Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Ms. Hooley of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, the September 11 attack claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, and dozens more have perished in our war against terrorism. Just yesterday, a U.S. Marine was killed in Kuwait by al Qaeda-trained terrorists. According to press reports, our Marine was killed in a supposedly secure area, and Kuwaiti authorities are baffled over how the terrorists were able to carry out their murder.
I bring up the death of this Marine because it should serve as a reminder that there are no guarantees in war. We must think through the consequences of a war in Iraq and get answers to our questions. Because if we do not ask the tough questions now, in a few short weeks, while Americans are comfortably at home doing their last- minute holiday shopping, hundreds of thousands of our troops are going to be deployed to another combat zone. That, in turn, makes each and every one of us taking part in this debate responsible for our national security and the welfare of our troops.
This vote is undoubtedly one of the most important that many of us will ever cast. This is not a vote on whether the President of the United States should be able to broaden our war against terrorism to include Saddam Hussein. It is a vote on whether now is the best time to attack, given that we do not yet have a new U.N. Security Council resolution or the support of our closest friends and allies in the international community. It is a vote on whether now is the best time to attack given that we have not used the full weight of our economic and diplomatic might to avert a war. It is a vote on whether we proceed with war when we have not determined what its objectives are, how long it will last, how much it will cost, or what kind of a regime will be set up afterwards.
This is not Desert Storm, where Iraq invaded Kuwait, where we had clear goals and the support of the international community, and we only paid about 10 percent of the cost of that war.
Mr. Speaker, I would not raise any of these questions if Congress had been informed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. We have not received that information. And I have many more unanswered questions, such as: How will the war affect our economy? How will the war affect our homeland security? What happens to international cooperation in our hunt for terrorists? What happens if Iraq lashes out at Israel? Are we prepared to recast our military as an army of occupation for the entire Middle East?
I am raising these questions because they are the same ones posed to me every weekend back in Oregon. While there has been a lively debate on this resolution, it has been far from persuasive. Nobody seems to have the answers. And, trust me, I have tried, through briefings, through talking to experts, through going through classified materials. At this time, I cannot go home with a clear conscience and explain why I voted to broaden this war with so many questions left unanswered.
So I will oppose the resolution. And for those who have committed themselves to voting for this measure, please consider asking these tough questions. It is easier to ask questions before we go to war, not after we commit ourselves and our young people to battle. When we have received answers to our questions, and when we have received assurances that we have tried everything, and that the only way left to nullify Iraq's threat to our national security is military action, only then would I vote to use force.
We do not have the answers to the questions. We do not have those assurances, and so I will vote "no" and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), a spokesperson really for justice.
Ms. Millender-McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this historic debate with some trepidation and troubled feelings. I have been marshaling views, like many of my esteemed colleagues, not only to contribute to this dialogue but, more poignantly, to try to make sense of what lies ahead for our great country.
Each Member has been consumed with this very critical issue. I am sure that none of us wants a war, as we know its great cost in human capital. Therefore, we must go the extra mile necessary to exhaust all possibilities before America commits to force. That is why this debate is so critical. And the implications of our decision that follows will have such portent, not only for us but also for the parents of the young men and women whom we ask to make perhaps the greatest sacrifice.
Until this past weekend, I was quite undecided as to how to respond to the President's insistence on moving against Iraq, and I took particular notice of the open-ended nature of the original draft resolution. Now, as the result of ongoing discussions with the leadership of the House and Senate, he has thought twice in seeking unilateral authority. Instead, this revised resolution allows for a preemptive use of force against Iraq and for his reporting to Congress after the fact. In short, Mr. Speaker, more questions were raised in my mind than answers given.
In the past, I have voted to support legislation designed to protect America's security. After 9-11, I was a clear and avid supporter of many pieces of legislation to support the President. Thus, I believe it is clear to all observers that I am a woman of conscience and not afraid to go on record when this Nation is faced with a clear and present danger to our way of life, our liberties, and our security.
I too believe that the world is dealing with a tyrannical dictator in Iraq and that he should not be allowed to terrorize neighboring states nor his own citizens. Saddam Hussein must and should be stopped. But how? What is the best and most appropriate way to contain him and destroy his unbridled power? Is it by having the U.S. go alone to confront this geopolitical problem that has a far-reaching impact on the entire world?
That is why this debate needs to be thorough and public, Mr. Speaker. We must look at the long-term domestic and international consequences and policy implications of intervening in Iraq. Before a declaration of war can be proclaimed, there must be an accounting of the cost both at home and abroad.
In his talk to the American people this past Monday, the President upped the ante, so to speak, and I, for one, was pleased to hear him say that war is the last resort. We must not forget that we are already fighting a war in Afghanistan and are deeply obligated to help bring security and reconstruction to that country. The costs are great, more than $1 billion a month. Can we continue to meet such expenditures? How long will our commitments continue there? Can we afford to fight two wars? What is the exit strategy after we go into Iraq when there is none in place for Afghanistan as yet?
Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have overwhelmingly called me to let me know they do not stand for having their sons and daughters go to war and return home in body bags until all possible diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. They want to see us, the political leaders of this great country, commit ourselves to working with the United Nations in every conceivable manner to exercise international action against a tyrant in Iraq. They want to see us enter into a rigorous international alliance under the U.N.'s banner to force the dismantling of Iraq's massive weaponry through a comprehensive inspection system.
The American people are not fools. They know that war with Iraq inevitably will mean that their domestic priorities would suffer from a lack of attention and resources. Our unfinished business on health care, prescription drugs, welfare reform, and a faltering economy, due in large part to corporate greed and malfeasance, and the President's top tax cut, would remain on the back burner.
I agree that Iraq has carried out regression on its own people and has not met its obligations under the U.N. resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this resolution.
Mr. Issa: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 40 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and ask that he may control that time.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Shuster): Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the additional time. We appreciate the cooperation from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States reserves to the Congress of the United States the authority to declare war. That is as it should be, for no more weighty matter confronts a nation, and it is fitting in a Republic that a decision such as this be made by the people's representatives.
Let us be clear. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous, malicious dictator. He has committed multiple atrocities, both towards his own people and others in the Middle East. He has refused to comply with U.N. resolutions or to allow weapons inspectors to fully identify and destroy his arsenal of chemical, biological and potential nuclear weapons. He has circumvented economic sanctions and has spent money from oil sales on weapons systems and personal luxuries for himself and his political cronies, rather than on the Iraqi people.
Given those facts, I believe we must increase the pressure on Iraq and insist on expanded weapons inspections with much greater resources and no restrictions. This should be done through a multinational effort coordinated through the United Nations and with the support of allies and other nations throughout the world.
The United States is absolutely right to insist on this and to take the lead in this effort. With international support, the United States stands the greatest chance for a successful outcome; and if military intervention is necessary, the number of casualties will be reduced and the regional repercussions will be lessened.
That is why I will support the Spratt amendment authorizing the President to seek international support for expanded inspections; and if Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with such inspections and an international coalition exists, the President would be authorized to commit U.S. military resources under U.S. command.
If, however, it is not possible to achieve a multinational coalition, in those circumstances the risks, the costs, and the international implications of a unilateral attack will be far more severe. Such an attack may be necessary, but before taking that step, the President should return to the Congress, explain why agreements have not been reached. And if in his judgment force is still necessary, he should, consistent with Article I of the Constitution, seek the authorization of the Congress for military force.
Throughout the discussions of war with Iraq, I have asked fundamental questions: What threat is posed by Iraq now and in the future? What is the military strategy for reducing that threat? What will the cost of that strategy be in human casualties on all sides? What are the international implications and potential regional scenarios that might be developed, and what is our long term strategy for the region?
I believe the first question has been answered. It is apparent that, while the threat to our own Nation may not be imminent, if allowed to go on Saddam Hussein will eventually develop even more dangerous weapons. Beyond that, however, the remaining questions have not been fully addressed. For each of the issues I have raised, and many others have as well, the potential risks and costs would be dramatically greater if the U.S. acts unilaterally rather than in a multinational effort.
Even some of our strongest allies have indicated they would not support us militarily or financially if we go it alone. Yet the risks, costs and consequences of unilateral action have not been adequately explained to the American people. Whatever course is chosen, I believe we will not solve the problem of international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction solely by attacking Saddam Hussein or solely through the broad use of military force. I understand well the impulse and the desire to do something and do it now to reduce the threat and fear created by September 11, and I believe it may yet be necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, but we must all recognize that there is no course of action without risk or that we will eliminate all risk in the future.
Ultimately, we must look at the source of international conflicts; and we must work to reduce the perceptions and the real conditions that allow terrorists and others to foment hatred toward our Nation. If we do not understand and deal with how our actions are perceived internationally, we will run the risk of defeating Saddam Hussein only to foster new threats and new hatreds elsewhere.
We can and must dedicate ourselves to the battle against terrorism, and we can and must hope the pressure applied to the Iraqi regime will bring about change and greater security. But as we seek that end, we must not neglect the challenges we face here at home; and we must not neglect our responsibility to address those challenges with honesty, forthrightness, and a sense of justice, fairness and a sense of shared sacrifice befitting a truly great Nation in times such as these.
The President of the United States and all Members of Congress have dedicated their hearts, minds and souls to protecting the safety and well-being of the American people. There are legitimate differences about how to achieve that in these times; but whatever the result of this vote, let no one question the motives, the courage, or the patriotism of those who will make this fateful decision.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, President Bush spoke on Monday night about the many threats Saddam Hussein poses to international security and why the President believes he should have the authority to launch a preemptive, unilateral attack on Iraq to force a regime change in that nation.
While I respect the President and his sincerity in seeking this authority, I am not convinced that such an attack is in the best interest of our Nation.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man, yet that is not the topic under discussion here tonight. We are debating whether a unilateral military invasion is the best way to address the threats posed by Iraq. I must vote no on this grave issue because I am not persuaded that a preemptive, unilateral attack is the most effective way to control Saddam Hussein.
I agree with President Bush that the United States, in conjunction with our allies in Europe and the Middle East, must make a new effort to readmit a weapons inspectors into Iraq. A new inspection policy must give U.N. personnel unfettered access to any and every facility and have the ability to conduct unannounced surprise inspections. This new effort needs the full and vigorous cooperation of the U.N., NATO and nations in the Middle East. A united front is essential to success, and the international community must join the U.S. in enforcing U.N. resolutions.
As we survey the international community, however, nations in Europe and the Middle East, including key allies, range from lukewarm to downright hostile to the idea of launching a solo strike against Iraq. Many nations would react negatively to such an action, viewing such a preemptive U.S. attack as overly aggressive.
The world's response to our attack could easily include a global anti-American backlash, severely hampering our ability to fight the war on terrorism, build security and peace in the Middle East, and protect vital U.S. interests. We must not forget that the war on terror requires the support and cooperation of our key allies in the Middle East, Europe and around the world. We rely on these nations to root out terror cells within their borders and share with us important information.
We must also remember that since the end of the Gulf War the U.S. has kept a close eye on Iraq. We have maintained a strong military presence in the region, imposed sanctions, conducted thousands of military flights over no-fly zones, and focused our intelligence community on Baghdad. We have made clear that any misbehavior by Saddam would be met immediately by overwhelming force. As a result of our deterrence, Saddam Hussein has not attacked Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait or others since the Gulf War because he knows that such a move would bring the full weight of the U.S. and the world upon him. His desire to cling to power supersedes his hunger for conquest.
If we strike first, we change that dynamic. Knowing his survival would be at stake, Saddam would have a powerful incentive to use every weapon in his arsenal to defeat American troops. He might target Israel, hoping to fan the flames of conflict between Israel and the Arab world to create chaos in the region.
I am concerned that our preemptive unilateral strike would trigger the very events we hope to avoid: regional war, rampant instability, and use of weapons of mass destruction.
We also must recognize that a preemptive unilateral attack against Iraq would represent a major shift in American diplomatic and strategic thinking.
For nearly 50 years we relied upon deterrence to check upon Soviet expansionism. Deterrence brought us victory in the Cold War without having to fight a hot shooting war under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. That same strategy has kept Iraq at bay for more than a decade.
Now that doctrine is on the verge of being discarded. The potential consequence of such a shift in strategic thinking includes an emboldened China moving against Taiwan, Russia acting aggressively against the nations of her former empire, and India and Pakistan attacking each other with nuclear weapons.
There are several other critical questions to which we have heard very few answers. We must have a clear plan on how an attack on Iraq would transpire, including identifying our military options, determining our strategy to change the regime, calculating the potential casualties, and estimating how much an operation would cost and how it would be funded. We must also see a plan to build democratic and free market institutions in a post-Saddam Iraq. History teaches us that how we win the peace is just as critical as how we win war. Thus far these critical issues have received scant attention.
The international community has an important obligation to ensure that Saddam Hussein cannot repeat the aggression of his past; and as the world's most powerful country, we have a commitment to lead. Through U.N. inspections, continued monitoring, and increased scrutiny of Bagdad we can meet that responsibility. We cannot, however, move in a unilateral manner that could jeopardize the peace and security of the Middle East if not the world. I must vote "no" on H.J. Resolution 114 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one of our top constitutional lawyers in this House.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, if our goal is to disarm Iraq, I believe the best way to accomplish that goal would be to utilize the strategy articulated a few weeks ago by Secretary of State Colin Powell, that is, to reinstate, utilizing established rules and supported by multilateral military force if necessary. This policy has the best chance of working, and it has the support of the international community. If military force is needed to enforce the inspections, it will be targeted, focused, and not requiring a massive invasion force. It will be unlikely to provoke widespread warfare all over the Middle East; and it is just as likely to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq as widespread bombing.
If on the other hand we merely start dropping bombs, how do we even know where to bomb if we have not inspected first? If we do know where the weapons are, those locations can be placed first on the inspection list, and if there is any resistance to the inspection, multilateral military force could be targeted on those sites.
But today we are discussing a resolution authorizing the use of force before the inspectors have even had an opportunity to do their jobs. This resolution represents the last opportunity for Congress to have a meaningful input in the decision to go to war, and unfortunately there are many problems and unanswered questions with granting this authority now.
The first problem is that although the resolution suggests that the President first try to work with the U.N., that provision is unenforceable. This is a problem especially because the President has already stated that he did not need the United Nations, and this resolution allows the President to just notify Congress that, based on the authority granted in this resolution, he has decided to attack Iraq. Furthermore, the broad authority granted in this resolution is inappropriate because of the timing of this vote, less than a month before the election.
Twelve years ago under the first President Bush, the vote to use military force in the Persian Gulf was taken after the election. The timing of this resolution also raises questions because there is nothing shown to be urgent about the situation in Iraq. If the President discovers that the U.S. is in imminent danger, he is already authorized to defend the Nation and no one would expect him to wait for a congressional resolution. If the argument is that the urgency was created a year ago on September 11, the evidence supporting the connection between 9-11 and Iraq is at best tenuous.
In addition to these problems, granting the authority in the resolution is premature because many questions are unanswered. For example, what plans have been made for the governance of Iraq after we win the war? And what chance is there that a regime change will create any better situation than we have now? And to the extent that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, is it a good idea to invade Iraq and place our troops right in harm's way? And what will the war cost, and how will we pay for it?
Eighteen months ago we had the largest budget surplus in American history. Today even without the cost of a war, we are approaching the largest deficit in American history with huge deficits already projected for the next 10 years. So what is the plan to pay for the war? Are we going to cut funds for education and health care? Are we going to raise taxes, or will we just run up additional deficits? And what will the domino effect be? If we attack Iraq, Iraq may attack Israel, Israel will attack back, and then everyone in the Middle East will choose sides, and how will that make us better off than we are now?
If we are to make progress against terrorism, we have to recognize that hate is as big an enemy as complex weapons. That hatred may increase because others will resent the fact that we have chosen to apply rules to others that we are unwilling to have applied to us. We would not tolerate applying regime change to the United States, nor would we accept preemptive strikes as an acceptable international policy. The CIA has now reported that the chance that Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons has actually increased since all of the talk about a war began.
Mr. Speaker, all of these problems persist and questions remain unanswered, and they lead to the same basic uncertainty. What is the plan both before and after the war and what are the consequences? Some have argued that a vote against the resolution is a vote to do nothing. That is not true. We should act, but based on the information we now have, I believe the wisest course is to proceed with the strategy proposed by Colin Powell, and that is U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq enforced with multilateral military power. That strategy has the support of the international community. It is most likely to actually disarm Iraq; it does not require a massive unilateral invasion force; and it reduces the risk of provoking widespread armed conflict in the Middle East and terrorism in the United States.
I therefore urge my fellow Members to vote against the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, these votes on the Iraq resolution pose difficult questions for all of us. A large part of the difficulty is caused by the Administration's inconsistent policies on what we should do, when we should do it, and whose approval we need. Not many days ago, the Administration articulated the policy that it could proceed unilaterally, without U.N. support, and without Congressional approval, to attack Iraq, with a preemptive strike, without the necessity of an imminent threat to the United States, for the purpose of "regime change". On one recent Sunday, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell articulated inconsistent descriptions of the Administration's policy. This resolution, which the Administration is now supporting, repudiates the initial Administration policy by requiring the Administration to seek both U.N. cooperation and Congressional approval. Last weekend, the Boston Globe began an article on the Administration's position on Iraq with the sentence "As administration officials struggle to reach an agreement with U.S. allies about Iraq, President Bush has been shifting his rhetoric in favor of less aggressive language that emphasizes disarming Saddam Hussein rather than ousting him." So because of these constant changes, formulating a response to the Administration's position has been difficult.
The first question we must address is this: what is the goal? If the goal is to disarm Iraq, I believe that the best way to accomplish that goal would be to utilize the strategy articulated a few weeks ago by Secretary of State Powell: reinstate U.N. inspections, utilizing the established rules, supported by multilateral military force, if necessary. This policy has the best chance of working. At a minimum, it is an important first step. And it has the support of the international community. If military force is needed to enforce the inspections, it will be targeted, focused and not requiring a massive invasion force; it would be unlikely to provoke widespread warfare all over the Middle East; and it is also just as likely to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq as widespread bombing.
If, on the other hand, you merely start dropping bombs--how do you even know where to bomb, if you haven't inspected first? If you do know where the weapons are, those locations could be placed first on the inspection list, and if there is any resistance to the inspection, multilateral military force could be targeted to those sites.
But today we are discussing a resolution authorizing the use of force, before inspectors have had an opportunity to do their jobs. Unlike the first Administration resolution offered a few days ago, this resolution does require the President to cooperate with Congress and to try to work with the U.N. This resolution is not as broad as the previous draft. It is limited to Iraq, not the entire Middle East, but it still gives the President the authority to attack, if he determines it to be necessary and appropriate.
This resolution represents the last opportunity for Congress to have meaningful input in the decision to go to war. And unfortunately there are many problems and unanswered questions with granting this authority now.
The first problem is that although the resolution suggests that the President try to work with the U.N., the provision is unenforceable. The President merely has to notify Congress, if he chooses to launch an attack. If we are truly interested in making sure that the President fully exhausts diplomatic efforts before using force, then the resolution should not authorize a military attack without a subsequent statement from Congress.
There is a consensus in the United States that we should work with the U.N. to the extent possible. But after this vote, Congress will have no opportunity to require meaningful efforts to seek cooperation with the U.N. This is a problem especially because the President has already state his disdain for the U.N. by saying at first that he didn't need the U.N., and when he finally sought U.N. support, he implied that if they failed to support the United States, he would proceed to attack without them. Furthermore, the Administration is now insisting on new, unprecedented rules for inspections, a position which may provoke Iraq into resisting the inspections and creating an unnecessary impasse at the U.N. A more prudent strategy would be to require the President to come back to Congress and explain that he made the good faith effort to work with the U.N.--rather than allowing the President to just notify Congress that based on the authority granted in this resolution, he had decided to attack Iraq.
Furthermore, the broad authority granted by this resolution is inappropriate, because of the timing of this vote--less than a month before the election. This problem is magnified by the fact that nearly all of the President's statements on the need for this resolution have been made at partisan political fundraisers, where he attacks Democratic officeholders. Twelve years ago--under the first President Bush--the vote to use military force in the Persian Gulf was taken after the election. That would be a good model to follow, because then members voted without the interests of personal political considerations competing with the national interests.
The timing of the vote on this resolution also raises questions because there is nothing urgent about the situation with Iraq. We have the same information now that we had 2 years ago. For example, we have known that Iraq has had the capability to build biological and chemical weapons for years; in fact we know this because they bought some of the materials from the United States. Furthermore, no case has been made that there is an imminent threat to the United States. So why is it essential for the President to have the authority to attack Iraq now? If the President discovers that the United States is in imminent danger, he is already authorized to defend the nation, and no one would expect him to wait for a Congressional Resolution. So what is different now? If the argument is that the urgency was created a year ago on September 11th, the evidence supporting the connection between 9/11 and Iraq is at best tenuous. So what is the urgency to authorize force right before the election?
Another problem with the broad authority granted in the resolution is that this issue appears to be personal for the President. He admitted as much when he described Saddam Hussein as "the man who tried to kill my Dad." The United States should not go to war to settle a personal vendetta.
In addition to these problems, granting the authority in the resolution is premature because many questions are unanswered. For example, if the President uses the authority granted in this resolution and attacks Iraq, what plans have been made for the governance of Iraq after we win the war.
And what chance is there that a regime change will create any better situation than we have now. We cannot forget that the United States was involved in the regime change in Cuba in which Batista was kicked out and we ended up with Castro. So why isn't it likely that Iraq will select someone who hates us even more than Saddam Hussein.
And other questions need to be addressed, such as, to the extent that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, is it a good idea to invade Iraq and put our troops right in harm's way. "And what will the war cost and how will we pay for it? There is no question that we are willing to pay whatever it costs to be successful in the war, but we can't ignore the questions of "how long" and "how much money." Eighteen months ago, we had the largest budget surplus in American history. Today, even without the costs of a war, we are approaching the largest deficit in American history, with huge deficits projected for the next 10 years. The direct costs of the war have been estimated at $100 billion; the indirect costs, such as higher oil costs, have not even been estimated. And so, what will we be giving up in terms of being able to fund education and health care and other needs here in the United States? Or is the plan to raise taxes? Or is the plan to just run up more deficits?
What will be the domino effect? If we attack Iraq, Iraq will attack Israel, Israel will attack back, and then everyone in the Middle East will choose sides. How will that make us better off than we are now, especially in our fight against terrorism?
And in the end, what will we have won? In making progress against terrorism, we have to recognize that hate is as much of an enemy as complex weapons. The weapons used to cause mass destruction on 9/11 were boxcutters. Firearms and explosives are easily available in the United States and can be used against buildings or modes of transportation. If the result of the war is that others hate us worse than they do now, then we have to understand that suicide bombings in the United States may increase.
Moreover, that hatred may increase because others will resent that we have chosen to apply rules to others that we are unwilling to have applied to us. We would certainly not tolerate another country applying "regime change" to the United States. And we would never approve of preemptive strikes when there is no imminent threat as an acceptable international policy. Recently, the Administration threatened Iraqi military personnel with trials as war criminals; but the U.S. policy is not to subject our personnel to the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. The CIA has now reported that the chance that Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons has actually increased since all of the talk about war began.
Mr. Speaker, all of these problems persist and questions remain unanswered, and they lead to the same basic uncertainty--what is the plan, both before and after the war, and what are the consequences. Some have argued that a vote against the Resolution is a vote to do nothing. That is not true. We should act, but based on the information we have now, I believe the wisest course is to proceed with the strategy proposed by Secretary of State Powell--U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq enforced with multilateral military power. That strategy has the support of the international community; it is most likely to actually disarm Iraq; it does not require a massive, unilateral invasion force; and it reduces the risk of provoking widespread armed conflict in the Middle East and terrorism in the United States.
I therefore urge my fellow members to vote against this resolution.
