are chilling. A unilateral attack could lead the world into another 
dangerous era of polarization and create worldwide instability. It 
would also set a dangerous precedent that could have a devastating 
impact on international norms.
  Consider India and Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia and 
Chechnya, Cyprus, Taiwan, Colombia, Northern Ireland, Central Africa. 
How might the people or the government in any of these countries which 
are engaged in or at the brink of hostilities interpret this resolution 
today? Why should not other countries adopt the President's unilateral 
and first strike policy to address conflicts or threats?
  Would not a unilateral attack galvanize other potential enemies 
around the globe to strike at the United States and our interests? In 
our efforts to focus on what the President described as a ``grave and 
gathering danger'' ten thousand miles away in Iraq, let us not lose 
sight of the dangers which are grave and present, not gathering but 
present, here at home: the al Qaeda plots targeting our airports, our 
water treatment facilities, our nuclear power plants, our agricultural 
crops.
  Just this Tuesday, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that 
Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United 
States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on 
the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We must consider 
how our actions may impact on the safety of the American people. The 
answer may not always be what we expect.
  We must also ask: will the death and destruction it takes to 
eliminate a sovereign, albeit rogue, government (what the President has 
labeled ``regime change'') lead to goodwill by the Iraqi people toward 
America and Americans?
  Well, let us look at the record. During the Persian Gulf War of 1991, 
we dropped some 250,000 bombs, many of them ``smart'' bombs, over a 6-
week period on Iraqi forces. That is close to 6,000 bombs per day. We 
deployed over 500,000 troops. The war cost over $80 billion. None of 
that money was spent on reconstruction in Kuwait, and certainly not in 
Iraq. And all of this is what it took simply to expel Saddam Hussein 
from tiny Kuwait, which has one-tenth the population and one twenty-
fourth the landmass of Iraq.
  Today we are told that it would cost the U.S. $200 billion or more if 
we were to go to war with Iraq. That does not include any costs for 
reconstruction of post-war Iraq. No matter how ``smart'' or 
``surgical,'' bombs will kill civilian non-combatants--children, 
mothers, the elderly. Two billion dollars in bombs, death and 
destruction does not sound like the wisest prescription for engendering 
Iraqi goodwill.
  I am eerily reminded of the infamous quote by an American military 
officer in the Vietnam War that ``we had to destroy the village to save 
it.'' Are we contending today that we need to destroy Iraq to save it?
  And what is our, and for that matter the world's, recent record on 
supporting postwar reconstruction? Ask the people of Bosnia and of 
Kosovo, and now ask the Afghanis.
  Certainly there are situations where the United States must prepare 
or be prepared to act alone. I voted in September 2001 to give the 
President that power to punish those who attacked this nation on 9/11. 
But the question is, are we at the point on the question of Iraq to go 
to war without international support? Because that is precisely what 
the resolution before Congress would authorize the President to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the President was clear in his speech to the nation on 
October 7. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is leading Iraq down a 
dangerous course. That is why the world should come together to 
confront this destabilizing situation and the United States should do 
all it can to encourage that effort. It is time for us to recognize 
that if we do this, we do it together.
  The President raised an additional point in his remarks of October 7, 
and that is that confronting the threat of Iraq is crucial to winning 
the war on terror. Indeed disarming Iraq and neutralizing Saddam 
Hussein's ability to share weapons of mass destruction with those who 
would do us harm is critical. However, should the President take us to 
war against Iraq, we will find ourselves fighting battles on three 
fronts: in Iraq, in Afghanistan and other terrorist ``hot spots'' where 
elements of al Qaeda and evidence related to 9/11 leads us, and 
finally, here at home. Do we have the resources to carry such a heavy 
commitment? Does Iraq divert us from winning the fight against 
terrorism and securing for the American people the safety they seek at 
home?
  Today, as we speak, in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding our 
nation's Capitol, parents are deciding whether to send their children 
to school. A calculating, cold-blooded murderer who has already killed 
9 people and wounded 2 others in 2 weeks is roaming the streets. One of 
his victims, a 13-year-old boy, lies in critical condition from a 
bullet which savaged his abdomen. We must be equally committed to act 
to safeguard Americans from threats within our borders as we are from 
threats beyond our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few votes as solemn and challenging to each of 
us and our democracy as a vote to declare war against another people. 
Can I look at my Maker, my family and the good people who elected me to 
speak for them and say: this is the cause for which I will cast my vote 
to sacrifice American lives? . . . the lives of innocent non-
combatants? Is this truly the time to ask for the ultimate sacrifice 
from our men and women in uniform? In Bosnia and Kosovo, I could answer 
yes. Genocide was being committed as we breathed. On September 11, 
2001, and indeed on December 7, 1941, America suffered premeditated, 
cold-blooded attacks which took thousands of mothers, sons, brothers 
and sisters from us. We needed to search for justice. But Mr. Speaker, 
I cannot with clear conscience answer the same way in regards to this 
resolution. That is why I cast a ``no'' vote. I urge my President and 
my country to move deliberatively and in concert with our partners in 
the community of nations as we address the threat that is Iraq.

                          ____________________