[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H690-H695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE UNITED NATIONS, NATO, IRAQ, AND MIGUEL ESTRADA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to address a couple of 
areas. The primary focus of my comments this evening will be on the 
United Nations, on NATO, and Iraq. But I cannot allow some of the 
comments that I have just heard in the last 45 minutes to go 
unrebutted, so I intend to take a few minutes here at the very 
beginning to rebut some of the remarks that were made.
  I was a witness to a very aggressive personal attack on an individual 
called Mr. Estrada, and I can tell my colleagues that had Mr. Estrada 
been a Member of the United States Congress, the Speaker behind me 
would have ruled those kinds of comments out of order by the time they 
got to the second sentence, because they were so vicious and such a 
personal attack. It was not even a fair fight. Speaker after speaker 
after speaker stood up in front of all of us, just a few minutes ago, 
and while attacking Mr. Estrada, said, this is not a partisan issue, 
but yet it was Democrat after Democrat after Democrat after Democrat. 
They did not invite anybody else in to speak on the other side of the 
issue. Not at all. In fact, the statement was made by the gentlewoman 
from the State of California that, in fact, they had been very 
aggressive just to prove that they were not being partisan, just to 
prove that they were not attacking Mr. Estrada because he happens to be 
a Republican and a conservative Republican.
  Just to prove that, the gentlewoman from California said we 
aggressively stood up in support of a Hispanic who was recently named 
to the bench, apparently in the State of California. I would just tell 
the gentlewoman from California, I have been here almost every night 
during Special Orders, and I have never seen, never seen her or any of 
her other colleagues who spoke this evening take that podium and speak 
in favor of this Hispanic judge or this Hispanic in California who 
happened to be a Republican and that they say adamantly and bravely 
stood up and spoke for.
  I tell you what else I find a particular interest from the 
gentlewoman from California who, by the way, I consider a professional. 
In fact, I am surprised by the comments that I heard coming out of my 
colleagues this evening because I happen to have watched my colleagues 
over the time that I have worked with them, and I think they are pretty 
sharp people. I think they are very capable. I was surprised tonight at 
these remarks.

[[Page H691]]

  But back to the gentlewoman from California who, as I mentioned 
earlier, I think is a professional. I work on a committee with her. She 
made a comment about the right to vote, how hard the Hispanic community 
worked to get the right to vote, and I agree with her. But do we have a 
double standard here, when one party stands up and talks about the 
right to vote on one hand and yet on the other hand works in unison 
with the other body to deny the right to vote? We see what is going on 
here is a filibuster. They are afraid to have a vote on Mr. Estrada.

                              {time}  2100

  Every one of these people, every one of those Democrats who voted 
this evening, sometime during their comments talked about the right to 
vote for Hispanics. And yet they stand here and in support of the 
denial of the right for a vote for Mr. Estrada.
  Hey, let Mr. Estrada rise and fall on his own merits. Let the vote 
take place. That is what is being requested.
  I am not here to try to convince my colleagues on the Democratic side 
that they need to support Mr. Estrada, but I am here saying it is 
incumbent, it is incumbent upon these Democrats to at least allow a 
vote on Mr. Estrada. If they want to vote no, if the Senate or the 
other body votes no, so be it. It fell on its own merits. But at least 
it got a vote.
  So if you are going to stand here this evening and talk about the 
right to vote and how strongly your community, and I agree with that 
comment, how strongly your community worked to obtain equal status to 
get that right to vote, to be recognized as citizens, then on one hand, 
as you preach that you should, on the other hand, follow your own 
preaching and allow that vote to take place.
  Let me make a couple of other comments in regards to that. I heard 
the thought that he is not qualified. He came to the Hispanic Caucus. I 
heard the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, comment after comment 
after comment assailed Mr. Estrada, attacked personally Mr. Estrada. 
And what surprised me is time after time I heard a very partisan 
Democratic attack that Mr. Estrada was not qualified.
  Now, very few of these people speaking this evening ever went to law 
school, very few of these people ever practiced in a court of law. And 
let me say their focus on there is from the Democratic side. I am a 
Republican. So I tend to, obviously, I favor Republicans. That is the 
nature of the game. But in order to kind of neutralize, in order to 
look over the partisanship, we have another player in this game, and it 
is called the American Bar Association. And the American Bar 
Association evaluates not based on party affiliation, but evaluates the 
qualifications of a particular candidate. And Mr. Estrada was no 
exception.
  They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada on whether or not he was Hispanic. 
They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada on whether or not he was a 
Republican. They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada based on whether or not 
he was a Democrat. They evaluated Mr. Estrada on his qualifications to 
serve as a judge on an appellate level. They are the most nonpartisan 
evaluation you have out there. In fact, in my opinion I think they are 
too liberally based.
  But the fact is, the opinion that they issued, which was never even 
mentioned once during this vicious attack this evening by the Democrats 
and the Democratic leadership over here, and I say Democrats, that is 
too general, a very small group of Democrats and some leadership, they 
never even mentioned what the American Bar Association did.
  By now your curiosity is probably up. Well, Congressman McInnis, what 
kind of evaluation did they come out with? They gave him an evaluation 
that rated its highest recommendation they issued, highest 
recommendation they issue. Why do you not, if you want to fight fair, 
why do you not bring out the facts? You ought to say, you know, we 
disagree with this, but the American Bar Association did say, did give 
their highest qualifications to Mr. Estrada. That is only fair.
  Let me mention another thing that I think is a little remarkable for 
its lack, and that is that Mr. Estrada has no experience as a judge. 
You know what, there were some Congressmen this evening who were making 
those statements who had no experience, previous elected experience, or 
certainly did not have any of the experience at the level of being a 
United States Congressman before they were elected to the United States 
Congress. Yet, in my opinion, although it has been somewhat discounted 
this evening, in my opinion, those individuals who spoke were very 
qualified to be United States congressional people.
  You know, I do not know what the background is, but I do not think 
the gentlewoman from the State of California held elective office prior 
to this that was equivalent to the United States Congress; yet, she is 
a very capable individual. And it is the same with any of a number of 
those individuals. They are capable, but they did not have to come in 
here with this prior experience.
  And yet you turn around, while you lack that prior experience 
yourself, and serve in the United Congress, you turn around and assail, 
viciously assail, Mr. Estrada because he ``does not have the 
experience.''
  Keep in mind, one, what you are supporting this evening through that 
tirade of comments was, you were supporting the effort to not allow a 
vote. Not you in the same boat, no. The effort you were supporting is, 
do not ever give him a chance to have a vote.
  My position, whether you are Republican or Democrat, my position is, 
let Mr. Estrada rise and fall on his own merits. Allow him the vote. If 
you believe, as apparently you do, that for some reason, although the 
American Bar Association said he is highly qualified, you think you are 
more educated in your evaluation.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). The 
gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman will refrain from urging the Senate to take action.
  Mr. McINNIS. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.
  Yet my colleagues over here who think that they can evaluate better 
than the American Bar Association are making an effort to deny the 
vote.
  So, in summary on this, let me say, number one, let me say there was 
no need for that vicious, one-sided attack this evening. It was very 
partisan in its nature. It was not a fair fight and at least you ought 
to be fair. I think Mr. Estrada can stand up and lose the fight if he 
gets a fair fight. You did not even give him a fair fight.
  In fact, you did not know I was coming this evening. I did not expect 
to make comments in this regard. But I felt that attack was so vicious 
and double standards were being utilized that somebody has to speak up 
for Mr. Estrada on this House floor.
  By the way, I have never met Mr. Estrada. I would not know him if he 
walked in the door right here. There is no reason for me to stand up 
and defend him here tonight other than the fact that it was a one-sided 
attack by a small group of Democrats and their Democratic leadership, 
and that is fundamentally unfair. And it is fundamentally unfair for a 
group to work against a vote being taken, to deny that right to vote 
after they preach to us.
  You were preaching, my colleagues were preaching to us about how hard 
they have worked in their community, and which, by the way, I agree 
with, their community worked hard to be sure that they had the right to 
exercise a vote. And yet on one hand you say, we have a right and we 
worked hard in our community to exercise the vote. But on the other 
hand, do not allow the vote for Mr. Estrada; but although the American 
Bar Association says he is qualified, we do not think he is qualified. 
And although we do not think he has experience, we did not have any 
experience before we came in the United States Congress. For some 
reason, it is okay for us, but it is not okay for Mr. Estrada. And by 
the way, we will do it on the House floor where nobody stands in 
defense of Mr. Estrada.
  I find myself here not even knowing Mr. Estrada but feeling you are 
picking on the little guy, and it is not a fair fight.
  I am willing to stand up to you. I know you out number me 10 to 1 
tonight. I know you came here speaker after speaker after speaker, 
first giving a disclaimer that it was not partisan

[[Page H692]]

and then of course the rest of your comments were completely partisan.
  So I am standing up for him. And I think he ought to have a vote. And 
I think you ought to take into consideration or at least say to the 
people when you make your comments, by the way, while I disagree with 
Mr. Estrada, you should know that the American Bar Association gave him 
its highest evaluation of what they think is required to serve as a 
judge on the appellate level in the Federal Government.
  Enough. Enough of that.
  I need to talk this evening and spend some time with my colleagues on 
the situation that is occurring in NATO, the situation at the United 
Nations, the situation in Iraq. I think at the very beginning it is 
important to distinguish between the United Nations and NATO.
  NATO, of course, is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is a 
family. It is a strong defense alliance built between America and its 
European neighbors. It is an alliance that is like a close-knit family. 
It is an alliance that has gone to war as an alliance, as in Kosovo. It 
is an alliance in which, like blood brothers, like blood brothers, you 
make the commitment when you join that alliance that a fight with 
anybody in the alliance, a fight upon any individual country within the 
alliance is a fight with the entire alliance. And for 50-some years 
that alliance, NATO, has stood strongly.
  In the last 2 weeks we have had a breakup in the family. We have had 
a couple of members of the family, three members to be specific, who, 
despite the fact that the family has coddled them for 50-some years, 
despite the fact that the family has put their arms around them in a 
time of need, despite the fact that members of NATO like the United 
States of America, like on D-Day, put their arms around France and 
helped France. It was not Iraq that went to help France. It was not 
Iraq that was in Kosovo helping France. It is not Iraq and Korea 
helping South Korea. It is not Iraq out there doing anything for France 
other than selling them oil. And France left.
  One of our family members has left, in my opinion, in part due to a 
business deal. It has shaken the entire foundation of the organization 
we know as NATO. And while we start let me mention, I just want to 
quote from an article, this is off Yahoo, New York Post, it is an op-ed 
piece, so I am quoting from the op-ed piece, ``Mr. Howard Served in D-
Day.''
  He is an American, an American citizen. He did not have a bone to 
pick, but he decided to go to answer the call for his country to fight 
for France, and this is what he said: ``We were men of war and men of 
honor. The turncoats making policy in Paris and Berlin,'' speaking to 
what has happened in the last 2 weeks, ``do not know the meaning of the 
words,'' referring to the words ``men of war, men of honor.'' France 
was in trouble. Excuse me, let me step back.
  Mr. Howard remembers why our young men went to war. He says, ``France 
was in trouble and all of us had to do something about it. Simple as 
that.'' ``France was in trouble and all of us had to do something about 
it. Simple as that. With this anti-American thing going on, I tell 
people loud and clear, I am an American, first and last. You got a 
problem? I think we all did our bit back then.''
  Now what has happened. Let me just take a look because there is a 
perception out there from the world-wide media. They sensed for obvious 
reasons that there is a breakup in the family, that a family that 
nobody thought they would ever see a crack in, a family that has had a 
strong history of partnership for 50-some years all of the sudden, in a 
matter of hours, suffered a major break. And the perception out there 
is that it is a fight between the United States of America and France 
and Germany.
  It is not a split between the United States of America and France and 
Germany and Belgium. It is a division in Europe. Let me show you.
  I have a chart to my left and I would like to refer you to the chart. 
I am going to circle the three members of the family. Let me first of 
all point out on the chart the members of the family. Take a look: 
United States, Portugal, Norway, Italy, Greece, Denmark, we have 19 of 
them, Turkey, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Iceland, Germany, Canada, 
Czech Republic, Spain, Poland, Luxemburg, France and Belgium. That is 
the family. I am introducing you to our family in the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  And by the way, it is not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that 
would be engaged in the conflict in an offensive fashion against Iraq. 
The issue with Iraq is separate from NATO. That is being handled by 
another unit called the United Nations and primarily through their 
Security Council.

                              {time}  2115

  Back to our family at NATO. All of these family members agree with 
this exception: Germany, France and Belgium.
  My point in referring my colleagues to the posters is I would like my 
colleagues to see that it is not a split, an even split in the family. 
It is not even close to an even split in the family. Sixteen members of 
this family support another member and let me tell my colleagues who 
that other member is. That other member is the most moderate Muslim 
country in the world.
  That other member, which is the country of Turkey, is a country that 
time and time and time again has come to the alliance and assisted the 
alliance. That is a member despite the pressure, and talk about 
pressure, France and Germany and Belgium have never seen pressure like 
the Turks have. Time and time again the Turks have been under intense 
pressure from some of the more radical countries in the Middle East to 
walk away from NATO. They have looked at Turkey and said how dare you 
stand with the United States of America, how dare you stand with Great 
Britain, how dare you stand with the Netherlands or Iceland or Canada 
or Greece or Italy or Spain. What are you doing in that organization?
  But the Turks have stood tall. Time and time again the Turks have 
delivered to the family. Time and time again the Turks have proven that 
they are not only a stable, but they are probably one of the strongest 
members of the family, and time and time again the Turks have come to 
the assistance of the other members. It is like the big brother, always 
there to help. That is a good description of Turkey. That is not an 
accurate description of France or of Germany or of Belgium, but 
Turkey's always been there to help.
  With the situation in Iraq, it appears because of remarks and 
indications that Saddam Hussein has made that the country of Iraq could 
very easily decide they want to pick a fight with Turkey and blindly 
attack Turkey with weapons, possibly weapons of mass destruction. For 
the first time in the alliance of NATO, Turkey has come under what we 
call section 4 of NATO. For the first time Turkey has come and invoked 
section 4, and they are the big brother who has always helped us, has 
now come into the family house and said can you help me.
  Turkey has said can you help me, and you know what the brothers and 
sisters in that family house have said? The United States said, yes, 
and by the way, the United States now says if NATO will not stand up 
for you because of the actions of France and Belgium and Germany, we 
will. The United States, just be aware anybody in the world, you take 
on Turkey and we consider it a direct attack against the United States 
of America, and we will respond accordingly with overwhelming 
superiority.
  But when the family was asked to pitch in and help Turkey, the United 
States stepped forward and they said yes. Portugal stepped forward and 
they said yes. Norway stood forward and they said yes. Italy stood 
forward and they said yes. Greece stepped forward and they said yes. 
Denmark stepped forward and they said yes. The United Kingdom obviously 
stepped forward and said yes. The Netherlands stepped forward and said 
yes. Iceland stepped forward and said yes. Canada stepped forward and 
said yes. The Czech Republic stood forward and said yes.
  What is really neat about some of this, some of these countries are 
our little brothers and sisters. They are very small as far as military 
might, but they are very, very small countries; but by gosh, they stood 
forward and said we are going to help our brother Turkey. We are going 
to give it the best we got. Spain stepped forward and said yes. Poland 
stepped forward

[[Page H693]]

and said yes. Luxembourg, little reluctant, slow, yes. Hungary stepped 
forward and said yes.
  But then some of the most prominent, some of the biggest members of 
the family, to the shock of every other member of the family, to the 
shock of the brothers, to our brothers and sisters, France stepped 
forward and said not only no, not only maybe, we will abstain from 
this, maybe we will stay in the house while you go out to help our 
brother Turkey. France stepped forward and said I am going to veto the 
right for you to help Turkey in any way. I am going to veto to make 
sure NATO cannot get out of the door of the house to go help our 
brother Turkey. Germany did the same thing. Shame on them. Belgium.
  Remember what I told you about Mr. Howard, about what Mr. Howard said 
on D-day. France was in trouble and all of us had to do something about 
it. Simple as that. We were men of war. We were men of honor. It was 
that simple. Our brother France, it was in trouble. That is what Mr. 
Howard talks about, D-day, and yet how quickly and how shamefully the 
French and the Germans and the Belgians forget not what the United 
States did for them, although what we have done for that country 
whether it is the Marshall Plan or Hitler or bringing down the Wall, 
you cannot count all the assistance we have given to those countries, 
but speaking much more broadly than the United States, this assistance 
came from their fellow member of NATO, and in the last week, they 
shocked the family by saying we are not going to participate, we are 
not going to help Turkey.
  How can they do that? I mean, it is like looking at your brother and 
saying how can you betray the family, how can you walk out on us like 
that, in a time of need, without warning? You walk out on the family. 
This has nothing to do with Iraq. That is not the issue here in front 
of NATO. That is the issue in front of the United Nations Security 
Council. Why are you using Iraq as a cover to defy your brother? Why 
are you walking out on your family? Why do you do this? What do you 
have to gain?
  Have you made the choice that instead of putting your investment, 
your commitment with the people who have stood beside you for 50 years, 
whether it is Portugal or Spain or Italy or Hungary or Iceland, instead 
of putting your commitment with these people, you are now choosing to 
put your commitment with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? You are walking out 
of our family, not only the insult of leaving our family in a time of 
need, France and Germany and Belgium; but you are going across the 
street to help one of the worst men in the history of this world.
  It is unanswerable unless, unless you begin to look a little deeper. 
Then you find out that the French signed an agreement with the Iraq 
government for the right to explore an oil field that they believe has 
40 billion barrels of oil in it at a discounted price. Iraq knows that 
if they can win the public relations war, Iraq knows that maybe they 
can break America because America may not have enough guts to act 
without the French or without Germany.
  If France and Germany, let us just say that the oil that they are 
getting from Iraq and the arms that they are selling to Iraq, and 
Germany's in there, too, and so is Belgium, let us just say that that 
is not the reason for leaving the family. If the reason for leaving the 
family is they do not want to go to war and somehow they tie NATO into 
the war, again, it is not the NATO issue with Iraq. It is the United 
Nations that is dealing with Iraq, two separate institutions, but if 
that is their concern, they, in fact, are making the war more likely, 
the probability of war higher because of the fact that they are now 
presenting a broken front, a nonunified family, a broken family.
  The best way to settle this peacefully is stand nose to nose with 
Saddam Hussein with a unified international community that says disarm 
and disarm now.
  The President of the United States has made this very clear. The 
President and Prime Minister of Italy has made this very clear. The 
Prime Minister of Great Britain has made this very clear. Many, many 
people throughout this world are willing to stand as a unified team as 
the President and Colin Powell says or the Vice President and Mr. 
Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice, with a coalition of the willing.
  Every time France needed something, NATO became the coalition of the 
willing. Every time Germany or Belgium needed something, it was NATO 
that was ready to stand up to the plate. That was the deal. We are 
blood brothers. We made a commitment, a solemn commitment 50 years ago, 
and we have stood in honor only to be disgraced by the countries that 
we, America or many of these countries, we lost on D-day. It is 
stunning to the international community that NATO, which was perceived 
as probably the strongest alliance in the world of a multiple nation 
makeup would, in fact, be defied by its own family.
  So let me say to my colleagues, this is not light discussions which 
are taking place right now. I, under the fine leadership of the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who is the chairman of the 
parliamentary arm of the House for NATO, I am a member of that. I have 
been a member of that for a long time. I have witnessed the family. I 
know what a good family it is.

  Tomorrow or the next day we will depart for NATO meetings, and I 
intend to be as strong in my comments in front of the French and the 
Germans and the Belgians as I am with my colleagues this evening. This 
is a serious rift. No one should take it lightly. The message I will 
deliver to the French and to the Germans and to the Belgians is, for 
God's sake, think about what you are doing. Think about the family that 
you are about to walk out on. Be selfish for a minute and think about 
your own future. Be totally selfish and think about is your future 
better with your brothers and sisters in the NATO alliance? Is your 
future better with Poland and the United Kingdom and the United States 
and Hungary and Spain and Italy and any number of these countries, the 
Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Canada? Is your future better with 
them or is your future better with the country of Iraq? I mean, it is 
so basic and yet so fundamental to the survival of this family.
  Let me say that this split in the European community, France wants to 
be the big dog. France wants to always lead the parade. France wants to 
be the head of the EU and Germany wants to be France's little buddy.
  Let me say, in my opinion, NATO will suffer from this but what will 
suffer the most is the investment that France and Germany and Belgium, 
the investment they are making with Iraq. They will suffer the most in 
the long run for they will find out you cannot deal with a madman. You 
cannot deal with a killer. You cannot appease, you cannot appease a 
cold-blooded killer who not only invaded two other countries, two of 
his neighbors, but also in cold blood used weapons of mass destruction, 
chemical gases, to kill his own people.
  You are being dealt a bad hand, and I am going to say to the French 
and to the German and the Belgian colleagues, look at the hand that you 
have been dealt. You have got a great hand. You have got a hand that is 
shared by 16 other nations who have been with you for 50 years; and 
whether you have got a good hand or a bad hand, we have always been 
there and you have got a good hand right now, and you are about to 
throw it on the table and give it to the person who showed up, who does 
not have the best interests of anybody but himself, Saddam Hussein, in 
mind.
  Let us move again, as I said earlier, we have the United Nations 
which we are going to speak about right now and we have NATO. My 
comments up to this point have been focused specifically on NATO, 
keeping in mind that the issue in front of NATO is not the issue of 
Iraq. The issue in front of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, clearly is do we or do we not go to the assistance of one 
of our members, that is, the country of Turkey, which has invoked 
section 4, which requests help from its different colleagues? Do we, an 
organization that has been a solid family for 50-some years, do we in 
fact work to continue that family or should in fact NATO, the issue now 
in front of us, is our family now broken because three of our members, 
the Belgians, the French and the Germans have refused to honor their 
lifelong commitment, their blood brother commitment to stick with us?

[[Page H694]]

                              {time}  2130

  That is NATO. The issue is not Iraq. The issue is, do we help Turkey, 
which faces imminent threat from Iraq? The issue is, do we or do we not 
help Turkey?
  I can say for sure that America will help Turkey. And every one of 
those 16 countries voted to go immediately to assist Turkey. And France 
and Germany and Belgium, your failure to act will not cause a weakness 
for our friends, the country of Turkey. We will act.
  The rest of the members of NATO, despite your veto threat, and 
unfortunately we will have to act outside the body of NATO, but whether 
it is a truck, whether it is a prayer, whether it is medics or 
mechanics or the military might of the United States and the British, 
we will protect Turkey. And you, France, and you, Belgium, and you, 
Germany, will see this as one of the largest and most significant 
mistakes of your country's history.
  Now, let us move to the United Nations and talk just for a moment 
about the United Nations. The United Nations, really when it comes to 
the issue of Iraq, and keep in mind the United Nations has about 189 
members, I may be off one or two, but 189 countries or so. North Korea, 
for example, is in the United Nations. We have a number of different 
countries which are completely opposite of the United States and of the 
free world, in my opinion, in the United Nations. But we are not 
talking about the whole body. The real focus we have today, dealing 
with the problem of Iraq, dealing with the problem of weapons of mass 
destruction, dealing with the problem of, for example, North Korea and 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, that primarily focuses on the 
Security Council of the United Nations.
  I wanted very quickly, if you look to my left at the poster, the 
United Nations Security Council, these are the members of the Security 
Council. These members, for example Russia, can carry a veto and 
prevent the United Nations from taking action as a body. For example, 
the Kosovo air war. The head of the Security Council persuaded the 
United Nations to oppose an air war in Kosovo. So it is a powerful 
body, but it is a powerful body within the scope of the United Nations.
  This is the body of which we were in hopes would be strong enough, 
have tough enough teeth that it could bite into the problem and hold on 
to it after the Persian Gulf War of 12 or 13 years ago. It was the 
United Nations which issued the resolution, led by the United States 
and the joint members of the United Nations, to take action, to free 
Kuwait after Iraq overran Kuwait without cause, conquered its country, 
destroyed its oil wells, killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of 
people in the country of Kuwait. It was the United Nations that issued 
a resolution supporting military conflict, if necessary, to free the 
country of Kuwait.
  It was the United Nations that kept the United States and the 
British, because we decided to be Mr. Nice Guy. We thought the United 
Nations could do something with Iraq after the Persian Gulf War, which 
was an overwhelming victory for the allies and America because of our 
military superiority. We had confidence, now as it appears, misplaced 
confidence, but we had confidence that the United Nations could help us 
rebuild Iraq through a series of resolutions, through a series of 
inspections, through disarming Iraq.
  The United Nations assured us 12 years ago to not go in and 
exterminate, do not go in and destroy or eliminate Saddam Hussein. Stay 
out of Baghdad. It was the United Nations. It was not George Bush, Sr., 
who made the decision. It was not Margaret Thatcher and the United 
Kingdom who made the decision to stay out of Baghdad. It was not Norman 
Schwarzkopf who decided not to go into Baghdad. It was the United 
Nations who insisted that our mandate was simply to get Iraq out of 
Kuwait, to not go into the city limits of Baghdad and take down the 
regime of Saddam Hussein.
  So we agreed to it because we were under the mistaken trust that the 
United Nations meant what they said. We were under the mistaken belief 
that the United Nations would carry through with its resolutions, that 
the United Nations, through its Security Council, would be sure that 
the resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed in his own writing to 
follow, even proposed some of these resolutions.
  We were confident. That may be too strong a word. We were cautiously 
optimistic that the United Nations would not be a paper tiger, that the 
United Nations, within a short period of time, would disarm Iraq of 
these weapons of mass destruction. We knew of munitions that Iraq had, 
and we were cautiously optimistic that Iraq, through the United 
Nations, would disarm and become a member of the world community.
  It was a big mistake, and it is proving today that the United Nations 
itself does not have the gumption to do what it says. And it is the 
United Nations, not the United States, it is the United Nations that is 
on the brink of becoming what we call a paper tiger, an organization in 
the West they say is a cowboy with a big hat but no cows. The United 
Nations is right on the brink of making that decision. Do we once again 
become a paper tiger?

  Now, let us look a little at the history. First of all, what kind of 
weapons are we talking about in Iraq? Are we talking about these 
missiles we discovered in the last few days that have a range that 
exceeds the maximum range that Iraq agreed they would restrict these 
missiles to? Are we talking about the shell casings that Iraq denied 
that they still had? What are we talking about?
  Let me show you an inventory of what we are talking about and why we 
think it is important for the United Nations to not become a paper 
tiger. Again, let me refer you to my left. This is not what the United 
States or the Brits or any other ally says that Iraq has. This poster 
to my left does not reflect what the United Nations says Iraq has; this 
poster reflects what Iraq, what Saddam Hussein said he had. That is 
what this poster reflects. Take a look at it.
  Weapons of mass destruction: Mustard gas, 2,850 tons of mustard gas. 
That stuff is lethal, and I am going to show you case after case after 
case where Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, used these weapons of mass 
destruction either against his war in Iran or against Kuwaitis or 
against his own people.
  Sarin nerve gas, 795 tons. Do you realize what you could do to 
America or to Canada or to Portugal or to any neighbor of Iraq with 795 
tons of sarin nerve gas?
  VX nerve gas, 3.9 tons. This is a very, very vicious weapon of mass 
destruction. The last two words describe it most accurately, mass 
destruction.
  Tabun nerve agent, 210 tons.
  Anthrax, 25,000 tons. Now, we all have an idea of what anthrax does 
because of the anthrax attack we had here in the Nation's Capital. That 
killed servants of this country. That killed people serving this 
country with just a few drops of powder in an envelope.
  He, under his own admission, has 25,000 tons of anthrax. He has 400 
tons of uranium and he has 6 grams of plutonium. Under his own 
admission, he has these weapons of mass destruction.
  Now, we do not know where he has them. He agreed, by the way, to 
destroy them. He agreed to turn these over to the allies. By the way, 
you do not just destroy them. You do not just go out and set them on 
fire. You have to go through a very complicated process to disarm 
these.
  He has become an expert at sensing that the United Nations may be 
really nothing but a paper tiger, that it may follow the history of the 
League of Nations, which was charged with the responsibility, almost in 
a duplicate situation with Germany after World War I, to disarm 
Germany, and they backed down. Germany lied, and Germany, in fact, had 
weapons they said they did not have. The League of Nations did not 
enforce inspections. The League of Nations became a paper tiger, and 
Germany became a war machine. Unfortunately, many of us suffered. Many 
of our countries suffered during World War II.
  The United Nations is heading down that direct path because they 
refuse to disarm Iraq. Instead, they are going to play this cat-and-
mouse game.
  Well, our President, thank goodness for our President, who has said 
enough is enough. He said earlier it is like a bad movie and he is not 
interested in seeing the rerun. You know what the

[[Page H695]]

rerun is? Let me show you what President Bush does not want to see a 
rerun of. Again, the poster to my left.
  President Bush does not want to see a rerun of August of 1983, where 
mustard gas killed no fewer than 100 people. He does not want to see a 
rerun of February 1986, where Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and tabun 
and killed 8,000 to 10,000 people. President Bush does not wants to see 
a rerun of the October 1983 attack, where Saddam Hussein used mustard 
gas to kill 3,000 Iranians and Kurds. President Bush does not want to 
see a rerun of the December 1986 act by Saddam Hussein, mustard gas, 
where he killed thousands of Iranians. That is the rerun President Bush 
does not want to see.
  Unfortunately, the person we would call ``the dove,'' the person 
least likely to urge this country to go into a military conflict, is 
Colin Powell, a man of high integrity, highest popularity rating in the 
United States of America because they know this is a man of integrity, 
and he has said enough is enough.
  Take a look at the team we have. President Bush put together the A 
Squad. We have Dick Cheney, one of the most qualified Vice Presidents 
in the history of this country. Condoleezza Rice. By the way, Dick 
Cheney is just north of us in Wyoming. The President from Texas. 
Condoleezza Rice schooled in Denver, Colorado. Condoleezza Rice, one of 
the brightest, most capable people in the area of international 
affairs, world affairs. Don Rumsfeld, one of the toughest guys I have 
ever met; one of the smartest men I have ever had the privilege to 
visit with. And, of course, Colin Powell.
  These people do not want to see a rerun. These people, and every 
Member of the United States Congress ought to be standing up strong and 
saying to the United Nations, do not let this happen to any more 
generations, to any more people in the world. United Nations, you have 
the opportunity today, you have the opportunity today to make sure that 
this movie, which is reflected on the poster to my left, will never be 
rerun again; that no other family in the history of the world will 
suffer from the hands of Saddam Hussein by a weapon of mass 
destruction.
  It is an inherent obligation of the world to stand up to this tyrant 
and to stop him. Yet, as we are on the verge of that, I fear that this 
tyrant is winning a public relations, a public relations effort with 
the United Nations, and the United Nations itself is about to become an 
unimportant organization because they did not stand up when standing up 
was called for. They did not answer to the call of duty when the most 
important call of duty came forward. They blinked. They blinked to the 
madman. They attempted to appease him.
  Look at history. History is a teacher. I do not care what history 
teacher in America you pick. Any history teacher you want, of any 
political affiliation, whether prowar, antiwar, pro-this or anti-that, 
there is one thing they all share in common. Every history professor in 
America shares one thing in common. What is it they share in common? 
They share in common that the knowledge of history gives you a pretty 
good idea of the future: That history is often repeated, that history 
repeats itself.
  To my left is the poster of history. It is the history of Saddam 
Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction. Not weapons that he has 
threatened to use, but weapons that he has used. It is the history of 
tens of thousands of people who died a horrible, horrible death. It is 
a history that the United Nations is on the verge of choosing to 
ignore. Maybe the United Nations should ask any historian anywhere in 
the world, forget the United States, ask anywhere else in the world if 
they think history will repeat itself.

                              {time}  2145

  Fortunately, we have a President who has built a coalition throughout 
this world. This is not America standing alone. This is America 
standing with many countries throughout the world, Spain, Italy, the 
United Kingdom, many, many different countries throughout the world.
  So, okay, United Nations, maybe you are going to be a paper tiger, 
but we are convinced that history will repeat itself with Saddam 
Hussein, and we are at the end of our game. Even if it costs us some of 
our brave young men and women, we are willing to put the lives of our 
country's citizens on the line to stop this murderer. When duty calls, 
the United States under the leadership of our President and these other 
countries, the leadership of Tony Blair and the United Kingdom, et 
cetera, et cetera, have answered the call.
  We are begging the United Nations answer the call while you have the 
opportunity. Come out of the foxhole. You have an obligation to get 
onto the field. We must stop history from repeating itself.
  I could not speak with more serious or somber attitude than I am 
speaking to you this evening. Standing right in front of us is the 
history. We know the history. This inventory that Saddam Hussein has 
admitted himself is not a made-up inventory. Those are very, very 
lethal weapons. It is not like a single shot from a rifle where there 
is one victim. One vial of these inventories that Saddam Hussein has 
admitted to having, one vial can wipe out an entire community. History 
shows time and time and time and time and time and time again, this 
madman has used these weapons of mass destruction and killed thousands, 
tens of thousands of people.
  Yet we have people of sound mind who stand back and put their hands 
over their eyes and pretend that history will not repeat itself, that 
pretend that the cancer does not exist and this is somehow going to go 
away if we try to appease the madman. If we say give us a little of 
that inventory at a time, we will be satisfied with your word that you 
will not attack, that history will not repeat itself.
  I will tell Members what the United Nations is doing. They are making 
a bet, and anyone that supports allowing this madman to continue down 
his path, they are making a long bet. They are making a bet that the 
odds are so stacked against them that most of us would consider it a 
bet of insanity. It is a bet that no one in Las Vegas, no one that 
gambles, nobody that has ever gambled would ever take with the odds 
that face these people that do not want to stop this madman by military 
conflict, if necessary.
  It is a bet that is based on the premise, it is a bet that is based 
on the premise that history will not repeat itself, and that this 
madman all of a sudden has turned a new leaf and that this madman all 
of a sudden wants to join the world community and is a man of integrity 
now and a man of honesty.
  I am telling Members those that are making that bet, they are not 
just going to lose, you are making this bet on behalf of the entire 
world. And unfortunately, if we lose the bet because history repeats 
itself, we all lose. Tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands 
of people will have their lives snuffed out because of a foolish, 
foolhardy bet that has been made.
  Everyone of us in this Chamber and everybody in an elected office or 
an office of leadership in this world, the time has arrived to stand 
up. The time has arrived to come out of the foxhole fighting. The time 
has arrived to make sure that we address the fact that history will 
repeat itself.
  We have an opportunity today to, in my opinion, save hundreds, maybe 
hundreds of thousands, of people. It is not the only problem that we 
have out there. Sure, we have a problem with North Korea, and we have 
economic problems. We have the AIDS problem. But I am telling Members 
the problem that I think is the biggest threat is the one with the 
highest probability of repeating itself in history, and that is Saddam 
Hussein and the use of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the leaders of our country, including my 
colleagues in Congress who had enough guts to stand up and say enough 
is enough. But I am telling those people who are betting that history 
will not repeat itself, in my opinion, and I say this with a great deal 
of sincerity, and I do not say this with a lot of exaggeration, in my 
opinion you have let down every human being on the face of the Earth.

                          ____________________