[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16360]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONCERNING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR A ``PRE-EMPTIVE'' WAR 
                              AGAINST IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I am concerned about 
the state of affairs in the world today, and how the United States 
government responds to the changing nature of threats to our national 
security--especially as we near the one-year anniversary of September 
11th, how the Bush administration reacts to these challenges and its 
approach to solving other international challenges.
  We are all committed to acting decisively to win the war on 
terrorism, and President Bush has had my full support in that effort. 
In fact, Congress voted as one voice after September 11th to give the 
President both moral support and authority to prosecute the war on 
terror and to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.
  I am also concerned that the proposed ``preemptive war'' against Iraq 
will divert the nation's attention and limited resources from our war 
on terrorism as well as from domestic needs, such as building up the 
economy and a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
  In speeches last week, Vice President Cheney contemplated a ``pre-
emptive war'' against Iraq--one giant step beyond the President's 
stated goal of a ``regime change'' that would oust Iraqi president 
Saddam Hussein, something most of us thought should have happened a 
decade ago. But Vice President Cheney's ``preemptive'' prescription for 
dealing with Iraq represents a radical departure from two centuries of 
U.S. defense and foreign policy and it should be the subject of 
Congressional hearings and a vigorous public debate.
  Also of concern are a number of arrogant and ideological statements 
made by other Bush administration officials over the course of the last 
couple of weeks. Especially troubling are those suggesting that the 
President already has the authority to attack Iraq at will and doesn't 
need to consult with and get the approval of this Congress by virtue of 
the 1991 resolution authorizing the use of force in Desert Storm and 
last fall's resolution supporting the war on terror. At best, this is 
simplicity without reason, and reason enough to make the U.S. 
Constitution ``required reading'' for presidential appointees.
  Without ambiguity, the Constitution vested in Congress two powers, 
among others--the power of the purse and the power to declare war. And 
the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clearly calls for collective judgment 
of both Congress and the President in time of war. The act gives the 
President the authority to act alone only when there is an emergency, 
an act of defense against a threat; examples would be Pearl Harbor and 
the September 11th attacks. In others cases a Declaration of War or 
Statutory Authority must be issued.
  President Bush has said that Iraq is governed by evil forces who 
possess weapons of mass destruction but he has not insisted on an 
immediate resumption of unfettered weapons inspection by the United 
Nations as one way of proving his point. Secretary Powell's call for 
U.N. inspections is a hopeful sign that the Administration is 
reconsidering. The President and his team should follow the example of 
his father and make the case to the American people, their 
Representatives and Senators in Congress, and to the world community 
that Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous and verifiable threat--
not only to his own people and Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East--but 
to the United States and world peace.
  From such an exercise, the President could rebuild and perhaps 
strengthen the coalition of nations that successfully prosecuted the 
Gulf War, dealing with Iraq from a position of unquestioned strength--
based on a broad international consensus. This path also has the virtue 
of assuring that all other methods to resolve the situation have been 
tried and there is no other alternative. It's worth noting that this is 
the same strategy President Bush followed in getting other nations to 
join us in the fight against terrorism. He would be well advised to 
follow the same course as he ponders what to do with the Iraq 
situation.
  On the face of it, it may seem easier to make war than to create 
peace, but it's worth remembering history's lesson that the costs of 
war are high--in human lives, resources, domestic needs left unmet and 
other global challenges, while the rewards of peace are far greater, 
measured by the savings of what would otherwise be lost or wasted--as 
the Bible says, ``Blessed are the Peace-makers.''
  Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, ``Blessed are the Peace-
makers,'' and war should be the last resort, not the first. If you have 
exhausted all best efforts to resolve the conflict with Iraq by all 
other means--by prevention, not pre-emption--without success, then the 
Congress, the American people and the world will give you the mightiest 
weapon to be had in an arsenal: the moral authority to exercise 
leadership and prosecute a war that serves the common interest of 
humanity and advances the noble cause of world peace.

                          ____________________