[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5836-5841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNITED STATES IS NOT ACTING ALONE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Blackburn). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I cannot resist responding to the 
previous speaker's comments.
  I am appalled frankly by some of the statements that were made from 
that podium just a few short minutes ago. The United States of America 
is not acting alone. The United States of America has not failed in 
diplomacy. It is the United States of America by the use of force 
through the United States of America and its allies, including the 
British, the Spaniards, the Italians and many other countries on the 
European continent, that have forced Saddam Hussein to come up with the 
weapons that he has come up with so far for destruction.
  The United Nations has tried unsuccessfully, unsuccessfully year 
after year after year after year, through inspections, through economic 
sanctions, through criticism, through 16 or 18 separate resolutions, 
and yet the fine lady stands up in front of this House and says that 
the way we need to start this is with discussions.
  What has been happening the last 12 years? I will tell you what has 
been happening the last 12 years. Saddam Hussein has been very 
methodically building up his arsenal, and I intend later this evening 
to go over not just a broad allegation that he has got additional 
weapons of mass destruction, not just an additional, not just a broad 
allegation that he has utilized these weapons of mass destruction 
because we know, in fact, he has. He has gassed his own citizens. He 
used them in his attack against Iran. He had prepared to use them when 
he occupied Kuwait .
  What did he do these last 15 years, 12 years? That is exactly what he 
has done. He has very methodically, as I said, built up an arsenal. And 
now we have some people in our own Chambers that stand up and say, we 
ought to go talk more. We ought to start the inspection process and 
eventually kind of ramp it up a little.
  Where have they been? With all due respect to my colleagues, when 
does this end? When are we going to say enough is enough?
  I hope this evening I am able to present you with some remarks, with 
some convincing evidence, persuasive remarks that will show you just 
how evil this guy is.
  It is amazing to me as I look out at the worldwide press, I do not 
think by the way the worldwide population, but as I look at the 
worldwide press, their media is slanted towards building up the good 
character of Saddam Hussein and destroying the good character of George 
W. Bush and America. What my colleague failed to mention in her 
previous statements here is she blames the United States for problems 
with our allies. Let me tell you, take a look on our allies. We have 
good, strong, solid allies out there and we have good relationships 
with many of our allies out there, but the fact is we also are a 
leader. We are the strongest Nation in the world. We are not going 
around boasting about it, but sometimes it falls upon the shoulders of 
the strongest person to pull that wagon up the hill. You know, if you 
have horses on a team and you are trying to get that wagon up the hill 
and you have some weak horses, at some point you have got to replace 
them with strong horses. That is not to say anything bad about

[[Page 5837]]

the weak horses. It may be, in fact, that those horses were not built 
to pull a wagon up the hill. That is what we have happening here.
  We have the French who for political reasons because they do not have 
much of a military, who for political reasons have decided to advance 
their causes by being the worst critic of the United States, by being 
the worst critic, you find very few words in the rhetoric on the fine 
island of France, and I say island because they are isolating 
themselves within the European continent, you find from their fine 
words horrible criticism of the United States of America.
  You never hear the French leaders talk about what the United States 
does for the world. Do you know if you take a look we have no reason to 
apologize for this country. This country feeds more hungry people than 
any other country in the world. This country educates more people and 
educates them to a higher level than any other country in the world. 
This country exports, it overflows with freedom compared with any other 
country in the world. This country produces the greatest inventions 
known to man in the greatest quantity of any other country in the 
world. This country allows more private property rights than any other 
country in the world. Our Constitution allows more rights for our 
judicial system than any other country in the world.
  We have the best medicine. Some of the best medicine ever known to 
mankind is developed in this country. Open heart surgery. You take a 
look at what you have. Root canals. You take a look at it. It is the 
United States of America. And yet we have Members of our own body up 
here apologizing and condemning our own country for perceived 
shortfalls. And what is their source? What do they use as their source? 
They use as their source the spokesman for the French. They use as 
their source the spokesman for the Germans.
  Why do they not use as a source the Americans who have been able to 
realize the dream that only America offers and that America on many 
occasions has gone to battle throughout the world to give other 
countries the opportunity so that they too can enjoy the life we have 
enjoyed.
  If you want to apologize for being a leader, if you want to apologize 
for being strong militarily, if you want to apologize for taking 
tougher action against Saddam Hussein, then move aside, then move 
aside, because the majority of the people in this Nation want this 
Nation to prevail when it comes to freedom. They want the United States 
of America to prevail when other countries need our assistance. They 
want this country to prevail, to stop the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Would the gentlewoman or some of my other colleagues here, it would 
be interesting to pull out our comments about what you thought about 
Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. I would be very interested to 
see what your comments were about the French when they went down to the 
Ivory Coast last year, by the way, without the authorization of the 
United Nations, without even going to the United Nations to say they 
were going to the Ivory Coast with their military and the overthrow 
they did on the Ivory Coast. Where were my good colleagues when the 
French did that?
  How can you stand up here on the podium and defend the French? The 
French are our allies somewhat. Keep in mind they are the ones that did 
not help us when we asked for overflight rights on our actions with 
Libya. Keep in mind, too, to my good colleague from the other State, 
keep in mind who built that military facility in Iraq. It was the 
French. Remember the one that the Israelites took out in a bombing 
raid, a very daring bombing raid about 15 or 20 years ago? That was 
built by the French.
  I am amazed that Members of this body will stand up and act as if the 
United States of America is the black sheep, as if the United States of 
America should be shunned instead of talking about the great things 
this country has done, instead of talking about the bravery of 250,000 
troops over there and a couple other hundred thousand throughout the 
world and all the troops at home that are supplying those troops over 
there, their dedication and their patriotism, to talk about a threat 
that is an imminent threat.
  And do not kid yourselves, Saddam Hussein and his regime, it is a 
cancer, and you can go to the doctor and you can tell the doctor, Doc, 
I do not want to hear this announcement. I do not want to hear your 
prognosis that I have cancer. That is not what I want to hear, Doc. Let 
us start from the beginning and see if you can leave out the cancer 
part of it when you give your prognosis to me.
  The doctor says to you, look, you can couch it any way you want. You 
can paint it any way you want. You can blame all your neighbors. You 
can have your neighbors blame you, but the fact is there is cancer out 
there and you better deal with it, because if you do not deal with it 
all you are doing is not eliminating the problem, you are passing the 
problem on to the next generation.
  Do not all of us wish, even the gentlewoman who just spoke, do not 
all of us wish that we would have resolved this issue in 1990 or the 
first Persian Gulf War when we had the opportunity? And what stopped us 
from resolving the issue, from destroying that regime or taking out 
that regime in 1990 when we had the opportunity? What stopped us? It 
was not George Bush, Sr., that stopped us. It was the United Nations 
that said do not go into Baghdad. Stay out of Baghdad. Leave Saddam 
Hussein in power. And now look what we did. We have passed it to 
another generation.
  I happen to be in the generation that it was passed to. And as a 
Member of that generation, I do not want to see it passed to the next 
generation. I want us to face up to this problem and our President has 
done a darn good job.
  Remember, this country retains its sovereignty, despite what Annan 
says over at the United Nations, despite what he says, the sovereignty 
of the United States remains with the United States.

                              {time}  1945

  We have never shifted our sovereignty to the United Nations, and I 
want to speak a little more about the United Nations here in a moment, 
but the United States did not need to go to the United Nations. The 
French did not go to the United Nations for their recent action on the 
Ivory Coast. We were not required to go to the United Nations. In fact, 
many of my constituents have said why did we even go to the United 
Nations? Why did we not just go out take care of the problem and move 
on?
  The fact is that our President, George W. Bush, who has been 
unfortunately roundly criticized by some of my colleagues, it was his 
decision to take this to the United Nations. It is George W. Bush, who 
I happen to think is doing a remarkable job in his leadership, he is 
our Commander in Chief. He is the one who has led the pursuit of every 
diplomatic and reasonable, he has got to be reasonable, but every 
diplomatic channel.
  While my good colleagues were enjoying the weekend, where was our 
Commander in Chief? He was on the telephone talking to China. He was on 
the telephone talking to Japan. He was on the telephone talking to 
Russia. He wants this resolved diplomatically, but at least he has got 
enough guts that if it is not resolved diplomatically, he will resolve 
it militarily.
  Thank goodness we have got the team that we have down there at that 
White House. Everybody in this Chamber, in my opinion, would take a 
second seat to a Condoleezza Rice. Everybody in this Chamber, with due 
respect to my colleagues, I include myself there, would take a second 
seat to Dick Cheney, our Vice President. Everybody in this Chamber 
would take a second seat to Colin Powell. Everybody in this Chamber 
would take a second seat to Donald Rumsfeld.
  Yet, many in this Chamber think they know it all. I am not being 
overly critical. I am just trying to say after these remarks that I 
hear condemning the United States, maybe not condemning the United 
States, but saying

[[Page 5838]]

that we have led the worst diplomatic disaster in history, oh my gosh, 
it is clear there is not an in-depth study of history in those kind of 
remarks.
  Where is the United Nations? I want to talk a little bit about the 
United Nations. I want to talk a little bit about the French and 
Germans, and I want to answer some of the questions, and most of all, I 
want to read an article that I think is right on point.
  I actually went through it the other night, but many people asked 
that I go through it again, and I look forward to that, but first of 
all, let me talk about the United Nations. Let us face it. Let us take 
a look at what the United Nations is all about.
  It has 191 member representatives in it, 191, and not being critical 
of the other 190, but if we take a look at that pool, just by the 
nature of our culture, just by the nature of the environments that we 
grew up in, just by the nature of our traditions in our particular 
countries, just by the nature of the governments that are within our 
country, we are different people. There are inherent conflicts.
  There are a lot of things that we can do together, and I am one of 
those people that, while I think the United Nations is a paper tiger 
when it comes to military action, I think the United Nations has a 
proper place in our society. What is a proper role for the United 
Nations to play?
  Let us start out, I think the United Nations can be kind of the 
centralizing authority to give us the help and the distribution we need 
to assist countries that have starving populations. For example, when 
we have a problem in Ethiopia, I bet the United Nations can help us 
with that problem. When we have a problem in Somalia, after they drag 
our soldiers through the streets, we cannot call on the United Nations. 
They do not have that capability. We have overestimated, we have 
exaggerated the role of the United Nations and its capability to carry 
anything on of substance, even in a diplomatic forum, with the 
exception of some very specific duties, and let me give my colleagues 
another example.
  The President covered it very well in his State of the Union Address. 
We have a horrible plague of AIDS throughout the world. We need to 
conquer that disease. The United Nations is a good institution to lead 
that battle. The United Nations is a good institution to help with 
resources for advice on farming, to provide agricultural resources and 
so on.
  But do my colleagues not understand, the United Nations, not because 
it is inherently evil or incompetent or incapable, but the United 
Nations, just by the fact of its structure, just by the way it is 
built, just by the way it is built, is not designed to be able to go 
into a country of mass destructions and face them down. The United 
Nations does not have the capability because of its membership to face 
them down. We cannot get that membership all put together.
  Take a look at the United Nations. One of the biggest problems in the 
world that we spend a lot of time and resources on is human rights. 
This country leads the world in human rights, but what does the United 
Nations do? One of the countries that is one of the worst abusers of 
human rights and makes list after list year after year is Libya. What 
do they do at the United Nations? They name the Libya representative as 
the head of the Human Rights Commission. That is why they are 
ineffective when it comes to this type of international geopolitical 
action. We should understand that their role needs to be more targeted 
towards the things of which I spoke.
  Let me say just a couple of words about the French and the Germans. I 
think the French are the shining example of hypocrisy. Let me quote 
from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: But before we move on to 
war, says the editorial, let us pause to honor the grandeur of French 
hypocrisy on ``the unilateral'' use of military force. France seldom 
bothered to ask the United Nations or anyone else when it concludes its 
own interests are at stake. When a failed coup in the Ivory Coast last 
fall, and many of my colleagues probably do not even realize this, many 
of my colleagues probably could not identify with, and I am not being 
derogatory, but could not identify where the Ivory Coast is, but last 
fall the French sent troops down to the Ivory Coast because they had a 
failed coup, and let me go back to the quote: When a failed coup in the 
Ivory Coast last fall blossomed into a rebellion that threatened civil 
war, France never did get around to asking for a Security Council 
resolution. President Jacques Chirac also forgot to ask George W. Bush 
for his permission. Rather, he dispatched hundreds and eventually 
thousands of paratroopers and French legionnaires to contain the 
violence, to protect French citizens and to prevent the rebels from 
overrunning the country.
  I would ask my good colleague, who had just previously spoken, would 
my colleague call the French's action on the Ivory Coast, would my 
colleague give them the same criticism she has just given the United 
States of America, that it is the lead example of the most horribly 
failed diplomacy or whatever the quote was? The French act when it is 
in their own interest. How ironic that they criticize the United States 
when the United States and its allies act in our interests, and I keep 
saying the United States and its allies.
  With the worldwide media now, it is almost laughed off the table by 
my colleague who spoke before me. She says, well, these little 
countries, these little countries in Europe that are allied with the 
United States, I forget exactly what she said, but the effect of it 
was, does not mean much. Look at the big players. Let me tell my 
colleagues, those little countries in Europe mean a lot to us, and 
those little countries in Europe, they happen to think they are pretty 
important to this. After all, their continent is pretty important.
  Let me tell my colleagues, if we want to go just by geographical size 
and by population size, let us take a look in that order of the allies 
that I speak of when I say the United States of America, that the 
worldwide media has largely ignored as a coalition of the willing. 
Start off with the United States of America. Put on to it Great 
Britain. Put on to that the Spanish, Spain. Put on to that the 
Italians. Then we start talking about Hungary. We can start talking 
about Poland. We can start talking about many other countries.
  In fact, I think the coalition that will be put together for this 
action, if Saddam Hussein does not unilaterally disarm, I think that 
coalition will come very close or, in fact, exceed the size of the 
coalition for the first Persian Gulf War. This is not, as my colleague 
said, and I did write this down, the U.S. against the world. What a 
misstatement. That is a misstatement. It is not the United States 
against the world. It is the United States for the world, and a big 
part of the world is with the United States of America.
  In the United States of America we can take any example we want in 
history, no country in history has ever gone beyond its borders, as the 
United States has, for other countries. We can take a look at World War 
I. We can take a look at World War II. We can take a look at the 
Persian gulf. We can take a look anytime there is a disaster in the 
world, what kind of relief do we see? United States of America.
  When people are starving and we are allowed to get aid in there, what 
do we see on those bags of flour? United States of America. We have got 
an awful lot to be proud of, and frankly, we can be proud of our 
President and this administration. He is our Commander in Chief, and I 
can tell my colleagues frankly, over the weekend I listened to people 
like Sean Penn, a movie actor. I listened to Neil Young, big time 
singer in my generation. I listened to one of my favorite actresses, 
Julia Roberts. These are very talented actors, and I am appalled that 
all of the sudden they think they have doctorates in foreign policy, 
and they think that the President should take second seat to them.
  I looked at one of the papers today, the New York Times perhaps or 
maybe it was the Wall Street Journal, full page ad from people who call 
themselves writers, ``We are against the

[[Page 5839]]

war.'' Those people have not spent a fraction of the time that even my 
colleagues here on the floor have spent on what we are dealing with 
here, and I hope they are paying attention this evening. I am sure they 
are not, but I sure wish some of them were paying attention this 
evening to explain away just exactly what Iraq is going to do with 
these weapons of mass destruction.
  We elected our President, and President after President we put 
confidence in our administration and our leadership. They know a lot 
more than we know. My colleagues know a lot more than their 
constituents generally, simply not because we are brighter but because 
we have had classified briefings, because it is our job to know more. 
It is the President's job to know a little more about these foreign 
issues than some of our good actors that come out of Hollywood who 
stand up there on a stage and condemn this country, a country that has 
given them all the privileges that they enjoy. Tell me that Sean Penn 
could go anywhere else in the world and fulfill the American dream. We 
have got to act as a team here.
  In regards to the Germans, I mean the French are getting a lot of 
political hay out of this. Jacques Chirac, his popularity polls have 
gone through the roof. He is able to dance on the stage without paying 
the band. He is able to enjoy the fruits, as he has for a long time, of 
the labor that the United States of America has put out there.
  The French really are not a significant military power anymore. Where 
they have their power is in the Security Council. That is why they want 
to go through there because they have a veto, and frankly, I just came 
from Paris, I just came from visiting NATO meetings, and by going out 
and talking on the street, a lot of people in Germany and a lot of 
people in France, they think terrorism, the big threat is the United 
States. They do not see it as such a big issue, and I understand that 
if the French want to stand out of the battle, as they often do when 
the going gets tough, the French do not want to play. I can understand 
that. That is their nature. That is their character. I can understand 
that.
  The Germans, a little different story, but I can still understand 
that, but there is a big difference between standing aside, stepping 
out of the fight, and standing aside and cheering on the opposition. 
That should not happen.
  A lot of people want to do everything they can to get rid of Saddam 
Hussein except fight him. Everybody wants to think they can sweet talk 
Saddam out of his regime. It is not going to happen.
  I hope that Saddam Hussein takes the chance, the last chance that is 
now being given to him by the United States of America and its 
coalition, and I hope that he disarms, but I kind of doubt that he 
will. I think it is possible he may go into exile, but the fact is it 
is the United States of America that has forced the United Nations to 
do something about it, and the United Nations in November accepted. 
They adopted 1141 that did something about it, but when it came time to 
call in the chips, the United Nations, because in my opinion of the 
makeup of the United Nations, could not stand up and carry its own 
weight, and at that point, once again, the United States and the allies 
that can carry the weight need to step in.

                              {time}  2000

  Madam Speaker, I want to read a letter, and I spoke to this the other 
evening; but let me, first, Madam Speaker, get a time check.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Blackburn). The gentleman from Colorado 
has approximately 35 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINNIS. I understand I have 35 minutes remaining, and I will 
yield back 10 minutes; so in my remaining 25 minutes let me begin by 
reading a letter, and I am quoting from Alistair Cooke. And as I 
mentioned the other night, I do not like to read from somebody else's 
script. I like to pull in quotes, and I hope I give credit to the 
quotes that are out there, but this is a very moving article.
  We all know that history is a good study. It does not tell us exactly 
what will happen in the future, but any good history teacher will tell 
us that the failure to understand past history will certainly be a 
significant handicap to any kind of understanding of how to prepare for 
the future. There is no crystal ball out there that tells us about the 
future, but history gives us an advantage. This article, I think, 
reflects very accurately some history that I hope all of us will think 
about.
  Let me read this, and I will quote throughout the article. I will 
leave the article periodically to make a comment, but I will tell my 
colleagues when I do that.
  Mr. Cooke: ``I promised to lay off topic A, Iraq, until the Security 
Council makes a judgment on the inspector's report, and I shall keep 
that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight 
I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monstrous din 
of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach, making a great 
noise and saying the same thing over and over and over. And this ordeal 
triggered a nightmare, a daymare, if you like. Throughout the ceaseless 
tide I heard a voice.''
  This is Mr. Cooke talking about his dream. He heard a voice. ``I 
heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man, Prime Minister 
Chamberlain, saying: ``I believe it is peace for our time,'' a sentence 
that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and 
then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the 
land. There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the 
Nobel Peace Prize.
  ``In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: 
`I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat.' He was, in 
view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down. This scene 
concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British Prime Minister's effectual 
signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.''
  So leaving the text for a minute, in 1938, Chamberlain signed over 
Czechoslovakia to Hitler, much like Saddam Hussein. Give him what he 
wants. Appease him. Back down to what is good for the world. Back down 
in your own interest. But you need to cover that. A politician cannot 
back away without giving it some kind of cover, and Prime Minister 
Chamberlain said, ``I believe it is peace for our time.''
  Now, going back to the script again, let me start: ``This scene 
concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British Prime Minister's effectual 
signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, 
within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. ``Oh dear,'' said Mr. 
Chamberlain, thunderstruck, ``He has betrayed my trust.''
  ``During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred 
to me. Every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister 
involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. 
So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by 
many listeners.
  ``Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only 2 
years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by 
occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops 
carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale 
was too low to confront any war just then, and 10 million of the 11 
million British soldiers had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated 
no conditions, it elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of 
Britons who were `for peace.'
  ``The slogan of this movement was `against war and fascism,' chanted 
at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate 
Conservatives, a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as `against 
hospitals and disease.' In blunter words, a majority of Britons would 
do anything.''
  And let me leave the script here. This is probably the most important 
paragraph of what I am reading, or one of the most important:
  ``In blunter words, a majority of Britons would do anything, 
absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him. At that 
time the word preemptive had not been invented, though today it's a 
catchword. After all, the Rhineland was what it said it was, part of

[[Page 5840]]

Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been 
preemptive, wouldn't it?
  ``Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to 
gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country, `course by 
course,' as the growler Churchill put it.
  ``I bring up Munich and the mid `30s because I was fully grown, on 
the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. 
And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the 
last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons 
debates and read in the French press.
  ``The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, 
`negotiation, negotiation.'''
  Let me leave the text. Let me repeat this paragraph. The French 
especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, every time Hitler 
invaded a country, the French would stand up and say negotiate, 
negotiate.
  ``They negotiated so successfully as to have their entire country 
defeated and occupied. But as one famous French Leftist said, `We did 
anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city. No bombs on 
us!'.
  ``In Britain, the general response to every Hitler advance was 
disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave 
every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, 
even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air 
force.
  ``The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini 
invaded and conquered Ethiopia. The league didn't have any shot to 
fire.''
  Some comparison. I leave the text. Some comparison to the United 
Nations.
  ``But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons, the League 
and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace. But after 
the Rhineland, the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity 
in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for 
rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler 
had already built an enormous mechanized army and a superior air force.
  ``But he's not used them, he's not used them, people protested. 
Still, for 2 years before the outbreak of the Second World War you 
could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the 
famous Labour men. Major Attlee was one of them who voted against 
rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the 
savior.
  ``Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present 
crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with much 
conviction that the most historical analogies are false because, 
however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, 
there's usually one element that is different.
  ``And it may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of 
the '30s are echoing through 2003.''
  Take a look at the history of the League of Nations. Take a look at 
what happened in 1938, when Churchill had to stand up and tried to 
convince the people that these weapons were being developed. Take a 
look at 1938 and see if you do not think you are seeing a replay when 
the French stood up every time Hitler invaded a country and said, 
negotiate, negotiate.
  Well, now let us just move from that and let us just show some of the 
facts that I want to present. People have said, including the previous 
speaker, that, well, we need to start these negotiations. We need to be 
patient. We need to work through this. This is 13 years. Every 
resolution here, 678, 687, 707, clear down to 1284, every one of these 
resolutions Iraq has violated. Every one of these resolutions the U.N. 
stood up as if this was the last resolution because it was going to 
resolve it.
  You know, if you signed a contract with somebody and you had this 
many contracts with an individual, and that individual broke every 
contract, every one of those you had with them, do you think that would 
give you a little history as to the next contract and how effective it 
might be?
  We hear people say, well, Iraq is not a dangerous country. We have 
got Iraq contained. How contained did the world have Iraq when it 
gassed its own communities, the Kurds? How contained did the world have 
Iraq when it invaded Kuwait? Were they able to stop them? We were able 
to. The United States of America, leading the coalition, was able to 
push them back. But we could not stop the initial invasion. How about 
Iran, when Iraq started the war with Iran?
  Take a look at these and take a look at the weapons he used. These 
are weapons of mass destruction. These are weapons that yesterday 
Saddam Hussein said he had, but today he denies he has them; and 
tomorrow, frankly, he will use them, in my opinion. He has the history.
  Again, going back in history, again reflecting on history. Date: 
August 1983, mustard gas kills 100 people; October 1983, mustard gas 
kills 3,000 of his own people; February 1984, mustard gas kills 2,500 
Iranians; March 1984, mustard gas, or Tabun, 50 to 100; March 1985, 
mustard gas; 1986, mustard gas; 1986, mustard gas; 1987, mustard gas; 
1987, mustard gas; 1988, mustard gas and nerve agents.
  This guy has got a history. This is a horrible individual we are 
dealing with. I am telling you, from the bottom of my heart, this is a 
cancer on our body. And we have different people telling us, look, do 
not take it off. Just ignore it; it will go away. I wish we could pray 
it away, I wish we could hope it away, I wish diplomatically we could 
negotiate it away. It did not work in 1938 with Hitler, and it is not 
going to work in 2003 with Saddam Hussein, in my opinion. We tried to 
make it work. We spared his life through the direction of the United 
Nations in 1990. We spared Saddam Hussein. We listened to the French; 
we listened to the United Nations to let his regime exist. Do not 
destroy his regime; he has learned his lesson. Just like Hitler, 
negotiate, negotiate. People said let us do anything we can except 
fight him. We are seeing a repeat of history.
  Thank goodness we have a leadership team that understands this and is 
not willing to let history repeat itself and is willing to stand up not 
only for the security of the United States of America but for the 
security of those countries that are not able, that do not have the 
capability of our great country and our allies to go in and stop this 
from occurring. We have the capability today to stop that cancer. We 
have the chemotherapy treatment. We think we can make this patient do a 
lot better. And yet members of our own family are trying to convince 
the patient to walk away from the doctor's office, to deny that the 
cancer exists, or to admit that it exists and pretend it will go away 
and to try to negotiate with cancer.
  You cannot negotiate with cancer. You must deal with overwhelming 
superiority if you have got it. And if it is too late, there is not 
much you can do. Cancer wins the battle a lot of times. It is the same 
thing here. We have got the tools. We have got the capability. If we do 
not do it, who will? If the United States of America and its allies do 
not stand up to this kind of stuff, who will? Do you think the French 
will ever stand up? Do you think the Germans will ever stand up?
  Many countries in the world will not stand up because they do not 
have the tools. There are a lot of people that would like to join the 
fight, that would stand up if they had the tools. We have it and we 
have an inherent obligation to the next generation to do everything we 
can to stop it while we can.
  I am the generation that got it transferred to me. We could have 
stopped it in 1990. We did not do it. And I will be darned if I am 
going to stand by and let my generation pass on this problem of mass 
weapons with this horrible, horrible individual. I will be darned if I 
am going to stand on the sidelines and pass that to the next 
generation.

                              {time}  2015

  Madam Speaker, I hear some peace people say what weapons, he does not 
have weapons of mass destruction or he is not a danger to us. I just 
answered what kind of danger exists.
  This is a document of weapons that Iraq has: Mustard gas, 2,850 tons; 
sarin

[[Page 5841]]

nerve gas, 795 tons; VX nerve gas, 3.9 tons; tabun nerve agent, 210 
tons. This is deadly stuff. Anthrax, 25,000 tons, and we all saw what a 
few sprinkles of anthrax dust did in the United States Capitol. Take a 
look at what this will do. Imagine if there were 25,000 tons.
  Where did our Nation come up with this list? We did not just create 
it. This is a list that Saddam Hussein produced for us. This is the 
list that Iraq admitted they had. Today they said trust me, despite the 
fact that for 12 years I have broken resolution after resolution, 
despite the fact that I invaded Kuwait and Iran, despite the fact that 
I gassed by nerve agents my own citizens, the Kurds, trust me, I do not 
have these weapons any more.
  What did the United Nations do? The United Nations is willing to sit 
by and say, let us trust him.
  Madam Speaker, it is the end of the line. We cannot continue to let 
this cancer spread.
  I do not want Members to think it is a partisan effort up here. It is 
bipartisan. Let me conclude my remarks with a quote, and I want Members 
to read this quote with me. ``What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply 
and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives 
him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass 
destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and 
continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made. He will 
conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will 
then conclude that he can go right on and continue to build an arsenal 
of devastating destruction. President Bill Clinton, February 19, 
1998.''
  Madam Speaker, let us not make it a replay of 1938. Let us stand by 
the President of this country and the bipartisan resolution this 
Congress authorized. We are a can-do country. Our allies are can-do 
allies, and we can get this job done.

                          ____________________