Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14 - FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19838-19904]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF
MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, ``When in the course of human events it
becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which
have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them.''
When the delegates to the Second Continental Congress began to debate
those immortal words in July of 1776, they did not have the long lens
of history to guide them. These bold men adopted the radical idea of
independence based upon deeply-held convictions and beliefs that
bloodshed, though unwanted, was a probable course. Indeed, when the
document declaring independence was executed in August of that year,
30,000 British and Hessian troops were assembled at Staten Island, New
York, a 3 days' journey from Philadelphia.
At first blush, those of you reminded of this narrative would quickly
make the distinction that those Philadelphia delegates and the
colonists they represented were in imminent peril, and we are not. Is
that in fact the case after September 11? America's enemies today do
not dispatch columns of infantrymen ``across the green'' or battleships
upon the high seas. Instead, we face a deadlier threat in chemical and
biological weapons willing to be dispersed by an army of anonymous
killers. This 107th Congress, as our forefathers before, must face this
difficult issue without the benefit of history's clarity.
I have been contacted by a number of Missourians with wide-ranging
opinions, and some have proclaimed, ``Let us not wage war with Iraq.''
Would that I could will it so, possessing the knowledge as I do of the
threat Iraq poses. Would that Saddam Hussein lay down his arms, those
weapons designed to commit mass murder against the defenseless.
Now, time does not permit me to make my case, but there has been a
lot of discussion about the case that has been made, and I am convinced
that Iraq continues to possess and manufacture weapons of mass
destruction in defiance of 12 years of Security Council resolutions.
My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a good
friend, a moment ago said there is no definitive link between Iraq and
the attacks of September 11, 2001; and I acknowledge that. However, our
United States intelligence services have detected that Saddam's regime
has begun efforts to reach out to terrorist groups with global reach.
I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein's regime is largely secular and has
often clashed with fanatical religious fundamentalist groups. However,
I am mindful of a disquieting adage, the enemy of my enemy is my
friend.
The resolution I support today suggests a variety of means to disarm
Iraq without immediately resorting to the end of open warfare. It is
imperative that the United Nations take strong action to implement a
comprehensive and unfettered regime of weapons inspections. It is
deeply troubling to me, however, that the only thing that seems to
compel Saddam Hussein into compliance is the threat of military force.
Certainly many questions remain. However, the risks of inaction are
greater, in my mind, than the risks of action.
Ironically, a number of family members who lost loved ones last
September have come to Capitol Hill and have questioned the inability
of our intelligence agencies to foresee those attacks prior to
September 11. Why did we not act upon those threads of information,
they ask plaintively? Why did we not prevent the horrific attacks of
that crisp, clear morning?
Mr. Speaker, let us not allow that tragic history to be repeated. We
have a moral responsibility to defend our Nation from harm. This
conflict has been brought to us, and we have provoked it only by being
free. We must move forward decisively, confident in the knowledge that
our voices, which cry out so desperately for a lasting peace, have been
and will be heard by the rest of the world.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the House Committee on
Appropriations, a top member of the Committee on Energy and Water and
on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the war against terrorism
and believe that stopping Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of
mass destruction is a necessary part of that effort. But at this time,
however, I believe it is premature to authorize a unilateral attack on
Iraq.
Working with the international community is the surest means of
addressing this threat effectively, sharing costs and resources and
ensuring stability in Iraq and throughout the Middle East in the event
of a regime change. While the President has spoken of the value of a
coalition effort, the resolution before the House today undermines the
importance of our allies and of maintaining the momentum of
international cooperation in the wider war on terrorism.
I support the Spratt amendment to this resolution. This amendment
would authorize the use of U.S. forces in support of a new U.N.
Security Council resolution mandating the elimination, by force, if
necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and means of
producing such weapons. Should the Security Council fail to produce
such a resolution, the amendment calls on the President then to seek
authorization for unilateral military action. In this way, the
amendment emphasizes our preference for a peaceful solution and
coalition support, while recognizing that military force and unilateral
action may be appropriate at some point.
We should not rush into war without the support of our allies. We
should not send American troops into combat before making a full-faith
effort to put U.N. inspectors back into Iraq under a

[[Page 19839]]

more forceful resolution. We should not turn to a policy of preemptive
attack, which we have so long and so rightly condemned, without first
providing a limited-time option for peaceful resolution of the threat.
America has long stood behind the principles of exhausting diplomacy
before resorting to war; and, at times like this, we must lead by
example.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114,
authorization of use of force against Iraq.
After the attacks of September 11, Congress reaffirmed our commitment
to keep the American people safe from international threats. That
commitment faces its first true test as we debate this resolution.
We are faced with clear evidence of a threat against the security of
the American people. We have several options to deal with this threat.
This resolution will provide all necessary options to the President for
protecting the security interests of the American people.
By giving the President the needed flexibility, Iraq and the rest of
the world will know that we are prepared to enforce our demands for
disarmament with the use of force.
By giving the President this flexibility, the American people can be
fully defended from the threat Iraq poses to our national security.
It is clear that Saddam Hussein constitutes a grave threat to the
security of the United States through his motives, history,
technological capabilities and his support for international terrorism.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who has sworn eternal hostility
to the United States. There is evidence that this same dictator has
financed and supported international terrorism, including harboring
members of al Qaeda. Despite agreeing to fully disarm by ridding itself
of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has worked to actually enhance its
weapons program, increasing its stockpiles of biological and chemical
weapons and working to build nuclear weapons.
Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his
neighbors and his own people. He has attempted assassinations of
foreign leaders, including an American president.
Alone, these facts are very troubling. Together, they present a clear
and present danger to the national security of the United States.
Saddam Hussein has the motive, has the capabilities and the absence of
humanity that is all too clear. Ignoring this evidence would be
abandoning our duty to the security of the American people.
Now we are faced with this question: How do we deal with this threat?
The answer is to leave all options at the President's disposal on the
table, including military options. Like everyone in this Chamber, I
sincerely hope and pray it will never come to that. Nevertheless, I
believe the evidence justifies the President to act in the interests of
our national security. This resolution gives the President the
necessary authority to deal with this threat.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will come before us for final
passage has already been written at the White House. I very much wish
that it had a different phraseology, but that is not the choice of
individual Members. The only question that will come before us that we
can influence as individual Members is by what margin does that
resolution pass. Does it get 325 votes, or 375, or somewhere in
between?

{time} 1645

Saddam Hussein does not fully understand our political process. He
sees a nation in the throes of an election where we speak quite harshly
to each other on domestic issues, and we will be doing more of that in
the coming weeks. There is no better way to assure that Saddam
capitulates on the issue of inspectors, no better way to assure that
this war does not have to be fought, no better way to assure a peaceful
resolution of this conflict than for us to pass this resolution by the
largest possible margin and make sure that Saddam understands that
America is united and capitulation on the issue of inspectors is the
only rational course and the only course that will assure his own
personal safety.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of this most balanced resolution. Like most
of my colleagues who support the President in this important matter, I
am not voting for this resolution because I have any wish to speed to
war; I am voting for this resolution because I hold out hope for peace,
a peace that can still come, but only if the United Nations will apply
decisive pressure to Iraq to open itself to unconditional, unfettered
weapons inspection.
Unfortunately, the last decade has shown that without the use of
force as a threat, Saddam Hussein will continue to stonewall and ignore
every resolution issued by the United Nations, all the while amassing
weapons of terror. The resolution before us today does not send us to
war, but it does provide a powerful incentive for Hussein to finally
comply with the dictates of the United Nations. With the threat of
force, the United Nations and President Bush will be able to negotiate
from a position of strength.
Nobody, no legislator, Republican or Democrat, takes this
responsibility of sending our children off to war lightly, but nor can
we stand by as Saddam Hussein and his regime continue to work to amass
stockpiles of the world's most deadly weapons. My deepest fears lay in
the thought that he could soon supply terrorists with nuclear weapons.
We simply cannot ignore our responsibility to protect our country,
democracy, and our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, the State
of Israel.
Mr. Speaker, again, I hold out my hope for peace; but to rely upon a
dictatorial madman with little respect for the life of even his own
people, let alone American life, to bring about a peaceful resolution
to this crisis would be foolhardy. It is for that reason I strongly
believe that we must strengthen the President's hand. With a hopeful
heart, but realistic concern over this threat, I will cast my vote in
support of this resolution as a last chance for peace.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson), a member of the Committee on International
Relations and former ambassador to Micronesia.
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I stand to oppose H.J. Res.
114, the authorization for military force against Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I have attended numerous administrative hearings on Iraq
where not one bit of new evidence was offered to demonstrate that
presently Saddam Hussein is more of a menace than that proven
diabolical character, Osama bin Laden. Why are we not still focusing
our attention on him? I remember so well the declaration made by the
President: ``Wanted, dead or alive.'' We have painfully experienced his
capacity to wreak havoc on thousands of our people from thousands of
miles from his own perch. And now, he appears to be an afterthought.
We have given Saddam Hussein the power to force the greatest country
on Earth to abandon its domestic agenda, to potentially violate the
U.N. charter, and possibly take unilateral and preemptive action before
exhausting all diplomatic efforts. I am not convinced that Saddam
Hussein warrants the daily headlines and the extraordinary amount of
time and resources given to him. We are equating his power with ours
and, in some ways, ascribing it to be beyond our ability to detect.
While we are monitoring his every move, I have no doubt that if he
were to plan an attack on the United States or on our allies, we would
be able to stop him in his tracks. But what we cannot do is to provide
the proof of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts or whether he is dead or
alive, or who spread anthrax and, currently, right here in this
country, who is killing innocent Americans in a close radius of the
White House. But our focus remains thousands of miles away on a

[[Page 19840]]

villain who cowardly goes after the weakest. It is beneath us to choose
war over diplomacy, and not only carry a big stick, but beat our
perceived enemy over the head with it.
The United Nations is being diminished with our rhetoric of the last
few weeks. As a charter member, we are not giving it credit for trying
to uphold the principle of sovereign equality of all its members. The
U.N. charter states that in recognition of the sovereignty of all
nations, all shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means. The U.N. charter also states that all members shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or the use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
State.
Chapter VI of the charter empowers the Security Council to
investigate any disputes and to recommend appropriate procedures for
the settlement of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved, it is
then referred to the Security Council for action. Under Chapter VII,
the U.N. Security Council shall determine the existence of threats to
peace. Article 46 provides that plans for the application of armed
force shall be made by the Security Council. The U.N. charter does not
provide for preemptive or first-strike options of member states against
a perceived threat.
Too little in this House has been made of peace. When will we mature
to a point when we will find noncombative ways to settle our
differences? When are we ready to use our higher selves to find ways to
be nonviolent? To effect a regime change, we are threatening an
invasion of a territorial foe to enhance our own security; but such an
invasion will, in fact, degrade and diminish us.
This resolution offers only the incessant drumbeat of war. During the
Vietnam War, it was often said that ever every time we kill a Viet Cong
guerrilla, we create two more. Our invasion of Iraq will be watched by
millions of Muslim men and women. Many governments around the world
will become less cooperative in helping us track down terrorist
operatives in their countries. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American
men and women may perish in the streets of Baghdad. Our invasion will
engender a bottomless well of bitterness and resentment towards the
United States that will haunt us for decades to come. We now have a
choice to maintain the moral high ground or sink to the depths of our
tormentors. History will record this moment.

Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of Conference Report on H.R.
3295, Help America Vote Act of 2002

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at
any time to consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 3295; that
all points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered
as read when called up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution
before us.
The most grave responsibility any Member of Congress ever undertakes
or considers is the vote to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force if necessary.
On September 11, I drove past the Pentagon. I came in to my
congressional office building, and I was informed that a plane had just
struck the Pentagon. We left our offices, we went to a place, we tried
to call our families, the communications systems were jammed. It took 3
hours until I could finally talk to my wife and I have five sons, and I
began talking to each of my boys. I got to my second son, Ross, and he
was crying, and he asked me, Daddy, are we safe?
In my lifetime, I never asked that question. I never asked that
question, Are we safe, of my mother and daddy, of my father, because
the generations that went before us gave us the blessings of liberty.
They protected and defended our safety and security when a threat, a
challenge emerged; when we were at risk, they answered the call. So
many times in our Nation's history, we have had the strong voices that
have given us warnings and called us to action, and so many times we
did not listen. Winston Churchill called on the world to look and to
act at the threat that Hitler posed, and the world did not listen; and
because of that, more death and more destruction and world war came.
Today, we have an opportunity, backed by a clear and convincing
threat, and backed by a leader of character, to hear the warnings, to
know that nuclear capability is around the corner in the hands of a
dictator, in the hands of a tyrant; and he could use it, and the death
and the destruction that it could cause would be devastating. It would
be overwhelming. But if we act now, we can stop it. We can prevent it.
We can preempt it.
For those reasons, we have the moral obligation to act. I support the
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 114.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving the President the
authority to go to war with Iraq if it becomes necessary. I came to
this difficult decision only after considering the threat to our
national security that allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire long range
missiles and nuclear weapons represents. While we should continue to
seek a diplomatic solution, inaction is not an option. I feel that we
must give the president the option of using force to remove this threat
to our nation if diplomacy does not work.
No one in the United States wants another war with Iraq if it can be
avoided. However, we know that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, and is frantically working to develop nuclear weapons and a
way to deliver them to the United States. This presents a serious
threat to our national security and has the potential to destroy any
chance for peace in the Middle East.
I believe our first step should be to develop a new, tougher weapons
inspection resolution which would allow the U.N. inspectors unfettered
access to all sights in Iraq, including the presidential palaces. If it
is implemented successfully, the resolution would serve to disarm Iraq
and would not require an armed confrontation. However, as President
Bush has noted, the track record of Iraq's compliance with U.N.
resolutions is abysmal, and this time we must give him the tools
necessary to ensure that Iraq is truly disarmed.
In addition, I believe that before we use military force against Iraq
that the administration should work to reassemble the coalition that
was so successful during the Gulf War or like the one we developed to
combat terrorism. While we could defeat Iraq without a coalition,
policing and rebuilding Iraq will take years, and we will need allies
to undertake this long and difficult task.
Those of us in this chamber who have worn the military uniform of
this great country, understand the ravages and consequences of war, and
do not take this vote lightly. All diplomatic options should be
exhausted before the use of military force, but I believe the option of
force must be available to the President as a last resort. Giving the
authority to use force does not mean war, it only gives our commander-
in-chief the maximum flexibility to protect our nation.
If it comes to war, many of our nation's sons and daughters will be
put in harms way in order to protect our freedoms from Saddam Hussein's
reign of terror and to keep him from acquiring nuclear weapons and the
means of delivering them to the United States. I would never send our
young men and women into combat unless it was absolutely necessary; and
unless Iraq allows weapons inspectors into the country with unfettered
access it will be necessary. Congress needs to give the President the
authority he needs to protect America while encouraging the use of
diplomacy and negotiations to try and arrive at a peaceful solution to
this problem before turning to military force and this is why I will
vote to give him the ability to eliminate this threat to American
security.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has just arrived and is now available to
convince the entire House of Representatives.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.

[[Page 19841]]

We have before us today one of the most important issues that a
democracy must decide, whether to potentially go to war against another
nation. It is a vote of conscience, and I believe reasonable people can
disagree while looking at the same set of facts.

{time} 1700

September 11, however, has changed the psyche of our Nation forever.
We witnessed in horror what a few suicidal terrorists can accomplish in
a low-tech operation, and now we shudder to imagine what suicidal
terrorists can accomplish if they gain access to high-tech weapons of
mass destruction.
I believe Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction and that he is aggressively seeking to develop nuclear
capability. But I also believe that he can be deterred because, as New
York Times columnist Thomas Friedman puts it, Saddam loves his life
more than he hates us.
It is, however, irrefutable that Saddam is in blatant violation of
numerous U.N. resolutions that call for his disarmament of these
weapons. Now the question becomes: How do we enforce these resolutions
and accomplish the universal goal of disarming his weapons of mass
destruction?
I have come to the conclusion that my two sons' futures and the
future of all our children across the globe will be made a little safer
if Saddam disarms, on his own or with our help; militarily, if
necessary. I pray that it is done peacefully. I pray that he blinks.
But I have also concluded that we are dealing with a person who will
not do the right thing unless, literally, he has a gun pointing at his
head. Therefore, I support the resolution before us today.
But I also support the Spratt amendment, because how we accomplish
our goals and with whom can make all the difference. We need to do this
with the help and the support of the international community. I believe
that it would be disastrous if we try to accomplish disarmament through
unilateral military action.
The process we take will determine whether the rest of the world
views us as a beacon or as a bully. We could remain a beacon of hope
and optimism as the leader of the free world, promoting economic
progress for all, respecting human rights, and ensuring democratic
values such as freedom, political pluralism, religious tolerance, free
speech, and respect for the rule of law; or we could be viewed as the
superpower bully, imposing our military power whenever we want and
wherever we want.
I give the President the benefit of the doubt when he now says that
the use of military force will be a last resort, not a first option;
that regime change can also mean attitude change of Saddam's; and that
we will work hard to gather international support for disarming him
before military action is taken.
That is what the administration should have been saying from day one,
and it is now reflected in the new resolution before us today.
We need to do this the right way because U.N. engagement and
international support is essential. I subscribe to the Thomas Friedman
``crystal store'' theory of U.S. foreign policy: If you break it, you
own it. If we break Iraq, we will have the responsibility to rebuild
it, just as we need to rebuild Afghanistan today. This is another vital
reason why international support is critical for our action in Iraq,
for what happens the day after.
We have never been good at nation building. We can accomplish
military goals with little help, but our democracy does not have the
experience or the sustainability for successful nation building.
Therefore, we must approach the aftermath of any conflict in the region
with the greatest degree of humility.
In addition, I am concerned that the administration is developing a
blind spot. They are becoming overly intoxicated with the use of our
military power. I am glad that we have the world's most powerful
military; but this is not just a battle of military might, it is also a
battle of values and ideas in the region. Our message to the outside
world needs to be better than: You are either for us or you are against
us; and if you are against us, we are going to kill you.
Instead, we need to send a message through words and deeds that we
are interested in being good global citizens as well. Unfortunately,
the unilateralist message this administration has sent from day one has
now come back to haunt us in our attempt to secure support against
Iraq: No to the global climate treaty, no to the biological treaty, no
to the land mines treaty, no to the ABM treaty, no to an international
crimes tribunal. If the rest of the world does not like it, that is
just tough.
Instead, the world needs to hear from us that we are concerned about
our global environment; we are concerned about their economic progress;
we are concerned that 2 billion people must survive on just $1 a day;
that 1.5 billion people, most of them children, cannot even get a clean
glass of water; and that we want to help eradicate the scourge of AIDS.
Furthermore, the world needs to hear that we are truly interested in
being honest brokers in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in
the Middle East. We need to recognize that the real battleground for
peace throughout the world ultimately lies in education. We cannot just
keep looking at the Arab world as a great gas station, indifferent to
what happens inside their countries, because the gas now is leaking,
and there are people starting to throw matches around.
If we have learned anything from September 11, it is that if we do
not visit and help in a bad neighborhood, that bad neighborhood can
come and visit us.
So for the sake of our young military troops, for the sake of the
Iraqi people, and for the sake of our Nation as it is perceived by the
rest of the world in the 21st century, I pray that we can accomplish
Saddam's disarmament peacefully and, if not, then with international
support.
But today we need to give the President this tool in his diplomatic
arsenal, and also pray that he uses it wisely.
May God continue to bless these United States of America.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint
Resolution 114.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today
in support of the resolution before us. The decision to allow our
military to use force against Iraq will be one of the most important
votes we cast in this Congress, but the responsible choice to support
the resolution is clear.
Over the past few weeks, we have labored over the proper scope and
limitations for this significant measure. The compromise language has
been drafted by key House and Senate leaders, and the President.
This resolution is in the best interest of America's national
security. After a decade of deceit and deception, in which we have
permitted a hostile dictator to repeatedly violate every agreement we
have in good faith put before him, the use of force has become a
necessary option. I think I speak for all members of this Congress when
I say that I hope and pray that military force does not become
required; however, we must prepare for all possible outcomes.
This resolution protects the Congress' ability to remain fully
involved in future decisions and actions in Iraq. It provides the
resources for the United States to act ion the best interest of our
national security, while remaining committed to generating support for
a multilateral coalition.
I support our President and commend his efforts to ensure that the
citizen's of American do not live in fear of another tragic terrorist
attack or of harm from rogue nations. With passage of this resolution,
we will provide our Commander in Chief with the resources necessary to
carry out his greatest task of all--providing for the continued safety
of our citizens.
This resolution to authorizer military action against Iraq is one
that has been seriously deliberated by the President, his policy
makers, and this Congress.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the

[[Page 19842]]

chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, ``does this body have the will and resolve
to commit this Nation to a future of peace, or will we leave for our
children an inheritance of uncertainty and world instability? I do not
want to see our Nation at war, and I pray that this crisis will be
resolved peacefully. But I cannot in good conscience deny to the
President of the United States every power and tool that he is entitled
to in his efforts to resolve this crisis.''
Mr. Speaker, I spoke these words right here in this very spot on the
floor of the House of Representatives during my first speech as a
Member of this body. One day later, on January 12, 1991, I cast my
first vote, one to give the President the authority to use the Armed
Forces in removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
As a freshman Member of Congress, I could not ever have imagined that
more than a decade later this body again would be faced with the
challenge of dealing with Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime. But here we
are in 2002, and Saddam is once again at the heart of our national
security concerns.
The September 11 terrorist attacks have changed this Nation forever.
Those tragic events increased our appreciation of our vulnerability to
terrorist attacks, particularly from weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein has actively developed a deadly biological and chemical
weapons program, and he is actively pursuing the development of nuclear
weapons. We cannot ignore this reality.
What has changed since the last time I voted to use our Armed Forces
against Iraq has not been a new identification of our enemy, but the
reassessment of our national security risk. The last 11 years have
proven that attempting to contain Saddam through an ineffective weapons
inspection regime does not alter his intentions nor force him to
disarm. We must resolve to stand firm against Hussein's regime to
guarantee security for Americans and the international community and
justice for the Iraqi people.
I commend President Bush for his consistent consultation with the
international community and with the congressional leadership on both
sides as he develops a strategy for confronting this grave threat. The
resolution before us today is a result of those consultations, and its
passage is the United States government's opportunity to speak with one
voice in its efforts to protect American interests at home and abroad.
We cannot expect the United Nations Security Council to take action
to protect not only our interests but the interests of the
international community without sending it a strong signal of our own
resolve.
Looking back on the vote that this House cast to authorize force back
in 1991, I can recall how somber my colleagues and I were as we
contemplated the consequences of our actions. Today, I sense a similar
mood in the House. Whenever Congress votes to authorize the use of the
greatest Armed Forces in the world, it is destined to be one of the
most serious and difficult votes ever cast by our Members. It is not a
decision we relish, but it is one that we must make.
I pray and hope that the need to use military force to disarm
Hussein's regime is not imminent. However, I stand ready to support
such an action should the President deem it necessary.
The famous legislator and philosopher, Sir Edmond Burke from England,
once said, ``All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do
nothing.'' I also recall the words of our great President Ronald Reagan
when he said ``If not now, when? If not us, who?''
It is time for us to act, it is time to support our President, and it
is time to tell the rest of the world that the American people speak
with just one voice.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight unanimously approved the report of the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources titled ``Federal Law
Enforcement at the Borders and Ports of Entry,'' the most comprehensive
report ever on our Nation's border security.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I would like to discuss some of the
findings and how I feel they impact the debate on the resolution
regarding Iraq that is before us.
There are 130 official ports of entry on the northern border at which
it is legal to cross, whether by vehicle or foot. There are an
additional over 300 unofficial crossing areas along the northern
border, roads which are unmonitored and allow for individuals or groups
to cross undetected.
Near Blaine, Washington, the only barrier is a narrow ditch easily
stepped over and containing no water between two roads. In northwest
North Dakota, it is even easier: It is flat for miles, and there is no
ditch. As for the southern border, it is not exactly known as
impenetrable. If we cannot stop tens of thousands of illegal
immigrants, it does not breed a lot of confidence that we can stop all
terrorists.
Our subcommittee has also begun to study port security. The
challenges in our largest harbors, Long Beach and Los Angeles, are
overwhelming. But by the time a nuclear device has slipped into L.A.,
we are already in deep trouble. Preclearance at point of origin, or at
a point prior to coming into the U.S., is a probable method to reduce
risk; but shipments could have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons
added en route at the receiving harbor or in transit to the next
shipping point.
I have not even discussed airport security.
The point of my comments is this: If those opposed to this resolution
somehow think we are going to stop terrorists from crossing our
borders, that by itself is an incredibly high-risk strategy doomed to
probable failure. As chemicals come across in different forms or
nuclear weapons in parts, even with dramatically improved security we
will not catch it all.
We need a multifaceted approach. We need a vastly improved
intelligence collection and information-sharing. That is obvious to
everyone. We are working to improve border security, port security, and
airport security. But when we can see the chemical and biological
facilities that have manufactured, can manufacture, and probably are
manufacturing weapons of mass destruction intended for us, we need to
act to destroy those facilities. When we get solid intelligence that
someone intends to kill Americans and that they have the weapons to do
so, we need to eliminate their capacity to do so.
If this leader and nation have already demonstrated, as Saddam
Hussein has, a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction to
terrorize, like Iraq, alone in the world in demonstrating such
willingness, then the need to act becomes urgent.
The American people do not want to burn while the politicians fiddle.
We need to strengthen our borders. We need to monitor suspected
terrorists and arrest those who become active. We need to take out the
capacity of those bent on terrorizing our Nation.
If we implement all of these strategies, we have a chance of success.
Partial, timid strategies against people bent upon killing Americans
will not save lives. They will cost lives.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
The preamble of this resolution sets out in detailed chronological
order the obligations that were imposed upon and accepted by the regime
of Saddam Hussein as the result of a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire
in 1991. They were clear obligations for Saddam Hussein to end his
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to
deliver them and to end his support for international terrorism. I have
heard no one deny the existence of these obligations. I have heard no
credible denial of their breach.
Since our country has been attacked by terrorists and we continue to
be threatened, at least in part, due to the breach of these
obligations, it becomes the duty of the President and this Congress to
chart a course of action that will protect our country and all its

[[Page 19843]]

citizens. This resolution in my opinion charts such a course.

{time} 1715

It provides that the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend the national security
of the United States, and, secondly, to enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
In the final analysis, it boils down to a matter of judgment, whether
we should vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' My judgment is unless I vote ``yes,''
I have failed to meet the obligation that I have to the more than
630,000 men, women and children who constitute the First Congressional
District of Tennessee who are at risk today because of the failures of
Saddam Hussein.
Is there any question in anybody's mind what the votes of any of
those brave leaders who founded or helped perpetuate our Nation would
be? Leaders like President Washington, President Lincoln, President
Truman, or President Eisenhower, all who demonstrated during their time
in office the good judgment to chart and the courage to complete a
difficult course.
Can we not agree all of us in this Chamber that mankind would have
been spared terrible agony and death if the judgment of Winston
Churchill had been heard and heeded and adopted as a course of action
in the 1930's?
The eyes of all our great leaders of the past and the eyes of all who
have laid down their lives for our freedom are upon us today to see if
we are proper stewards of the freedom and the opportunities that they
afforded us with their sacrifices. This decision is vital, not only to
the future of Americans, but to the future of the world community and
to all who would throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression and
escape the horrors of chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear warfare.
If we are forced to action following this resolution, and it is
everybody's hope that we will not be, it will be easier in proportion
to our accord for those who represent us on the battlefield.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 weeks, the President has changed long-
standing policy that prohibits a unilateral American first strike and
has argued that his new policy should be imposed upon Iraq.
President Bush, to his credit, has decided to include Congress in
this process and to seek international support for his positions,
although he will not wait for such support to enforce his new policy.
The process is important, but it is not the most important aspect of
his efforts. For me, the most important question in this entire matter
is what happens after Saddam Hussein is dethroned. Forty years ago we
amended our policies to state that America will no longer allow long-
range nuclear weapons to be installed in our hemisphere, a precise
policy that applied only to Cuba at that time.
Twenty years ago we amended our policy to state that America will not
allow foreign leaders to enrich themselves by using their governmental
structure to ship illegal drugs into America. Again, a precise policy
which applied only to Panama at the time. Although the President has
changed some of his arguments, there do seem to be three constant
points that he uses.
Number one, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Number two, Iraq
has supported terrorists even if the link to al Qaeda cannot be proven.
Number three, Iraq has a history of aggression and brutality against
its own people and against its neighbors. We all agree on all of those
points. They are not subject to debate. Based on constant repetition of
these factors, we must conclude these are the criteria America will use
to implement our new unilateral strike policy. But is this reaction to
Iraq's threat comparable to previous reactions to such threats? Is it
clear and precise? Who else violates this new policy and, therefore,
who would be next to have our new policy implemented against them?
Let us start with Iran. They have weapons of mass destruction. Iran
has certainly supported terrorists and does so today. In fact, many
people believe that this country, Iran, now is home to more al Qaeda
members than any other country in the world. Finally, Iran has a
history of aggression and brutality against its own people and its
neighbors. When do we attack Iran?
What about China? They certainly have very powerful weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear weapons. They are the leading sellers of
both weapons of mass destruction and, more importantly, the industrial
means to produce such weapons around the world. They have ignored all
calls to withdraw from Tibet or to treat Tibetans fairly. They
brutalize the Falun Gong. They brutalize Christians. They threaten
Taiwan and the peace in all of Asia. When do we attack China?
When do we attack the Sudan? When do we attack North Korea? When do
we attack Russia itself?
Each of these countries meets all of the criteria the President is
now using to say we should attack Iraq unilaterally.
Most Americans want Saddam Hussein gone. So do I. Most Americans want
the United States to remain the strongest Nation in the world. So do I.
But most Americans also want the United States of America to continue
to be the world's moral leader while we accomplish both of these goals.
President Bush's unclear, imprecise new policy in support of a
unilateral force first strike does not do it.
Not long ago another American stated, ``Our purpose is peace. The
United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war. We seek the
full and effective restoration of international agreements.'' This
House reacted by voting, ``The United States is prepared as the
President determines to take all necessary steps including the use of
armed forces.''
I am sure some of you recognize these words from the 1963 Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution that led to the Vietnam debacle. We all know the
results of that resolution. We all know that this House had to repeal
this resolution 6 years later.
This resolution before us tonight uses virtually the same language
and grants the President comparable authority to the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution. But I think our actions here today may actually prove to be
more dangerous because we base them on a new policy of unilateral first
strike. At a minimum, the President needs to refine his new policy
before we implement. Until we do so, America must adhere to the long-
standing policies in existence now. Those policies require
international agreement on war and peace, and they require war to be
the last alternative, not the first.
As of today, the United States, and we know it, has not exhausted our
peaceful options; and by tomorrow when we vote on this, we will have
set America and the world on a new course that has not yet been fully
thought out or debated. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to
go slow.
Others have cited history as well. Let me be clear, no one has
forgotten September 11. Everyone wants to avoid another such incident.
But no one has divine insight as how to best accomplish that goal. Let
me ask those who have cited World War II and to remind them that when
Iraq did try to expand its borders, the world did react. This Congress
reacted, unlike Europe in the 1930's. The comparison is not valid.
If necessary there will be plenty of time to wage war against Iraq,
and I may support it. But if an unnecessary war is waged, we risk
forfeiting America's well-deserved reputation as humanity's best hope
for a long-lasting worldwide peace.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the resolution and want to focus on what this debate is all about.
This debate is all about whether Saddam continued to build weapons of

[[Page 19844]]

mass destruction after 1991 and would he use them. Well, I think
everyone is in agreement in the second question, that he will use them
because he has already done that. He has done it with the Kurds. He has
done it with his own population a number of times.
Let us talk about whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction
and how he got them. Mr. Speaker, I have given no less than 12 speeches
on the floor of this House about the proliferation that occurred to
Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.
Mr. Speaker, I insert two documents that I have inserted in the
Congressional Record five times in the past.
Mr. Speaker, these are chronologies of weapons-related transfers of
technology to Saddam by Chinese interests and Russian interests.

[Los Angeles Times Editorials, May 21, 1998]

Indignation Rings Shallow on Nuke Tests

(By Curt Weldon)

Escalating tensions between India and Pakistan should come
as no surprise to the Clinton administration. Since the
president took office, there have been dozens of reported
transfers of sensitive military technology by Russia and
China--in direct violation of numerous international arms
control agreements--to a host of nations, including Pakistan
and India.
Yet the Clinton administration has repeatedly chosen to
turn a blind eye to this proliferation of missile, chemical-
biological and nuclear technology, consistently refusing to
impose sanctions on violators. And in those handful of
instances where sanctions were imposed, they usually were
either quickly waived by the administration or allowed to
expire. Rather than condemn India for current tensions, the
blame for the political powder keg that has emerged in Asia
should be laid squarely at the feet of President Clinton. It
is his administration's inaction and refusal to enforce arms
control agreements that have allowed the fuse to grow so
short.
In November 1992, the United States learned that China had
transferred M-11 missiles to Pakistan. The Bush
administration imposed sanctions for this violation but
Clinton waived them a little more than 14 months later.
Clearly, the sanctions did not have the desired effect:
Reports during the first half of 1995 indicated that M-11
missiles, additional M-11 missile parts, as well as 5,000
ring magnets for Pakistani nuclear enrichment programs were
transferred from China. Despite these clear violations, no
sanctions were imposed. And it gets worse.
Not to be outdone by its sworn foe, India aggressively
pursued similar technologies and obtained them, illicitly,
from Russia. From 1991 to 1995, Russian entities transferred
cryogenic liquid oxygen-hydrogen rocket engines and
technology to India. While sanctions were imposed by
President Bush in May 1992, the Clinton administration
allowed them to expire after only two years. And in June
1993, evidence surfaced that additional Russian enterprises
were involved in missile technology transfers to India. The
administration imposed sanctions in June 1993, and then
promptly waived them for a month, never following up on this
issue.
Meanwhile, Pakistan continued to aggressively pursue
technology transfers from China. In August 1996, the
capability to manufacture M-11 missile or missile components
was transferred from China to Pakistan. No sanctions. In
November 1996, a special industrial furnace and high-tech
diagnostic equipment were transferred from China to an
unprotected Pakistani nuclear facility. No sanctions. Also
during 1996, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
issued a report stating that China had provided a
``tremendous variety'' of technology and assistance for
Pakistan's ballistic missile program and was the principal
supplier of nuclear equipment for Pakistan's program. Again,
the Clinton administration refused to impose sanctions.
Finally, in recent months we have learned that China may
have been responsible for the transfer of technology for
Pakistan's Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile. Flight
tested on April 6, 1998, the Ghauri missile has been widely
blamed as the impetus for India's decision to detonate five
nuclear weapons in tests earlier this month. Again, no
sanctions were imposed on China.
Retracing the history of these instances of proliferation,
it is obvious that Pakistan and India have been locked in an
arms race since the beginning of the decade. And the race has
been given repeated jump-starts by China and Russia, a clear
violation of a number of arms control agreements. Yet rather
than enforce these arms control agreements, the Clinton
administration has repeatedly acquiesced, fearing that the
imposition of sanctions could either strain relations with
China and Russia or potentially hurt U.S. commercial
interests in those countries.
Now the Clinton administration has announced a get-tough
policy, threatening to impose sanctions on India for testing
its nuclear weapons. But what about Russia and China, the two
nations that violated international arms agreements?
Shouldn't they also be subject to U.S. sanctions for their
role in this crisis? Sadly, the Clinton administration is
likely to ignore the proliferators and impose sanctions
solely on India. In the meantime, China and Russia will
continue their proliferation of missile and nuclear
technology to other nations, including rogue states such as
Iran, Iraq and Syria.
____

CHRONOLOGY OF CHINESE WEAPONS-RELATED TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported transfer by Administration's
Date of transfer or report China Possible violation response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 1992........................... M-11 missiles or MTCR--Arms Export Sanctions imposed on
related equipment to Control Act, Export Aug. 24, 1993, for
Pakistan (The Administration Act. transfers of M-11
Administration did not related equipment (not
officially confirm missiles); waived on
reports that M-11 Nov. 1, 1994.
missiles are in
Pakistan.).
Mid-1994 to mid-1995................ Dozens or hundreds of MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
missile guidance Nonproliferation Act,
systems and Arms Export Control
computerized machine Act, Export
tools to Iran. Administration Act.
2nd quarter of 1995................. Parts for the M-11 MTCR--Arms Export No sanctions.
missile to Pakistan. Control Act, Export
Administration Act.
Dec. 1994 to mid-1995............... 5,000 ring magnets for NPT--Export-Import Bank Considered sanctions
an unsafeguarded Act, Nuclear under the Export-Import
nuclear enrichment Proliferation Bank Act; but announced
program in Pakistan. Prevention Act, Arms on May 10, 1996, that
Export Control Act. no sanctions would be
imposed.
July 1995........................... More than 30 M-11 MTCR--Arms Export No sanctions.
missiles stored in Control Act, Export
crates at Sargodha Air Administration Act.
Force Base in Pakistan.
Sept. 1995.......................... Calutron NPT--Nuclear No sanctions.
(electromagnetic Proliferation
isotope separation Prevention Act, Export-
system) for uranium Import Bank Act, Arms
enrichment to Iran. Export Control Act.
1995-1997........................... C-802 anti-ship cruise Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
missiles and C-801 air- Nonproliferation Act.
launched cruise
missiles to Iran.
before Feb. 1996.................... Dual-use chemical Arms Export Control Sanctions imposed on May
precursors and Act, Export 21, 1997.
equipment to Iran's Administration Act.
chemical weapon
program.
summer 1996......................... 400 tons of chemicals Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
to Iran. Nonproliferation
Act,\1\ Arms Export
Control Act, Export
Administration Act.
Aug. 1996........................... Plant to manufacture M- MTCR--Arms Export No sanctions.
11 missiles or missile Control Act, Export
components in Pakistan. Administration Act.
Aug. 1996........................... Gyroscopes, MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
accelerometers, and Nonproliferation Act,
test equipment for Arms Export Control
missile guidance to Act, Export
Iran. Administration Act.
Sept. 1996.......................... Special industrial NPT--Nuclear No sanctions.
furnace and high-tech Proliferation
diagnostic equipment Prevention Act, Export-
to unsafeguarded Import Bank Act, Arms
nuclear facilities in Export Control Act.
Pakistan.
July-Dec. 1996...................... Director of Central MTCR--Arms Export No sanctions.
Intelligence (DCI) Control Act, Export
reported ``tremendous Administration Act.
variety'' of
technology and
assistance for
Pakistan's ballistic
missile program.
July-Dec. 1996...................... DCI reported MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
``tremendous variety'' Nonproliferation Act,
of assistance for Arms Export Control
Iran's ballistic Act, Export
missile program. Administration Act.
July-Dec. 1996...................... DCI reported principal NPT--Nuclear No sanctions.
supplies of nuclear Proliferation
equipment, material, Prevention Act, Export-
and technology for Import Bank Act, Arms
Pakistan's nuclear Export Administration
weapon program. Act.
July-Dec. 1996...................... DCI reported key NPT--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
supplies of technology Nonproliferation Act,
for large nuclear Nuclear Proliferation
projects in Iran. Prevention Act, Export-
Import Bank Act, Arms
Export Administration
Act.
July-Dec. 1996...................... DCI reported Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
``considerable'' Nonproliferation Act,
chemical weapon- Arms Export Control
related transfers of Act, Export
production equipment Administration Act.
and technology to Iran.
Jan. 1997........................... Dual-use biological BWC--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
items to Iran. Nonproliferation Act,
Arms Export Control
Act, Export
Administration Act.
1997................................ Chemical precursors, Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
production equipment, Nonproliferation Act,
and production Arms Export Control
technology for Iran's Act, Export
chemical weapon Administration Act.
program, including a
plant for making glass-
lined equipment.
Sept. to Dec. 1997.................. China Great Wall MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms No sanctions.
Industry Corp. Nonproliferation Act,
provided telemetry Arms Export Control
equipment used in Act, Export
flight-tests to Iran Administration Act.
for its development of
the Shahab-3 and
Shahab-4 medium range
ballistic missiles.

[[Page 19845]]

Nov. 1997/April 1998................ May have transferred MTCR--Arms Export No sanctions.
technology for Control Act, Export
Pakistan's Ghauri Administration Act.
medium-range ballistic
missile that was
flight-tested on April
6, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Additional provisions on chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not enacted until February 10, 1996.

BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime; and NPT: Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.

CHRONOLOGY OF SUSPECTED RUSSIAN WEAPONS-RELATED TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Russian
transfers that may have Possibly applicable Administration's
Date of transfer or report violated a regime or treaties, regimes, and/ response
law or U.S. laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
early 1990s......................... Russians sold drawings AECA sec. 81, EAA sec. No publicly known
of a sarin plant, 11C. sanction.
manufacturing
procedures, and toxic
agents to a Japanese
terrorist group.
1991................................ Transferred to China MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA No publicly known
three RD-120 rocket sec. 11B. sanction.
engines and electronic
equipment to improve
accuracy of ballistic
missiles.
1991-1995........................... Transferred Cryogenic MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA Sanctions against Russia
liquid oxygen/hydrogen sec. 11B. and India under AECA
rocket engines and and EAA imposed on May
technology to India. 6, 1992; expired after
2 years.
1992-1995........................... Russian transfers to MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA Sanctions reportedly
Brazil of carbon-fiber sec. 11B. secretly imposed and
technology for rocket waived.
motor cases for space
launch program.
1992-1996........................... Russian armed forces MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA No publicly known
delivered 24 Scud-B sec. 11B. sanction.
missiles and 8
launchers to Armenia.
June 1993........................... Additional Russian MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA Sanctions imposed on
enterprises involved sec. 11B. June 16, 1993 and
in missile technology waived until July 15,
transfers to India. 1993; no publicly known
follow-up sanction.
1995-present........................ Construction of 1,000 IIANPA sec. 1604 and Refused to renew some
megawatt nuclear 1605, FOAA, NPPA sec. civilian nuclear
reactor at Bushehr in 821, FAA sec. 620G. cooperation agreements;
Iran. waived sanctions on
aid.
Aug. 1995........................... Russian assistance to BWC, AECA sec. 81, EAA No publicly known
Iran to develop sec. 11C, IIANPA sec. sanction.
biological weapons. 1604 and 1605, FAA
sec. 620G and 620H.
Nov. 1995........................... Russian citizen AECA sec. 81, EAA sec. Sanctions imposed on
transferred to unnamed 11C. Nov. 17, 1995.
country technology for
making chemical
weapons.
Dec. 1995........................... Russian gyroscopes from United Nations No publicly known
submarine launched Sanctions, MTCR, AECA sanction.
ballistic missiles sec. 73, EAA sec. 11B,
smuggled to Iraq IIANPA sec. 1604 and
through middlemen. 1605, FAA sec. 620G
and 620H.
July-Dec. 1996...................... DCI reported Russia MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA No publicly known
transferred to Iran sec. 11B, FAA sec. sanction.
``a variety'' of items 620G and 620H, IIANPA
related to ballistic sec. 1604 and 1605,
missiles. FOAA.
Nov. 1996........................... Israel reported Russian AECA sec. 81, EAA sec. No publicly known
assistance to Syria to 11C, FAA sec. 620G and sanction.
build a chemical 620H.
weapon plant.
1996-1997........................... Delivered 3 Kilo diesel- IIANPA sec. 1604 and No publicly known
electric submarines to 1605, FAA sec. 620G sanction.
Iran. and 620H.
Jan.-Feb. 1997...................... Russia transferred MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA No publicly known
detailed instructions sec. 11B, FAA sec. sanction.
to Iran on production 620G and 620H, IIANPA
of the SS-4 medium- sec. 1604 and 1605,
range missile and FOAA.
related parts.
April 1997.......................... Sale of S-300 anti- IIANPA sec. 1604 and No publicly known
aircraft/anti-missile 1605, FAA sec. 620G sanction.
missile system to Iran and 620H.
to protect nuclear
reactors at Bushehr
and other strategic
sites.
Oct. 1997........................... Israeli intelligence MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA No publicly known
reported Russian sec. 11B, IIANPA sec. sanction.
technology transfers 1604 and 1605, FAA
for Iranian missiles sec. 620G and 620H,
developed with ranges FOAA.
between 1,300 and
10,000 km. Transfers
include engines and
guidance systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regimes:
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; and MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime.
U.S. Laws:
AECA: Arms Export Control Act; EAA: Export Administration Act; FAA: Foreign Assistance Act; FOAA: Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act; IIANPA: Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act; and NPPA: Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, during the 1990s, I would remind my colleagues, 37 times
we had evidence of China and Russia transferring weapon technology to
Hussein. Every one of those should have required a response, should
have required sanctions. The previous administration imposed sanctions
a total of four times out of 37. In nine of those cases, it was
chemical and biological weapon technology, the very technology today
that we are worried about. We saw it being transferred, and we did
nothing about it. In fact, only in two of those nine cases did we
impose the required sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, we have evidence which I will submit in the Record also
of Iraq's policy on their defense system and offensive capabilities,
both a 1984 document and a 1987 document. In the document Saddam's
military talks about the use of chemical and biological weapons.
In President Bush's speech this past week he said, ``All that might
be required of Saddam are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi
intelligence operative to deliver it.''
Well, here it is. Mr. Speaker, this is a biological disbursing
device. You can build it for less than $100. If I would not offend the
Parliamentarian, I would turn it on and you would have a plume in this
room. If you put that device in the Metro station subway in D.C. and
activate it, based on a study by the Office of Technology Assessment,
you would have 150,000 people in the D.C. commuter system killed by the
dispersion of 4.5 kilograms of anthrax.
Just like we saw back in the 1990s when we had evidence that Russian
entities transferred these devices, a Soviet accelerometer and a Soviet
gyroscope, which the previous administration did nothing about, never
imposed the required sanctions. Now we have to pay the price.
Does Saddam have chemical and biological weapons? Absolutely. Where
did he get it from? He got it from those 37 transfers that we knew
about that are now in the record that we did nothing about. Does he
have a nuclear weapon like the one I have in front of me that General
Alexander Lebed told my delegation in 1997 that they built? And the
previous administration when it became public said, we deny the
Russians ever built them.
The previous administration sided with the Russian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and said we have no reason to doubt them, even though
two top Russian leaders said there was reason to believe 80 of these
devices were missing.
The reason why we have to support the President is because the
failures of our policies in the past decade have given Saddam Hussein
biological and chemical weapon capability, nuclear weapon capability,
missile capability, none of which should have occurred during the 1990s
if we would have enforced the very arms control agreements that the
other side now talks about. Thirty-seven times we had evidence, nine
cases of chemical and biological weapons going from Russian and China
to Iraq. And what did we do? We went like this and like that. And now
we are faced with the consequence.
So what President Bush has said is we must stand up and we must show
the world that we will not tolerate what went on in the 1990s. We will
not sit back and allow 37 violations to go unchecked. We will not
pretend we do not see them because we want to keep Yeltsen in power. We
will not pretend we do not want to see them because we want to protect
the financial interests of the PLA for our fund-raising purposes.
We should have done this during the 1990s, but we did not. I say to
my colleagues, support this resolution. Give the President a unanimous
voice that says to the U.N., we will act to finally do what we did not
do in the 1990s, and that is enforce the requirements of the six
resolutions that were passed back then.
And if my colleagues want to see what a biological disbursement
weapon looks like, come see me. I will activate it for them in the
cloak room.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
resolution.

[[Page 19846]]

As I have listened to this thorough debate and thought about the
resolution we are about to vote on, it seems to me the Persian Gulf War
has never really ended. In 1991 Saddam Hussein agreed to a conditional
surrender. He has not met the conditions of his surrender. Iraq is
still fighting, and we need to respond.
I have heard some of my colleagues say that use of force against Iraq
would be a preemptive strike. I disagree. In 1991 Saddam Hussein said
Iraq would comply with all United Nations resolutions. Iraq has not
done so. Iraq agreed to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs. Today Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and
the will to use them.
Hussein agreed to allow unfettered weapons inspection in this
country. However, Iraq has done everything possible to obstruct those
inspections. Iraq pledged to keep planes out of the no-fly zone. In the
past few years, his pilots have fired on U.S. and British troops 1,600
times. They have shot at us 460 times this year alone.
Iraq continues to be a threat to the area. In 1993 Iraqi troops moved
toward the Kuwaiti border. Iraqi planes continued to fly in the no-fly
zone. When Iraq banned U.N. inspections in 1998, President Clinton
responded by launching missiles into the country.

{time} 1730

Was that a preemptive strike? Along with the British, we dropped more
than 600 bombs on Iraqi military targets. We have continued strikes
against Iraq air defense installations and in response to Iraq shots at
our planes in the no-fly zone.
Iraq must be held to the conditions it agreed to. This Congress
authorized action to bring Iraq into compliance in 1998. We must do so
again. Until Iraq complies with the terms of its conditional surrender,
there has been no surrender. The Persian Gulf War is ongoing.
Further, U.S. action against Iraq is not a preemptive strike, but is
our responsibility to bring Saddam Hussein's continued plotting of his
international obligations to an end. President Bush wants the
commitment that Congress stands with him in dealing with Iraq.
I urge that Congress stand with President Bush and support the
resolution to finally end the Gulf War once and for all.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but we
are engaged in debating the most difficult decision that Members of
Congress are called upon to make.
Notwithstanding that, Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler
in power today, and the first one since Hitler, to commit chemical
genocide. I believe there is reason for the long term to remove him
from power. This resolution is the first step.
My colleagues, remember that Israel absorbed the world's hatred and
scorn for its attack on and destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear
reactor in 1981. Today it is accepted by most arms control experts that
had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Hussein's Iraq would have had nuclear
power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way through Kuwait.
We can see on this chart all the resolutions that were passed and
that Saddam Hussein did not comply with. In fact, there were 12
immediately after the war; 35 after those 12. All together, 47
resolutions, of which he scarcely complied.
Now, let us take the resolution on this chart, which is 687,
governing the cease-fire in 1991. It required that Iraq unconditionally
accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless its chemical and
biological weapons. Within 15 days after the passage of the resolution,
Iraq was to have provided the locations, the amounts, and types of
those specified items. Over a decade later, we still have little
information on that.
That is why I applaud President Bush for taking his case to the
United Nations and placing the burden of action upon the organization
to enforce its own resolutions passed on Iraq. We owe diplomacy and
peaceful opportunities the due diligence necessary to rid this despotic
regime of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism sponsorship.
However, if the U.S. is not credible in alternatives for noncompliance,
we will again be at the crossroads asking the same question: If not
now, when?
Let us move forward with this resolution, develop a consensus, and
work together with other nations to remove this evil dictator.
Mr. Speaker, our vote this week will be whether or not to authorize
the President of the United States to use necessary and appropriate
force to defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq. I would like to emphatically state
that no decision weighs heavier on the mind of a President, or a Member
of Congress, than the decision to send our men and women of the Armed
Forces into action.
And I want to thank the President for working hard to make the case
for possible--and I want my colleagues and the public to understand
this--possible action against Iraq. The President stated last night
that he hopes military action is not required. Iraq can avoid conflict
by adhering to the security resolutions requiring ``declaring and
destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, ending support for
terrorism and ceasing the persecution of its civilian population. And,
it must release or account for all gulf war personnel, including an
American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.''
To quote a recent article from the ``Weekly Standard'':

There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the
world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam
Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular
danger. To review: There is no dictator in power anywhere in
the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two
neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the
civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have
assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored
al-Qaida fugitives . . . attacked the soldiers of an enemy
country with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons
experiments on human subjects; committee genocide; and there
is, of course, the matter of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool
of mass murder and nothing else.

And lastly, my colleagues, President Bush is not alone in calling for
a regime change. Congress made the need for regime change clear in 1998
with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. The congress specifically
stated ``It should be the policy of the United States to support
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime.'' In that legislation we also called upon the United
Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal to prosecute
Saddam Hussein and those in his regime for crimes against humanity and
criminal violation of international law.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the
comments made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who
pointed out that our actions against Saddam during the 1990s were not
as aggressive as they should have been.
I would point out that we were also not aggressive until September 11
of the prior year. Both administrations failed to grasp the importance
of Saddam Hussein's weapons program until September 11 of last year.
I would also point out that when the prior administration did take
military action against Saddam Hussein, it did not receive the level of
support and unified support that it should have.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the extremely distinguished
and thoughtful gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I join the gentleman from California and associate myself
with his remarks. I would hope my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who I believe is right on this issue, would
refrain from politicizing. If there is blame to go around, there is
certainly enough blame to go around here in this town today, yesterday,
and even a few days ago.
After careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution. This vote is the most important and difficult one I have
cast since coming to Congress some 6 years ago. I sincerely hope, as I
imagine most of my colleagues do, that we will never have to cast
another one like it.
I have listened carefully to the concerns and objections of many of
my colleagues and constituents; and having never served in the Armed
Forces, I have sought the counsel of those who

[[Page 19847]]

have. I have reviewed the available intelligence about the threat from
Iraq and weighed the risk of a potential conflict with Iraq in the
context of our ongoing war on terrorism; and I have reached the
conclusion, as many have, that the risk of inaction and delay far
outweigh the risk of action.
Saddam Hussein has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, as all
have mentioned today, and is seeking the means to deliver them, if he
does not already have the capacity now. He is developing missile
delivery systems that could threaten American citizens, service
members, and our own allies in the region. But in today's world, a
sworn enemy of America does not need a missile to deliver weapons of
mass destruction. All he needs is a suitcase, a small plane, a cargo
ship, or a single suicidal terrorist.
The most compelling case for action, however, Mr. Speaker, is the
nuclear threat. Let us be clear. We do not have the intelligence
suggesting that an imminent nuclear threat is upon us. I would urge
Secretary Rumsfeld to cease suggesting to Americans that there is some
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda unless he has evidence
to present to this Congress and to this public.
What we do have evidence of is that Saddam Hussein continues to
desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain
the raw materials, which may be available to him in any number of ways,
he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year. The Iraqi regime's
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are coupled with the recklessness of
the Iraqi dictator. We know that Saddam is capable of murder and untold
cruelty. We know that Saddam is capable of aggression and also capable
of miscalculating his adversary's response to his aggression.
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless, and
misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I
could not vote to authorize military action abroad if I did not believe
that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat to our security, one that
will not recede just because we hope it goes away. That is why I
support giving the President the authority to achieve our fundamental
goal: disarming the Iraqi regime of all weapons of mass destruction.
As we consider this resolution, every Member should read it carefully
so we do not mischaracterize what we are voting on here today. So what
is this resolution for? First, it is a resolution stating Congress'
support for our diplomatic efforts. This resolution must not be taken
as an endorsement of unilateralism. It explicitly affirms Congress'
support for the President's efforts to work through the U.N. Security
Council to address Iraq's ``delay, evasion and noncompliance.'' It
calls for prompt and decisive action by the U.N. Security Council to
enforce its own mandates on Iraq.
Second, this resolution is not a declaration of war. The resolution
forces the President to affirm that all diplomatic and peaceful means
have proven inadequate to protect our Nation's security. This gives the
President the flexibility to dangle a stick with that carrot.
At the same time, it affirms that military action must be used only
as a last resort. If it were up to some of us in this Congress, we
would have done it another way, perhaps building international support
before coming to Congress, but this President chose to do it another
way.
Third, the resolution more defines our purpose in authorizing the use
of force. The use of force has two clearly defined purposes: one, to
defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, two, to enforce all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Unlike the White House's draft language, the resolution carefully
limits its authorization to Iraq and only Iraq. And it is clear that
our purpose is to protect against the threat to the United States. This
resolution authorizes military action to disarm Iraq but does not
mention regime change. The goal is Iraq's disarmament and full
compliance with U.N. mandates.
I applaud Leader Gephardt and others, including Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate, for helping to negotiate such language.
Although I strongly support the President in addressing the threat
from Iraq, I believe the President must be more candid with us and the
American people about the long-term commitment that is going to be
needed in Iraq. It has been a year since we began the campaign in
Afghanistan; and our efforts there politically, economically, and
militarily are nowhere close to concluding. I visited Afghanistan in
February and March and witnessed firsthand how fragile the peace is
there. It will take years to forge stability in Afghanistan and years
in Iraq.
War is the last outcome that I want, and the last outcome I believe
the President wants; but when America's national security is at stake,
the world must know that we are prepared to defend our Nation from
tyrants and from terrorists. With that, I ask every Member of Congress
to support this resolution supporting our President and supporting our
Nation.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I stand in support of Joint Resolution 114.
Mr. Speaker, the way I see it is this way. Let us just say,
hypothetically, if it was August 2001, and I stood before this House
and said, listen, there is a guy out there named Osama bin Laden who is
associated with a terrorist group named al Qaeda, and this terrorist
group has found safe haven inside the corrupt Taliban government of
Afghanistan. And, my colleagues, I think we should do something about
it because our intelligence is not necessarily absolute, but this guy
is up to no good and we need to strike before he strikes us.
Now, if I had said that in August of 2001, people would have said,
that war monger, that jingoistic guy from Georgia. What is he talking
about? Yet before September 11, would it not have been nice if we could
have had that speech and maybe prevented the tragedy of September 11?
Well, here we are. We know Saddam Hussein has violated treaty after
treaty which happened after Desert Storm, starting with U.N. Resolution
660, U.N. Resolution 678, U.N. Resolution 686, 687, 688, 701, all of
them. In fact, 16 total of very significant matters going back to
Resolution 660. All of them violated, Mr. Speaker.
And then here is the situation with the weapons. We know that they
have VX. It is a sticky, colorless liquid that interferes with nerve
impulses of the body, causes convulsions and paralysis. U.N. inspectors
estimate that Iraq has the means to make 200 tons of VX. Sarin Gas.
And, of course, we know that it causes convulsions and paralysis as
well. It was used in a small quantity in a Tokyo subway in 1995. Again,
inspectors estimate that they have maybe as high as 800 tons of sarin
gas. It goes on. Mustard gas, anthrax, and other great worrisome
chemical and biological weapons in their stockpile. We also know that
he is trying to become nuclear capable.
Finally comes the question of terrorism. We know that the State
Department has designated Iraq as a state that sponsors international
terrorism. We know that they shelter the Abu Nidal terrorist
organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 different
countries and killed over 900 people.
We also know that Iraq shelters several prominent terrorist
Palestinian organizations, including the Palestine Liberation Front,
which is known for its attacks on Israel, including one on the Achille
Lauro ship that killed the United States citizen, Leon Klinghoffer.
My colleagues, the time to act is now. If we could just think for a
minute what the price of action is versus inaction. Had Todd Beamer and
the other passengers of Flight 93 elected a course of inaction on
September 11, the price would have been significantly different for
particularly those of us in this building. This is a time that calls
for action. And in the great

[[Page 19848]]

words of Todd Beamer, let me close with this: ``Let's roll.''
It is time to do something. Let us pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114,
Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.
Here's how I view the situation: Suppose last August (2001), I gave a
speech announcing, ``There's a guy named Osama Bin Laden who is
involved in a terrorist group called Al Quida, which has found a safe
haven and training opportunities inside the corrupt Taliban government
of Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies probably were
involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole in
Yemen, and the bombing of our embassies in Africa. We know Bin Laden
hates America and it is likely his group will attack our country in the
future. Therefore we need to eliminate him. I suggest we start bombing
his hideouts in Afghanistan immediately.''
Had I given that speech, I would have been laughed at and called a
warmonger, even though action against Al Quida in August 2001 could
have saved thousands of lives in both America and Afghanistan. But
this, in fact, is our situation today. Saddam Hussein hates us. He
harbors terrorist groups, possesses chemical and biological weapons,
and may become nuclear capable in a short period of time. America
traditionally does not do preemptive strikes, but the events of
September 11th change everything. Americans will not tolerate the
threat of another horrific attack against the United States. Although
no American desires a war, the best way to ensure Hassein's compliance
with UN resolutions, and reduce the threat he poses to our national
security, is for Congress to confirm the United State's willingness to
use force if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, let me give you an account of all the reasons why I
support this resolution.
The whole world knows that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated all
16 of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) for more
than a decade. These violations should not be taken lightly and are
worthy of review. The list is substantial:

UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990--violated

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal
invasion of Kuwait) ``and all subsequent relevant resolutions.''
Authorizes U.N. Member States ``to use all necessary means to uphold
and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions
and to restore international peace and security in the area.''

UNSCR 686--March 2, 1991--Violated

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from
its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

unscr 687--April 3, 1991--violated

Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all
``chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development,
support and manufacturing facilities.''
Iraq must ``unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material'' or any research,
development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all
``ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major
parts and repair and production facilities.''
Iraq must not ``use, develop, construct or acquire'' any weapons of
mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and
mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify
elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis
and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991--Violated

``Condemns'' repression of Iraqi civilian population, ``the
consequences of which threaten international peace and security.''
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian
organizations to those in need of assistance.

unscr 707--august 15, 1991--violated

``Condemns'' Iraq's ``serious violation'' of UNSCR 687.
``Further condemns'' Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security
Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects
of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass
destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection
flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for
U.N. and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715--October 11, 1991--Violated

Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949--October 15, 1994--Violated

``Condemns'' Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile
manner to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051--March 27 19961--Violated

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of
mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060--June 12, 1996--Violated

``Deplores'' Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and
Iraq's ``clear violations'' of previous U.N. resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115--June 21, 1997--Violated

``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to
U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``clear and flagrant violation''
of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134--October 23, 1997--Violated

``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to
U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``flagrant violation'' of UNSCR
687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.

unscr 1137--november 12, 1997--violated

``Condemns the continued violations by Iraq'' of previous U.N.
resolutions, including its ``implicit threat to the safety of''
aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and its tampering with U.N.
inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of U.N.
inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional unrestricted access.

unscr 1154--march 2, 1998--violated

Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that
any violation would have the ``severest consequences for Iraq.''

unscr 1194--September 9, 1998--violated

``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend
cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes ``a
totally unacceptable contravention'' of its obligations under UNSCR
687, 7078, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors, and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

unscr 1205--November 5, 1998--violated

``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease
cooperation'' with U.N. inspectors as ``a flagrant violation'' of UNSCR
687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide ``immediate, complete and unconditional
cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.

unscr 1284--December 17, 1998--violated

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections
Commission

[[Page 19849]]

(UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies
to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without
discrimination.
While all these violations are extremely serious, there are 3 or 4
items that stand out in my mind.
His blatant refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to oversee the
destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.
His continued development of new biological and chemical weapons.
His continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, and
His support and harboring of terrorist organizations inside Iraq
(including Al Quida).
Mr. Speaker, some people have said, ``why are we doing this now?''
They say there is no ``clear and present danger.'' I don't know how
much clearer it has to be. The facts of the matter are documented, and
undoubtedly pose a clear and present danger to our national security.
Documented U.N. weapons inspector reports show that Iraq continually
deceived the inspectors and never provided definitive proof that they
destroyed their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.
Iraq has admitted producing the world's most dangerous biological and
chemical weapons, but refuses to give proof that they destroyed them.
Examples of Iraq's chemical weapons include VX, Sarin Gas and Mustard
Gas.
VX, the most toxic of chemical weapons, is a sticky, colorless liquid
that interferes with the body's nerve impulses, causing convulsions and
paralysis of the lungs and blood vessels. Victims essentially chock to
death. A dose of 10 milligrams on the skin is enough to kill.
Iraq acknowledged making nearly 4 tons of VX, and ``claimed'' they
destroyed it, but they never provided any definitive proof. U.N.
inspectors estimate that Iraq has the means to make more than 200 tons
of VX, and Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use facilities
that it could quickly adapt to chemical weapons production.
Sarin gas, a nerve agent like VX, causes convulsions, paralysis and
asphyxiation. Even a small scale Sarin Gas attack such as the one used
in the Tokyo subway in 1995 can kill and injure vast numbers of people.
Iraq acknowledged making approximately 800 tons of Sarin gas and
thousands of rockets, artillery shells and bombs containing Sarin, but
they have not accounted for hundreds of these weapons. Iraq willingly
used these weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and it also
used them against Kurdish Iraqi civilians.
Mustard Gas, a colorless liquid that evaporates into a gas and begins
dissolving upon contact with the skin causes injuries similar to burns
and damages the eyes and lungs.
Iraq acknowledged making thousands of tons of mustard gas and using
the chemical during it's war with Iran, but told U.N. inspectors they
``misplaced'' 550 mustard filled artillery shells after the Gulf war.
Examples of Iraq's biological weapons include Anthrax, Botulimun
Toxin and Aflatoxin
Anthrax, as we all know, is a potentially fatal bacterium that causes
flu like symptoms before filling the lungs with fluid and causing
death. Just a few tiny spores are enough to cause the deadly infection.
Iraq has acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores--enough
to kill millions, but U.N. inspectors determined that Iraq could have
made three times as much. Inspectors say that at least 16 missile
warheads filled with Anthrax are missing, and Iraq is working to
produce the deadlier powdered form of Anthrax that could be sprayed
from aircraft, put into missile warheads, or given to terrorists.
Botulimun Toxin, is a poison that is one of the deadliest substances
known to man. Even in small doses it causes gastrointestinal infection
and can quickly advance to paralysis and death. A mere 70 billionths of
a gram is enough to kill if inhaled.
Iraq acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of Botulimun Toxin, most of
which was put into missile warheads and other munitions. At least five
missile warheads with Botulimun Toxin are missing according to U.N.
inspectors.
Aflatoxin, is a poison that can cause swelling of the abdomen, lungs
and brain resulting in convulsion, coma and death.
Iraq acknowledged making more than 520 gallons of Aflaxtoxin and
putting it into missile warheads and bombs. At least four Aflatoxin--
filled missile warheads are missing according to U.N. inspectors.
It is also a fact (and a clear and present danger) that Saddam
Hussein continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon.
We know he had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before
the Gulf War, and the independent Institute for Strategic Studies
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months
if he were able to obtain fissile material.
We now know that Iraq has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials
to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy
thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which are believed to
be intended for use as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.
As if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a ruthless dictator
were not enough, we now know that Saddam Hussein harbors terrorist
organizations within Iraq.
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the State
Department as ``state sponsors of international terrorism.'' UNSUR 687
prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or
allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues
to violate these UNSUR provisions.
Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Terrorist Organization that has carried
out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost
900 people. These terrorists have offices in Baghdad and received
training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government
of Iraq.
Iraq also shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist
organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front
(PLF), which is known for attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu
Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille
Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leo Klinghoffer.
Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money he offers to
families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers who blow themselves up
with belt explosives.
Several former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret
terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both
Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and
trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
And in 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) attempted to
assassinate former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.
Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 17
suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. The
American people will not understand if we ignore these facts, sit back,
and wait for the unacceptable possibility of Saddam Hussein providing a
weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group for use against the
United States.
Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to fully condone the
September 11 attacks on America. His media even promised the American
people that if their government did not change its policies toward
Iraq, it would suffer even more devastating blows. He has even endorsed
and encouraged acts of terrorism against America.
The case is clear. We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction, we know he harbors terrorists including al-Qaida, and we
know he hates America, so the case against Saddam really isn't the
issue. The question is what are we going to do about it.
Cearly, we must authorize the use of military force against Iraq in
case it becomes necessary. The President has said that military action
is a last resort, and our bipartisan resolution calls for the same
tact, but Saddam Hussein must know that America is prepared to use
force if he continues to defy UN Security Council resolutions and
refuses to disarm.
As the President said, approving this resolution does not mean that
military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell
the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice
and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean
something. Congress will be sending a message to Saddam Hussein that
his only choice is full compliance--and the time remaining for that
choice is limited.
Mr. Speaker, the price of taking action against this evil dictator
may be high, but history has shown that the price of inaction is even
higher. Had Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 elected a
course of inaction on September 11th, the price may have been far
higher for those of us in this building. There comes a time when we
must take action. A time when we must risk lives in order to save
lives. This resolution authorizes action, if necessary, to protect
America.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I speak for every member of this
House when I say I hope we can avoid war & that Saddam Hussein will
allow unfettered access to all sites and willingly disarm. But if he
does not, then

[[Page 19850]]

the Congress will have done its duty and given the President the
authority he needs to defend our great nation. The authority to take
action if Iraq continues to delay, deceive and deny. If Hussein
complies, our resolution will have worked, but if he does not, then in
the words of that brave American Todd Beamer, ``Let's Roll!''

{time} 1745

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in this body our first and highest
responsibility is protecting our homeland, and that responsibility may
from time to time require us to embrace unpopular policies and justify
them to our constituents when we recognize a transcendent danger to our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I realize my vote for this resolution authorizes a
military action that may put at risk thousands of American lives in
Iraq. However, the tragedies of September 11 have vividly highlighted
the danger that inaction may risk tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
innocent American lives here at home from terrorism.
This bipartisan resolution was drafted in recognition of this fact
and, therefore, presents our President with the initiative in
continuing the global war against terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, we know that Saddam Hussein, like Osama bin Laden, hates
America and has called for the murder of Americans everywhere. We know
that Saddam Hussein even in the face of crippling economic sanctions
has found the resources to reconstruct his chemical and biological
weapons programs, even at great painful expense to his people.
We know that Saddam Hussein is directing an aggressive program to
procure components necessary for building nuclear devices and that he
actively supports terror in other nations, including Israel. So the
question before us is, do we wait for Saddam Hussein to become a
greater threat, or do we address that threat now?
CIA Director Tenet has told us in recent days that al Qaeda has
sought cooperation from Iraq. I cannot stand here and trust that Saddam
Hussein will not supply al Qaeda and other terrorist networks with
weapons that could be used to massacre more Americans. On the contrary,
we have every reason to believe that the Iraqi dictator would share his
growing arsenal of terror with agents willing to strike at the United
States.
With this in mind, and given other revelations from captured members
of al Qaeda, it is clear that time is not on our side. That is why I
support this balanced and nuanced resolution providing our President
with the powerful backing of Congress in an effort to disarm Iraq. It
is my sincere hope that this resolution will stimulate intrusive and
decisive action by the United Nations and at the same time lead to a
full disarmament of Saddam Hussein. But if it does not, the United
States of America must stand willing to act in order to prevent more
events like those of September 11.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services and a combat veteran from Vietnam.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the vote we are debating
today will be the most significant vote that we cast during this
Congress and perhaps during our entire careers. I say that for two
reasons.
First, this vote may very well send our American soldiers into what
has been called on this floor ``harm's way.'' Make no mistake about it,
it is important to note that is a very nice and sanitary way of saying
that our soldiers will be going to war. They will face combat
conditions that our forces have not seen during most of our lifetimes.
According to the military experts and the generals I have heard from,
the casualty rates may be high.
If, as some expect, Saddam Hussein uses chemical and biological
weapons to defend Baghdad, the results will be horrifying.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in combat; and I am not willing to vote to
send another soldier to war without clear and convincing evidence that
America or our allies are in immediate danger and not without the
backup and support of allied forces.
The President delivered a good speech on Monday evening. I agree with
him that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and that he is trying to
build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. However, he showed us
no link between Iraq and September 11, nor did he produce any evidence
that even suggests that America or our allies are in immediate danger.
This morning we learned from the CIA that Saddam Hussein is unlikely
to use chemical or biological weapons if unprovoked by a U.S. military
campaign. Most alarming about that news today is the report concludes
by saying that, if we attack, the likelihood of him using weapons of
mass destruction to respond would be ``pretty high.''
Second, this vote is a radical departure from the foreign policy
doctrine that has served us honorably for the past 200 years. This
radical departure to an unprovoked, preemptive first-strike policy
creates what I believe will be a grave new world. This new foreign
policy doctrine will set an international precedent that tells the
world, if they think their neighbor is a threat, attack them.
This, I believe, is precisely the wrong message for the greatest
Nation, the only true superpower Nation and the most wonderful
democracy our planet has known, to send to Russia and Chechnya, to
India and Pakistan, to China and Taiwan, and to whomever else is
listening. And one thing we know, everyone is listening.
For these two reasons, I cannot support a resolution that does not
first require that all diplomatic options be exhausted, that we work
with the United Nations Security Council, and that we proceed to disarm
Iraq with a broad base of our allies.
I appreciate the President's new position that war is the last option
and that he will lead a coalition in our effort in Iraq. But,
unfortunately, that is not what this resolution says. This resolution
is weak at best on exhausting the diplomatic options and relinquishes
to the executive branch Congress' constitutional charge to declare war.
I believe that is wrong.
We must address the potential danger presented by Saddam Hussein. The
first step should be the return of the U.N. weapons inspectors; and
they must have unrestricted and unfettered access to every square inch
of Iraq, including the many presidential palaces. We must then work
with the Security Council to ensure the strictest standards, protocols,
and modalities are in place to make certain that Hussein cannot weasel
out of any of these inspections.
Finally, we need to amass the allied support necessary to carry out
the inspections in a manner that will guarantee Iraq is completely
stripped of all weapons of mass destruction and left unable to pursue
new weapons of this type.
We had great success in building a coalition to fight terrorism, and
we should do no less when it comes to disarming Saddam Hussein. We must
respect international order and international law in our efforts to
make this world a safer place.
With our military might, we can easily gain superiority over anyone
in the world. However, it takes more than military might to prevail in
a way that provides hope and prosperity, two ingredients that make it
less likely for terrorism to breed and impossible for repressive
dictators to rule.
Mr. Speaker, if it is the decision of this Congress to go to war, I
will support our troops 1,000 percent. However, I saw Baghdad and I
know fighting a war there will be ugly and casualties may be extremely
high. Let us exhaust the diplomatic options, return the weapons
inspectors, continue to build an international coalition so Saddam
Hussein sees the world, not just the U.S. at the end of the gun. By
doing this, we can avoid sending our soldiers into combat in Baghdad
unless it is absolutely the last option.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.

[[Page 19851]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, voting to authorize sending young Americans to war is a
serious decision. Members will make that decision in this Chamber
tomorrow.
Yesterday and today we have heard very impressive debate, most of
which favors the resolution; some did not. We have heard over and over
again the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime is not only to the
United States and our interests but to many other parts of the world.
I am not going to restate those issues that have already been stated
yesterday and today, but as one of the many cosponsors of House Joint
Resolution 114, I do rise in support of this resolution to authorize
the use of United States military force against Saddam Hussein's
regime.
Much like the first hours and days after September 11, the world, our
friends and our foes, wondered how would the United States respond to
that attack on our Nation? They wanted to know if we as a Nation would
follow through with a serious response to bring the terrorists to
justice. They wanted to see if we would respond with a token strike, as
we did following the attack on U.S. troops in Somalia, at Khobar Towers
in Saudi Arabia, against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and in
the attack on our sailors aboard the USS Cole. The world watched. Our
credibility was at stake. Before joining us, many of our friends were
waiting to see if we were serious this time. Our enemies were not
concerned because they believed they could absorb another token
response, as they had in past years.
But the message became clear just 3 days after September 11. A
response was certain when Congress, with a strong bipartisan vote,
stood and unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency supplemental
appropriations bill to allow the President of the United States to lead
not only a recovery effort in those parts of our country that were
attacked in New York City and at the Pentagon but to pursue the war
against the Taliban and against al Qaeda and against any terrorist,
wherever they might be hiding. It was to fund the war against
terrorism, wherever they were waiting to attack again.
When Congress spoke, almost immediately, with unity and with force,
our friends knew we were serious this time, and it was with confidence
that they joined our cause. And our enemies knew right away that
America was serious; and when President Bush said what it was we were
going to do, they knew that we had the resolve to fight the battle, no
matter how long it would take or where it would lead.
Today, we are in a similar situation. There is no question about the
threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's regime, to our allies, and
to world peace. As has been pointed out here many times today, he has
defied one United Nations resolution after another for more than a
decade.
Remember, he lost the war. He lost the war in Desert Storm, and he
signed up to certain rules and regulations which go along with losing a
war, and he has ignored all of them. He has developed and stockpiled
chemical and biological weapons. We know that he is seeking nuclear
weapons. We know that he has aided and abetted terrorists who have
struck international targets around the world. But now it is time for
Congress to speak again with a firm and resolute voice, just as we did
on September 14, 3 days after the cowardly attacks on innocent
Americans.
Many of our friends are watching and they are waiting today, as they
were last year. Are they going to join with us, or not? Is this a
serious effort, or not? Is Congress speaking for the American people to
support the President of the United States as he seeks to protect this
Nation and our interests?
President Bush needs Congress to act to convince our allies, our
friends, and our enemies that we are serious. They need to know that
our Nation is resolved to continue this battle against terrorism into
Iraq if necessary.
Many have said that Saddam Hussein is not a real threat to the United
States because he is so far away, and he is far away. It is a long
distance.

{time} 1800

Many have said that the President's speech Monday night did not
address a lot of new subjects. He compiled and organized very well,
many of the existing arguments. But he did say something new for those
who paid really close attention. The President discussed for the first
time publicly information that many of our colleagues who work with
intelligence issues have been aware of for quite some time. That
involves Saddam Hussein's aggressive efforts to develop and use
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, as a delivery method for his weapons of
mass destruction. The SCUDs did not have a very long range. The SCUDs
were not very accurate. I can attest to that because one night visiting
with General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, a SCUD
was launched near our site, and it landed not too far away; but it was
far enough away that it did not hurt anybody. So we know that the SCUDs
were not that accurate. UAVs are a different story. UAVs have a much
longer range; UAVs are able to be piloted and trained specifically on a
target. UAVs are dangerous. And if my colleagues do not think UAVs have
a long range, we ourselves have flown a UAV from the United States to
Australia and back. Saddam is aggressively seeking ability to use those
long-range UAVs to put so many more targets in his sights. We cannot
let that happen.
Mr. Speaker, with this resolution Congress reaffirms our support for
the international war against terrorism. It continues to be
international in nature, as this resolution specifically expresses
support for the President's efforts to strictly enforce, through the
United Nations Security Council, and I will repeat that, through the
United Nations Security Council, all relevant Security Council
resolutions applicable to Iraq. It also expresses support for the
President's efforts to obtain prompt decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion,
and noncompliance with those resolutions.
One of the lessons of September 11 is that terrorism knows no
boundaries. Its victims are men and women, children and adults. It can
occur here; it can occur abroad. It can occur anywhere. Terrorists
strike without warning. If we are to fight and win the war on
terrorism, we must remain united, united in the Congress, united with
the President of the United States, and united with the American
people. President Bush told the Nation last September that victory
would not come quickly or easily. It would be a battle unlike any our
Nation has ever waged. Now is not the time to send a mixed message to
our friends and allies. Now is not the time to show our enemies any
weakness in our resolve.
Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to record our votes on this important
resolution, we should remember the victims of terrorism, September 11
and other examples, and our promise last year to seek out and destroy
the roots of terrorism whether it be its sponsors, planners, or the
perpetrators of these cowardly missions. We should remember the unity
of our Nation and the world. The battle continues, the stakes remain
high, and the cause remains just. America must again speak one more
time with unity, with force, and with clarity. This resolution does
that.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi regime has posed a threat to peace, to the
United States, and to the world for too long. In order to protect
America against this very real and growing threat, I support giving the
President the authority to use force, to use military action if
necessary against Iraq. Without a doubt this is one of the most
difficult decisions I have had to make as a Member of Congress. But
after briefings from the administration, testimony from congressional
hearings, I am convinced the threat to our Nation's safety is real.
After repeatedly failing to

[[Page 19852]]

comply with U.N. inspections, Saddam Hussein's efforts to build weapons
of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, have gone
unchecked for far too long. The world cannot allow him to continue down
this deadly path. Saddam Hussein must comply with U.N. inspections; but
if not, America and our coalition must be prepared to meet this threat.
After the Gulf War, in compliance with U.N. resolutions, a no-fly
zone was implemented. The purpose was to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiite
Muslims from Saddam Hussein's aggressions and to conduct aerial
surveillance. But since its inception, pilots patrolling the zones have
come under repeated attack from Iraqi missiles and artillery.
The connection between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its
longstanding ties to terrorist networks such as al Qaeda has
significantly altered the U.S. security environment. The two linked
together pose a clear and present danger to our country. Consider that
Saddam Hussein could supply the terrorists who have sleeper cells in
our land with weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S. while
concealing his responsibility for the action. It is a very real and
growing threat. The Iraqi regime has been building a case against
itself for more than 10 years, and if we fail to heed the warning signs
and allow them to continue down this path, the results could be
devastating, but they would not be a surprise.
After September 11, we are on notice. If Saddam Hussein refuses to
comply with U.N. resolutions and diplomatic efforts, we have only one
choice in order to ensure the security of our Nation and the safety our
citizens.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was a world away fighting to
contain the scourge of communism in Southeast Asia, a movement grew up
here at home to protest what we were doing. Late in the war, one of the
anthems of that movement was a song by John Lennon called ``Give Peace
a Chance.'' We are not here to debate the Vietnam War, but we are
discussing war and peace. Peace is a very precious thing, and we should
defend it and even fight for it. And we have given peace a chance for
11 long years.
We gave peace a chance through diplomacy, but Saddam Hussein has
broken every agreement that came out of that diplomacy. We gave peace a
chance through weapons inspections, but Saddam Hussein orchestrated an
elaborate shell game to thwart that effort. We gave peace a chance
through sanctions, but Saddam Hussein used those sanctions as an excuse
to starve his own people. We gave peace a chance by establishing no-fly
zones to prevent Saddam Hussein from killing more of his own citizens,
but he shoots at our planes every day. We gave peace a chance by
allowing him to sell some oil to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi
people, but instead he used the revenue to build more weapons of mass
destruction.
Mr. Speaker, we have given peace a chance for more than a decade, and
it has not worked. Even now our President is actively working to
achieve a diplomatic solution by getting the United Nations to pass a
resolution with teeth; and while the United Nations has an important
role to play in this, no American President and no American Congress
can shirk our responsibility to protect the American people. If the
U.N. will not act, we must.
If we go down to the other end of the national Mall, we will see on
the Korean War Memorial the words ``Freedom is not free.'' Peace is not
free either. What some of those who are protesting the President's
request for military authority do not understand is that our freedoms
were not won with poster paint. Antiwar protestors do not win our
freedoms or our peace. The freedom to live in peace was won by men and
women who gave their lives on the battlefields of history.
As the world's only remaining superpower, we now even have an even
greater responsibility to stand up to prevent mass murder before it
happens. No world organization can override the President's duty and
our duty to protect the American people. If Mohammed Atta had had a
nuclear weapon, he would have used that weapon in New York and not an
airplane. By all accounts Saddam Hussein is perhaps a year away from
having nuclear weapons. He already has chemical and biological weapons
capable of killing millions.
When police detectives investigate a crime, they look for three
things: means, motive, and opportunity. Clearly Saddam Hussein has the
means, he has the weapons, and he has the motive. He hates America, he
hates the Kurds, he hates Kuwaitis, he hates Iran, he hates Israel, he
hates anyone who gets in his way. And we know that when he hates
people, he kills them, sometimes by the thousand. He has shown the
propensity to use his weapons and so he has the means and the motive.
But does he have the opportunity? Saddam Hussein could easily pass a
suitcase with a nuclear weapon off to an al Qaeda terrorist with a one-
way ticket to New York. No fingerprints, no evidence, and several
million dead Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very real danger. Before September 11 we might
have thought this could never happen. Today we are too wise to doubt
it, and it is a danger that grows every day. Every day Saddam Hussein
grows stronger. Every day Saddam Hussein builds more chemical and
biological weapons. Every day Saddam Hussein comes a little closer to
achieving nuclear weapons capability. Every day that passes, America
grows more vulnerable to a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack.
In this case inaction is more costly than action. The price of delay
is a greater risk. The price of inaction could be catastrophic, even
worse than September 11. We must disarm Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, we are not advocating war. We are calling for peace, but
peace might only be possible if we are willing to fight for it, and the
President needs that authority to do that. I urge support for the
resolution.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and that he be able to control
and yield that time to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult vote for me. If there is ever
one vote that should be made in the national interest, a vote that
transcends politics and where Members must vote their conscience, it is
the one that is before us tonight.
I have received thousands of letters against the resolution, and just
this past weekend over 15,000 gathered in Central Park in my district
to protest. But what is at stake are not our political careers or an
election, but the future of our country and our way of life. I believe
there is a more compelling case now against Saddam than 12 years ago.
Then the threat was of a geopolitical nature, a move to change the map
of the Middle East. But I never saw it as a direct threat to our
Nation.
The main question before us today is whether Saddam is a threat to
the United States and our allies. No one doubts that he has chemical
and biological weapons. No one doubts that he is trying to stockpile
weapons of mass destruction. No one doubts that he has thwarted
inspections in the past and has developed UAVs. No one doubts that he
has consistently worked to develop nuclear power. No one doubts that he
has twice invaded his neighbors. The question is, Will he use these
weapons against the United States and our allies, and can we deter him
without using force?
As Lincoln said in the beginning days of the Civil War: ``The dogmas
of the quiet past are inadequate to the

[[Page 19853]]

stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must
rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act
anew.''
I would be for deterrence if I thought it would work. We are in a new
era and no longer in the Cold War. Deterrence depends on the victim
knowing from where the aggression will come and the aggressor knowing
the victim will know who has attacked him. It has been a year since the
anthrax attacks in our Nation, and we still do not know where the
attacks came from. Saddam has likely taken notice that we were unable
to tie evidence of attacks to their source, and if he believes he can
give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against us
without our knowing he has done so, our ability to deter him from such
a course of action will be greatly diminished.

{time} 1615

Opponents of our war talk about the unintended consequences of war.
They do not talk about the unwanted consequences of not disarming
Saddam. In today's environment, it is very possible he could supply
weapons to terrorists who will attack the United States or our allies
around the world.
I am pleased the resolution has been improved with congressional
input. We should proceed carefully, step by step, and use the United
Nations and the international community to disarm Saddam so that we are
safer in the United States and New York and in our respective States
and clear around the world.
Just today I spoke with British Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, on this issue. Ambassador
Greenstock told me that the members of the Security Council, both
permanent and otherwise, will approve a robust inspection resolution;
and if this fails to disarm Iraq, he expects a second resolution that
may authorize force.
I come from a family of veterans. Most recently, my brother served in
the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. It happens to be his birthday today. He
told me that he parachuted many times behind enemy lines to acquire
enemy intelligence. He saw many of his friends machine gunned down.
This searing experience left deep wounds. So it is my deepest hope that
we will not have to send our men and young women into harm's way.
So it is with a very heavy heart, but a clear resolve, that I will be
voting to support this resolution. The accumulation of weapons of mass
destruction by Saddam and the willingness of terrorists to strike
innocent people in the United States and our allies across the world
have, unfortunately, ushered in a dangerous new era. It is a danger
that we cannot afford to ignore.
I will be voting yes. I will be supporting the President on this
resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to
authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I stand behind the
Commander-in-Chief and our men and women in uniform who may be called
upon to defend America's freedom again.
The War Powers Resolution was passed to ensure that the collective
judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply before the
introduction of our Armed Forces into hostilities. I want to commend
the President for working with Congress on crafting this critical
resolution.
Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime
have refused to comply with the sanctions imposed by the United States
and its international community. In 1990, Iraq committed an unprovoked
act of aggression and occupation against its Arab neighbor Kuwait, a
peace-loving nation.
After the Gulf War, the Iraqi government continually violated the
terms of the United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement. They
refused to provide access to weapons inspectors to investigate
suspected weapon production facilities.
Americans and coalition force pilots have been fired upon thousands
of times while lawfully enforcing the no-fly zone crafted by the United
Nations Security Council. In 1993, they attempted to assassinate former
President Bush. As we speak here today, members of al Qaeda are known
to be within the borders of Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, history has proven that Saddam Hussein and his
government cannot be dealt with through diplomatic channels or peaceful
means. He only understands death, destruction and trampling on the
human rights of others, as evidenced by his treatment of the Kurdish
people in Northern Iraq and anyone in his government who questions his
power.
Some may argue that America is acting as the aggressor and planning a
preemptive strike without justification. To the contrary, this is
anticipatory self-defense against evil forces and weapons that threaten
our national security and peace and stability throughout the Persian
Gulf and the world.
We do not want to see another day like September 11 ever again in
America, or anywhere else on God's great Earth. If we do not put an end
to Iraq's development of its weapons of mass destruction program, the
future could be worse.
America must act forcefully and with great resolve because the costs
are too high. The time has come for America once again to set the
example for the rest of the free world. Our children and our
grandchildren should not have to face this threat again.
I ask all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this joint resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
President in his policy regarding Iraq. Resolutions regarding war are
not something we consider without much thought, and this should be very
serious business for this House and each Member of it.
The last few months, there has been much talk about Iraq being given
the opportunity to respond to weapons inspections. Sometimes this is
said as if it were a new idea. However, when a defiant Saddam Hussein
has repeatedly rejected inspections and threatened inspectors, there is
little reason to believe that he will cooperate.
You may have seen the movies in which a prison is going to be
inspected. The warden replaces the spoiled food with fresh vegetables
and maybe even a meat entree. If Saddam Hussein allows inspectors in,
it will only be at specific locations and not the unlimited, surprise
inspections that we need in order to have our questions answered.
The fact that our President would consider any additional form of
inspection is a testimony of his desire to avoid conflict. Saddam
Hussein's actions in the past show a lack of regard, both for his own
people and for his neighboring nations.
I remember back about 10 years ago as a young man preparing to
practice law. It was about that time that the U.S. and our allies spent
an enormous time and effort freeing the Kuwaiti people and hoped that
the Iraqi people would also be able to free themselves from the
dictator.
In World War II, Hitler introduced a concept of blitzkrieg, a high-
speed attack by land and air. Today's increasingly long-range and
accurate rockets, armed with warheads of mass destruction, makes
blitzkrieg look like slow motion.
The President's top advisers and the Secretary of Defense, along with
other members of the President's Cabinet, have briefed Members of
Congress repeatedly and in a timely manner. I went down to Pennsylvania
Avenue to the White House just last week, and back on September 19 met
with the Secretary of Defense along with several other Members of
Congress at the Pentagon to discuss and be briefed on the situation in
Iraq.
Now, the President needs our support so that he can act quickly and
decisively against the threat of Iraq should he deem that action
necessary.
Again, let me stress, the action that we take this week is not just
another

[[Page 19854]]

vote for the United States Congress. It is, indeed, one of those
landmark votes that will be long remembered and recorded in the history
books. The action that we take this week might just, and certainly we
pray, negate the need to send our troops into harm's way.
I would urge all the Members to support our President and vote yes on
this resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we fully discuss here the most
serious responsibility that is entrusted to Congress, and that is
authorizing the President to use force in the defense of our Nation.
The decision by Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S.
military requires somber analysis and sober consideration, but it is
not a discussion that we should delay.
The President has presented to the American people a compelling case
for intervening in Iraq, and this body has acted deliberately in
bringing to the House floor a resolution that unequivocally expresses
our support for our Commander-in-Chief.
The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more
apparent. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Special
Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying thousands of chemical
munitions, chemical agents and precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to
developing offensive biological weapons, including botulinum, anthrax,
aflatoxin, clostridium and others.
Yet this list of poisons describes only what the U.N. inspectors were
able to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and
denial. They could not account for thousands of chemical munitions, 500
mustard gas bombs and 4,000 tons of chemical weapons precursors. In the
intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, and
accelerated following the withdrawals of U.N. inspectors.
Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve not only to develop deadly
weapons of mass destruction but to use them on their own people: 5,000
killed, 20,000 Iranians killed through mustard gas clouds and the most
deadly agents that were inflicted on human beings. Perhaps in different
hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be
less of an imminent threat.
This authorization of force that we will vote on soon is at some
level also a recognition of the ongoing state of war with Iraq. In the
last 3 weeks, 67 attempts have been made to down collision aircraft.
Four hundred and six attempts have been made this year.
The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and general
inactivity of the international community for a decade. Regime change
cannot happen through domestic posturing. Disarmament requires more
than fervent hopes and good wishes.
On December 9, 1941, President Roosevelt said, ``There is no such
thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up
in the dark and strike without warning. We cannot measure our safety in
terms of miles on any map.''
In 1941, Congress stood with the President and promised full support
to protect and defend our Nation. I urge our colleagues today to do the
same.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), who serves with distinction on the Committee on
International Relations and is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee
on Health Care of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, for years our policy in this country has been one of
containment, of deterrence, of collective security, of diplomacy. We
contained and we deterred Joseph Stalin and the Soviets for decades. We
have contained and deterred Fidel Castro and the Cubans for 40 years.
We have contained and deterred Communist China in its expansionist
tendencies for 5 decades.
Now this President wants to radically change our decades-old foreign
policy of containment and deterrence to a policy of first strike. What
does that tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to attack Georgia to
better deal with Chechnya? Does it set an international precedent for
China to go into Taiwan or deal even more harshly with Tibet? Does it
embolden India or Pakistan, or both, each with nuclear weapons, from
going to war in Kashmir?
The whole point of the Security Council is to prevent member states,
including veto-wielding permanent members, perhaps especially veto-
wielding permanent members, to prevent those member states from
launching first strike, unilateral, unprovoked war.
Resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, called explicitly for
countries cooperating with the exiled Kuwaiti loyals to create a
coalition to use force. No country, no country in international law,
has the unilateral right to decide Iraq has not complied with U.N.
requirements, let alone what the U.N. response should be.
A couple of weeks ago, three retired four-star generals testified in
the other body, stating that attacking Iraq without a United Nations'
resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies,
would supercharge, in the general's words, supercharge recruiting for
al Qaeda and undermine our war on terrorism.

{time} 1830

There are too many questions the administration has yet to answer. If
we strike Iraq on our own, what happens to our campaign against
terrorism? Most of our allies in the war on terror oppose U.N.
unilateral action against Iraq. Will our coalition against terrorism
fracture? And if we win a unilateral war, will we be responsible for
unilaterally rebuilding Iraq?
I am not convinced this administration possesses the political
commitment to reconstruct the damage after we defeat Saddam Hussein to
bring democracy to that country. It will entail appropriations of
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, year after year after year. Do
we have the political will and the financial commitment to do that in
that country, in that region? Should a new enemy arise while we are
paying for the campaign against al Qaeda and the reconstruction of
Iraq, will our resources be so overextended that we will not be able to
address this new threat?
This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the
administration details what it plans to do and how we will deal with
the consequences of our actions, namely, what will the U.S. role be
after military action is completed? We should set stronger conditions
before any military action is permitted.
The President should present to Congress a comprehensive plan that
addresses the full range of issues associated with action against Iraq:
a cost estimate for military action, a cost estimate for reconstruction
of Iraq, along with a proposal for how the U.S. is going to pay for
these costs. We are going more into debt. Will there ever be a
prescription drug benefit? Will we continue to underfund education?
Will the economy continue to falter if we do this war?
We should do an analysis of the impact on the U.S. domestic economy
of the use of resources for military action and the use of resources
for reconstruction of Iraq. We should answer the questions.
We should have a comprehensive plan for U.S. financial and political
commitment to long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization
in a free Iraq if the President is going to talk about Iraq being a
model of democracy in the Middle East.
We should have a comprehensive statement that details the extent of
the international support for military operations in Iraq and what
effect a military action against Iraq will mean for the broader war on
terrorism.
We should have a comprehensive analysis of the effect on the
stability of Iraq, and the region, of any regime change in Iraq that
may occur as a result of U.S. military action.
And, finally, we should have a commitment that the U.S. will take
necessary efforts to protect the health,

[[Page 19855]]

safety, and security of the U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi civilians.
Mr. Speaker, before we send our young men and women to war, before we
put our young men and women in harm's way, we must make certain in
every way that this is the best course of action.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) has 2 hours and 26 minutes remaining; the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has 39 minutes remaining; and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has 20 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman on the other
side of the aisle if we could agree to a 2- or 3-to-1 split in order to
normalize the time, since there is such a disparity in the amount
consumed.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would agree to a 2-to-1 split, I would
say to my friend from California.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will proceed with
two in a row and then yield.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that 9-11 and the events of that
day taught us, it is that our policy of containment and deterrence does
not work against terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up and,
at the same time, innocent civilians.
I rise in support of this historic resolution, fully aware that this
may be one of the most important votes this body casts.
We all hope that we can disarm Iraq without bloodshed. That is our
goal. We all hope and pray that risking the lives of the women and men
of our Armed Forces will prove unnecessary. We hold out hope that this
time, against the recent tide of history, Saddam will allow U.N.
inspectors full access, free of deception and delay. But if the events
of 9-11 and ongoing intelligence-gathering have shown us anything, Mr.
Speaker, it is that we must remain ever vigilant against the new and
growing threat to the American way of life. Terrorists who are willing
to commit suicide to murder thousands of innocents will not be halted
by the conventional means and policies of deterrence we have deployed.
The greatest danger we face is in not acting, in assuming the
terrorists who are committed to destroying our Nation will remain
unarmed by Saddam. The first strike could be the last strike for too
many Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we know enough at this point about the specific dangers
posed by Iraq to make this resolution unavoidable: large stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons, an advanced and still-evolving nuclear
weapons production program, support for and the harboring of terrorist
organizations, the brutal repression and murder of its own civilian
population, and the utter disregard for U.N. resolutions and dictates.
Mr. Speaker, we know enough.
We all applaud and support the President's commitment to working with
the U.N. Security Council to deal with the threat that Iraq poses to
the United States and our allies. I continue to hope and pray for a
peaceful, internationally driven resolution to this crisis, but I
believe that passing this resolution strengthens the President's hand
to bring this about.
But with the events of September 11 still fresh in our minds and in
our hearts, we cannot rest our hopes on the possibility that Iraq will
comply with U.N. resolutions. Iraq has defied the United Nations openly
for over a decade.
Today we are being asked to fulfill our responsibilities to our
families, our constituents, and our Constitution; and I think we have
to give the President the appropriate tools to proceed if Saddam does
not cooperate with the arms inspectors and comply with existing U.N.
resolutions.
While we should seek the active support of other nations, we must
first and foremost protect our homeland, our people, and our way of
life.
Mr. Speaker, I pray for the best as we prepare for the worst. Today,
we recognize that there may come a time in a moment when we realize
that we are involved in a profound global struggle in which Saddam's
regime is clearly at the epicenter on the side of evil; when it becomes
clear there are times when evil cannot be appeased, ignored, or simply
forgotten; when confrontation remains the only option.
There are moments in history when conscience matters, in fact, when
conscience is the only thing that matters. I urge my colleagues to vote
their conscience and acknowledge the danger confronting us, by not
entrusting our fate to others, by demonstrating our resolve to rid the
world of this menace. I urge this with a heavy heart, but a heart
convinced that if confrontation should be required, we are ready for
the task.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
Defending America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is the
first and fundamental purpose of the Federal Government. Once, it took
countries of great economic wealth to field a powerful military, to
threaten the United States, and to place our people in fear. The threat
of this new century has now changed, because we have individuals that
truly hate us and can use something as simple as box cutters to place
our people in fear and terror.
With regard to the threat of Saddam Hussein, it must be recognized
for what it is: a deliberate and patient campaign by Saddam to
terrorize free people and undermine the very foundations of liberty.
I am sufficiently convinced without hesitation that Saddam represents
a clear and present danger. As a Gulf War veteran, I am filled with
emotion to contemplate that my comrades will once again be upon the
desert floor. I submit that it is easier to be ordered to war than to
vote that someone else may go in my place. However, now is the time for
our Nation to in fact be vigilant and to authorize the President to
preserve freedom through military action, if necessary, and to take our
foreign policy as defense in depth.
In many respects, this resolution represents a continuation of the
Gulf War. Saddam Hussein agreed to provisions of the cease-fire. He has
violated his cease-fire, he has been flagrant in his violations, and
the hostility is now open and notorious. After a decade of denial,
deception, and hostility toward the world, it is time to seek Iraq's
compliance and, if necessary, remove this despotic dictator, his
weapons of mass destruction, and the terrorists he supports and
harbors.
Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party rule Iraq through terror and
fear. I will share some personalized stories.
Through interrogations at the enemy prisoner of war camp during the
Gulf War, having done these interviews with Iraqi high command
conscripts, I learned several things: number one, the Iraqi people do
not like Saddam because he, in fact, keeps the great wealth to himself,
keeps different tribes in ignorance, to the pleasure of his own tribe.
In fact, one of the conscripts that I interrogated was scared to death
of an American soldier. Why? Because they had been told that if you are
captured by Americans, that you, in fact, would be quartered, your body
would be quartered. Over 90,000 Iraqis that were held in two prisoner
of war camps, I say to my colleagues, have had the opportunity to tell
the stories of how well they were treated by Americans and, in fact,
they called the prisoner of war camps ``the hotel.''
Let me tell about their leadership. Before the interrogation of a
two-star Iraqi general, he was sitting with his legs crossed on the
desert floor with his hands in his face weeping like a child. I had an
interpreter with me. When I walked up, I kicked the bottom of his boot
and, through the interpreter, I asked him to stand at attention. He
stood up and I asked him if he was an Iraqi general. He responded and
said

[[Page 19856]]

yes, he was. Here I am, an American captain in the Army, and I told
him, then if you are an Iraqi general, then act like one.
Mr. Speaker, why would an Iraqi general be weeping upon the desert
floor? Because Saddam hand-selects his general officers. They do not
earn it. The men who serve in their military have not earned the trust
and confidence.
Also, what will be told is the lethality of American combat troops.
They know exactly what happened in the short war of the gulf. The
operations with regard to any military action that may occur in the
Gulf War, I say to my colleagues, is so completely different than the
operations of 10 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the Iraqi people because I also remember
them. Do my colleagues know what their request was at the prisoner of
war camp to bring calm? They just wanted to listen to Madonna. So that
is what we did. We piped in Madonna. They wanted to listen to ``The
Material Girl.'' Their culture is far more Westernized than we could
ever imagine, and they like Americans.
This is not against the Iraqi people. This is any action to get
Saddam Hussein to comply with the cease-fire to disarm; and if, in
fact, he does not, then force is the means of last resort. And the
soldiers, while they prepare to fight and win the Nation's wars, they
are the ones who have taken the oath to lay down their life for the
Constitution, and they do not want to fight. In fact, they want peace.
But if called upon, they, in fact, will serve.
So I will vote for this resolution, and I will think about my
comrades who may be placed in harm's way, and I also will think of the
children that are left behind and the spouses who will keep the watch
fires burning for their loved ones. Support the resolution.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, American
foreign policy has struggled to define its role in the post-Cold War
world. Unsure of when to use military force, how to use it, and with
which allies, we have stumbled from engagement to ad hoc engagement
from Somalia to Kosovo. We have at times acted hastily in the world;
more often, far too late.
Our recent fecklessness points up the foreign policy confusion that
the welcome end of the long war with totalitarianism has left with us.
Confronted with the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans were united
in the goals of containment and deterrence, this latter purpose backed
up by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Such strategies are, of
course, still not outdated, as we face an unstable Russia and a growing
China, both armed with significant nuclear arsenals. But the primacy of
these doctrines has no doubt receded with the Peace of Paris and with
the difficult challenges that have arisen since.
As our Nation enters the 21st century, we are confronted by some of
these challenges, like humanitarian crises in Somalia which are brought
into our homes through the global reach of communications technology,
and world opinion demands action to bring relief. Ethnic cleansing,
with its echoes of the Holocaust, insist that the United States and its
Western allies make good on the promise of ``never again.'' And the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, which means that, for the first
time in history, a nonstate actor can inflict lethal harm on a State,
compels us to develop new doctrines of defense.

{time} 1845

It is amidst this intellectual muddle that the current crisis with
Iraq arises. There are certain undeniable facts about Saddam Hussein,
who has so ruthlessly ruled Iraq for more than 20 years. He alone in
the world has used chemical weapons, against his own people. He has a
sophisticated biological weapons program. Most importantly, he has an
insatiable appetite for nuclear weapons, which, but for the foresight
of Israel and the success of the Gulf War, he would already possess.
With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly tried to
dominate the Middle East, a region of critical importance to the United
States.
These facts alone dictate immediate action to disarm Iraq. If Saddam
Hussein were to acquire a nuclear weapon, he would be able to muscle
surrounding states, as he attempted to do with Kuwait in 1990, with
relative impunity, for the threat of nuclear reprisal would deter all
but the most determined vindicators of international law and Middle
East stability.
Were Saddam Hussein to control not only his own mighty oil fields but
also those of his neighbors, the havoc to the world economy could not
be overestimated, as would the danger to our long-standing ally,
Israel.
Many people over the last 2 days have spoken eloquently of the need
for United Nations approval before any American action against Iraq.
President Bush was wise to recently address the U.N., and I am
confident that the United Nations will acknowledge the need to enforce
its own resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq; and recognize,
too, that only the threat of military force can make those demands
understood.
But if the United Nations itself has so little self-regard as to not
demand compliance by Iraq, then that body's impotence should not
forestall the United States from making the world's demands on its own.
While consistency is not always valued highly in Congress, my own
party would well remember that President Bill Clinton chose to take
action in Kosovo without any approval from the Security Council;
indeed, against the opposition of at least one permanent Security
Council member, but with the approval of most Democrats in the House of
Representatives.
Still others of my colleagues have suggested that we must wait for
further provocation by Iraq. Somehow, they argue, it is against the
American tradition to take preventative military action; or they argue
that Iraq can be deterred in the same manner as was the Soviet Union.
Grenada, Panama, and Haiti rebut the notion that the United States is a
stranger to unilateral preventative action, as does the commonsense
realization that times have changed, and it is not so much the
detonation of a nuclear bomb that threatens the United States but
Iraq's mere possession of such a weapon.
Deterrence works well when it must, but the assumption that all are
deterrable is, in the wake of September 11, on very shaky footing,
indeed.
There is, in the end, no choice about disarmament. The only
alternatives are between forced agreement or nonconsensual military
force. Paradoxically, it is the threat of force which we authorize in
this resolution that offers the best chance for a peaceful disarmament.
The authorization of force, which has in recent years taken the place
of formal declarations of war, is the most grave and momentous decision
anyone in Congress can make, but we will authorize force against Iraq
tomorrow, and we will be right to do so. We will be right not because
we desire war with Iraq, but because we desire to prevent it; right not
because we lead this cause, but because no one else will; and right not
because war is our first resort, but, unlike Iraq, it is always our
last.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Chair of the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, if given a simple choice, no
rational human being would advocate war over peace. No father and no
mother would ever want to send their daughter or son into harm's way.
No truly civilized people would ever want to sit idly by and let their
friends and allies be annihilated.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these are principled beliefs, all of
which confront us at this difficult time. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,
today we do not live in a perfect world. Tonight, however, as we debate
the question of giving our President and Commander-in-Chief Congress'
authorization to conduct war, we must remember the lessons of history.
More than 60 years ago,

[[Page 19857]]

many closed their eyes, many covered their ears, or chanted the same
chorus for peace that we now hear. Mr. Speaker, when will we learn that
we cannot trust, we cannot pacify, and we cannot negotiate with a mass
murderer?
Mr. Speaker, humanity cannot afford ever to experience another
Holocaust as a cruel reminder. Israel is not an expendable commodity.
Tonight, just a few miles from here near our Nation's Capitol, a mad
killer lurks. Think of the terror tonight of those in range of that
single madman. Think also of the terror in Israel, never knowing true
security. I ask the Members, is that the kind of world we want our
children and grandchildren to live in? I say no, a thousand times no.
That is why tonight I will support this resolution. I rise in support
of the resolution and our President to ensure that we do not repeat
history, or that we do not have our children live in that kind of
world.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114
to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq.
While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops
to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to
protect U.S. national security interests.
The events of September 11 showed that we are not protected from an
attack on our homeland. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein
possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction. The
U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq 4 years ago for a
reason. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result
in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively.
Some ask why we must act against this threat in particular. The
answer is that this threat is unique. I need not remind anyone that
Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction already against his own
people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East and has
struck other nations in the region, including our ally, Israel, without
warning.
Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of
freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam
Hussein cannot carry out a first strike against the United States or
our allies.
Mr. Speaker, while there is no doubt that unqualified support for
military intervention from the U.N. is preferable, we must be prepared
to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of
our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have
U.S. interests at heart.
The resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in
Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade
Iraq should he determine that Hussein is not complying with the
conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these is full and
unfettered weapons inspections. If he fails to comply, we will have no
choice but to take action. Our security demands it.
Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not
conclude that respectful disagreements on the floor of this House
divide us. On the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of
all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look
no further than to Iraq to understand why.
At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I find
comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we
will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our
homeland from those who wish to destroy us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who serves on the Committee on Financial Services
and whose career has been earmarked by respect for the rule of law.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
that kind yielding of time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a quote: ``I'm concerned about living with my
conscience, and searching for that which is right and that which is
true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist
following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to
us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy
`Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' we tend to determine what
is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority
opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.
``Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more
and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will
take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though
it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse.''
That is excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a part of a creative minority in
Congress who oppose this apparently inevitable resolution granting the
President the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from
power. But I will not be a silent minority.
I know who Saddam Hussein is. I know he has viciously killed hundreds
of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical and biological
weapons. I know he has murdered members of his own cabinet; in fact,
his own family. I remember vividly his aggressions in Iran and Kuwait
and the SCUD missiles he launched into Israel in the Gulf War. I know
the contempt he has shown toward the U.N. and its weapons inspectors as
they attempted to enforce post-Gulf War resolutions; and I know that
the world, and particularly the Gulf region, would be a better and
safer place without Saddam Hussein in power and those of his ilk in
power.
But I also know that the resolution before us is a product of haste
and hubris, rather than introspection and humility. I have seen
President Bush confront the Iraq question with arrogance and
condescension, initially bullying this Congress, our international
allies, and the American people with accusations and threats and tales
of terror eliciting fear in their hearts and minds.
President Bush has told us that war is not inevitable, but does
anyone really believe that? For months, this administration has marched
inexorably towards an attack on Iraq, changing its rationale to suit
the circumstances. I have no doubt that, regardless of what we do here
or what Saddam does there, we will go to war. I pray I am wrong.
The CIA today said Saddam is unlikely to initiate a chemical or
biological attack against the United States and presented the alarming
possibility that an attack on Iraq could provoke him into taking the
very actions this administration claims an invasion would prevent.
I know, too, who we are. America has never backed down from a just
war. From the Revolutionary era to the Civil War, across Europe, Asia,
and Africa, in two world wars, just a dozen years ago in the Persian
Gulf, and countless missions to faraway places like Bosnia, Kosovo,
Liberia, and Afghanistan, America fought. We fought with righteousness,
determination, and vision. We fought because principles and freedoms
were threatened. We fought because fighting was our last choice.
America has always fought with a vision to the future and has been
merciful and generous in our victories.
But the White House has not offered any vision for post-Saddam Iraq.
As a Nation founded on moral principles, we have a moral obligation to
prepare a plan for rebuilding Iraq before we declare war. Iraq, like
Afghanistan and many of the other nations in the Gulf region, is made
up of many ethnic groups that will compete for power in the vacuum that
is created by Saddam Hussein's ouster. But as important as the tactical
plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein are, we must address how we intend to
help the Iraqi people institute a democratic government.
I ask the President, can he not answer a few simple questions: Have
we completed the war on terrorism? What happened to Osama bin Laden? Do
we know how long a war in Iraq would last? Has there been any
assessment

[[Page 19858]]

for the American people of how much a war in Iraq will cost our
economy? Does he have any idea of the human loss we should expect in a
war with Iraq?
Instead of answers, he gives us bombast. Yes, we have all heard the
rhetoric: Saddam is evil, Saddam hates America, Saddam must be stopped,
and you are either with us or against us. If you are not with us, we
don't need you.

{time} 1900

But when the rhetoric is peeled away, truth emerges.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot go on but I say to all of my colleagues, let us
be the creative minority. Vote against allowing force against Iraq.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
debate on this resolution be extended for 2 hours to be equally divided
between the majority and minority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair grants an additional hour to be
controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr.
Issa) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we face no more important issues
than those of war and peace, and for that reason I agree wholeheartedly
with my colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who just spoke that this must
be a vote of Congress. For that reason this extended debate on the
House floor is very appropriate and the views expressed by Members of
Congress are deserving of respect. Having read it closely, my view is
that the carefully crafted resolution before us is the right approach.
On Monday in my hometown of Cincinnati, the President of the United
States clearly explained to the country what is at stake. He not only
made the case that inaction is not an option, but that given the
dangers and defiance of the Iraqi regime, the threat of military action
must be an available option. Time and time again, Saddam Hussein has
proven to be a threat to the peace and security of the region. That is
why the international community through the United Nations has
repeatedly called on the Iraqi regime to keep its word and open all
facilities to weapons inspections. Yet repeatedly Iraq has refused,
defying the United Nations. There is no reason to believe that without
the threat of force, the disarmament the Iraqi regime agreed to as part
of the disarmament after the Gulf War more than 10 years ago will ever
occur.
And there is other gathering danger and risk to America and all
freedom-loving people. The horror of September 11, Mr. Speaker,
awakened us to that reality. We know that the Iraqi regime is producing
and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons. We know they are in
the process of obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know that this regime has
a consistent record of aggression of supporting terrorist activities.
Once the Iraqi regime possesses a nuclear weapon, it, or the technology
that creates it, could easily be passed along to a terrorist
organization. Already chemical and biological weapons could be
provided. We must not permit this to happen.
The resolution will authorize military action but only if it is
necessary. I would hope that every Member in this Chamber would pray
that it would not be necessary. But the choice is clear, and it is a
choice for the Iraqi regime to make. If the regime refuses to disarm,
our military and our coalition partners will be compelled to make a
stand for freedom and security against tyranny and terrorism. And if we
take this course, it will not be unilateral as others on this floor
have said. The United States will not be alone.
I commend the President for his diplomatic initiatives, for
continuing to try to work through the United Nations, and for an
impressive array of coalition partners already assembled. I do not take
lightly the fact that the course laid out by this resolution may put at
risk the lives of young men and women in uniform. But I believe not
authorizing the possible use of force would put even more innocent
Americans at risk.
This is a solemn debate and a tough vote of conscience. Mine will be
a vote for an approach that I believe faces up to the very real dangers
we face and maximizes the chance that these dangers can be addressed
with a minimum loss of life. I will strongly support our President, Mr.
Speaker, and I support the resolution.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and that he be able
to control and yield that time to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
September 11, 2001, is a day that will rank with December 7, 1941, as
a day of infamy in the history of the United States. That one event, 9-
11, changed the world we live in forever. I serve as a delegate to the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly from the Congress and never have I seen the
outpouring of good will and support from our NATO allies as we
experienced in the aftermath of 9-11.
For the first time in the 50-plus-year history of the mightiest
military alliance in modern times, article 5 of the NATO charter was
invoked stating in essence that when one member nation comes under
attack, all consider themselves under attack and each pledges to the
other member nations all military, diplomatic, and territorial assets
they individually and collectively possess.
This past summer, less than a year from 9-11, the President and Vice
President began to talk about a regime change in Iraq. The philosophy
was this: Saddam Hussein is a despot and a threat to develop and
perfect weapons of mass destruction including nuclear capabilities;
and, therefore, he must be removed. Further, we, the United States,
were going to effectuate that change with or without our allies, save
the British. Suddenly the good will and support for America began to
erode, particularly among our European allies and even here at home.
In fact, some with good reason, in my view, think an election in
Germany turned on this one issue. The United States, led by President
Bush and Vice President Cheney's rhetoric, was boxing herself into a
very dangerous and potentially disastrous position. Should that policy
have continued, I would have voted ``no'' on this resolution.
Why do I say that? The best offense we have available to us to
protect our country and our citizens is accurate, timely intelligence
information so that we know what al Qaeda or others are planning, how
they are planning it, when they are planning to attack us again so that
we can stop it. In this war of terrorism, all of the United States
military might and every weapon our country possesses is of little or
no value in the defense of our homeland without these intelligence
resources.
This unilateral approach by the administration threatened to
jeopardize cooperation from those around the world who may be in a
position to give us such intelligence information. World support, world
opinion and the good will of every nation, no matter how small or
militarily insignificant, has never been more important to us. A
whisper in one ear from Kabul to Bagdad to the Philippines to Germany
or even to Oregon can be more important in this war than all of the
military might on Earth, for it may give us the warning we need to stop
another event in this country as occurred on 9-11.
Thankfully, the President's appearance at the United Nations last
month

[[Page 19859]]

and his speech in Cincinnati Monday night sent a signal to our allies
and to many of our own citizens who do not and did not support the
``lone cowboy'' approach, that the administration finally recognized
the importance of international cooperation and the role of all
civilized people as expressed by the United Nations in this war against
humanity. Again, I refer not to the military resources offered by our
global allies, but to the intelligence information which is vital or
perhaps more vital to our national defense.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has an amendment which
I believe does no harm to the substance of the resolution and in my
view is much preferable and more compatible with our constitutional
powers as Congress. I hope every Member will seriously consider its
adoption. But should that fail, I believe that passage of this
resolution is in the best interest of our country at this time. Such
action on our part will hopefully spur movement in the international
arena to enforce the United Nations resolutions when violated, with
civilization as the prosecutor and humanity as the victor.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I join my many esteemed colleagues today in support of
the resolution authorizing the President to use force against Iraq.
This is a historic moment in our country, and it should not be taken
lightly. But it is not the first historic moment when it comes to
Saddam Hussein's regime. This is hopefully the last chapter in a long
saga of our dealings with Saddam Hussein.
More than 20 years ago he began to endanger his neighbors. More than
12 years ago he invaded Kuwait. His cruel regime has had a long history
of the kind of practices that are not tolerated anywhere on this globe,
and yet they persist.
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is in fact writing the last chapter as we
speak in a 12-year war. We are not considering action which would be
preemptive or a strike to begin a war. We are, in fact, dealing with an
absence of peace which has cost America lives and time and effort for
more than a decade. Over the past 10 years he has made a mockery of the
United Nations and the multi-national diplomacy that we have in fact
participated in. He has systematically undermined the United Nations
resolutions that were designed to disarm and reform his regime. He
threw out weapons inspectors in 1998 and has rebuilt his weapons of
mass destruction; and there is no question he intends to target
America. In fact, in 1993 he targeted President George Herbert Bush for
assassination.
Each of those events was more than sufficient for us to do what we
now must do. But the United States was patient. The United Nations was
patient. We have all been patient for more than a decade. I believe
that we need not look for the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's
back; but in fact we need to simply ask, Why did we wait so long? Why
did we tolerate this dictator so long? Even why in 1998 when the last
administration rightfully so called for a regime change did we not act?
I hope that this body in its consideration of this resolution does
not ask why should we act today, but in fact should ask why should we
not act and why did we take so long?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves as the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the House
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, who recently returned from
Afghanistan where she conducted a fact-finding mission.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
member of the Committee on International Relations for his kindness in
yielding me time.
As many of us who have come to this floor, I come with a heavy heart
but a respect for my colleagues and the words that they have offered
today.

{time} 1915

As I stand here, I sometimes feel the world is on our shoulders, but
I also think that my vote is a vote for life or death--I have chosen
life and so I take the path of opposition to this resolution in order
to avoid the tragic path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert
MacNamara to admit, in his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam War,
we were wrong, terribly wrong.
He saw the lost lives of our young men and women, some 58,000 who
came home in body bags; and after years of guilt stemming from his role
in prosecuting the war in Vietnam, MacNamara was moved to expose his
soul on paper with his book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons
of Vietnam.'' He noted the words of an ancient Greek philosopher that
``the reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded solemnly, let
this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam; that we never send our young men
and women into war without thoughtful, provocative analysis and an
offer of diplomacy.
I stand in opposition for another reason, and that is because I hold
the Constitution very dear. I might suggest to my colleagues that when
our Founding Fathers decided to write the Constitution over 4 months of
the hot summer of 1787, they talked about the distribution of authority
between legislative, executive and judicial branches, and they said it
was a bold attempt to create an energetic central government at the
same time that the sovereignty of the people would be preserved.
Frankly, the people of the United States should make the
determination through this House of a declaration of war. And as the
Constitution was written, it said, ``We the people of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
provide for the common defense, establish the Constitution of the
United States of America.'' For that reason, I believe that this
Nation, that suffered a war in Vietnam, should understand the
importance of having the Congress of the United States declare war.
The reason I say that is we continue to suffer today as countless
veterans of that generation from Vietnam have never recovered from the
physical and mental horrors of their experiences, many reliving the
nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless on our streets at
night. What a price we continue to pay for that mistake. Can we afford
to make it again?
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly
steers us towards a treacherous path of war while yielding sparse
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. As Benjamin
Franklin said in 1883, ``There never was a good war or a bad peace.''
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to give the power of diplomacy a chance and
the power of the moral rightness of the high ground the chance that
civilization deserves. Do we not deserve as well as the right to die
the right to live? We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the
alternatives. So if the unacceptable costs of war come upon us, why not
use diplomacy? It is time to use diplomacy now.
The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of self-
defense is an acceptable way to go. The justification would sow the
seeds of peace if we decided to follow peace.
It is important to note that rather than the President's proposed
doctrine of first strike, we would do well to look to diplomacy first.
The first strike presumption of the President would represent an
unprecedented departure from a long-held United States policy of being
a nonaggressor. We would say to the world that it is acceptable to do a
first strike in fear instead of pursuing all possible avenues to a
diplomatic solution.

[[Page 19860]]

Imagine the world in chaos with India going after Pakistan, China
opting to fight Taiwan instead of negotiating, and North Korea going
after South Korea and erupting into an all-out war. Because actions
always speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous
admonitions to show restraint to the world would go to the winds, and
then, of course, would fall on deaf ears.
There is another equally important reason I must oppose this
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively
abdicate our constitutional responsibility as a Member of Congress to
declare war when conditions call for such action. The resolution before
us declares war singly by the President by allowing a first strike
without the knowledge of imminent danger and without the input of
Congress. It is by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the
United States that calls for us to declare war.
Saddam Hussein is evil. He is a despot. We know that. And I support
the undermining of his government by giving resistance to the United
States, to be able to address these by humanitarian aid, by military
support in terms of training, and also by providing support to the
resistance. Yet I think we can do other things. Diplomacy first,
unfettered robust United States weapons inspections, monitored review
by United Nations Security Council, Soviet Union model of ally-
supported isolation, support of democratization, and developing a more
stringent United States containment policy.
This resolution is wrong. We must not abdicate our responsibility.
And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as I go to my seat, I stand here on
the side of saving the lives of the young men and women of this Nation.
As I stand on the House floor today with great respect for the
heartfelt positions of my colleagues, I must take the path of
opposition to this resolution in order to avoid following the tragic
path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to admit in
his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam war, ``We were wrong,
terribly wrong.'' After years of guilt stemming from his role in
prosecuting the war in Vietnam, McNamara was moved to expose his soul
on paper with his book: ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of
Vietnam''. He noted the words of the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus
who said ``The reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded
solemnly, ``Let this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam.'' Therefore this
legacy should remind us that war is deadly and the Congress must not
abdicate its responsibility.
This Nation did suffer as result of that war, and we continue to
suffer today as countless veterans of that generation have never
recovered from the physical and mental horrors of their experiences,
many reliving the nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless
on our streets at night. What a price we continue to pay for that
mistake. Can we afford to make it again? I think not.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly
steers us toward a treacherous path of war, while yielding sparse
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. And as
Benjamin Franklin said in 1883, ``there never was a good war or a bad
peace''--but we have yet to give the power of diplomacy and the power
of the moral high ground the chance that civilization itself deserves.
We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the alternatives, so if
there were ever a time for diplomacy, it has got to be now.
The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of a self
defense justification would sow the seeds of peace around the world.
Rather, the President's proposed doctrine of first strike, which would
represent an unprecedented departure from a long-held United States'
policy of being a non-aggressor, would say to the world that it is
acceptable to do a first strike in fear, instead of pursuing all
possible avenues to a diplomatic solution. Imagine the chaos in the
world if India and Pakistan abandoned all notions of restraint, if
China and Taiwan opted to fight instead of negotiate, and if North
Korea and South Korea erupted into all-out war. Because actions always
speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous admonitions
to show restraint in the aforementioned conflicts would fall upon deaf
ears as the nations would instead follow our dangerous lead.
There is another equally important reason that I must oppose this
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively
abdicate my Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to delcare war
when conditions call for such action. The resolution before us does
authorize the President to declare war without the basis of imminent
threat. Congress may not choose to transfer its duties under the
Constitution to the President. The Constitution was not created for us
to be silent. It is a body of law that provides the roadmap of
democracy and national security in this country, and like any roadmap,
it is designed to be followed. Only Congress is authorized to declare
war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make
the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear
about the language in Article I, section 8, clauses 11-16 of our
Constitution. In it, we are told that Congress has the power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces; and
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
This system of checks and balances, which is essential to ensuring
that no individual or branch of government can wield absolute power,
cannot be effective if one individual is impermissibly vested with the
sole discretionary authority to carry out what 535 Members of Congress
have been duly elected by the people to do. It is through the process
of deliberation and debate that the views and concerns of the American
people must be addressed within Congress before a decision to launch
our country into war is made. The reason that we are a government of
the people, for the people and by the people is because there is a
plurality of perspectives that are taken into account before the most
important decisions facing the country are made. Granting any one
individual, even the President of the United States, the unbridled
authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines
to be necessary and appropriate is not only unconstitutional, but is
also the height of irresponsibility.
Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed his own people in
the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with
his neighbors in the region. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq
pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the gulf war,
and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be
needed in the future to see that those efforts come to fruition. I
voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and still stand behind my
decision to support the objective of helping the people of Iraq change
their government. But that legislation contained an important caveat
that precluded the use of United States armed forces to remove the
government from power, and instead provided for various forms of
humanitarian assistance. That Act, now has the effect of law, and
unlike Iraq, we are a nation that respects the rule of law. And our
Constitution, the supreme law of the land, sets forth the duties and
responsibilities of Congress in clear, unambiguous language.
The indictment against Saddam Hussein is nothing new. He is a despot
of the worst kind, and I believe that when the United Nations Security
Council passes a resolution determining his present status and
outlining a plan for the future, that will provide further
documentation for Congress to act on a military option in Iraq. Right
now, however, we are moving too far too quickly with many alarmist
representations yet undocumented.
Some of us have begun to speculate about the cost that a war in Iraq
might be. And while our economy now suffers because of corporate abuse
and 2 years of a declining economy with high unemployment, I cannot
help but to shudder when I think of what the cost might be--not only in
dollars--but in human lives as well. My constituents, in flooding my
offices with calls and e-mails all vehemently opposed to going to war,
have expressed their concerns about the unacceptable costs of war. One
Houston resident wrote, ``This is a war that would cost more in money
and lives that I am willing to support committing, and than I believe
the threat warrants. Attacking Iraq is a distraction from, not a
continuation of the `war on terrorism'.'' I truly share this woman's
concerns. In World War II, we lost 250,000 brave Americans who
responded to the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing battles

[[Page 19861]]

across Europe and Asia. In the Korean war, nearly 34,000 Americans were
killed, and we suffered more than 58,000 casualties in Vietnam. The
possible conflict in Iraq that the President has been contemplating for
months now risks incalculable deaths because there is no way of knowing
what the international implications may be. Consistent talk of regime
change by force, a goal not shared by any of the allies in the United
Nations, only pours fuel on the fire when you consider the tactics that
a tyrant like Saddam Hussein might resort to if he realized that had
nothing to lose. If he does possess chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons, we can be assured that he would not hesitate to use them if
the ultimate goal is to destroy his regime, instead of to disarm it.
With that being the case, there can be little doubt that neighboring
countries would be dragged into the fray--willingly or otherwise--
creating an upheaval that would dwarf previous altercations in the
region or possibly in the world. The resolution, as presently worded,
opens the door to all of these possibilities and that is why I cannot
support it.
Because I do not support the resolution does not mean that I favor
inaction. To the contrary, I believe that immediate action is of the
highest order. To that end, I would propose a five-point plan of
action:
1. Diplomacy first;
2. Unfettered, robust United Nations weapons inspections to provide
full disarmament;
3. Monitoring and review by United Nations Security Council;
4. Soviet Union model of allied supported isolation--support of
democratization through governance training and support of resistance
elements; and
5. Developing a more stringent United States containment policy.
What I can and will support is an effort for diplomacy first, and
unfettered U.N. inspections. As the most powerful nation in the world,
we should be a powerful voice for diplomacy--and not just military
might. Since we are a just nation, we should wield our power
judiciously--restraining where possible for the greater good. Pursuing
peace means insisting upon the disarmament of Iraq. Pursuing peace
means insisting upon the immediate return of the U.N. weapons
inspectors. Pursuing peace and diplomacy means that the best answer to
every conflict and crisis is not always violence.
Passing this resolution, and the possible repercussions that it may
engender, will not enhance the moral authority of the United States in
the world today and it will not set the stage for peace nor ensure that
are providing for a more peaceful or stable world community.
Instead, as we ensure that Iraq does not possess illegal weapons, we
should make good on the promise to the people that we made in the
passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. We should do all that we can
to assist the people of Iraq because as President Dwight Eisenhower
said, ``I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do
more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people
want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get
out of the way and let them have it.'' I oppose this resolution--H.J.
Res. 114.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I am pleased and privileged to join this serious debate.
I want to talk on a number of issues that I think are very, very
important to us as we confront the decision we must make and the vote
we must take tomorrow. I want to talk about the seriousness of this
issue. I want to talk about the question of preemption and why America
might even contemplate striking under these circumstances. I want to
address the concerns of those who say they simply do not want to go to
war and talk about why I do not want to go to war either, but sometimes
war is necessary. I want to talk about the issue of why now, because I
think that is a very pressing issue. And I want to talk, most
importantly, about how I believe this resolution is the most certain
way, indeed perhaps the only way, we have to avoid war.
Let me begin with the seriousness of this issue. Beyond a shadow of a
doubt, this will be the most solemn, most serious vote I believe I will
cast in my tenure in the United States Congress. I have been here for
some pretty serious votes. I have seen us balance a budget, I have seen
us impeach a President, but nothing comes close to the vote on a
resolution of force such as the one we will consider tomorrow. I
approach that vote with the grave appreciation of the fact that lives
are in the balance: lives of American soldiers, lives of innocent
Iraqis, lives of people throughout the world.
I also approach that vote with the grave knowledge that while my son
is 16 years old and would not likely serve in this war, I have many
constituents and many friends with sons and daughters who are 18 years
old or 19 or 20, and who may be called upon to go to war. This is,
indeed, I believe, the most serious issue this Congress can
contemplate, and it is one that has weighed on me for weeks.
Some of those amongst my constituents who are deeply worried about
this issue say why should we act and why should we act under these
circumstances? They argue that we should pursue deterrence. They argue
that we should pursue containment; and then they argue that if neither
deterrence nor containment work, we should wait until a first strike is
launched and then we should respond.
Well, I would respond by saying history has proven sadly over the
history of the Saddam Hussein regime that deterrence does not work.
This is a man who has proven by his conduct over and over again that he
cannot be deterred. This is a man who will not respond to the kind of
signals that the rest of the world sends in hopes that a world leader
would respond. Although we have attempted containment, this is a man
who has proven he will not respond to containment.
At the end of the Gulf War, he agreed to a number of things that we
are all now painfully aware of and that have been covered in this
debate. He agreed to end his efforts to procure chemical and biological
weapons. He agreed to end his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. He
agreed to end his efforts to have and to develop long-term missiles and
other delivery systems. And yet none of those have worked.
At the end of the day, deterrence and containment simply have proven,
over a pattern of 11 years, not to work. His deceit, his deception, his
continued pattern of forging ahead show us beyond a question of a doubt
that he will not be deterred and he will not be contained.
We know some things. We know that because of the nature of the
weapons that he has, and because of his willingness to use those
weapons and to use them perhaps secretly, we cannot wait. I listened to
the debate last night, and I was very impressed with it. One of my
colleagues in this institution came to the floor and made an
impassioned speech against this resolution and said, we absolutely
should wait, and he cited the Revolutionary War and the command to our
troops to wait until fired upon. I would suggest to my colleagues that
when we have an enemy who has chemical and biological weapons of the
nature of those that this enemy has, we simply cannot wait.
VX nerve gas kills by paralyzing the central nervous system and can
result in death in 10 minutes. Sarin nerve gas, cyclosarin nerve gas,
mustard gas. I am afraid the words ``chemical weapons'' have lost their
meaning; but they should not, because they are abhorrent weapons, and
he has them. There is no doubt.
Biological weapons. He has anthrax. He has botulism toxin. He has
aflatoxin and he has resin toxin. It would be bad enough if he simply
had those, but we know more. He has them and he has tried to develop
strains of them that are resistent to the best drugs we have, resistent
to our antibiotics. That is to say he has them, he could use them, and
not until they had been used could we discover that the best our
science has cannot match them.
Now, why can we not wait, given that type of history and that type of
chemical? Because the reality is we do not know when he will strike. He
could indeed strike and we would not know it for days or weeks, until
it began to manifest itself.
But let us talk also about the whole possibility of him using
terrorists. We talk a lot about him, and we get deceived by this
discussion of he does not have a long-range missile that can reach the
United States, because he does not have aircraft that can reach the
United States, we ought not to

[[Page 19862]]

worry about those. We talk about the issue that it could be months or a
year before he could develop a nuclear weapon. All of those are false
pretexts. All of those are serious mistakes.
The reality is that if he chooses to deliver those weapons through
any of the means that we know he possibly could. By handing them in a
backpack to a terrorist, we might never know that it was Saddam Hussein
that delivered the weapon. And if he chooses to use chemical or
biological weapons for such an attack, we might not know until
hundreds, indeed until thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps
millions of Americans were infected and fatally wounded and would die,
and we would not know until afterwards.
I would suggest that the old doctrine of wait until they fire is
simply no longer applicable under these circumstances.
Now, I have conscientious colleagues and I have constituents who come
to me and say, I am not ready for war; I do not want war. I want to
make it clear that no one wants war. Not a single Member of this body
would choose war. And this resolution, as the President said the other
night, does not mean that war is either imminent or unavoidable. The
President made it clear he does not want war. But I would urge my
colleagues that there are some certainties. One of those is that the
best way to prevent war is to be prepared for war.

{time} 1930

The best way to prevent such a war is to send clear and unmistakable
signals. He has unarmed aerial vehicles. That is to say, he has model
airplanes, and he has larger airplanes which can be operated by remote
control.
It has been pointed out that, given his lack of trust, an unmanned
aerial vehicle, an unmanned airplane, is the perfect weapon for this
leader, this insane leader, to use, because he does not have to trust a
pilot who might not follow orders. He has the operator of a remote-
controlled vehicle standing next to him. If, in fact, the pilot were to
choose to not drop his load, there would be little he could do in a
manned aircraft to that pilot. But in an unmanned aerial vehicle,
equipped with a chemical or biological weapon, he remains in control;
and it could easily be done.
He could bring that kind of weapon to our shores in a commercial ship
like the hundreds lined up right now off the coast of California and
launch them from there, and we would not know about the attack until
after it was done.
It seems to me that we cannot wait under these circumstances; and it
seems to me that he has proven beyond a doubt that deterrence and
containment, although we have tried them, simply will not work.
One colleague pointed out he has chemical and biological weapons; and
in time, because he is seeking them, he will have nuclear weapons. It
was also pointed out that if we want to rely upon a scheme of
inspections, and my constituents back home would hope that we could
rely on inspections. I would hope that also. But make no mistake about
it, there are two serious flaws.
An inspection regime that relies on inspecting a country where
hundreds of acres are off limits, cannot be gone into, the presidential
palaces that are there, an inspection regime that relies on that is not
an inspection regime at all. But an inspection regime where we know to
a moral certainty that he has mobile production facilities is an
inspection regime that will give us false hope.
I was in the Middle East when the first weapons inspectors were
kicked out of Iraq. I was on a CODEL with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert) and four or five other Members of Congress. They left
Baghdad and went by ground to Jordan and flew to Bahrain. We had an
opportunity to meet with them in Bahrain the first night they reached
there. One of my colleagues who was there is here tonight on the other
side of the aisle. We spent 2 to 2\1/2\ hours talking with weapons
inspectors who had just been kicked out of Baghdad.
They made some serious impressions upon me which I will never forget.
One was echoed in the President's speech last night, and that is the
Iraq people are not our enemy. In fact, weapons inspectors explained to
us that when individual Iraqis would learn that a given weapons
inspector was an American, they would say, America, great place. I have
a sister in San Francisco. I have a brother in Philadelphia.
The President said it right the other night. The Iraqi people are not
our enemies, but they delivered another message to us and made another
impression. That is, they explained to us carefully, six congressmen in
a hotel room in Bahrain, now 7 years ago, they said, make no mistake
about it, every time they got close to making a real discovery, every
time they were at the door of a facility that they were convinced was
producing chemical and biological weapons, there would be a stall,
there would be a delay. They would be forced to stand outside the gates
of that building for hours and hours while the inside was obviously
being cleaned up.
Indeed, they would sometimes, when they got savvy to this, the
inspectors would send somebody around to the back gate and watch the
equipment, watch the trucks roll out the back door.
There is no question but that an inspection regime where they are
determined to deceive you, where they are determined to deny you access
to some locations, and where they have mobile facilities is no
inspection regime at all.
I do not want war. No one wants war. But I am convinced that the risk
of waiting is indeed too high.
I do not believe, and I agree with one of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who said, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein will
ever submit to a legitimate inspection regime. But I know this much, he
will never submit to such an inspection regime until and unless it is
backed by credible threat of force. That is what we are talking about
here tonight.
We also on that trip went and visited our American troops enforcing
the no-fly zone, both the southern and the northern no-fly zone. The
American people deserve to know that we have been at a state of war
with this regime for 11 years. He has fired on our pilots over and over
and over again. He probably fired on them today. He has certainly fired
on them within the last month. He has fired hundreds of times, and he
has declared war against us. He has declared a holy war against us.
We know some other facts. We know over time Saddam Hussein's weapons
regime will grow, and the threat will become worse. We do not want war,
but it would appear doing nothing is the one way to ensure war.
I believe to the depth of my soul that this resolution is a measured
and thoughtful proposal to achieve one thing, and that is the
disarmament of Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime, hopefully by peace,
but if necessary by force.
I think we know that it has the potential of creating the coalition
we all want. If America sends a weak signal and says we are not sure of
our course, we are not sure of our path, how can we even hope to bring
into our ranks and to our side allies in a battle against an insane
leader such as Saddam Hussein?
I think we also know, those of us who intend to vote for this
resolution, it holds a second potential and that is it could lead the
United Nations, indeed, I am prayerful, as is the President, that it
will lead the United Nations to rise to its obligations, to make its
resolutions meaningful, to remove itself from the irrelevancy that it
currently has by not enforcing its resolutions, and to stand with
strength and to say once and for all to this vicious dictator, we will
not let you flaunt the rule of law and the requirements imposed by the
U.N.
It could indeed cause Saddam Hussein to come to his senses. I hope it
will.
I know failing to act involves too great a risk. Failing to act
exposes not just the people of his nation, whom he has terrorized and
butchered and tortured, to suffer longer.
We know the dimensions to which he will go. We know the threat. We
know

[[Page 19863]]

he will in fact and has used violence of every dimension against his
own people, and we know for a moral certainty he will bring that
aggression against the rest of the world if not stopped.
No one is happy about this moment, but I believe it is the right
course and, for those who truly want peace, the only course.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a column from the New Yorker
written by Jeffrey Goldberg. It is called ``The Great Terror.'' It is
an interview of the people who were the victims of Saddam Hussein's
attack on his own people. It documents his murder of some 50,000 to
200,000 Kurds.

[From the New Yorker, Mar. 25, 2002]

The Great Terror

(By Jeffrey Goldberg)

In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's
genocidal war on the Kurds--and of his possible ties to Al
Qaeda.
In the late morning of March 16, 1988, an Iraqi Air Force
helicopter appeared over the city of Halabja, which is about
fifteen miles from the border with Iran. The Iran-Iraq War
was then in its eighth year, and Halabja was near the front
lines. At the time, the city was home to roughly eighty
thousand Kurds, who were well accustomed to the proximity of
violence to ordinary life. Like most of Iraqi Kurdistan,
Halabja was in perpetual revolt against the regime of Saddam
Hussein, and its inhabitants were supporters of the
peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters whose name means ``those who
face death.''
A young woman named Nasreen Abdel Qadir Muhammad was
outside her family's house, preparing food, when she saw the
helicopter. The Iranians and the peshmerga had just attacked
Iraqi military outposts around Halabja, forcing Saddam's
soldiers to retreat. Iranian Revolutionary Guards then
infiltrated the city, and the residents assumed that an Iraqi
counterattack was imminent. Nasreen and her family expected
to spend yet another day in their cellar, which was crude and
dark but solid enough to withstand artillery shelling, and
even napalm.
``At about ten o'clock, maybe closer to ten-thirty, I saw
the helicopter,'' Nasreen told me. ``It was not attacking,
though. There were men inside it, taking pictures. One had a
regular camera, and the other held what looked like a video
camera. They were coming very close. Then they went away.''
Nasreen thought that the sight was strange, but she was
preoccupied with lunch; she and her sister Rangeen were
preparing rice, bread, and beans for the thirty or forty
relatives who were taking shelter in the cellar. Rangeen was
fifteen at the time. Nasreen was just sixteen, but her father
had married her off several months earlier, to a cousin, a
thirty-year-old physician's assistant named Bakhtiar Abdul
Aziz. Halabja is a conservative place, and many more women
wear the veil than in the more cosmopolitan Kurdish cities to
the northwest and the Arab cities to the south.
The bombardment began shortly before eleven. The Iraqi
Army, positioned on the main road from the nearby town of
Sayid Sadiq, fired artillery shells into Halabja, and the Air
Force began dropping what is thought to have been napalm on
the town, especially the northern area. Nasreen and Rangeen
rushed to the cellar. Nasreen prayed that Bakhtiar, who was
then outside the city, would find shelter.
The attack had ebbed by about two o'clock, and Nasreen made
her way carefully upstairs to the kitchen, to get the food
for the family. ``At the end of the bombing, the sound
changed,'' she said. ``It wasn't so loud. It was like pieces
of metal just dropping without exploding. We didn't know why
it was so quiet.''
A short distance away, in a neighborhood still called the
Julakan, or Jewish quarter, even though Halabja's Jews left
for Israel in the nineteen-fifties, a middle-aged man named
Muhammad came up from his own cellar and saw an unusual
sight: ``A helicopter had come back to the town, and the
soldiers were throwing white pieces of paper out the side.''
In retrospect, he understood that they were measuring wind
speed and direction. Nearby, a man named Awat Omer, who was
twenty at the time, was overwhelmed by a smell of garlic and
apples.
Nasreen gathered the food quickly, but she, too, noticed a
series of odd smells carried into the house by the wind. ``At
first, it smelled bad, like garbage,'' she said. ``And then
it was a good smell, like sweet apples. Then like eggs.''
Before she went downstairs, she happened to check on a caged
partridge that her father kept in the house. ``The bird was
dying,'' she said. ``It was on its side.'' She looked out the
window. ``It was very quiet, but the animals were dying. The
sheep and goats were dying.'' Nasreen ran to the cellar. ``I
told everybody there was something wrong. There was something
wrong with the air.''
The people in the cellar were panicked. They had fled
downstairs to escape the bombardment, and it was difficult to
abandon their shelter. Only splinters of light penetrated the
basement, but the dark provided a strange comfort. ``We
wanted to stay in hiding, even though we were getting sick,''
Nasreen said. She felt a sharp pain in her eyes, like
stabbing needles. ``My sister came close to my face and said,
`Your eyes are very red.' Then the children started throwing
up. They kept throwing up. They were in so much pain, and
crying so much. They were crying all the time. My mother was
crying. Then the old people started throwing up.''
Chemical weapons had been dropped on Halabja by the Iraqi
Air Force, which understood that any underground shelter
would become a gas chamber. ``My uncle said we should go
outside,'' Nasreen said. ``We knew there were chemicals in
the air. We were getting red eyes, and some of us had liquid
coming out of them. We decided to run.'' Nasreen and her
relatives stepped outside gingerly. ``Our cow was lying on
its side,'' she recalled. ``It was breathing very fast, as if
it had been running. The leaves were falling off the trees,
even though it was spring. The partridge was dead. There were
smoke clouds around, clinging to the ground. The gas was
heavier than the air, and it was finding the wells and going
down the wells.''
The family judged the direction of the wind, and decided to
run the opposite way. Running proved difficult. ``The
children couldn't walk, they were so sick,'' Nasreen said.
``They were exhausted from throwing up. We carried them in
our arms.''
Across the city, other families were making similar
decisions. Nouri Hama Ali, who lived in the northern part of
town, decided to lead his family in the direction of Anab, a
collective settlement on the outskirts of Halabja that housed
Kurds displaced when the Iraqi Army destroyed their villages.
``On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began
to die,'' Nouri told me. ``The chemical clouds were on the
ground. They were heavy. We could see them.'' People were
dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the
parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him. ``Many
children were left on the ground, by the side of the road.
Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop
breathing and die.''
Nasreen's family did not move quickly. ``We wanted to wash
ourselves off and find water to drink,'' she said. ``We
wanted to wash the faces of the children who were vomiting.
The children were crying for water. There was powder on the
ground, white. We couldn't decide whether to drink the water
or not, but some people drank the water from the well they
were so thirsty.''
They ran in a panic through the city, Nasreen recalled, in
the direction of Anab. The bombardment continued
intermittently, Air Force planes circling overhead. ``People
were showing different symptoms. One person touched some of
the powder, and her skin started bubbling.''
A truck came by, driven by a neighbor. People threw
themselves aboard. ``We saw people lying frozen on the
ground,'' Nasreen told me. ``There was a small baby on the
ground, away from her mother. I thought they were both
sleeping. But she had dropped the baby and then died. And I
think the baby tried to crawl away, but it died, too. It
looked like everyone was sleeping.''
At that moment, Nasreen believed that she and her family
would make it to high ground and live. Then the truck
stopped. ``The driver said he couldn't go on, and he wandered
away. He left his wife in the back of the truck. He told us
to flee if we could. The chemicals affected his brain,
because why else would someone abandon his family?''
As heavy clouds of gas smothered the city, people became
sick and confused. Awat Omer was trapped in his cellar with
his family; he said that his brother began laughing
uncontrollably and then stripped off his clothes, and soon
afterward he died. As night fell, the family's children grew
sicker--too sick to move.
Nasreen's husband could not be found, and she began to
think that all was lost. She led the children who were able
to walk up the road.
In another neighborhood, Muhammad Ahmed Fattah, who was
twenty, was overwhelmed by an oddly sweet odor of sulfur, and
he, too, realized that he must evacuate his family; there
were about a hundred and sixty people wedged into the cellar.
``I saw the bomb drop,'' Muhammad told me. ``It was about
thirty metres from the house. I shut the door to the cellar.
There was shouting and crying in the cellar, and then people
became short of breath.'' One of the first to be stricken by
the gas was Muhammad's brother Salah. ``His eyes were pink,''
Muhammad recalled. ``There was something coming out of his
eyes. He was so thirsty he was demanding water.'' Others in
the basement began suffering tremors.
March 16th was supposed to be Muhammad's wedding day.
``Every preparation was done,'' he said. His fiancee, a woman
named Bahar Jamal, was among the first in the cellar to die.
``She was crying very hard,'' Muhammad recalled. ``I tried to
calm her down. I told her it was just the usual artillery
shells, but it didn't smell the usual way weapons smelled.
She was smart, she knew what was happening. She died on the
stairs. Her father tried to help her, but it was too late.''
Death came quickly to others as well. A woman named Hamida
Mahmoud tried to

[[Page 19864]]

save her two-year-old daughter by allowing her to nurse from
her breast. Hamida thought that the baby wouldn't breathe in
the gas if she was nursing, Muhammad said, adding, ``The
baby's name was Dashneh. She nursed for a long time. Her
mother died while she was nursing. But she kept nursing.'' By
the time Muhammad decided to go outside, most of the people
in the basement were unconscious; many were dead, including
his parents and three of his siblings.
Nasreen said that on the road to Anab all was confusion.
She and the children were running toward the hills, but they
were going blind. ``The children were crying, 'We can't see!
My eyes are bleeding!' `` In the chaos, the family got
separated. Nasreen's mother and father were both lost.
Nasreen and several of her cousins and siblings inadvertently
led the younger children in a circle, back into the city.
Someone--she doesn't know who--led them away from the city
again and up a hill, to a small mosque, where they sought
shelter. ``But we didn't stay in the mosque, because we
thought it would be a target,'' Nasreen said. They went to a
small house nearby, and Nasreen scrambled to find food and
water for the children. By then, it was night, and she was
exhausted.
Bakhtiar, Nasreen's husband, was frantic. Outside the city
when the attacks started, he had spent much of the day
searching for his wife and the rest of his family. He had
acquired from a clinic two syringes of atropine, a drug that
helps to counter the effects of nerve agents. He injected
himself with one of the syringes, and set out to find
Nasreen. He had no hope. ``My plan was to bury her,'' he
said. ``At least I should bury my new wife.''
After hours of searching, Bakhtiar met some neighbors, who
remembered seeing Nasreen and the children moving toward the
mosque on the hill. ``I called out the name Nasreen,'' he
said. ``I heard crying, and I went inside the house. When I
got there, I found that Nasreen was alive but blind.
Everybody was blind.''
Nasreen had lost her sight about an hour or two before
Bakhtiar found her. She had been searching the house for
food, so that she could feed the children, when her eyesight
failed. ``I found some milk and I felt my way to them and
then I found their mouths and gave them milk,'' she said.
Bakhtiar organized the children. ``I wanted to bring them
to the well. I washed their heads. I took them two by two and
washed their heads. Some of them couldn't come. They couldn't
control their muscles. ``
Bakhtiar still had one syringe of atropine, but he did not
inject his wife; she was not the worst off in the group.
``There was a woman named Asme, who was my neighbor,''
Bakhtiar recalled. ``She was not able to breathe. She was
yelling and she was running into a wall, crashing her head
into a wall. I gave the atropine to this woman.'' Asme died
soon afterward. ``I could have used it for Nasreen,''
Bakhtiar said. ``I could have.''
After the Iraqi bombardment subsided, the Iranians managed
to retake Halabja, and they evacuated many of the sick,
including Nasreen and the others in her family, to hospitals
in Tehran.
Nasreen was blind for twenty days. ``I was thinking the
whole time, Where is my family? But I was blind. I couldn't
do anything. I asked my husband about my mother, but he said
he didn't know anything. He was looking in hospitals, he
said. He was avoiding the question.''
The Iranian Red Crescent Society, the equivalent of the Red
Cross, began compiling books of photographs, pictures of the
dead in Halabja. ``The Red Crescent has an album of the
people who were buried in Iran,'' Nasreen said. ``And we
found my mother in one of the albums.'' Her father, she
discovered, was alive but permanently blinded. Five of her
siblings, including Rangeen, had died.
Nasreen would live, the doctors said, but she kept a secret
from Bakhtiar: ``When I was in the hospital, I started
menstruating. It wouldn't stop. I kept bleeding. We don't
talk about this in our society, but eventually a lot of women
in the hospital confessed they were also menstruating and
couldn't stop.'' Doctors gave her drugs that stopped the
bleeding, but they told her that she would be unable to bear
children.
Nasreen stayed in Iran for several months, but eventually
she and Bakhtiar returned to Kurdistan. She didn't believe
the doctors who told her that she would be infertile, and in
1991 she gave birth to a boy. ``We named him Arazoo,'' she
said. Arazoo means hope in Kurdish. ``He was healthy at
first, but he had a hole in his heart. He died at the age of
three months.''
I met Nasreen last month in Erbil, the largest city in
Iraqi Kurdistan. She is thirty now, a pretty woman with brown
eyes and high cheekbones, but her face is expressionless. She
doesn't seek pity; she would, however, like a doctor to help
her with a cough that she's had ever since the attack,
fourteen years ago. Like many of Saddam Hussein's victims,
she tells her story without emotion.
During my visit to Kurdistan, I talked with more than a
hundred victims of Saddam's campaign against the Kurds.
Saddam has been persecuting the Kurds ever since he took
power, more than twenty years ago. Several old women whose
husbands were killed by Saddam's security services expressed
a kind of animal hatred toward him, but most people, like
Nasreen, told stories of horrific cruelty with a dispassion
and a precision that underscored their credibility.
Credibility is important to the Kurds; after all this time,
they still feel that the world does not believe their story.
A week after I met Nasreen, I visited a small village
called Goktapa, situated in a green valley that is ringed by
snow-covered mountains. Goktapa came under poison-gas attack
six weeks after Halabja. The village consists of low mud-
brick houses along dirt paths. In Goktapa, an old man named
Ahmed Raza Sharif told me that on the day of the attack on
Goktapa, May 3, 1988, he was in the fields outside the
village. He saw the shells explode and smelled the sweet-
apple odor as poison filled the air. His son, Osman Ahmed,
who was sixteen at the time, was near the village mosque when
he was felled by the gas. He crawled down a hill and died
among the reeds on the banks of the Lesser Zab, the river
that flows by the village. His father knew that he was dead,
but he couldn't reach the body. As many as a hundred and
fifty people died in the attack; the survivors fled before
the advancing Iraqi Army, which levelled the village. Ahmed
Raza Sharif did not return for three years. When he did, he
said, he immediately began searching for his son's body. He
found it still lying in the reeds. ``I recognized his body
right away,'' he said.
The summer sun in Iraq is blisteringly hot, and a corpse
would be unidentifiable three years after death. I tried to
find a gentle way to express my doubts, but my translator
made it clear to Sharif that I didn't believe him.
We were standing in the mud yard of another old man,
Ibrahim Abdul Rahman. Twenty or thirty people, a dozen boys
among them, had gathered. Some of them seemed upset that I
appeared to doubt the story, but Ahmed hushed them. ``It's
true, he lost all the flesh on his body,'' he said. ``He was
just a skeleton. But the clothes were his, and they were
still on the skeleton, a belt and a shirt. In the pocket of
his shirt I found the key to our tractor. That's where he
always kept the key.''
Some of the men still seemed concerned that I would leave
Goktapa doubting their truthfulness. Ibrahim, the man in
whose yard we were standing, called out a series of orders to
the boys gathered around us. They dispersed, to houses and
storerooms, returning moments later holding jagged pieces of
metal, the remnants of the bombs that poisoned Goktapa.
Ceremoniously, the boys dropped the pieces of metal at my
feet. ``Here are the mercies of Uncle Saddam,'' Ibrahim said.

2. THE AFTERMATH

The story of Halabja did not end the night the Iraqi Air
Force planes returned to their bases. The Iranians invited
the foreign press to record the devastation. Photographs of
the victims, supine, bleached of color, littering the gutters
and alleys of the town, horrified the world. Saddam Hussein's
attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the
Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women
and children.
Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led the campaigns
against the Kurds in the late eighties, was heard on a tape
captured by rebels, and later obtained by Human Rights Watch,
addressing members of Iraq's ruling Baath Party on the
subject of the Kurds. ``I will kill them all with chemical
weapons!'' he said. ``Who is going to say anything? The
international community? Fuck them! The international
community and those who listen to them.''
Attempts by Congress in 1988 to impose sanctions on Iraq
were stifled by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the
story of Saddam's surviving victims might have vanished
completely had it not been for the reporting of people like
Randal and the work of a British documentary filmmaker named
Gwynne Roberts, who, after hearing stories about a sudden
spike in the incidence of birth defects and cancers, not only
in Halabja but also in other parts of Kurdistan, had made
some disturbing films on the subject. However, no Western
government or United Nations agency took up the cause.
In 1998, Roberts brought an Englishwoman named Christine
Gosden to Kurdistan. Gosden is a medical geneticist and a
professor at the medical school of the University of
Liverpool. She spent three weeks in the hospitals in
Kurdistan, and came away determined to help the Kurds. To the
best of my knowledge, Gosden is the only Western scientist
who has even begun making a systematic study of what took
place in northern Iraq.
Gosden told me that her father was a high-ranking officer
in the Royal Air Force, and that as a child she lived in
Germany, near Bergen-Belsen. ``It's tremendously influential
in your early years to live near a concentration camp,'' she
said. In Kurdistan, she heard echoes of the German campaign
to destroy the Jews. ``The Iraqi government was using
chemistry to reduce the population of Kurds,'' she said.
``The Holocaust is still having its effect. The Jews are
fewer in number now than they were in 1939. That's not
natural. Now, if you take out two hundred thousand men and
boys from Kurdistan''--an estimate of the number of

[[Page 19865]]

Kurds who were gassed or otherwise murdered in the campaign,
most of whom were men and boys--``you've affected the
population structure. There are a lot of widows who are not
having children.''
Richard Butler, an Australian diplomat who chaired the
United Nations weapons-inspection team in Iraq, describes
Gosden as ``a classic English, old-school-tie kind of
person.'' Butler has tracked her research since she began
studying the attacks, four years ago, and finds it credible.
``Occasionally, people say that this is Christine's
obsession, but obsession is not a bad thing,'' he added.
Before I went to Kurdistan, in January, I spent a day in
London with Gosden. We gossiped a bit, and she scolded me for
having visited a Washington shopping mall without appropriate
protective equipment. Whenever she goes to a mall, she brings
along a polyurethane bag, ``big enough to step into'' and a
bottle of bleach. ``I can detoxify myself immediately,'' she
said.
Gosden believes it is quite possible that the countries of
the West will soon experience chemical and biological-weapons
attacks far more serious and of greater lasting effect than
the anthrax incidents of last autumn and the nerve-agent
attack on the Tokyo subway system several years ago--that
what happened in Kurdistan was only the beginning. ``For
Saddam's scientists, the Kurds were a test population,'' she
said. ``They were the human guinea pigs. It was a way of
identifying the most effective chemical agents for use on
civilian populations, and the most effective means of
delivery.''
The charge is supported by others. An Iraqi defector,
Khidhir Hamza, who is the former director of Saddam's
nuclear-weapons program, told me earlier this year that
before the attack on Balabja military doctors had mapped the
city, and that afterward they entered it wearing protective
clothing, in order to study the dispersal of the dead.
``These were field tests, an experiment on a town,'' Hamza
told me. He said that he had direct knowledge of the Army's
procedures that day in Halabja. ``The doctors were given
sheets with grids on them, and they had to answer questions
such as `How far are the dead from the cannisters?'''
Gosden said that she cannot understand why the West has not
been more eager to investigate the chemical attacks in
Kurdistan. ``It seems a matter of enlightened self-interest
that the West would want to study the long-term effects of
chemical weapons on civilians, on the DNA,'' she told me.
``I've seen Europe's worst cancers, but, believe me, I have
never seen cancers like the ones I saw in Kurdistan.''
According to an ongoing survey conducted by a team of
Kurdish physicians and organized by Gosden and a small
advocacy group called the Washington Kurdish Institute, more
than two hundred towns and villages across Kurdistan were
attacked by poison gas--far more than was previously
thought--in the course of seventeen months. The number of
victims is unknown, but doctors I met in Kurdistan believe
that up to ten per cent of the population of northern Iraq--
nearly four million people--has been exposed to chemical
weapons. ``Saddam Hussein poisoned northern Iraq,'' Gosden
said when I left for Halabja. ``The questions, then, are what
to do? And what comes next?''

3. Halabja's Doctors

The Kurdish people, it is often said, make up the largest
stateless nation in the world. They have been widely despised
by their neighbors for centuries. There are roughly twenty-
five million Kurds, most of them spread across four countries
in southwestern Asia: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The
Kurds are neither Arab, Persian, nor Turkish; they are a
distinct ethnic group, with their own culture and language.
Most Kurds are Muslim (the most famous Muslim hero of all,
Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders, was of Kurdish origin),
but there are Jewish and Christian Kurds, and also followers
of the Yezidi religion, which has its roots in Sufism and
Zoroastrianism. The Kurds are experienced mountain fighters,
who tend toward stubbornness and have frequent bouts of
destructive infighting
After centuries of domination by foreign powers, the Kurds
had their best chance at independence after the First World
War, when President Woodrow Wilson promised the Kurds, along
with other groups left drifting, and exposed by the collapse
of the Ottoman Empire, a large measure of autonomy. But the
machinations of the great powers, who were becoming
interested in Kurdistan's vast oil deposits, in Mosul and
Kirkuk, quickly did the Kurds out of a state.
In the nineteen-seventies, the Iraqi Kurds allied
themselves with the Shah of Iran in a territorial dispute
with Iraq. America, the Shah's patron, once again became the
Kurds' patron, too, supplying them with arms for a revolt
against Baghdad. But a secret deal between the Iraqis and the
Shah, arranged in 1975 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
cut off the Kurds and brought about their instant collapse;
for the Kurds, it was an ugly betrayal.
The Kurdish safe haven, in northern Iraq, was born of
another American betrayal. In 1991, after the United States
helped drive Iraq out of Kuwait, President George Bush
ignored an uprising that he himself had stoked, and Kurds and
Shiites in Iraq were slaughtered by the thousands. Thousands
more fled the country, the Kurds going to Turkey, and almost
immediately creating a humanitarian disaster. The Bush
Administration, faced with a televised catastrophe, declared
northern Iraq a no-fly zone and thus a safe haven, a tactic
that allowed the refugees to return home. And so, under the
protective shield of the United States and British Air
Forces, the unplanned Kurdish experiment in self-government
began. Although the Kurdish safe haven is only a virtual
state, it is an incipient democracy, a home of progressive
Islamic thought and pro-American feeling.
Today, Iraqi Kurdistan is split between two dominant
parties: the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by Massoud
Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, whose General
Secretary is Jalal Talabani. The two parties have had an
often angry relationship, and in the mid-nineties they fought
a war that left about a thousand soldiers dead. The parties,
realizing that they could not rule together, decided to rule
apart, dividing Kurdistan into two zones. The internal
political divisions have not aided the Kurds' cause, but
neighboring states also have fomented disunity, fearing that
a unified Kurdish population would agitate for independence.
Turkey, with a Kurdish population of between fifteen and
twenty million, has repressed the Kurds in the eastern part
of the country, politically and militarily, on and off since
the founding of the modern Turkish state. In 1924, the
government of Ataturk restricted the use of the Kurdish
language (a law not lifted until 1991) and expressions of
Kurdish culture; to this day, the Kurds are referred to in
nationalist circles as ``mountain Turks.''
Turkey is not eager to see Kurds anywhere draw attention to
themselves, which is why the authorities in Ankara refused to
let me cross the border into Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran, whose
Kurdish population numbers between six and eight million, was
not helpful, either, and my only option for gaining entrance
to Kurdistan was through its third neighbor, Syria. The
Kurdistan Democratic Party arranged for me to be met in
Damascus and taken to the eastern desert city of El Qamishli.
From there, I was driven in a Land Cruiser to the banks of
the Tigris River, where a small wooden boat, with a crew of
one and an outboard motor, was waiting. The engine sputtered;
when I learned that the forward lines of the Iraqi Army were
two miles downstream, I began to paddle, too. On the other
side of the river were representatives of the Kurdish
Democratic Party and the peshmerga, the Kurdish guerrillas,
who wore pantaloons and turbans and were armed with AK-47s.
``Welcome to Kurdistan'' read a sign at the water's edge
greeting visitors to a country that does not exist.
Halabja is a couple of hundred miles from the Syrian
border, and I spent a week crossing northern Iraq, making
stops in the cities of Dahuk and Erbil on the way. I was
handed over to representatives of the Patriotic Union, which
controls Halabja, at a demilitarized zone west of the town of
Koysinjaq. From there, it was a two-hour drive over steep
mountains to Sulaimaniya, a city of six hundred and fifty
thousand, which is the cultural capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.
In Sulaimaniya, I met Fouad Baban, one of Kurdistan's leading
physicians, who promised to guide me through the scientific
and political thickets of Halabja.
Baban, a pulmonary and cardiac specialist who has survived
three terms in Iraqi prisons, is sixty years old, and a man
of impish good humor. He is the Kurdistan coordinator of the
Halabja Medical Institute, which was founded by Gosden,
Michael Amitay, the executive director of the Washington
Kurdish Institute, and a coalition of Kurdish doctors; for
the doctors, it is an act of bravery to be publicly
associated with a project whose scientific findings could be
used as evidence if Saddam Hussein faced a war-crimes
tribunal. Saddam's agents are everywhere in the Kurdish zone,
and his tanks sit forty miles from Baban's office.
Soon after I arrived in Sulaimanya, Baban and I headed out
in his Toyota Camry for Halabja. On a rough road, we crossed
the plains of Sharazoor, a region of black earth and honey-
colored wheat ringed by jagged, snow-topped mountains. We
were not travelling alone. The Mukhabarat, the Iraqi
intelligence service, is widely reported to have placed a
bounty on the heads of Western journalists caught in
Kurdistan (either ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand
dollars, depending on the source of the information). The
areas around the border with Iran are filled with Tehran's
spies, and members of Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist terror
group, were said to be decapitating people in the Halabja
area. So the Kurds had laid on a rather elaborate security
detail. A Land Cruiser carrying peshmerga guerrillas led the
way, and we were followed by another Land Cruiser, on whose
bed was mounted an anti-aircraft weapon manned by six
peshmerga, some of whom wore black balaclavas. We were just
south of the American-and British-enforced no-fly zone. I had
been told that, at the beginning of the safe-haven
experiment, the Americans had warned Saddam's forces to stay
away; a threat from

[[Page 19866]]

the air, though unlikely, was, I deduced, not out of the
question.
``It seems very important to know the immediate and long-
term effects of chemical and biological weapons,'' Baban
said, beginning, my tutorial. ``Here is a civilian population
exposed to chemical and possibly biological weapons, and
people are developing many varieties of cancers and
congenital abnormalities. The Americans are vulnerable to
these weapons--they are cheap, and terrorists possess them.
So, after the anthrax attacks in the States, I think it is
urgent for scientific research to be done here.''
Experts now believe that Halabja and other places in
Kurdistan were struck by a combination of mustard gas and
nerve agents, including sarin (the agent used in the Tokyo
subway attack) and VX, a potent nerve agent. Baban's
suggestion that biological weapons may also have been used
surprised me. One possible biological weapon that Baban
mentioned was aflatoxin, which causes long-term liver damage.
A colleague of Baban's, a surgeon who practices in Dahuk,
in northwestern Kurdistan, and who is a member of the Halabja
Medical Institute team, told me more about the institute's
survey, which was conducted in the Dahuk region in 1999. The
surveyors began, he said, by asking elementary questions;
eleven years after the attacks, they did not even know which
villages had been attacked.
``The team went to almost every village,'' the surgeon
said. ``At first, we thought that the Dahuk governorate was
the least affected. We knew of only two villages that were
hit by the attacks. But we came up with twenty-nine in total.
This is eleven years after the fact.''
The surgeon is professorial in appearance, but he is deeply
angry. He doubles as a pediatric surgeon, because there are
no pediatric surgeons in Kurdistan. He has performed more
than a hundred operations for cleft palate on children born
since 1988. Most of the agents believed to have been dropped
on Halabja have short half-lives, but, as Baban told me,
``physicians are unsure how long these toxins will affect the
population. How can we know agent half-life if we don't know
the agent?'' He added, ``If we knew the toxins that were
used, we could follow them and see actions on spermatogenesis
and ovogenesis.''
Increased rates of infertility, he said, are having a
profound effect on Kurdish society, which places great
importance on large families. ``You have men divorcing their
wives because they could not give birth, and then marrying
again, and then their second wives can't give birth,
either,'' he said. ``Still, they don't blame their own
problem with spermatogenesis.''
Baban told me that the initial results of the Halabja
Medical Institute-sponsored survey show abnormally high rates
of many diseases. He said that he compared rates of colon
cancer in Halabja with those in the city of Chamchamal, which
was not attacked with chemical weapons. ``We are seeing rates
of colon cancer five times higher in Halabja than in
Chamchamal,'' he said.
There are other anomalies as well, Baban said. The rate of
miscarriage in Halabja, according to initial survey results,
is fourteen times the rate of miscarriage in Chamchamal;
rates of infertility among men and women in the affected
population are many times higher than normal. ``We're finding
Hiroshima levels of sterility,'' he said.
Then, there is the suspicion about snakes. ``Have you heard
about the snakes?'' he asked as we drove. I told him that I
had heard rumors. ``We don't know if a genetic mutation in
the snakes has made them more toxic,'' Baban went on, ``or if
the birds that eat the snakes were killed off in the attacks,
but there seem to be more snakebites, of greater toxicity, in
Halabja now than before.'' (I asked Richard Spertzel, a
scientist and a former member of the United Nations Special
Commission inspections team, if this was possible. Yes, he
said, but such a rise in snakebites was more likely due to
``environmental imbalances'' than to mutations.)
My conversation with Baban was suddenly interrupted by our
guerrilla escorts, who stopped the car and asked me to join
them in one of the Land Cruisers; we veered off across a
wheat field, without explanation. I was later told that we
had been passing a mountain area that had recently had
problems with Islamic terrorists.
We arrived in Halabja half an hour later. As you enter the
city, you see a small statue modelled on the most famous
photographic image of the Halabj massacre: an old man, prone
and lifeless, shielding his dead grandson with his body.
A torpor seems to afflict Halabja; even its bazaar is
listless and somewhat empty, in marked contrast to those of
other Kurdish cities, which are well stocked with imported
goods (history and circumstance have made the Kurds
enthusiastic smugglers) and are full of noise and activity.
``Everyone here is sick,'' a Halabja doctor told me. ``The
people who aren't sick are depressed.'' He practices at the
Martyrs' Hospital, which is situated on the outskirts of the
city. The hospital has no heat and little advanced equipment;
like the city itself, it is in a dilapidated state.
The doctor is a thin, jumpy man in a tweed jacket, and he
smokes without pause. He and Baban took me on a tour of the
hospital. Afterward, we sat in a bare office, and a woman was
wheeled in. She looked seventy but said that she was fifty;
doctors told me she suffers from lung scarring so serious
that only a lung transplant could help, but there are no
transplant centers in Kurdistan. The woman, whose name is
Jayran Muhammad, lost eight relatives during the attack. Her
voice was almost inaudible. ``I was disturbed psychologically
for a long time,'' she told me as Baban translated. ``I
believed my children were alive.'' Baban told me that her
lungs would fail soon, that she could barely breathe. ``She
is waiting to die,'' he said. I met another woman, Chia
Hammassat, who was eight at the time of the attacks and has
been blind ever since. Her mother, she said, died of colon
cancer several years ago, and her brother suffers from
chronic shortness of breath. ``There is no hope to correct my
vision,'' she said, her voice flat. ``I was married, but I
couldn't fulfill the responsibilities of a wife because I'm
blind. My husband left me.''
Baban said that in Halabja ``there are more abnormal births
than normal ones,'' and other Kurdish doctors told me that
they regularly see children born with neural-tube defects and
undescended testes and without anal openings. They are
seeing--and they showed me--children born with six or seven
toes on each foot, children whose fingers and toes are fused,
and children who suffer from leukemia and liver cancer.
I met Sarkar, a shy and intelligent boy with a harelip, a
cleft palate, and a growth on his spine. Sarkar had a brother
born with the same set of malformations, the doctor told me,
but the brother choked to death, while still a baby, on a
grain of rice.
Meanwhile, more victims had gathered in the hallway; the
people of Halabja do not often have a chance to tell their
stories to foreigners. Some of them wanted to know if I was a
surgeon, who had come to repair their children's deformities,
and they were disappointed to learn that I was a journalist.
The doctor and I soon left the hospital for a walk through
the northern neighborhoods of Halabja, which were hardest hit
in the attack. We were trailed by peshmerga carrying AK-47s.
The doctor smoked as we talked, and I teased him about his
habit. ``Smoking has some good effect on the lungs,'' he
said, without irony. ``In the attacks, there was less effect
on smokers. Their lungs were better equipped for the mustard
gas, maybe.''
We walked through the alleyways of the Jewish quarter, past
a former synagogue in which eighty or so Halabjans died
during the attack. Underfed cows wandered the paths. The
doctor showed me several cellars where clusters of people had
died. We knocked on the gate of one house, and were let in by
an old woman with a wide smile and few teeth. In the Kurdish
tradition, she immediately invited us for lunch.
She told us the recent history of the house. ``Everyone who
was in this house died,'' she said. ``The whole family. We
heard there were one hundred people.'' She led us to the
cellar, which was damp and close. Rusted yellow cans of
vegetable ghee littered the floor. The room seemed too small
to hold a hundred people, but the doctor said that the
estimate sounded accurate. I asked him if cellars like this
one had ever been decontaminated. He smiled. ``Nothing in
Kurdistan has been decontaminated,'' he said.

4. AL-ANFAL

The chemical attacks on Halabja and Goktapa and perhaps two
hundred other villages and towns were only a small part of
the cataclysm that Saddam's cousin, the man known as Ali
Chemical, arranged for the Kurds. The Kurds say that about
two hundred thousand were killed. (Human Rights Watch, which
in the early nineties published ``Iraq's Crime of Genocide,''
a definitive study of the attacks, gives a figure of between
fifty thousand and a hundred thousand.)
The campaign against the Kurds was dubbed al-Anfal by
Saddam, after a chapter in the Koran that allows conquering
Muslim armies to seize the spoils of their foes. It reads, in
part, ``Against them''--your enemies--``make ready your
strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of
war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah
and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know,
but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the
cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be
treated unjustly.''
The Anfal campaign was not an end in itself, like the
Holocaust, but a means to an end--an instance of a policy
that Samantha Power, who runs the Carr Center for Human
Rights, at Harvard, calls ``Instrumental genocide.'' Power
has just published ``A Problem from Hell,'' a study of
American responses to genocide. ``There are regimes that set
out to murder every citizen of a race,'' she said. ``Saddam
achieved what he had to do without exterminating every last
Kurd.'' What he had to do, Power and others say, was to break
the Kurds' morale and convince them that a desire for
independence was foolish.
Most of the Kurds who were murdered in the Anfal were not
killed by poison gas; rather, the genocide was carried out,
in large part, in the traditional manner, with roundups at
night, mass executions, and anonymous burials. The bodies of
most of the victims of the Anfal--mainly men and boys--have
never been found.

[[Page 19867]]

One day, I met one of the thousands of Kurdish women known
as Anfal widows: Salma Aziz Baban. She lives outside
Chamchamal, in a settlement made up almost entirely of
displaced families, in cinder-block houses. Her house was
nearly empty--no furniture, no heat, just a ragged carpet. We
sat on the carpet as she told me about her family. She comes
from the Kirkuk region, and in 1987 her village was uprooted
by the Army, and the inhabitants, with thousands of other
Kurds, were forced into a collective town. Then, one night in
April of 1988, soldiers went into the village and seized the
men and older boys. Baban's husband and her three oldest sons
were put on trucks. The mothers of the village began to plead
with the soldiers. ``We were screaming, `Do what you want to
us, do what you want!''' Baban told me. ``They were so
scared, my sons. My sons were crying.'' She tried to bring
them coats for the journey. ``It was raining. I wanted them
to have coats. I begged the soldiers to let me give them
bread. They took them without coats.'' Baban remembered that
a high-ranking Iraqi officer named Bareq orchestrated the
separation; according to ``Iraq's Crime of Genocide,'' the
Human Rights Watch report, the man in charge of this phase
was a brigadier general named Bareq Abdullah al-Haj Hunta.
After the men were taken away, the women and children were
herded onto trucks. They were given little water or food, and
were crammed so tightly into the vehicles that they had to
defecate where they stood. Baban, her three daughters, and
her six-year-old son were taken to the Topzawa Army base and
then to the prison of Nugra Salman, the Pit of Salman, which
Human Rights Watch in 1995 described this way: ``It was an
old building, dating back to the days of the Iraqi monarchy
and perhaps earlier. It had been abandoned for years, used by
Arab nomads to shelter their herds. The bare walls were
scrawled with the diaries of political prisoners. On the door
of one cell, a guard had daubed `Khomeini eats shit.' Over
the main gate, someone else had written, `Welcome to Hell.'''
``We arrived at midnight,'' Baban told me. ``They put us in
a very big room, with more than two thousand people, women
and children, and they closed the door. Then the starvation
started.''
The prisoners were given almost nothing to eat, and a
single standpipe spat out brackish water for drinking. People
began to die from hunger and illness. When someone died, the
Iraqi guards would demand that the body be passed through a
window in the main door. ``The bodies couldn't stay in the
hall,'' Baban told me. In the first days at Nugra Salman,
``thirty people died, maybe more.'' Her six-year-old son,
Rebwar, fell ill. ``He had diarrhea,'' she said. ``He was
very sick. He knew he was dying. There was no medicine or
doctor. He started to cry so much.'' Baban's son died on her
lap. ``I was screaming and crying,'' she said. ``My daughters
were crying. We gave them the body. It was passed outside,
and the soldiers took it.''
Soon after Baban's son died, she pulled herself up and went
to the window, to see if the soldiers had taken her son to be
buried. ``There were twenty dogs outside the prison. A big
black dog was the leader,'' she said. The soldiers had dumped
the bodies of the dead outside the prison, in a field. ``I
looked outside and saw the legs and hands of my son in the
mouths of the dogs. The dogs were eating my son.'' She
stopped talking for a moment. ``Then I lost my mind.''
She described herself as catatonic; her daughters scraped
around for food and water. They kept her alive, she said,
until she could function again. ``This was during Ramadan. We
were kept in Nugra Salman for a few more months.''
In September, when the war with Iran was over, Saddam
issued a general amnesty to the Kurds, the people he believed
had betrayed him by siding with Tehran. The women, children,
and elderly in Nugra Salman were freed. But, in most cases,
they could not go home; the Iraqi Army had bulldozed some
four thousand villages, Baban's among them. She was finally
resettled in the Chamchamal district.
In the days after her release, she tried to learn the fate
of her husband and three older sons. But the men who
disappeared in the Anfal roundups have never been found. It
is said that they were killed and then buried in mass graves
in the desert along the Kuwaiti border, but little is
actually known. A great number of Anfal widows, I was told,
still believe that their sons and husbands and brothers are
locked away in Saddam's jails. ``We are thinking they are
alive,'' Baban said, referring to her husband and sons.
``Twenty-four hours a day, we are thinking maybe they are
alive. If they are alive, they are being tortured, I know
it.''
Baban said that she has not slept well since her sons were
taken from her. ``We are thinking, Please let us know they
are dead, I will sleep in peace,'' she said. ``My head is
filled with terrible thoughts. The day I die is the day I
will not remember that the dogs ate my son.''
Before I left, Baban asked me to write down the names of
her three older sons. They are Sherzad, who would be forty
now; Rizgar, who would be thirty-one; and Muhammad, who would
be thirty. She asked me to find her sons, or to ask President
Bush to find them. ``One would be sufficient,'' she said.
``If just one comes back, that would be enough.''

5. WHAT THE KURDS FEAR

In a conversation not long ago with Richard Butler, the
former weapons inspector, I suggested a possible explanation
for the world's indifference to Saddam Hussein's use of
chemical weapons to commit genocide--that the people he had
killed were his own citizens, not those of another sovereign
state. (The main chemical-weapons treaty does not ban a
country's use of such weapons against its own people, perhaps
because at the time the convention was drafted no one could
imagine such a thing.) Butler reminded me, however, that Iraq
had used chemical weapons against another country--Iran--
during, the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. He offered a simpler
rationale. ``The problems are just too awful and too hard,''
he said. ``History is replete with such things. Go back to
the grand example of the Holocaust. It sounded too hard to do
anything about it.''
The Kurds have grown sanguine about the world's lack of
interest. ``I've learned not to be surprised by the
indifference of the civilized world,'' Barham Salih told me
one evening in Sulaimaniya. Salih is the Prime Minister of
the area of Kurdistan administered by the Patriotic Union,
and he spoke in such a way as to suggest that it would be
best if I, too, stopped acting surprised. ``Given the scale
of the tragedy--we're talking about large numbers of
victims--I suppose I'm surprised that the international
community has not come in to help the survivors,'' he
continued. ``It's politically indecent not to help. But, as a
Kurd, I live with the terrible hand history and geography
have dealt my people.''
Salih's home is not prime ministerial, but it has many
Western comforts. He had a satellite television and a
satellite telephone, yet the house was frigid; in a land of
cheap oil, the Kurds, who are cut off the Iraqi electric grid
by Saddam on a regular basis, survive on generator power and
kerosene heat.
Over dinner one night, Salih argued that the Kurds should
not be regarded with pity. ``I don't think one has to tap
into the Wilsonian streak in American foreign policy in order
to find a rationale for helping the Kurds,'' he said.
``Helping the Kurds would mean an opportunity to study the
problems caused by weapons of mass destruction.''
Salih, who is forty-one, often speaks bluntly, and is savvy
about Washington's enduring interest in ending the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Unwilling publicly to exhort the United
States to take military action, Salih is aware that the
peshmerga would be obvious allies of an American military
strike against Iraq; other Kurds have been making that
argument for years. It is not often noted in Washington
policy circles, but the Kurds already hold a vast swath of
territory inside the country--including two important dams
whose destruction could flood Baghdad--and have at least
seventy thousand men under arms. In addition, the two main
Kurdish parties are members of the Iraqi opposition group,
the Iraqi National Congress, which is headed by Ahmad
Chalabi, a London-based Shiite businessman; at the moment,
though, relations between Chalabi and the Kurdish leaders are
contentious.
Kurds I talked to throughout Kurdistan were enthusiastic
about the idea of joining, an American-led alliance against
Saddam Hussein, and serving as the northen-Iraqi equivalent
of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. President Bush's State of
the Union Message, in which he denounced Iraq as the linchpin
of an ``axis of evil,'' had had an electric effect on every
Kurd I met who heard the speech. In the same speech,
President Bush made reference to Iraq's murder of ``thousands
of its own citizens--leaving the bodies of mothers huddled
over their dead children.'' General Simko Dizayee, the chief
of staff of the peshmerga, told me, ``Bush's speech filled
our hearts with hope.''
Prime Minister Salih expressed his views diplomatically.
``We support democratic transformation in Iraq,'' he said--
half smiling, because he knows that there is no chance of
that occurring unless Saddam is removed. But until America
commits itself to removing Saddam, he said, ``we're living on
the razor's edge. Before Washington even wakes up in the
morning, we could have ten thousand dead.'' This is the
Kurdish conundrum: the Iraqi military is weaker than the
American military, but the Iraqis are stronger than the
Kurds. Seven hundred Iraqi tanks face the Kurdish safe haven,
according to peshmerga commanders.
General Mustafa Said Qadir, the peshmerga leader, put it
this way: ``We have a problem. If the Americans attack Saddam
and don't get him, we're going to get gassed. If the
Americans decided to do it, we would be thankful. This is the
Kurdish dream. But it has to be done carefully.''
The Kurdish leadership worries, in short, that an American
mistake could cost the Kurds what they have created, however
inadvertently: a nearly independent state for themselves in
northern Iraq. ``We would like to be our own nation,'' Salih
told me. ``But we are realists. All we want is to be partners
of the Arabs of Iraq in building a secular, democratic,
federal country.'' Later, he added, ``We are proud of
ourselves. We have inherited a devastated country. It's not
easy what we are trying to achieve. We had no

[[Page 19868]]

democratic institutions, we didn't have a legal culture, we
did not have a strong military. From that situation, this is
a remarkable success story.''
The Kurdish regional government, to be sure, is not a
Vermont town meeting. The leaders of the two parties, Massoud
Barzani and Jalal Talabani, are safe in their jobs. But there
is a free press here, and separation of mosque and state, and
schools are being built and pensions are being paid. In Erbil
and in Sulaimaniya, the Kurds have built playgrounds on the
ruins of Iraqi Army torture centers. ``If America is indeed
looking for Muslims who are eager to become democratic and
are eager to counter the effects of Islamic fundamentalism,
then it should be looking here,'' Salih said.
Massoud Barzani is the son of the late Mustafa Barzani, a
legendary guerrilla, who built the Democratic Party, and who
entered into the ill-fated alliance with Iran and America. I
met Barzani in his headquarters, above the town of
Salahuddin. He is a short man, pale and quiet; he wore the
red turban of the Barzani clan and a wide cummerbund across
his baggy trousers--the outfit of a peshmerga.
Like Salih, he chooses his words carefully when talking
about the possibility of helping America bring down Saddam.
``It is not enough to tell us the U.S. will respond at a
certain time and place of its choosing,'' Barzani said.
``We're in artillery range. Iraq's Army is weak, but it is
still strong enough to crush us. We don't make assumptions
about the American response.''
One day, I drove to the Kurdish front lines near Erbil, to
see the forward positions of the Iraqi Army. The border
between the Army-controlled territory and the Kurdish region
is porous; Baghdad allows some Kurds--nonpolitical Kurds--to
travel back and forth between zones.
My peshmerga escort took me to the roof of a building
overlooking the Kalak Bridge and, beyond it, the Iraqi lines.
Without binoculars, we could see Iraqi tanks on the hills in
front of us. A local official named Muhammad Najar joined us;
he told me that the Iraqi forces arrayed there were elements
of the Army's Jerusalem brigade, a reserve unit established
by Saddam with the stated purpose of liberating Jerusalem
from the Israelis. Other peshmerga joined us. It was a
brilliantly sunny day, and we were enjoying the weather. A
man named Azlz Khader, gazing at the plain before us, said,
``When I look across here, I imagine American tanks coming
down across this plain going to Baghdad.'' His friends smiled
and said, ``Inshallah''--God willing. Another man said, ``The
U.S. is the lord of the world.''

6. THE PRISONERS

A week later, I was at Shinwe, a mountain range outside
Halabja, with another group of peshmerga. My escorts and I
had driven most of the way up, and then slogged through fresh
snow. From one peak, we could see the village of Biyara,
which sits in a valley between Halabja and a wall of
mountains that mark the Iranian border. Saddam's tanks were
an hour's drive away to the south, and Iran filled the vista
before us. Biyara and nine other villages near it are
occupied by the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, or Supporters
of Islam. Shinwe, in fact, might be called the axis of the
axis of evil.
We were close enough to see trucks belonging to Ansar al-
Islam making their way from village to village. The commander
of the peshmerga forces surrounding Biyara, a veteran
guerrilla named Ramadan Dekone, said that Ansar al-Islam is
made up of Kurdish Islamists and an unknown number of so-
called Arab Afghans--Arabs, from southern Iraq and elsewhere,
who trained in the camps of Al Qaeda.
``They believe that people must be terrorized,'' Dekone
said, shaking his head. ``They believe that the Koran says
this is permissible.'' He pointed to an abandoned village in
the middle distance, a place called Kheli Hama. ``That is
where the massacre took place,'' he said. In late September,
forty-two of his men were killed by Ansar al-Islam, and now
Dekone and his forces seemed ready for revenge. I asked him
what he would do if he captured the men responsible for the
killing. ``I would take them to court,'' he said.
When I got to Sulaimaniya, I visited a prison run by the
intelligence service of the Patriotic Union. The prison is
attached to the intelligence-service headquarters. It appears
to be well kept and humane; the communal cells hold twenty or
so men each, and they have kerosene heat, and even satellite
television. For two days, the intelligence agency permitted
me to speak with any prisoner who agreed to be interviewed. I
was wary; the Kurds have an obvious interest in lining up on
the American side in the war against terror. But the
officials did not, as far as I know, compel anyone to speak
to me, and I did not get the sense that allegations made by
prisoners were shaped by their captors. The stories, which I
later checked with experts on the region, seemed at least
worth the attention of America and other countries in the
West.
The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has
received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence
service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda
operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a
senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number
of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly
brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that
Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and
possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into
Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that
the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far
closer than previously thought.
When I asked the director of the twenty-four-hundred-man
Patriotic Union intelligence service why he was allowing me
to interview his prisoners, he told me that he hoped I would
carry this information to American intelligence officials.
``The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. haven't come out yet,'' he told
me. His deputy added, ``Americans are going to Somalia, the
Philippines, I don't know where else, to look for terrorists.
But this is the field, here.'' Anya Guilsher, a spokeswoman
for the C.I.A., told me last week that as a matter of policy
the agency would not comment on the activities of its
officers. James Woolsey, a former C.I.A. director and an
advocate of overthrowing the Iraqi regime, said, ``It would
be a real shame if the C.I.A.'s substantial institutional
hostility to Iraqi democratic resistance groups was keeping
it from learning about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda in northern
Iraq.''
The possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass
destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful
argument among advocates of ``regime change,'' as the removal
of Saddam is known in Washington. These critics of Saddam
argue that his chemical and biological capabilities, his
record of support for terrorist organizations, and the
cruelty of his regime make him a threat that reaches far
beyond the citizens of Iraq.
``He's the home address for anyone wanting to make or use
chemical or biological weapons,'' Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi
dissident, said. Makiya is the author of ``Republic of
Fear,'' a study of Saddam's regime. ``He's going to be the
person to worry about. He's got the labs and the knowhow.
He's hellbent on trying to find a way into the fight, without
announcing it.''
On the surface, a marriage of Saddam's secular Baath Party
regime with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda seems unlikely. His
relationship with secular Palestinian groups is well known;
both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, two prominent Palestinian
terrorists, are currently believed to be in Baghdad. But
about ten years ago Saddam underwent something of a
battlefield conversion to a fundamentalist brand of Islam.
``It was gradual, starting the moment he decided on the
invasion of Kuwait,'' in June of 1990, according to Amatzia
Baram, an Iraq expert at the University of Haifa. ``His
calculation was that he needed people in Iraq and the Arab
world--as well as God--to be on his side when he invaded.
After he invaded, the Islamic rhetorical style became
overwhelming,''--so overwhelming, Baram continued, that a
radical group in Jordan began calling Saddam ``the New Caliph
Marching from the East.'' This conversion, cynical though it
may be, has opened doors to Saddam in the fundamentalist
world. He is now a prime supporter of the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad and of Hamas, paying families of suicide bombers ten
thousand dollars in exchange for their sons' martyrdom. This
is part of Saddam's attempt to harness the power of Islamic
extremism and direct it against his enemies.
Kurdish culture, on the other hand, has traditionally been
immune to religious extremism. According to Kurdish
officials, Ansar al-Islam grew out of an idea spread by Ayman
al-Zawahiri, the former chief of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad
and now Osama bin Laden's deputy in Al Qaeda. ``There are two
schools of thought'' in Al Qaeda, Karim Sinjari, the Interior
Minister of Kurdistan's Democratic Party-controlled region,
told me. ``Osama bin Laden believes that the infidels should
be beaten in the head, meaning the United States. Zawahiri's
philosophy is that you should fight the infidel even in the
smallest village, that you should try to form Islamic armies
everywhere. The Kurdish fundamentalists were influenced by
Zawahiri'.''
Kurds were among those who travelled to Afghanistan from
all over the Muslim world, first to fight the Soviets, in the
early nineteen-eighties, then to join Al Qaeda. The members
of the groups that eventually became Ansar al-Islam spent a
great deal of time in Afghanistan, according to Kurdish
intelligence officials. One Kurd who went to Afghanistan was
Mala Krekar, an early leader of the Islamist movement in
Kurdistan; according to Sinjari, he now holds the title of
``emir'' of Ansar al-Islam.
In 1998, the first force of Islamist terrorists crossed the
Iranian border into Kurdistan, and immediately tried to seize
the town of Haj Omran. Kurdish officials said that the
terrorists were helped by Iran, which also has an interest in
undermining a secular Muslim government. ``The terrorists
blocked the road, they killed Kurdish Democratic Party
cadres, they threatened the villagers,'' Sinjari said. ``We
fought them and they fled.''
The terrorist groups splintered repeatedly. According to a
report in the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, which is
published in London, Ansar al-Islam came into being, on
September 1st of last year, with the merger of two factions:
Al Tawhid, which helped

[[Page 19869]]

to arrange the assassination of Kurdistan's most prominent
Christian politician, and whose operatives initiated an acid-
throwing campaign against unveiled women; and a faction
called the Second Soran Unit, which had been affiliated with
one of the Kurdish Islamic parties. In a statement issued to
mark the merger, the group, which originally called itself
Jund al-Islam, or Soldiers of Islam, declared its intention
to ``undertake Jiihad in this region'' in order to carry out
``God's will.'' According to Kurdish officials, the group had
between five hundred and six hundred members, including Arab
Afghans and at least thirty Iraqi Kurds who were trained in
Afghanistan.
Kurdish officials say that the merger took place in a
ceremony overseen by three Arabs trained in bin Laden's camps
in Afghanistan, and that these men supplied Ansar al-Islam
with three hundred thousand dollars in seed money. Soon after
the merger, a unit of Ansar al-Islam called the Victory Squad
attacked and killed the peshmerga in Kheli Hama.
Among the Islamic fighters who were there that day was
Rekut Hiwa Hussein, a slender, boyish twenty-year-old who was
captured by the peshmerga after the massacre, and whom I met
in the prison in Sulaimaniya. He was exceedingly shy, never
looking up from his hands as he spoke. He was not handcuffed,
and had no marks on the visible parts of his body. We were
seated in an investigator's office inside the intelligence
complex. Like most buildings in Sulaimaniya, this one was
warmed by a single kerosene heater, and the room temperature
seemed barely above freezing. Rekut told me how he and his
comrades in Ansar al-Islam overcame the peshmerga.
``They thought there was a ceasefire, so we came into the
village and fired on them by surprise,'' he said. ``They
didn't know what happened. We used grenades and machine guns.
We killed a lot of them and then the others surrendered.''
The terrorists trussed their prisoners, ignoring pleas from
the few civilians remaining in the town to leave them alone.
``The villagers asked us not to slaughter them,'' Rekut said.
One of the leaders of Ansar al-Islam, a man named Abdullah a-
Shafi, became incensed. ``He said, `Who is saying this? Let
me kill them.'''
Rekut said that the peshmerga were killed in ritual
fashion: ``We put cloths in their mouths. We then laid them
down like sheep, in a line. Then we cut their throats.''
After the men were killed, peshmerga commanders say, the
corpses were beheaded. Rekut denied this. ``Some of their
heads had been blown off by grenades, but we didn't behead
them,'' he said.
I asked Rekut why he had joined Ansar al-Islam. ``A friend
of mine joined,'' he said quietly. ``I don't have a good
reason why I joined. ``A guard then took him by the elbow and
returned him to his cell.
The Kurdish intelligence officials I spoke to were careful
not to oversell their case; they said that they have no proof
that Ansar al-Islam was ever involved in international
terrorism or that Saddam's agents were involved in the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they
do have proof, they said, that Ansar al-Islam is shielding Al
Qaeda members, and that it is doing so with the approval of
Saddam's agents.
Kurdish officials said that, according, to their
intelligence, several men associated with Al Qaeda have been
smuggled over the Iranian border into an Ansar al-Islam
stronghold near Halabja. The Kurds believe that two of them,
who go by the names Abu Yasir and Abu Muzaham, are
highranking Al Qaeda members. ``We don't have any information
about them,'' one official told me. ``We know that they don't
want anybody to see them. They are sleeping in the same room
as Mala Krekar and Abdullah al-Shafi''--the nominal leaders
of Ansar al-Islam.
The real leader, these officials say, is an Iraqi who goes
by the name Abu Wa'el, and who, like the others, spent a
great deal of time in bin Laden's training camps. But he is
also, they say, a highranking officer of the Mukhabarat. One
senior official added, ``A man named Abu Agab is in charge of
the northern bureau of the Mukhabarat. And he is Abu Wa'el's
control officer.''
Abu Agab, the official said, is based in the city of
Kirkuk, which is predominantly Kurdish but is under the
control of Baghdad. According to intelligence officials, Abu
Agab and Abu Wa'el met last July 7th, in Germany. From there,
they say, Abu Wa'el travelled to Afghanistan and then, in
August, to Kurdistan, sneaking across the Iranian border.
The Kurdish officials told me that they learned a lot about
Abu Wa'el's movements from one of their prisoners, an Iraqi
intelligence officer named Qassem Hussein Muhammad, and they
invited me to speak with him. Qassem, the Kurds said, is a
Shiite from Basra, in southern Iraq, and a twenty-year
veteran of Iraqi intelligence.
Qassem, shambling, and bearded, was brought into the room,
and he genially agreed to be interviewed. One guard stayed in
the room, along with my translator. Qassem lit a cigarette,
and leaned back in his chair. I started by asking him if he
had been tortured by his captors. His eyes widened. ``By God,
no,'' he said. ``There is nothing like torture here.'' Then
he told me that his involvement in Islamic radicalism began
in 1992 in Baghdad, when he met Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Qassem said that he was one of seventeen bodyguards
assigned to protect Zawahiri, who stayed at Baghdad's Al
Rashid Hotel, but who, he said, moved around surreptitiously.
The guards had no idea why Zawahiri was in Baghdad, but one
day Qassem escorted him to one of Saddam's palaces for what
he later learned was a meeting with Saddam himself.
Qassem's capture by the Kurds grew out of his last
assignment from the Mukhabarat. The Iraqi intelligence
service received word that Abu Wa'el had been captured by
American agents. ``I was sent by the Mukhabarat to Kurdistan
to find Abu Wa'el or, at least, information about him,''
Qassem told me. ``That's when I was captured, before I
reached Biyara.''
I asked him if he was sure that Abu Wa'el was on Saddam's
side. ``He's an employee of the Mukhabarat,'' Qassem said.
``He's the actual decision-maker in the group''--Ansar al-
Islam--``but he's an employee of the Mukhabarat.'' According
to the Kurdish intelligence officials, Abu Wa'el is not in
American hands; rather, he is still with Ansar al-Islam.
American officials declined to comment.
The Kurdish intelligence officials told me that they have
Al Qaeda members in custody, and they introduced me to
another prisoner, a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom
they described as a middle- to high-ranking member of Al
Qaeda. He was, they said, captured by the peshmerga as he
tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of
the American attack on Afghanistan. Ismail, they said, comes
from a Mosul family with deep connections to the Mukhabarat;
his uncle is the top Mukhabarat official in the south of
Iraq. They said they believe that Haqi Ismail is a liaison
between Saddam's intelligence service and Al Qaeda.
Ismail wore slippers and a blanket around his shoulders. He
was ascetic in appearance and, at the same time,
ostentatiously smug. He appeared to be amused by the presence
of an American. He told the investigators that he would not
talk to the C.I.A. The Kurdish investigators laughed and said
they wished that I were from the C.I.A.
Ismail said that he was once a student at the University of
Mosul but grew tired of life in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Luckily, he said, in 1999 he met an Afghan man who persuaded
him to seek work in Afghanistan. The Kurdish investigators
smiled as Ismail went on to say that he found himself in
Kandahar, then in Kabul, and then somehow--here he was
exceedingly vague--in an Al Qaeda camp. When I asked him how
enrollment in an Al Qaeda camp squared with his wish to seek
work in Afghanistan, he replied, ``Being a soldier is a
job.'' After his training, he said, he took a post in the
Taliban Foreign Ministry. I asked him if he was an employee
of Saddam's intelligence service. ``I prefer not to talk
about that,'' he replied.
Later, I asked, the Kurdish officials if they believed that
Saddam provides aid to Al Qaeda affiliated terror groups or
simply maintains channels of communication with them. It was
getting late, and the room was growing even colder. ``Come
back tomorrow,'' the senior official in the room said, ``and
we'll introduce you to someone who will answer that
question.''

7. THE AL QAEDA LINK

The man they introduced me to the next afternoon was a
twenty-nine-year-old Iranian Arab, a smuggler and bandit from
the city of Ahvaz. The intelligence officials told me that
his most recent employer was bin Laden. When they arrested
him, last year, they said, they found a roll of film in his
possession. They had the film developed, and the photographs,
which they showed me, depicted their prisoner murdering a man
with a knife, slicing his ear off and then plunging the knife
into the top of the man's head.
The Iranian had a thin face, thick black hair, and a
mustache; he wore an army jacket, sandals, and Western-style
sweatpants. Speaking in an almost casual tone, he told me
that he was born in 1973, that his real name was Muhammad
Mansour Shahab, and that he had been a smuggler most of his
adult life.
``I met a group of drug traffickers,'' he said. ``They gave
us drugs and we got them weapons,'' which they took from Iran
into Afghanistan. In 1996, he met an Arab Afghan. ``His name
was Othman,'' the man went on. ``He gave me drugs, and I got
him a hundred and fifty Kalashnikovs. Then he said to me,
`You should come visit Afghanistan.' So we went to
Afghanistan in 1996. We stayed for a while, I came back, did
a lot of smuggling jobs. My brother-in-law tried to send
weapons to Afghanistan, but the Iranians ambushed us. I
killed some of the Iranians.''
He soon returned with Othman to Afghanistan, where, he
said, Othman gave him the name Muhammad Jawad to use while he
was there. ``Othman said to me, `You will meet Sheikh Osama
soon.' We were in Kandahar. One night, they gave me a
sleeping pill. We got into a car and we drove for an hour and
a half into the mountains. We went to a tent they said was
Osama's tent.'' The man now

[[Page 19870]]

called Jawad did not meet Osama bin Laden that night. ``They
said to me, `You're the guy who killed the Iranian officer.'
Then they said they needed information about me, my real
name. They told Othman to take me back to Kandahar and hold
me in jail for twenty-one days while they investigated me.''
The Al Qaeda men completed their investigation and called
him back to the mountains. ``They told me that Osama said I
should work with them,'' Jawad said. ``They told me to bring
my wife to Afghanistan.'' They made him swear on a Koran that
he would never betray them. Jawad said that he became one of
Al Qaeda's principal weapons smugglers. Iraqi opposition
sources told me that the Baghdad regime frequently smuggled
weapons to Al Qaeda by air through Dubai to Pakistan and then
overland into Afghanistan. But Jawad told me that the Iraqis
often used land routes through Iran as well. Othman ordered
him to establish a smuggling route across the Iraq-Iran
border. The smugglers would pose as shepherds to find the
best routes. ``We started to go into Iraq with the sheep and
cows,'' Jawad told me, and added that they initiated this
route by smuggling tape recorders from Iraq to Iran. They
opened a store, a front, in Ahvaz, to sell electronics,
``just to establish relationships with smugglers.''
One day in 1999, Othman got a message to Jawad, who was
then in Iran. He was to smuggle himself across the Iraqi
border at Fao, where a car would meet him and take him to a
village near Tikrit, the headquarters of Saddam Hussein's
clan. Jawad was then taken to a meeting at the house of a man
called Luay, whom he described as the son of Saddam's father-
in-law, Khayr Allah Talfah. (Professor Baram, who has long
followed Saddam's family, later told me he believes that
Luay, who is about forty years old, is close to Saddam's
inner circle.) At the meeting, with Othman present,
Mukhabarat officials instructed Jawad to go to Baghdad, where
he was to retrieve several cannisters filled with explosives.
Then, he said, he was to arrange to smuggle the explosives
into Iran, where they would be used to kill anti-Iraqi
activists. After this assignment was completed, Jawad said,
he was given a thousand Kalashnikov rifles by Iraqi
intelligence and told to smuggle them into Afghanistan.
A year later, there was a new development: Othman told
Jawad to smuggle several dozen refrigerator motors into
Afghanistan for the Iraqi Mukhabarat; a cannister filled with
liquid was attached to each motor. Jawad said that he asked
Othman for more information. ``I said, `Othman, what does
this contain?' He said, `My life and your life.' He said
they''--the Iraqi agents--''were going to kill us if we
didn't do this. That's all I'll say.
``I was given a book of dollars,'' Jawad went on, meaning
ten thousand dollars--a hundred American hundred-dollar
bills. ``I was told to arrange to smuggle the motors. Othman
told me to kill any of the smugglers who helped us once we
got there.'' Vehicles belonging to the Taliban were waiting
at the border, and Jawad said that he turned over the liquid-
filled refrigerator motors to the Taliban, and then killed
the smugglers who had helped him.
Jawad said that he had no idea what liquid was inside the
motors, but he assumed that it was some type of chemical or
biological weapon. I asked the Kurdish officials who remained
in the room if they believed that, as late as 2000, the
Mukhabarat was transferring chemical or biological weapons to
Al Qaeda. They spoke carefully. ``We have no idea what was in
the cannisters,'' the senior official said. ``This is
something that is worth an American investigation.''
When I asked Jawad to tell me why he worked for Al Qaeda,
he replied, ``Money.'' He would not say how much money he had
been paid, but he suggested that it was quite a bit. I had
one more question: How many years has Al Qaeda maintained a
relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime? ``There's been a
relationship between the Mukhabarat and the people of Al
Qaeda since 1992,'' he replied.
Carole O'Leary, a Middle Eastern expert at American
University, in Washington, and a specialist on the Kurds,
said it is likely that Saddam would seek an alliance with
Islamic terrorists to serve his own interests. ``I know that
there are Mukhabarat agents throughout Kurdistan,'' O'Leary
said, and went on, ``One way the Mukhabarat could destabilize
the Kurdish experiment in democracy is to link up with
Islamic radical groups. Their interests dovetail completely.
They both have much to fear from the democratic, secular
experiment of the Kurds in the safe haven, and they both
obviously share a hatred for America.''

8. THE PRESENT DANGER

A paradox of life in northern Iraq is that, while hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of children suffer from the effects of
chemical attacks, the child-mortality rate in the Kurdish
zone has improved over the past ten years. Prime Minister
Salih credits this to, of all things, sanctions placed on the
Iraqi regime by the United Nations after the Gulf War because
of Iraq's refusal to dismantle its nonconventional-weapons
program. He credits in particular the program begun in 1997,
known as oil-for-food, which was meant to mitigate the
effects of sanctions on civilians by allowing the profits
from Iraq oil sales to buy food and medicine. Calling this
program a ``fantastic concept,'' Salih said, ``For the first
time in our history, Iraqi citizens--all citizens--are
insured a portion of the country's oil wealth. The north is a
testament to the success of the program. Oil is sold and food
is bought.''
I asked Salih to respond to the criticism, widely aired in
the West, that the sanctions have led to the death of
thousands of children. ``Sanctions don't kill Iraqi
children,'' he said. ``The regime kills children.''
This puzzled me. If it was true, then why were the victims
of the gas attacks still suffering from a lack of health
care? Across Kurdistan, in every hospital I visited, the
complaints were the same: no CT scans, no MRIs, no pediatric
surgery, no advanced diagnostic equipment, not even surgical
gloves. I asked Salih why the money designated by the U.N.
for the Kurds wasn't being used for advanced medical
treatment. The oil-for-food program has one enormous flaw, he
replied. When the program was introduced, the Kurds were
promised thirteen per cent of the country's oil revenue, but
because of the terms of the agreement between Baghdad and the
U.N.--a ``defect,'' Salih said--the government controls the
flow of food, medicine, and medical equipment to the very
people it slaughtered. Food does arrive, he conceded, and
basic medicines as well, but at Saddam's pace.
On this question of the work of the United Nations and its
agencies, the rival Kurdish parties agree. ``We've been
asking for a four-hundred-bed hospital for Sulaimaniya for
three years,'' said Nerchivan Barzani, the Prime Minister of
the region controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Party, and
Salih's counterpart. Sulaimaniya is in Salih's territory, but
in this case geography doesn't matter. ``It's our money,''
Barzani said. ``But we need the approval of the Iraqis. They
get to decide. The World Health Organization is taking its
orders from the Iraqis. It's crazy.''
Barzani and Salih accused the World Health Organization, in
particular, of rewarding with lucrative contracts only
companies favored by Saddam. ``Every time I interact with the
U.N.,'' Salih said, ``I think, My God, Jesse Helms is right.
If the U.N. can't help us, this poor, dispossessed Muslim
nation, then who is it for?''
Many Kurds believe that Iraq's friends in the U.N. system,
particularly members of the Arab bloc, have worked to keep
the Kurds' cause from being addressed. The Kurds face an
institutional disadvantage at the U.N., where, unlike the
Palestinians, they have not even been granted official
observer status. Salih grew acerbic: ``Compare us to other
liberation movements around the world. We are very mature. We
don't engage in terror. We don't condone extremist
nationalist notions that can only burden our people. Please
compare what we have achieved in the Kurdistan national-
authority areas to the Palestinian national authority of Mr.
Arafat. We have spent the last ten years building a secular,
democratic society, a civil society. What has he built?''
Last week, in New York, I met with Benon Sevan, the United
Nations undersecretary-general who oversees the oil-for-food
program. He quickly let me know that he was unmoved by the
demands of the Kurds. ``If they had a theme song, it would be
`Give Me, Give Me, Give Me,''' Sevan said. ``I'm getting fed
up with their complaints. You can tell them that.'' He said
that under the oil-for-food program the ``three northern
govemorates''--U.N. officials avoid the word ``Kurdistan''--
have been allocated billions of dollars in goods and
services. ``I don't know if they've ever had it so good,'' he
said.
I mentioned the Kurds' complaint that they have been denied
access to advanced medical equipment, and he said, ``Nobody
prevents them from asking. They should go ask the World
Health Organization''--which reports to Sevan on matters
related to Iraq. When I told Sevan that the Kurds have
repeatedly asked the W.H.O., he said, ``I'm not going to pass
judgment on the W.H.O.'' As the interview ended, I asked
Sevan about the morality of allowing the Iraqi regime to
control the flow of food and medicine into Kurdistan.
``Nobody's innocent,'' he said. ``Please don't talk about
morals with me.''
When I went to Kurdistan in January to report on the 1988
genocide of the Kurds, I did not expect to be sidetracked by
a debate over U.N. sanctions. And I certainly didn't expect
to be sidetracked by crimes that Saddam is committing against
the Kurds now--in particular--``nationality correction,'' the
law that Saddam's security services are using to implement a
campaign of ethnic cleansing. Large-scale operations against
the Kurds in Kirkuk, a city southeast of Erbil, and in other
parts of Iraqi Kurdistan under Saddam's control, have
received scant press attention in the West; there have been
few news accounts and no Security Council condemnations
drafted in righteous anger.
Saddam's security services have been demanding that Kurds
``correct'' their nationality by signing papers to indicate
that their birth records are false--that they are in fact
Arab. Those who don't sign have their property seized. Many
have been evicted, often to Kurdish-controlled regions, to
make room for Arab families. According to both the

[[Page 19871]]

Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan, more than a hundred thousand Kurds have been
expelled from the Kirkuk area over the past two years.
Nationality correction is one technique that the Baghdad
regime is using in an over-all ``Arabization'' campaign,
whose aim is to replace the inhabitants of Kurdish cities,
especially the oil-rich Kirkuk, with Arabs from central and
southern Iraq, and even, according to persistent reports,
with Palestinians. Arabization is not new, Peter Galbraith, a
professor at the National Defense University and a former
senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
says. Galbraith has monitored Saddam's anti-Kurdish
activities since before the Gulf War. ``It's been going on
for twenty years,'' he told me. ``Maybe it's picked up speed,
but it is certainly nothing new. To my mind, it's part of a
larger process that has been under way for many years, and is
aimed at reducing the territory occupied by the Kurds and at
destroying rural Kurdistan.''
``This is the apotheosis of cultural genocide,'' said Saedi
Barzinji, the president of Salahaddin University, in Erbil,
who is a human-rights lawyer and Massoud Barzani's legal
adviser. Barzinji and other Kurdish leaders believe that
Saddam is trying to set up a buffer zone between Arab Iraq
and Kurdistan, just in case the Kurds win their independence.
To help with this, Barzinji told me last month, Saddam is
trying to rewrite Kirkuk's history, to give it an ``Arab''
past. If Kurds, Barzinji went on, ``don't change their ethnic
origin, they are given no food rations, no positions in
government, no right to register the names of their new
babies. In the last three to four weeks, hospitals have been
ordered, the maternity wards ordered, not to register any
Kurdish name.'' New parents are ``obliged to choose an Arab
name.'' Barzinji said that the nationality-correction
campaign extends even to the dead. ``Saddam is razing the
gravestones, erasing the past, putting in new ones with Arab
names,'' he said. ``He wants to show that Kirkuk has always
been Arab.''
Some of the Kurds crossing the demarcation line between
Saddam's forces and the Kurdish zone, it is said, are not
being expelled but are fleeing for economic reasons. But in
camps across Kurdistan I met refugees who told me stories of
visits from the secret police in the middle of the night.
Many of the refugees from Kirkuk live in tent camps built
on boggy fields. I visited one such camp at Beneslawa, not
far from Erbil, where the mud was so thick that it nearly
pulled off my shoes. The people at the camp--several hundred,
according to two estimates I heard--are ragged and sick. A
man named Howar told me that his suffering could not have
been avoided even if he had agreed to change his ethnic
identity.
``When you agree to change your nationality, the police
write on your identity documents `second-degree Arab,' which
they know means Kurd,'' he told me. ``So they always know
you're a Kurd.'' (In a twist characteristic of Saddam's
regime, Kurdish leaders told me, Kurds who agree to
``change'' their nationality are fined for having once
claimed falsely to be Kurdish.)
Another refugee, Shawqat Hamid Muhammad, said that her son
had gone to jail for two months for having a photograph of
Mustafa Barzani in his possession. She said that she and her
family had been in the Beneslawa camp for two months. ``The
police came and knocked on our door and told us we have to
leave Kirkuk,'' she said. ``We had to rent a truck to take
our things out. We were given one day to leave. We have no
idea who is in our house.'' Another refugee, a man named
Ibrahim Jamil, wandered over to listen to the conversation.
``The Arabs are winning Kirkuk,'' he said. ``Soon the only
people there will be Arabs, and Kurds who call themselves
Arabs. They say we should be Arab. But I'm a Kurd. It would
be easier for me to die than be an Arab. How can I not be a
Kurd?''
Peter Galbraith told me that in 1987 he witnessed the
destruction of Kurdish villages and cemeteries--``anything,
that was related to Kurdish identity,'' he said. ``This was
one of the factors that led me to conclude that it is a
policy of genocide, a crime of intent, destroying a group
whole or in part.''

9. IRAQ'S ARMS RACE

In a series of meetings in the summer and fall of 1995,
Charles Duelfer, the deputy executive chairman of the United
Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM--the now defunct arms-
inspection team--met in Baghdad with Iraqi government
delegations. The subject was the status of Iraq's
nonconventional-weapons programs, and Duelfer, an American
diplomat on loan to the United Nations, was close to a
breakthrough.
In early August, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had
defected to Jordan, and had then spoken publicly about Iraq's
offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities.
(Kamel later returned to Iraq and was killed almost
immediately, on his father-in-law's orders.) The regime's
credibility was badly damaged by Kamel's revelations, and
during these meetings the Iraqi representatives decided to
tell Duelfer and his team more than they had ever revealed
before. ``This was the first time Iraq actually agreed to
discuss the Presidential origins of these programs,'' Duelfer
recalled. Among the most startling admissions made by the
Iraqi scientists was that they had weaponized the biological
agent aflatoxin.
Aflatoxin, which is produced from types of fungi that occur
in moldy grains, is the biological agent that some Kurdish
physicians suspect was mixed with chemical weapons and
dropped on Kurdistan. Christine Gosden, the English
geneticist, told me, ``There is absolutely no forensic
evidence whatsoever that aflatoxins have ever been used in
northern Iraq, but this may be because no systematic testing
has been carried out in the region, to my knowledge.''
Duelfer told me, ``We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss
the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin
of the biological-weapons program is in the security
services, not in the military--meaning that it really came
out of the assassinations program.'' The Iraqis, Duelfer
said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into
two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with tear
gas. They wouldn't say why.
In an op-ed article that Duelfer wrote for the Los Angeles
Times last year about Iraqi programs to develop weapons of
mass destruction, he offered this hypothesis: ``If a regime
wished to conceal a biological attack, what better way than
this? Victims would suffer the short-term effects of inhaling
tear gas and would assume that this was the totality of the
attack: Subsequent cancers would not be linked to the prior
event.''
United Nations inspectors were alarmed to learn about the
aflatoxin program. Richard Spertzel, the chief biological-
weapons inspector for UNSCOM, put it this way: ``It is a
devilish weapon. Iraq was quite clearly aware of the long-
term carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin. Aflatoxin can only do
one thing--destroy people's livers. And I suspect that
children are more susceptible. From a moral standpoint,
aflatoxin is the cruellest weapon--it means watching children
die slowly of liver cancer.''
Spertzel believes that if aflatoxin were to be used as a
weapon it would not be delivered by a missile. ``Aflatoxin is
a little tricky,'' he said. ``I don't know if a single dose
at one point in time is going to give you the long-term
effects. Continuous, repeated exposure--through food--would
be more effective.'' When I asked Spertzel if other countries
have weaponized aflatoxin, he replied, ``I don't know any
other country that did it. I don't know any country that
would.''
It is unclear what biological and chemical weapons Saddam
possesses today. When he maneuvered UNSCOM out of his country
in 1998, weapons inspectors had found a sizable portion of
his arsenal but were vexed by what they couldn't find. His
scientists certainly have produced and weaponized anthrax,
and they have manufactured botulinum toxin, which causes
muscular paralysis and death. They've made Clostridium
perfringens, a bacterium that causes gas gangrene, a
condition in which the flesh rots. They have also made wheat-
cover smut, which can be used to poison crops, and ricin,
which, when absorbed into the lungs, causes hemorrhagic
pneumonia.
According to Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control, whose Iraq Watch project
monitors Saddam's weapons capabilities, inspectors could not
account for a great deal of weaponry believed to be in Iraq's
possession, including almost four tons of the nerve agent VX;
six hundred tons of ingredients for VX; as much as three
thousand tons of other poison-gas agents; and at least five
hundred and fifty artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
Nor did the inspectors find any stores of aflatoxin.
Saddam's motives are unclear, too. For the past decade, the
development of these weapons has caused nothing but trouble
for him; his international isolation grows not from his past
crimes but from his refusal to let weapons inspectors
dismantle his nonconventional-weapons programs. When I asked
the Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya why Saddam is so committed
to these programs, he said, ``I think this regime developed a
very specific ideology associated with power, and how to
extend that power, and these weapons play a very important
psychological and political part.'' Makiya added, ``They are
seen as essential to the security and longevity of the
regime.''
Certainly, the threat of another Halabja has kept Iraq's
citizens terrorized and compliant. Amatzia Baram, the Iraq
expert at the University of Haifa, told me that in 1999 Iraqi
troops in white biohazard suits suddenly surrounded the
Shiite holy city of Karbala, in southern Iraq, which has been
the scene of frequent uprisings against Saddam. (The Shiites
make up about sixty percent of Iraq's population, and the
regime is preoccupied with the threat of another rebellion.)
The men in the white suits did nothing; they just stood
there. ``But the message was clear,'' Baram said. ``What we
did to the Kurds in Halabja we can do to you.'' It's a very
effective psychological weapon. From the information I saw,
people were really panicky. They ran into their homes and
shut their windows. It worked extremely well.''
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction clearly are not meant
solely for domestic use. Several years ago in Baghdad,
Richard Butler, who was then the chairman of

[[Page 19872]]

UNSCOM, fell into conversation with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's
confidant and Iraq's deputy Prime Minister. Butler asked Aziz
to explain the rationale for Iraq's biological-weapons
project, and he recalled Aziz's answer: ``He said, `We made
bioweapons in order to deal with the Persians and the
Jews.'''
Iraqi dissidents agree that Iraq's programs to build
weapons of mass destruction are focussed on Israel. ``Israel
is the whole game,'' Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi
National Congress, told me. ``Saddam is always saying
publicly, `Who is going to fire the fortieth missile?'''--a
reference to the thirty-nine Scud missiles he fired at Israel
during the Gulf War. ``He thinks he can kill one hundred
thousand Israelis in a day with biological weapons.'' Chalabi
added, ``This is the only way he can be Saladin''--the Muslim
hero who defeated the Crusaders. Students of Iraq and its
government generally agree that Saddam would like to project
himself as a leader of all the Arabs, and that the one sure
way to do that is by confronting Israel.
In the Gulf War, when Saddam attacked Israel, he was hoping
to provoke an Israeli response, which would drive America's
Arab friends out of the allied coalition. Today, the experts
say, Saddam's desire is to expel the Jews from history. In
October of 2000, at an Arab summit in Cairo, I heard the
vice-chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, a man
named Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, deliver a speech on Saddam's
behalf, saying, ``Jihad alone is capable of liberating
Palestine and the rest of the Arab territories occupied by
dirty Jews in their distorted Zionist entity.''
Amatzia Baram said, ``Saddam can absolve himself of all
sins in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim worlds by bringing
Israel to its knees. He not only wants to be a hero in his
own press, which already recognizes him as a Saladin, but
wants to make sure that a thousand years from now children in
the fourth grade will know that he is the one who destroyed
Israel.''
It is no comfort to the Kurds that the Jews are now
Saddam's main preoccupation. The Kurds I spoke with, even
those who agree that Saddam is aiming, his remaining Scuds at
Israel, believe that he is saving some of his ``special
weapons''--a popular euphemism inside the Iraqi regime for a
return visit to Halabja. The day I visited the Kalak Bridge,
which divides the Kurds from the Iraqi Army's Jerusalem
brigade, I asked Muhammad Najar, the local official, why the
brigade was not facing west, toward its target. ``The road to
Jerusalem,'' he replied, ``goes through Kurdistan.''
A few weeks ago, after my return from Iraq, I stopped by
the Israeli Embassy in Washington to see the Ambassador,
David Ivry. In 1981, Ivry, who then led Israel's Air Force,
commanded Operation Opera, the strike against the Osirak
nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The action was ordered by Prime
Minister Menachem Begin, who believed that by hitting the
reactor shortly before it went online he could stop Iraq from
building an atomic bomb. After the attack, Israel was
condemned for what the Times called ``inexcusable and short-
sighted aggression.'' Today, though, Israel's action is
widely regarded as an act of muscular arms control. ``In
retrospect, the Israeli strike bought us a decade,'' Gary
Milhollin, of the Wisconsin Project, said. ``I think if the
Israelis had not hit the reactor the Iraqis would have had
bombs by 1990''--the year Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Today, a satellite photograph of the Osirak site hangs on a
wall in Ivry's office. The inscription reads, ``For General
David Ivry--With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding
job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made
our job much easier in Desert Storm.'' It is signed ``Dick
Cheney.''
``Preemption is always a positive,'' Ivry said.
Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into
a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt,
redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. Those
who have followed Saddam's progress believe that no single
strike today would eradicate his nuclear program. I talked
about this prospect last fall with August Hanning, the chief
of the B.N.D., the German intelligence agency, in Berlin. We
met in the new glass-and-steel Chancellery, overlooking the
renovated Reichstag.
The Germans have a special interest in Saddam's intentions.
German industry is well represented in the ranks of foreign
companies that have aided Saddam's nonconventional-weapons
programs, and the German government has been publicly
regretful. Hanning told me that his agency had taken the lead
in exposing the companies that helped Iraq build a poison-gas
factory at Samarra. The Germans also feel, for the most
obvious reasons, a special responsibility to Israel's
security, and this, too, motivates their desire to expose
Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Hanning is tall,
thin, and almost translucently white. He is sparing with
words, but he does not equivocate. ``It is our estimate that
Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,'' he said.
There is some debate among arms-control experts about
exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there
is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them
soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the
balance of power in the Middle East. ``The first thing that
occurs to any military planner is force protection,'' Charles
Duelfer told me. ``If your assessment of the threat is
chemical or biological, you can get individual protective
equipment and warning systems. If you think he's going to use
a nuclear weapon, where are you going to concentrate your
forces?''
There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic
bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
When I talked about Saddam's past with the medical geneticist
Christine Gosden, she said, ``Please understand, the Kurds
were for practice.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
We in Congress must stand behind the President in granting him the
authority to use military force against Iraq. The only chance to
prevent war is to be prepared to go to war. We will not rush to war,
but we cannot stand by while Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program
poses a growing threat to our national security. Over the past few
weeks, many have voiced a number of questions, including why we must
take action at this moment, how long our armed forces may be in Iraq,
and what the humanitarian, economic, and political costs of a military
response may be. These are all valid concerns and questions I have
considered. Ultimately, we must decide whether the threats we face
merit the risk of American lives. The consequences of this vote are
serious, and I have not had to make a more difficult decision in my 20
years in Congress. I believe that support for this resolution will send
a strong, decisive signal to Saddam Hussein that his continued
violation of U.N. Security Resolutions will not be tolerated.
This vote is evidence that the challenges we face today are unique in
the context of our history. We as a nation, could not have prevented
the horrific acts of September 11th and I witnessed the destruction
firsthand, at both the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Because
of the events of September 11th, we cannot wait to act on a threat to
our nation and to the American people, lest we allow ourselves to be
victims once again. We are faced with a situation in which the lessons
of history speak clearly of danger, and we face a threat unlike any
other in history. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has proven himself to
be a ruthless and unpredictable enemy, and even the slightest threat
posed by his regime is one that we are unable to ignore without great
risk to our national security. The world has come to know a long and
terrible list of grievances against Saddam Hussein, including the
brutal repression and torture of his political opponents, the use of
chemical weapons against his own people, and his tireless pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction. It is this record of brutality and
tendency toward violence that should focus our attention on Iraq.
Intelligence reports from both the United States and Great Britain
highlight Iraq's relentless drive to produce chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, and there is mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein is
only 1-5 years away from nuclear weapons capability. Knowing that
containment and deterrence are ineffective against the Iraqi regime, we
have no choice. Knowing that Saddam Hussein has consistently violated
United Nations resolutions we must act. We must act in a timely fashion
to avoid the possibility that Saddam Hussein will use these weapons or
that he would transfer these weapons to a terrorist organization such
as Al Qaeda, which would not hesitate to use them against us. We cannot
wait to protect ourselves until it is too late to do so. Now more than
ever we must be proactive to protect Americans, our country, and our
way of life.
In 1991, after the United States and United Nations had demonstrated
a willingness to peacefully resolve the crisis that followed the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, and after Saddam Hussein refused to comply with
several U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I cast my vote in favor of
military action against Iraq. I voted for the resolution then because I
believed that my support would help demonstrate that Congress, the
President, and the American people stand together against Saddam
Hussein's defiance.
Since the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly
demonstrated his disdain for the authority of international law by
defying U.N. Security Council Resolutions that were designed to ensure
that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security.
Inspections and sanctions have both failed in

[[Page 19873]]

the past to address the threat posed by Iraq. We should work toward a
viable U.N. Security Council Resolution and build an international
coalition to support action to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. If we do take military action with such broad support, it
will not set a precedent for preemption, but will boldly state the
necessity for any future disputes to be resolved first through
diplomatic channels.
I firmly believe that diplomatic efforts should precede any military
action before we commit our men and women to fight for peace and
justice. At a recent briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell assured
me that every effort is being made to reach an agreement on a U.N.
Security Council Resolution, so that if we act, we will not act alone.
Military power must not be the basis of our strategy, but should be one
of many options we have at our disposal. It is my hope that we will do
all that we can to avoid armed conflict, but should we engage, we will
do so to promote peace and protect our national security.
Our unity in this vote will deliver a message to the international
community that we as Americans share the belief that the threat we face
is real, and that our cause is just. It is my hope that this vote is
the first step toward increased peace and stability in the Middle East
and a more secure future for the United States and for the world.
I believe that a strong vote in favor of this resolution will prompt
the American people, the United Nations, and the international
community to join in support of action to neutralize the threat that is
posed by Saddam Hussein and the proliferation of his program of weapons
of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, when my youngest daughter, Maggie, was
only 5 years old, she was here with my family for the swearing-in
ceremony for Members of the House. Members were then casting their
votes for our party leadership, and I tried to test her by asking her
if we were Republicans or Democrats. ``We're Americans, aren't we
Dad?'' was her reply. This is how I believe we, as Members of Congress,
should view this vote. All of us want the best for the American people
and I hope that partisanship can be put aside for the moment, as each
of us vote our conscience. We have come together as a nation since
September 11th, and we still must remain unified in the face of any
threat to our nation. I urge a vote in favor of this resolution.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the most important and difficult decision a Member of
Congress must make is the decision to send our troops--our sons,
daughters, husbands and wives--in harm's way.
Each member must do as I have done--listen to the arguments on both
sides of the issue, assemble and review all available information and
then do what they believe is in the best interest of our nation.
Some people have questioned the President's motives and the timing of
this resolution. A few members of this body traveled to Baghdad to meet
with officials of the government of Iraq.
Frankly, I was appalled to see a Member of the Congress from my party
in Baghdad questioning the motives of President Bush. I do not question
the President's motives. I believe the President is doing what he
believes is in the best interest of our nation.
After much though and deliberation, I have decided to vote against
the resolution before us giving the President the discretion to send
our troops to war in Iraq. I do so for the following reasons:
First, I believe we have a moral obligation and a responsibility to
exhaust every possible resolution before sending our troops into harm's
way. I do not believe that we have attempted to assemble an
international coalition similar to the coalition that President George
Herbert Walker Bush brought together to undertake the mission of Desert
Shield and Desert Storm in 1990-1991.
Second, Iraq does not present a direct immediate threat to the United
States. I have attended numerous briefings from the Bush administration
on this topic, and I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why
Saddam Hussein is a greater threat to us today than he was six months
or a year ago. In fact, our intelligence agencies have concluded that
Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack the United States unprovoked, but
there is a real change that Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass
destruction in response to an invasion.
Last and more importantly, the President's decision to change our
military doctrine from containment to preemptive action could have
major ramifications to the United States and may lead to war between
other countries.
For the past 50 years, the United States has used our military troops
to contain aggression against the U.S. and our allies. We have been
able to persuade our allies to use restraint instead of their military
under the most difficult circumstances and times. During the Persian
Gulf war, the U.S. was able to persuade Israel to show great restraint
while Saddam Hussein was deploying scud missiles toward Israel. Since
the Persian Gulf war, the Israelis at the request of the United States
have shown restraint in dealing with Arafat and the PLO.
If the U.S military attacks a country in order to counter a perceived
future security risk, other countries may very well adopt the same
preemptive policy. Those countries are more likely to follow the U.S.
and less likely to show restraint, with serious potential consequences
for Israel and the Palestinians, India and Pakistan, Russia and
Chechnya, China and Taiwan, and the list goes on.
Secretary Colin Powell recently reminded us that other countries look
to the United States for our leadership and example. I agree! I only
hope that when looking to the United States that they do not adopt the
new preemptive military policy and use that same policy against their
enemies.
Mr. Speaker, this administration should follow the example of the
President's father prior to Desert Shield and during Desert Storm. We
should be putting together an international coalition to send in weapon
inspectors and if necessary take military action to disarm Saddam
Hussein. A ``go it alone'' attitude or policy could have devastating
consequences on our troops, the people of Israel and other parts of the
world.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I will vote against this resolution and in
favor of the Spratt substitute.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to commit our young
servicemen and women to a possible war in Iraq. It is important for
everyone to understand the gravity of this vote and the legal, ethical
and moral grounds for such a grave commitment of U.S. lives and
resources.
To date, I have received nearly 900 communications opposed to the
United States acting unilaterally against Iraq and approximately 16
communications in support of the President's position. No matter what
the result of the vote on each proposed resolution, I am confident that
every Member will rally around our brave young servicemen and women if
or when they are committed to hostile action in Iraq or anywhere else
in the world.
Over the past few weeks, I have attended classified briefings on
Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon, and with the President. In reflecting
upon the views, opinions, and concerns expressed by my constituents,
and after a thorough review of international law, it is clear that war
with another country should only be declared if your country is
directly attacked; if another nation is an accomplice in the attack on
your country; if there is an immediate pending attack on your country;
and, finally, if there is defiance of international law in the
community.
To rush headlong into war without world support under any one of
these four conditions violates every principle and every ideal on which
this great Nation is founded and on which a free and democratic world
exists.
In review of these four principles, there is no question that Iraq
did not directly attack America. The evidence is also clear that Iraq
was not an accomplice with the al Qaeda attacks on America. If there
was any complicity by Iraq and Saddam Hussein, I am confident the
President would have addressed this complicity in his U.N. address or
in Monday's speech to the American people. In the classified briefings,
no one could document with any certainty Iraq's complicity in the
attacks on America.
There is no dispute that Iraq is not an immediate imminent military
threat to the United States at this time. Some people would argue
Saddam Hussein will give biological, chemical or nuclear weapons when
obtained to terrorist groups, but there has been

[[Page 19874]]

no credible evidence provided to House Members of these weapons being
supplied to terrorists.
Individuals may still argue that we must assume that Iraq must have
an accomplice with the al Qaeda attacks of September 11. If we wish to
make this assumption, and it is only an assumption, not fact, then the
President already has the authority to use ``all necessary and
appropriate force against Iraq.'' If Saddam Hussein and Iraq are
directly or indirectly responsible in any way with the attacks of
September 11, the President has the authorization to take whatever
means necessary to bring them to justice. The authority was given to
the President just 3 days after the cowardly attacks on our country.
The link between the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein is so
tangential even the President cannot justify military action against
Saddam Hussein and Iraq based on complicity.
The strongest claim for military action against Iraq is its continued
defiance of international law since the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. It is
on this principle that President Bush went to the U.N. to seek their
approval to use the U.S. military to enforce U.N. resolutions against
Iraq. The legal, ethical and moral justification to get rid of Saddam
Hussein and invade Iraq is enforcement of international law, the U.N.
resolutions.
The United States has never invoked a first strike invasion of
another nation based on a fear of what might happen tomorrow. Now is
not the time for a first strike policy based on fear, but let us strike
with the support of the U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a
multinational force to once and for all rid the world of Saddam
Hussein.
If we now allow the U.S. military to invade a nation or change a
regime because of fear, then the goals of terrorism have been
accomplished. If we allow the U.S. to become a first-strike nation in
the name of defeating terrorism because of the possibility of future
terrorist attacks, this opens the world to a Pandora's box of selected
conflicts around the world. The U.S. would lose its moral, ethical and
legal grounds and its stature to protest or to prevent, for example,
Russia from invading Georgia to hunt down Chechnya rebels, Pakistan
from invading India, or China from invading Taiwan.
In our world, terrorism would now be defined and determined by the
aggressor nation. The United States would lose its legal and moral
ability to protest, as it did in 1979, the Soviet army's invasion of
Afghanistan.
The situation in Iraq must be addressed, but we must not be seen as
moving forward unilaterally, and we must not alienate our allies who
support it and fought with us in the Persian Gulf War.

{time} 1945

Therefore, firm in my beliefs, buoyed by the input from my
constituents, and strong in my faith in the principles and ideals of
America, I will vote for the Spratt-Moran substitute resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker this is the most important vote I will have cast in my 20
years in Congress. I was here to cast my vote to go to war against Iraq
in 1991. That was a definable conflict involving an aggressor who had
to be stopped by the international community. America provided the
leadership both to develop the coalition effort and provided the
military power needed to win the war decisively.
Now we face a far greater threat: the threat of a government
dedicated to methodical, committed development, production, and
stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons, and ultimately to the
development of a small transportable nuclear weapon. This threat is
spearheaded by Iraq, but not posed by Iraq alone. I firmly believe that
if we fail to develop an international response to turn back this new
threat of far more mobile and potent weapons, the cost will be
extraordinary in the sacrifice of innocent lives and the crippling
effect on the world's economy and on the stability of governments
throughout the world.
We cannot allow nations, as a matter of their public policy, to
develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that can be delivered
in lethal amounts all around the world. Whether it be delivery through
terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda or hard-to-detect drones with
sprayer nozzles, there are now the means to deliver these weapons of
mass destruction into the very hearts of our cities and towns. The
attack of September 11 was only the most vivid and terrible
demonstration of the power of hate to deliver death and destruction of
incredible dimensions by stealth means.
Make no mistake, for 4 years, ever since the arms inspectors left
Iraq when they were prevented from doing their job, Iraq has been
increasing its research, development, and production of chemical and
biological weapons despite their international agreements not to do so.
I believe the evidence on this matter is clear and convincing and that
there is sufficient evidence of an accelerated effort to develop
nuclear weapons to make action the only realistic course.
We and the international community must act, not only to stop Iraq,
but to demonstrate to other nations that are starting down the same
path as Iraq that are developing chemical and biological arsenals that
the international community will not tolerate such a development
because it poses such an extraordinary threat to all nations'
economies, governments, and the very fabric of human communities.
I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and commend the President,
Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld for working to unify the
international community in the face of this new and unprecedented
threat. I firmly believe, as the President has said, that war is
neither imminent nor unavoidable. But I believe that the passage of
this resolution will make an effective peaceful multilateral response
more likely because it represents the depth of our commitment to the
goal of Iraqi disarmament and the elimination of the threat of chemical
and biological weapons in tandem with the power of terrorist
organizations and the stealthy delivery systems so clearly under
development in Iraq.
Failure to act as we have for 4 years is no longer an option. We must
prevent the accumulation of chemical and biological weapons and the
development of increasingly stealthy means of delivery before these
weapons are used against us and others.
I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to be heard on this historic
occasion.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), my friend and colleague who serves on the
Committee on Ways and Means and is a leader in the Massachusetts
delegation.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House to carry out one of the
most important responsibilities that an elected Member of this
institution has, to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of
military force. It is a profound responsibility and one that I take
most seriously.
Even Mr. Lincoln, as a Member of this House, wrestled with the issue
of war-making powers when in 1848, in a letter to his law partner,
William Herndon, voiced concern that Congress should not give unlimited
powers to the executive. I share Mr. Lincoln's views on this important
subject.
Everyone in this Chamber agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat to
his own people, his neighbors, and the entire civilized world. He is a
tyrant intent on developing weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them. His many atrocities have been catalogued in this House
and the Senate during this important debate, and his dictatorial regime
is held in contempt around the globe. That is why any attempt to disarm
or to replace him, and I support both, should be done with the support
of our friends and allies in the international community.

[[Page 19875]]

Unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption are dangerous precedents
that the United States may be setting. Such action is contrary to our
country's core values and principles. Efforts to neutralize Iraq's
chemical, biological, and nuclear threat should be done with the
support of an international coalition and in accordance with
international law. In my opinion and the opinion of many allies around
the world, there are many compelling alternatives to acting alone and
the immediate use of force as the first option. Here is one.
It is my belief that we need a new unambiguous resolution from the
United Nations Security Council calling for the immediate and
unfettered weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iraq. This new
resolution should be unconditional, have clear time tables, and must
exclude the unreasonable 1998 language that restricts inspectors from
visiting Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Nothing should be off
limits. It will hold Iraq permanently accountable to the international
community. Saddam Hussein will have only two stark choices. He can
accept robust inspections and begin to disarm or pay serious
consequences, and I urge the United Nations to act immediately.
In preparation for this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have had an
opportunity to talk and listen to many people about the merits of this
resolution. I went to my constituents in Massachusetts, colleagues in
Washington, and officials of administrations past and present. And each
time I came away with more questions than answers. Important and timely
questions about the wider implications of a unilateral war with Iraq
should be answered.
The administration must tell the American people in clear and concise
terms what impact a unilateral strike against Iraq would have on the
already tenuous situation in the Middle East. In 1990 Saddam Hussein
launched 39 SCUD missiles into the heart of Israel. Does anyone doubt
that he would do it again? Twelve years ago the State of Israel showed
restraint in the face of such attacks; but as we debate this resolution
this evening, the Israeli Government has indicated it will defend
itself against any Iraqi initiative.
What does this mean for the security of the region? Any attempt to
restore the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians
would be lost in the short term. What about Iran, Syria, and Libya, who
are all engaged in active programs to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the means to deliver them? How do we respond to a
unilateral, preemptive American strike against Iraq?
We should not minimize the far-reaching implications of a first
strike and a new doctrine of preemption. Indeed, it may have unintended
consequences in other parts of the world, in conflicts between India
and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia. On the verge of
this historic vote, these questions need to be answered before we reach
a decision to send our young Americans into harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, if we suddenly turn our attention to a unilateral war
with Iraq, what are the implications for the ongoing war on terrorism?
Since the attacks of September 11, we have waged a war on terrorism
with the support of friends and allies around the globe. I have
supported President Bush and commended his leadership time and again
for his war on terrorism. But will the United States continue to
receive the same level of support and cooperation from countries that
do not support a unilateral preemptive strike on Iraq?
Ironically, there is one aspect of this debate where there are
definitive answers, and I ask this tonight: How much is this war going
to cost the American people? The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that the incremental cost of deploying a force to the Persian
Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war
would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. After hostilities
end, and we do not know how long they are going to last, the cost to
return our troops home would range between $5 billion and $7 billion.
If, as President Bush insisted, we intend to rebuild Iraq, the costs to
the American taxpayer will rise exponentially.
In the Gulf War with the support of an international coalition, the
costs of the war was shared by our friends and allies. This will not be
the case with unilateral action. The burden conceivably will rise to
$200 billion, and it will not be ours alone if we do this with the
support of the Security Council.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been persuaded that unilateralism and the
doctrine of preemption is the best course of action against Iraq. From
my perspective, a preferable course of action is to enlist the support
of the international community and demand a strict review by U.N.
inspectors. We should take the diplomatic and political route before
bringing this Nation to war, and I plan to vote against this
resolution.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most important vote that I ever will cast in
this House. Deciding when to send our troops into harm's way is never
easy and must not be made without serious consideration.
My father was a career Air Force sergeant and B-52 tail gunner, and I
remember worrying every time he left for a flight that he would not
return. So I have some idea of what is going through the hearts and the
minds of the families of our troops. And growing up on military bases,
I personally knew the people willing to put their lives on the line to
protect our great Nation. I see my late father in all of them, and I
remain committed to making sure if we have to send our troops into
battle that they will have all the support and resources they need.
Threat from international terrorism is real. The threat from weapons
of mass destruction is real. That is why it was so important to stress
that we have moved away from unilateral action. My colleagues and I
stood strong on our principles and got the administration to agree to
the changes in the Iraq resolution. We felt that these changes were
necessary to protect our Nation and the world from Saddam Hussein and
ensure that military force would be used as a last resort.
On Monday President Bush told the Nation and the world that approving
this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable. He has asked Congress to authorize the use of America's
military, if it proves necessary. The American people are taking him at
his word. We in Congress are taking him at his word. I hope that
military action will not be necessary, but I am prepared to support our
troops if all other efforts fail.
This resolution does not indicate abandonment but rather, I believe,
an extension of the fight against terrorists. We will continue to
improve homeland security and to find terrorist organizations wherever
they may hide. This resolution retains the constitutional power of
Congress in defense and foreign affairs. It does not justify unilateral
military action by any country anywhere.

{time} 2000

It is limited to Iraq, a nation that has made promises and then
deliberately refused to live up to them.
This resolution retains the constitutional power in defense and
foreign affairs. This is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. We will be
kept informed and can, if necessary, restrain any abuse of power.
It also seeks to compel the entire international community to back
efforts to compel Iraq to comply with the world's will as expressed in
various U.N. resolutions. International support is vital. It will show
the world that this is not a dispute between the United States and
Iraq. It is not a dispute between American and Arab. It is not a
dispute between cultures. If conflict occurs, the blame rests solely
with Saddam Hussein, who first invaded Kuwait and then refused to
accept the consequences of his actions.

[[Page 19876]]

We have the best-trained and best-equipped Armed Forces in the world.
I have no doubt that they will do whatever is asked of them and that
they will succeed.
But war is not cheap, in blood or treasure. Sacrifices will be made
by our troops and their families. But the rest of us will have to
shoulder our fair share of the burden. We will have to pay for this
action, just as my parents paid for World War II and my grandparents
paid for World War I, because we must not pass the cost of this war on
to our children and our grandchildren. Our country needs to be prepared
for the cost of the war, in both human life and limited government
resources.
I have promised our troops that they will not go wanting. I now
promise the rest of America that I will not forget your needs. Each of
us knows what needs those are, because we hear about them from people
every day.
We must provide for our common defense abroad or else we will never
be secure at home. But we will not lose sight of our priorities at
home. We will prevail. We will execute our constitutional duty to
provide for the common defense, and we will provide for the general
welfare at home.
I, therefore, will support the resolution on final passage.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a voice for justice that we have
heard for many, many years, a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks before election seems to be an odd time to be
authorizing war. It is especially odd when President Bush himself said
at the United Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering
threat,'' not an imminent threat. For a month, this debate has frozen
off the front pages Social Security, prescription drugs, rising
unemployment, growing deficits, robbery of pension accounts, corporate
abuses and the inaction of this Congress itself.
The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman
Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on
President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark,
who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to
go it alone.'' Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said an
attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron, and
thus destroy the war on terrorism.''
Last weekend, Israel's Chief of Military Intelligence, speaking on
television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from
nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like 4
years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's.
Yes, Congress, on behalf of the American people must decide whether
the United States incursion now into Iraq will make our country more
secure and whether it will make that region more stable. On both
counts, my conclusion is no.
It will not make America safer, because unilateral military action
without broad international support will isolate America further. It
will thrust us into the position of becoming a common enemy in a
volatile region where anti-western terrorism grows with each passing
year.
It will not make the region more stable either. The Bush approach
will yield more terrorism and instability, not less.
We should insist on rigorous inspections in concert with our allies
and enforce all U.N. resolutions relating to the Middle East.
Indeed, if the politics of the oil regimes and lethal force had been
successful over the past 25 years, America's citizens would not be the
victims of escalating terrorist violence at home and abroad.
Since 1975, more American diplomats and military personnel have been
killed or taken hostage as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in
the first 187 years of our Nation's history, and it worsens with each
decade. After 9/1l, 13,025 additional names of civilians here at home
were added to that growing list.
Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and
terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an
instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism will not
disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. The enemy has many fresh
faces. They spring daily from the growing resentment of western
influence over an Islamic world that is awakening to its own political
destiny. America must not wed itself to the past but to the rising
aspirations of subjugated people; and we must do it in concert with our
friends, both inside the Arab world and outside it.
What propels the violence? A deep and powerful undercurrent moving
people to violence in that region. It is the unresolved Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
The other major destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous
dependence on imported oil, whose purchases undergird repressive
regimes. We must address both.
Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June,
1968, with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved
Israeli-Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His
disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in his diary that loss
of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his discontent.
Sirhan Sirhan is one such face.
The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the
lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution until
today, and its irresolution instructs the street and produces sacred
rage.
Now, let us look at oil, the one word the President left out of his
address in Cincinnati. As the 1970s proceeded, America's economic
security became to be shaped more and more by events abroad. Thrust
into two deep recessions due to the Arab oil embargoes as petroleum
prices shot through the roof, our economy faltered. And the current
recession, too, has been triggered by rising oil prices.
Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home,
sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence, from the undemocratic regimes
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, to also include the state-owned
monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military
enforces the no-fly zones over Iraq, we import 8 percent of our oil
from her. America has become more and more hostage to the oil regimes,
with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic
fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world.
Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest
face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of
western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified
Islamic caliphate.
Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia
where 17 of the 19 hijackers originated.
By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been
control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne
shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable
foe. In the 1990s, he conventionally invaded Kuwait; and the raw truth
is he never got what he expected, which was access through Kuwait to
the Gulf.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved
Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory, but
essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that
oil. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more American life?
Before launching another war, Congress must vote to place our
priorities where they belong, security here at home and a valued
partner in the global community of nations.
Please vote for the Spratt-Skelton resolution and no on the Hastert-
Gephardt resolution.
Three weeks before election seems an odd time to be authorizing war.
It is especially odd when President Bush himself said at the United
Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering threat,'' not an
``imminent threat.'' For a month, this debate has frozen off the front
pages Social Security,

[[Page 19877]]

prescription drugs, rising unemployment, growing deficits, robbery of
pension accounts, corporate abuses and the inaction of this Congress.
The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman
Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on
President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark,
who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to
go it alone.'' Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said an
attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron and
thus destroy the war on terrorism.''
In Cincinnati, President Bush said Iraq is seeking nuclear
capability. He did not say Iraq had such a capability. And never has
Saddam Hussein risked his regime's annihilation, which would be a
certainty if he exhibits any adventurism.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday (Tuesday) that a Central
Intelligence Agency report, which was released last Friday, concluded
that it could take Iraq until the last half of this decade to produce a
nuclear weapon, unless it could acquire bomb grade uranium or plutonium
on the black market.
Intelligence sources confirm chemical capabilities have been
substantially reduced as a result of inspectors and Iraq's armed forces
are 40% of their strength prior to the Gulf War.
The President claimed Iraq had acquired smooth aluminum tubes for its
secret nuclear weapons program. But analysts at the Energy and State
Departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make
conventional artillery pieces. On chemical and biological weapons, all
the evidence indicates the inspection regime of the 1980s worked and
that civilized nations are effective in dismantling rogue states'
arsenals when they join in common cause.
Last weekend, Israel's chief of military intelligence, speaking on
television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from
nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like four
years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's. I
daresay Israel's chief of military intelligence is not the type of
person who would engage in self-delusion.
Yet, Congress, on behalf of the American people, must decide: whether
U.S. military incursion now into Iraq will make our country more
secure, whether it will make that region more stable.
On both counts, my conclusion is ``No.''
It won't make America safer because unilaterial military action,
without broad international support, will isolate America further. It
will thrust us into the position of becoming a ``common enemy'' in a
volatile region where anti-Western terrorism grows with each passing
year.
It won't make the region more stable, either. The Bush approach will
yield more terrorism and instability, not less. We should insist on
rigorous inspections in concert with our allies and enforce all U.N.
resolutions relating to the Middle East. Indeed, if the politics of the
oil regimes and lethal force had been successful over the past 25
years, America's citizens would not be the victims of escalating
terrorist violence at home and abroad. Since 1975, more American
diplomats and military personnel have been killed or taken hostage
abroad as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in the first 187 years
of our nation's history. And it worsens with each decade. After 9/11,
3025 additional names of civilians here at home were added to that
growing list.
Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and
terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an
instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism would not
disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. Terrorists are being
molded every day.
Look at the enemy. It is not conventional. It is not faceless. The
enemy has many fresh faces. They spring daily from the growing
resentment of Western influence over an Islamic world that is awakening
to its own political destiny. America must not wed itself to the past
but to the rising aspirations of subjugated people, and we must do so
in concert with our friends both inside the Arab world and outside it.
What propels the violence?
A deep and powerful undercurrent moving people to violence in that
region is the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The other major
destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous dependence on
imported oil whose purchases undergird repressive regimes. We must
address both.
Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June 1968.
with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved Israel-
Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His
disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in this diary that
loss of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his
discontent. Sirhan Sirhan is one such face.
The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the
lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution event
until today and its irresolution instructs the street and produces
sacred rage.
Now, let's look at oil . . . the one word the President left out of
his address in Cincinnati. As the 1970's proceeded, America's economic
security came to be shaped by events abroad. Thrust into two deep
recessions due to Arab oil embargoes as petroleum prices shot through
the roof, our economy faltered. The current recession too has been
triggered by rising oil prices.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election because economic
conditions at home so deteriorated. Carter had dubbed Arab oil price
manipulation as the ``moral equivalent of war.'' He had launched a
major effort to restore America's energy independence.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected in a campaign that
highlighted the ``misery index,'' the combination of unemployment and
interest rates exploding over 20 percent.
By the 1980's, OPEC's cartel had realized that it lost revenue when
America caught economic pneumonia. So OPEC learned something it
practices to this very day: how to dance a clever pirouette of price
manipulation rather than outright price gouging.
Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home,
sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence--from the undemocratic regimes
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq to also include the state-owned
monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military
enforces the no-fly zone over Iraq, we import 8% of our oil from her.
America has become more and more an economic hostage to the oil
regimes, with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic
fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world.
America's ill-fraught alliances with unpopular Middle East regimes
was vividly revealed in 1979 when Iran, though not an oil state, fell
despite the fact the U.S. and our CIA had supported its Shah and his
secret police, purportedly to assure regional stability. It produced
exactly the opposite--a revolution.
Recall 1983, in the thick of Lebanon's civil war, when suicide
bombers attacked the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241
Americans. They were caught in the crossfire of that civil war. From
that point forward, U.S. casualties escalated every year, as more and
more U.S. citizens were killed abroad and at home. If you travel to
Lebanon today, our U.S. embassy is built like a bunker, underground.
This is happening to U.S. facilities around the world.
Here is our nation's capital--barricades, concrete barriers, truck-
bomb checks have become commonplace. A citizen can no longer drive down
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. It is blocked off. We
now have red, orange, yellow warning lights across the land. It is
harder for our people to access their institutions of government. Block
by block, our freedom is being circumscribed. In 1993, at the World
Trade Center, six people died and one thousand were injured here at
home in a bombing masterminded by a Pakistani trained in Afghanistan.
In 1996, a truck bomb killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia at Khobar
Towers, a residence for American military personnel. Last week a Green
Beret was killed in Manila by a terrorist bomb, and yesterday in Kuwait
two U.S. military personnel were fired upon--one died. Dozens of such
tragedies now happen each year, and the body count mounts.
Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest
face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of
Western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified
Islamic caliphate. But Al Qaeda and Osama are not Iraqi.
Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia
where 17 of 19 hijackers originated. They believed in the religious
fundamentalism of the Wahhabi sect, but not its economic imperative
that holds power through billions earned from vast oil reserves.
Despite oil wealth, the king has become less and less able to control
the disgruntled in that society, who resent the secular nature of the
religious kingdom.
By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been
control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne
shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable
foe. In 1990, he conventionally invaded Kuwait. The raw truth is he
received his early encouragement and support from the first Reagan-Bush
Administration, in the early 1980s. That administration engaged Saddam
Hussein and provided him

[[Page 19878]]

with resources, and credits to depose Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who
had just deposed the CIA-supported Shah in 1979. Through his U.S.
contacts, Hussein assumed Iraq's quid pro quo would be access to the
Persian Gulf on Bubiyan Island. Kuwait, however, never agreed.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved
Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory. Iraq also
surmised that Kuwait was asking too low a price for oil sold to the
West. Yes, America went to war to defend Kuwait's border. But
essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that
oil. Subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, America began stationing more
and more troops in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to guard the oil flow out
of the Persian Gulf. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more life?
Of course, these forces also conveniently offered some threat to
unwelcome enemies of the Saudi regime, at home and abroad. Anti-
western resentment in the region continues to rise. In 2000, our
destroyer USS Cole was suicide bombed in Yemen harbor guarding the oil
flows. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed and 39 wounded.
Over the last quarter century, it is interesting to reflect upon the
intimate connection between the George Bush family, oil, and the
shaping of foreign policy towards the Middle East. During the 1950s and
1960s, George Herbert Walker Bush, an oilman from Midland, Texas sought
international exploration and investments as Texas oil wells were
depleted prior to seeking office. In the 1960s and early 1970s, George
Herbert Walker Bush served in the U.S. House, Senate, U.S. Ambassador
to China, and was appointed head of the CIA in 1976 and served until
March 1977.
Simultaneous with George Herbert Walker Bush's service in the CIA,
Syria sent troops to Lebanon to stem the civil war, the Iranian
Revolution gained steam, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to
Jerusalem and became the first Arab leader to recognize Israel.
George Herbert Walker Bush served as Vice President from 1981 to 1989
and as President from 1989 until 1993. During this period, the U.S. was
drawn more directly into a central role in Middle East security.
In 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, President George
Herbert Walker Bush fashioned a U.S.-led coalition of nations to push
Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. More than 400,000 U.S. troops were
involved in that war. One hundred forty Americans died in that war,
thousands have sustained war injuries and tens of thousands of Iraqis
died.
With each succeeding decade, wars involving terrorism and America
escalated. Now George Bush's son is serving as President and a second
war resolution is being contemplated. It is fair to say that the Bush
view of the Middle East literally has dominated U.S. policy for 75
percent of the past two decades.
9/11 was but the latest chapter in the expanding violence.
It is also important to inquire as to what private oil interests in
the Middle East are held, or were held, by key officials in the current
Bush Administration and how that might influence their views of U.S.
``vital interests.''
In the past, according to the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Studies
Project (supported by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of
Sciences). George W. Bush sat on the board of Harken Oil of Grand
Prairie, Texas, as a private citizen, and held major oil company
involvement in Bahrain both professionally and personally.
Halliburton, the firm that hired Vice-President Dick Cheney as its
CEO subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, had previously operated in
Iraq. During the early 1980's, Vice-President Chaney served as U.S.
Secretary of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld as one of his Assistant
Secretaries of Defense.
Newspaper reports now indicate that during that same period,
biological and chemical germ samples were transferred to Iraq from the
government of the United States through the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons
inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons
program. Indeed, the U.S. government provided agricultural credits to
Iraq to finance these transactions and the purchase of large amounts of
fertilizer and chemicals to be used in Iraq's protracted war with Iran.
Congressional records and CDC documents for that period show Iraq
ordered the samples, and claimed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company called the American Type
Culture Collection sent strains of several germs. The transfers were
made in the 1980's.
Included among these strains: anthrax, the bacteria that make
botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene. Iraq also got
samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
Senator Robert Byrd has questioned Secretary Rumsfeld, as President
Reagan's envoy to the Middle East at that time, inquiring about how
contacts were made with Iraq to transfer chemical and biological agents
from the U.S. to Iraq as it launched its attacks on Iran.
Before launching another war, this one unilaterally, Congress must
vote to place U.S. priorities where they belong--security here at home
and a valued partner in the global community of nations.
Three policy prescriptions deserve greater weight.
First, inspection now, rigorous and full, in legion with the world
community.
Second, America must restore energy independence here at home. If we
could land a man on the moon in 10 years, surely we can gather
ourselves to master this scientific imperative. No longer should oil
become a proxy for America's foreign policy. Our economic relations
should not reward dictatorships.
Third, the U.S. must regain momentum to find a solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should dispatch former
U.S. Senators George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to the Middle East as
ambassadors without portfolio to exercise their considerable talents.
In closing, let me re-emphasize:
What is the ``imminent threat'' to the United States that justifies
going to war now?
Where is the hard evidence of the new threat?
With unilateral action, how will the United States avoid being viewed
in the Islamic world as a ``common enemy?''
What specific threat justifies abandoning 50 years of strategic
policy in favor of a unilateral policy of pre-emption?
Who would succeed Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq? How would a
partitioned Iraq be a stabilizing force?
Does the United States want to engage in nation building in
Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously?
Who will pay for this nation building?
When will the United States wean itself from its dangerous dependence
on foreign oil, which takes money from our people and distorts our
foreign policy?
Why should the U.S. military be asked to serve as an occupying force
in Afghanistan and Iraq?
What makes Iraq's threat to the United States so much more serious
today that it was four months ago or even two years ago?
In closing, let not America be perceived as the ``bully on the
block'' in the most oil-rich region of the world, where not one
democratic state exists. Vote for security. Vote for stability. Vote
for energy independence. Vote for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Vote for Spratt-Skelton. Vote ``no'' on the Hastert-Gephardt
resolution.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman for his
leadership on human rights and on safety throughout the world.
You have to ask yourself at a serious time like this, was not 9/11
enough? Was not 9/11 enough to spur America's resolve to defend our own
country?
I support this resolution because the first responsibility of our
government is to defend American citizens. The government of Iraq, like
our terrorist nations, presents a grave threat to the safety, to the
security, to the well-being of every American that hears this debate
tonight.
We are in the early stages of what is likely to be a very long war
against terrorism. In his September 20th, 2001, address to a Joint
Session of Congress here in this Chamber, President Bush vowed that
America would not rest until we had rooted out terrorism around the
world. He said the countries harboring terrorists would be treated as
terrorist nations themselves; that the coming war would be a long one,
to be measured in years, rather than months.
The Afghanistan campaign is the first step in putting that pledge
into action, and much remains to be done. Does anyone seriously believe
that terrorism began and ended in Afghanistan?
Disarming Iraq and its support for state-sponsored terrorism is the
next logical step to secure peace for our families and for this world.
As we were reminded again this afternoon with the released audiotape of
bin Laden's second in command predicting yet more terrorist attacks on
America, the question is not if America will be attacked

[[Page 19879]]

again here at home, but when and by whom.
Instead of crashing airplanes into our downtown office buildings or
into our Pentagon, the terrorists of the future will turn to dangerous
chemical and biological weapons, attempts to poison our air and water,
disrupt our energy supply, our economy, our electronic commerce,
destroy the jobs we rely upon each day.
Yes, they will direct these weapons of terrible destruction toward
America, because standing as the world's lone superpower means standing
as the world's biggest target. Our homeland, our communities, our
schools, our neighborhoods and millions of American lives are at risk
as we speak tonight.
It is clear to me we are going to fight this war on terrorism in one
of two ways: either overseas at its source, or here at home when it
lands in our neighborhoods. I choose overseas at its source.
America's security at home depends upon largely our strength in the
world. Terrorism expands according to our willingness to tolerate it.
For too long the world has turned a blind eye to terrorism, afraid to
confront it; and terrorism has flourished because the actions of our
world leaders never matched their harsh words.
Well, that is all over now. That all changed September 11. That all
changed with President Bush.
For the sake of our homeland, we must mean what we say. For the sake
of our children, we must follow through on our vow to end terrorism. If
the United Nations efforts should fail, if Saddam Hussein chooses to
continue to arm himself and harbor terrorists, then America must act.
Words alone are not enough. And when we send U.S. troops overseas, it
must be to win and to return home as planned.
Our first President said there is nothing so likely to produce peace
as to be well-prepared to meet an enemy. We know the enemy, we know the
difficulty, we know the duty, and we know the strength of America's
military men and women.
The resolution before the House tonight is not a question of the
President's persuasiveness. It is a question of Congress's resolve to
whip this terrible war on terrorism.
We know where the President stands. The question is, where does
Congress stand, and do we stand with him? I do, and I am proud to do
so. Make it clear, our resolve is not for war today; it is for peace
tomorrow.

{time} 2015

Our resolve is not for security for America alone, but for security
for the world, a world free of fear from horror, from the incredible
weapons of mass destruction, from all of that terrorism spawns.
All I seek and all Americans seek is a simple request: when our
families leave our homes each morning, that they return home safely
each night. Was not 9-11 enough for America to act to protect our
citizens? It is.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the
House Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America's view of
the world changed. On that day, many Americans learned, for the first
time, that there were people in the world who hated America so much
that they would cross the oceans to come here to kill thousands of
American men, women, and children, even if it meant they would die
themselves.
In considering the resolution before us, I have weighed all of the
pros and cons, all the risks of action and the risks of inaction, with
September 11 very much in my mind. I believe that any close question on
matters of national security must now be resolved in favor of erring on
the side of being proactive and not reactive in protecting our people
and our homeland.
I have spent a tremendous amount of time and study over the past
several months on what to do about Saddam Hussein. I have engaged in
dialogue with many of my constituents, spoken with experts on every
side of this issue, and read literally thousands of pages of analysis.
I can delineate as well as any opponent of this resolution all of the
possible and considerable risks associated with military action against
Saddam Hussein. However, in the end, I conclude, beyond any reasonable
doubt, that America must join forces with our allies, hopefully under
the express authorization of the United Nations, but that we must take
action to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass
destruction against us.
Now, especially in the light and shadow of September 11, there is a
new immediacy and power to Saddam Hussein's long-standing and often-
stated threats against America.
For years, Saddam Hussein has been a well-known patron and financier
of some of the world's most lethal anti-American terrorists and
terrorist organizations. Now, al Qaeda has joined them. After being
driven from Afghanistan, al Qaeda has now sought and received safe
haven from Saddam Hussein. Saddam is now training al Qaeda in bomb-
making and the manufacture and delivery of poisonous and deadly gases.
We know that for years al Qaeda has been trying to get their hands on
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to use against America and
Americans. The thought of Saddam Hussein now infecting willing al Qaeda
``martyrs'' with his smallpox virus and sending them into America's
major cities, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to die of
smallpox, is truly terrifying. The thought of Saddam Hussein sending
these same al Qaeda martyrs to America to spray chemical or biological
poisons over America's reservoirs or in our most populated cities is a
thought so horrifying, yet so real a possibility, that I cannot, in
good conscience, especially after the surprise attack of September 11,
permit this to happen.
I, therefore, endorse this resolution. I do so, however, with a heavy
heart. I do so yet with no reasonable doubt that preventing Saddam
Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction against us is
necessary now if we are to avoid another 9-11 or worse.
Mr. Speaker, I pray that military action is not necessary and that
alone, passage of this resolution will result in Saddam Hussein's
compliance with all existing U.N. resolutions to disarm and to permit
unconditional inspections. But in the end, that is Saddam Hussein's
choice.
Mr. Speaker, as we pass this resolution, let us pray for the safety
of all Americans, including the brave men and women in our military,
law enforcement, and all other branches of our government who are today
protecting us here at home and in countries around the world and who
will be called upon to do so tomorrow or in the days ahead. God bless
them and God bless America.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, tonight we discuss giving the President
the authority to use military force against Iraq. As the Congressman
from the first district of Kentucky, I have the privilege of
representing the fine men and women of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, home of
the 101st Airborne, Air Assault Division, the 5th Special Forces Group,
and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, better known as the
Night Stalkers.
These soldiers were among the first to engage the Taliban in
Afghanistan and, unfortunately, the first to suffer casualties.
If we go to war with Iraq, they will again be the tip of the spear
thrusting at our enemies, and they will again, sadly, be among the
first to suffer casualties. Hopefully, that will not occur.
When I vote later this week, I may be putting my friends and
neighbors on the frontline of combat. It is not a decision that any of
us takes lightly. Therefore, after much deliberation, I have
reluctantly concluded that Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a
threat that we cannot ignore.
For 11 years Saddam Hussein has defied U.N. resolution after
resolution, while continuing his drive to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. For

[[Page 19880]]

years, he hindered and toyed with U.N. weapons inspectors in defiance
of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. He has consorted with
terrorists who are willing and eager to target innocent civilians in
their war of hatred against the civilized world. He controls biological
and chemical weapons, and we know he is trying to develop nuclear
capability as well.
We are the world's only remaining superpower; yet a small band of
terrorists were able to cause unprecedented death and destruction here
in America. We cannot wait for another attack to take more American
lives before finally deciding to act.
Another dead American man, woman, or child, struck down in their home
or workplace by terrorist violence, would be an indictment of this
Congress's failure to act while we had the chance. I firmly believe
that granting the President the authority he needs to continue to
combat the menace of Saddam's regime is the best way to preserve peace,
and I firmly believe that granting the President the authority he needs
to combat the menace of Saddam's regime is the best way to help the
Iraqi people.
Our allies in the U.N., many of whom have explored reestablishing
beneficial economic ties with Saddam Hussein's regime, are unlikely to
take the necessary steps or approve our taking those steps to end
Saddam's threat unless the U.S. leads the way.
Since the President's speech to the United Nations, we have witnessed
the rest of the civilized world awakening from its slumber and stealing
itself for this necessary confrontation with Saddam Hussein. By uniting
behind our President, we can send the world an indication of our
resolve. If we show our allies that we consider the threat worth
risking the lives of our soldiers, I believe our allies will support us
in our endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, my hometown newspaper recently noted that 60 million
people died in World War II to teach the world that allowing tyranny to
go unchecked was wrong. Let us not make that same mistake with Saddam
Hussein.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a person who is a senior member of
the Committee on Armed Services and has worked for persons in uniform
for many years.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
I believe that taking action against Iraq at this time will take
vital resources away from an even more pressing and dangerous threat:
the war on al Qaeda. And this action, including the occupation and
stabilization of the nation after the invasion, could drain our
military resources for over a decade.
I do believe that Saddam Hussein and his possession and development
of weapons of mass destruction does pose a threat to our Nation. But we
already have a policy that is containing the threat and positions us
well if we have to move forcefully.
I think our greater responsibility is to assess threats to our
national security and then decide how to deal with them. I believe we
have an even greater challenge that we must not divert precious
resources from the global war on terrorism.
The greatest danger facing our Nation comes from al Qaeda, the
terrorist network that perpetrated the acts of September 11. And while
a year has passed and we have prosecuted a successful war against al
Qaeda in Afghanistan, the infrastructure of terror, however, remains in
place. Our forces are still searching for bin Laden and his followers,
and while these people remain at large, our Nation still focuses on the
possibility of attacks from this group on an even larger scale than
September 11.
I am deeply concerned that prosecuting a war on Iraq will divert
precious resources from this war. A campaign against Saddam Hussein
could tie up 200,000 military personnel. Diverting these forces and the
assets that will be needed to support them will stretch our military
perilously thin. To do this while we are conducting an intense
worldwide anti-terror operations is unwise. I believe it puts the lives
of American citizens at risk. It will keep us from exerting the full
range of military options we need to neutralize terrorist cells and to
interrupt planned terrorist operations. And it could continue to weigh
down our military for a number of years.
It has been estimated that we will need up to 50,000 to remain behind
for a period of years to help guarantee as much as can be possibly done
for the civility of Iraq.

{time} 2030

No one knows how long this will take or what type of resources we
will need. Add to this the potential for conflict between ethnic and
political rivals in Iraq, and we could be entering a quagmire that we
may not be able to get out of. The administration has not clearly
outlined our exit strategy, and this is another thing that bothers my
constituents.
The war that the administration is entering into is a war on terror.
Yet the case has not been made that links Iraq to support to al-Qaeda.
The evidence to this point is sketchy, at best. In fact, the evidence
really suggests that Iraq is a greatly weakened nation and that the
threat posed by it has been deterred or reduced by the U.S. presence in
the Gulf and the enforcement of the no-fly zones.
The strategy of containment has kept Iraq at bay. It has worked and
continues to work. We can continue this policy as well as allow the
U.N. weapons inspectors to go in to do their jobs. If all of this ends
in the conclusion that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions and is
near a real nuclear weapons capability, we can reevaluate our options.
Until then, we should continue with the present policy.
I think we have a great responsibility to our men and women who are
going to fight this war and to the people who have, time and time
again, come before this body and talked about how their sons or
daughters and relatives have served in the Persian Gulf War and
suffered from, let us say, Agent Orange disability. Because those that
saw combat went over to the Persian Gulf healthy and came back ill.
Many of them still suffer from the illnesses, the causes of which we
still do not know.
Before we send these young men and women off to war and expose them
not only to the hazards of conflict but to a lifetime of dealing with
the physical and emotional costs of combat, we must do everything to
achieve our goals without resorting to force.
In the case of Iraq, we can do this. If not, we face losing the war
we must win, the fight against al Qaeda.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important thing that this
Congress does, and, in fact, this country does, than protect our
national security.
For many years, the most significant threat to us as a Nation was
ballistic missiles from the former Soviet Union. That threat does not
exist today; and, in fact, we are living in a new world.
I think what the President has acknowledged, and is trying to lead
the American people and this Congress to an understanding of, is that
the greatest threat to this country today is the threat of weapons of
mass destruction by both terrorist states and terrorists.
That is the unthinkable, weapons of mass destruction against our
homeland. What could that mean? It is the unthinkable. We do not want
to think about it, but it is a potential reality. Had a nuclear weapon
been on one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, it would not
have been 4,000 people who died. I think it is impossible for any of us
to really feel or really understand what it means for 4,000 people to
die in an instant. It literally would have meant at least 4 million
people dying in an instant, and many more dying subsequent to that.
This is not an unthinkable possibility. The reality is we live in a
world where to build a nuclear weapon takes about 7 pounds of enriched
uranium, not much larger than a softball. In

[[Page 19881]]

fact, it can be carried without detriment to a carrier of it. The
technology to build the weapon, unfortunately, is not that
sophisticated today.
One of the issues in terms of Iraq that is worth pointing out, in
1981, when the Israelis blew up the Iraqi military nuclear reactor, in
1981, they were 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon. That was
over 20 years ago. If we think about a sense of how much the world and
technology has changed in 20 years, personal computers did not exist 20
years ago when that nuclear reactor was blown up. Obviously, technology
has gone a long way from that point; as well, the effort of the Iraqis
to acquire those weapons since that period of time and in the
approximately 4 years that there have been no weapons inspectors at all
in Iraq.
When the weapons inspectors left 4 years ago, about 4 years ago, 4
years and a short period of time, in the public domain we have the
information that the Iraqis had smallpox and anthrax at that time, and
we know they have used it against their own citizens and other
countries.
What does it mean? What is the issue? Iraq is not the only country in
the world that has weapons of mass destruction. Why are we addressing
this issue? Why am I supporting the resolution of use of force against
Iraq? I think there is a policy that the President has articulated that
it is just not enough that they have the weapons, but, really, the
intent to use them.
Clearly, Iraq does not have the ability to send ballistic missiles to
the United States. We understand that. But they do have the ability
today to attack us with biological and chemical weapons, today. We do
not know how far off they are from nuclear weapons, but 20 years ago
they were 6 months away. We know they are aggressively trying to seek
those weapons today.
I think we need to acknowledge this is really a change in policy, but
a change in policy for this country that is needed in terms of weapons
of mass destruction in the 21st century. The downside of not stopping
these weapons is, in fact, the unthinkable.
One of the things we do not talk about often is, once the sort of
code of both equipment and delivery of these weapons is broken, why
would a country, why would Iraq, have one nuclear weapon? Would they
not have five, 10, or for that matter, 15, to be able to use in
terrorist ways?
We talk about the fact they have the ability today to build a weapon.
The only restriction potentially is their lack of material, of enriched
uranium, 7 pounds of enriched uranium. Effectively, we have no way of
stopping that from entering the United States today. We acknowledge
that, effectively, we cannot.
We have thousands of pounds of cocaine, and our war on drugs, as
effective as it is, it literally lets in thousands of pounds of cocaine
a year into the United States.
I urge my colleagues, I urge the country to support this effort. We
have a country that literally wants to kill us. They do not want to
kill the French. They do not want to kill the Swedish. The action is
directed at us.
This is an issue, as I started this evening, of national security,
national defense, national survival for the United States of America. I
urge the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to all the Members on this side who will be
coming up, because of the large number of Members who would like to
speak, we are asking if their remarks can be contained in the 5
minutes, because from this point on we will be unable to yield extra
time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Baca), who is a new Member, but his mark has been made in agriculture
and science.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I come before this Chamber with a heavy heart,
because I know that I am making one of the most difficult decisions in
my life.
Like my colleagues in Congress and every American, I have debated
whether unilateral military action in Iraq is the best thing to do. I
have carefully weighed and considered all options. I pray to God that I
am making the right decision.
I have not been able to sleep. I think about the mothers and fathers
I have met who have asked me, how long will this war last? How many
lives will be lost? Could our children be drafted? How many of those
children will come back with deformities, with cancer or mental
illness?
I think about our many sons and daughters that will be affected by
our decision. I wonder how many will not make it home to their parents.
I think about the many veterans that already have served our Nation
but still have not received access to the benefits of our country that
has promised them that.
I think about the innocent Iraqi children who will be caught in the
crossfire.
I think about how this war could make us more suspicious of others
based on the color of their skin.
I have talked to bishops, clergy, community leaders. All of my
constituents have written and voiced their concern about the war. Is
the price we will pay in lives worth the security we might gain by
eliminating only one of countless threats? In our Nation's history, we
have never fired the first shot, so why now?
One thing is clear: We must exhaust every alternative before we send
our sons and daughters into harm's way. We all want to keep our
families and our Nation safe from terrorists and weapons of mass
destruction, but I also want to make sure that I can look into my
children's eyes and tell them that we have done everything we can to
avoid a war.
War should also be the last resort, not the first option. I do not
believe the President has made the case clear to the American people
that now is the best time, or that unilateral action is the best
option.
That is why I will vote in favor of the Spratt substitute. The Spratt
substitute supports the President's proposal for intrusive weapons
inspections and still gives the President the power to use our military
if Iraq refuses to comply.
Let me be clear: I support the President in his efforts to protect
and defend this Nation, but we must do so with the support of the
United Nations and the international community.
The Spratt amendment says that the President has to get congressional
approval before he unilaterally invades Iraq. Does that not make sense?
Should the President come to Congress before he leads this Nation into
war? That is what our Constitution demands.
Like the rest of the Nation, I am concerned that Saddam Hussein could
transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations, but we
must not act in haste and not without the support of the United Nations
and the world community. That is why I reluctantly will vote against
H.R. 114.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear: Do not confuse my vote
against the resolution as a vote against our troops. As a veteran, as a
Congressman, as a patriotic American, I stand 100 percent for our
troops. I remember how our brave men and women were treated when they
returned home from Vietnam. They were treated with scorn and hate. We
must not repeat our mistakes of the past. Regardless of what we think
of the war, we must all support our soldiers, and we should protect
their lives by winning support of our allies.
Acting alone will increase our economic burden and leave us with few
resources to rebuild Iraq. It would raise the question about the
legitimacy of our action in the eyes of the world. It would create more
instability in the region and turn a mere threat into our worst
nightmare.
Mr. Speaker, has the Bush administration answered all of our
questions? What will happen if we go to war and Saddam Hussein uses
chemical or biological weapons against our troops?
Our troops must have the equipment and resources they need to fight
the war. Do we know what Saddam will throw at us? That is why we must
provide them with all possible protection and treatment and benefits
they need.
When our children come back to us sick with cancer, horribly
disfigured,

[[Page 19882]]

we must not turn our backs on them or their families.
What will happen with this regime? We must make sure that a new Iraq
is democratic and respects human rights. A post-Saddam Iraq must be a
beacon of hope to the Arab world and not a tool of American foreign
policy.
What effect will this have on our war on terrorism? Would going to
war with Iraq add fuel to the fire of the war on terrorism?
What effects would this have on our economy? The Bush administration
tries to paint a rosy picture of the state of our economy, but we have
gone from a record surplus to crippling deficits. My constituents are
concerned about their savings, their jobs, prescription drugs, Social
Security, the schools. How will this war affect them?
The President must not forget the economic problems of the American
people. I am placing my trust, and our country is placing its trust, in
this President to heed these concerns.
I know the President's resolution will likely pass this body with
little effort. I oppose it because more of our men and women will die
if we go to war. I pray to God that I have made the right decision.

{time} 2045

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks my constituents in St. Louis
have made their opinions clear to me regarding the President's
positions regarding Iraq, and I hear great opposition to war against
Iraq. I hear mothers, fathers, seniors, college students and veterans
opposing any action in the region. Their voices are black, white, Asian
and Hispanic. And while the reasons for their opposition vary, the one
common question they all seem to have is this: How does this conflict
serve America's best interest?
I, along with many Americans, believe that the state of our sagging
domestic economy has to be considered our Nation's greatest concern at
this time. In the past year and a half this country has experienced
increasing unemployment, growing national debt, tumbling economic
growth, and a floundering stock market which has lost all consumer
confidence.
Despite all this, our domestic issues have been pushed aside as we
debate a possible preemptive attack against Iraq. Important issues like
education, Social Security, unemployment, and affordable health care
have been almost completely ignored by this diversion. Another question
my constituents frequently ask is this: How will this war affect our
young men and women serving in the Armed Forces?
When one looks at the make-up of our Armed Forces, African Americans
make up more than 25 percent of the U.S. Army and over 38 percent of
our Marine Corps. And since African Americans comprise more than 50
percent of my district, my constituents are justifiably concerned that
instead of making their lives more secure, this war will likely expose
them to even greater dangers.
Mr. Speaker, if my constituents are any gauge of the American
public's concern regarding possible military action against Iraq, then
I hope all Americans will contact their elected officials here in
Congress at 202-225-3121 and voice their opposition to this resolution.
Neither my constituents nor I have forgotten September 11. We are
still asking questions about the magnitude of this country's loss, but
debating unprovoked unilateral action against a country whose ties to
terrorism are suspect at best is not providing any answers. I for one
believe that our military's top priority should be fighting al Qaeda
and finishing the war against terrorism that we started in Afghanistan.
Those who support this resolution have not yet come close to proving to
me that Iraq represents a big enough military threat to take our focus
off of bin Laden.
In addition, the stability of the Middle East is in danger. Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would be subject to extreme internal pressure
and unrest that would disrupt and threaten American interests in the
region.
The concerns of my constituents echo voices heard more than 200 years
ago. The men and women who founded our country imagined a Nation based
on liberty and republican principals. One of these principals was that
no country had the unilateral right to attack another without just
cause. And President George Washington went so far as to suggest that
America should keep its hands out of most foreign affairs. Washington
stated, ``The great rule of conduct for us in regards to foreign
nations is in extending our commercial relation to have as little
political connection as possible.''
It appears that now, 200 years later, we have strayed quite far from
our Founding Fathers' vision. And I cannot in good faith subject my
constituents to this military conflict. I urge my fellow Members of
Congress to also vote against this resolution.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution, and I am opposed not because I do not believe that we need
to protect our national security. I am not in opposition because Saddam
Hussein does not need to be checkmated and stopped. And I am not
opposed because I do not recognize the need for a strong military, and
I am not in opposition because this resolution has been put forth by
President Bush.
However, I am opposed because after all of the information I have
seen and after all I have heard, neither am I nor a majority of
residents of my district, the Seventh Congressional District of
Illinois, convinced that the war is our only and most immediate option.
We are not convinced that every diplomatic action has been exhausted.
Therefore, I am not convinced that this resolution would prevent us,
the United States of America, from acting without agreement and
involvement of the international community.
I oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States
without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack against
the United States. We are now asked to vote on a resolution which will
likely culminate in a war with Iraq, a war which may involve the entire
Mid East region.
As the American people are attempting to make sense of this complex
situation, no one doubts the evil of the current Iraqi regime. No one
doubts the eventuality that the United States would prevail in armed
conflict with Iraq.
What then are the central issues which confront us? One, is there an
immediate threat to the United States? In my judgment the answer is no.
We have not received evidence of immediate danger. We have not received
evidence that Iraq has the means to attack the United States, and we
have not received evidence that the danger is greater today than it was
last year or the year before.
Two, will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent
the spread or use of weapons of mass destruction? In my judgment, the
answer is no. All evidence is that Iraq does not possess nuclear
weapons today. The use of chemical or biological weapons or the passage
of such weapons to terrorist groups would be nothing less than suicide
for the current Iraqi leadership. However, as the CIA reports have
indicated, faced with invasion and certain destruction, there would be
nothing for the Iraqi regime to lose by using or transferring any such
weapons they may still possess. Other states in the region which fear
they could be attacked next could be moved to rash action.
Finally, three, have we exhausted all nonmilitary options to secure
the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in
accordance with United Nations resolutions? In my judgment, the answer
is no. We have not exhausted the potential for a collective action with
our allies. We have not yet exhausted the potential for inspections and
for a strict embargo on technologies which could be used for

[[Page 19883]]

weapons of mass destruction. The use of armed force should be a last
resort to be used only when all other options have failed.
In my judgment that commitment to the peaceful solution of problems
and conflict is an important part of what our democracy should stand
for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or an attack on
Iraq at this time.
I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict, at one
point he wrote to the Philippians, ``Brethren, I count myself not to
have apprehended, but this one thing I do, forgetting those things
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are
before. I press forth towards the mark for the prize of the high
calling of Jesus Christ.''
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will
press forward towards the mark of a high calling, that we will take the
high road, that we will take the road that leads to peace and not to
war, the road that lets us walk by faith and not alone by sight or
might. Let us Mr. Speaker, walk by the Golden Rule. Let us do unto
others as we would have them do unto us. Let us walk the road that
leads to life and not to death and destruction. Let us walk the road to
peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which
authorizes the President of the United States to use armed forces of
the United States against Iraq, and I am opposed to H.J. Res. 114, not
because I don't believe we need to protect our national security, I am
not in opposition because Saddam Hussein does not need to be checkmated
and stopped, I am not opposed because I don't recognize the need for a
strong military, and I am not in opposition because this resolution has
been put forth by President Bush.
However, I am opposed because after all the information that I have
seen and after all that I have heard, neither am I, nor a majority of
the residents of my district, the 7th Congressional District of
Illinois, convinced that war is our only and most immediate option. We
are not convinced that every diplomatic action has been exhausted.
Therefore, I am not convinced that this resolution will prevent us, the
United States of America from acting without agreement and involvement
of the international community. I oppose a unilateral first strike
action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent
threat of attack against the United States.
We are now being asked to vote on a resolution which will likely
culminate in war with Iraq--a war which may involve the entire Mideast
region.
The American people are attempting to make sense of this complex
situation. No one doubts the evil of the current Iraqi regime. No one
doubts that eventually the United States would prevail in armed
conflict with Iraq. What then are the central issues which confront.
(1) Is there an immediate threat to the United States?
In my judgment the answer is NO. We have not received evidence of
immediate danger. We have not received evidence that Iraq has the means
to attack the United States. We have not received evidence that the
danger is greater today than it was last year or the year before.
(2) Will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent the
spread or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
In my judgment the answer is NO. All evidence is that Iraq does not
possess nuclear weapons today. The use of chemical or biological
weapons, or the passing of such weapons to terrorist groups would be
nothing less than suicide for the current Iraqi leadership. As the CIA
report has indicated we know that when backed up against the wall
people sometimes lash out blindly and without careful thought.
(3) Have we exhausted all non-military options to secure the
elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in accordance with
United Nations resolutions?
In my judgment, the answer is no. We have not exhausted the potential
for collective action with our allies. We have not yet exhausted the
potential for inspections and for a strict embargo on technologies
which could be used for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use of armed
force should be a last resort, to be used only when all other options
have failed. In my judgment, that commitment to the peaceful solution
of problems and conflicts is an important part of what our Democracy
should stand for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or
an attack on Iraq at this time.
I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict--
Phillipians 3-13-14
Paul wrote to the Phillipians--
``Brethren, I count myself not to have apprehended, but this one
thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching
forth unto those things which are before.
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in
Jesus Christ.''
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will
press forward toward the mark of the high calling toward the high road,
the road which leads to peace and not to war, the road that lets us
walk by faith and not alone by sight or might. Let us walk by the
Golden Rule--let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Let us walk the road that leads to life and not to death and
destruction. Let us walk the road that leads to peace. I urge a no vote
on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Strickland), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Subcommittee on Energy and Health.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that Saddam Hussein is a
bloodthirsty dictator and must be contained. But before we send young
Americans into the deserts of Iraq, all diplomatic possibilities to
avert war must be exhausted, and they have not been.
In times like these amid all of the swirling difference of opinion,
what we need more than anything else is a good dose of common sense.
Just today the Columbus Dispatch offered an editorial opinion which
presents a commonsense approach to the challenge we face. I would like
to share that editorial as a commonsense message from Ohio, the
Heartland of America.
The editorial begins, ``In his speech on Monday, President Bush made
an excellent case for renewed United Nations weapons inspections in
Iraq. He did not, however, make a case for war. Though the President
continues to paint Iraq as an imminent threat to peace, he offered no
new evidence to back that assessment. Iraq appears to be neither more
nor less a threat than it was in 1998 when the last U.N. weapons
inspectors left the country; nor does it appear to be a bigger threat
than Iran, Libya or North Korea, all of whom are developing long-range
missiles and weapons of mass destruction and are hostile to the United
States.
The speech was a hodgepodge of half-plausible justifications for war
with the President hoping that if he strings together enough weak
arguments, they will somehow add up to a strong one. For example, the
President failed to demonstrate any significant link between Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorism network. The truth
is it would be far easier to demonstrate links between Iran and al
Qaeda or Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. But President Bush is not proposing
military action against those states whose support for terrorism and
terrorist organizations is practically overt. In fact, less than a day
after the President's speech, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress
that Saddam apparently has a policy of not supporting terrorism against
the United States.
The backhanded admission came as Tenet warned that Saddam might
change his mind if he believes the United States is serious about
attacking Iraq.
Next, the President cited the 11-year history of Iraqi attempts to
deceive U.N. weapons inspectors as proof that inspectors have failed.
But have they? For 11 years Saddam has not fielded a nuclear weapon,
nor has he deployed any chemical or biological weapons. This suggests
that in spite of Iraqi attempts to thwart inspectors, inspections have
thwarted Saddam's ability to build the weapons he seeks.
The President also points out that removing Saddam from power would
be a blessing to the people from Iraq who have endured his totalitarian
boot on their necks for decades. This is true.

[[Page 19884]]

Saddam idolizes Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and certainly will be
skewered on an adjacent spit in hell. But if removing oppressive
regimes justifies war, the United States is in for a long, long battle
against half of the world that is ruled by bloodthirsty dictators.
The weaknesses of the President's arguments only heighten suspicions
that the proposed attack on Iraq is intended to divert attention from
the so-so progress of the genuine war on terrorism and the sputtering
economy. Still, President Bush is correct to demand that the inspectors
resume and that inspectors have unimpeded access to all Iraqi sites
including the so-called presidential palaces. All diplomatic means now
should be deployed to achieve that end.

{time} 2100

As it stands, Iraq has agreed to readmitting the inspectors, and the
United Nations is preparing to send them in.
Sure, the United States and the United Nations have been down this
road with Saddam before. But, last time, neither Washington nor the
world community chose to do anything significant about it. There is
time to give peaceful processes one more try. If, as many expect,
Saddam intends to block the new inspections, the United States and the
United Nations will have all the justifications they need for stronger
measures; and at that point the President would have little problem in
enlisting the support of the American people and the aid of the
international community.
This concludes the editorial. And, Mr. Speaker, I stand today in
support of the Spratt amendment because I cannot support H.J. Res. 114.
We may have to eventually use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein,
but this resolution is too open, too far-reaching. It is wrong. It
should be rejected.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) be granted an additional 60
minutes, and that he be permitted to control the time and yield to
other Members of our body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the second longest serving Democrat in the
House and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me this time, and I am proud to be
a part of this discussion tonight.
Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at
a time and place of his choosing would set a dangerous precedent and
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already
been called a grand diversion of America's political focus as elections
approach. Worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already
depleted resources, those that are so desperately needed for the
pressing problems at home.
The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is
as true of Americans whether in Maine or West Virginia or Texas or
Michigan, whether they are black, brown or white, young or old, rich or
poor. The mail and phone calls I have received have been overwhelmingly
opposed to a preemptive attack against Iraq.
Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged
from countless briefings with the same question: Where is the beef?
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now, nor has
any member of the Bush administration, the Congress, the intelligence
community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New
York and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists.
Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's complicity, he would
need no further authorization to retaliate. That is the law. He could
do so under the resolution we passed only 3 days after al Qaeda's
infamous attacks.
What is it we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless ruler
who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to expand his
weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We do know
that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none with a
range to reach the United States.
Therefore, the President paints two scenarios:
The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons
against Israel, Arab allies, or our deployed forces. But during the
Gulf War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his
destruction as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's
launching whatever weapons he may have.
Now, under the administration's second scenario, Iraq would give
weapons of destruction to al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores.
But that scenario, too, is not credible.
Perhaps the most significant intelligence assessment we have was
revealed publicly only last night and has been raised repeatedly on the
floor during this debate. The Central Intelligence Agency states that
Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or biological attacks against the
United States, and goes on to warn that ``Should Saddam conclude that a
U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might decide the
extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons
of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of victims with him.''
Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at
a time and place of his choosing would set dangerous precedents and
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already
created a ``grand diversion'' of America's political focus as elections
approach, and worse, it would create a ``grand diversion'' of our
already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems
at home.
The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war,
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is
as true of Americans whether in Maine, West Virginia, Texas or
Michigan--whether they are black, brown or white; young or old, rich or
poor. The mail and phone calls I receive have been overwhelmingly
opposed to a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged
from countless briefing with the same question: ``Where's the beef?''
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now. Nor has
any member of the Bush Administration, the Congress or the intelligence
community shown evidence linking the Al Qaeda attacks last year on New
York City, and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi
terrorists. Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's
complicity, he would need no further authorization to retaliate. He
could do so under the resolution we passed only three days after Al
Qaeda's infamous attacks.
What is it that we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless
ruler who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to
expand his weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We
do know that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none
with range to reach the U.S. Therefore, President Bush paints two
scenarios:
The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons
against Israel, Arab allies or our deployed forces. But during the Gulf
War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his
destruction, as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's
launching whatever weapons he does have.

[[Page 19885]]

Under the Administration's second scenario, Iraq would give weapons
of destruction to Al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. But
that scenario, too, is not credible. Perhaps the most significant
intelligence assessment we have is one revealed publicly only last
night. The CIA states that Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or
biological attack against the U.S., and goes on to warn that, and I
quote:

Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no
longer be deterred, [Hussein might] decide that the extreme
step of assisting Islamist terrorist in conducting a [weapons
of mass destruction] attack against the United States would
be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of
victims with him.

In other words, the CIA warns that an attack on Iraq could well
provoke the very tragedy the President claims he is trying to
forestall--Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons.
President Bush and his supporters now cite some ``evidence of
contacts between Al Qaeda representatives and Baghdad.'' So what? We
have had high level contracts with North Korea, Afghanistan when the
Taliban ruled it, and other ruthless despots. That did not mean we were
allies. The intelligence community has confirmed that Al Qaeda and
Saddam's secular Baathist regime are enemies. As a religious fanatic,
Bin Laden has been waging underground war against the secular
governments of Iraq, Egypt, Syria and the military rulers of other
Arabic countries. Saddam would be very unlikely to give such dangerous
weapons to a group of radical terrorists who might see fit to turn them
against Iraq.
We are fairly certain that Iraq currently has no nuclear weapons.
Even with the best luck in obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium, the
official intelligence estimate is that Iraq will not have them for some
time. If Iraq must produce its own fissile material, it would take
three to five years, according to those estimates. In a futile effort
to mirror the prudent approach of President Kennedy during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, President Bush recently released satellite photographs
of buildings, as evidence that Saddam has resumed a nuclear weapons
development. This is hardly headline news. We knew that he had resumed
them.
Another thing we know is that:
Iraq's vast oil reserves have been a major tool in the
Administration's pressuring other countries to support our rush to war
against their better judgment; and
Those oil reserves will be controlled and allocated by the U.S. if we
install or bless a new regime in Baghdad.
These implications are explored in an excellent Washington Post
article, which I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record
immediately following remarks. Let me read just two paragraphs here:

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open up a bonanza for American oil companies long banished
from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia,
France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum
markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the
Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say that they
have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a discernible and disconcerting rhythm to
the Administration's arguments. Every time one of their claims has been
rebutted, they have reverted to the mantra that, after September 11,
2001, the whole world has changed. Indeed it has. But they cannot wave
that new international landscape like a magic wand in order to
transform Iraq into an imminent threat to the United States when it is
not.
Moreover, discussing whether Iraq presents such a threat only deals
with half of the equation before us. What are all the costs of war?
While Iraq poses no imminent threat to us, unleashing war against Iraq
would pose many terrible threats to America.
It would dilute our fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. That is why
families of the victims of ``9/11'' have angrily told me and some of
you that they oppose a pre-emptive war precisely because it would
undermine our war on terrorism. Administration assurances that war
against Iraq would not dilute our war on terrorism are pleasing, but
cannot change the facts. Space satellites, aircraft, ships and special
forces simply cannot be in two places at the same time.
America's attacking Iraq alone would ignite a firestorm of anti-
American fervor in the Middle East and Muslim world and breed thousands
of new potential terrorists.
As we see in Afghanistan, there would be chaos and inter-ethnic
conflict following Saddam's departure. A post-war agreement among them
to cooperate peacefully in a new political structure would not be self-
executing. Iraq would hardly become overnight a shining ``model
democracy'' for the Middle East. We would need a U.S. peacekeeping
force and nation-building efforts there for years. Our soldiers and aid
workers could be targets for retribution and terrorism.
American has never been an aggressor nation. If we violate the U.N.
Charter and unilaterally assault another country when it is not yet a
matter of necessary self-defense, then we will set a dangerous
precedent, paving the way for any other nation that chooses to do so,
too, including those with nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan
and China.
We will trigger an arms-race of nations accelerating and expanding
their efforts to develop weapons of destruction, so that they can deter
``pre-emptive'' hostile action by the U.S. Do we really want to open
this Pandora's box?
Mr. Speaker, of all the consequences I fear, perhaps the most tragic
is that war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq, would cost billions of
dollars badly needed at home. For millions of Americans, the biggest
threat to their security is the lack of decent wage jobs, health
insurance or affordable housing for their families. Senior citizens
having to choose between buying enough food and buying prescription
drugs is an imminent threat. Unemployment reaching 6 million people is
an imminent threat to America's well-being. Forty-one million American
without health insurance is an imminent threat.
The huge cost of war and nation building, which will increase our
deficit, along with the impact of the likely sharp rise in oil prices,
will deal a double-barreled blow to our currently fragile economy.
What then should we do at this time? We should face the many clear
and present dangers that threaten us here at home; we should seek
peaceful resolution of our differences with Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Washington
Post from Sunday, September 15, 2002.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002]

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue

(By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway)

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from
Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France
and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets,
according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi
opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have
not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of
the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations
to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western
allies for President Bush's call for tough international
action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the
Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia
and China--have international oil companies with major stakes
in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
``It's pretty straighforward,'' said former CIA director R.
James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of
forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil
companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if
they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new
government and American companies work closely with them.
But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it
will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the
new Iraqi government to work with them.''
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has
fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will
be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly
would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath
of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil
concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi
opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound
them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more
than dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India,
Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to
reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields,
refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts.
Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N.
sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews
last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said
Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London
office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella

[[Page 19886]]

organization of opposition groups that is backed by the
United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a
government in Iraq elected by the people.''
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he
favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop
Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a
decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big
shot at Iraqi,'' Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position
on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change
of leadership.
While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is
presenting vast possibilities for multi-national oil giants,
it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil
market, according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature
and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a
member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries,
for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC
cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the
flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela
and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major
financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices
that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world
markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract
foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is
because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to
unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil
business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But
despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil
companies, the administration, preoccupied with military
planning and making the case about Hussein's potential
threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way,
according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State
Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a
department spokesman said last week. An official with the
National Security Council declined to say whether oil had
been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had
over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Western leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-
day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early
October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy
summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and
American energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of
Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7
billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow
before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to
Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the
Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get
private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made
whole'' financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week
that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met
with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged
Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's
government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy
transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival
ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the
giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority
Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the
United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi
oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil
companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq
since the late 1980s, when relations soured between
Washington and Baghdad.
Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to
repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war
against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S.
government studies say the results have been disappointing.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997
to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern
Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N.
sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless
work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft
reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at
the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion
Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes
opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in
Iraq's western desert.
The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights
to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border,
which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in
July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French
firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its
decision to abide by the sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care
to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over
how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American
oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage.
There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James
Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with
Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and
ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry
officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that
wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner), a member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and a strong fighter for the environment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to
grant unilateral authority to the President of the United States for a
preemptive strike on Iraq. I cannot believe that the Members of this
body are ceding our constitutional authority to this President. And
they can give me all the fancy whereases and phrases, and put on the
fig leafs, and write all the report language they want, but this is a
blank check. This is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This is a violation
not only of our Constitution but will lead to a violation of the United
Nations Charter.
Wake up, my colleagues. Why would anyone vote to do that? That is not
our constitutional responsibility. And when we vote on this resolution,
will America be more safe? No, I think America will be less safe. We
will dilute the war against terrorism. The destabilization of the area
will lead to the increased probability of terrorists getting nuclear
weapons, say, in Pakistan. The al Qaeda are probably cheering the
passage of this resolution. Now is their chance to get more weapons.
We should not risk American lives. We should be working with the
United Nations. We should get the inspectors in there. We should disarm
Saddam Hussein. And if they cannot do their work, if the U.N.
authorizes force, we will be a much stronger and efficient force
working with the United Nations.
Imminent threat. There is an imminent threat. I will tell my
colleagues what the imminent threat is, it is our failing economy and
the rising unemployment. It is kids not getting a quality education. It
is 401(k)s that are down to zero. It is corporate theft. It is the
obscene cost of prescription drugs. That is the imminent threat to
America, Mr. Speaker. That is what we ought to be working on here.
I have heard all my colleagues on the other side of this issue
calling us appeasers, those who are going to vote against this
resolution. We are wishful thinkers. We have our eyes closed. We sit on
our hands. And, of course, that phrase, the risk of inaction is greater
than the risk of action.
No one on this side, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting inaction. Making
peace is hard work. Just ask Martin Luther King, Jr. Ask Ghandi. Ask
Norman Mandela. They were not appeasers. They were not inactive. They
were peacemakers. And they changed the history of this world.
So let us not hear talk of appeasement. Let us not hear talk that we
favor inaction. We want action for peace in this world, and we want the
United States to be part of that action.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a whiff of Vietnam in the air. I had a
constituent call me and say, ``You know, if you enjoyed Vietnam, you
are really going to love Iraq.'' The mail is running 10 to 1 against
this war. Protests have already begun around the Nation and around the
world.
I say to the President, of course through the Speaker, that you came
to office as a uniter, not a divider. Yet we are going round the road
of division in this Nation. You can see it, you can smell it, you can
hear it, and we are going to hear more.
Let us not go down this road, Mr. President. Rethink this policy. A
country divided over war is not a country that is going to make any
progress. Let us have a rethinking of this resolution. Let us not vote
for a preemptive unilateral strike. Let us work through the United
Nations. Let us become a peacemaking Nation. Let us vote ``no'' on this
resolution.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.

[[Page 19887]]

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues of both parties
and in both Chambers and as the wife of a Vietnam veteran, the national
debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq and under what
circumstances has weighed heavily on my mind and my heart. For,
clearly, sending the young men and women of our Armed Forces into
harm's way is one of the most serious and far-reaching decisions a
Member of Congress will ever have to make.
Like all Americans, I take pride in the fact that we are a peaceful
Nation but one that will defend itself if needed against real and
imminent dangers. Like all Americans, I take very seriously our
responsibilities as the world's global superpower and realize how our
words and actions can have huge repercussions throughout the world.
For that reason, I attended meetings and studied the materials
provided us. I have listened to the administration, my constituents, my
colleagues on both sides of the issue, both sides of the aisle, and
both sides of the Congress; and I remain deeply concerned about our
march to war without a supportive coalition or a clear and moral
justification.
Before making a final decision on my vote, I also asked myself, as a
wife and mother, what would I want our Nation's leaders to do before
sending my son, my daughter, any loved one to war? While I support our
President's efforts to keep our Nation and our world safe, I firmly
believe the President has not made the case for granting him far-
reaching power to declare preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and
unconscionable dictator with little regard for human life, and there is
no question that he must be disarmed and removed from power. The facts
presented thus far, however, do not support the premise that Saddam
Hussein is an immediate danger to our country.
It is for that reason that I believe it is in the best interest of
our Nation and our American troops to make every possible effort now to
prevent war by exhausting diplomatic efforts, by giving the U.N.
weapons inspectors the resources and opportunity to perform their work,
and by establishing a U.N. Security Council multilateral coalition to
use force, if necessary.

{time} 2115

If that fails, the President can then bring his case to Congress on
the need for a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. At this time,
however, a blank check authorization for military force is not
acceptable.
I cannot, therefore, in good conscience support the administration's
request for a near carte blanche authority to wage war when the case to
do so has not been justified.
I will, however, support the resolutions of my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The Lee resolution urges Congress to work with the United Nations
using all peaceful means possible to resolve the issue of Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction.
The Spratt resolution includes similar requirements with regards to
the United Nations but also authorizes the use of force if the U.N.
efforts fail. The Spratt resolution brings responsibility and
accountability to our effort to protect our country from Saddam
Hussein, and it makes the administration and the Congress partners in
any military action against Iraq.
The Spratt proposal honors our Nation's fundamental system of checks
and balances. It makes it possible for me to say to my constituents and
our Nation's sons and daughters, including my stepson who proudly
serves in the U.S. Army, I did everything in my power to keep you from
harm's way.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a
constitutional expert.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Article I of the United
States Constitution states that the Congress shall have power to
declare war. Article II of the Constitution provides that the President
shall be the Commander-in-Chief. Over the years, these provisions of
the Constitution have been the subject of a virtually endless tug of
war between the legislative branch and the executive branch, as well as
the subject of virtually endless debate among constitutional scholars.
In general I believe, and many constitutional scholars agree, that
these two provisions reserve to Congress the sole authority to declare
war when there is time for Congress to make a deliberative
determination to invade another country and allow the President, as
Commander-in-Chief to engage the United States in war only in response
to an attack upon the United States or its citizens or in the event of
direct and imminent threat of such an attack.
I believe the resolution before us today crosses the line, delegating
to the President the authority our Constitution gives solely to
Congress. While we most certainly may delegate our authority, to do so
would, in my opinion, be an abdication of our responsibility as Members
of Congress.
If, as the President asserted in his speech to the American people,
an imminent threat exists, it seems to me that this resolution is
unnecessary. There is ample precedent for the President to act under
those circumstances without a declaration of war or of authorization
from Congress. No such imminent threat has been shown to exist.
Of course, Saddam Hussein is a thug and probably all the other things
he has been called in the course of this debate. That, however, does
not mean that Iraq poses any imminent threat that would justify the
President proceeding to war without authorization from Congress.
Further, nothing the President said in his speech and nothing I have
seen apart from his speech has led me to conclude that we should be
delegating to the President the authority the Constitution gives to
Congress, certainly not in the one-step manner in which the resolution
we are considering would do. Nor do I believe that refusing to give
that authority over to the President places the United States in any
imminent danger.
If the President and the United States fail in their efforts to have
Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions and if the President fails in his
efforts to mobilize a coalition of nations in support of the United
States, I believe that would be the appropriate time for the Congress
to consider the advisability of declaring war.
This resolution, instead, requires us to make that decision today by
delegating the decision to the President without the authority to bring
it back to us. To do so now, in fact, would put us ahead of the
President since he insisted in his speech that he had not yet decided
whether war is necessary.
Unfortunately, despite the President's assurance, the contents of the
President's speech left me with the sinking feeling that giving him a
blank check to invade Iraq without seeking further authorization from
Congress will virtually assure war. In my opinion, war should always be
the last resort and in this case will almost certainly increase, not
decrease, the risk of biological, chemical, or other terrorist
retaliations. In fact, that is exactly what the CIA told Senator Levin
in testimony in the Senate.
We are called upon, as Members of Congress and as citizens of the
world, to ask ourselves today, where and when would it end? The risks
are too great to proceed to war without a satisfactory answer to that
question and without pursuing every conceivable peaceful option short
of war.
For these reasons, I will vote against the resolution; and I
encourage my colleagues to vote against it, too.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who attended the
same alma mater I attended in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to a great deal of confusion tonight. A
number of my colleagues are convinced that war is the only action; some
believe it should never be an option; and

[[Page 19888]]

most, I think, join with me and think that it should be an issue of
last resort.
Like most of my colleagues, I have received volumes of mail from my
constituents, and their opinions mirror the confusion which exists in
this body tonight.
What troubles me is I have heard members of my party indicate in the
press that the issue of war with Iraq has sucked the air out of
Democratic message; and, sadly, I have heard Members on the other side
of the aisle complain of the same thing.
The thought that this issue where we are talking about certain
casualties, Iraqi, American, and those of our coalition partners, that
those would be used for an advantage by either side in mid-term
elections is repugnant to me and the people I represent in Ohio.
When I have an 84-year-old Republican grandmother in Ashtabula, Ohio,
grab my arm and say, Congressman, we have never attacked another
sovereign country in our history without first being attacked, I am
moved.
When I hear former Prime Minister Netanyahu tell our Committee on
Government Reform that Israel has dealt with terrorists like Saddam
Hussein since 1948, and if you do not get him, he will get you, I am
moved as well.
At the end of it all, I will say that I have concluded if we were on
the floor of this House on September 10, 2001, and we knew what we know
today, every Member in this body, Republican and Democrat, would do
whatever it took to protect the people of this Republic, and we should
do that tonight.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and
an environmentalist.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the issue of war with Iraq. I rise not
only as a House Member from California, but as a father and about-to-be
grandfather, and as a person who in his youth responded to a call for
action by serving in the United States Peace Corps.
I have to ask myself in casting the votes before us, what is the best
way to achieve peace in Iraq, not only for its own diverse ethnic
people living in Iraq, but also for the people in the rest of the
world?
The House leadership has adopted a closed rule on the debate so only
three resolutions can be voted on. I think the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) has the preferred alternative because it speaks to
the issue of putting all our efforts into working with the world
community through the United Nations Security Council to get inspectors
into Iraq. We should let that process run its course before determining
that it will fail.
The Lee resolution calls upon the United States to ``work through the
United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of insuring that Iraq is
not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as
resumption of weapons inspectors, negotiation, inquiry, mediation,
regional arrangements and other peaceful means.''
The President has done a good job in making the point that the U.N.
Security Council must resolve the Iraq violation of U.N. resolutions.
He should have stopped there, using all of the power of the President
of the United States, the State Department, the Commerce Department,
and the Department of Defense to help the U.N. inspectors into Iraq but
not to threaten war. Why? Because, first, according to the U.N.
Charter, only the U.N. Security Council has the power to enforce U.N.
resolutions.
I find it ironic that the President who seems to be committed to
holding Iraq accountable to the U.N. is requesting an authorization
that circumvents the Security Council and runs counter to the authority
of the U.N. Charter.
Second, the people's House should not give a blank check to declare
war to the President of the United States. According to Article I
Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to declare
war. The President is asking Congress to abrogate its constitutional
responsibility. The President's resolution authorizes him to use force
as he determines to be necessary. This is not the responsibility of the
President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He shall execute as
determined by Congress.
The Constitution clearly makes a separation of powers to stop the
President from going on foreign adventures without the express consent
of the American people.
Third, I think leaping into war before we get all of the facts could
threaten world security, especially our own. Think about it. Striking
preemptively without gathering sufficient intelligence will put U.S.
troops in harm's way. We need U.N. inspectors in Iraq to gather
information.
How will the U.S. military carry out surgical strikes of Iraq weapons
depots and laboratories if it does not know where these facilities are?
We need to know how many weapons Iraq has and what types of weapons.
Striking before knowing creates an unintended consequence which could
further threaten the world.

{time} 2130

A preemptive strike will set an extremely damaging precedent to the
future of international affairs. The U.S. will entirely lose its moral
authority on preventing conflict. What will we say if Russia moves to
attack Georgia, if China invades Taiwan, if India or Pakistan makes a
decisive move into Kashmir? Lastly, a unilateral attack could alienate
the U.S. from the rest of the world community including our traditional
allies, our allies in the region, and our new allies in the war against
terrorism. Far from strengthening the U.N., a unilateral strike before
the U.N. acts will undermine the international body and lead the world
to believe that the U.S. views the U.N. as a rubber stamp at best.
A unilateral attack makes it less likely that the rest of the
international community will support the U.S. in postconflict
reconstruction of Iraq. The U.S. will bear most of the costs if not all
the costs of the war and postwar, and remember the Persian Gulf War
cost approximately $70 billion. Our allies paid all but $7 billion,
which the U.S. took responsibility for. This new war against Iraq is
estimated to cost between 100 and $200 billion. If we go it alone, the
U.S. will have to pay it all. What will happen to other priorities?
What will happen to Social Security, to Medicare, to education? Will we
have enough resources to spend on our domestic priorities?
Last, let us not forget that the power we have as Members of Congress
is to cast these important votes from the consent of the people. My
constituents have responded 5,000 to 24, approximately two to one.
If one has to vote, let us vote on the side of peace before we vote
on the side of war.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce and a spokesperson for women.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution
before us. There is a saying in the practice of law that tough cases
make bad law. I believe that that is also true in the creation of laws
and history tells us that when we are frightened and angry we are also
more likely to make bad law.
I believe we are poised today to approve some very bad law and tread
on some very important principles as we do it. While I share the
concerns raised by many of my colleagues regarding the lack of
substance in the administration's arguments, I am most concerned about
the damage this proposal would do to our Constitution. James Madison
wrote: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than
in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the
legislature and not to the executive department . . . The trust and the
temptation would be too great for any one man.''
The Founding Fathers were explicit that the awesome power to commit
the United States people and resources to waging of war should lie not
with a single individual but rather in the collective judgment of the
Congress. It was the hope of the Founders that reserving this decision
to Congress would in

[[Page 19889]]

fact make it harder to move the country to war. I applaud that
sentiment. Historians note that Congress exclusively possesses the
constitutional power to initiate war, whether declared or undeclared,
public or private, perfect or imperfect, de jure or defacto, with the
only exception being the President's power to respond self-defensively
to sudden direct attack upon the United States. There is no
constitutionally recognized authorized use of force.
In the book ``War, Foreign Affairs and Constitutional Power,''
Abraham Sofaer points out that the Constitution says Congress shall
declare war, and it seems unreasonable to contend that the President
was given the power to make undeclared war. He concludes that nothing
in the framing or ratification debates gives the President as Commander
in Chief an undefined reservoir of power to use the military in
situations unauthorized by Congress.
The U.S. Constitution requires the expressed declaration of war by
Congress to execute any military operations in Iraq. Authorizing
military action is our job, not the President's. We, not he, must
determine when and if the fearsome power of our country should be
turned to war. I understand the political and military risks associated
with sending Americans into harm's way, but fear of public reaction
does not justify the dereliction of Congress's constitutional duty.
Similarly, the fact that many Presidents and Congresses over the years
have engaged in the unconstitutional transfer of war powers does not
make our obligation any less binding. Congress is not free to amend the
Constitution through avoidance of its duties, and a President is not
free to take constitutional power through adverse possession.
The Congressional Research Service points out that the power to
commence even limited acts of war against another nation belongs
exclusively to Congress. We may not shirk this responsibility. We may
not abdicate it, and we may not pretend it does not exist. We must meet
our constitutional obligation to decide if or when America will go to
war, whether our sons and daughters should be put in harm's way, and
whether the country's purse should be opened to pay a bill as high as
$200 billion. This decision cannot be handed over to the President. If
the Founding Fathers had wanted that, they would have explicitly
provided so in the Constitution. They did not.
Should the United States go to war with Iraq? I do not believe the
case has been made to do so. Can the Congress leave it to the President
to decide whether or not we should attack Iraq? Any such transfer of
congressional authority to the President is forbidden by the
Constitution and would move us toward an upset of the delicate balance
of powers between the Congress and the United States.
I urge my colleagues to exercise great care as we consider these
questions. Tough cases can make for very bad law. Let us not let them
make us trample very good laws that have existed since the dawn of the
Republic. Vote ``no.''
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a senior member of the House
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we are poised today on the brink of armed conflict, not
knowing what the future may hold but confident in our position and in
our resolve. We sincerely pray that war is not necessary. We realize
that it may be. These closing hours and minutes of the 107th Congress
may be our last chance for true and meaningful debate and deliberation.
Can we as a reasonable people, supported by the international
community, avoid the horrors of war, the stench of death, or rather
does the protection of our country and the belief of the unalienable
rights of all people, does common human decency require us to press
forward in the face of certain American casualties?
Two questions face the American people: Is Iraq's threat imminent? Is
an unprecedented first strike the proper course to take? On a positive
note, the President has indicated that approval of the resolution does
not mean war is imminent or unavoidable. Additionally the U.S. has
indicated support for a three-pronged resolution: number one, Iraq must
reveal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction under U.N.
supervision; two, witnesses must be allowed to be interviewed outside
of Iraq; and, thirdly, any site the U.N. wants to inspect must be open
without delay, without preclearance, without restriction, without
exception. These are reasonable and rational rules that are required to
maintain international peace. Absent Iraqi compliance, it appears
necessary to vest in the President the flexibility and authority to
protect the American public and international community by military
action if necessary.
But there is also a responsibility to exhaust all other options prior
to risking the lives of young American sons and daughters. That is why
we must use the most powerful military weapon that we have, diplomacy.
That is why we must use all resources at our disposal to encourage the
international community to pressure Hussein into compliance. But if all
reasonable efforts fail, we must answer our duty to ensure the security
of our country and those that we represent.
Certainly questions remain. It is particularly important to have a
clear goal, a clear plan, and a clear exit strategy when American lives
are at risk. Additionally, the President must address the issue of
sacrifice. There is no short-term solution to the long-term problem,
and there will be a cost to be paid in dollars and in American lives
lost.
Presently, another cost is being assessed, the cost of waiting, the
cost of allowing Saddam Hussein to build an international killing
force, the cost of world instability. As the President has indicated,
the riskiest of all options is to wait.
So let us exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Let us make every
reasonable effort to avoid conflict. But at the end of the day we may
be called on to make a tremendous sacrifice by using our might to
preserve what is right. Our cause is clearly just. Our responsibility
is clear. We will have to walk by faith and not by sight, trusting that
in the end we will choose the right course.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, there is no matter that comes before this
Congress that is more serious than whether or not our Nation should
enter into war. The implications of such a decision are so profound and
will have worldwide impact. It could jeopardize U.S. relations with
countries around the world. It would escalate the vulnerability of our
Nation to a biological and chemical attack. And, of course, its most
painful and lasting impact would be on the many American families who
watch their sons and daughters go to war only to never see them again
and maybe even return with lifetime illnesses.
This is not a decision that I take lightly. I recognize the gravity
of it. And this is why I remain concerned about the timing of this
resolution of the President's effort to send troops into Iraq. I do not
doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the United States and to the
world and even to his own people. I echo concerns that we must ensure
greater security for our people here at home and abroad. But I cannot
support authorizing our President to send troops in harm's way without
the support of our allies and concrete compelling evidence of imminent
or nuclear threats that demand military action. We must eliminate
weapons of mass destruction and the threat they pose to our Nation and
others around the world. But unilateral military action against Iraq or
any other foreign nation is not the most effective short-term strategy
to accomplish this goal.
Over 90 percent of the calls that I received in my own district tell
me that they are opposed to this war. They ask, What is the rush,
Congresswoman? Why is it that we have to take action so immediate? They
want to know why we

[[Page 19890]]

cannot wait for the support of the U.N. and our allies. Some of these
calls have come from my very own veterans in my district, many who have
already made the ultimate sacrifices through their families, many of
them who look like me and speak Spanish and are of Hispanic decent.
They understand the extreme price of war and caution against using
force without first gathering ally support and using diplomatic means
to find peace. They also recognize the implications that a war would
have on our community, and I represent a largely Hispanic community.
Our military is a volunteer force. Most often it is the people of
low-income families that answer that call to duty to serve our Nation.
The young men and women on the frontlines would disproportionately be
Latino, African American, and people of color. These communities will
lose so much if the U.S. attacks Iraq.
I am concerned about the price of the war. It has been estimated that
the cost of this war against Iraq would be between 100 and $200
billion. How is the U.S. going to pay for this war? We are always told
that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit plan, that we cannot
extend unemployment insurance to workers laid off after the wake of
September 11. We need to think about these costs before we rush into a
war, and we should exhaust tough, rigorous U.N. inspections before
going into war. We should seek support from the U.N. Security Council.
As the first President Bush's advisers of Operation Desert Storm have
warned, by attacking Iraq we give Saddam Hussein both the excuse and
the incentive to use the biological and chemical weapons that he
already has.
I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to give serious
consideration on this crucial matter.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.

{time} 2145

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for 2 days Members have marched to the
floor to offer their support for or opposition to this resolution, good
Americans every one. Soon the hours of debate will come to an end. The
House Chamber has echoed with the sentiments of almost every Member.
Yet, many questions remain unanswered.
To be sure, there is one thing we all agree upon: Saddam Hussein is a
tyrant, is a threat. He is the epitome of malevolence. Plato must have
had visions of Hussein, a Hussein character, when he described evil in
The Allegory of the Cave.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record The Allegory of the Cave from
Plato's Republic.
The material referred to is as follows:

[From Plato's Republic]

The Allegory of the Cave

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature
is enlightened or unenlightened:, Behold! human beings living
in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the
light and reaching all along the den; here they have been
from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained
so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being
prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above
and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between
the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you
will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like
the screen which marionette players have in front of them,
over which they show the puppets.
I see, he said.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying
all sorts of vessels, and statutes and figures of animals
made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear
over the wall? Some of them are talking, other silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange
prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own
shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws
on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows
if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner
they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would
they not suppose that they were naming what was actually
before them? And suppose further that the prison had an echo
which came from the other side, would they not be sure to
fancy, when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which
they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but
the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if
the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At
first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly
to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards
the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will
distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of
which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then
conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was
an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to
being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he
has a clearer vision, what will be his reply?
And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing
and when to the objects as they pass and requiring him to
name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that
the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects
which are now shown to him? Far truer. And if he is compelled
to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his
eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the
objects of vision which he can see, and which he will
conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are
now being shown to him?
True, he said.
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a
steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced
into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be
pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes
will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at
all of what are now called realities?
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the
upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the
reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then
the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of
the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will
see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the
light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere
reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his
own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate
him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the
season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in
the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all
things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to
behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then
reason about it.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom
of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that
he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among
themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing
shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which
followed after, and which were together; and who were
therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do
you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or
envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure
anything, rather than think as they do and live after their
manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything
than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable
manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out
of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not
be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in
measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved
out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before
his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be
needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very
considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of
him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and
that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any
one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let
them only catch the offender, and they would put him to
death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear
Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the
world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you
will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards
to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world
according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have
expressed, whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether
true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge
the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen

[[Page 19891]]

only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be
the universal author of all things beautiful and right,
parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible
world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the
intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who
would act rationally either in public or private life must
have his eye fixed.
I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain
to this beautific vision are unwilling to descend to human
affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper
world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is
very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
Yes, very natural.
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from
divine contemplations to the evil state of man, when they
returned to the den they would see much worse than those who
had never left it himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while
his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to
the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts
of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows
of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the
conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute
justice?
Anything but surprising, he replied.
Any one who has common sense will remember that the
bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from
two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going
into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as
much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he
sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be
too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of
man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see
because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from
darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he
will count the one happy in his condition and state of being,
and he will pity the other; or, if he has a mind to laugh at
the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be
more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who
returns from above out of the light into the den.
That, he said, is a very just distinction.
But then, if I am right, certain professors of education
must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge
into the soul which was not there before, like sight into
blind eyes?
They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of
learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye
was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole
body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the
movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of
becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure
the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being,
or in other words, of the good.
Very true.
And must there not be some art which will effect conversion
in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the
faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been
turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the
truth?
Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to
be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not
originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and
exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else
contains a divine element which always remains, and by this
conversation is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the
other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the
narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever
rogue, how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the
way to this end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen
eye-sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is
mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?
Very true, he said.
But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures
in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from
those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which,
like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth,
and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls
upon the things that are below, if, I say, they had been
released from these impediments and turned in the opposite
direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the
truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to
now.
Very likely.
Yes I said; and there is another thing which is likely, or
Neither rather a necessary inference from what has preceded,
that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor
yet those who never make an end of their education, will be
able educated ministers of State; nor the former, because
they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all
their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter,
because they will not act at all except upon compulsion,
fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands
of the blest.
Very true, he replied.
Them, I said, the business of us who are the founders of
the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that
knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of
all, they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the
good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not
allow them to do as they do now.
What do you mean?
I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must
not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the
prisoners in the den, and partake of their labors and honors,
whether they are worth having or not.
But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a
worse life, when they might have a better?
You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention
of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in
the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in
the whole State, and he held the citizens together by
persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the
State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end
he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his
instruments in binding up the State.
True, he said, I had forgotten.
Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in
compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of
others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of
their class are not obliged to share in the toils of
politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their
own sweet will, and the government would rather not have
them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any
gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But
we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive,
kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have
educated you far better and more perfectly than they have
been educated, and you are better able to share in the double
duty. That is why each of you, when his turn comes, must go
down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of
seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you
will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of
the den, and you will know what the several images are, and
what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and
just and good in their truth. And thus our State, which is
also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will
be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in
which men fight with one another about shadows only and are
distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is
a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which
the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best
and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are
most eager, the worst.
Quite true, he replied.
And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take
their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to
spend the greater part of their time with one another in the
heavenly light?
Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the
commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no
doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern
necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of
State.
Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must
contrive for your future rulers another and a better life
than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered
State; for only in the State which offers this, will they
rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in
virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life.
Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs,
poor and hungering after their own private advantage,
thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order
there can never be; for they will be fighting about office,
and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be
the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
Most true, he replied.
And the only life which looks down upon the life of
political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of
any other?
Indeed, I do not, he said.
And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task?
For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will
fight.
No question.
Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians?
Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of
the state.

endNOTES

If you understand this first distinction, the much more
difficult division of the intelligible world will make more
sense. Think over this carefully: the visible world, that is,
the world you see, has two kinds of visible objects in it.
The first kind are shadows and reflections, that is, objects
you see but aren't really there but derive from the second
type of visible objects, that is, those that you see and are
really there. The relation of the visible world to the
intelligible world is identical to the relation of the world
of reflections to the world of visible things that are real.
The lower region of the intelligible world corresponds to
the upper region in the same way the lower region of the
visible world corresponds to the upper region. Think of it
this way: the lower region deals only with objects of thought
(that are, in part, derived from

[[Page 19892]]

visible objects), which is why it is part of the intelligible
world. There have to be certain first principles (such as the
existence of numbers or other mathematical postulates) that
are just simply taken without question: these are hypotheses.
These first principles, however, derive from other first
principles; the higher region of the intelligible world
encompasses these first principles.
So you can see that the lower region derives from the
higher region in that the thinking in the lower region
derives from the first principles that make up the higher
region, just as the mirror reflects a solid object. When one
begins to think about first principles (such as, how can you
prove that numbers exist at all?) and derives more first
principles from them until you reach the one master, first
principle upon which all thought is based, you are operating
in this higher sphere in intellection. Plato's line is also a
hierarchy: the things at the top (first principles) have more
truth and more existence; the things at the bottom (the
reflections) have almost no truth and barely exist at all.

He wrote: ``Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing
from the keen eye of a clever rogue? How eager he is. How clearly his
paltry soul sees the way to his end. He is the reverse of blind, but
his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is
mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.''
What a perfect description of Saddam Hussein in that allegory for all
of us, distinguishing from falsehoods and reality of the cave, the
shadows against the wall, the light behind us, like a puppeteer.
The record of this murderous regime has been outlined forcefully in
this body and by our Commander-in-Chief. Saddam has used weapons of
mass destruction against his own people, he waged war with Iran, he
invaded Kuwait, and he even murdered his own people in the northern
part of Iraq.
Two cities stand out in the northern part of Iraq in 1988, Halabja
and Goktapa. We all, each and every one of us, need to read the stories
from both of those towns of innocent people who were massacred,
massacred.
The helicopters came over the day before in May, Mr. Speaker, taking
pictures of the villages. People did not know what they were doing.
Then, 2 days later, the same helicopters showed up and they dropped out
of the sky mustard gases, lethal, lethal gases which left animals and
plants and human beings dead. They did not need sophisticated state-of-
the-art technology to deliver these gases.
Nothing like it was seen since the Holocaust, nothing came close. We
need to think about this and who perpetuated these deaths.
For the last 11 years, he has defied the will of the entire planet,
as expressed in the resolutions which we have heard over and over the
last 2 days. Indeed, I know of no thinking person who argues against
the profound necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology.
But while we can all agree on the menace he poses and unite in the
desire to live in a world where he is not a factor, there are still
critically important lingering questions, questions about the process,
about the timing and, ultimately, the unilateral nature of preemptive
war that we seem to be accepting for the first time in the history of
this great country.
Is the relative sudden frenzy to eliminate Saddam clouding the
strategic vision of those who are most vociferous in the support of his
ouster? My inquiry stems not from any kind of partisan agenda but out
of a genuine confusion as to why key issues have not fully been
discussed and debated.
We spend millions of dollars every day for 10 years protecting the
no-fly zones in the north and south. The American people have a right
to know what these actions will cost us. They have every right to know.
If we endorse this historic shift in our strategy that abandons our
reliance on deterrence and arms control as the pillars of national
security, will we open a Pandora's box of preemptive action throughout
the world? What is our response when it comes?
If this is our Nation's new policy, then what is to prevent India
from attacking Pakistan, or Russia from attacking the state of Georgia?
If they do, what will we say? After war, then what? What happens on day
three, as Thomas Friedman wrote?
After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve? We have
yet to hear any discussion on this. Surely in this great deliberative
body we should give pause to this critical issue. Surely the
administration must address this most comprehensively.
Let us remember, this is not a game of chess. These are our sons,
these are our daughters who will execute this mission, many of whom may
not return. Full debate is essential. Anything less is an abdication of
the oath we all took together.
We also need to make absolutely certain that whatever is done in Iraq
does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12 months
ago, the war on terrorism.
That said, a great many people predict that the Congress will pass
the resolution, the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 114, with
an overwhelming majority. I do not dispute this, nor do I declare my
opposition, but Congress must ensure that, through this process, no
matter the duration, we are involved as explicitly as possible under
article 1, Section 8. We must ensure that we constantly ask the
appropriate questions and demand the pertinent answers.
I do believe that it is imperative that the United States speaks with
one voice to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve
to protect and defend this greatest of all democracies and the families
that make it great.
We all love America, not some more than others. When we leave this
week, we must remember this: None of us love America more than anyone
else in this room.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I am a Vietnam veteran. I served 18 months in uniform in
that country. As someone who has seen the ugly face of war, I do not
embrace it as a policy choice, nor is it my first choice, but as a
choice we sometimes have to make.
I believe that preparation for war and a demonstration of national
will to engage in war can be a way to avoid war, and I also believe
that diplomacy without the threat of military action can be a hollow
exercise in extreme cases. Right now, we are faced with an extreme
case.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace. Our intelligence
tells the story of brutality, savagery, patterns of aggression,
deception, and defiance. It shows the danger that Saddam Hussein poses
to our country, to his region, and to the world. His ouster could bring
peace and stability, and it could also inflame further violence and
instability. How we do what we do in this case is as important as what
we do.
In dealing with the issue, I have asked myself a question: Does
Iraq's intent and capability to use weapons of mass destruction pose a
clear and present danger to the United States, to our allies, or to
Israel? And based on a reading and hearing of information available to
me, I believe that the danger to the United States is clear. Whether or
not it is present is less certain.
For the continental United States, the danger may be 6 months away or
it may be 6 years away, depending on a number of variables. For Israel,
for some of our troops abroad, for our NATO ally Turkey, the danger is
certainly clear and present.
Given this assessment, diplomacy and multilateral action are still
reasonable options to use against Hussein, and they should be
encouraged. That is why I intend to vote for the Spratt amendment,
which maintains substantial focus on diplomacy and multilateral action.
My decision to support this amendment is not an easy one, but the
stakes in this situation are very high. Over the past year, the
intelligence community and committees of this Congress have tried to
connect the dots on the vicious attack that took place on September 11,
and the challenge for us today is to connect the dots once again but
before another and potentially more lethal attack.

[[Page 19893]]

There are risks and consequences if we act; there are risks and
consequences if we do not act. I lost friends in the Vietnam War, and I
am reminded of that every time I go down to the Wall. But I lost
neighbors on September 11, and I am reminded of that every time I see
the World Trade Center.
On balance, I feel the greatest risk is through inaction, which is
why, if the Spratt amendment fails on the floor tomorrow, I intend to
vote for the bipartisan resolution.
A vote for the bipartisan resolution is not a vote for war, it is a
vote for will. It is a statement of national unity that says to Saddam
Hussein, you are a menace and a bully to your own people and to your
neighbors. You must disarm. You have exhausted our patience. We will
join the United Nations and the world community and work with them
against you in this cause, but, at the 11th hour, we will be prepared
to act.
We cannot wait for the smoking gun. A gun smokes only after it has
been fired, and that may be too late for another American city, our
troops abroad, a NATO ally, or Israel. When it comes to weapons of mass
destruction, we must connect the dots before the next attack, not after
it has occurred.

{time} 2200

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a villain and a menace to
his own people and to the rest of the world. He is a terrible dictator
who has used chemical weapons in his own country and on other nations.
He has likely biological weapons and is certainly seeking nuclear
weapons. He has invaded his neighbors and defied the international
community. He has worked to destabilize the Middle East in support of
terrorism. We can all agree he is a threat to international peace and
security. His own people and the rest of the world would be better off
if he were not in power.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that the United States is going to use
military force to reduce or eliminate this threat. It seems likely that
the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will be sent to the region
to disarm his regime and possibly remove Hussein from power. If that
happens, I will support our country men as they do their duty and obey
the orders of the Commander in Chief. But tomorrow, I will vote against
the resolution authorizing the use of force now.
This is a hard decision. It is one of the most important votes that I
cast. It is a vote of conscience for me, as I trust it is for all
Members. And my conscience leads me to vote ``no.'' After careful
consideration, I have determined that the resolution before us does not
advance our national security. The bottom line is that it authorizes
the President to launch a unilateral preemptive attack if he so
chooses. Our national security is not served by such an attack.
Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the use of force in all circumstances. I
voted to support military operations in Kosovo, and I stood on this
floor and supported the President in the operations in Afghanistan. But
I think an authorization to use force against Iraq before we have
explored all of our options is premature and potentially dangerous.
First of all, international support, especially from the U.N., is
critical. It allows us to share the risks and costs of our operations.
It lends our efforts legitimacy. Recently, the United Nations has
regained its focus on Iraq. It is on the verge of restarting
inspections and international support for a stricter inspection regime
is growing. The return of the inspectors should be our top priority.
They can determine the extent of the threat Iraq represents, and their
findings can help us build international support to check the Iraqi
regime.
I will be supporting an alternative that continues those efforts.
This alternative will only authorize force as a part of U.N. efforts to
disarm Iraq. A unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq without U.N.
support may undermine the multilateral war against global terror. It
could drive a wedge between us and those allies whose support we need.
In addition, with or without international support, we will have to
be committed to rebuilding Iraq or we may be left with a state that is
just as dangerous as the current one or worse we could be dealing with
a chaotic civil war where we are not sure who has what kind of weapons.
Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in
addressing this important issue. This is consistent with its lack of
attention to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Both are troubling.
And a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iraq may lead to uprisings in
the Middle East. Friendly regimes could be threatened by extremists who
will openly support terrorism. And key moderate Islamic nations, like
Egypt, Jordan, and the nuclear-armed Pakistan, could be destabilized.
A U.S. attack would certainly further inflame the cycle of violence
between Israel and the Palestinians. And I cannot imagine the
consequences if Iraq were to attack Israel and Israel were to respond
as Prime Minister Sharon has declared it would.
An attack on Iraq could lead to the use of the very weapons we want
to destroy. In an attempt to survive, Saddam Hussein may use all the
weapons at his disposal against our servicemen and women.
Finally, a preemptive attack on Iraq turns 50 years of national
security policy on its head. We have struggled for 5 decades to help
build a world in which nations do not attack one another without
specific provocation. In the face of an imminent threat to the U.S.,
with an obvious provocation, a preemptive attack might be justified.
But I have not seen convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an
immediate threat.
There is still time to try to resolve the situation using other tools
of statecraft, such as diplomacy. The United States would win a war
against Iraq. But that does not necessarily mean it is a war that
should be waged at this time. At some point it may be necessary to use
force. We may have to place our men and women in our Armed Forces in
harm's way, but that should be the last resort, only after we have
explored all other means and after other measures have failed.
For now I do not think the case has been made that force is the only
option left to us. It is premature to launch a unilateral preemptive
attack, and it would be premature for us to authorize one. I oppose
this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to remain silent and our side has held
their debate because we want to allow full time for those opposed to
have their word; but sometimes as you listen to a series of words you
begin to see a pattern. And I think the American people, Mr. Speaker,
need to also hear maybe some of the realities that are not being
mentioned.
This is not the beginning of a new war. In fact, President Herbert
Bush, President Clinton, and now President George W. Bush have all, in
fact, had to make strikes in Iraq to contain this evil dictator. In
fact, President Clinton has made probably the largest strikes since the
Gulf War during his administration. And at that time I do not believe
that we heard in this body something about new preemptive acts of war.
In fact, what we understood was we had a dictator who continued to use
his remaining force and the ill-gotten revenues that he is getting from
his clandestine selling of oil from outside the food program to, in
fact, intimidate his neighbors and rebuild his weapons of mass
destruction.
So as much as I certainly want to yield as much time to my colleagues
who oppose this, I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, must
understand that this is by no means a new war. The President is not
asking for a new war. In fact, what he is asking for is a recognition
that after 11-plus years of a war which has not ended because this
dictator has not met his responsibilities, responsibilities he agreed
with the United Nations to keep, that in

[[Page 19894]]

fact the President has said, our President now has said, I must in fact
have the tools to be able to go further to get the compliance. And I
would hope that all of us in this body would very much understand the
historic context in which I say the war has never ended.
We are only asking to continue a direction that President Herbert
Bush started, President Clinton continued, and now President George W.
Bush has on his desk; and we hold him responsible for our safety.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Rodriguez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether and under
what considerations we will consider sending our young men and women
into battle. That is an awesome responsibility, and I have given it
much thought. I rise to offer my support of the Spratt substitute. It
is a balanced, very careful approach to a serious problem.
I stand before you as a father, as a husband, as an American, and as
an elected representative of the people who live in the 20th
Congressional District of Texas. Since the terrible attacks of
September 11, we, as a Nation, have felt a new vulnerability; and we
set out on a war against terrorism to safeguard our future.
During this past year, I have listened to my constituents' concerns,
sharing their fears and consoling those shaken by disruptions and the
issue of security in our Nation. I offered my full support to the fight
against terrorism, and I will continue to do so. We must not lose sense
of the purpose, but we also must not lose our perspective. In recent
months as the administration has begun to call for a war against Iraq,
I have spoken with parents, brothers and sisters; and I have read
heartfelt letters of young and old, and I have met with American men
and women in uniform who proudly serve this Nation.
As I visited churches and restaurants, shops and homes throughout the
San Antonio, South Texas region, I have heard patriotic voices, yet
voices filled with concern about the war we are today asked to
authorize. As the administration has tried to make its case for the
unilateral war against Iraq, I have had many questions. I am troubled
because many of these questions remain unanswered, even as we debate
whether or how to put American troops in harm's way.
We have also heard mixed messages when we heard the Secretary call
for a cut of 23,000 in the Army while at the same time we have heard
our generals indicate that we need 40,000 in the Army, 20,000 in the
Air Force and 8,000 Marines. Those mixed messages have not been
helpful. But we also do not get the answers to our questions, questions
such as, Who will pay for this war? We should have a tax bill on this
House floor to pay for this war. What are our mission goals and our
exit strategy?
The other reality is that there has been no dialogue and no real
thrust in that with terrorism, also, it is a fight of ideology and
ideas. One thing we are clear about is we know that Saddam Hussein and
the government he controls brutally, Iraq, are without question a
danger not only to the United States but also to the world community.
We know that Saddam Hussein has gone to great lengths to seek, develop,
and then conceal weapons of mass destruction. I believe I join my
colleagues here today in stating that we must end Saddam Hussein's
quest for these terrible weapons.
The issue before us is how we do so. It is crucial that we as
representatives of the people translate the concerns about the
execution of war against Iraq into a concrete plan to ensure the
congressional representatives have a role in the decision to send our
troops into harm's way.
The administration seeks a blank check from the Congress to authorize
the use of force broadly. But the administration's proposal does not
encourage multilateral cooperation and also does not anticipate further
congressional input. The approach offered by the Spratt substitute
offers a better option. We are today the world's greatest superpower;
our military might and economic power reach around the globe. Our
democracy is an example to which other nations aspire. We are a diverse
Nation united by our love of liberty, our thirst for freedom, and our
belief in justice and the rule of law.
That status as a world superpower brings with it great
responsibilities. Yes, we have the power to go it alone, but I feel
very strongly that the power to do exactly that would be the wrong
thing to do. In the case of Iraq, I believe going it alone under the
circumstances we now face is not the best approach. First, by working
with the United Nations, we will act not only on our own behalf, but on
behalf of the world community.
Let me ask that you support the substitute, the Spratt substitute,
because it is also the best military option, because that would allow
us an opportunity to seek out those biological and chemical weapons
before our soldiers go in. And if they have to go in, at least we will
identify those areas where they might be able to be hiding, and there
is no doubt that that would be the best way to go at it.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, our decision to authorize the President to
commit American men and women to overseas military action is the most
difficult decision a Member of Congress will ever face.
Since September 11, 2001, when more than 100 of my constituents were
killed in the terror attacks on our country, I have felt a new urgency
to address the dangers to our national security that exist both here in
the United States and abroad. Our government must act to secure our
boarders and airways, protect nuclear power plants, safeguard our food
and water supplies and more.

{time} 2215

We must face up to the very real possibility of a biological,
chemical or even nuclear attack upon our country and take whatever
action is necessary to prevent it.
I have spent a great deal of time, as have my colleagues, in recent
weeks in classified briefings, with military and intelligence experts;
and I have also paid close attention to the very real concerns of my
constituents and even my family. We are living in a world far more
dangerous today than we have ever known, and I have concluded that we
must not wait for another terrorist attack before giving the President
the authority to take the necessary action to protect our children and
our grandchildren.
Throughout world history, inaction against tyrants has proven to be
an ineffective strategy for averting catastrophe. We have every reason
to believe that Saddam Hussein is continuing to build up his arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction. He continues to defy the civilized world
and United Nations Security Council resolutions ordering him to disarm.
He has shown through brutality toward his own people his willingness to
use these terrible weapons against innocent people.
Therefore, I have concluded that Saddam Hussein poses a serious
danger to United States national security. We must stand up to this
threat first by pursuing to the fullest all possible diplomatic means
and then, only if we must, by the use of force.
As a strong believer in the United Nations, I have a long record of
support for a robust United States role in the United Nations, and I
believe that strong United States leadership in the United Nations is
critical to achieve peace in the world.
But the United Nations must act. The crisis before us provides an
important opportunity for the U.N. Security Council to show that there
are consequences to ignoring the will of the international community.
Failure to enforce the relevant resolutions will hurt the U.N.'s
effectiveness as an organization, diminishing a potent force

[[Page 19895]]

for stability around the world. And if all else fails, if we must
pursue military action, I hope and I pray that the mission is
successful and short and that it will pave the way to a better day for
Iraq and the region and result in greater security for Americans here
at home.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as I take the floor this evening I am
humbled by the task at hand and the paths that have led us to this
point.
When I arrived in Congress last year, I never imagined that we would
witness cruel attacks on our own soil, that we would lead a war against
terrorism across the globe or that we would contemplate returning to
Iraq to address the ongoing threat of Saddam Hussein, all in less than
2 years. Yet, we did not choose these circumstances. Instead, they
found us; and it is our responsibility to act in a careful and
appropriate manner to protect the United States, its people, its allies
and our ideals.
Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important
decisions Congress can make; and as a member of the House Committee on
Armed Services, I do not take it lightly.
Last month, I held a listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my
constituents' concerns about military action in Iraq. I spent many
hours being briefed in the Committee on Armed Services and in the White
House by senior administration officials and other experts. From these
conversations, I have grown increasingly alarmed by the widening body
of evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to
the security of the United States.
His development of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his
pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations resolutions and
threatens the stability of the region. His oppression of the Iraqi
people, including his use of chemical weapons against civilians,
strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human rights. He
has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us and our
allies, even firing on aircraft and enforcing the Iraqi's no-fly zone
2,500 times since 1991.
While it may be difficult to imagine what horrors this tyrant is
planning over 6,000 miles away, I am convinced that the threat is very
real.
The question, therefore, becomes how best to deal with this danger. I
have heard overwhelming concerns from constituents that the United
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we
act against Iraq, if we act particularly unilaterally. Equally
important, I share the concern that we will damage our moral authority
as the world's sole remaining superpower if we do not proceed
responsibly.
For this reason, we must engage the global community in our efforts
to neutralize the threat of Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United
Nations and our allies is critical, and I hope that we are collectively
able to develop a strong mandate for the disarmament of Iraq.
In his speech Monday night, President Bush pledged to engage the U.N.
Security Council in drafting a new resolution; and I fully expect him
to pursue this strategy, not only to establish broader support and
deeper confidence for our mission but also to protect the integrity of
the United States. If new weapons inspections do not achieve total
disarmament, we must not rule out using military action to force
compliance with U.N. resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive
capabilities and protect the American people.
Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with other Nations.
President Bush stated that we would act with our allies at our side,
and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that unilateral
action against Iraq could have dangerous ramifications on the region
and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. Furthermore, the
international coalition would also be essential in promoting a new
government in Iraq, an effort that should be undertaken as seriously as
the Marshall Plan.
Tomorrow, I will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require
cooperation with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible. In
contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our
responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to
our cause. If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support
the underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security
Council and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though
that vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental
in shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and
cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued
commitment to these goals.
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for
the promises from a madman.
We now have the opportunity to improve the safety of our citizens and
the stability of the Middle East. However, there is a right way and a
wrong way of approaching this complicated issue. Just as a prosecutor
must lay out the facts to establish guilt, we must make our case before
the world community.
I urge support for the Spratt amendment.
As I take the floor this afternoon, I am humbled by the task at hand
and the path that has led us to this point. When I arrived in Congress
last year, I never imagined that we would witness cruel attacks on our
soil, that we would lead a war against terrorism across the globe, or
that we would contemplate returning to Iraq to address the ongoing
threat of Saddam Hussein--all in less than two years. Yet we did not
choose these circumstances; instead, they found us, and it is our
responsibility to act in a careful and appropriate manner to protect
the United States, its people, its allies, and its ideals.
Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important
decisions Congress can make, and, as a member of the House Armed
Services Committee, I do not take it lightly. Last month, I held a
listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my constituents' concerns
about military action in Iraq. I have spent many hours being briefed in
the Armed Services Committee and at the White House by Administration
officials and other experts. From these conversations, I have grown
increasingly alarmed by the widening body of evidence that Saddam
Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to the security of the
United States. His development of biological and chemical weapons, as
well as his pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations
resolutions and threatens the stability of the region. His oppression
of the Iraqi people, including his use of chemical weapons against
civilians, strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human
rights. He has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us
and our allies, firing on aircraft enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones
2,500 times since 1991. And while it may be difficult for some to
imagine what horrors this tyrant is planning over 6,000 miles away, I
am convinced that the threat is real.
The question therefore becomes how best to deal with this danger. I
have heard overwhelming concern from my constituents that the United
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we
act unilaterally against Iraq. Equally important, I share their concern
that we will damage our moral authority as the world's sole remaining
superpower if we do not proceed responsibly. For this reason, we must
engage the global community in our efforts to neutralize the threat of
Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United Nations and our allies is
critical, and I hope that we are collectively able to develop a strong
mandate for the disarmament of Iraq. In his speech on Monday night,
President Bush pledged to engage the U.N. Security Council in drafting
a new resolution, and I fully expect him to pursue this strategy, not
only to establish broader support and deeper confidence for our
mission, but also to protect the integrity of the United States.
If new weapons inspections do not achieve total disarmament, we must
not rule out using military action to force compliance with U.N.
resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive capabilities, and protect the
American people. Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with
other nations. President Bush stated we would act ``with allies at our
side,'' and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that
unilateral action against Iraq could

[[Page 19896]]

have dangerous ramifications on the region and America's own efforts in
the war on terrorism. Furthermore, an international coalition would
also be essential in promoting a new government in Iraq--an effort that
should be undertaken as seriously as the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow, I
will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require cooperation
with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible. When
contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our
responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to
our cause.
If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support the
underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security Council
and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though that
vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental in
shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and
cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued
commitment to these goals.
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for
promises from a madman. We now have the opportunity to improve the
safety of our citizens and the stability of the Middle East. However,
there is a right way and a wrong way of approaching this complicated
issue. Just as a prosecutor must lay out facts to establish guilt, we
must make our case before the world community. This is the only
approach to guarantee that our efforts to disarm Iraq will have the
full force of international support and not undermine our greater war
against terrorism.
I appreciate the opportunity to share in this debate and urge my
colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I must once again reiterate, although it
seems rude and people do want to extend and it is difficult to end
before my colleagues complete their statements, I must insist that we
take no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Towns), a leading member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this resolution ignores
the political realities that are present in a tinderbox like the Middle
East. It is naive to think that unilateral American action in the
Middle East will achieve lasting security, but it is downright foolish
to ignore the United Nations' potential as a partner in eliminating
Saddam's chokehold on world security.
This resolution merely pays lip service to any meaningful coalition
building or endorsement of U.N. findings without establishing an
international coalition. We leave the fate of the Iraqi people to
uncertainty and without the hope of meaningful nation building or
distribution of aid. America cannot achieve this alone or on its own.
The world is watching us to see how a superpower acts which has
defeated its dragons and is now confronted by malignant dictators of
developing powers. Make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussein is a
dictator who resorts to the most heinous of atrocities to silence his
opponents.
As the world's sole superpower, we must be careful that our allies do
not grow resentful of us. We need to make certain that they are
included in any sort of action that we as a Nation might decide to
take. That has not happened, and I must vote no on the resolution.
Let me close by saying I am concerned as anyone in this Chamber about
national and international security. I served in the United States
Army, but I am not convinced that we should put our young people in
harm's way. We should not do that; and, therefore, I will vote no on
this resolution and hope that many of my colleagues would join us. This
is the wrong way to go.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Like many of my colleagues, I have struggled with the question of
whether to give the President the broad authority to take our Nation
into a full-scale war with Iraq. I have also struggled with the
question of how to support the President's objectives and also keep
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution.
I continue to have grave reservations about acting unilaterally,
acting without evidence of an imminent threat and acting without
considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or without a
commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution
we are considering today would give the President authority to act
without adequately addressing these crucial questions.
Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the President in
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be
on that path with us and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage.
This resolution does not allow Congress to answer these important
questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the
President, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power
and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is
amended.
Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq
as a part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the
costly and difficult nation building that must follow but also to avoid
compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly in
the Islamic world.

{time} 2230

As a last resort, it may be necessary for American military forces to
act without the support of the United Nations Security Council. But
before we do so, I believe the President should come to Congress for a
separate authorization. That is what the amendment I offered to the
Committee on Rules called for.
My amendment was based on a resolution I introduced, House Joint
Resolution 118, which would ensure that Congress, not the President,
makes this awesome decision. Regrettably, my amendment was not made in
order; so I am glad that tomorrow I will have the opportunity to vote
for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more consistent with the
Constitution than the underlying resolution we are being asked to
support.
Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own.
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it
poses for our global war on terrorism, and the consequences for our
security in this region, is simply irresponsible, in my view.
Do not misunderstand. I have no illusions about the duplicity of
Saddam Hussein or the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Hussein is a
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of appeasement towards
Saddam Hussein. But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein
is only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's
threat in the context of broader security goals, including crippling al
Qaeda and sustaining and building the important global relationships we
need for the war against terrorism and for solving other critical
global problems.
My father, Morris Udall, who was serving in Congress in 1964, came to
regret his support for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when it became
clear that it was being used as a substitute for the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to declare war. I fear that this Congress, a
generation later, is poised to make a similar mistake. To avoid that,
we need to reject this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Like many of our colleagues, I have struggled with the question of
whether to give the president the broad authority to take our nation
into a full-scale war against Iraq. I have also struggled with the
question of how to support the president's objectives and also keep
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution. I continue to have grave
reservations about

[[Page 19897]]

acting unilaterally, acting without evidence of an imminent threat, and
acting without considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or
without a commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the
resolution we are considering today would give the president authority
to act without adequately addressing these crucial questions.
Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the president in
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be
on that path with us, and ultimately what kind of war we intend to
wage. This resolution doesn't allow Congress to answer these important
questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the
president, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power
and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is
amended.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the president told us that voting for
this resolution would not mean that war was imminent or unavoidable.
Many of my colleagues draw comfort from the vies that this resolution
is not necessarily a call to arms. With respect, I find no such
comfort. This resolution very clearly gives the president authority to
take us to war.
I introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 118, which would ensure that
Congress makes this awesome decision. I also submitted to the Rules
Committee an amendment based on my resolution. Regrettably, my
amendment was not made in order. So I am glad that I will have the
opportunity to vote for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more
consistent with the Constitution than the underlying resolution we are
being asked to support.
Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq
as part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the
costly and difficult nation-building that must follow, but also to
avoid compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly
in the Islamic world. As a last resort, it may be necessary for
American military forces to act without the support of the United
Nations Security Council, but before we do so, I believe the president
should come to Congress to ask for a separate authorization.
Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own.
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it
poses for our global war on terror and the consequences for our
security in the region, is simply irresponsible in my view.
Don't misunderstand, I have no illusions about the duplicity of
Saddam Hussein or about the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Huessin is a
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of international amnesia
toward Saddam Hussein. That's why I can't support the Lee amendment,
which I believe does not adequately respond to the urgency of ending
Saddam Hussein's decade of defiance and eliminating Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. The Lee amendment seems to rule out military action
as a last resort, and I don't believe we can or should do that.
But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is only part
of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat to the
context of broader security goals, including crippling Al Qaeda and
sustaining and building important global relationships we need for the
war against terrorism and for solving other critical global problems.
My father was serving in Congress in 1964 when it passed the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution, which led to the eventual deployment of 500,000
American soldiers in Vietnam and the deaths of 55,000 American
servicemen and women. My father came to regret his support for that
resolution when it became clear that it was being used as a substitute
for the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. I
fear that this Congress, a generation later, is posed to make a similar
mistake.
To avoid that, we need to reject this resolution.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating to our Nation and to the world what
American democracy is all about, where the duly elected representatives
of this body have been given an opportunity to share with each
colleague their best judgment on whether the Congress supports the
President's request to place the men and women of our armed services in
harm's way.
I have no doubt that our President has spent countless hours, perhaps
even sleepless hours, and probably even thought a thousand times over
as to whether or not this was the best course of action that our
country should take at this time and for him to make such an important
decision that will determine whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen
are going to be sent into harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad our President does not have the constitutional
authority to declare war against enemy nations. I am also glad that our
President does not have the authority under the provisions of our
Constitution to establish our Nation's armies and navies. That is the
exclusive authority that has been given specifically to the Congress of
the United States. Mr. Speaker, I respect our President; but I do not
worship him, nor is he a king or an emperor. He is our President and is
subject to the will of the American people.
My reason for supporting this resolution is that our President is
properly authorized under the terms of this proposed resolution to seek
out all diplomatic options, to make sure that there is substantive
participation from our allies and from other nations in the world to
confront the serious danger that is now before us and the world with
the regime currently governed by the dictator Saddam Hussein.
Another critical factor in this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we
have not questioned the loyalty and patriotism of each of us or the
integrity of each of us, of any Member of this body, especially under
the climate we are now under to make a firm decision whether our Nation
should commit her military forces against her enemies. I am convinced,
Mr. Speaker, that sometime tomorrow, if as a result of a final vote by
this body that vote is not overwhelming in support of the President's
proposed resolution, that common sense would dictate that our President
would seriously have to reconsider his position on this matter, go back
to the drawing board and try again. I would rather deal with some
bruised egoes in the White House and in the Congress than to end up
fighting another war like Vietnam.
Again, in good faith and as a consequence of the deliberative efforts
of the leadership of both sides of the aisle in this body, a proposed
resolution has been offered for our consideration. But, Mr. Speaker, I
make reference to my friend, the Chinese General Sun Tzu, who some
2,500 years ago made some very astute observations concerning the art
of warfare, and I hope our Vice President and our leaders in the
Department of Defense will take heed to General Tzu's advice.
General Tzu said, ``If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need
not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the
enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. But if
you do not know your enemy nor yourself, you will absolutely lose in
every battle.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and ask that he be
permitted to control the rest of that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the time remaining now on the
two sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) has
2 hours and 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) now has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Sawyer).
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I have with me a carefully prepared floor
statement. It lays out my opposition to the Hastert-Gephardt-Bush
resolution, although it is a meaningful improvement over the original
proposal, and my support for the Spratt alternative. I commend it to my
colleagues, and will place that statement in the Record for reference.
In truth, it covers ground already well covered, more eloquently and
with

[[Page 19898]]

deepest conviction, by both supporters and opponents many times in this
important and serious debate. Instead, because these votes may well be
my last of real import as a Member of Congress, I would like to share
with colleagues a very specific thought. It is simple. We all remember
the warning common from childhood: ``Don't start something you cannot
finish.''
I do not mean to suggest that what we are doing here today is
something we cannot finish. But my father said it a little bit
differently, more as a matter of advice than childish threat. ``Don't
start anything you don't know how to finish.'' It is good advice about
many things. And even though I will not be here to help at the finish
of what we begin here today, it is good advice here nonetheless.
Now, I am not talking about war plans. I am confident that they will
be well and professionally crafted; and, clearly, we should not share
them with our adversaries. But I am talking about peace plans. We seem
to have more trouble with them. And we need to make them very clear to
adversaries and allies alike. It is a powerful tool.
For the second time in a year, we are talking about making war in
order to rebuild a nation and its culture. The echo which that recalls
from 40 years ago is a concern.
``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father
said.
It reminds me of 1991. And the events of the last year in Afghanistan
are even more troubling, as rebuilding there hardly proceeds at all.
And the message that sends to the oppressed people of Iraq and others
whom we would make our friends throughout the Middle East, that message
is a real problem.
``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father
said.
Because this will not be over when the bombs stop falling and the
ground combat is over and the wounded are cared for and the dead are
put to rest. It will not begin to be over until we have carried out a
coherent and clearly stated plan for postwar Iraq. It is the single
most important message we can send to the people of the region as they
debate and choose a better future for themselves.
Middle East analyst Stephen Cohen has remarked, ``We in the West
cannot have that debate for them, but we can help create the conditions
for it to happen. America's role is to show the way to incremental
change, something that is not, presto, instant democracy, or fantasies
that enlightened despotism will serve our interests. We cannot just go
on looking at the Arab world as a giant gas station, indifferent to
what happens inside. Because gas is now leaking and all around people
are throwing matches.''
``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father
said.
It is an important lesson. It is one that we might have thought the
President's own father might have said to him. Or maybe not. And that
is why I say it today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress would achieve near unanimity if we
were voting only on the overall purpose of this resolution, which is to
eliminate Saddam Hussein's control over weapons of mass destruction. On
that issue we are as unified as we are in the war against terrorism
that we launched with the President a year ago. I, and many others,
believe that the current Iraqi regime poses a long-term threat to the
community of nations through its ongoing defiance of United Nations
resolutions prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass
destruction. But I will not support the resolution before us because it
provides the President with an open-ended authority that is far too
broad for the task before us.
The President is asking for authorization of force even before he
determines that force is necessary and before we have exhausted our
other options short of force. Instead, Congress should pass a
resolution that calls on the President to obtain the support of the
United Nations and our allies and authorizes him to use force if it is
so sanctioned by the United Nations. This approach is embodied in the
Spratt substitute amendment to be offered tomorrow, which I will
support. If the United Nations fails to take sufficient action, then we
can pass another resolution of force at that time. But action by the
United Nations Security Council offers the best chance to reintroduce
meaningful inspections into Iraq. This would be the best way to resolve
the threat from Iraq peacefully and without reducing our focus on
eliminating al Qaeda, which remains the foremost immediate threat to
America.
Given Saddam Hussein's record of obstruction over the past eleven
years, the United Nations should authorize force against Iraq if Iraq
interferes with the unconditional inspection and dismantling of its
weapons of mass destruction. However, I cannot support a resolution
that authorizes unilateral military force in the present circumstances.
I am concerned that if the U.S. were to act alone it would damage our
wide international support in the war against terrorism and al Qaeda.
This war depends on the cooperation of other governments to arrest
terrorist suspects, monitor terrorist financial transactions, and share
intelligence. We should not risk the goodwill of the international
community by acting unilaterally while multilateral options still
exist.
I am also concerned that if the U.S. were to act against Iraq without
the support of the United Nations Security Council, it would set a
dangerous precedent for other countries who might be tempted to use
military intervention against the wishes of the international community
in order to end long-simmering disputes. It is important that our
policy toward Iraq be guided by our long-standing commitment to the
principle of collective security, which the United States helped place
in the Charter of the United Nations.
Let me close by saying that I believe that Congress and the
Administration should make it crystal clear before any military action
is taken that the U.S. will be committed to helping Iraq rebuild after
a war. The U.S. cannot expect to make a quick exit from Iraq after a
war. We would have to be committed to a substantial expenditure of time
and money to revitalize Iraq, and we will need the support of our
allies to succeed. Doing otherwise would risk leaving behind a
dangerously unstable country in the Middle East that could be an even
greater source of danger in the region than the current regime.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his
thoughtful comments. I may not agree with all of them, but the
contribution that he has made in this body will be sorely missed with
his departure. And I know that I share with my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle in knowing that this body will be poorer for not
having the kind of insight and the kind of caring that we have just
heard.
I know this debate has gone on long, but some things are worth going
on a little longer, and I once again would like to express my
appreciation for his thoughtful comments.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
also compliment the gentleman from Ohio, who has served this House so
outstandingly; and we will certainly truly miss him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), one of the brightest persons in the House, who serves on
the Committee on Financial Services and who has patiently waited.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me this time, and thank him as well for having undertaken this
thankless, but very important, job and has done it well.
When I listened to the President's speech the other night, I found
myself in agreement with much of it, but then I find myself in
disagreement with his conclusion. I think the President made a pretty
good case for a multilateral approach to making sure that Saddam
Hussein is disarmed, but that is not what he is asking us to do.
The President is asking us to authorize a unilateral invasion of Iraq
to overthrow Saddam Hussein because he is an immoral and evil ruler. I
wish he were the only immoral and evil ruler in the world. Our job
would be simpler.
But I do not see a rationale for a unilateral American invasion to
overthrow Saddam Hussein that does not apply to a number of other
governments, some of whom we are allied with. In fact, there will be a
choice tomorrow for a very well-thought-out proposal that would empower
the President with the full support of Congress to undertake a serious
effort to get a multilateral approach, using force if necessary, to
impose disarmament on Saddam Hussein. It is the resolution that will be
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

[[Page 19899]]

And the President said, let us have unity, let us have a large
majority here. He could get, I believe, more than 90 percent, if he
were willing to throw his support behind a resolution that said let us
use force in a multilateral context not to overthrow this government,
because we cannot be in the position of, I think, invading every
government that fails to meet our moral standards, as much as I believe
those moral standards to be correct ones. He, instead, will choose a
more divisive path.
Why? One reason is that we are told the policy of deterrence will not
work with Saddam Hussein. We are told that deterrence, which has worked
with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China and with
North Korea and with Iran and with other nations, uniquely will not
work with Iraq because of the nature of Saddam Hussein. The problem
with the argument that deterrence will not work, that is the policy
that says the way to keep him from using chemical and biological and,
ultimately, nuclear weapons, if he gets them, and we should try to stop
him from getting them, but the way to keep him from doing it is to
threaten him with overwhelming retaliation.

{time} 2245

The President says it does not work. But American intelligence says
it does.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Post article
from last Monday from which I want to read.
``Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were
deployed during the war of 1991, they were not used. U.S. officials now
believe this was because the United States had repeatedly cautioned
Iraq before the fighting started that use of such weapons would draw an
immediate and possibly overwhelming response that would topple Hussein
from power.
``One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade Iraqi
officers from ordering the use of chemical and biological weapons is
that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent has been rendered moot by the
administration's decision to make removing Hussein the goal of any
military action.''
This is the conclusion of American military intelligence, not
rebutted by the administration. It was recently reinforced by a letter
released by the CIA, and the CIA said he is not likely to use the
weapons because he is being deterred effectively by the threat of our
force.
In a colloquy with a Senator from Michigan he was asked the question,
What about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an
attack and he was an extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in
response to our attack he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior intelligence witness: ``Pretty high, in my view.''
In other words, deterrence according to American intelligence
analysis in 1991 and American intelligence analysis today works. So
there is no need for this unilateral invasion.
Yes, I think it is useful for the international community to put
maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. I believe that the
resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is an
authorization to do that.
I disagree with the President about this policy of a unilateral
American invasion with us paying all of the costs and having all of the
responsibility for the subsequent administration with Iraq. I disagree
with it; but if one agrees with it, it is the height of
irresponsibility to pretend that we can pay for it in the current
situation without serious social harm.
This administration put through a major tax cut 2 years ago with the
consent of Congress, over my objection and many others. Since that
time, we have committed to spend on a war on Afghanistan, which I
supported; reconstruction of Afghanistan, our moral obligation;
significant increases to compensate the victims, both municipal and
individual, of the mass murders of September 11; significant ongoing
increases in expenditure of homeland security. Now add to that a war in
Iraq and the subsequent responsibility to run Iraq and leave that tax
cut in place. Members should understand the consequences: a
deterioration in our environmental cleanup; a lack of transportation
spending; indeed, a reduction of real spending for virtually every
other domestic program.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that deterrence still works means that is
unnecessary.
The previously referred to material is as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2002]

U.S. Effort Aimed at Iraqi Officers

(By Walter Pincus)

The Pentagon is preparing a campaign aimed at deterring
Iraqi officers from firing chemical or biological weapons
during a U.S. invasion because intelligence officials believe
President Saddam Hussein has given field commanders
conditional authority to use the weapons in the event of an
attack, according to defense and intelligence officials.
The effort would include massive leafleting of Iraqi
military positions--a tactic used by U.S. forces during the
Gulf War in 1991--but also might employ covert techniques
that would enable the U.S. message to reach Iraqi commanders,
the officials said.
Final authority to use weapons of mass destruction has
resided with Hussein. But the Iraqi president's knowledge
that the United States would seek to take down Iraqi command
centers and communications systems at the outset of any
military strike means he has likely already given authority
for firing chemical and biological weapons to his most loyal
commanders in the field, the officials said. They said
Hussein issued similar orders before the Gulf War.
As a result, the sources said, the Pentagon plans to appeal
directly to these officers not to use the weapons. One of the
biggest challenges before military planners is determining
which Iraqi military units can be encouraged to defect in the
event of a U.S. invasion and how to communicate with them,
defense officials have said.
A British intelligence report released Tuesday by Prime
Minister Tony Blair said Iraqis could deploy nerve gas and
anthrax weapons on 45 minutes' notice. It also said Hussein
may have already delegated authority to order use of such
weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican
Guard--elite units that control deployed weapons for mass
destruction.
The Pentagon's campaign was signaled recently by Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Testifying before the House
Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said, ``Wise Iraqis will
not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction]....
The United States will make clear at the outset that those
who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new
Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off.''
Rumsfeld added that if the order to use chemical or
biological weapons were made by Hussein, ``that does not
necessarily mean his orders would be carried out. He might
not have anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain
of command most certainly would have a great deal to lose.''
A Pentagon official said Rumsfeld's comments ``are at least
the start of telling them we are serious.''
After the Gulf War, coalition force interrogators learned
that Hussein had decided ahead of time to give commanders the
go-ahead to use chemical weapons if Baghdad's communications
were interrupted.
One administration source said the Iraqi president issued
specific orders to use the weapons if ``the allies were
winning the ground war and they had crossed a line due west
of the city of Al-Amarah,'' which is 200 miles south of
Baghdad. Iraqi unit commanders were also told they should
employ the weapons against Iranian forces if they crossed the
border during the war and moved into Iraq's Maysan Province,
where Al-Amarah is located.
Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were
deployed during the war, they were not used. U.S. officials
now believe this was because the United States had repeatedly
cautioned Iraq before the fighting started that use of such
weapons would draw a immediate and possibly overwhelming
response that would topple Hussein from power.
One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade
Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical or
biological weapons is that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent
has been rendered moot by the administration's decision to
make removing Hussein the goal of any military action.
Whether a plan to deter Iraqi commanders from employing the
weapons will work is a matter of disagreement among military
experts. The Republican Guard units that control the weapons
are run by Hussein's most loyal officers.
They will face a short-term or a long-term problem'' one
former senior intelligence official said. ``We may come after
them when the fighting is over. But there may be a Saddam
loyalist with a gun who is threatening to kill him right away
if he doesn't follow orders.''
Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at the National Defense
University, said that in 1991, according to documents found
after the war, Hussein had tried to persuade his commanders
to use the weapons because they

[[Page 19900]]

would be killed anyway. Also, Hussein had placed loyalists
with the commanders to enforce his wishes. ``The question is,
are they still there?'' she said.
Richard Russell, a CIA area analyst who specialized in Iraq
and is now at the National Defense University, said the
effort to deter individual commanders ``makes sense as an
attempt.'' But he noted that Iraqi operational security was
very good in the Gulf War and ``you have to assume it is much
better now.''
After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, U.S. officials
talked openly of American forces making preparations for
waging combat in a chemical environment. Then-Secretary of
State James A. Baker III told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz that Hussein's government would be endangered if such
weapons were used. Then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney
hinted that if such an attack took place against Israel, that
country might respond with nuclear weapons.
In the war's aftermath, U.S. intelligence officials learned
that Iraq had been deterred from using chemical weapons by
the threat of massive retaliation. Iraqi artillery units
armed with chemical shells were segregated from the rest of
the forces and chemical munitions were never moved to Kuwait
and never moved toward the front as coalition forces
approached, and in some cases breached, the Iraq-Kuwait
border.
____

C.I.A. Letter to Senate on Baghdad's Intentions

Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator
Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, by George J. Tenet, director of
central intelligence, about decisions to declassify material
related to the debate about Iraq:
In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made
unclassified material available to further the Senate's
forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning
Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance
between your need for unfettered debate and our need to
protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a
shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our
intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with sight
into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The
salience of such concerns is only heightened by the
possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our
classified judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding
the use of weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent
unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we
can declassify the following from the paragraphs you
requested:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W.
[chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no
longer be deterred, he probably would become much less
constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism
might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful
attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W.
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting
Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the
United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by
taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify
the following dialogue:
Senator Levin [Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan]: ... If
(Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is
it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of
mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: ... My judgment would be that
the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a
time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the
conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be
low.
Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've ...
indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks
against us ... But what about his use of weapons of mass
destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was
in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response
to our attack that he would use chemical or biological
weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--``in
the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand
now''--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of
Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise
grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used W.M.D.,
it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such
weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh's [Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana]
question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw
from the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-
Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying
reliability. Some of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between
Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have
discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of
the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some
that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought
contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D.
capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has
provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled
with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida,
suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase,
even absent U.S. military action.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to keep fairness in this body, I
believe there are more speakers on the other side of the aisle, and I
would like to inquire how much longer they would need in order to find
a way to equalize time?
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we would need a minimum of at least one full
hour. That would be the least amount of time. It is very difficult to
predict. We will not let anyone speak over 5 minutes. However, we feel
an obligation to every Member who was promised the opportunity to
speak. We want to live up to our obligations, but we will try to move
it along as quickly as possible.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, certainly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) had every
intention in making sure that every Member got an opportunity to speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 44 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and that he may control that
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep appreciation to the
gentleman from California, and to the majority, for this very generous
action. It is not always the norm, and I just want to express my
appreciation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and hope it will always
be the norm on the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the thousands in my
district who are opposed to an ill-conceived war, I rise in opposition
to this resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
Thousands of my constituents have spoken. Families of military
personnel who reside in my district have spoken. They have all
emphatically and resoundingly delivered an answer to the question of
going to war with Iraq; and the answer is, no, no, and no. No against
the war in Iraq. No against sending their sons and daughters to war for
yet-unknown reasons. And no to the ignoring of the economic problems
that still are plaguing our Nation.
The war that my constituents want us to wage is a war on poverty, a
war on layoffs, a war on inadequate health care, a war on a lack of
affordable housing and a war for economic opportunity and fairness.
Over the last several months, the President has been earnest in his
efforts to inform the American public of what the risks are of not
going to war and what they may be. But, to date, he has not convinced
the people in my district why their sons and their daughters should be
placed in harm's way.
If we are going to engage in an honest debate, we owe it to the
American public to ask the right questions. Questions like: What will
the number of military and civilian casualties be?

[[Page 19901]]

Questions like: How long will the conflict in Iraq be expected to last?
And simple questions like: Does Saddam Hussein pose a clear and present
threat to the United States?
Simply citing all the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, and
there are many atrocities that have been ignored for a decade, and
calling Saddam Hussein a bad name is simply not enough.
Mr. Speaker, during this incredible moment in American history, we
should all be reminded of a quote by President James Madison, ``The
advancement and infusion of knowledge is the only guardian of
liberty.''
If we are sincere about bringing democracy to the people of Iraq, we
should lead by example in every step of the way. We should lead by
presenting the American public and the American people with clear,
balanced and realistic information on the consequences of a war on
Iraq.
Let us not insult our own citizens by ignoring the fact that all
nations in the Middle East region and many of our long-standing allies
around the world oppose this war. They see military action in Iraq as a
glorified oil and land grab. Let us not ignore the fact that a strike
against Iraq will not only have the effect of inflaming existing
resentment of U.S. foreign policy and possibly provoking renewed
terrorist attacks on Americans both here and abroad.
And despite the President's proclamation that America is a friend of
the Iraqi people, we cannot insult the American people by ignoring the
fact that U.S.-led sanctions have created a hotbed of disease and
extreme poverty in Iraq, and war will only plunge the Iraqi people
deeper into death and despair.
For those who are saber rattling, war mongering and unconcerned with
America's place in the global community, let us not ignore the
consequences that the American people will have to pay.
To this issue, some argue that a war with Iraq is worth the blood of
young Americans. But as a Representative who may have to face mothers
and fathers and brothers and sisters of fallen constituents, I will not
disrespect and dishonor them with tough talk, tough talk that refuses
to answer obvious questions, tough talk that only provides the American
people with answers that do not answer, with explanations that do not
explain, and conclusions that do not conclude.
While I am confident that we will win an armed conflict with Iraq,
there must be a forthright discussion with the public about the impact
of a war on the American people and the world in which we live.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for
the gravity of our collective decision, I rise to oppose this
resolution, not because I disagree with the goal of disarming Saddam
Hussein, with force if necessary, but because I believe that this
resolution is dangerously broad and counterproductive to America's
greater goal of winning the war on terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the history of our country and the
Congress, relatively few issues have risen to the significance of a
declaration of war. Like many of my colleagues, I have personally
anguished over this decision because I am convinced that Saddam Hussein
is a threat. It is clear that he has designs to amass weapons of mass
destruction with the intent to exert control over the Middle East, if
not a larger region. The core of our decision lies in the best way to
address this threat.
I have tried to understand all perspectives. I have attended
classified and public hearings, examined evidence, studied pages of
material, and sought the counsel of many. I have listened intently to
those who have fought wars and those who have prevented them. I have
also listened attentively to the citizens of San Diego.
Mr. Speaker, looking back on the lessons of history, it is clear no
one can predict the future. Those faced with difficult decisions must
make the best judgment based on the information at hand. To be sure, in
the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, ``We do not know what we do not
know.'' However, that is precisely the reason that I continue to have
reservations about unilateral force.
Unilateral preemptive force may indeed win the battle for Iraq but
cause us to lose the war by isolating America from its many allies,
turning nations against us and reinforcing the cause of those who wish
us harm.
In addition to these considerations, we must consider our young men
and women in uniform. Before sending them into harm's way, we must
fully explore every other avenue to achieve our goals without risking
their lives. I do not believe we have done that.
I applaud the efforts of many to bring Congress to a place where
there is more agreement than disagreement. While we may disagree on the
manner, we agree that something must be done, and we agree that Saddam
Hussein is a menace, and we agree that the United States must exercise
its leadership.
To be a true leader, we must convince others to follow. Hubert
Humphrey once said, ``Leadership in today's world requires far more
than a large stock of gunboats and a hard fist at the conference
table.'' That is precisely why we must continue to seek options to
unilateral force, to work with the United Nations and the world
community, and to use force only when all other options are exhausted.
If we do not, how can we expect others to do likewise?
In addition, we must be clear in our goal. Again, citing the
Secretary of Defense, our goal is disarmament. To achieve this, we must
insist on tough new rigorous U.N. inspections. If those inspections are
thwarted, we may use force, first, if sanctioned by the U.N. Security
Council, and then alone if necessary.
Based on these principles, I will support the Spratt substitute
because it embodies the best way to address the threat posed by Saddam.
It holds the U.N. accountable, and it retains Congress's prerogative to
truly be the voice of the American people.

{time} 2300

Mr. Speaker, I question the notion that we must speak with one voice
because it is the collection of voices that grants us our strength. Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow I will vote ``no'' because House Joint Resolution 114
is a premature de facto declaration of war that fails to recognize the
fundamental tenet that leadership involves leading, not merely acting
alone. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote on the resolution does not
restrict the President's power to act should an imminent threat arise.
He already has that authority.
To conclude, let me say to the servicemen and women, especially those
living in San Diego who will be called upon to enforce this policy, my
admiration and respect for you is as strong as ever and it will never
waiver. Just as you always do your duty to America regardless of how
you personally feel about a particular mission, so will I do my duty to
give you the support you need to complete your mission and get home
safely. Along with my fellow Members of the House Committee on Armed
Services, I will fight vigorously to get you every tool you need to do
the job right.
To my colleagues on the committee and in Congress, I hope you will
take my opposition to this resolution in the spirit in which it is
offered, that of doing what I feel must be done to fight and win the
war on terrorism and empower diplomacy. We may disagree over the
strategy of addressing the threats posed by Iraq at this time, but we
are united in the greater goal to free America and the world from the
threat of terrorism.
To our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, a warning: do not confuse
democracy and debate with disunity or disarray. Our voices constitute
our strength, and the United States of America is united in its
resolve.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a member of the Committee on Government Reform
and the Committee on Financial Services, a true leader in this
government.

[[Page 19902]]

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two
wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The
question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not.
The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the
American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more
harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported
that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we
have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to
initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.''
Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam
conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might
at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other
words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we
launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our
intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a
resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go
forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies
including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on
terrorism.
But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is
ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-
being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public
discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over
the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the
retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives
disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today
has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our
manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs.
The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower
wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?
Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family
income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being
driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on
the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other
benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When
are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues
that are of such deep concern to Americans?
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I
am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral
invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this
resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young
American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of
thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a
caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible
suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in
international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned
about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish
in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If
President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against
any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if
another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war
against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September
11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are
prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced
before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National
Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An
attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy,
the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt
and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term
American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended
consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and
what role will the U.S. play in an ensuing civil war that could develop
in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large
Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by
extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions
that remain unanswered.
If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach,
what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United
Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N.
inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should
undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq
resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should
stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
114.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which
would authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
The diplomatic and military situation in Iraq without question
remains one of the most difficult security issues facing the United
States and the international community. It has only been further
complicated by the terrorist attacks on our country last year.
Recently, the President's national security adviser said Saddam Hussein
has sheltered al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in
the development of chemical weapons. Also of concern is the revelation
that there may have been a meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence
official and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks.
The administration has stated on numerous occasions that the war on
terrorism will continue to be fought against all countries that support
or harbor terrorists. It appears that list must include Iraq.
Our national security depends on preventing other countries from
developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has pursued an agenda to
develop weapons of mass destruction including chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons for many years. Saddam Hussein has already demonstrated
an unconscionable willingness to use chemical weapons on his own
people, attacking ethnic Kurds in Northern Iraq. He also used them
against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's arsenal
includes several delivery systems, including long-range missiles
capable of carrying dangerous payloads to our allies in the Middle East
and Europe, including U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Turkey.
The United Nations Security Council required Iraq to scrap all
weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow for
weapons verification inspections. For the past four years, Iraq has
prevented representatives of the United Nations from inspecting Iraq's
weapon facilities. It is clear that the Iraqi government has undermined
the authority of the United Nations by rebuilding many of its chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapon manufacturing plants.
Iraq has a history of invading its neighbors and using any and all
weapons at its disposal against its enemies. A nuclear weapon in the
hands of Hussein's brutal regime would give him an unacceptable upper
hand to expand control over the world's petroleum reserves and quite
possibly give him the leverage he needs to expand the borders of
tyranny.
Mr. Speaker, it is not an unlikely possibility that Iraq, as a state-
sponsor of terrorism, would transfer weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists intent on using them against the United States. September
11th showed us that America is not immune to terror attacks, and Iraq's
ties to international terrorist groups are unquestioned.
I support the President's campaign against any state, including Iraq,
which is found to support terrorism or seeks to develop weapons of mass
destruction with the intent of attacking America or its allies. We
cannot wait for a transparent threat to materialize. The longer we
wait, the more we risk another unthinkable attack upon our soil. Simply
put, the

[[Page 19903]]

United States cannot ignore the threat that Iraq poses to our way of
life and that of our allies.
Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for years of noncompliance
with United Nations resolutions. Failure to enforce the resolutions
weakens the authority of the United Nations itself and sends a message
to the foes of peace that future disobedience will be objected to
solely through empty threats and resolutions without teeth.
I am hopeful that diplomatic efforts may yet succeed, and believe the
United States must try to work with our allies and the international
community towards a peaceful solution to our present situation. Every
Member of Congress weighs this decision carefully, knowing the votes we
cast may place the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Yet
if it becomes necessary, we must be certain we do not embark upon a
Sicilian Expedition. Any use of force should include clear goals. If we
are to enter into conflict in Iraq, we must plainly establish our
objectives and follow through on a commitment to purge terror and
rebuild Iraq into a strong and stable nation.
Our first priority of any use of force should be to eliminate the
ability of the Hussein regime to manufacture, distribute, or employ
weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's goal has always been to obtain a
weapon of such destructive force, that no other nation would be willing
to resist his will. It would be fundamentally irresponsible to allow
Iraq to obtain a weapon that could be used to deter allied forces from
enforcing the internationally recognized authority of the United
Nations. Saddam's arsenal of aggression and terror must be completely
destroyed in order to encourage stability and prevent the proliferation
of those weapons to other parts of the region. This action must be our
first goal.
The second goal, is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq
has traditionally been a nation of commerce and prosperity, but Hussein
hoards the resources of his country, starving her citizens into
submission. His power is sustained by a 25,000-strong Republican Guard
who, in return for maintaining Saddam's rule, are rewarded with Iraq's
riches at the expense of her people. Hussein is not only guilty of some
of the most heinous crimes against humanity, but he rules Iraq like a
gangster by modeling his authority on the oppressive tyranny of Joseph
Stalin and frequently and personally executes any who oppose his rule
or stand in his way. We cannot continue to allow Hussein to cow the
Iraqi people into living under an umbrella of terror. Hussein's
sinister methodology of terror, assassination, and execution against
all who oppose him must end. We must support a regime change.
Our third objective should include a plan to root out all elements of
terror within Iraq and bring accountability to the war on terror within
the borders of Iraq. Hussein's government has proven uncooperative and
refuses to help in the identification and apprehension of those in
terror networks. The Hussein regime is unable to control areas within
Northern Iraq giving terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda free rein to
operate within Iraq's borders. This stands in stark contrast to the
other nations in the region who are working with the United States to
eradicate terrorist networks.
Finally, the United States and the International Community must
create a plan to rebuild Iraq and to restore a government that
represents the interests of Iraqis and is dedicated to reconstructing
an economy decimated by tyranny. New leadership will give the people of
Iraq an opportunity to become a responsible member of the international
community.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush has requested the Congress pass a
resolution authorizing the use of military force to enforce the United
Nations' Security Council Resolutions which Iraq continues to defy. We
must defend the national security interests of the United States. We
must eliminate the threat posed by Iraqi terror and we must work to
restore international peace and security to Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House
Joint Resolution 114.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a real spokesperson for justice in this country
and a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. On September
11, 2001, our Nation changed. We were traumatized when al Qaeda
terrorists attacked our Nation, killed nearly 3,000 Americans, wounded
many others physically, emotionally, and spiritually; destroyed
families and buildings and disrupted our economy. The President, the
Congress, and the American people responded quickly, appropriately and
with courage. All Americans support the war on terrorism, and they want
homeland security.
However, terrorism not only changed our psyche; it changed our
politics. Our politics shifted from hope to fear, and fear now clouds
our thinking. September 11 and Iraq are two distinct issues.
Nevertheless, President Bush is trying to take our legitimate fear
following 9-11 and illegitimately link it to Iraq. The White House and
some in this body have sought to link al Qaeda and September 11 to
Iraq. That alleged link underscores the President's position that the
Iraqi threat is imminent. However, congressional Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence members have said President Bush has
presented no factual evidence proving that link. Even the President
separates 9-11 from an imminent Iraqi threat, and here is the proof.
President Bush sees 9-11 and Iraq as separate because just 2 weeks ago
on September 24, he lowered the domestic risk of terrorist attacks from
orange to yellow. He lowered it. If the Iraqi threat were imminent,
would not the risk of terrorist attacks have at least remained the
same, at orange, or even elevated and raised to red, a severe risk of
terrorist attacks? But the President lowered it from orange to yellow.
Yes, Iraq's threat is real; and in light of 9-11, it is normal for
Americans to be afraid, but the Iraqi threat is not imminent. We should
not let it affect our politics over the next 3 weeks. We should not
vote on the basis of fear of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. We
must vote our hopes and not our fears. So far this debate has been
about military sticks, whether, when or under what circumstances to use
them. But why not try carrots too? Most Americans do not know that the
United States would not lift economic sanctions on Iraq even if Saddam
agreed to and fully implemented all U.N. resolutions.
In 1997 Secretary Albright said the U.S. would only lift sanctions
when Saddam Hussein was gone, not when Iraq lived up to U.N.
resolutions. President Clinton stated sanctions will be there until the
end of time or as long as Hussein lasts. But economic sanctions are
only hurting the people, making life miserable for the average Iraqi,
causing an estimated 500,000 deaths, mainly women and children. The
economic sanctions are not hurting Saddam Hussein. If they were, he
would not be the threat that the President says he is. Insisting on a
regime change before lifting economic sanctions goes beyond the legal
mandate of U.N. policy and is not authorized by any U.N. resolution. We
need to lure Iraqi compliance with a meaningful economic inducement,
not merely threaten them with military force. Why does the United
States not offer to lift economic sanctions in an orderly and
progressive way in exchange for unfettered and comprehensive
inspections? Without the carrot of lifting economic sanctions in
exchange for removing weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi government
has no incentive to cooperate. Offering to lift economic sanctions in
exchange for unfettered inspections will gain the support within Iraq
and among our allies.
Before there is any authorization for the use of armed force against
Iraq, we must make sure that all peaceful means containing and
eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted,
including offering positive incentives, and the U.S. should lead this
initiative. This positive incentive to get Saddam Hussein to comply has
not and is not currently in play. But until we make this overture and
change the policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime
change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful alternatives to force.
We are a Nation united by our Constitution and committed to the rule
of law. That commitment is now challenged by an outlaw. We must bring
this outlaw to justice but not become outlaws ourselves. And while our
attention is focused on a military threat overseas, we are drowning at
home economically. I believe we can creatively insist on a peaceful
resolution to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction without an
invasion and the

[[Page 19904]]

actual use of force. Our military might is unquestioned. Our wisdom,
our compassion, our commitment to a nonviolent means of resolving
conflict is not. By that and that alone will move us toward a genuine
peace, justice and security for all.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I take the threat of
nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile and aggressive Iraq very
seriously. On September 11 when my district was attacked, I thanked God
the terrorists did not have nuclear weapons. We all want to protect
this Nation. The question before us today is not whether to protect
America, but how best to do so.
Saddam Hussein unquestionably poses a real danger. He has
consistently shown a virulent hostility to the United States and to
Israel, a willingness to invade other countries without provocation, a
willingness to use chemical and biological weapons against civilian
populations, a relentless drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction
including nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and a reckless
aggressiveness.

{time} 2315

The conclusion is inescapable that the acquisition of nuclear weapons
by Iraq would pose an intolerable threat to the United States and to
world peace. That threat must be met, if at all possible, through the
United Nations and in accordance with international law, but war must
be the last resort, not the first option.
The resolution before us is not a compromise. It is in all important
respects still very much the original draft: a blank check, like the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We must not grant the President a blank
check.
Make no mistake, this resolution grants the President the power to go
to war entirely at his discretion. While the resolution pays lip
service to the need for international cooperation, it does not require
the President to seek it. While the resolution mentions a desire to
work through the United Nations, it does not require the President to
exhaust our options at the U.N. before starting a war.
The resolution requires the President to inform Congress that efforts
in the U.N. and the international community have failed, but he need
not do so until after he starts a war. We must grant the President the
power to take prudent action to meet the threat from Iraq but only
action that does not itself threaten international peace and security.
The United States should seek a U.N. resolution providing for the
immediate return to Iraq of beefed-up arms inspection teams and
demanding that they be afforded unfettered and unconditional access to
all sites they deem necessary to accomplish their task of locating and
destroying all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and their
production facilities.
The U.N. resolution should authorize the use of military force to the
extent necessary to overcome any Iraqi attempts to interfere with the
inspection teams, and Congress should authorize the President to use
such military force only to enable the inspection teams to do their
jobs.
We might this way be able to eliminate the threat of Iraq's chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons without military conflict. But if
military conflict occurred, we would be better off as part of a
multilateral effort enforcing a Security Council inspection and
disarmament order, with the onus on Saddam Hussein for starting the
conflict, than we would as the Lone Ranger invading Iraq on our own,
with most of the world looking on in disapproval.
Let me remind my colleagues: Before they were ejected from Iraq, U.N.
inspectors destroyed more weapons and more weapons facilities than did
the coalition forces during the Gulf War. This proven, successful
course of action should be fully utilized before we risk regional
conflagration.
I believe the Security Council would adopt a resolution embodying
such a specific limited approach, and that, working through the U.N.
and with other nations, the U.S. could participate in successfully
implementing it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the President insists that, in addition to
disarming Saddam, we must overthrow his regime. Demanding regime change
is extremely dangerous. It is one thing to tell Saddam he must disarm.
It is quite another to demand the end of his regime.
Faced with such a threat, which in practical terms means his death,
there would be nothing to deter Saddam Hussein from deciding, like
Samson in the Philistine temple, that he might as well pull the world
down with him. Why should he not go down in history as an Arab hero by
attacking Israel with chemical or biological weapons of perhaps
devastating lethality? Israel might then feel compelled to retaliate,
and no one could calculate the course of escalation from there.
But Members do not need to take my evaluation of this threat. Just
yesterday, the director of the CIA, George Tenet, told the other body
that ``Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or
biological weapons.'' But, he continued, if Saddam concluded the
survival of his regime was threatened, ``he probably would become much
less constrained in adopting terrorist action.''
Mr. Speaker, we must constrain the administration from pursuing this
perilous course. The substitute resolution offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) grants the President the authority to
use military force as part of a multilateral effort to divest Saddam of
his weapons of mass destruction.
That is as far as we should go. We must draw this line, Mr. Speaker,
not because we are unconcerned with our country's security, but
precisely because we care so very, very much for it.

____________________