Mrs. McCarthy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114 and the need to protect the United States from any threat posed by Iraq. However, my support for the resolution is coupled with several concerns associated with potential unilateral action against Iraq.
The September 11 attacks on the United States demonstrated the will of misguided, vengeful leaders whose determination to harm Americans seem boundless. Clearly, Saddam Hussein is one of these leaders. This dictator harbors terrorists, invokes chemical warfare upon his own people and openly defies United Nations Security Council Resolutions. His support of international terrorism, and pursuit of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction poses not only a threat to the United States, but also to the world.
Since 1998, this body has voted on four separate measures that appropriate funds for Iraqi opposition forces, as well as call upon Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to areas they wish to inspect. Today's resolution takes a step further and acknowledges that sanctions, weapons inspection and containment have failed. It recognizes that Iraq and Saddam Hussein present an unrelenting hostility to the United States. And we know when it comes to the United States, Hussein has a very prolific partner in hate: al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam Hussein has openly praised the September 11 attacks.
The resolution before us authorizes United States military force under two circumstances: (1) In order to defend our national security against a threat by Iraq, and (2) enforce U.N. Security Council Resolutions relevant to Iraq.
Disarming Iraq is necessary to ensure our national security. I was encouraged to hear President Bush emphasize that Iraq can avoid military force if all weapons of mass destruction are destroyed. I hope that Saddam Hussein will heed this advice.
I was also encouraged to hear President Bush stress the importance of seeking a coalition, as I believe the support of the United Nations Security Council is critical. The President must persist in his efforts with the U.N. to approve a tougher inspection resolution. If inspection efforts fail, a U.N.-sanctioned military force is the best course of action, as it would garner support in neighboring countries, and enhance the chances of post-war success. If the U.N. were to fail to authorize force, then the President should come back to Congress and let us have a say about whether we go in unilaterally.
Finally, I was glad to hear the President pledge to rebuild a post- war Iraqi economy. This is very important, as the cost of military action must not only be weighed economically, but regionally.
Although this is one of the most difficult votes a Member of Congress will cast, I'm afraid it is an inevitable action needed to protect the United States from Iraq and the destructive weapons it seeks to acquire and use.
Today, each and every member will vote their conscience. Regardless of how we each vote, at the end of the day we must remember one thing: that we represent the people of the United States and we must come together as a body, and a people, just as we did on September 11.
Mr. Serrano: Mr. Speaker, today I find myself standing here on the floor of the House with anguish in my heart. I have read and listened to all sides, and I have struggled to understand why our great nation would want to contemplate going to war.
When September 11th, 2001, happened, I was in New York City, and as the enormity of what terrorism could do to my City hit me, I was stunned. Then I wept for all of those innocent people who were simply doing their jobs and living their lives, who in one moment of hate lost their lives. There has, however, not been any conclusive evidence that links al Qaida, those responsible for the tragedy of September 11th, with Iraq.
Some question whether those who oppose this resolution are forgetting those who died on September 11th; some question our patriotism. Though I should not have to affirm my patriotism, I say simply that I love my country, I love my city of New York, and I am not afraid to deal with those who attacked it. It is the most basic of our purposes as a national government, to defend our nation. But here we speak of a different matter.
I am certainly pleased that the President now recognizes that he must secure the approval of the Congress before taking our nation to war. This is progress and what our Constitution requires. However, if our ultimate goal is to disarm Iraq of all chemical and biological weapons, how does giving our President this right to go to war accomplish that goal? Wouldn't working with the United Nations to implement a program of rigorous inspections move us closer to our goal? I believe that force should always be used as a last resort, and never as the first way to accomplish a goal.
The new doctrine announced by the President, that the United States has the right to engage in a preemptive strike, which he seeks to implement through this resolution, frightens me and establishes a troubling precedent. This is a doctrine better left unused. It contravenes a half century of developed international law, of which the United States has been a champion. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion means that India and Pakistan, for instance, nations with nuclear weapons and a history of conflict, may no longer feel bound by the limitations on the use of force that have been agreed to by the family of nations. The United Nations will become irrelevant and the checks and balances that membership in the United Nations places on the member states will no longer apply. Even if we strike and successfully defeat Iraq militarily, will this make our nation a safer place to live?
The Bush Administration often talks about "regime change" in Iraq and the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In 1991 we decided against regime change because of concern about the overall stability of the region. What has happened since that time that has changed the goals of a military action?
As a nation we need to plan and think beyond what passage of this resolution and a military victory would mean. The United States would need to spend at least the next ten years involved in an occupation, reconstruction, and re-building effort. This will require a serious commitment of American resources and troops. Are we ready to commit to the rebuilding that will follow military action?
As a nation have we carefully considered what the impact of a unilateral attack by the United States would be on Israel? If everything that has been attributed to Hussein this evening is true, are we prepared to guarantee the stability of the entire region when Hussein finds himself threatened and decides to strike out at his neighbors?
Our State Department is actively involved in trying to improve the image of the United States in the Arab world and particularly among young Arab men and women. We do not want them to perceive the United States as an enemy. When we engage as a nation in a unilateral military action against an Arab nation, an action that our allies are cautioning against, how will the United States be viewed in the Arab world? Perhaps the result will be an increase in al Qaida's membership and a renewed hatred toward Americans.
The United States is founded on the principles of justice and due process. If we disregard these principles and adopt a unilateral, macho and aggressive stance, we lose our moral authority in the world. Seeking the consensus of nations does not weaken us or expose us to danger; instead, it fortifies us and brings to our cause the strength of our allies.
We want nations to look at us with respect and not fear, outrage, and scorn. It is time for us to take the lead in removing all weapons from Iraq, but in a way that embraces other nations instead of isolating us from them.
I will vote against this resolution, which permits a unilateral military attack, because I do not believe that the President has made a convincing case or provided sufficient evidence to merit its passage. However, let me also make it clear that my vote against this resolution, which I do not believe will make our nation any safer, should not in any way imply that I think the men and women in our armed services are anything less than heroes. They are courageous and brave.
So I end this speech as I began it, with great sadness. I cannot agree with the course that our great nation is embarking on, one that brings the threat of war closer and the goal of peace further away.
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, as Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United States and the world, the avenue of options available in dealing with Hussein shrinks with every step he takes toward attaining nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that Hussein does not aspire to acquire these weapons for the sake of self-defense. The goal of these weapons is aggression. This is not a man of peace. This is a man of war. He has made a mockery of the agreement ending the first Persian Gulf War, and now he holds out hope that he can continue to manipulate the world to hold on to power. And he intends to hold power and use it till he is successful in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and with it, the ability to bully and destabilize the Gulf region.
Hussein intends to use the currency of these weapons to hold hostage the entire region. What then? Some argue that if the attack is not on the U.S. (which we cannot guarantee), we should not get involved. But who believes that if he again invades another country that the United States will be able to sit on its hands as the stability of the Middle East unravels? If he uses these weapons against his neighbors, where will this nation be on moral ground to allow him to continue without reprisal? Appeasement will not be an option. Further, who believes that our country is better positioned fighting a nuclear armed Hussein than one that is currently without that capability? Who believes that the welfare of our men and women in uniform is better served in having them face an enemy with nuclear weapons than one who has not yet been successful in doing so? The answer is no one. With that being said, the urgency of dealing with Hussein is ever increasing.
If Hussein attacks, the most brilliant diplomatic minds combined will not be able to bring a peaceful end. However well intended those hopes may be, eleven years of defiance have shown that peaceful talks and negotiations are not an option for Hussein. Rather, they are an opportunity to a man who does not deserve to lead the Iraqi people and who we cannot continue to appease.
Between 1987-1989, he ordered the deaths of the Kurdish population by the tens of thousands--indescriminately spraying their villages with poisonous gas. He has proven his imperialist nature through a path of destruction against Kuwait. He has allowed the Iraqi people to starve in favor of diverting resources to maintaining his grip on ruling Iraq. He has engaged in the periodic shake-up of his own administration, brutally eliminating threats to his reign of power. He has suppressed every effort of democracy and change in Iraq with bloodied and unremorseful hands. Saddam Hussein has committed acts so far beyond the pail of decency and acceptability that it leaves one to wonder in shock why we have waited so long to end this madman's career of carnage.
Our nation stands for freedom and humanity and because it does, we had hoped we could reason with Hussein. We hoped he would comply with the conditions of the peace agreement ending the Persian Gulf War. In the 1990s, we hoped he would end the shenanigans of denying access to inspection teams and end his lies and deceit by ending his weapons program. In all these things, Saddam Hussein failed. Through no lack of effort, we have given diplomacy a chance.
No Saddam Hussein wants to fool the world again. And it is the job of this body to ensure that he does not. We have exhausted all reasonable efforts to deal with an unreasonable madman. We have risked all too much in the hope of peace, only to have these efforts manipulated by a illusional director. It has not been our President, but Saddam Hussein himself that has made the most compelling case for the need for his removal. Saddam Hussein has in his actions, told the world that he is a threat, that he is dangerous, and that he will never be able to be held accountable unless removed.
We can wait no longer as with each passing day, Saddam Hussein draws closer to attaining unclear weapons and he exponentially increases the threat he poses to this nation, our allies, and peace and stability. We owe to the future generations not to make the mistake of holding out hope for Hussein. We must act with diligence to protect this country and we must act decisively.
Let this be clear that this country loves freedom and loves peace. We deserve (and the Iraqi people deserve) more than to be held in fear by a ruthless dictator whose actions have been unconscionable and continue to pose a threat to humankind. We know what Hussein is capable of and it is time to end the nightmare that he has unleashed on his people and bring a complete end to his imperialist aspirations. Therefore, I strongly urge an aye on this resolution.
Mrs. Kelly: Mr. Speaker, in view of Iraq's history of violence, deception and hostility, and the mounting evidence about its pursuit of powerful weapons, our objective must be the disarmament of Iraq and the fundamental reform of its current political leadership.
The Administration and many members of this body realize that this task is one that must be undertaken to protect America and its citizens. As we have learned, failing to recognize the seriousness of threats posed by our enemies can have grave consequences. I support this resolution because it is critical to our national security.
It does not obligate us to carry out military action, but it makes clear to Iraq and all nations the depth of our commitment to extinguishing the threat, and ensures that the Administration has every option available to achieve our objectives, including the use of military force.
There is a looming menace to America, and we ought not delay our efforts to neutralize it.
Mr. Dicks: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 114, which expresses the support of Congress for the Administration's efforts to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions mandating the disarmament of Iraq. Passage of this measure by the Congress will authorize the President to use American military forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Let me state at the outset that it is my judgment that the situation in Iraq is very serious and very perilous. I have served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 24 years, and on the Intelligence Committee for eight of those years. I have thus had a continuing interest in the campaign of deceit waged by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ever since the day he agreed to abandon his weapons of mass destruction following the Gulf War. Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to Members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he me be close to developing a nuclear weapon. And furthermore, I believe he will not hesitate to use these and any other weapons he has in his arsenal against America and against our ships and bases in the Middle East region.
The CIA's most recent report on Iraq clearly indicates that, after the ejection of weapons inspectors in 1998, Iraq continued its chemical weapons program, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons. Furthermore, Iraq's growing ability to sell oil--despite the ban--increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance weapons of mass destruction programs. Using these funds, it largely has rebuilt the missile and biological weapons facilities that were damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production. The Iraqis have also exceeded UN range limits of 150 kilometers for their ballistic missiles and they are also developing unmanned aerial vehicles, which would allow for a more effective and more lethal means to deliver biological and chemical warfare agents.
Beyond these weapons programs, there is the question of nuclear weapons. In 1991, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency uncovered a secret Iraqi effort to build nuclear weapons after they intercepted a shipment of trucks loaded with huge electromagnetic isotope separators used to make weapons-grade uranium. These inspectors remained on the ground, working with U.N. arms inspectors, until the day they were thrown out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, flagrantly violating the terms of the disarmament agreements he signed to save himself in the Gulf War cease fire. Since 1998, there is credible evidence that he has attempted to purchase uranium and the hardware necessary to produce the kind of weapon that could inflict infinitely greater damage than any of the destruction we witnessed on September 11th of last year. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein represents a growing menace. In the four years since he expelled United Nations arms inspectors from Iraq, he has become an emboldened dictator whose hatred of the United States has only grown stronger as he has regained his military capability.
I believe that it is extremely important that we continue our diplomatic efforts to gain international support for action. Saddam Hussein has blatantly violated 16 important UN Resolutions as he has continued the arms buildup he pledged to curtail. With the growing threat of those weapons, with the assistance Iraq is providing to terrorist groups--including al Qaeda--and with the compelling need to assert the authority of the international community, President Bush has appropriately urged the UN to enforce the sanctions that its members have approved over the last 11 years. I believe H.J. Res. 114--by showing Congress's strong support for the President's position on the issue--will substantially strengthen our effort to develop a consensus at the United Nations for a new and stronger resolution demanding the verifiable removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
I believe that it is important, in the language of our Joint Resolution in Congress, to emphasize that we are determined in this cause: that if these efforts to build an international coalition within the United Nations are not successful, we believe that the United States must still take action, joined by the British and other nations who support us already, to ensure that Iraq is never able to use the weapons of mass destruction it has and those it is actively developing. In my judgment, the possibility of Saddam Hussein using these weapons against U.S. targets or our allies in the region justifies the commitment of American military forces, however much I truly hope that diplomatic efforts can succeed and that war can be avoided.
Mr. Speaker, for our own safety and national security, I believe that we should support the position that the President expressed at the United Nations last month. It is time for action. We can no longer ignore the reality of what Saddam Hussein is doing and we should no longer postpone our response to the growing dangers of this weapons programs. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.J.Res. 114.
Mr. DeMint Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly demonstrated he is a threat to peaceful nations around the world. He has the money to finance his hostile intentions, he has the capabilities to blackmail nations with the use of weapons of mass destruction, and has shown a willingness to use them.
Everyday our pilots in the northern and southern no-fly zones of Iraq are the targets of Iraqi fire. Perhaps even more frightening, Saddam Hussein continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and actively support international terrorism--both in violation of bona fide international agreements. In fact, in all of his actions, Hussein has demonstrated a persistent refusal to comply with every U.N. Security Council resolution in force regarding his country.
U.N. Resolutions called for Saddam to end both his WMD programs and his support for terrorism. Yet, before Hussein kicked them out of Iraq in 1998, weapons inspection teams could testify to the large amount of research, development, and materials associated with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons--despite Iraq's success in concealing the extent of its capabilities. However, Hussein did manage to hide a great deal from these inspectors, and it was not until defectors shared crucial information about hidden stockpiles that Saddam programs were set back, but never completely shut down. Now some people say we should have new inspections and do nothing else, believing this time that inspectors will be able to do what they could not before--identify and dismantle Iraq's WMD capabilities. Sadly, recent history teaches us otherwise.
The same can be said about Iraq's involvement with terrorism. Hussein continues to maintain his ties with terrorist organizations. Today his terrorist training camps continue to breed more people intent on harming prosperous, free, and democratic nations around the world--and endangering innocent civilians in the process.
Hussein also targets innocent civilians in his own country in violation of U.N. Security Resolutions. For example, the U.N. oil-for- food program allows Iraq to sell enough oil to provide its citizens sufficient food and medicine to sustain a decent standard of living. However, the profits from the oil never make it to the Iraqi people; instead Saddam funnels this money into his weapons programs. He then bolsters his programs with illegal proceeds from smuggled oil.
In light of these actions, it is clear that the world has a problem with Saddam and the international community agrees. Yet instead of action, many people want to limit the United States to building broad coalitions and placing international pressure on Saddam. Unfortunately, history--and the past ten years--has shown us that no amount of international pressure can stop a dictator with such disregard for international agreements and no diplomatic coalition can change his contempt for human life.
For decades Saddam Hussein has brutally trampled on freedom and muzzled the self-expression of his people. He has threatened his neighbors, supported terrorists, and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. We cannot remove ourselves from the struggle between freedom and tyranny--good and evil. Saddam Hussein is already engaged in a battle, and he has been firing shots for the past decade. Doing nothing is not an option.
With this resolution, Congress acknowledges that something must be done and expresses full support for the President. President Bush's speech on Monday demonstrated that he--like the rest of us--does not want to go to war. And the fact that President Bush waited almost a month before using force in Afghanistan makes obvious his desire to build coalitions and utilize every peaceful opportunity to end international disagreement before resorting to war.
However, he also understands the United States carries an incredible burden of leadership in the world. For this reason when he took office, President Bush assembled one of the finest national security teams this nation has ever seen. They have proven their leadership in previous military conflicts and understand the cost of military action. Their role in the war on terrorism has also demonstrated how much they care about U.S. troops and the loss of life for anyone involved--both military and civilian. Now is the time to have faith in the President's proven leadership and allow him and his advisors to implement the strategy that finally ends the threat Saddam poses to the free world.
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114, authorizing the President to employ the use of our Armed Forces against Iraq, and urge its adoption by this Chamber. For the past 2 days, the House of Representatives has had under consideration one of the most serious resolutions it is capable of adopting and, like my colleagues, I take it very seriously. Some have argued that this resolution is not necessary, that Iraq poses no immediate danger to the United States or any other nation, and that we should not employ military force against a sadistic terrorist regime that displays not the slightest regard for human life. Mr. Speaker, I disagree.
For the past 10 years, Saddam Hussein had developed and stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and continued to construct facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons. Evidence of this and other destructive activities on the part of Saddam Hussein is overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our Nation's safety and that of our neighbors and allies we cannot ignore this problem any longer. Either Saddam Hussein gives the U.N. weapons inspectors full, un-fettered, and unconditional access to all Iraqi facilities or the United States will take action to disarm him.
I applaud President Bush, who has prudently and methodically made a strong case for why the United States has the moral and political authority to take action against Iraq, if necessary. Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of the line and words and international declarations will no longer do against a dictator who has nothing but contempt for the freedom-loving world and his own people.
In addition to its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement, snubbed numerous U.N. resolutions, brutalized and killed his own people, plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President, and has aided and harbored members of terrorists cells, including al-Qaida. Clearly, we must act.
Mr. Speaker, the foremost responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. We demand safety and security in our neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces; we should expect the same in the international community as well. Although I remain hopeful that this conflict with Iraq can be resolved peacefully, I am prepared, for the sake of our Nation's security, to employ force. This resolution is not, as some have stated, a "blank check" for the President. Congress has and will continue to maintain its constitutional prerogatives if armed conflict with Iraq should ensue, but as a nation, we have the right to take action. Thus, I urge the adoption of House Joint Resolution 114.
Mr. Bonilla: Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating the most fundamental issues we face as a Congress and as a country. Today we are debating whether to send America's sons and daughters into harm's way, whether a threat exists to America's security and whether we need to act now or wait. We have no more grave responsibility as legislators than defending our Nation and democratic way of life.
American foreign policy has had a single objective since the foundation of our republic. That objective has been to defend our independence and freedoms. Over the years the policies America has followed have changed to meet the changing threat.
During America's first century we followed a policy of staying out of foreign conflicts, comfortable in the security offered by two oceans.
The Monroe Doctrine represented the first expansion of American policy in its vigorous assertion of America's right to ensure that no foreign power intervenes in our hemisphere. The last century saw a further expansion of American power as we acted to prevent any hostile power or ideology from dominating the eastern hemisphere and threatening our continued independence.
Today, we face a new challenge, a homicidal dictator striving to acquire the means to threaten our civilization and kill millions of our fellow Americans. Saddam Hussein already has the means; he only lacks the material needed to build an atomic bomb. It has been widely reported that he could build a bomb within a year were he to acquire certain materials. A nuclear armed Saddam Hussein would represent a clear and present danger to our nation.
No one who has objectively looked at the facts, no one who has seen the Kurdish villagers gassed on Saddam Hussein's order, no one who remembers the invasion and looting of Kuwait, no one looking at the facts can doubt that a nuclear Saddam Hussein would be a threat to our Nation and civilization.
Given these facts I think it is important we understand what we are debating today. We are not debating whether a nuclear Saddam Hussein is a threat. No honest analysis can deny that. We are not debating how to confront Saddam Hussein. No one wants war and it is my earnest hope that our actions today will convince Saddam Hussein that he must disarm and give up his goal of acquiring nuclear weapons. However, we can only succeed in avoiding war if Saddam Hussein is convinced that he risks war and the destruction of his regime if he continues to defy us.
What we are debating today is timing. Do we confront Saddam Hussein today or wait. Do we act now when he does not possess nuclear weapons or wait until he does. Common sense tells us that the risky course is to wait. Our responsibility as legislators dictates we act against any threat to our independence. Opponents of this resolution say the risks are too great and that there is too much that is unknown, but the risks of not acting are far greater and the unknown far more terrifying.
Let us remain true to previous generations of Americans who have been vigilant in protecting our freedom and vote for this resolution. Let us live up to the expectations set by the Founding Fathers and support this resolution.
Mr. Herger: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us today. The principle purpose of the resolution is to authorize the use of military force--if deemed necessary--to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The Hussein regime poses a direct threat to the security of the United States and our partners in the world. And this threat must not be allowed to stand.
In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions--16 of them--as conditions of his political survival. Now, almost 12-years later, Iraq's leader has failed outright to comply with these terms of peace. Hussein has continued to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, subjected the people of Iraq to squalor and starvation, openly sponsored terrorist attacks, and has in all ways defied the international community. He has lied repeatedly and there is no doubt that he cannot be trusted.
Yet still, many wonder if Saddam's distant rogue regime is a real threat to our national security, and the safety of American citizens?
To answer this question we need look no further than the horrors of 9-11 and how terrorists from afar were able to strike at America. Hussein's hatred of our country has been made plain. Despite our best efforts at border security, it is conceivable that terrorists, sponsored by Hussein, might smuggle Iraqi weapons into the United States for use in an attack against our citizens.
Our intelligence reports confirm this threat as real. Iraq maintains an extensive stockpile of sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and is continuing in its program to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We also know that Iraq supports terrorist groups and encourages violence against Israel with cash payments to the families of suicide bombers. Under Hussein's regime, Iraq has become a new safe-harbor for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Just as we must vote to pass the resolution before us, so too must the United Nations reaffirm its importance in the global theater, approving the use of force against Iraq. As in the Gulf War, a unified coalition effort from the beginning would help foster consensus to rebuild Iraq and reconstitute a new Iraqi government following military action.
As we prepare for what may be an inevitable war scenario in Iraq, we must acknowledge the possible outcomes of such an action, both positive and negative.
Our objective would be to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein's regime, and thereby create a more stabile political environment in the Middle East. Still, the decision to commit American troops to the battlefield is never easy. In addition, there are also other considerations, such as, if we are successful in our mission, what happens next? What kind of force will it take to successfully see through a transition in Iraq and foster a new democracy?
While these possibilities must be considered when weighing any action, the immediate issue is clear: Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with swiftly.
I firmly believe that our President will make the right decision, in the best interest of the United States, and I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of his counsel. Mr. Speaker--at times we must be willing to use force to protect the security of our people and of our Nation.
Now is one of those times.
I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for introducing this strong resolution, and would like to urge all to stand by the President and vote for its passage.
Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, the first President of the United States addressed the Nation's first Congress with these prophetic words, "the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the Republican model of government are . . . finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
Now we find ourselves in a new century, confronted by new trials.
We have withstood attempts at invasion, survived a bloody civil war, endured two world wars and prevailed in the long twilight struggle President Kennedy spoke of more than forty years ago.
Ten years ago, confronted by the specter of Kuwait brutally overrun by Iraqi forces, the United Nations and the United States led a coalition of more than 28 nations in a war of liberation.
Then President Bush plainly outlined our war aims. "Our objectives" he said "are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate Government of Kuwait will be restored. . . . and Kuwait will once again be free." All of this was achieved.
He then went on to say that once peace was restored, it was our Nation's hope, "that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations." this hope has gone unfulfilled.
And so, in Franklin Roosevelt's words, "there has come a time, in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock--to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. There is no greater example of what we are than how we responded to the terrible events of September 11.
Confronted with a massacre of innocent lives; the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the horror of the instruments of modern technology being used as the means of our destruction, we did not falter.
In the weeks and months since, we have buried our dead, cared for our wounded, aided the widows and orphans, improved our defenses and taken the war to our enemy.
Now we are asked to do more.
Over the past few months, I have agonized, along with many of my neighbors and constituents, on the degree of threat the renegade regime in Iraq represents to our safety and security.
It is for these and other reasons that I set the bar so high on what I would require before I would embrace any presidential action that included the use of force to remove Hussein and his henchmen from power.
The most compelling reason, as I wrote to my constituents was the realization that, "any decision to finally remove Hussein and his regime, once begun, could not be permitted to fail.
For those reasons, I urged the administration to work to promote a regime change short of the use of the military option.
I went on to argue that, should those efforts fail, then it was incumbent upon the administration to make their case to the United Nations, to the American people and to Congress before inaugurating any major military undertaking against Iraq.
This they have done. Now it is time for us to decide. I will vote "yes" on this resolution.
While I still hold out some hope that by its passage the United Nations will be empowered, to force Iraq to comply with the will of the international community, that they eliminate all their weapons of mass destruction, I bear too great a responsibility to allow my actions to be governed by that hope alone.
As a Member of Congress, I must act upon information I possess in a way that most clearly protects our people and our way of life. And what I know is this. Should the U.N. fail in its mission, we will have very little choice but to act.
I am now persuaded that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will not be content until he has the means to murder his own people and the people of many nations with the most horrible weapons of war. This we cannot permit.
Neither can we permit him to cause the kind of world economic blackmail and chaos that could ensue, should he be allowed to continue his arms build-up. As President Eisenhower once observed, "We are linked to all free peoples not merely by a noble idea but by a simple need. No free people can for long cling to any privilege or enjoy and safety in economic solitude."
I do not take this step lightly. To knowingly spend the precious blood of our sons and daughters and the wealth of this peaceable people, even in the noblest cause, is a burden no sensible man desires. But, in the end, our place in the world as the pre-eminent champion of human rights and human liberty leaves us very little choice.
At the close of his 3rd Inaugural Address, on the eve of our Nation's being drawn into the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt spoke these words, "In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America. We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of country. . . ."
Mr. Nussle: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is both reasonable and necessary.
At its essence, our debate is about the critical need to ensure Saddam Hussein fully understands our resolve to protect our citizens and to promote peace around the world. There is no question we would all prefer it if the path ahead did not include military action. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein may not allow us that option.
The President and other members of his administration have provided a sober, convincing picture of the threats our nation faces from Iraq's current regime. As the President said earlier this week, "While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place."
And this "one place" is led by an evil, evil dictator who directs his intense hatred toward America, Americans, our interests and our allies.
Iraq's leadership has continued to aggressively pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction to add to his arsenal. We've all talked about these weapons but it's worth spelling out what they can be: chemical weapons, biological weapons and even nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein has shown his cruel willingness to use such devastating weapons against his own citizens and his neighboring countries in the past. I sincerely doubt he's had a change of heart.
We must also not ignore the support of terrorism found in Hussein's Iraq. September 11, 2001 was a horrific reminder that terrorists are serious in their intent to harm Americans. This step is a continuation of the war against terrorism that our nation has been forced to undertake.
It is Saddam Hussein himself who provides the final proof that we must act. He has a robust history of disregard of the international community and its laws. Time and again, he has willingly and defied the United Nations and the world community by ignoring the agreements he has made. He has constructed a wall of delay and deception that at times is as thick as the cloud of black smoke from the malicious oil fires that greeted our troops in 1991 as they liberated Kuwait.
It's obvious that Iraq's current regime presents problems not just for the United States, but problems for international peace and stability. We can not deny the seriousness of the situation, and I believe America should provide its leadership for the sake of peace and justice.
The President has earned our confidence through his leadership since last fall's terrorist attacks. The President is determined to pursue a course of action with regard to Iraq that will both ensure our own nation's security and promote international stability and I support his efforts.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that I respect those who have sincere opposing views on the question before us. The freedom to disagree is one among many freedoms that we are vigorously trying to preserve and I would never want that to change. Few in Iraq who disagree with Saddam Hussein can share their opinions openly.
The resolution we are considering makes it clear that America prefers to find solutions together with the United Nations and other international leaders. It also provides authority for the President to use force if diplomatic or other peaceful means are not effective. It preserves America's right to act on its own as we must in self-defense of our nation's interests.
Mr. Speaker, the first major vote I took as a Member of Congress in 1991 was to support the international coalition's effort to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggressors. No one wanted war then, but it was necessary. No one wants war now. We don't seek it. It is my fervent hope that war with Iraq may yet be avoided. And it may. But our shared and firm commitment to the security of our nation should not be questioned by Saddam Hussein or the world community.
Mr. Dooley of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 114, the bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
Like most Americans, I understand that our security is threatened by rogue nations suspected of crafting biological and chemical weapons, and by those who seek access to nuclear weapons. I am convinced that Iraq is building an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, following repeated refusals, over many years, to comply with United Nations weapons inspections. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that Saddam Hussein is no longer positioned to pose a major and imminent threat to U.S. national security. I further believe that the President should have the authority to use force against Iraq, if he deems it necessary.
Ms. Carson of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, let's get this straight: a preemptive war is a war nonetheless, a war the would-be preemptor starts.
According to our Congressional Budget Office, the aggressive war the President wants to start against Iraq would cost our taxpayers between $6 and $9 billion a month. With most people's retirement accounts in the tank, the Federal accounts drenched in red ink and so many people out of work, don't we have better and less violently fatal ways to spend money?
Despite our using parts of Iraq for bombing practice over a ten year period, Iraq hasn't attacked us. But if we carried out a campaign to destroy the regime entirely, what would Saddam have to lose by trying to sneak biological weapons into the U.S.? As we have seen in Afghanistan, it is not physically possible for us to bottle up a country so that no one can slip away.
A preemptive strike without U.N. Security Council compliance is, by definition, aggression and a treaty violation. A duly entered into treaty is the law of the land. Moreover, the mandate of our Constitution is that Congress alone has the authority to start a war. And the Constitution does not permit Congress to delegate any part of that authority to the President as this proposed resolution would do. In discussing that Constitutional provision (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 11), Congressman Abraham Lincoln wrote in part:
Allow a President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
There are twenty million people in Iraq not named Hussein. An invasion would kill untold thousands of those already weakened people.
On Saturday the President said, "We must do everything we can to disarm this man before he hurts one single American." Could that possibly mean that the President believes the American soldiers who would be slaughtered in the war he wants to start against Iraq would not be "hurt." Should such stark horror be so casually inflicted on so many young Americans on such flimsy and dubious evidence?
Let's get another thing straight: the al-Qaida did not invent terrorism; it is anything but "a new kind of war." It went on during the reconstruction period in America and periodically since.
Not long ago, President Reagan and Vice-President Bush were telling us one of the good things about their then-friend Hussein was that he was secular and not a religious fanatic. Now suddenly this President Bush is telling us that Hussein is in cahoots with religious fanatics who, even the most casual student of the mideast knows, hate Hussein's guts and would be delighted to overthrow him. Bear in mind that the Bush/Hussein friendship was still going strong after both the Hussein invasion of Iran and his use of gas weapons against his own people.
For 40 years, the Soviet Union was our adversary and was armed to the teeth with awesome nuclear weapons with intercontinental capability that made Hussein the pipsqueak he is. The Soviet Union also slaughtered millions of its own people and invaded neighboring countries. The Soviets were our Saddam Hussein of the time. But no U.S. "preemptive war." Not necessary because the Soviets knew use of nuclear weapons would mean their suicide.
For the sake of argument, let's say Hussein had primitive nuclear weapons now, which he almost certainly does not. He and his gang aren't so dumb that they don't know use of such weapons would mean that he and his "grizzly gang" would be vaporized within minutes by our awesome nuclear capability.
So why war now? Mr. Rove, the White House politics man, is on record as saying that war is good for his party to win elections. Is this, then, a political question or a moral one?
One of the greatest dangers to an American soldier is a poor economy at election time.
In good conscience, I cannot cast my constituents' vote for this latter-day Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It is said that the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
Mrs. Bono: Mr. speaker, since coming to Washington, I have taken part in many significant and historical debates. Most of the time, Republicans and Democrats have been at odds with one another. But last week, as I and a group of my Democrat and Republican colleagues, discussed this issue with the President of the United States in the Cabinet Room of the White House, I felt a sense of purpose and bipartisanship that made me proud to serve as a Member of Congress.
To grant our President the authority to use force against the regime of Saddam Hussein as a last resort is not a vote I take lightly. However, over the course of our nation's young history, there have been many times when I wish we had been able to prevent a variety of calamities. From the assault on Pearl Harbor to the terrorist attacks of 9-11, we have been reminded time and time again that we do not live in splendid isolation.
It is for this reason we must consider taking up arms yet again to defend ourselves. While I realize the human cost of war on both sides is sobering, the cost of inaction in this case could far exceed our worst fears.
Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He has used them against the Iranians. There is no question in my mind that this international outlaw has a diabolical drive to acquire nuclear weapons to use against our Nation and our allies. If we do not act now, we will have put the lives of our citizens at risk and we will have failed our future generations. We will go down in history as having given up our principals out of fear. History will not forgive us.
Our World War II generation of men and women, under the leadership and strength of FDR and Churchill, fought and died to give us the freedoms we enjoy today. It is now up to us to rise to this new threat. While I believe we must work with our allies to exhaust all reasonable diplomatic means, we must also be prepared to take military action to defend our country from a tyrant who can unleash a reign of terror upon the civilized world never before seen.
Mr. Speaker, it was quite significant for so many of us with such varied backgrounds and philosophies to come together with the President in the Cabinet Room last week. We were able to prove that national security is an issue that transcends party lines and sends a signal to our aggressors that we will stand firm and united in order to protect our country and her citizens.
The world is watching us. The United States and this Congress cannot be afraid to lead and defend. We have a sacred obligation to our people and our way of life.
Mr. Rogers of Michigan Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago, I believed the President's focus on unilateral U.S. action raised more questions than it answered. Chief among my concerns were issues such as international support, the existence of a clear and present danger to the United States, conditions for maximizing success and minimizing casualties, and the effect of unilateral action of Middle East stability.
I was pleased to see the President listen to these concerns, work closely with the Congress, and produce the bipartisan resolution currently under debate in the House. One thing is clear, the strength of our Republic, our commitment to debate, democracy and freedom is as strong today as in any time in our Nation's history.
Like most Americans, I have wrestled with the question of how to neutralize the threat of Saddam Hussein. During my travels in Michigan, thousands of constituents have shared their concerns about a unilateral and full-scale American invasion of Iraq. In fact, I continue to share those very concerns.
This week, I will cast the toughest vote of my time in public service--a vote that may commit American men and women to a war against Iraq and its brutal dictator. This is a war in which lives surely will be lost. The first time I faced such a tough decision was in giving the President authority to send troops into Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorist who attacked our Nation on September 11, 2001.
As we all are learning, the face of war is changing. Formal declarations of war by our enemies are going the way of trench warfare and cavalry charges--relics of a different era. The resolution currently before Congress reflects that changing reality.
Today's enemies do not distinguish between civilian and military targets. Today's enemies are just as likely to use chemical and biological weapons as bullets and bombs. These are the very real threats posed by modern enemies that do not allow us to wait for an attack of catastrophic proportions.
Going to war, however, requires more than recognizing the threat. It is the immediacy of these threats that pose a clear and present danger to U.S. citizens. This was underscored in my recent briefings at the White House with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, and other military intelligence and foreign policy experts. Their information, some of it classified, reinforced the very real threat Saddam poses with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and his willingness to use them. Even against the United States.
A great deal of soul searching has gone into the process that began with talk about the U.S. attacking Iraq and has now come to an agreement on four very important points:
(1) Multilateral Action. Last month, after returning from a Middle East trip, it was absolutely clear that Saddam's neighbors who know him best, fear him deeply and would shed few tears if he were removed from power. However, the region's leaders, especially Saudi Arabia, were concerned about the fragile future of the Middle East. They want Saddam removed, but through a strong alliance, not one-on-one, America versus Saddam. This bipartisan congressional resolution authorizes President Bush to "obtain prompt and decisive action" by the United Nations Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of "delay, evasion and noncompliance" with all relevant international resolutions.
(2) Force As Last Resort. The Bush administration and our allies must exhaust all diplomatic efforts before resorting to armed force in Iraq. The resolution provides that President Bush must certify to Congress, before any military strike, if feasible, or within 48 hours of a U.S. attack, that diplomatic and other peaceful means alone are inadequate to protect Americans from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. If America must go to war against a regime that threatens our lives, it will not happen until all other possible solutions have been exhausted.
(3) Congressional Oversight. In addition to the certification to Congress before a military strike, this resolution requires President Bush to report to Congress every 60 days on "matters relevant" to the confrontation with Iraq.
(4) Retaining American Sovereignty. While the resolution authorizes the United States to work through a U.N. Security Council resolution, no American sovereignty is forfeited. If all efforts fail and the national security of the United States is under direct threat by Iraq, the resolution authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines "necessary and proper" in order to defend America.
God Bless America!
Mr. Pastor: Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the war against terrorism, and believe that stopping Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction is a necessary part of that effort. At this time, however, I believe it is premature to authorize a unilateral attack on Iraq.
Working with the international community is the surest means of addressing this threat effectively, sharing costs and resources, and ensuring stability in Iraq and throughout the Middle East in the event of a regime change. While the President has spoken of the value of a coalition effort, the resolution before the House today undermines the importance of our allies and of maintaining the momentum of international cooperation in the wider war on terrorism.
I support the Spratt amendment to the resolution. This amendment would authorize the use of U.S. forces in support of a new U.N. Security Council resolution mandating the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and means of producing such weapons. Should the Security Council fail to produce such a resolution, the amendment calls on the President to then seek authorization for unilateral military action. In this way, the amendment emphasizes our preference for a peaceful solution and coalition support while recognizing that military force and unilateral action may be appropriate at some point.
We should not rush into war without the support of our allies. We should not send American troops into combat before making a good faith effort to put U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, under a more forceful resolution. We should not turn to a policy of preemptive attack, which we have so long and so rightly condemned, without first providing a limited-time option for peaceful resolution of the threat. America has long stood behind the principle of exhausting diplomacy before resorting to war, and at times like this we must lead by example.
Mr. Tiahrt: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.J. Res. 114, a resolution granting President Bush the authorization to use military force against Iraq. Never in my 8 years as a Member of Congress has there been a vote with as far reaching consequences as this one.
I am under no illusions. War is a serious matter with the real possibility of casualties. I have given this decision a great deal of thought, have sought wise counsel and have spent much time in prayer. It is with a heavy heart that I have come to the conclusion that military action against Iraq may be our only option.
For more than a decade the United States has been working with the United Nations and the international community to use diplomatic means to bring a peaceful solution to the troubling situation in Iraq. We had all hoped Saddam Hussein and his regime would ultimately comply with what the United Nations has demanded. Instead, he has violated, disregarded and openly flouted the 16 U.N. resolutions.
We now know Saddam Hussein is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability, and with fissile material, could build one within a year. A nuclear strike made against us or our allies in the region could result in millions dead. Either Saddam Hussein acquires a nuclear weapon, or we ensure he is stopped. Additionally, Hussein may have the propensity to sell or given nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations one he had acquired them. This could have devastating results.
Traditional nuclear deterrence and containment will not be effective with this regime. Hussein has consistently shown no moral concern for the Iraqi people. Instead, he has a record of acting with selfish deeds of violence against his own family and people. He has mortgaged everything in an effort to obtain nuclear weapon capability. In fighting international sanctions, he has forfeited $180 billion in oil revenue, impoverished many of his people and allowed degradation of his military forces.
Saddam Hussein has already shown the propensity to use chemical weapons on his neighbors in the region and on his own people, and he continues to possess and develop significant chemical and biological weapons capability. One source indicates that Saddam Hussein has already used chemical and biological weapons 250 times.
In addition to these threats, the Iraqi regime continues to aid and harbor international terrorist organizations, including groups that have threatened the lives and safety of American citizens.
I have had the opportunity to participate in several classified briefings led by President Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin. I am convinced that Iraq poses an unquestionable and near-term threat to the peace and security of the United States and our allies abroad.
We can not allow those who wish harm on the United States, and have the propensity to deliver that harm, to acquire weapons of terror and mass destruction. Inaction on our part could lead to the massive loss of innocent lives. The ten-year cat and mouse game Hussein has played with weapons inspectors must come to an end. There is too much at stake, and time is rapidly dwindling.
I believe it is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prosecute the war on terrorism, including Iraq's support for international terrorist groups.
President Bush must continue his efforts to get support from the United Nations Security Council and must exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options available in hopes of avoiding war. However, if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime continue to rebuff the international community and threaten the peace and security of the United States, we must take swift and decisive action. To do anything less would be immoral and irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution and urge my colleagues on both sides of the isle to do the same.
Mr. Issa: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Shuster): Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 574, the Chair postpones further consideration of the joint resolution until the legislative day of Thursday, October 10, 2002.
