[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 2943-2948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SENATE CONFIRMATION OF MIGUEL ESTRADA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I think his comments are 
especially pertinent this evening in consideration of the debate that 
is going on in this Capitol. So I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. I greatly appreciate the gentleman giving me some of his 
time. The gentleman is on this floor on a very regular basis making 
some very important remarks about very important issues, and he will 
continue that, but the gentleman is right, Mr. Speaker.
  Tonight is a very, very important night. There is a debate going on 
in this town that is highly important to the future of this country. 
The debate is so important that I hope the American people are tuning 
in and understand what is going on in this country.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman that has been nominated to 
serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals bench. The gentleman's name is 
Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada is exactly the type of highly qualified 
lawyer that America needs on the bench in this country. His story also 
mirrors America's best heritage of individual achievement and the 
blessings available to those who choose to hitch their futures to our 
republic. He represents the best tradition of hard work, perseverance, 
dedication and integrity. He built a strong record of academic 
excellence in leading universities.
  The left often opposes conservative judicial nominees on the basis of 
an unfavorable rating from the American Bar Association, but in this 
case, Mr. Speaker, even the ABA recognizes that Miguel Estrada is well 
qualified. In fact, Al Gore's close legal adviser and former chief of 
staff Ron Klain had this to say about Estrada: Miguel is a person of 
outstanding character, tremendous intellect and with a deep commitment 
to the faithful application of precedent. The challenges that he has 
overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely 
concerned for others and genuinely devoted to helping those in need.
  Former President Bill Clinton's Solicitor General Seth Waxman said, 
During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of 
professionalism and competence. In no way did I ever discern that the 
recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were 
colored in any way by his personal views or indeed that they reflected 
any consideration other than the long-term interests of the United 
States. I have great respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect and for 
his integrity.
  There, Mr. Speaker, we have it. Objective observers from the other 
side of the aisle recognize that Miguel Estrada is a highly qualified 
and intellectually gifted legal superstar who would immediately raise 
the standard of the bench on his first day.
  There is no substantive basis for opposing his candidacy beyond the 
vicious and intellectually dishonest tenets of an all-consuming leftist 
ideology that is driven entirely by an appetite to destroy anyone 
standing beyond its control.
  The left is inflamed by any prospective judicial candidate with the 
courage to oppose their unrelenting, small-minded, intolerant hostility 
to the traditional foundations of American life: faith in God, 
reverence for tradition, respect for the true rule of law and the 
recognition that we are all ultimately accountable for our actions.
  That last point in particular, Mr. Speaker, summons the deepest venom 
and bile from the left. They attempted over the four decades beginning 
in the 1960s to put forth a vast and sordid swindle upon the American 
people. The left claim that men and women could take any action, that 
they could ignore our most sacred and sacrosanct traditions, that in 
service of convenience they could callously destroy and step forward 
without consequences.
  Now we know better. We know that the left's malevolent campaign to 
undermine the notion of truth itself comes at a frightful price. Their 
malignant hold over the intellectual life of this country must be 
exercised, and men and women who are willing to speak the truth offer 
our only hope of reclaiming our culture from the grip of a hedonistic, 
reckless and destructive descent into nihilism.
  They oppose anyone who would reject the long reckless reach of the 
plaintiff's bar into everyday lives with frivolous and destructive 
lawsuits. The left are wracked with malice by the prospects that a 
Republican judicial appointee would approach the Constitution with 
reverence as a fixed defining document that offers a true north for the 
breadth and reach of the Federal Government.
  The left prefers instead legal anarchists who approach the 
Constitution as a malleable document, subject to political manipulation 
and susceptible to the faddist legal theories of the moment.

[[Page 2944]]

  Because Miguel Estrada is committed to upholding our founding 
principles and preserving the integrity of the rule of law, the left is 
targeting him for destruction. This we cannot and we will not allow.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that the other body is working late into the 
night, and I hope that the American people will tune in to C-SPAN that 
is carrying the other body's debate because it is a critical debate to 
what is going on in this country today. It is a critical debate, a 
debate that the Nation is having today, a debate that is so vitally 
important to the future of this country.
  To take a man from Honduras, an immigrant that has worked his way up, 
realizing the American dream, going to college, getting his law degree, 
working in courts and working for the President of the United States, 
trying to advance an agenda that is vitally important to American 
people; but because he may have a name that is different than most, 
because he is a Hispanic, he is a danger to the left, and they are 
treating him as dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is vitally important that we as Americans 
stand and support Miguel Estrada in his quest to serve on the D.C. 
Court of Appeals, and I would urge this House to stand up with Estrada 
on this evening, a very important evening for this country, and I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves, I would like 
to point out a couple of things about Mr. Estrada.
  First of all, the American Bar Association has given him the highest 
qualifications. These are the people that go in, regardless of race and 
economic status, they take a look at their legal qualifications. He is 
at the top of the book. He is at the top of the group. He is at the 
top.
  Second of all, I think it is very important some of the gentleman's 
remarks. He is a leader, a recognized leader in the Hispanic community. 
Why are they picking on him? They cannot pick on him because of 
substance. I think there is a double standard back here.
  The Democrats on one hand stand and say they feel strongly about the 
Hispanic community, but when the going gets tough, where are they to be 
found? It is people like my colleagues sitting over here that have 
enough guts to stand up when something is going wrong and say, how can 
you do this? Or the American Bar, which by the way is nonpartisan, has 
said he ranks at the very top. And here we have the Democrats taking on 
what is going to be the first opportunity for a Hispanic in the history 
of our country to be named into this position, and it is the Democrats 
who take one of the most highly qualified attorneys in this country, 
according to a bipartisan group, the American Bar Association, and are 
at this very moment seeking to destroy him.
  The gentleman's comments were well taken.
  I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  It is rather strange that it is okay to be Hispanic, but a person has 
to be Hispanic with a particular point of view. In this country, can my 
colleague imagine that a person has to be a Hispanic that only believes 
one way, that only believes the way that the left would have them 
believe, that is only controlled by the left?
  But to have somebody that has brought himself up from poverty and 
present himself to the United States for a very important prestigious 
appointment, to have to kowtow to the control of the left because he 
may not think the same way they do, that he may not believe in the same 
things that they do, is just outrageous, and the American people need 
to see what is going on here in this town tonight.
  They need to understand what is going on in this town tonight, and 
they need to reject those that would reject Miguel Estrada.
  Mr. McINNIS. Again, reclaiming my time, in my opinion, this is the 
clearest example of a double standard that we have seen in a long time, 
and it is taking place right now in front of the American public; and 
the American public ought to stand up and say, look, just because one 
is not on the radical left does not mean they should not have an 
opportunity as a Hispanic leader, as one of the top-rated attorneys in 
the country by the American Bar Association, to take a position that 
has never before been held by a Hispanic.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being here and I 
appreciate him yielding time to us, and I think I and my colleagues are 
going to go over to the other body and witness what is going on.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
majority leader taking time to share these comments with myself this 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought long and hard before I came over here to the 
House floor tonight. My comments are coming from the depth of my heart 
of which I feel very very strongly about. I want to go through a couple 
of things with all of my colleagues this evening because I know most of 
them feel the same way I do. They understand our job responsibilities 
to the American people, our job responsibilities not only to the 
American people, but to the world.
  As the President said in his State of the Union address, freedom is 
not just a gift to America, freedom is a gift to all humanity; and this 
Nation leads the world and has led the world throughout its history, 
throughout the history of this Nation as the one who carries the banner 
of freedom, as the one who has the ability and not just the ability, 
excuse me, but has the courage, the profound courage, to stand up for 
other countries that are not as fortunate.
  It is the United States of America that today, when we match it 
against any country in the history of the world, not just the history 
of the United States, but any country in the history of the world, it 
is the United States of America that has gone to arms more often than 
any other country to defend another country. It is the United States of 
America that goes to military assistance; not to conquer, the United 
States did not go out and attempt to conquer other countries. That is 
not our mission in this life.
  Our mission is to go out and allow freedom to spread throughout this 
world. It is the United States of America that today, if we take a look 
at all the food assistance in the world, it is the U.S.A. that provides 
60 percent of it. It is the U.S.A. that provides more educational 
opportunities than any other nation in the world. It is the United 
States of America that provides more medicine to other countries than 
any other country in the world. It is the United States of America that 
allows more opportunities to immigrants than any other country in the 
world.
  There is a reason that in the United States of America we have 
problems with immigration. Do my colleagues know why? Because of the 
fact we do not have any lining up to get out of this country. We have 
people lining up by the hundreds of thousands that want to come into 
this country, the country of great promise, but this country only 
achieved this position of strength through a position of commitment.
  That is when we see something wrong going on, either against our 
citizens or against the citizens of our friends, we must take a 
position. We must stand up. In part, nobody else has the capability to 
do it.
  Then sometimes when, as the case that I am going to go through with 
my colleagues in some detail tonight, there are other countries that 
have the capability to stand up and do it, but they will not stand up. 
When the going gets tough, that is when we count our friends.

                              {time}  2115

  There are a lot of people who will want you to be the first one out 
of the foxhole. But the fact is not a lot of people will follow you as 
you go onto that battlefield under heavy fire.
  Now, let me say right at the onset of my remarks, the President of 
the United States has done a tremendous job. The Secretary of State, 
Colin Powell, has done a tremendous job.

[[Page 2945]]

Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld. Thank goodness, in this time of need, 
George W. Bush put together this kind of A squad. I do not care whether 
you are a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. The fact is 
when you take a look at a Condoleezza Rice, when you take a look at a 
Colin Powell, whether you agree or not, the fact is you have to say 
they are good. They are class. They are the top. They are the A squad. 
And fortunately, in this time of need, we have the A squad running this 
country.
  Now, I want to go over this evening, number one, what I think our 
ultimate responsibility is to the American people, to the constituents 
that we represent. I want to go over a little background of Iraq and 
talk a little bit about Saddam Hussein, who unilaterally, by himself, 
has killed more Muslims than any other known person in the history of 
the world. He has killed more Muslims. Killed more Muslims. And that, 
by the way, includes men, women and children. He is the only leader 
alive today that we are aware of that has used chemical weapons and 
things like anthrax and other types of poisonous weapons to kill his 
own population, to kill his own people. He would just as soon take to 
war against another country, but use it against his own people. So I 
will talk a little about the history of this madman.
  I will talk a little about the situation we face in regards to our 
allies, particularly the French and the Germans, who have stunned the 
world of NATO, which for 50-some years has been a close-knit 
organization, an organization in which the loyalty and the dedication 
to your fellow members has never been questioned, has never been 
questioned. Their moves in the last week and a half have shaken the 
very foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  I will be going to Europe this week to participate in NATO meetings, 
and I can tell you that I am taking a message to my colleagues in 
Germany and Europe and Belgium and Luxembourg. My message is: Have you 
thought about what you are doing? Look what you are doing to the 
family. I know we may have a family dispute, we may have an inter-
family dispute, but look what you have done to the family. The steps 
that the French and the Germans have taken this week reach far beyond 
the fact they refuse to provide assistance to the country of Turkey, 
which by the way is the most Muslim country in the world, a nation that 
has stood up against radical terrorists, against the radical believers 
of the Koran who have read it inaccurately. Yet our colleagues in 
France and Germany have refused to stand up, and they have really 
cracked the foundation of an organization that some now say has served 
past its due time.
  I want to visit a little about what we do after this is all done, and 
I think it is very important. Because what other country in the history 
of the world, show me one other country in the history of the world 
that after they engage in a military conflict with another nation 
believes that it is as important to rebuild the nation that they just 
went to war with; that it is more important to rebuild that nation than 
to walk away. The United States of America did it in World War II with 
the Marshall Plan.
  The United States of America built Japan. In fact, the aid we gave 
Japan, I can remember in the 1980s, when people were saying, my gosh, 
we restored this country, we saved this country from going into 
oblivion. We saved this country. We helped rebuild this country. We 
wrote their constitution and we put a general in charge, and now Japan 
is overtaking us in the business community. Remember those days in the 
1980s? This Nation is not a Nation that seeks to conquer. This is a 
Nation that seeks to do good and do good for the right cause and for 
the right people. And this is also a Nation, although reluctant to do 
so, it is a Nation that is prepared to take that sword and show its 
terrible wrath against the evil people of this world. And, of course, 
Saddam Hussein fits at the very top of that list.
  Let us visit just a little about Iraq. We all remember the situation 
in the Persian Gulf. And I have heard many people criticize, including 
myself, when I asked the question many times, Why did we not take out 
Saddam Hussein in the first Persian Gulf War? Why did we not do it? 
What kept us? We had a superior Army, and the so-called Republican 
Guard of the Iraq armed forces folded. They folded like that. In fact, 
many of the guard surrendered to unarmed American photographers, 
newspaper reporters. And we went, Why did we stop at Baghdad? Why did 
we not go in and take care of the problem?
  Initially, I criticized the first George Bush. But when we take a 
look at what happened, it was not the President of the United States. 
Not at all. It was the United Nations. It was the United Nations 
mandate. That was the only authority, assuming we followed that 
mandate, the only authority this Nation and its coalition had, which 
was to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but not to go in and have a 
regime change. So as a result of the United Nations actions 12 or 13 
years ago, it was the United Nations that kept Saddam Hussein in power, 
and it has been the United Nations, which resolution after resolution 
after resolution has turned a blind eye towards violation after 
violation after violation. Keep in mind that this country knows when it 
is called upon to do good for other countries.
  My district is in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. I had the good 
fortune, the privilege, actually, of being in Aspen, Colorado, when 
George Bush, Sr., flew in to the news, as he was in flight, flew into 
the news that Iraq had just taken a smaller country, Kuwait. Had 
invaded it. Had invaded that country. It was Margaret Thatcher and 
George Bush, Sr., in Aspen, Colorado, that made the decision that the 
action taken by the Iraqi country and by Saddam Hussein would not 
stand. Remember those words? The President said this will not stand.
  We prepared militarily. We built a coalition. But we yielded to the 
leadership of the United Nations, or at least the restrictions imposed 
by the resolutions of the United Nations, and that is that we not go 
into Baghdad and have a regime change. Furthermore, we yielded to the 
United Nations, who basically set out the terms of what the negotiation 
should be on the surrender of Saddam Hussein. These surrender terms 
allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. It allowed him to stay in 
power, but under very, or what we thought at the time, were very tough 
and stringent conditions. And those conditions being that he would 
never again arm that country with weapons of mass destruction; that he 
would allow inspectors into his country for the rest of the history of 
that country; that he would turn over to the allies and to the United 
Nations inspection forces all his weapons of mass destruction; that he 
would list the weapons of mass destruction that they still had in their 
inventory.
  This was term after term after term after term that the United 
Nations insisted upon during the surrender. What happened? Violation 
after violation after violation.
  Now, keep in mind that I think our responsibility as Congressmen to 
this Nation, and frankly to the world, but our ultimate responsibility 
is to provide for the security of the people of this country. I cannot 
think of any other responsibility that rises to the level of protecting 
the security of the people that live within these borders and our 
friends outside these borders. It, in my opinion, is an absolute 
obligation. And should we fail through negligence, or in this case what 
I would consider gross negligence, because we know what Iraq has; we 
know, at some point, what Iraq's intentions are, it would be a gross 
failure of our ultimate responsibility if we did not answer to the 
call, if we did not send fire trucks to this fire.
  Sure, the fire is dangerous. Sure there are a lot of resources and a 
lot of fire trucks that we are going to have to send to that fire, but 
we have to send them.
  Let me give some kind of comparison here. I think in a lot of aspects 
a medical doctor has the same type of responsibility to his patient or 
her patient. A medical doctor's responsibility is to provide for the 
security of their

[[Page 2946]]

patient, security in the terms of their health. What is the health of 
the patient? How can we preserve the life? What can we do for this 
patient? The security of that patient. And sometimes that means the 
doctor has to give some pretty tough advice.
  In this particular case, think of going to the doctor and you have 
sort of a hurt in your foot. So you say to the doctor, Doctor, my foot 
kind of hurts, but it is not really a big deal, I do not think. I am 
just kind of coming in here because my mom told me I needed to come in 
and see you. I wanted to get her off my back, so I am coming in to see 
you. So as the doctor, you come back to your patient and you say, I 
have some bad news and I have some good news. The bad news is you have 
cancer in that foot. The good news is we can take care of it now.
  Now, it is going to require some sacrifice. It is going to require 
some pretty dramatic action, action that you never anticipated when you 
walked into this doctor's office, but nonetheless that action is 
required. And the patient looks at the doctor and says to the doctor, 
Doctor, I do not want to hear this. I do not want to hear this. It is 
going to disturb my lifestyle. It will interrupt me going to work, my 
work schedule. I did not come in here to hear I have cancer. I came in 
here just because my foot was bothering me a little. I do not want to 
hear it.
  Or the patient says to the doctor, okay, Doctor, but I want to go 
home and pray about it. The patient wants to pray it away. I do not 
want this happening to me. Well, prayer is very important, do not get 
me wrong. I say prayers everyday, and thank goodness we have some 
guidance from our supreme being. But the fact is that alone does not do 
it. Does not do it.
  Or the patient says to the doctor, I just want to go home and go to 
sleep and tomorrow I will wake up and it will all be a bad dream. But 
the doctor says to the patient, before you leave this office, keep in 
mind that today we can take that cancer and it is in the foot. If you 
wait too long, that cancer, the next time you come in here, that cancer 
will have spread throughout your body, and then my options are 
extremely limited. So I cannot allow you to go out of this office 
without being fully open with you and telling you that.
  And that is exactly what we as Congressmen, that is exactly the 
fundamental responsibility that we have to the generation behind us and 
to the generations that live with us, and that is to be 
straightforward. We have an opportunity today to stop that cancer while 
it is still in the foot. To ignore that, to pretend that it is not 
occurring, to somehow kind of say, let us sleep on it and it will go 
away is a huge, huge, huge misstep in our obligations.
  In fact, I think, I truly think that the failure to stand up to this 
threat that is so imminent and imminent to future generations, failure 
for us as a body to stand up to this threat is nothing short of 
treason. That is how strongly I feel. We know it is there.
  Now, this Congress has not neglected its duties. This Congress has 
stood up and given to the President of the United States the authority 
the President needs to go in and engage in whatever operation, whether 
it is a peaceful operation or a military operation, to fix the problem. 
But this problem needs to be fixed now.
  And the President, in my opinion, has been very patient. The nations 
across this world have been very patient. We have gone through 17 
resolutions with the United Nations. Each resolution has been violated. 
Each resolution has been broken. At one point, Iraq kicked the 
inspectors out. Iraq has continued time after time after time to hide 
these weapons, to play a game of cat and mouse.
  What would happen if Iraq surrendered those weapons? Do you know what 
would happen to Iraq if it joined the world economic community? It 
would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. They would be 
able to provide for their citizens. Saddam Hussein could provide a 
standard of living for his citizens that would match many of the 
industrial countries in the world.

                              {time}  2130

  The people of Iraq could have education. The people of Iraq could 
have the kind of medication and health care that most industrial 
countries enjoy. The people of Iraq could enjoy the fruits of their 
hard work, but instead this horrible leader has focused on one issue 
and that is a self-serving image of himself to be a creator of 
disaster. And we have an opportunity to step forward.
  Let me say what happened. We have got some examples in history where, 
when the obligation was there, the team that was responsible to handle 
it did not do it, did not carry out their responsibilities, and I want 
to speak briefly about that example.
  Germany, World War I, Germany used poison gas. Germany in its 
surrender, very much, there are a lot of similarities between Germany 
and Iraq, Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, Germany in World War I. Germany 
surrendered to the international community. In fact, it is kind of 
weird how close those conditions that Germany surrendered upon are 
similar to the conditions that Iraq surrendered upon.
  Germany agreed not to produce any more weapons of mass destruction. 
Germany agreed to allow inspectors into its country. Germany agreed to 
surrender all weapons of mass destruction or gas or weapons like this 
to the allies, to the world community.
  What happened? It was not very long where Germany, just like Iraq, 
started saying to the inspection teams, ``Wait a minute, this is 
sovereign territory, you have no right to enter this part of our 
country and inspect whether we are hiding weapons in there.'' And the 
international community, primarily led by France, by the way, gave in. 
They refused to force Germany to live up to its agreement. They refused 
to acknowledge the fact that the Germans had lied and the Germans had 
used those weapons in a very lethal fashion against the world and that 
they were not surrendering those weapons.
  So they did not know what to do with this hot potato. Germany was not 
allowing the inspectors to carry out their duties. In fact, Germany 
kicked the inspectors out, just like Iraq did.
  So what happened? What did the community do? The international 
community led by France, they turned it over to a group called the 
League of Nations. What did the League of Nations do? They talked tough 
just like the United Nations did, but they blinked, and when Germany 
continued to refuse to follow the agreement that they made, that they 
made, the League of Nations stood down. The League of Nations backed 
off.
  What happened? Well, Germany rebuilt its inventories. Germany, in 
fact, had been lying about the weapons that it in fact possessed. The 
League of Nations became a paper tiger, and today there are very few 
people that one can stop who can tell them what the League of Nations 
is. And the United Nations faces the same challenge.
  Keep in mind that under President Clinton on the bombing, the air war 
against Kosovo, against Milosevic, keep in mind that it was the United 
Nations which refused to pass a resolution supporting the air war in 
Kosovo. And now the United Nations stands up and beats on their chest 
as if they are the ones that saved Kosovo. Fortunately, President 
Clinton, through his leadership, was determined that that was what was 
necessary, and frankly he turned out to be right and the United Nations 
was wrong.
  Keep in mind that these resolutions that the United Nations has 
passed are simply a reflection of the agreements that Saddam Hussein 
and his country agreed to. These are not conditions imposed by outside 
countries upon the sovereign immunity of Iraq. These are conditions 
that Iraq agreed to, and Iraqis themselves have time and time and time 
again broken the very things that they agreed to.
  Now let us take a look at what kind of weapons Iraq has. I listened 
to some of the people that are protesting this action. I am appalled by 
the fact that they are ignoring the cancer that exists. I am appalled 
by the fact that they gunplay to the world, through public relations, a 
very sophisticated

[[Page 2947]]

public relations campaign, that they underestimate the threat of these 
weapons, that they somehow think that we can trust Saddam Hussein, that 
they somehow think if we love him and hold his hand and talk warm and 
fuzzy talk with him, maybe share a piece of apple pie with the guy, 
that he is going to come clean and be a good neighbor.
  This is a neighbor who has a vicious past. My guess would be that 
some of these protestors are some of the protestors that lead protests 
to disarm American citizens and take on battle with the National Rifle 
Association, but yet take a totally opposite stand when it comes to 
Saddam Hussein.
  Now let us just see how serious this threat is. We are not talking 
about 13 empty missiles or shell casings. We are not talking about a 
couple Scud missiles that exist out there. Let us take a look at what 
we are talking about.
  I refer you to the poster. This is the history of chemical weapons 
that Iraq has. These are weapons that Iraq has used in the past. So 
first I want to show this, and then we are going to progress from this 
poster to the next poster, which demonstrates what their inventory is. 
But just for those people out there that are in these protest lines, I 
think you have every right to be there, but I disagree fundamentally 
with the direction that you are leading a lot of innocent people. You 
are going to get them killed, in my opinion. You are leading them down 
the path of disaster if you ignore the history that Iraq has proven to 
the world.
  Let us take a look at the history. My poster, Iraq's history of 
chemical weapons use. Date: 1983; type of agent, mustard; around 100; 
target, Iranians and Kurds. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein has led 
his Nation on two invasions against other countries outside its 
borders, not in retaliation but in an offensive action. They attempted 
to invade Iran, and they did invade Kuwait.
  October, 1983; mustard gas; casualties, 3,000; victims, Iranians and 
Kurds. And I should point out that the Kurds were Iraqi citizens.
  February, 1984; mustard gas, 2,500 people. These are equivalent, 
3,000. That is like the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon, 3,000 
people, and he got them with mustard gas. The same thing, mustard; 
2,500 Iranians.
  March, 1984, Saddam Hussein, 100 more Iranians.
  March, 1985, Saddam Hussein kills 3,000 other people through the use 
of these chemical weapons.
  February, 1986, mustard gas, 8,000 to 10,000 people. Remember, these 
are not fighting men. These are men, women, and children that were 
extinguished, they were eliminated, they were murdered in cold blood 
though the use of chemical weapons as ordered by Saddam Hussein, 10,000 
that time around.
  1986, thousands, they cannot even estimate how many thousands were 
killed in that attack by Saddam Hussein using this type of weapon.
  1987, mustard gas, 5,000; 1987, mustard gas, 3,000.
  1988, hundreds, mustard gas, nerve agents.
  How much clearer can it be? I mean, it would be one position if 
somebody came up and said, ``Look, we think this guy might kill 
somebody with these. It is a threat, but he has no history of it.''
  We can use history to give us some kind of guidance of what is going 
to happen in the future. This is a cold-blooded killer. His only 
interest in being nice right now is to win the public relations battle 
in the international community. He knows that George W. Bush and the 
team of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney, he knows 
that that team is determined to do what is right. He knows that that 
team will not allow this threat to exist. So he is attempting, and 
frankly he is doing a pretty good job of it, to win a public relations 
battle throughout the world that, ``Look, forget what'' thou ``has done 
in the past and believe what I am going to do in the future. I am going 
to be a good guy. It is America, it is America that is causing this 
problem.''
  So for everyone this evening who thinks that somehow we are dealing 
with a paper tiger or we are dealing with a threat that really does not 
exist, look at the history, look at the history of cold-blooded murder. 
Take our disaster of September 11 and multiply it and multiply it and 
multiply it, and we will get to the number of casualties that Saddam 
Hussein has carried out just through chemical weapons just as soon as 
other methods of war, which have killed hundreds of thousands of 
people, primarily Muslims, by the way.
  Now let us take a look. We know through our intelligence, through the 
admissions made by Iraq after the surrender in the Persian Gulf that 
these following locations, and I will not go through each location, but 
every point on this poster to my left, every point on here is a weapons 
production facility, and a lot of these facilities are being utilized.
  Let me refer to the next poster. This is one of those facilities, 
here to my left. It is very hard to see, but this is one of the 
facilities. On November 10, 2002, somehow the Iraqi leadership, Saddam, 
got word that the inspectors were going to be there. So on December 22 
when the inspectors showed up, now take a look at what has happened.
  The facility has been sanitized. It is an attempt to fool the 
American public. It is an attempt to fool the world. It is an attempt 
to divert our attention into thinking that this individual, who has 
twice in his history invaded other countries, who has murdered more 
Muslims than any other man alive, who has, through the use of chemical 
weapons, killed members of his own civilian population, who is 
responsible for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of deaths, and yet 
he is being persuasive with the world community in some areas in 
persuading them that he means no evil, that he is not a man of evil, 
that in fact America is the country of evil. Take a look at that 
sanitation.
  Now let us take a look at what Iraq has under their last admission 
after Persian Gulf War Number One. If any poster should get your 
attention this evening, it should be this poster to my left.
  These are inventories, not calculated by the intelligence communities 
of the rest of the world; these are inventories that Saddam Hussein 
himself admitted that he has and now refuses, time after time after 
time again refuses to turn those inventories over, refuses to account 
for those inventories and instead says to a couple of hundred 
inspectors in an area the size of the State of California, ``Find them 
if you can.'' That is the message out there, ``Find them if you can.''
  Take a look at what type of weapons we are speaking of. Mustard gas, 
2,850 tons. 2,850 tons.
  Take a look at the sarin nerve gas, 795 tons of sarin nerve gas.
  VX nerve gas, and let me tell everyone about the VX nerve gas. After 
the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein said he never made VX, he never made VX. 
In 1995, under pressure from the international community, he admitted 
that he made VX. He admitted he made VX, but only a few milligrams. Now 
they admit to 3.9 tons of that.
  Nerve agent, 210 tons; anthrax, 25,000 tons; uranium, 400 tons; 
plutonium, 6 grams. This individual is a very, very dangerous 
individual.
  No other country in the world is capable of leading a coalition other 
than the United States of America. The United States of America will go 
forward with a coalition.
  Now, when we take a look at the national press, the world press, one 
would think we have no European support outside of our long-time solid 
friend of Britain. The fact is we have lots of support on the European 
continent: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Bulgaria. There are a 
number of different countries that support the position of the United 
States, that understand that this is not a problem that is unique to 
this country.
  It is a problem that is spread across the entire world. It is a 
problem that threatens the safety of everybody in this world. And yet 
there is a coalition that is willing to stand up and do something about 
it.
  And do not be mistaken about NATO. The majority of NATO, the vote 
that went against us, was 16 in favor of the United States and three 
against us. The shock of NATO is that a country

[[Page 2948]]

like France, who now, as we know, are pretty fair-weather friends, 
meaning they are a friend when it is convenient for them; and the 
Germans, it is unprecedented in NATO's history that a partner would 
refuse to help a fellow partner, such as Turkey, in their time of need.

                              {time}  2145

  But the fact is do not underestimate the strength that we have within 
the membership of NATO. There are a lot of people in this world, there 
are a lot of countries in this world, that realize that this cancer 
must be addressed now; and we are attempting to do it.
  I think we have an obligation to try and address it in the approach 
that has the least amount of impact; peaceful if we can do it, but do 
not let this game go on and on, because I am telling you that cancer 
spreads day by day, and that cancer does not discriminate on its 
victim. It will attack every man, woman and child alive. And it has no 
mercy. This cancer will show no mercy.
  We can stop it today. And if these means of peaceful approach through 
the United Nations will not work, if the United Nations will not accept 
its responsibility and stand up to this madman, it is then inherent in 
the history of this country and the moral obligation of this country to 
stand forward and stop that cancer. That is our obligation.
  It may not be what seems to be politically correct with some of the 
population with the French. And by the way, if you want to take a look 
at what is the incentive of the French and Germans to turn and invest 
against their long-term friend, the United States, take a look at their 
oil contracts with Iraq. I have heard people say this is all about oil. 
Well, with the French, it is. That is where they are getting their oil. 
Take a look at their long-term business contracts.
  When I go to Europe this week, I am going to ask the French and my 
colleagues in Germany, Where is your investment? Where is your best, 
solid thought for an investment? Is it with the United States of 
America and the coalition of Spain and Italy and Bulgaria and Portugal 
and the British, or is your investment better with the country of Iraq 
and Saddam Hussein?
  I know that we have an obligation to go in and do something about 
this cancer, but we also have an obligation, and we have accepted that 
obligation, to be there when we take the cancer off, the aftermath of 
what happens, after, for example, a military conflict.
  This Nation will take into Iraq within hours, within hours of a 
military victory, we will supply that country of Iraq with medicine 
they have never seen under Saddam Hussein. We will supply them with 
food supplies and feed their hungry stomachs to the extent they have 
never experienced in their lifetime, many of them. We will offer that 
country, more than anything else we could give them, freedoms that they 
have never dreamed of under Saddam Hussein.
  The United States of America will not rule Iraq. Iraq will rule Iraq. 
But it will rule it under a leader who cares about the people of that 
country, who does not place military weapons in school yards and 
missiles in hospitals. There are only good things that can happen to 
the country of Iraq if the United States of America and the world 
community stands up to its obligations.
  There is a cost of leadership. Do not just stand up and say you are a 
leader. A leader is called upon when the challenges get tough. This is 
a tough challenge, and it is a long-term obligation to give these 
people what they deserve, and that is freedom, that is health care, 
that is food, that is the ability to do business.
  It is our time. It is our time and our allies' time to stand up and 
get rid of this cancer. And if the French and the Germans and Luxemburg 
and Belgium do not have enough guts to do it, then get out of our way, 
because we are going to do what is right.
  This Nation throughout its history, oh, sure, we hit a bump in the 
road here and there; sure, we made mistakes. This is not a mistake; 
this is an obligation. And I am confident that under the leadership of 
our fine President, this Nation will meet that obligation.
  A year from now we will look back at many of these naysayers and I 
will say, now what do you have to say, because it will be our Nation 
that gave these people their freedom. It will be this Nation and people 
like the British and our good allies that had enough guts to do what is 
right.
  And make no mistake, as that phrase is commonly used, this team down 
there in the White House and this Congress which has authorized that 
team in the White House, we will do what we need to do to give the 
Iraqi people exactly what they are entitled to.
  I can tell you as a United States Congressman, I stand here with a 
great deal of pride, knowing that I am carrying out my fundamental 
responsibility to the people of this Nation and to the people of this 
world, and that is to provide security, to provide freedom, to share 
our wealth of food, to share our wealth of medicine. We will do the 
job. We are a can-do Congress. We have a President and an 
administration that is can-do. We will get the job done, and we hope 
that the world community will join us. The majority of them, I am 
confident will. Those allies like the French and Germans, who become 
weak-kneed now, at some point in time will look back and see it was 
probably one of the most serious mistakes they ever made.
  So it is time for the people of this Nation to stand up in support of 
its leadership, and they have. We will not betray you. We will not let 
you down. We will do what we are charged to do, and that is to go out 
and protect not only our Nation and not only our friends, but the 
oppressed people of Iraq. And we will destroy those weapons of mass 
destruction. Iraq, for one, will never be a country, after we are 
finished, that will have the capability to once again make tens of 
thousands of casualties through the use of poison gas on innocent 
civilians.

                          ____________________