Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Let me conclude by thanking the majority for the kindness and the thoughtfulness that they have given us. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) should be commended, as I mentioned earlier, a gentleman always, but to allow everyone to have a word to say.
The past 2 days with over 24 hours of debate has been an historic time in this House. A debate has endured that will be noted and will be long-remembered what was said here. We have debated fundamental changes in the manner in which this country operates, first strike preemptive. Definitely a new course of action for this Nation.
Of course, first strikes are nothing new. In the medieval times there were many, France into Germany, Spain into Italy. In 1918, Germany entered France. December 7, Japan attacked the United States. So there has been preemptive strikes but never the greatest Nation in the world taking a decision to make first strikes preemptive, and so this is a new day for this great Nation.
The Framers of the Constitution, the Jeffersons and the Adams and Washingtons and Hamiltons, said let us be careful about power. We do not want a king or emperor or dictator, and, therefore, let us give the power of war to the Congress.
Here we are abdicating that responsibility and giving the right to declare war to one person, to say it is his decision to do what he wants and he has 48 hours to tell us later what he has done. Another principle that we have changed.
We jeopardize a coalition because I believe right now our number one fight is the battle against terror. The al Qaeda cells that are in this country and in 50 other countries and a false feeling of security will emerge when we attack Iraq if that is done, and Americans will, therefore, believe that there is a sense of security now and al Qaeda is gone. There is definitely a difference between the al Qaeda cells and the government of Iraq, and so we are leading people down a wrong path to believe that a defeat of Iraq, therefore, eliminates the war on terror.
We have heard recently that there is a connection between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq. This only was revealed in the last week or so. Many wonder where this information is coming from and whether, in fact, it is indeed true. And, once again, we should not lull our people into a false feeling of security when we look over there and say Iraq is done, we are safe again, when the war on terror will still be here.
So we talk about a new concept, regime change, Saddam Hussein should go. This is a tall order. How do we do it? How long do we stay? How dangerous will it be? How costly will it be? How are we going to rehabilitate Afghanistan? We have not drilled the pumps to reach the low water tables as we promised. We have not started construction of schools as we said. We have not built the hospitals as we promised, but now we will go into Iraq and for how much? What will the cost be? $100 billion? $200 billion? No one really knows.
As the DOW has dropped from close to 11,000 down to close to 7,000, almost a 40 percent drop, how can we fund this? We spend $1 billion a day today on a $350 billion defense budget, with another couple of hundred billion dollars on the side. How can we do it with the unmet needs of PELL grants and student loans, the needs for prescription drug benefits for seniors and section 8 housing, vouchers funding for elementary and secondary schools in the leave no child behind legislation? How do we deal with that?
So as we move to vote we should engage the U.N., we should encourage them and support the inspectors to find and destroy those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. We should leave no stone unturned. We should go unfettered. We should demand that, and I believe then we can have the avoidance of war. We should attempt to avoid war at any cost. I do not believe that the United States is eliminating the danger of the al Qaeda cells in this country by us having a war and attack on Iraq.
I would like to say that we are a mighty powerful country. Let us use our power and might. We love this country. In school I used to recite the poem, This is my country, land of my birth; this is my country, the grandest on earth; and I pledge thee my allegiance, America the bold, because this is my country to have and to hold.
Let us not misuse the power that we have, but let us be sure that Saddam Hussein is contained, that this world is free of tyrants like that. Let us support the inspectors going in.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Issa: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, as I close, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey. This has been, in fact, a long debate. It has been spirited at times, but, in fact, it has always lived up to the gravity of what we are considering, and we owe that in no small part to the gentleman from New Jersey.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has empowered me to close, and I take that as a very unusual thing for a freshman and something that is pretty important for somebody who not only supports this resolution but who supports this resolution often to the dismay of other Arab Americans.
My family emigrated from the Middle East, one side of my family emigrated from the Middle East, and I bear an Arab surname, and so for me and I think for many people who are going to support this resolution tomorrow, this has to be a special case. We are not pushing an 11-year or 12-year war to the brink of a final military conflict lightly.
I would call the Speaker's attentions to these advertisements that came out of Baghdad September 11 and a year after September 11 as just another example of what is different about Saddam Hussein's regime.
After September 11, both as a member of the Committee on International Relations and I believe as one of the Members of this body whose ancestry goes back to the Middle East, I was visited by not just one but every single ambassador from the Middle East represented in this country. In every case they expressed their horror, their sympathy and distanced themselves from the terrible events of September 11; and they did so in private, not intending to do it for the camera, but so that I would understand. And I am sure they visited virtually every other Member so they would understand that that is not what the Arab people are about, that is not what Arab society, one of the great societies that helped create the world as we know it today, is about.
It is not what the Iraqi people are about, and to put out propaganda in the Baghdad press talking about September 11 being Allah's revenge, in fact, says it all about this regime.
Saddam Hussein and his party and his almost 30-year rule has been all about killing and violence and hatred. He is not alone, but he is in a league of his own. And as we close for tonight and we move into tomorrow's short debates of 1 hour and final passage probably by midday, I hope that all of us will remember that this is not about Arab people, not in this country and not anywhere in the world.
The need to empower the President to take this action, should it become necessary, is all about the uniqueness of this administration of Saddam Hussein and the actions he has taken in the past, he takes in the present, and we are quite certain that if that regime is not changed or replaced, he will take in the future.
I say as one Arab American to the many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans in this country and perhaps to the Arabs around the world, America and particularly my community in America has absolutely no hatred and no willingness to participate in anything that is adverse to the Arab people.
But we do have to insist that the kind of tyranny that has gone on in Iraq for so many decades must in fact stop, either by Saddam Hussein living up to his obligations under the U.N. resolutions or his being driven from power and an Arab leader who will respect the rule of law and who will provide the kind of fairness for his own people can be found.
Mr. Meehan: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a heavy heart but with determined resolve. A member of Congress faces no more important debate than authorizing the President to use military force.
Just over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world were opened to the depths to which evil men will descend in order to put fear in the hearts and minds of peace loving people.
In the post-September 11th world, Americans now understand that there are those who have no regard for human life, and that they will kill the innocent in untold numbers to achieve evil goals.
We now also know that sometimes our Nation must act to prevent that which may happen in the future.
Which brings us to Saddam Hussein and Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam has a unique brand of state-sponsored terror that threatens the world like no other.
Unchecked, he pursues chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has demonstrated the capacity to use them.
Among dictators and despots, his record stands by itself: he has brutally murdered and repressed his own people, he has used chemical weapons against his neighbors and his countrymen including women and children, he has launched unprovoked attacks on other nations, he sponsored an assassination attempt on former President Bush, he harbors terrorists including members of Al Qaeda, and he defies the will of the United Nations and the international community by refusing to disarm and continuing to develop every conceivable weapons of mass destruction known to man.
That is why it is critical that the United States asserts its unique leadership role in the international community and put an end to Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Now is the time to work within the United Nations Security Council to move a tough Resolution calling for the complete disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction under threat of force by a global coalition.
It must be the policy of the United States to exhaust all forms of diplomacy within the United Nations and other appropriate forums before considering any other course of action relative to disarming Iraq.
And if that diplomacy fails, then we must act with the broadest coalition of nations as possible to force the disarmament of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, the strategy that Secretary Powell briefed me on that we are pursuing with the U.N. Security Council is precisely the reason why I am such a strong supporter of the Alternative being offered by John Spratt of South Carolina.
The Spratt Alternative authorizes the use of U.S. military force in pursuit of a Security Council-sanctioned effort to disarm Iraq, by force if necessary.
That is what Secretary Powell and the Administration are pushing for within the U.N. right now and that is what the Congress should be supporting.
This alternatives makes clear that if the Security Council fails to take action that Congress will act immediately to vote on authorizing the President to use unilateral, if necessary, force against Iraq to disarm.
We are also considering the underlying resolution that provides the President with the authority to use force in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and unilaterally.
It is a significantly broader authorization than the Spratt Alternative. However, changes have been made including: (1) support for and prioritization of U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.; (2) limiting the scope of the authorization to Iraq only; (3) requiring presidential determinations to Congress before the president may use force; (4) and requiring the President to consult with and report to Congress throughout this process.
I had hoped that there would have been more opportunity for the House to improve on the underlying resolution during the course of this historic debate.
However, I was deeply encouraged by the President's words Monday night when he said, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
Likewise, I was deeply encouraged by my meeting yesterday with Secretary Powell in which he spelled out in detail our strategy for action within the U.N. Security Council.
I take both President Bush and Secretary Powell at their word. In the coming days, weeks and months, I plan on holding them to their words.
As a Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I've seen the bravery of our men and women in uniform.
In fact, I was able to visit many earlier this year in Afghanistan and I was struck by their determination to secure the peace for that nation thousands of miles from home.
It pains me that more families may be missing their loved ones soon.
Nevertheless, let there be no doubt that Saddam Hussein's unfettered pursuit of weapons of mass destruction are a real and growing threat to the United States and the international community, and that whatever course others may take--America will defend herself.
Mr. Abercrombie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this resolution. We all recognize that Suddam Hussein is a tyrant and that he is a dangerous enemy. The question is whether this resolution is the right way to address the threats presented by his regime.
The Administration says that Iraq presents an imminent threat to the United States, that unless we give the President carte blanche to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack, we will be subject to attack by weapons of mass destruction. No one needs to convince us of the horror of weapons of mass destruction or the evil intentions of Saddam Hussein. But does that justify the blank check this resolution gives the President? We have listened to the testimony, read the briefs, and weighed the arguments presented by the Administration. In my view, they have yet to prove their case. They have presented no credible evidence that the United States faces imminent attack. They have presented no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that it is giving material aid to those involved in those attacks.
Are we setting the bar too high? I don't think so. The evidence of imminent threat should be credible, conclusive and irrefutable if we are talking about the United States unleashing the dogs of war. Striking the first blow is unprecedented in American history. It has always been a point of honor that the United States does not start wars. If we are going to depart from a fundamental principle that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than 200 years, the evidence of necessity must be iron clad.
This is much more than a point of pride. It is not an abstract argument. Through this action, the world's only remaining superpower is asserting a principle that the nations of the world--including the United States--have struggled to consign to the past. We have rejected the old idea that any nation which claims to feel threatened or aggrieved can unilaterally and preemptively attack another without the sanction of the international community. The power to initiate war is no longer untrammeled and absolute. Think for a moment of the precedent we are setting, of the pandora's box we are opening. What if, tomorrow, India or Pakistan says the other constitutes an unacceptable threat? Would this justify one of these nuclear-armed countries attacking the other? What about China and Taiwan? What about any number of other countries whose relations with a neighbor are beset with tension, suspicion, threats, and insecurity?
More immediately, what about our relations with our allies, the nations on which we depend to help us keep the peace and bear the burden of protecting our interests? We should be careful not to initiate a new age of American unilateralism that leaves us without allies. The Administration thinks they are dispensable in the case of Iraq. Maybe they are. But if our alliances fray and disintegrate, it is certain that there will come a time when we do need them. Will they be there for us? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing we can be sure of: it is foolhardy in the extreme to ignore our allies' importance to the system of international relations and the maintenance of America's prosperity and national security interests.
I have every confidence that our troops will display the bravery and professionalism we have come to expect from them. But the consequences of a U.S. victory are liable to be a huge burden for the United States. We will have taken on the responsibly for peace and order, for feeding and sustaining an entire population, and guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Iraq. All this in the context of a population which may or may not be receptive to the presence of our armed forces. We will have to counter the centrifugal dynamics that drive the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south away from the Iraqi state. We will be responsible for defending Iraq's long border with Iran against incursions. We are talking about committing tens of thousands of troops, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, for many years, maybe decades.
And what will be the impact of an invasion in the rest of the Muslim world? The reaction will not be an outpouring of support for the United States. It will feed the flames of fanaticism. It could well destabilize Egypt, Jordan and other friendly nations. Are we prepared to commit more troops, more money, more prestige to shoring up these governments?
Finally, let me offer some observations as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Implications of a war against Iraq will reverberate at every level of the Department of Defense. Problematic issues the military faces today--global international commitments, increased personnel tempo, and over-reliance on the Reserves and National Guard-- will only be exacerbated when military requirements for Iraq are thrown in the mix.
Of foremost concern is the inevitable enormous strain on military manpower. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Armed Services Committee that no increase in troop end strength is necessary to carry out an invasion and peacekeeping activities in Iraq. No one else whom our Committee spoke to held this opinion. In fact, retired flag officers and distinguished military analysts all agreed that increased end strength was imperative for the ultimate success of our reconstruction of Iraq.
And the personnel problem extends far beyond the full time, active duty forces. Since the Persian Gulf war, our reliance on the Reserves and National Guard has grown to the point where it would be impossible for DoD to meet its worldwide commitments without the presence of these units. Reservists and Guardsmen no longer talk about the rare mobilization in support of a national emergency; rather, some units routinely deploy overseas alongside their active duty counterparts. How long can we continue to call upon these volunteers to shoulder more than their fair share? How long can we ask civilian employers and families of our Guard and Reserve to carry on without them? I sincerely hope that one of the first orders of business in the 108th Congress is a comprehensive overhaul of our military personnel system in order to ease the stress on our citizen soldiers. Otherwise, our Reservists and Guardsmen are sure to vote with their feet.
These considerations do not exhaust the questions raised by the prospect of an attack on Iraq. Serious as they are, the most serious questions of all are the ones none of us can anticipate. War has a way of creating new dynamics and unleashing new forces in the world. All too frequently, those consequences are inimical to the interests of established powers. Those who see the dawn of a new era of peace, stability and democracy in the Middle East as a result of a strike against Iraq would do well to think again.
Ms. Harman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
The threat from Iraq is very real and increasingly dangerous. Saddam Hussein's belligerent intentions and his possession and ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction to fulfill those intentions make him a clear and present danger to the United States and the world.
Particularly worrisome is the evidence of Iraq's UAV capability. Iraq's ability to use unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver biological and chemical weapons far outside its national borders represents a qualitative increase in the danger it poses.
History demonstrates Saddam Hussein's willingness to use such weapons against unarmed civilians, including his own people. And it demonstrates his unhesitating instincts to invade his neighbors--Iran and Kuwait--and to attack Israel.
That he appears, to quote Director Tenet's recent letter, to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" does not persuade me that he won't.
He is impulsive, irrational, vicious, and cruel.
Unchecked, he will only grow stronger as he develops capability to match his disdain for America and his Middle East neighbors.
History shows that had Israel not destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, Saddam Hussein would now have nuclear capability. But he did not cease his nuclear ambitions. Had coalition military forces not swept through Iraq in 1991, he would have possessed nuclear weapons by 1993.
The CIA now reports that Iraq is one year away from a functional nuclear device once it acquires missile material. Waiting one hour, one day, one month in such an environment, as some suggest, is too risky.
We have to act now because the U.N. resolutions following the gulf war have not contained the Iraqi threat.
With the passage of time, international resolve to enforce United Nations resolutions has weakened.
This resolution will demonstrate to the U.N. American resolve to act if necessary, but preferably in a peaceful and multilateral way.
The strong and forceful language in this resolution will help Secretary Powell persuade his counterparts at the U.N. and around the globe to join us.
The resolution we are considering is greatly improved from the draft the Administration proposed and I commend Leader Gephardt for negotiating these improvements.
This resolution narrows the scope of action to the threats to national security posed by Iraq and enforcing compliance with U.N. Resolutions.
This resolution stresses a strong preference for peaceful and diplomatic action, authorizing the use of force only if all peaceful options have failed.
This resolution requires the President to comply with the War Powers Act and report regularly to Congress should military action become necessary, as well as after the use of force is completed.
This resolution addresses post-disarmament Iraq and the role of the United States and international community in rebuilding.
And of crucial importance, this resolution requires the President to certify to Congress that action in Iraq will not dilute our ability to wage the war on terrorism.
Removing WMD from Iraq is an important priority, but it cannot replace our counterterrorism efforts at home and abroad. We must ensure that we do not divert attention from protecting our homeland--beginning with the creation of a Department of Homeland Security.
We must also strengthen and expand programs and policies aimed at stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their components. The ready availability of matieral for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the know-how to make them, has allowed Iraq to rebuild rapidly since 1991 and the expulsion of inspectors in 1998. But nonproliferation programs have been underfunded at a time when they need to be expanded.
If we don't stop the flow of scientists and materials for weapons of mass destruction, we will soon be faced with another Iraq. The axis of evil will grow to include more states. We will encounter the nightmare scenario of nuclear-armed terrorist groups, capable of blackmailing or attacking our cities and citizens from within, with little hope of deterrence or diplomacy to stop them.
Sentiment in my district is high--both in favor and opposition to this resolution. I thank my constituents for sharing their views with me. I have listened carefully, learned as much as I could, and now it is time to lead.
Like all my colleagues, I fervently hope that the U.S. will not need to use force. But the best chance to avoid military action is to show the U.N. and Iraq that we will not flinch from it.
Giving diplomatic efforts every chance is the right policy and this resolution gives diplomacy its maximum chance to succeed.
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, brought to light a horror that the American people and the world had up until then only seen in movies. On that day, we learned, as a nation, what it means to be terrorized. The nineteen men who hijacked airliners and used them as guided missiles showed us that even on our home soil Americans are not shielded from the reach of terrorism. Bearing in mind, we must continue to defend against these forces of evil and those who support them. We cannot spend the rest of our lives in fear. I support this resolution in order to protect the life of every American, at home and abroad, I also believe it offers the best chance for peace because it clearly communicates U.S. resolve to Saddam Hussein and makes clear that his continued refusal to disarm will be his undoing.
Mr. Speaker, granting the authority to send our brave men and women in uniform overseas to fight in hostile territory is the most difficult decision we make in Congress. That was true last year and it remains true today. Since the beginning of the first mission in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, our military men and women have fought terrorists and disrupted their networks, liberated a country, and brought the prospect of peace and democracy to a nation that had not seen either in decades. While our military campaign in Afghanistan is slowly coming to a close, we must not lose sight of our primary objective, to rid the world of terrorists and those who sustain them. Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq fit this description.
Mr. Speaker, after sifting through the evidence, reviewing the facts, and probing the Administration, I am convinced Saddam Hussein's regime is a clear and present threat to the security of the United States and our allies. Since he came to power in Iraq in 1979, Hussein has waged war on his neighbors and terrorized his own people with chemical weapons. He has allowed terrorists groups, such as al Qaeda, to operate safety in Iraq. He has supported terrorist actions by compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for their attacks on innocent Israeli citizens. He orders his military to fire missiles and artillery on U.S. and a coalition aircraft that patrol the U.N.-imposed no-fly zones that protect Kurd and Shi'a Muslims in Northern and Southern Iraq, respectively. He has attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Moreover, he has violated the basic human rights of his people, causing them to live in fear and poverty, while he builds Presidential palaces and lives of life of luxury. Currently, there is nothing stopping him from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies, or from giving them to terrorists.
After the gulf war in 1991, Saddam Hussein agreed to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 686, 687, and 688. By agreeing to these resolutions, Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear the financial liability for damage from the gulf war; and end his repression of the Iraqi people. Mr. Speaker, he has taken none of these required actions.
As a matter of fact, over the past decade, Saddam Hussein has shown nothing but contempt for the United Nations and its member-states. In all, Hussein has violated sixteen critical U.N. resolutions. It became obvious that Hussein had no intention of cooperating with the U.N. when Iraq ceased cooperation with weapons inspectors on October 31, 1998, after several years of evading, deceiving, and even harassing U.N. weapons inspectors. This flagrant violation of U.N. Resolution 687 prompted the passage of U.N. Resolution 1205, which called on Iraq to continue "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with U.N. weapons inspectors. These events led to the Clinton Administration signing the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 into law, which clarifies the official position of the United States as promoting regime change in Iraq. Regardless, it has been four years since weapons inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that within this time Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs, and according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent research center based in London, there is little doubt that Hussein's nuclear capabilities are within reach.
If Saddam Hussein persists in violating U.N. Security Council resolutions and refuses to disarm and the use of force becomes our only option, then the goal of military action should not just be to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Military action must also have the end result of removing Hussein from power. In the end, nothing short of a regime change will liberate the Iraqi people, whom Saddam Hussein has repressed for more than two decades. Since April of 1991, Hussein has continued to ignore U.N. Resolution 688, which requires him to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance in Iraq. Furthermore, Hussein punishes his people by diverting funds from the U.N.'s "oil-for-food" program to pay for his weapons programs. I believe Saddam Hussein will continue to do what he has done so effectively in the past: violate the basic human rights of every Iraqi citizen.
I would now like to read to you the following excerpt from the book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth M. Pollack. Mr. Pollack, a former analyst on Iraq for the Central Intelligence Agency who served on the National Security Council during the Clinton Administration, is one of the foremost experts on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old-girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in [the year] 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens--not just on the fifteen thousand killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage.
This is the fate that awaits thousands of Iraqis each year. The roughest estimates are that over the last twenty years more than two hundred thousand people have disappeared into Saddam's prison system, never to be heard from again. Hundreds of thousands of others were taken away and, after unforgettable bouts of torture that left them psychologically and often physically mangled, eventually were released or escaped. To give a sense of scale, just the numbers of Iraqis never heard from again would be equivalent to about 2.5 million Americans suffering such a fate.
It is true that Iraq has said publicly that it will allow weapons inspectors to return. While some members of the United Nations believe Iraq is taking the necessary steps to rectify its past transgressions, Iraq has placed several conditions that can only hamstring the U.N.'s efforts. If the U.N. bows to Hussein's demands, the legitimacy of the entire organization could be called into question.
The purpose of this resolution is to authorize the President to use such force as may be necessary to protect the national security of the United States from threats posed by Iraq and to enforce U.N. Resolutions. Yet even more clear than this language is the message it sends. This resolution sends the message of resolve. It shows that we are resolved to protect ourselves and our allies with whatever means are necessary. And, it is precisely because of this message that we open up the possibility of a peaceful settlement to this great threat. To be clear, after eleven years of dealing with Iraq one thing is certain: Saddam Hussein is motivated only when he finds he has no other options. This resolution demonstrates our unity behind action, should he fail to meet the demands of the international community. Without it, we can be assured that Hussein's Iraq will continue stockpiling and developing weapons of mass death, providing safe haven for terrorists, and tormenting his own people. Meanwhile, the danger for American and our allies will grow even worse.
Additionally, we seem to be experiencing quite a logjam in the U.N. I believe that passage of this resolution will help break that impasse and secure a meaningful and direct resolution from the U.N., which will help build a larger multilateral coalition around this just cause. If these last attempts at a peaceful solution do fail, then we must show that we are resolved to act to rid the world of this great threat.
Mr. Speaker, war should always take a backseat to peace. I still hold out hope that a peaceful solution can be reached. Unfortunately, time and time again, Saddam Hussein has forsaken his opportunities for peace. He is aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and build up his other weapons of mass destruction. The longer he is allowed to make progress on these deadly projects, the greater the threat to us-- including the threat that Iraq could supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. If Hussein refuses to comply, the United States must take action, or risk the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons against us on our own soil.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, the decision before the Congress this week is whether or not to give the President the option to use force with Iraq if all else fails. It is similar to the one before the Congress early in my career when the elder Bush was in the White House. The main difference was that Iraq had invaded a sovereign nation, Kuwait, to the outrage of the world community.
The world agreed that Iraq was the aggressor and must be driven out. The U.N. voted for precisely that and we led the effort. Although much clearer in circumstance, it was an extremely difficult decision.
Today things are not quite so clear. There has been no invasion and there, at least at the moment of this writing, is no U.N. sanction for military action.
The arguments are more like piling straws on a camel's back. Saddam Hussein is a murderer of his own people. He is a warmonger, witness Kuwait, Iran and the Kurds in his own country. He aggressively pursues the development of nuclear weapons. Remember Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility many years ago. Hussein still pursues that goal. He has accumulated thousands of liters of chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them, in fact he has used them against Iran and his own people. He planned an attempted assassination of an American president. He defies U.N. resolutions that ended the '91 Gulf War, which called for the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction. He refused to allow weapons inspectors to do their job and threatened and intimidated them at every turn.
Now we are told that Iraq may have become a weapons supermarket for terrorism. Some al Qaeda leaders are there and other terrorist organizations have close ties; i.e. Abu Nidal. We are told that Hussein provides $25,000 to each family of the suicide bombers who attack Israel. And we can't forget that during the Gulf War Hussein rained Scud missiles down on innocent Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and other communities. Iraq now is working to extend the range of their missiles.
Now, under the threat of U.S. action, Hussein agrees to let weapons inspectors back into his country. Can there be any doubt that the only thing this man responds to is the threat of deadly force? One is tempted to believe Hussein is now prepared to admit weapons inspectors. And indeed we should and must let that scenario play out before any act of war. But the skeptic in me doesn't believe a word that he says. History is a wonderful teacher and we all know this man's history.
The U.N. has shown itself to be incapable and unwilling to enforce its own resolutions. As a guarantor of world peace they have a checkered past at best. Without having the threat of military intervention, the U.N. is a paper tiger. I have long been a supporter of the U.N. I believe that the nations of the world must have a forum in which to settle their differences but when a tyrant like Hussein thumbs his nose at the world, something isn't right.
One last point, since the 9/11 attack on our country we have been pouring over the coals, literally and figuratively. One by one we have connected the dots that led to the attack. We have seen the threat that connects the plans to do great harm to our country and our people.
The President in these past weeks has connected the dots for us. He has pointed to Iraq with great alarm and tried to help us to understand the threat. It is real. What we don't know is how imminent and what shape the threat will take.
After much thought and prayer and consultation with my constituents and with people I love and trust, I have decided to support the resolution before the House. Not because I want to go to war. I don't, I remember the last one. I remember meeting with Marsha Connor, the mother of Patrick Connor of Marcellus who was killed in action. It was heartbreaking.
But if we don't give the President that option, Saddam Hussein and Iraq will continue to grow more troublesome and if they ever develop a nuclear weapon it would be horrific. I'll vote for the resolution but I will implore the President not to use force unless all else fails. Negotiation, weapons inspectors, and U.N. sanctions should come first.
And if we do indeed go, we should do so with the other nations of the world who should feel as threatened as we.
