[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6697-6702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come to the floor this 
evening to continue a very important discussion that deals with our 
duties and responsibilities in connection with the circumstances 
surrounding Iraq.
  I begin with a review of the duties that we have. First I pray for 
our soldiers whose roles are pretty well defined, and I would like to 
point out that we in the Congress have a duty as well, a constitutional 
duty, that requires under the Constitution that we alone can decide 
war. And why is that? Because of Article I, section 8. It is important 
for us to note that this duty is nondelegable. We cannot pass it off. 
We cannot turn it back. It can only be done by us. So the question of 
who decides becomes very important.
  On this past Monday, the President of the United States said he has 
decided that he will begin this war, and that this is a matter that did 
not require him to consult with Congress, that there was no debate in 
the Congress, that it was a matter that he has been telling us in 
innumerable ways on innumerable occasions precisely what he was going 
to do, and that Saddam Hussein's time has run out, and there are no 
more options, and that negotiations are futile, and that the United 
Nations can do what they want, that everybody has to decide in the 
family of nations, that they are either with us or against us, and that 
it does not matter whether the inspection regime required by the United 
Nations has been concluded or not.

                              {time}  2000

  It does not matter whether the United Nations approves or 
disapproves. He has decided what he will do, and he is going to do it. 
Why war? And why now? A war could be justified only if our national 
security is threatened. There has not been the case made that that is 
the present circumstance, and it of course has to be weighed very 
carefully against the death and the destruction not only that we put in 
our own military's path but also the innocent people in another country 
who will likely be killed in the course of this activity. And of course 
none of this has been debated by the Congress. But what about the 
tactics of the 43rd President of the United States? He has repeated on 
more than one occasion that war is the last resort. ``My last resort,'' 
when everyone knows that it is his first objective. How can he be 
declaring that war is the last resort, that he has exhausted 
negotiation when actually he is short-circuiting the whole process?
  And then we have the coalition, the fig leaf coalition of the 
willing, which bears not that much analysis. Who they are and why they 
are there speaks generally for itself. And then of course we have the 
central issue here that there is no compelling evidence that Iraq is a 
current threat to our national security. None. We waited for the grainy 
photos of the Secretary of State when he was supposed to have 
conclusively made the case. We have waited for the Secretary of Defense 
when he was supposed to have conclusively made the case. We waited for 
the President and the Vice President when they were supposed to have 
made the case. It was the Vice President who first announced early on 
that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That turned out to be incorrect; and we 
have heard little of it, nothing of it since.
  Then we had the assertion again by the Vice President of the United 
States that Iraq was linked to the tragedy of the attack on the United 
States on September 11. That has never been proven, and little has been 
made of that so far. Then of course it was asserted that our 
intelligence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. Not so. That has not happened 
either. So what we have here is a sorry compendium of 
misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and public relations gambits that do 
not do the most democratic government and the most powerful Nation on 
the planet any credit.
  So the President has determined to unleash the dogs of war. He has 
set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction 
that will be dropped upon a nation of 20 million people, a city of 6 
million people within that country; and all of us who hold human life 
precious should watch this clock run down as we lurch toward an 
unnecessary war that the President seems determined to start.
  So for the brave young men and women of our armed services who will 
be headed into harm's way, we offer them our support and our prayers 
for their safe return. But we also must be faithful to our duty, a duty 
entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers, and that 
is the solemn duty to decide after thorough consideration amongst us 
whether or not this great Nation should go to war. So the 
Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted the decision to the 
Congress alone. This is not some recently determined statement of 
constitutional theory. Our Founding Fathers, as we review the debates 
that they had in writing the Constitution, were adamant that the 
executive not play a role, although once war began, the executive is 
the Commander in Chief to implement that decision. And those men who 
came together over 215 years ago were so intent on excluding the 
President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war 
between the Congress and the executive. This was debated centuries ago.
  I know that some believe that the Congress properly authorized a war 
against Iraq and a resolution in October, but that is not the case. We 
have not yet performed our duty. We did enact a resolution that 
generally authorized the President to fight terrorism and to seek 
enforcement of previous United Nations resolutions on Iraq, but in 
reality that resolution bucked the constitutionality conferred on the 
Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when 
and where and against whom to start a war. It dodged the decision and 
sought to delegate an authority that is exclusively our own, an 
authority that cannot be delegated.
  The administration argues that legal precedence allowed the Congress 
to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to 
the now rarely used formal declaration of war, which entirely misses 
the point. It is not the format which is at issue. It is who really 
decides, and it was clear at that time in the beginning from the 
congressional debate, from the executive branch statements and from the 
resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first by 
going through the U.N., subsequently in response to a broad national 
consensus the United States spearheaded with the passage of resolution 
1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. The United Nations Security 
Council went along with the United States, and it was clear last fall 
that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off at that 
time unmistakably, and in the months since then it has become 
increasingly clear that the decision to go to war would turn on two 
crucial assessments. First, there would be an assessment of the results 
of the inspection team that was there checking to find out if there 
were weapons that could be destructive weapons or chemical or 
biological materials that would be in violation of the terms that had 
been imposed upon Iraq.
  But the second assessment and the ultimate judgment would require 
weighing the implications of the inspection results and other 
information about what threat Iraq poses to the United States against 
the full costs of casualties, of the economic costs, the

[[Page 6698]]

diplomatic fallout, and the increased terrorism in this country that 
could result from going to war. Clearly these are not exclusive 
military judgments reserved for a Commander in Chief. They are 
precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the 
Founding Fathers conferred very deliberately on the Congress in matters 
of war and peace. Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has 
abdicated any role in that all-important decision. Rather, the entire 
world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide 
to declare war. The President has boldly told journalists and Members 
of Congress alike that it is his decision and his decision alone. This 
is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States. Even if one 
argues that the Congress properly exercises constitutional duties and 
that the President thereby has all the necessary authority to start a 
war, a fundamental question yet remains: Why war now? The Bush war 
would have disastrous far-ranging consequences for many years for every 
American citizen. War is about devastation, destruction, and death.
  The American people are not blood thirsty. We want war only if our 
country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war is human and economic 
costs and moral costs are too great. It robs us of resources urgently 
needed by America's working families and those less fortunate. Even in 
terms of national security, an all out war would rob Americans of 
hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense, 
which is homeland security on which we have made far too little 
progress since the tragedy of September 11.
  As the President repeats his unverified mantra of threats to national 
security, cities across this land are laying off police officers, 
firemen, emergency medical service teams, and the so-called first 
responders to any new terrorist because this administration's ``first 
response'' to empty city treasuries have been, briefly, too bad, tough. 
This is not a partisan spat nor a Washington insiders policy dispute.
  The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing 
less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul, and that struggle has 
not been particularly successful nor has it been a failure, because all 
across the Nation, there have been demonstrations, marches, protests, 
rallies; and I can tell you in the great State of Michigan there have 
only in the last few days been demonstrations in Detroit and Lansing 
and Grand Rapids and Traverse City and many other places throughout our 
state.
  So we must commit ourselves to this cause with the same dedication 
and urgency in which many of us, most of us, strove to stop segregation 
and to end the Vietnam War, another conflict which finally brought our 
government to its senses. For the President to repeatedly insist that 
for him war is a last resort is contradicted by his actions which 
reveal that war is really his first choice and has been all along. His 
attempts to make it palatable by badgering, bullying, coercing, bribing 
countries into a so-called coalition of the willing has been a mere fig 
leaf transparent to the entire world.
  The President has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq 
currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after 
another has been disproved. The President, the Vice President, the 
Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing 
rationale as they tried to nimbly stay one jump ahead of various truth 
squads at the United Nations, among skeptical Members of Congress, and 
among the media and even of its own intelligence agencies, particularly 
the Central Intelligence Agency.

                              {time}  2015

  Americans have borne the burden of war when attacked or actually 
threatened with great resilience, but America cannot in good conscience 
start a war so costly in blood and life and treasure on the basis of 
circumstantial evidence and speculation that sometime in the 
unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the United 
States, because this war against Iraq is a war that will devastate a 
country of 20 million or 26 million and cause damages that will take 
decades to undo; a war that will see many American casualties and that 
could fracture our fragile economy; a war that will destabilize the 
Middle East and likely beyond; a war that will swell the ranks of 
terrorist recruits all over the world; a war that will weaken our fight 
against terrorism at home and abroad, and that will cost hundreds of 
billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in all of our 
cities; a war that will set a terrible precedent in a world of growing 
numbers of nuclear states, where atomic energy supplies can be bought 
at bazaars, on street corners, in a number of places in the world 
already, in a world where nations are anxious to get their hands on 
these ingredients and will do anything to get them, and some, I regret 
to report, are succeeding.
  For any country to launch a preventive war against opponents that are 
deemed a possible future threat is an improper exercise of the power of 
war in this country, a war not really wanted by the American people and 
not desired by many of our military commanders on a personal level, and 
certainly not among our allies.
  Worst of all, it is a war that, as the Central Intelligence Agency 
admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam Hussein will unleash 
whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, 
against Israel and our other allies.
  There is no evidence that Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred 
him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he 
faces destruction, however, he may well seek to play the role of 
Sampson.
  Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading papers seemed to 
suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq, in which 
article after article noted with an air of sudden reportorial discovery 
that the war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam 
Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, and that it would almost 
certainly escalate dramatically the number of terrorist attacks that 
could happen in the United States; that many U.S. military commanders 
fear that it would undermine the real war against terrorism; that there 
could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians who have a 
great deal of reason to be opposed to Saddam Hussein; and that even 
following a quick military victory against Saddam Hussein, if there is 
to be one, we would be mired in an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and 
guerrilla warfare for decades.
  It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had 
discovered the costly side of this war ledger months earlier. Instead, 
like the administration, most of the media focused overwhelmingly over 
the question of whether it would be preferable to prevent Saddam's use 
of armaments and remove his regime, as if there were no competing costs 
on the other side of this ledger that had to be carefully balanced and 
weighed in deciding whether this would be an action that would result 
in a net plus for America.
  Now, there may be still time for the President to avoid starting the 
wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is still time, 
admittedly precious little, for the American people to speak out 
against the war that so few of them seem to support.
  We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni, the Marine 
Commandant and head of the U.S. Central Command which guards the Middle 
East, who reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of 
war and hesitate to plunge ahead until the national interest is clearly 
at stake.
  On the other hand, the Marine Commandant warned, those who have never 
worn a uniform or have never seen combat are often the quickest to beat 
the drums of war.
  So the administration will condemn whoever utters them as unpatriotic 
and partisan, just as the Johnson White House condemned Martin Luther 
King, Jr.'s questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread 
that slander in order to stop the erosion of support for the war as the 
public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals 
opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are the families of

[[Page 6699]]

those who were killed on September 11 in New York and Pennsylvania who 
oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous.
  I know many of my colleagues in good faith have been convinced that 
Iraq is a threat to us now, and they are entitled to their opinion, but 
they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially with 
the Vice President of the United States' early insistence that Saddam 
was involved in the September 11 attacks on the United States, and that 
he had nuclear weapons, both of these assertions which have long been 
disavowed by our Intelligence Community, our spy organizations. There 
have been many other assertions and premises used by the administration 
to market their product, in the revealing phrase of the White House 
Chief of Staff, which have crumbled under close scrutiny in the White 
House Chief of Staff's revealing terms.
  So, I would ask this administration to reconsider their view and to 
ask themselves, almost the entire world is against this war. Every 
major city in the United States has gone on record in opposition to 
this war. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Pope, 
almost every major Protestant denomination, the American labor 
movement, the AFL-CIO, 13 million people, the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People have all gone on record against this 
war.
  Leading retired U.S. military commanders, such as General Zinni, 
General Schwarzkopf in his original views, have voiced opposition to 
this war. Numerous Active Duty generals have told reporters off the 
record of their serious concerns about a war at this time against Iraq. 
General Scowcroft, an adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush's 
administration, is against the war. And all of this opposition has 
arisen before the war has started, before a war has started, an 
unprecedented phenomenon in our history.
  In view of these facts then, it is perhaps just possible that there 
is something amiss with the President's premises, something unconnected 
in his logic and his rejection of further efforts to resolve these 
issues peacefully.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect upon these circumstances and join me 
in continuing to press and urge and pray for our President to find 
another way to follow the path of peace, for blessed are the 
peacemakers.
  I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), 
my friend and colleague for many years, even before he became a Member 
of Congress.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his 
steadfastness and his many years of understanding, that sometimes you 
might have to give out, but you never give up, and even though it 
appears to be the last minute, right down to the wire, here the 
gentleman is continuing to speak to the American people, trying to help 
all of us see the light and see the way. So I thank the gentleman for 
this opportunity to join with him.
  On October 10, 2002, this Congress voted to give the President of the 
United States broad powers, which he has taken as the right to engage 
in a unilateral first strike war against Iraq without a clearly 
demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.
  Our oath of office as Members of Congress, our constitutional charge, 
the mandate laid upon us by the people does not permit us to delegate 
the responsibility of engaging the awesome military power of the United 
States. Our oath of office does not permit us to delegate our 
responsibilities in placing our fighting men and women on the field of 
battle.
  The Constitution places the power to declare war squarely and solely 
in the Congress. This issue arises far above partisan politics. 
President Abraham Lincoln put our Congressional responsibility this 
way: ``We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this 
administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal 
significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The 
fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or 
dishonor to the last generation.''
  I opposed that resolution, and I remain opposed, because after all of 
the information I have seen, and after all I have heard, neither I nor 
a majority of the residents of my district, the Seventh Congressional 
District of Illinois, are convinced that the war is our only, our best 
and our most immediate option. We are not convinced that every 
diplomatic action has been exhausted. In fact, diplomacy and 
inspections have not exhausted their ultimate potential.
  I was not convinced, and I am still not convinced, that the 
resolution would properly guide us to act cooperatively and legally, 
through the United Nations, with the agreement and the involvement of 
the international community.

                              {time}  2030

  In fact, it has led us to pursue risky unilateral actions in defiance 
of international law and the United Nations charter.
  As the American people are attempting to make sense of this complex 
situation, it is the duty of the Congress to ask some hard questions. 
One, is there an immediate threat to the United States? In my judgment, 
the answer is no. We have not received evidence of immediate danger. We 
have not received evidence that Iraq has the means to attack the United 
States, and we have not received evidence that the danger is greater 
today than it was last year.
  Will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent the 
spread or use of weapons of mass destruction? All evidence is that Iraq 
does not possess nuclear weapons today. The use of chemical or 
biological weapons or the passage of such weapons to terrorist groups 
would be nothing less than suicide for the current Iraqi leadership.
  So I join with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in hoping 
that some way there is some resolve, that there is some sliver of 
chance, some reaction that might lead us out of this chaos and 
confusion into a peaceful existence, with the United States of America 
leading the way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
thoughtfulness, and I am deeply grateful for him joining me tonight.
  It is a pleasure to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens), who has worked in civil rights activity, and is a man of great 
thoughtfulness and perseverance.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for presiding over this 
Special Order on Iraq. We cannot say too much at this point about 
America's preemptive strike on Iraq. We are the greatest Nation that 
ever existed in the history of the world. We are the richest; we are 
the most powerful. We are also the most democratic. Never have so many 
people enjoyed democracy and never have so many people had an 
opportunity to help make decisions. We should not throw away our 
opportunity to help make this decision. We should not assume that it is 
all over, that decisions have been made and we cannot stop the war at 
this point. Or if the war should occur in the next few hours or the 
next few days, we should not assume that we cannot shorten it, we 
cannot do the best for our soldiers. The best thing to do for our 
soldiers is to bring them home safely, to get them out of conflict's 
way.
  War is hell. War is hell. The question is, Do we have to plunge into 
hell in order to accomplish what we are seeking to accomplish?
  I want to go back to where I was last fall when we considered the 
President's resolution, the resolution authorizing the President to go 
to war. At that time I said that I still believe that every step we 
take toward a war with Iraq makes us less safe, not more safe. If we 
get involved and obsessed with Iraq, it is a bottomless pit that makes 
us very much more unsafe than we were before. I said at that time that 
there are other situations existing in the world which we should spend 
more time on and take care of before we plunge into any kind of long-
range involvement with Iraq, and I still say the same is true.

[[Page 6700]]

  Most people have not bothered to observe the situation closely in 
Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be off the radar completely, off the 
agenda. Nobody talks about it. Pakistan is a nation of 180 million 
people. Most of them are Muslims. Officially they are a Muslim nation. 
They see themselves as a Muslim nation. Pakistan already has the 
nuclear bomb. They have nuclear weapons because we trained the 
Pakistani scientists in this country, and they now have nuclear 
weapons. They have nuclear weapons. A Muslim nation has nuclear 
weapons.
  Pakistan has always had a positive relationship with the United 
States, but it has always been a strained relationship. Pakistan has 
always supported us throughout the entire Cold War. Pakistan supported 
us against the Russians in Afghanistan. There is a long history of 
Pakistan's loyalty to the United States.
  Yet Pakistan has always been treated like a second-class partner. 
Pakistan has never been rewarded for its loyalty. When the Cold War was 
over, we just pulled out. The Afghanistan war, they were very much 
involved with, and after it was over, we just picked up and left. We 
have never given them the kind of aid economically that we should have 
provided. We have never offered them a Marshall Plan. We, at this point 
in history, even after al Qaeda, and Pakistan has now played a major 
role in al Qaeda, in the pursuit of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, they 
played a major role. But after all the negotiations of how we are going 
to go about doing this and what the alliance means, we have ended up 
giving Pakistan only $300 million in aid. Mr. Speaker, $300 million in 
aid to Pakistan, already fighting with us against Osama bin Laden, on 
the border of Afghanistan. On the border of Afghanistan, in great harm, 
harm's way, $300 million.
  Now we are discussing packages with Turkey for $6 billion, just to 
let our troops pass through to go to Iraq. What do we think the 
Pakistanis think when they look at that?
  Here is why I ask the question: What do you think the Pakistanis 
think? Because the other element in this is that this Pakistani 
Government, who has always been our friend, also teeters on the edge of 
dissolution. The Pakistani situation is very, very tenuous. They have a 
President who took over as a result of a military coup, but this same 
President was part of the military that helped us in Afghanistan. This 
same President presides over a Pakistani secret service intelligence 
agency. They are the ones who created the Taliban. They created the 
Taliban as a way of conquering Afghanistan. They are very close to the 
Taliban.
  So when we had the invasion of Afghanistan, there are elements of 
Pakistan's military and Pakistan's intelligence services who are very 
unhappy about it, and as Muslims also do not like the idea of Muslims 
fighting Muslims.
  The present government is very anxious. The President and the top 
officials go nowhere except with top security. They are very aware of 
the fact that they are in jeopardy. In other words, a coup could take 
place at any moment in Pakistan, and if a coup takes place and the 
right wing there, the people who are pro-Osama bin Laden, win, they 
have the nuclear bomb. Osama will have the nuclear bomb. It is just 
that dangerous.
  Why do I talk about a coup on the eve of attacking Iraq? Because 
there is a fanatical element involved here which will be triggered at 
the invasion of Iraq all over the Muslim world. There is a fanatical 
element which the Pakistani Government may just not be able to contend 
with. We are in danger of having a coup take place and the nuclear bomb 
is the worst thing that could happen, nuclear bombs put in position 
where Osama bin Laden could get them.
  I need not talk about the other critical situation in the world: 
North Korea. That is on the radar screen. People talk about that. We 
have in North Korea a dictator less known than Saddam Hussein. We do 
not even understand the machinations of this man's mind and the whole 
regime that he has managed to perpetuate all of these years. But people 
who have been there say that the population is fanatically behind him.
  This is a population extremely intelligent; they have mastered modern 
technology. They have some of the best rockets in the world, and they 
are going on to fashion their own nuclear industry. They already have, 
they say, a couple of bombs and they are going to start making more. At 
the same time, they cannot grow enough food to feed their people. What 
kinds of monsters are these, and what kind of situation do we have when 
they have the technological confidence that great, but they are not 
able to feed the people? The people in charge do not even care enough 
to feed the people, obviously. That is another problem.
  So we have those dangers in the world; and as we get obsessed with 
Iraq and involved with Iraq, which is a problem, Saddam Hussein is a 
monster. Saddam Hussein is a threat to world order. But Saddam Hussein 
is not an immediate threat to the United States and probably not an 
immediate threat to any country because he knows if he attacks anyone 
in surrounding Arab countries, he will have the whole world come down 
on him again.
  Saddam Hussein, I have no case to make for. The man finances suicide 
bombers in Palestine. The big question is why? Why did we let him 
continue to sell oil all over the world so that he could finance 
suicide bombers in Palestine and continue building his arms industry? 
Where does he get the money from to continue to build up his arms 
industry? We talk about weapons of mass destruction. He has a big army. 
He has a big army with conventional weapons. The money to buy those 
weapons and to keep that army going has continued to flow, despite the 
fact that we have sanctions imposed on Iraq. Why did we not enforce the 
sanctions? What oil barons did we bow to to let them make a profit by 
not enforcing the sanctions? Why did we not, if France was trafficking 
in oil and Russia was trafficking, why did we not come down on our 
partners and really make the sanctions stick? They have never stuck. He 
has continued to get money, as much as he wants, to do what he wants to 
do.
  People say, well, we are responsible for a lot of deaths of children 
in Iraq. No. That is ridiculous. He has the money. He does not spend it 
for the nutrition of children; he does not spend it for medicine. He 
spends it on building up his weapons and his power, and we let him do 
it. Why do we have to go all the way to a war, mobilizing 300,000 
American troops, when we did not bother to do what we could have done 
on the seas? We control the sea lanes. We could have stopped the oil 
from being sold and transmitted all over the world, but we did not.
  So there are other solutions, is what I am saying. Why do we have to 
go into hell? War is hell. If we did not know it was hell, if our 
imaginations did not tell us that, reading the ``Iliad'' did not tell 
us, when I read the ``Iliad,'' I wondered why Homer went to such great 
lengths to talk about how the spear was plunged in mightily and the 
blood flowed like rivers, and he had four great descriptions of the 
horror of war. Well, in those days they did not have any movies. He did 
not have Spielberg to show him in ``Saving Private Ryan.'' If he did 
not read the ``Iliad,'' if he did not read any books and could not have 
his imagination telling him why war is hell, if he did not believe in 
Nikita Kruschev and the defense of Stalingrad, the facts of history, 
then we can see Steven Spielberg. It is right there on the screen in 
``Saving Private Ryan.''
  Our boys landed at Normandy under those conditions. It is not an 
exaggeration. War is hell. War was hell in a lot of other places too. 
War was hell at Gettysburg. The greatest number of American lives lost 
was lost in the Civil War; 600,000, at Gettysburg, thousands died, the 
largest number came from New York. But they died; they died for a noble 
cause at Gettysburg. They died for a noble cause at Normandy. They died 
for a noble cause in Korea. The North Koreans came brutally down on the 
South Koreans, and within days they wiped out the city of

[[Page 6701]]

Seoul, a brutal onslaught. Millions of people died in the Korean War 
before the United States forces got involved.
  Our armed services and our military might can be put to good use. I 
like to think of myself as a follower of Martin Luther King. But I am 
not a pacifist in the sense that I think military force is necessary. 
There are times that military force is necessary. Thank God we have 
force. Our professional soldiers are the best in the world. My brother 
was a sergeant major in the Army for 20, 26 years. We have a very 
professional group of people now that run the military, and they are 
determined to do a good job for our Nation. We cannot fault them for 
the decisions that were made.
  The problem is at the top; and the White House and the decision-
making here in Washington, it is all wrong and dangerously off course. 
We are at a pivotal moment in American history, and instead of going 
one way with our military might and our wealth and our power, and our 
influence, most people in the world love us. I do not believe Americans 
are hated by ordinary people anywhere in large numbers.

                              {time}  2045

  They think we are as close to heaven as we are ever going to get here 
on Earth in terms of our way of life, including the political 
institutions, as well as the supermarkets and the joys of life and so 
forth.
  I would like to conclude with a little piece of poetry here. We have 
faced difficulties for a long time, since the beginning of the country, 
of various kinds. We have always overcome those difficulties. Thank God 
we had Thomas Jefferson to help us get off to a good start. Thank God 
we had Abraham Lincoln at a critical moment when our Nation was about 
to fall apart. There is no reason to believe that we will not overcome 
this time.
  All of the Members of Congress and all of our constituents should not 
throw up our hands in despair and give up. Let us keep talking. Let us 
keep trying to arouse the public to understand that this is a war we do 
not need. By going into preemptive war, using our wealth and military 
power in the wrong way, we are going to set history against us. Instead 
of guiding history and being the force and civilization which carries 
mankind to wonders never dreamed of before, we will become the enemy, 
with a lot of people sniping at our heels, and finally they will put 
together coalitions and bring down the great American empire. Rome fell 
because it was arrogant and thought that it could go on and on throwing 
its power around.
  We have at various times in history been delivered from this kind of 
arrogance and these kinds of mistakes. There was a man who wrote to 
Thomas Jefferson early in the history of the country who saw what 
happened when the Constitution was generated. It was always a miracle 
to him how these savage men, these people in the wilderness, could come 
together and put together a magnificent government.
  His neighbor wrote and said that there was an angel over America. 
There is an angel in the whirlwind taking care of us. I think we ought 
to remember that as we go into this difficult, very bloody war. War is 
bloody, it is not what Good Morning America has been showing us. War is 
hell. We would like the angels in the whirlwind to come out and deliver 
us.
  Some time ago, I think it was February 28, I do not remember what the 
occasion was, I wrote Angel in the Whirlwind, actually as a result of a 
quote that President Bush had made in his inaugural address.

     Angel in the Whirlwind,
     Tell us where you've been;
     Come steer us through the storm,
     Halt all this public sin.

     Angel in the Whirlwind
     Blow forth great truths;
     All men are born equal,
     Some men die great;
     Profiles in courage
     Never come too late.

     Lincoln in the whirlwind
     Blew powerful justice down;
     Emancipation Proclamation,
     Magnificent declaration,
     Plain ordinary sensation,
     Transformed to noble creation.

     Sailors in the whirlwind
     Forsake all ease,
     Typhoons still lurk near,
     Patriots must not fear.

     Angel in the whirlwind,
     Jefferson at your side,
     Ships ashore at Normandy,
     In every boat you ride,
     Protect our future fate,
     Martin King's posterity
     Is waiting at the gate.

     Angel in the whirlwind
     Wrestle with the terror;
     Tornado twisted greed;
     Volcanoes belching
     Ashes of indifference;
     Human kind's highest hope
     Strangling on a golden rope;
     Merciful empire
     That might've been,
     Critically infected now
     By the virus of public sin;
     Giant graves reserved for midget men.

     Merciful empire that might have been, or we could still be 
           the merciful empire that saves civilization.

     Angel in the whirlwind
     Stay to save the brave and free,
     Bring back judicial integrity,
     Point us toward eternity,
     Come steer us through new storms
     Angel in the whirlwind.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) for his powerful, intellectual, and passionate discourse. It has 
helped this discussion immeasurably.
  I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of 
Representatives. From the time she entered the Congress, the 
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, has worked at my side on numerous 
issues and causes, a dear friend of mine.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished gentleman, for having the 
wisdom to be on the floor of the House in the absence of the acceptance 
by the leadership of the charge that should be taken up; that is, to be 
debating the question of war.
  I think it should be noted, though everyone is aware of the 
continuing leadership that the gentleman has given to a myriad of 
issues fairly, evenhandedly, and seeking justice, that the gentleman 
rose to the floor at the time that the clock ticked off or ticked out 
for the threat or the admonishment or the instruction, direction, or 
directive that was given to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq and Baghdad in 
48 hours; and, of course, the Nation knows that that ended tonight at 8 
p.m.
  It is appropriate that we are on the floor, because we are filling in 
the gap of really what the Congress should be doing at this moment; 
that is, a somber, decided, and deliberative debate on the 
constitutional question of whether or not this Congress will declare 
war against Iraq.
  Through the course of our interaction, we have pressed the issue of 
not whether one is for or against this war, but whether or not this 
Congress has the sole responsibility to declare war.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly, with respect to this debate, I do 
not believe we should be silenced on this issue. I will tell the 
gentleman why; because even as America is hovering and preparing for 
the worst, the Constitution is being shredded. It is being ignored, and 
it is being taken lightly, because it is clear that the Founding 
Fathers wrote this document to respect the three branches of 
government, to recognize that we are strong as a democracy if those 
three branches are interrelated.
  The Constitution does enunciate that the President, whoever that is, 
is the Commander in Chief and can deploy troops. Many will suggest that 
a resolution debated in October 2002, satisfied the question. It did 
not, because it gave more power to the President than has ever been 
given to any President in the United States, Democratic or Republican, 
meaning that actions might be able to be perpetrated without coming 
back to the United States Congress.
  Clearly, it is well known that if the Congress does not use its 
power, it does not give up its power. So going back to the 
Constitution, whether or not it takes us 6 hours or 24 hours, it is 
clear that this body could debate that question. It is not, as I said, 
a question of winning or losing, it is a question of

[[Page 6702]]

the sanctity of process. A President cannot singly and should not 
singly take the Nation into war.
  I would just use as an example, we are not a parliamentary form of 
government, but it is interesting that our strongest ally was quite 
willing to appear before the British Parliament just yesterday and 
engage in a very open debate on this question. Would it not appear that 
we could do the same?
  Let me just say this, and I will yield to the distinguished 
gentleman. We have been characterized, those of us who have been 
persistent in our opposition, and frankly I believe we should remain 
here in these Chambers until someone recognizes the responsibilities 
for this Congress to debate this question. But those of us who have 
raised our voices have been categorized and pushed to the side.
  I do not think the media understands democracy, because whenever they 
present the largeness of this issue, it is a singular drumbeat: We are 
on the way to war. I assume now after 8 p.m. they are announcing war. 
It is a shame on them. As they say, it is a mockery on all of our 
houses; because, frankly, the American people deserve better. They 
deserve to know the facts, and that there are lucid and intelligent 
perspectives on both sides of this question.
  I am not asking the President to give up everything and to suggest 
that Saddam Hussein should be given flowers, but I am saying that war 
should be the last option. I believe there will be a third option. I am 
appreciative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) joining me on 
filing legislation that again restates the proposition that the 
Congress has the authority to declare war, and we have filed that bill 
today.
  But we have options, and we will be discussing this in the context of 
reaching out: One, convene an international tribunal, war crimes 
tribunal, with the United Nations Security Council and indict Saddam 
Hussein and his party leaders, and try him for war crimes; two, leave 
50,000 troops on the border and bring home at least 200,000 of our 
young men and women; a vigorous, strong 50,000-person coalition, troops 
that are in a coalition, vigorously allowing the U.N. inspections to go 
forward; humanitarian aid now. Reinvigorate the Mideast peace process, 
fight the war against terrorism, and restore the coalition. These are 
key elements that could be done.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do something more than stand in 
silence. Frightening, deadening silence is appalling for this body that 
had the likes of the great leaders that we have known that have gone on 
before us.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman for his leadership on this issue. 
I am not sure if the distinguished gentleman wants to close, but I 
think that more action is warranted than this Congress seems to have 
decided to do or the courage to do.
  I would think more of all of us that we want to have a debate, 
whether we vote up or down on the question. I have no interest in 
suggesting that the victory be mine, but only that the process be real 
and that we do not give up the duty of this Congress to debate the 
question of war.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), for her critical analysis of what we can do other than what we 
are about to do: that this person, Saddam Hussein, should be tried for 
crimes against humanity in the Hague court, the international criminal 
court, as Milosevic was and others; and that we could repair even at 
this late hour from a course that we think is disastrous. I thank the 
gentlewoman for joining me tonight.

                          ____________________