[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2341-H2348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
General Leave
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. The subject of my Special Order is Iran.
Madam Speaker, at the time the war in Iraq began in March of 2003,
who would have thought that we were being led into perhaps the worst
foreign policy disaster in America's history? Many of us voted against
the war authorization in the first place. But many more Members wish
they had voted against it. We now know that this country was led into
this war with faulty intelligence and a deafening war drum from the
administration.
The question that we raise tonight is this: Could the Bush
administration possibly be planning for a war with Iran? There isn't
any empirical evidence to prove that the Bush administration is
planning for war. But there are experts that are indeed worried that
the same playbook that was used to bring this country into the Iraq war
is now being used to toward Iran. The administration is pushing suspect
intelligence. And it has severely increased and sharpened since their
rhetoric first began toward Iran.
We come to the floor tonight to resist efforts by this administration
to paint war with Iran as a necessary next step in our so-called war on
terror. A vast majority of foreign policy and military experts agree
that war with Iran would be a colossal error.
Allow me to spend a few minutes to explain why I feel that U.S.
strikes against Iran are a real possibility. Let us look at some of the
signs that we may be headed for war. The increased rhetoric. The
administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward
Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war. Strong
statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for
U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facility.
Surrogates in the administration, including the President himself,
have increasingly stressed a full range of negative Iranian behavior,
including that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supplying
weapons, training and funding to special groups.
They also say that Iran is interfering with the peace process in the
Middle
[[Page H2342]]
East. And they go on to talk about General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker as they argued that Iran is the major future threat to
stability in Iraq.
Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. When this point was dismissed by
the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran had long
since halted their nuclear enrichment, the administration criticized
the report.
Allow me to read a short selection of clips from recent press
clippings that expose the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the Bush
administration. This headline from the Daily Telegraph on April 7,
2008: British Fear U.S. Commander is Beating the Drum for Iran Strikes.
``British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in
Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed
Baghdad Government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus
about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack
on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment.''
Another headline: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest
Threat to Iraq. This is in the Bloomberg News April 9, 2008. ``The so-
called `special groups,' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran,
played a `destructive role' in the recent clashes between extremist
militias and Iraqi Government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus
said. `Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,' he
told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second
day of testimony to lawmakers. `Unchecked, the `special groups' pose
the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a Democratic Iraq.''
Again, that was the Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008.
Another headline, the Voice of America, April 2, 2008, Israel to
Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran.
``Israel's security Cabinet has decided to redistribute gas masks to
the entire population amid fears of a nonconventional war with Iran.
The last distribution was just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq 4 years
ago.''
Another headline in the New York Times, April 12, 2008. The headline
reads, Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says.
``Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq,
adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in
Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday. While Bush
administration officials have long denounced what they have described
as Iran's meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker's language was unusually strong
from Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been
turning up the volume on Iran.''
A further sign that the U.S. may be headed for war is Admiral
Fallon's resignation. In the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of
Iraq, there has been discussion within media and in the military that
senior military officers should have resigned when they knew the White
House to be heading to a reckless war in Iraq.
Some are speculating that the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon is
a direct result of his steadfast opposition to war with Iran. He even
made his disagreements with the administration public before his
retirement.
In a now-famous profile that Admiral Fallon agreed to do for Esquire
magazine, he was characterized as the only man standing between war
with Iran.
Let me read an excerpt from that article.
This was Esquire magazine, March 11, 2008. The title is ``The Man
Between War and Peace.'' The article goes on to say that if in the
dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it will
all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it will all
come down to one, that same man. So while Admiral Fallon's boss,
President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to world war
III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler, a crown it has awarded once
before, to deadly effect, it's left to Fallon, and apparently Fallon
alone, to argue that, as he told al Jazeera last fall, this constant
drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful.
Another sign that the U.S. may be thinking about war is the offensive
against the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al Sadr has promised full-scale attacks
on America's interests in Iraq in the event of strikes on Iran. As
commander of the multinational force in Iraq, General David Petraeus
still presides as the commander of the Iraqi security forces as well.
Any operation against the Mahdi Army would have been authorized by him.
What motivation did the United States have in fueling a violent
confrontation with the powerful militia at a time when al Sadr had
declared a truce and the progress of the surge was being reported to
Congress?
One explanation is that recent operations against al Sadr's militia,
the Mahdi Army, may have been meant to neutralize possible resistance
inside of Iraq in the event of a strike on Iran.
{time} 2145
The following five reasons are taken verbatim from an article in U.S.
News and World Report that was published on March 5th entitled ``Six
Signs the U.S. May Be Headed For War in Iran.''
Before I go into the five reasons that I have taken verbatim from
this article in U.S. News and World Report, I am going to recognize the
Congresswoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee, who is cochair of
the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the co-founders of the Out of
Iraq Caucus. She has been consistent in her resistance to this war in
Iraq.
She is an organizer. She is a constant speaker on the speaking
engagement circuit, speaking with groups and organizations all over
this country who want to hear from Barbara Lee about what is going on
in Congress.
The question she is most confronted with is when will this Congress
end the war and bring our soldiers home? What are you going to do about
a President who is ignoring the will of the people and ignoring the
will of Congress in their attempts to resist the continued funding of
the war? Every weekend, somewhere in this country, Barbara Lee is
attempting to answer those questions and engage the American citizens
about what is happening here.
I yield to Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the gentlewoman from California, for
organizing this very important special order tonight. Let me just say
to you, Congresswoman Waters, your clear voice and your sound judgment
as the co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus has helped guide this
antiwar movement, not only here in the House of Representatives, but
throughout the country.
Your boldness and your vision in organizing those of us who knew that
this war was wrong from day one in putting together over, what, some 77
members now of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I have to salute you and thank
you for that, because we will never go back again. All we can do is go
forward to try to end this occupation and try to prevent another
preemptive war against Iran.
It is very timely that Congresswoman Waters has called us here
tonight to sound the alarm on Iran. It is truly disturbing to me to
hear many of the same drumbeats on this administration 's march to war
with Iran as we saw 5 years ago in the run-up to the war in Iraq. So I
want to provide just a little bit of history on Iraq to draw out some
of these parallels, in the hope that they will provide Congress and the
American people with a clear warning signal.
Madam Speaker, this discussion is also timely today because today is
April 15th, and millions of Americans across our country are right now
racing the clock to beat the tax filing deadline. Lots of them are
asking, how much do they owe and what is the government doing with
their money?
One answer, Madam Speaker, is that in the last 5 years, this
administration has spent nearly a half trillion dollars on the Iraq war
and occupation. This Iraq tax, and that is what it is, an Iraq tax,
comes out to approximately $16,500 for every American family of four.
Has the tax been worth it? Let's look at what we have gotten in
exchange.
More than 4,000 of the Nation's best and bravest have been killed.
More than 30,000 others have been wounded, many suffering permanent and
debilitating injuries. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
have died, and millions have been internally displaced or sought refuge
in neighboring countries. Meanwhile, the occupation of
[[Page H2343]]
Iraq has caused serious damage to America's international reputation
and created a generation, mind you, a generation of future enemies
incensed by the endless occupation of their country by a foreign power.
Madam Speaker, compounding the folly of this strategic blunder, the
$500 billion which American taxpayers already have spent on this
occupation is now undermining our ability to finance the investments
needed to address the pressing domestic needs of the American people
and to revive our sagging economy. Given what the Iraq tax has brought
American families, and this $500 billion is quickly mounting to almost
$3 trillion very soon, is anyone really surprised that the American
people are angry and demanding change?
The saddest aspect of this whole story and this whole episode, Madam
Speaker, is it did not have to be that way. Along with 125 of my
colleagues, a substantial majority of House Democrats, I opposed the
war, like Congresswoman Waters did, from the beginning, and we voted
against the resolution authorizing the use of military force.
I offered an amendment Congresswoman Waters supported, we got 72
votes during that period, to the original use of force resolution to
prohibit the administration, remember this, Congresswoman Waters, we
tried, we tried, we did everything we could do to try to keep the
administration from taking military action until the United Nations
could complete their inspections and confirm that Saddam Hussein's
regime indeed possessed weapons of mass destruction which it intended
to use against us or to give to our sworn enemies.
Had the Lee amendment been adopted, we would have learned much sooner
and at far less cost what the whole world knew, that evidentially we
didn't know, but some of us knew, but the whole world now knows,
including the American people, that Iraq did not pose an imminent
threat to the United States, was not involved in the September 11th
attacks, had no ties to al Qaeda and had no weapons of mass
destruction.
The war and occupation has also exacted an awful toll on our military
force, our structure, our readiness, and the men and women in uniform
and their families. General Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff,
testified before the Congress that the Army is out of balance. The
current demand of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the
substantial supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for
other contingencies.
Because of this administration's mistake, tens of thousands of
servicemen and women have been required to undertake lengthy
deployments into the war zone, two, three, and some even four times.
This has placed enormous strain on them and their families and
increased their risk of struggling with mental health issues, including
when they return home many, many post-traumatic stress issues that we
have never seen before. Nearly 60,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, and
most experts in the field believe the numbers could be much higher.
Some may ask, why is it necessary to review this history? Well, as
the old saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
The other reason for reviewing this history is because it goes straight
to the veracity and the credibility of this administration that brought
us this debacle and which may be maneuvering to reprise its strategic
and geopolitical incompetence by taking preemptive military action
against Iran.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the same distant drumbeats of a
coming war with Iran. The signs are very familiar. Nearly on a daily
basis we read or hear these from the administration, and let me just
repeat a few of these drumbeats that we hear.
They say Iran is the single greatest threat to the stability in Iraq,
although when I asked General Petraeus last week if Iran was in Iraq 5
years ago, he said they weren't really ``kissing cousins.'' I think
that is what his comment was. No, Iran was not in Iraq 5 years ago.
Iran is building nuclear weapons.
Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq, arming, training and
funding insurgents and terrorists.
Iran is interfering with the peace process in the Middle East.
I am reminded how the administration sent General Colin Powell, do
you remember that, Congresswoman Waters, the Secretary of State, by far
the most effective and respective spokesman, before the United Nations
Security Council to make the case to the world that Iraq posed an
imminent threat to regional peace and security. The case presented by
General Powell accomplished its mission, but its factual foundation
rested on falsehoods, misinformation and speculation masquerading as
evidence. To this day, General Powell regards his performance that day
as really a mark on an otherwise distinguished career of public service
to our Nation.
General Petraeus is the 2008 version, quite frankly, of General
Powell. He inspires more confidence than President Bush and is far more
credible than Vice President Cheney. But so did General Powell inspire
and bring this credibility to this administration, and he turned out to
be wrong; terribly wrong.
Again last week, General Petraeus testified that Iranian-backed so-
called special groups posed the greatest long-term threat to the
viability of a Democratic Iraq. He testified that it was these groups
that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of
government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the
capital and requiring Iraqi and coalition actions in response.
This is starting to sound like the groundwork being laid for the need
to take defensive action against Iran. This is unacceptable. We should
not be looking for an excuse to attack Iran. Congress should not stand
for yet another so-called preemptive military strike, and we should
take action to clearly prohibit any such attempt against Iran.
As I stated, we have been down this road before. We have learned a
simple truth from five hard and bitter years in Iraq. No unjust war
ever produced a just and lasting peace. It has not worked in Iraq. It
will not work in Iran.
What is needed is not another rush to unwarranted, unnecessary and
misguided military action, but rather a strong diplomatic surge for
peace and reconciliation. And, yes, I do believe that a nuclear-armed
Iran poses a danger. I believe we need to move forward with
nonproliferation efforts, including looking at our own arsenal of
nuclear weapons in our own country. Nuclear weapons should not be an
option at this point, given the dangers of the world. So we need to
address nuclear nonproliferation in the context of a strong diplomatic
initiative.
One of the most important first steps we should take is to have
direct, comprehensive and unconditional bilateral talks with Iran. To
facilitate this goal, it is imperative for the administration to show
that it is serious in this endeavor by appointing a special envoy. I
think we need to appoint a special person, an individual who does
nothing but ensure that we move forward to reduce the tensions in the
region, and this envoy should receive the necessary support to carry
out his or her mandate.
That is why I introduced H.R. 5056, the Iran Diplomatic
Accountability Act of 2008. Among other things, this bill directs the
President to appoint a high level envoy empowered to conduct direct,
unconditional, bilateral negotiations with Iran for the purpose of
easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and
Iran. No one says this is going to be easy, but we must start
somewhere.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released last week
representing the consensus view of our 16 intelligence agencies clearly
indicates that Iran is nowhere close to having nuclear weapons
capability. The NIE assessment underscores why it is critical for
Congress to ensure that this administration's saber rattling against
Iran does not turn into a march to war. We have been down this path
before.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the last 5 years in Iraq demonstrates
the folly of rushing off to start a war. We don't need another war in
Iran. We need to end the war in Iraq and fully fund the redeployment of
American troops so that they may be reunited with their families in the
United States. We need to use our funds to support them, protect them,
and bring
[[Page H2344]]
them home. And we need to begin to move forward to address the real
issues with regard to Iran and begin to take the military option off of
the table, because our President, this country always has the military
option, and it makes no sense to use this or to talk about it if we
truly intend to reduce tensions and look for some form of global peace
and security.
Thank you, again, Congresswoman Waters for calling us together today.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for
her consistent and persistent leadership on this issue of war in Iraq,
and I thank her for coming to the floor this evening to help sound the
bell against a possible march to war with Iran.
We have been joined by another one of our colleagues who too has been
consistent in his opposition to this war. From the very day that he
first came to this chamber, he made it clear where he stood on this
war. He has joined with us on the floor on many other occasions and it
is a constant part of his agenda wherever he is to remind people that
we are in a war that makes no sense, where lives are being lost, and
hopes and dreams are being dashed.
He brings a special kind of understanding about what is going on
because of his familiarity with the Arab nations and with Islam, and he
has done a wonderful job of helping to teach and introduce to the
Members of this Congress other cultures and helping us to understand
how they operate, what they are all about, and helping us to gain
respect for those that sometimes are singled out for war, when, of
course, problems and issues could be handled with diplomacy.
I am proud to yield time to Representative Keith Ellison to sound the
alarm.
{time} 2200
Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank you, Congressman Waters and
Congressman Lee. Before I got to Congress I thought both of you just
were towering heroes of peace. Now that I have been here and had the
chance to get to know both of you, I am certain that I was right from
the very first impression I had of you. Thank you for standing up and
calling this special order tonight.
The point I would like to make is simply this. We see in Iran a
country we have not had any open diplomatic relationships with since
1979, except for brief moments around IEDs last summer. The meetings
have not been continued, and, in essence, we have had no real
diplomatic relationships with Iran in many, many years.
Many Americans don't remember the day when we did have relationships
with Iran. Yet, despite all these years of having no diplomatic ties to
Iran, no open communications, channels of communications, it really has
not solved any of the problems. Not talking has not helped.
I want to join with Representative Waters and Representative Lee in
calling for an open dialogue, unconditional bilateral dialogue.
Dialogue is not a gift, dialogue is not a present, dialogue is not a
reward.
Dialogue is a tool that can help us stabilize the world, bring peace
to millions and millions of people all over the world. Dialogues should
not be used as some sort of a gift. It doesn't make sense for any
nation to say capitulate to our demands, and then we will talk to you.
The very purpose of negotiation is to say, let's talk, and the first
agenda item could be serious problems we have with one another.
But the start is talking, unconditional talking, talking with a clear
agenda in mind, talking with no illusions about differences. But
talking, nonetheless, is something that I think we need, and we need it
now.
I want to say that our effort to isolate Iran by not talking to Iran,
reminds me of our effort of trying to isolate Cuba by not talking to
Cuba. Now everybody in the world does business with Cuba except the
United States. American farmers wanting to sell grain, Cubans want to
buy stuff from the U.S., people wanting to see family, those things are
hampered because we are the only ones in the world maintaining this
policy of nondialogue. I fear that we could end up in the same way with
Iran.
Let me just point out an article in the Times online from March 3,
2008. The headline is, ``Four kisses, then the band played: the day
former foes became friends.''
It starts out describing a meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
Nouri al-Maliki. It goes on to talk about how a young girl dressed in a
white dress clutched a bouquet of flowers as she waited with a small
boy in a smart suit to greet President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who began a
historic visit to Iraq.
Earlier today, we heard a speaker who I won't name say that, oh, the
United States needs to get with China and Russia to isolate Iran. China
and Russia, we can't even get Iraq to isolate Iran.
We can't even get Iraq, a country we have invaded and essentially
have taken over, though it does operate under the guise of sovereignty,
we can't even get them to say don't talk to Iran. They have open
relationships with Iran and are building them more and stronger every
day. It doesn't make any sense.
Now, it's not just Iraq that has a welcome mat for Iran. But let me
just say that when Americans, Members of Congress go to Iraq, all of us
know we go into military aircraft that takes evasive maneuvers into
Baghdad, because we are concerned about our safety.
This is a fact. So much for isolating Iran from Iraq. Okay, well,
then, what about another country, Pakistan. We send a lot of money to
Pakistan. Yet Pakistan announced in a March 5, 2008 article, the Times
of India, Iran, on Wednesday, said it was ``ready to sign the India-
Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal,'' but technical issues between the two
are hindering the process.
``We are ready to sign the agreement as soon as possible,'' Iranian
Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs said. ``Everything is okay
from our side. There are some technical issues between India and
Pakistan,'' he said.
``The India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline, which is dubbed as the 'Peace
Pipeline,' is stuck over issues such as price and transition fees.''
So much for isolating Iran from Pakistan and India. All right, so
Iraq, they are talking to them, Iran, Pakistan and India are talking,
but, okay, maybe we can still get Russia and China, countries that have
militaries, countries that have economies, countries that have been
freestanding and independent for many, many, many, many, many years.
Okay, what about Afghanistan? Isn't that country essentially a failed
state which we invaded and kicked out the Taliban and now are trying to
reconstruct today?
``In the electricity substation just outside of Herat, western
Afghanistan, there's the loud hum of power--Iranian power,'' that's
right. ``More electricity reaches Herat than the city can use, but the
industrial park just across the road from the NATO military base is
putting it to good use.
``Small plastic bottles of fizzy orange juice shuffle along the
conveyor belt to be labeled and packed--the building is noticeably
Iranian in design and the markings on the machinery show exactly which
country helped these Afghan businessmen.
``The camels grazing outside cautiously cross the fast, straight,
asphalt road--one of the best roads in Afghanistan stretching 120km to
the border.
``Soon a railway will link Afghanistan to Europe, or so boasts the
Iranian government.''
I would just mention, with a quick Google search, Iraq, India,
Pakistan and, now, Afghanistan are all coalescing economically with
Iran. We are not talking to Iran. We don't talk to Iran. We don't want
to try to get into that market of 70 million people. We don't want to
try to open up diplomatic ties and work on issues.
We are not trying to solve this nuclear conflict with dialogue,
discussion and open conversation. We are just trying to isolate them,
but nothing suggested we are being successful at doing that.
The fact is maybe isolation of Iran is not the right tactic. Maybe
the right tactic is to try to talk to them, to try to build a better
relationship, to try to have cultural exchange, try to have exchange of
views, different though they may be, with an eye toward a more peaceful
world, with an eye toward a world in which people can have security and
in which an eye toward which the world can rest and feel their children
are safe at night.
[[Page H2345]]
The fact is this saber rattling, I remember that it was about maybe
16 months ago that I sat in my first meeting that I ever had with the
President, with, I believe, Representative Lee and Representative
Waters. I think it was Representative Lee who said, are you, Mr.
President, planning on hitting Iran? He gave us a sure statement that
he was not.
Yet ever since that time, all we have been hearing, time and time
again is that Iran is the problem.
I don't know how Iran could be the problem in Iraq without the
complicity of the Iraqi government. I mean, I need somebody to correct
me on this point because I just don't get it. How can Iran be an issue
in Iraq unless Iraq wants them in the country. It just doesn't make any
other kind of sense to me, and I need somebody to explain that, because
maybe I have just not been in Congress long enough to get it.
Let me just say, I want to move aside now, and I want to thank the
two Members who have been leading the charge, along with Congresswoman
Woolsey, who is recovering from back surgery. I know if she was feeling
better she would be right better with you, the triad, the triad for
peace. I admire you so much.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, I am so pleased and proud to have
been joined by my colleagues here this evening to sound the alarm. Let
me say that again, we are sounding the alarm. We are opening up the
debate. We are raising the questions. We are challenging this
administration on the issue of war with Iran.
We are saying, Mr. President, we have watched, we have listened, and
we have learned. We are smarter people when we hear talk about war,
when we hear accusations being made. When we hear a march to war we now
recognize it for what it is. It is a given that we have this knowledge
that we have acquired since we have been here since the start of the
war with Iraq. We do not intend to sit idly by without opening up the
discussion, without making the challenge, without raising the
questions.
As I said, prior to the opening lines of the presentation that was
just given by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, there were signs of war that
have been identified, not only by some of the experts that we have been
talking to, but by those who have been writing and watching what has
been going on.
As I mentioned before, there is talk, and there are news articles.
U.S. News & World Report, published on March 11, title, ``6 Signs the
U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Let me repeat that, U.S. News &
World Report published on March 11 titled ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be
Headed for War in Iran.''
Warships off of Lebanon, with the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much
the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the
Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based war planes and sea
launch missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and
nuclear infrastructure.
``Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month,
replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern
over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in
that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the
eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to
keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to
Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed
ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system
missile defense against air attacks.''
This article goes on to talk about ``Vice President Cheney's peace
trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what
is described as a Mid East trip to try to give a boost to stalled
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other
stops: One, Oman, is a key military and ally and logistics hub for
military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the
narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit choke point
into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade
in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose
support would be sought before any military action given its ability to
increase oil supplies, if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March, 2002,
Cheney made a high-profile Mid East trip to Saudi Arabia and other
nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy to Iraq and
not war, which began a year later.''
Vice President Cheney has been on that trip, as we pretty well know,
based on the advanced intelligence revealed by this very, very well-
placed article.
They go on to talk about the Israeli air strike on Syria.
{time} 2215
Israel's air strike deep in Syria last October was reported to have
targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy,
and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear
program.
An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the
real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeted
electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The
location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran. That
is also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Knowing
the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to
reduce the risk for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.
They go on to give the other identification markers that should be
watched and should be vetted.
Israeli comments. Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this
month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from
getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have
quite consistently said that they are prepared to act alone if that
becomes necessary to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons
threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given
the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?
Israel's war with Hezbollah. While this seems a bit old, Israel's
July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was
seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it
anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not
only as a threat on its own, but also as a possible Iranian surrogate
force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to
push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border
with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied
arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been
able to rearm through a United Nations force that polices a border
buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
So as you can see, there is quite a bit of reason to be concerned
about the administration's saber-rattling towards Iran. There is no way
to prove their intentions, and I hope we are wrong, but we really can't
afford to be wrong.
Another encounter like in January between the U.S. Navy and an
Iranian speedboat could be used as an excuse for retaliation similar to
the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. The White House
would simply claim that we were ``provoked'' and were defending
ourselves.
I would like to stop at this time and yield time to the gentlelady
from Houston, Texas, who has been consistent in her work with the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus in an attempt to bring our soldiers home. It is with
great pleasure that I yield to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman,
Maxine Waters. I would say I am delighted to be part of the Out-of-Iraq
Caucus, but that is not the appropriate term. I am delighted, however,
to join my colleagues, Chairwoman Waters and Congresswoman Barbara Lee
and the other members who have participated and submitted their
statement.
I wanted to join my colleagues because it has been a very long
journey. I remind Congresswoman Waters in the fall of 2002, we were
working hard for people to study the resolution being put before them.
We garnered some 133-plus votes to vote in opposition to the then-Iraq
resolution.
I want to speak constitutionally and why this special order and the
position that Members are taking in opposing any preemptive attack or
invasion of Iran and standing solidly against the perceived authority
that the President may have.
Frankly, if we look at the 2002 resolution, we will find that it can
be assessed that the President's authority
[[Page H2346]]
has expired. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. Elements of the
resolution required that. The government has changed. There has been a
democratic election, and there may be some question as to whether the
adherence of the U.N. Security Council resolution is still part of that
2002 war resolution. But I would argue that there have been so many
resolutions in the U.N. we could also concede the point that we have
protected or adhered to those resolutions.
I truly believe that we are at such a point in history that any
actions by the President would warrant extreme actions; or I should not
suggest extreme, I should suggest constitutional actions by this
Congress. It may warrant raising issues of impeachment. The reason I
say that is to use the War Powers Act in a way that ignores the
constitutional privilege and right of this Congress to declare war, I
believe, is not doing well by the American people.
We already know the results of a war without end, the Iraq war, that
is costing $339 million a day, that has already gone past a trillion
dollars, that has seen 9,500 of our soldiers injured or maimed,
sometimes injured or maimed for life, to see 4,000-plus die. It is a
war without end.
Frankly, the question has to become what is the President's goal and
intent if he has an idea that Iran is the next target. Has he looked to
diplomacy and looked to the question of working with China or Russia to
contain Iran? Has he looked at negotiation with the individuals in Iran
who really may be interested in some sort of resolution? Is he buying
into the constant refrain that Iran is providing the weapons in Iraq?
Is he also looking to the perceived friendship between the Iraq
government and the Iran government? None of the above.
What I sense in the administration is a percolating attempt to attack
Iran, and that percolating attempt based upon the representation of
nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to possess the capacity to engage
and to utilize nuclear weapons, nor am I interested in protecting an
Iran that has been hostile to the world. I am not interested in
coddling terrorists. But we can clearly see that the policies in Iraq
have not deterred the terrorists. They have only grown the terrorists.
And I would question whether the only way to create peace in the Mid
East is to again attack another country in the Mid East.
It is important that we continue to engage for two distinct states,
the Palestinian and Israel negotiations. I would have hoped that this
administration would have spent their time following through on the
road map that the President announced some few years back. I believe
that we were distracted in Iraq. We were distracted in Iraq from
Afghanistan and from solving the Palestinian-Israeli question.
So I rise today to join my colleagues and say not on my watch,
absolutely not. The statistics of the war in Iraq are devastating. Yes,
I am prepared today to declare a military success in Iraq. A military
success means that our soldiers on one and two and three and four
redeployments have done everything the Commander in Chief has asked
them to do. Saddam Hussein is gone, there have been democratic
elections, and U.N. resolutions adhered to. Bring those soldiers home,
declare a military success, and make the statement to the American
people that we will never recklessly invade another country.
Iran is somewhat different from Iraq; and, therefore, may have a
different story to tell. It may not be the easy route that they might
have thought Iraq was. But frankly, my view is that we have crossed the
constitutional bounds and that as I yield back to the distinguished
chairwoman, I simply believe that we have come to a crisis point that
this Congress must accept its duty and say to the President that no war
can be declared without a vote of the United States Congress under the
Constitution, and I would join with my colleagues, the chairman of the
Human Right Subcommittee on International Issues of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Chairman Delahunt, to suggest that the War Powers Act should
be amended and should now be that it can only be utilized by a
President when the Nation is under imminent attack and when there is
necessity to go forward to protect our citizens. Other than that, that
War Powers Act should be amended, it should be drawn down, and we
should stand with the Constitution. No invasion of Iran on my watch,
and constitutional implications for the President of the United States
if such attack is proposed.
I thank the distinguished gentlelady for her leadership in the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus.
I join my colleagues here tonight to discuss a very important issue:
the possibility that this Administration may be intent on leading us
into another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. I would
like to thank my colleague Congresswoman Waters for organizing this
special order on Iran. Even as we remain engaged in a war in Iraq to
which there is no military solution, this Administration has begun
beating the drum for war with Iran. I strongly urge my congressional
colleagues to send a clear message to President Bush that he does not
currently have authorization to use military force against Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that using a military strike against Iran
would be a colossal error. As a nation, we are still paying an
unacceptably high price for this Administration's ill-advised and ill-
executed invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In 2002, when I voted against
the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq, I did so because I believed that this would be a war
without end. I believed this resolution would trap us in a conflict
that, like the Vietnam War, would consume American resources and lives
without tangible yield. Unfortunately for the people of both this
country and Iraq, this has proven true.
As a nation, we have already paid an enormous price for the war in
Iraq. We have squandered an exponentially increasing amount of money,
and, worst of all, lost an unacceptably large number of American lives.
However, the over 4,000 U.S. casualties and the $3,919 per second
($123.6 billion per year) we are spending in Iraq have bought neither
peace nor security.
Mr. Speaker, even as our troops are caught in the midst of
instability and civil war in Iraq, the President has begun the march to
war with Iran. We cannot compound the mistakes of the Iraq war with the
even bigger mistake of opening up a second military conflict in the
Middle East. And yet, the Administration has begun to set the stage for
a U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facilities by issuing
strong statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq, and using
inflammatory rhetoric against Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up
to the Iraq war.
In recent weeks, the Administration has increasingly referred to
negative behavior of the Iranian regime. Despite contrary findings by
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Bush has increasingly stated
that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The Administration has also
cited Iran as a cause of instability in Iraq, and has argued that Iran
is killing U.S. soldiers and supplying weapons, training, and funding.
I certainly believe that the current state of affairs in Iran, and
specifically those issues relating to U.S. sanctions on Iran and the
security of the region, are extremely important and in desperate need
of discussion. As a Member of Congress, I find Iran's support of
terrorist organizations, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and dismal human
rights record to be extremely worrisome. However, I am also concerned
by what appears to be movement by this Administration toward yet
another war in the Gulf region, without having first exhausted
diplomatic means of addressing any conflicts.
I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic
Iran. I believe in an Iran that holds free elections, follows the rule
of law, and is home to a vibrant civil society; an Iran that is a
responsible member of the region and the international community,
particularly with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An
Iran that, unfortunately, we do not see today.
The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the
region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's polity, is to
assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social,
and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in
which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current
Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many
and diverse minorities.
The controversy surrounding Iran's procurement of nuclear energy is
cause for great concern; however, the administration's avoidance of any
and all diplomatic relations with Iran is cause for greater alarm.
Moreover, the current rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding
war with Iran is both counterproductive and highly inflammatory. While
full diplomatic, political, and economic relations between the U.S. and
Iran cannot be normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are
put in place to prevent the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program,
these policy objectives should not constitute pre-conditions for any
diplomatic dialogue.
[[Page H2347]]
Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and
deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster
greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the
United States and would enhance the stability and the security of the
Persian Gulf region. Doing so would reduce the threat of the
proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing
other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of
establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be
over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the
means through which we resolve this looming crisis.
Mr. Speaker, Middle East experts have repeatedly stated that a U.S.
attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. Among possible
outcomes, many experts agree, would be an Iranian counter-attack on
U.S. and Israeli interests in the region or throughout the world. Such
an attack could also lead to a greater Middle East War, and would
undoubtedly bring with it a greater loss of life and financial burden.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time that we need to be looking to ending one
Middle East conflict, not to beginning another. We need to work to
rebuild our standing in the international community, not to raise
further enmity in the Middle East and beyond by attacking another
nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to speak out against any
potential military strike in Iran.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I am very, very
appreciative of the fact that the gentlelady is one of the Members of
Congress that we can always count on to confront the challenges that we
are confronted with, particularly as it relates to this war, and at
this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I, too, want to commend the gentlelady from Texas for
raising some of the constitutional issues that we have to grapple with
each and every day.
I would like to talk briefly about the issue of the preemptive strike
which is central to this administration's foreign and military policy.
In essence what the Bush administration has decided is that it is all
right, and actually it is their standard, to be able to use force not
necessarily in the face of an imminent threat, but it is all right and
it is a policy of this administration to be able to use force to
prevent a future perceived threat. All of this is couched in this
global war on terror where oftentimes they believe they do have a blank
check to use force wherever they want to go in the world.
When you look at what they are trying to do now in Iraq with regard
to the security agreements, they are trying to negotiate a permanent
military presence in Iraq without even coming back to Congress to try
to get the authority to do that. I think minimally, and we have several
bills that have been introduced into this body, that basically just say
before the administration decides to use force or take military actions
or strike Iran, minimally they must come to Congress to seek
authorization.
Well, for the life of me, this is the People's House. I cannot figure
out why we cannot have a resolution as basic as that come to this body
so we can pass that. I think that should be a minimum standard to
protect the American people from first of all what could be total
chaos. Secondly, when you just look at the expenditure of resources and
what a possible preemptive strike could cost as it relates to Iran in
terms of treasury, blood, our young men and women and also our
financial resources. We may just be a few voices in the wilderness
crying out tonight, but we are crying out very loudly and asking the
American people to look at these signs because as Congresswoman Waters
said, we are sounding the alarm so we can stop what appears to be on
the horizon.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentlelady would yield, I just came
back from Iraq, and you are so right. After going and I think getting a
very wide view of the status of affairs there, clearly as we have
understood or understand, the government is leaning on the captains of
our military. Ranks at the captain level are like the government. There
is no seeming intent or plan that would cease the Maliki government
from leaning on the United States military, using it as a crutch. So
there is no evidence that suggests that they don't intend to have
permanent military bases. In fact, every indication from the
presentations of the military and others is that they would have it. I
believe they are in violation of maybe not the rules of this House, but
certainly the respect of the three branches of government.
Finally, I would say that I have legislation that declares a military
success, that lists the criteria under which our soldiers went in, and
moves it to a diplomatic surge. We should not fool ourselves. The
intent is a permanent base that allows them to do the preemptive strike
that you are speaking of against any country in the Mideast, and in
particular Iran. I believe we have to stop it now, and we have to stop
it forever, and we have to lean on the Constitution because we have
seen over the last couple of years the Constitution ignored, and that
simply cannot stand in this place called America.
{time} 2230
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much to both Sheila Jackson-Lee and
Barbara Lee for, again, their constant and consistent struggle working
in this House against the war.
Mr. Speaker, and Members, press reports have given us some
indications of the thrust of current White House directed planning. The
strike would be against Iranian terrorist facilities, the Revolutionary
Guard units and/or nuclear production facilities, a limited air strike
operation with the objective of changing Iranian behavior. Those who
argue for the strike are saying there will be very few U.S. casualties
and very few Iranian civilian casualties. Nevertheless, we all know
that U.S. strikes against Iran would be disastrous.
Middle East experts generally agree that Iran would respond to a U.S.
strike by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region
and possibly globally. These strikes would lead to a greater Middle
East war, including greater loss of life, financial burden, over
stretch of our military and worse.
We're sounding the alarm this evening and we are sending a message to
the President of the United States of America and to the Vice
President, particularly now to the Vice President, who, when he was
reminded by an ABC News reporter that the recent polls show that two-
thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, his
response, ``and so?''
Well, Mr. Vice President, our ``and so'' to you tonight is, and so
the American people do not want us to continue this war in Iraq and to
air strike in Iran. We're sounding the alarm. And I will yield time to
the gentleman who just left the Speaker's seat to complete this
colloquy that we've had here this evening.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I just want to again thank
Representatives Waters and Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee.
I just want to make a few quick points. We're under no illusions. I
think that by this special order, I don't think anyone intends to
excuse bellicose, inflammatory remarks that have been made by the
President of Iran. There's no excusing that. But you don't deal with
bellicose remarks with a war. You deal with bellicose remarks by
issuing a statement condemning those statements, but not with a war.
And I don't think any bellicose statements or inflammatory remarks by
the President of Iran could ever justify an attack which will result in
the massive loss of life.
I also want to say that a strike against Iran, no one can predict
what the consequences of that will be. Will it excite the Shiia
community in Pakistan, of which 30 percent of the people are Shiia
there? What will it do to Afghanistan?
Again, Iran is providing electricity in Afghanistan in an effective
way, much, much more than other countries have done. Again, Kabul and
Kandajar are not electrified 100 percent of the time.
What will happen in Lebanon? Will that inflame another war such as
the one in the summer of 2006? That could inflame the region, and no
one knows whether bombs will start falling from other parts of the
region.
This war against Iran, a strike against Iran has no clear outcome. It
is a very bad idea. And I think that what we must do is pursue
diplomatic negotiations, and remember that negotiation is not a reward,
it's not a gift, it's not a present; it's a tool for the security of
the world.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased that we have
[[Page H2348]]
taken time from our schedules to come to the floor tonight to sound the
alarm. The saber rattling is going on by this administration. The
remarks that we're hearing day in and day out are more accusatory
toward Iran. We are made to believe that we are somehow being placed at
a great threat by Iran.
And so we know where this is going. We know what this means, and
we're saying, we must not rule out diplomacy. We must believe that we
can settle differences by way of diplomacy.
We know that we've still got work to do on Iraq. We've still got to
make many Members of this House feel comfortable with the idea that
they can confront their President, that they can still be very, very
patriotic as they stand up against war and bringing our soldiers home.
We know that the work has to be done, but we've got to add to that work
the fact that we can stop an airstrike on Iran and we can stop the
notion that somehow we must send more soldiers in.
____________________