[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21196-21197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                     HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 10, 2002

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we discuss fully 
here the most serious responsibility entrusted to Congress, authorizing 
the President to use force in defense of our nation. The decision by 
Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S. military requires 
somber analysis, and sober consideration, but this is not a discussion 
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 the Commander in Chief.
  The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more 
apparent. It is perhaps best illustrated by the size and scope of Iraqi 
efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, a horrifying 
capability only recognized after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The United 
Nations Special Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying 38,500 
chemical munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical agents, and 1.8 million 
liters of precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to developing offensive 
biological weapons, including 19,000 liters of botulinum, 8,400 liters 
of anthrax, and 2,000 liters of aflatoxin, clostridium, and ricin. 
Inspectors accounted for over 800 Soviet-supplied Scud missiles and 43 
of 45 chemical and biological warheads that Iraq admitted to. About 40 
clandestine nuclear weapons facilities were discovered and destroyed, 
and the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that at the time of 
the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was less than two years away from producing 
a nuclear weapon.
  Yet, this list of poisons describes only what UN Inspectors were able 
to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and 
denial. For example, UNSCOM could not account for 31,600 chemical 
munitions, 500 mustard gas bombs, and 4,000 tons of chemical weapon 
precursors. The Inspectors were unable to account for any of Iraq's 
biological agents, or the delivery systems needed to weaponize these 
agents. Such was the status of the Iraqi weapons program a decade ago. 
In the intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, 
and indeed have accelerated following the withdrawal of UN inspectors.
  Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve to develop deadly weapons 
of mass destruction, and, more horrifyingly, to use them. Saddam 
Hussein murdered 5,000 of his own citizens in Halabja, and injured 
10,000 more, in a gas attack. 20,000 Iranians died terrible deaths in 
clouds of mustard gas and nerve agents. In breach of U.N. imposed 
sanctions, Iraq has continued to develop long-range missiles that 
expand the threat that these toxins pose to the world community. The 
British Government has estimated that Iraq could possess missiles 
capable of reaching the Bosphorous Straits within five years. Current 
Iraqi military planning envisions the use of these weapons in a 
conflict, and as the world waits for compliance with any of the 16 
Security Council Resolutions that are presently in abeyance, this 
capability grows.
  Perhaps in different hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq would be less of an imminent threat. To be sure, the 
doctrine of mutually assured destruction deterred the United States and 
the Soviet Union from direct conflict for more than forty years. But 
such a doctrine is dependent upon rational actors and an expectation 
that civilized nation-states seek the preservation of their citizenry. 
Such assumptions fail in Iraq, a country that under Saddam Hussein has 
demonstrated an unabated hatred of the United States and a willingness 
to sacrifice and murder its citizens in the interests of the ruling 
clique. Ongoing hostilities in the Northern and Southern no-flight 
zones make it increasingly likely that an unexpected event could lead 
to the use of these mass casualty weapons against our citizens. To wait 
for an Iraqi epiphany is to invite disaster. Inaction is immoral--the 
United States has a responsibility to the community of nations to 
eliminate this threat before it grows ever greater. To concur that 
Saddam Hussein is a threat is to agree upon the need for action, for 
can one reasonably argue that intervention is easier in a nuclear-
weapon capable Mesopotamia?
  This authorization of force is at some level, a recognition of the 
ongoing state of war with Iraq. Conflict with Iraq has never truly 
ceased since the conclusion of the Gulf War, and coalition aircraft 
supporting Operation Northern and Southern Watch have been fired upon 
thousands of times. It is revealing to examine the record of only the 
last three weeks, since Iraq sent a letter to the United Nations 
expressing a willingness to resume weapons inspections. Sixty-seven 
attempts have been made to down coalition aircraft in this period; 406 
attempts have been made this year. It is beyond comprehension to 
believe that this body would argue for further deliberation, further 
study, further diplomacy, were our pilots to be attacked so in any 
other place on the globe. Yet, we have tolerated this low-level 
conflict for nearly a decade.
  Opponents of this resolution have responded by asking, ``Why now?'' 
What compelling reason could there be for acting today, that was not 
before us a year ago?
  Three years ago this body declared Iraq to be unacceptably in breach 
of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take 
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant 
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its 
international obligations.'' Three years ago, we also declared it to be 
the policy of the United States to change the regime in Baghdad and 
promote a democratic state.--Three Years Ago!--The credibility of this 
body is even called into question, for us now to insist on further 
deliberation, further consultation, further delay. These issues aren't 
new, my colleagues, they have been before us for years. It is only the 
leadership of this President that has allowed us to do our duty and 
seriously consider the implications of the threat that has been before 
us for so many years.
  The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and the general 
inactivity of the international community for a decade. To what avail, 
but a rearmed, emboldened dictator, confident in his ability to flaunt 
international law, willing to flex his might against lesser states in 
the region, and capable of intimidating all others. This is not hasty, 
precipitous action on our part, but something closer to negligence for 
having waited so long to confront the danger to our citizenry.
  Critics of this resolution are notably short of alternatives or 
specifics. Regime change cannot happen through domestic posturing. 
Disarmament requires more than hopes and good wishes.
  It has been suggested that multilateral diplomacy is preferable to 
unilateral action. As a permanent member of the Security Council, it is 
appropriate for the United States to work

[[Page 21197]]

with the United Nations to seek common ground and broad international 
support for U.S. actions. Where agreement with the United Nations may 
fail, we should look to our other regional alliances, seeking common 
ground and unity of purpose. Our success in 1991, was attributable, in 
part, to the collective outrage of the world community with Iraq's 
unabashed violation of Kuwait's territorial integrity. Acting in 
concert with our allies is inarguably the first and best choice, but we 
must remember that the President has sworn to ``preserve, protect, and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.''
  Ultimately, the President's actions must be guided by America's 
national security interests. Where broader regional interests intersect 
with our security concerns, we should welcome assistance and combine 
efforts in the pursuit of liberty and freedom. But we must not 
predicate our actions on global opinion. When necessary, the United 
States must be prepared to act alone. Our success in 1991 was 
attributable also to American might and resolve--while our cause was 
strengthened by the support of the United Nations, our Armed Forces 
were trained and equipped to act alone if necessary. It was knowledge 
of American resolve, and first-hand experience with the unrelenting 
application of our combined arms, not Security Council resolutions, 
which led Iraqi forces to surrender in droves.
  Our allies abroad should take note of this resolution. While we are 
encouraging the President to continue his efforts to build 
international support, and to exhaust diplomatic alternatives to armed 
conflict, our friends and foes alike must know that diplomacy can 
indeed be exhausted. It is appropriate for Congress to acknowledge the 
prospect of unilateral military action, and such action only serves to 
add credibility and urgency to ongoing negotiations. I do not share the 
deep, unyielding belief in the power of international law and global 
institutions that some here have expressed. It is not irresponsible to 
act alone when all others have failed to act.
  On Tuesday, December 9, 1941, two days after the attacks on Pearl 
Harbor, President Roosevelt addressed the nation and reflected upon the 
coming challenges facing the country. He noted:

       It is our obligation to our dead it is our sacred 
     obligation--to their children and our children--that we must 
     never forget what we have learned.
       And what we all have learned is this.
       There is no such thing as security for any nation or any 
     individual in a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism.
       There is no such thing as impregnable defense against 
     powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike 
     without warning.
       We have learned that our ocean-girt hemisphere is not 
     immune from severe attack that we cannot measure our safety 
     in terms of miles on any map.

  Sixty years later, in New York, and Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, 
we learned that the lessons that President Roosevelt implored us to 
remember had not changed so much. Gangsterism, unbridled aggression and 
acute vulnerability are the very same dangers we face today. In 1941, 
Congress stood with the President and promised full support to protect 
and defend our nation. Today we must do no less.

                          ____________________