Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
(Mr. Inslee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Inslee: Mr. Speaker, at its heart this debate tonight is not about Saddam Hussein. That debate is finished. We know that he is a tyrant and a thug. The debate tonight is about what our vision of America in this new age of new threats should be, and the one thing we should all agree on is America is the greatest Nation on Earth because it has always hued to certain principles. It has always matched the might of its Armed Forces with the force of its principles. It has never resorted through trial and tumult and storm to shortcuts even in times of difficulty.
And there are three principles that we should think about tonight: number one, it is an American principle that we engage the international community in a system of mutual security and international law; number two, it is an American principle that countries do not engage in first strikes absent international accord or truly imminent threat; number three, it is an American principle that the United States Congress is the group that makes the declaration of war. And unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this resolution violates every single one of those basic tenets of American democracy.
They have put some legislative lipstick on it. They put some nice fuzzy language around it. But ultimately it violates this rule: no Congress should give any President a blank check to start a unilateral, ill-timed war, to let him start a war for any reason at any time with or without any allies. And in doing so, these principles are violated.
Let me address the first one, the basic principle that America stands for international cooperation, and this has been a bipartisan principle for decades in this country. Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have worked with the international community to develop international law, international support systems; and we have led the Nation in doing so.
We have led the Nation, because a world where countries can strike one another without international support, without a true imminent threat, is a law of the jungle. This Nation, even in today's threat, should lead the world forward to international law, rather than backward to the law of the jungle.
This concept is more important after September 11 than less, and it is more important because of what the generals have told us, General Hoar, General Zinni, General Clark. We need to heed their advice, because what they have told us is simple and alarming.
They have told us that if we engage in a unilateral attack in the Middle East, it has the capacity of supercharging Osama bin Laden's recruitment efforts. There is no victory in the destruction of one tyrant while breeding 10,000 terrorists. It is true that a unilateral attack that inflames the Middle East has the capacity of reducing our security rather than increasing it. This violates an American principle.
Second, we have a principle of honoring our troops. We do not owe Saddam Hussein any more time. We do not owe Saddam Hussein anything. But we owe the soldiers and sailors and our sons and our daughters who we would send into the streets of Baghdad the ultimate effort to go the last mile to see if we can resolve the disarmament, and the total disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, before war. We owe our soldiers and sailors to make war the last option, not the first step.
I got a letter from a mother from Wenatchee, Washington, this week making one plea to me that when I took this vote, to say that she understood her son could be involved in a sacrifice at the cause of liberty, but not until every option is exhausted, and every option has not been exhausted. That is why we should pass the separate resolution, which will call for the President to go to the United Nations, get a tough, certain, guaranteed disarmament effort, and get this job done.
Third, we are a people who keep our eye on the ball. We have a principle in this Nation of not becoming distracted, and we do not know why we should take our eye off the ball, off the threat of al Qaeda, which 1 month ago was listed as a high threat of repeated terrorist attacks in this Nation, and go put our precious resources in dealing with what the CIA yesterday said was a low threat of terrorist activities. It does not make sense to the American people to do that.
So for those purposes and those principles, international cooperation, honoring our troops, and keeping our eye on the ball, Mr. Speaker, we should reject this resolution and pass the Spratt amendment. This is the American way.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation once again considers a course of action that will define our moral standing in the history of free peoples. I agree that America should speak with one voice in response to the challenges to international peace, security, and human rights posed by the regime in Iraq. That voice must be founded on the most fundamental of moral principles: the sanctity of human life.
The value of human life has been the basis for the settled, bipartisan international policy toward Iraq that we in this Congress have expressed in the past. In 1998, Congress reflected a strong, unified voice when we voted to support legislation that noted Iraq's violation of U.N. disarmament demands to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, as well as their development.
In that same year, we also enacted the Iraq Liberation Act that authorized U.S. support for Iraqi liberation forces in their efforts to replace the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. We did so because Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a serious threat to regional stability in the Middle East, a growing threat to the United States, and a leader who deserves to be tried in an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. However, we did not authorize the unilateral use of U.S. military forces towards that end.
Neither the American people nor their elected representatives have wavered in our support for the values of human rights, security, international stability, and democracy reflected in those 1998 congressional resolutions.
However, as we consider this resolution, we must not forget one essential fact. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has concluded, we have seen no evidence or no intelligence to suggest that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our Nation. In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, I cannot support the resolution proposed by the Bush administration that would authorize preemptive military strikes by the U.S. forces to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions, some of which deal with issues other than Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
I agree with the senior Senator from West Virginia, who has observed that the President's proposed resolution is dangerously hasty, redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch.
The resolution proposed by the administration would codify the doctrine of preemption, the assertion that America has the unilateral right to attack a nation that has not attacked us. This, in my view, would be a precedent with disastrous consequences. A unilateral first strike would almost certainly result in substantial loss of life, both among American troops and among Iraqi civilians. A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States and could set a devastating international precedent that we could then see echoed in conflicts between India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, China and Taiwan, and in many other corners of the world.
In addition, unilateral U.S. action may well destabilize the Middle East, harming the international cooperation that we need to defend America against terrorism.
Experts tell us that the United States might have to remain in Iraq for a decade, a commitment requiring international support and engagement.
Finally, the economic costs of going it alone would undermine the ability of our Nation to address our unmet domestic priorities.
Although this resolution would authorize the President to take this Nation to war, it is not a declaration of war, it is a blank check to use force without the moral or political authority of a declaration of war. Congress must not abandon its authority under the Constitution. This resolution would do just that.
The course of action that is more consistent with the values and security interests of the United States is to support a multinational collective security strategy towards the threats to regional peace and international stability that are posed by the regime in Iraq. The administration has indicated some progress within the United Nations Security Council towards that goal. I join the President in urging all members of the Council to act with due diligence.
I also join in the position advanced by our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who has proposed that we once again authorize U.S. military support for a renewed and strengthened U.N. Security Council resolution that demands true disarmament by Iraq. This is a threat that the civilized world must face together. The regime of Saddam Hussein, after all, is the world's problem as well as our own.
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Jefferson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on the verge of opening a new front in the global war on terror. It is a front fraught with peril. It is a front that may send thousands of young Americans, men and women, to uproot a ruthless dictator that has committed unspeakable acts against his own people and wrought havoc on the world.
No decision is more difficult, more wrenching for a U.S. President, the Congress, or the American people than to commit our soldiers and our Nation's prestige to a military conflagration. It is for this reason that we must consider all possible diplomatic and military options short of war.
As noted 19th century French author Guy de Maupassant wrote, "Every government has as much of a duty to avoid war as a ship's captain has to avoid a shipwreck."
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Spratt substitute to House Joint Resolution 114. It offers the best and most certain way to achieve our objectives of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the best chance of avoiding a hasty decision to go to war. It is a sensible, prudent approach to managing the use of force by our country.
Eleven years ago, then President George Bush created one of the most impressive multinational coalitions that the world has ever seen. He very wisely determined that it was not in our Nation's interest to act unilaterally to liberate Kuwait.
The Spratt substitute is informed by that experience. It limits the opportunity of our current President for unilateral action to liberate Iraq.
I am pleased that President George W. Bush has engaged the U.N. during the current crisis. I am grateful that he has recognized that our Nation should work with the United Nations Security Council and allow weapons inspections to go forward and this process to occur.
I am relieved the President said that war is not inevitable. And I am encouraged that he has said that he would give a diplomatic course to disarm Iraq through a U.N. process every chance to work ahead of using force.
Mr. Speaker, the Spratt resolution guarantees the President's stated intentions are made law. As set forth in the Spratt substitute, our Armed Forces should take action only against Iraq only in conjunction with a new U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for the complete elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
If the U.N. Security Council resolution is violated or the U.N. does not act, the President would need approval from Congress for unilateral action, and then only after making certain important certifications to Congress. Thus, this vote would occur only if the President has certified that further U.N. action is not forthcoming, force remains the only viable option, a broadbased international coalition is being formed, and the global war on terrorism would not be adversely affected by an Iraqi invasion.
Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as prudent haste. It is an understatement to say that we should take the time for calm deliberation by the Congress in a proceeding uncomplicated by any question other than whether we should commit to a course of action that may cost a heavy toll in human lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the good will of the international community.
I urge support of the Spratt substitute. But what is our course if Spratt is not adopted? What then is the best course for us to address the threat of terrorism and the threat of the use of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of a brutal dictator? What is our best chance to evoke the response from Iraq that will lead to unfettered weapons inspections and eventual disarmament?
With long and careful thought I have come to the conclusion that the leadership of Iraq will only submit to a credible disarmament process based on inspections if it is faced with a credible threat of the use of force. It is the use of force authorization that I pray will never be used. And it is the use of force authorization that should never be used unilaterally. After Spratt, H.J. Res. 114 provides the only remaining prudent chance to stem these new threats of unthinkable horrific terror that our Nation and the world now face, threats that we are now only just beginning to understand. It is a chance that I believe our country through this Congress must commit to take at this time.
