[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17242-17243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE COSTS OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Members of Congress must thoughtfully reflect on their 
neighbors' concerns and not serve as a mere speed bump on a fast road 
to war. This Administration has failed to provide evidence to us here 
in the Congress, either secretly or publicly, that Saddam Hussein, a 
despicable dictator, represents an imminent threat to Americans, that 
he had a role in the tragedy of 9-11, that he is in any way directly 
linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network, or that his danger to the 
world has significantly changed since 9-11. If such evidence exists, 
the President should come forward and ask for a declaration of war. 
Instead, the President has today submitted to the Congress the draft of 
a sweeping resolution that would, if approved and implemented fully by 
the Administration, commit thousands to death and extract billions from 
the pockets of American taxpayers.
  It is interesting to contrast this resolution with that enacted in 
August of 1964 upon which the Vietnam War was fought, the Gulf of 
Tonkin resolution. At minimum, this Congress would do well to narrow 
the President's request today to the overly expansive language of the 
Gulf of Tonkin, which did at least limit the Commander in Chief ``to 
take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the 
forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.'' The 
resolution also provided that we would react if a member state of a 
particular defense treaty of which we were a member was ``requesting 
assistance in defense of its own freedom.'' President Bush is seeking 
much, much greater authority than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
  I believe that it is very important for Americans to realize that 
launching a war against Saddam Hussein, despot that he is, will entail 
costs far beyond the battlefield. In addition to questioning why young 
Americans will be almost alone to die in order to win this war, there 
will be extraordinary costs that will touch the lives of every family 
in America--costs that will certainly require reaching into the pocket 
of every taxpayer in this country.

                              {time}  1615

  This week on the front page of no less a publication than the Wall 
Street Journal, President Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence 
Lindsey, estimated that the cost of waging this war in which this 
Nation is about to embark may rise as high as $200 billion. That is 
``billion'' with a ``B.'' That is billions that take away the hopes and 
dreams of so many of us for the opportunities that this country could 
afford. That is $200 billion with a ``B'' that could be available to 
ensure a life of dignity for many older Americans; and provide economic 
security, healthcare, prescription drugs, and strengthen Social 
Security for our baby boomers. That is billion with a ``B'' that will 
not be available to ensure the educational hopes and opportunities of a 
generation of young Americans. It is billions with a ``B'' that will be 
spent on war in Iraq, instead of being spent to address our many other 
types of security needs here at home.

[[Page 17243]]

  The $200 billion estimate, as high as it is, may be misleadingly low. 
We do not know whether this includes the prolonged occupation of Iraq 
and all of the associated costs, which Vice President Cheney has 
admitted are an essential part of this war; the rebuilding of Iraq, 
installing a new regime, wherever that might come from, as well as, of 
course, the much higher prices all of us can expect to pay as a result 
of increases in the price of oil.
  According to the same Wall Street Journal article, other 
Administration economists say their main fear is that an Iraq war could 
lead to a sustained spike in [oil] prices.
  This estimate also does not include the cost of the war widening if, 
for example, one of our few allies decides to become involved, and as a 
result other oil suppliers no longer supply that oil and there is 
additional regional conflict.
  ``Whatever the bottom line,'' the Wall Street Journal reports, ``the 
war's cost would be significant enough to make it harder'', much 
harder, ``for the Bush Administration to climb out of the budget 
deficit hole,'' which, I would add, grows deeper and deeper.
  So I would urge our colleagues to review this resolution very 
closely, offer their ideas, informed by their constituencies, and seek 
to work with President Bush to bring us together in favor of effective 
international arms inspection, instead of leading us into a war that 
cannot be justified based on present evidence.

                          ____________________