[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SEEKING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think that we all are in agreement that the 
world and the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein were 
not in power, but I also think we all can agree on the fact that our 
world would be better off with a peaceful resolution to the current 
crisis and one which respects the rule of law and the role of the 
United Nations. That is why I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, to urge this 
Congress and our country to renew our commitment to working with the 
United Nations and our friends and allies to advance peace and security 
in the Persian Gulf region. We need to act, but we do not have to rush 
to war. We have alternatives.
  We have been told by President Bush and other members of the 
administration that we have to attack Iraq because our Nation is in 
imminent danger from Saddam Hussein. However, neither the Congress nor 
the public have been shown evidence of that or linking Saddam Hussein 
to 9-11. We have received no proof that Iraq has the means or intent to 
use weapons of mass destruction against us. We have not been told why 
the danger is greater today than it was a year or 2 ago or why we must 
rush to war rather than pursuing other options.
  So tomorrow I will introduce a resolution offering a road map to such 
an alternative. This resolution emphasizes the importance of working 
through the United Nations to assure Iraq's compliance with U.N. 
Security Council resolutions and cease-fire agreements and to advance 
peace and security throughout the region beginning with full unfettered 
inspections.
  During the 1990's, United Nations inspections teams succeeded in 
destroying tons of weapons in Iraq in spite of Iraq's attempts to 
obstruct their mission. They were on a search and destroy mission and 
they accomplished that. Today we need to renew that inspections process 
in the interest of our own security. We do not know the extent of 
Iraq's possible development of weapons of mass destruction and thus the 
extent of risk to us. That is why we need inspections. The President 
has called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities. In 
fact the United Nations was established to deal with just such 
international crises. So let us work with them to make that happen.
  But still on the other hand, the administration and others call for a 
preemptive first strike against Iraq. The cost of such action would be 
enormous, starting with a grave risk to American servicemen and women 
and to Iraqi civilians who will be caught in the crossfire. A 
preemptive first strike would also seriously damage our relationship 
with friends and allies, all of whom are strongly opposed to an 
assault. Statesmen such as Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela have beseeched 
us to turn away from this disastrous course. Many Middle Eastern 
countries that supported the United States in the Gulf War will not 
support this attack and warn of long-term catastrophic consequences.
  Such a war carries enormous cost. The Wall Street Journal estimates 
that it may cost as much as from 100 to $200 billion. When we have no 
proof that Iraq was tied to 9-11 and no proof that we are in imminent 
danger, why would we rush to spend $200 billion that could be invested 
in health care, education, housing, domestic security, and other vital 
needs here at home? Why are we rushing into a war with such a huge 
price tag for our foreign relations and our own budget when we have 
viable and many more effective alternatives? Why would we set such a 
devastating precedent?
  There are what, eight known nuclear powers in the world? At least two 
of them, India and Pakistan, have long been on edge with each another. 
According to the doctrine of preemption, either of those countries 
could launch an attack because they are afraid of what the other might 
do. Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Is that the precedent 
that we want to take? We will be setting that. We will be setting this 
new standard.
  President Bush laid out an axis of evil consisting of Iran, Iraq, and 
North Korea. Which dictator will be next?
  Where does preemption end? So the resolution that I will introduce 
tomorrow resolves that the United States should work through the United 
Nations to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Iraq through 
mechanisms such as inspections, negotiation, and regional cooperation. 
We do not have to go to war. We still have alternatives. It is up to us 
to pursue them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to co-sponsor my resolution and join us 
in taking this message to the American people.

                          ____________________