Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. Markey: Mr. Speaker, the Spratt approach is the correct approach. It says that the President, should go to the United Nations, go to Kofi Annan and tell him that we authorize President Bush to use all of the Armed Forces necessary to eliminate the chemical, the biological and the nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein; and if Kofi Annan and the U.N. say, "no, we will not authorize that," then it says that the President can come back to the United States Congress immediately, and then we would authorize the President to go in to Iraq with any other Nation in the world that would want to join us, and we will ensure that the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein are taken from his possession.
This is the way to go. If the U.N. says no, then we can say "yes" but the President has an obligation to go to the United Nations first and to find out if Kofi Annan and the U.N. we will not forcibly ensure that these weapons of mass destruction are confiscated.
Vote yes on Spratt.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. Tauscher: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my strong support for the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) substitute.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am deeply concerned by the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but I also strongly believe that the United States has a responsibility as the world's only superpower to set a standard for international behavior. We must consider every peaceable alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to force.
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) amendment is invaluable because it strengthens America's position at the United Nations in support of new Security Council resolutions that Secretary Powell is negotiating as we speak.
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) amendment sends a strong signal to our allies and to Saddam that the United States is committed to defeating the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
It ensures that our actions have international legitimacy and that, just like in 1991, we share the cost of war with our allies instead of putting the burden solely on the American people.
If we are unable to secure resolution at the U.N., it provides for expedited congressional consideration of a joint resolution authorizing the use of force.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my colleague.
Mr. Clyburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from my home State for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this and many other issues in this body.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who does not believe Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has murdered his own people, violated U.N. sanctions, and thumbed his nose at the world community. However, this body and our Nation are deeply divided as to the proper course of action at this juncture.
My cosponsorship of the Spratt amendment reflects that uncertainty among my constituents. The American people and our allies around the world have placed calls to my office expressing overwhelming lack of support for preemptive military action. Shoot now and ask questions later has never been the American way and it should not be it now.
It is an awesome responsibility to have the power to set events in motion that could forever alter another country, an entire region, not to mention our Nation's future relationships in the world community. We should not put the lives of our youth at risk and further fuel the fervor of terrorist actions against our homeland. We should not duck our responsibilities as Members of Congress. I believe this substitute is the best action to take at this particular juncture.
Many of us lived through Vietnam and saw its wretched effects on our Nation. This is not the time to commit to an unpopular unilateral act of aggression, especially one with such great potential for devastating consequences.
Mr. Speaker, just because we can do it does not mean we should.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
History is an exciting adventure. On April 28, 1999, in this very Chamber, right where we are now, this House voted to allow the President, President Clinton, without any U.N. resolution, to take military action: Bombing in Kosovo. And among those who voted to allow the President to do this, without a U.N. resolution, but to go ahead, gung ho, was virtually everybody that has spoken on that side of the Chamber.
Absolutely, I applaud them. I do not know what changed them, why they now demand we process this through the U.N., but they did not feel that way back then, in April of 1999, and I have the rollcall if anybody cares to see it. But everybody voted to bomb Kosovo. Now, is that because that was President Clinton? There must be some explanation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong agreement with all of the essential premises of the Spratt resolution and urge a "no" vote because of its conclusion. The Spratt resolution, like the Lee resolution before it, spells out precisely all of the reasons that we are here today; that Saddam Hussein and Iraq have unconditionally agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons there, ballistic missiles, to stop the development and the seeking of nuclear weapons; that Iraq unconditionally agreed to immediate inspections.
The Spratt resolution goes on to say, and would have this Congress find, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein have "flagrantly violated these unconditional terms." The Spratt resolution goes on to say that Saddam Hussein and Iraq are currently supporting international terrorism and continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons and actively seeking nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. But here, unlike the Lee resolution before it, the Spratt resolution does not denounce the use of force but rather says that at this time we should have a U.N. resolution that expressly authorizes the use of force; and, if such a U.N. resolution is adopted, then, by section 3 of this Spratt resolution, the Congress today would have anticipatorily authorized the use of force, expressly authorized President Bush to use military force to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
It even provides an expedited procedure for the President to get Congressional authority for war if the U.N. does not act. In short, this resolution, an alternative resolution that we are now considering, accepts every single premise of House Joint Resolution 114 that is supported by President Bush, the Speaker of the House, the Democratic leader of the House, the Republican leader of the Senate, and, as of today, the Democratic leader of the Senate.
The Spratt resolution accepts the operative conclusion of House Joint Resolution 114 that the authorization of military force is essential. It is essential if this time we are to succeed where 16 past U.N. resolutions have failed. So the only real difference is that this different way of going after all of the same objectives, based on all of the same premises, this Rube Goldberg mechanism that we have set up, will scuttle the broad agreement that has been reached among the House, the Senate, and the executive and legislative branches, this consensus that America will stand as one.
This resolution will jeopardize, in fact, passage of the very U.N. resolution that it purports to support.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. Levin: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is right, there are similarities in the two resolutions. The issue, though, is whether we are going to emphasize going together or going it alone. The difference is whether we are going to emphasize collective action, trying the U.N. first, or whether we are going to give to this President now the right to act unilaterally, without going back to this Congress.
We will strengthen the voice of the American people and we will speak with one voice more under the Spratt resolution because there is a division in this House under the resolution that has been brought forth on the majority side. If we want to speak with one voice, let us say try collective action. If it works, we will have acted together, as we did in Bosnia through NATO. If it does not, Mr. President, come back here on an expedited basis and we will act. That is the best chance for one voice.
A very vital vote here today will be on the Spratt resolution. I think it is the wise way to go and is consonant with where the American people are.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership in presenting this option to the House of Representatives. I also want to commend him for his leadership as a person who speaks for our Armed Services in this Congress, his commitment to provide for the common defense, as provided for in the Preamble of our Constitution. Today, we are all benefiting from his wisdom.
The Spratt substitute, Mr. Speaker, captures many of the concerns of the American people who overwhelmingly support a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein. The Spratt substitute also honors the Constitution when it says that Congress shall declare war.
Some who have opposed the Spratt substitute have done so on the basis that we do not have time to come back to the Congress. This is simply not true. As called for in the Spratt substitute, should the Security Council fail to act in a satisfactory way, we come back to the Congress.
I want to speak to the issue of time by quoting what is now declassified but is contained in a letter from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to the chairman of the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this letter, signed by George Tenet. When asked if Saddam did not feel threatened, is it likely he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction, the Director of Central Intelligence responds in this letter and says, "My judgment would be that the probability of him," Saddam, "initiating an attack, let me put a time frame on it, in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."
This is the Director of Central Intelligence saying the likelihood of Saddam initiating an attack using weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood, would be low. So it is not about time. It is about the Constitution. It is about this Congress asserting its right to declare war when we are fully aware of what the challenges are to us, and it is about respecting the United Nations and a multilateral approach, which is safer for our troops.
Force protection. I have been on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 10 years, longer than anyone. My service there is coming to an end. But in the time that I have been there, force protection is one of our top priorities, to protect the men and women in uniform.
This letter goes on to say, "If we initiate an attack," if he felt he was threatened, "if we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical and biological weapons?" The response, "Pretty high."
We are placing our young people in harm's way in a way that can be avoided by taking a multilateral approach first. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership. I will support this with great pride, and I thank him for giving us that opportunity.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. Spratt: And the gentleman from Illinois has the right to close, or do I have the right to close?
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to respond to some arguments that have been raised. Let me go back to Public Law 102-1; the allegation that somehow, somewhere this bill supplants it.
Far from supplanting that bill, which was the Afghan War Powers Act, we reassert in this legislation the primacy of our policy, and that is to go after al Qaeda. We do that by saying to the President, before we go off in pursuit of another armed objective, military objective, we want you to tell us that this is not going to divert our focus from the primary objective, which is to get the guys that did what they did in New York on 9/11. We do not want to divert or dilute our focus from that at all. That is in the centerpiece of this particular bill.
My good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has said that many of us on this side of the aisle voted for action in Kosovo. I did. And I am proud of it because we stopped another butchery in the backyard of Europe by doing so. We did not go to the U.N. then, and the gentleman knows why. Because the Russians are on the Security Council and they would have blocked us.
Politics and diplomacy is a pragmatic thing. That is why we did not go there. But it was multilateral, because it was an undertaking by NATO, and we tried to use collective defense in that particular case. It simply proves the points.
Now, let me say something else that I said at the outset because it is important. A lot of good people have argued that we are relying too much, too heavily on the U.N., and specifically on the Security Council, because that is really the body that applies here. But I was here in 1991, and when President Bush asked for a vote to go to war in the Persian Gulf, I was one of 86 on this side of the aisle who said you have got my support, Mr. President.
But remember what he did then, just days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, President Bush said this invasion will not stand, but he also declared his vision was nothing less than a new world order. His words, a new world order.
He turned first to the United Nations and went to the Security Council and got the first in a series of resolutions that culminated in Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force. President Bush obtained all those Security Council resolutions, with our support, but without an express war powers resolution until literally days before the war began.
Rather than asserting that he could go it alone, stiffing the Security Council, he sought the Security Council approval. He sought allies to stand with us and cover approximately $62 billion out of the $66 billion total cost of the war. The result, a successful military action, a successful diplomacy, and I think a model worth emulating. And that is exactly what this resolution does.
Where does this resolution come from? A couple of weeks ago, we had one of the last of the general officers who testified before our committee who has experience in this area, Wes Clarke, whom I greatly respect. He is certainly no warrior who shrinks from a fight. He was always advocating force in Bosnia to straighten out that situation there and in the Balkans.
Here is what he told us. He said, First of all, time is on your side right now. Make the maximum advantage of it. First go for beefed-up arms inspections, a more truthful inspections program. This will have a couple of benefits. It will constrain Saddam, and it will give you legitimacy when he ultimately bucks you.
Secondly, he said, our diplomacy will be further strengthened if we have an act adopted by Congress expressing our resolve to use force if necessary. But he said the resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force. It need simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force if other measures fail.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done, both of those things.
Finally, he said, If efforts to resolve the problems by the United Nations fail, seek the broadest possible coalition to bring force to bear.
We have done what General Clark has recommended. It is embodied in this resolution. It follows the precedent set by President Bush. It is worthy of every Member's support, and I hope Members will vote for it.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthy, appropriate debate and could not be more serious.
The gentleman from Connecticut, a very good friend of mine whom I admire greatly, indicated that, in his opinion, the Spratt resolution would strengthen the hand of the President.
Here is what the President believes. He rejects that. He does not believe that the Spratt resolution strengthens his hand.
He asked us Monday night to come together and speak with one voice. What has happened over the last few weeks is amazing, and the American public should rejoice in it. The Speaker of the House, the minority leader, a group of bipartisan Senators, McCain and Lieberman and others, have sat down with the White House and have structured a resolution that gives a one-voice approach to a very serious problem for our country.
I am not here to tell Members that they should follow blindly their President or their leadership. God knows, I have never been accused of that. But in matters such as this, we must try to achieve consensus because so much is at stake.
Many watch what we say and do here. Please do not believe otherwise. We will either be stronger, or weaker, in our ability to negotiate and to make the world safer. There is strength in Hastert, Gephardt, Hyde and Lantos. The strength comes from the Speaker, the minority leader, committee chairmen and ranking members and the President reaching consensus. No disrespect to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but that is strength. The Spratt resolution would show weakness.
It would be a defeat for the House leadership. It would be a defeat for our President. Other Members can write the headlines tomorrow. I choose not to write that headline because our enemies are watching, and they read.
The Spratt resolution, I think, is ill-advised and ill-structured. To suggest that our President is not working with the United Nations would be wrong. The Speaker, the minority leader, and a bipartisan group of Senators believe he is; and the facts are clear that he is. He is working with our allies. He is trying to find a way to disarm this terrible, evil person before he does more damage.
The resolution that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is asking us to adopt not only would be a rejection of this consensus, but it would mandate by U.S. law that the United Nations act before the President can act.
I speak again. The U.S. Congress would be telling the President he must go to the U.N. and he must win their political game. We would be making our President win a political game that I do not want to put him in.
I believe the resolution is clear on what would be required of the President before he could act. U.N. politics takes a dominance in the Spratt amendment, not the one we are trying to support here today.
If he loses the U.N. political battle, the President comes back to this body, and just imagine the frenzy. Write those headlines. The President comes back a loser in U.N. politics, and the forces in this world will seize upon that, and we will be weaker, not stronger, more division, a horrible scenario. Please reject it. I know many Members want to vote yes/yes. That may be good politics, but it would be bad for the country.
Mr. Speaker, there are forces for good in this world, none greater than the U.S. Congress. Use our powers wisely. The world is watching.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair must remind Members that positions of Senators may not be characterized beyond identifying a Senator as a sponsor of a measure.
Mr. Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to H.J. Res. 114. I applaud the respected gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, for his hard work and good sense on this amendment.
This proposal is not perfect. I also question whether this amendment will, in practice, serve as an adequate check on the Administration's rush to act unilaterally in Iraq.
But this Amendment is by far the best option we have on the floor today. It recognizes what the other two options on the floor do not: that while the U.S. may ultimately need to act alone to disarm Iraq, we should do so only if it is absolutely necessary.
The Spratt Amendment authorizes the use of the U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
If, in the absence of a satisfactory U.N. Security Council resolution, the President determines it is necessary to proceed with force, it calls on the President to seek the authorization of Congress and provides expedited consideration for authorization.
I firmly believe that military force should not be used until after the U.N. inspections. Force should not be used until all diplomatic channels have been exercised. And we should clearly understand what will be required for rebuilding the country. There are several good aspects of the Spratt Resolution worth emphasizing: it discusses force in the context of disarming Saddam Hussein, not as regime change; it places the burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.N. Security Council; and it allows the U.S. to act if the Security Council does not adequately fulfill its responsibility.
This is a reasoned approach that rejects the use of unilateral action, of preemptive action, and preserves the checks and balances that are required of our government.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the Spratt amendment because it provides many safeguards to war--it authorizes the use of force through a new UN Security Council Resolution; however, should the UN not adopt a resolution sanctioning the use of force or not take any action at all, the amendment would allow the President, if he deemed the UN Security Council's action insufficient, to come to Congress to obtain authorization to use the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Most importantly, the Spratt amendment allows Congress to retain its rightful role in the constitutional process as the body having the authority to declare war.
The Spratt amendment is an especially important safeguard--becasue it would give the United Nations, essentially, the World, time to examine the threat that Hussein poses and then, in a sobering fashion, make a determination as to whether a new resolution regarding the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be adopted or whether to use of force is the appropriate response to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
We must not move hastily to the sobering decision to use force against another country. As it was discovered yesterday, it is now known that the CIA has concluded Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States. Based on this CIA assessment, an attack on Iraq could provide the very thing the President claims he is trying to forestall--the use of chemical or biological weapons by Saddam.
I believe it is extremely important that exhaust all avenues of peace, make use of all safeguards prior to sending our troops into battle. We cannot be injudicious, premature or inaccurate in our decision to go to war. The Spratt amendment makes the possibility of a unilateral attack on Iraq the last option--not the first. Lets give the UN and the U.S. a greater ability work towards a peaceful resolution of our concerns with Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Capuano Mr. Speaker, the substitute amendment introduced by Mr. Spratt improves on the base resolution, H.J. Res. 114, because it requires that the United States continue working with the United Nations to enforce existing Security Council Resolutions and to craft stronger resolutions addressing concerns over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Instead of simply handing the President a blank check to wage war, this amendment urges the President to continue working with the UN Security Council.
I will vote for the Spratt amendment because I believe it is a better alternative than the base resolution. I do not believe that the amendment will pass. If it does, however, I will vote No on final passage because I do not believe that the Spratt amendment does enough to explore all options resorting to war.
Mr. Waxman: Mr. Speaker, we face today one of the most important questions that can ever come before us as Members of Congress: whether to authorize the use of force, and commit the men and women of our armed forces to defend liberty and to protect the United States, at the possible cost of their lives--and the lives of many in a country far from our shores.
It is an issue Americans care deeply about. I have received hundreds of calls during the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are raising similar and very serious concerns.
They are suspicious of the timing of this debate. They see political overtones to it, and question whether this vote is being used as political purposes.
Many are worried about the precedent of a preemptive and unilateral attack, and how that precedent might be used by other countries looking to justify aggressive and hostile acts.
Others have expressed doubts about the Bush Administration's handling of foreign policy. They point to the Administration's abysmal record on a series of international efforts, including the Kyoto Protocol, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. The Administration has created its own credibility problem by consistently going its own way instead of being the leader of a world coalition.
Many callers have told me they don't see evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a current threat to the United States. They think terrorism by Al Qaeda is a greater and more immediate danger, and that Iraq is a diversion from our failure to capture Osama bin Laden.
And over and over I've been told that war should be a last resort. Unfortunately, to many of my constituents, the Administration has created the perception that war with Iraq is our first and only resort.
All of those concerns have been on my mind as I've deliberated on this vote. I've spent the good part of these last few weeks listening to experts from this Administration, from the Clinton Administration, and from non-partisan, independent organizations. I've tried to sort out what we know to be true and what we just suspect to be true. And I've tried to evaluate our best course when faced with the uncertain but potentially catastrophic threat that Saddam poses and the unpredictable horror a war can bring.
Eleven years ago, in the face of Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, I voted reluctantly to oppose the use of force. I thought then that more time should be given to diplomacy, and to the enforcement of sanctions against Iraq. But once Congress acted, there was no question of the commitment of all of us to the success of Desert Storm. The liberation of Kuwait was effected; our casualties were thankfully quite small; and stability was, for an extended period of time, restored to the region.
To be certain, many of us thought, and fervently hoped, that the crushing military defeat suffered by Saddam would result in his overthrow. Other monstrous dictators--such as Milosevic in Serbia--have crumbled in the face of far less of an onslaught. It is a mark of Saddam's cunning and ruthlessness that he survived the upheavals in his country that did unfold after the Gulf War, that he is still in power, and that he is still able to oppress his people.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.
And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last U.N. weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam's willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.
What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain--but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush's speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe.
We know Saddam quite well. We know he kills a lot of people, even in his own family. We know when he gives his word it cannot be trusted. We know he is a shameless propagandist. We recall that he held women and children hostage for a time in Baghdad as human shields in 1990 to try to deter armed attack to liberate Kuwait. We know what he does to his own people in the north and south of his country and what he did to his neighbors in Iran and Kuwait.
We also know that Saddam is the patron saint of the homicide bombers in Israel. He pays their families when their youth go to kingdom-come from the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Iraq, under Saddam, is one of only seven nations designated as a state sponsor of terrorism because of his aid and training of terrorists, according to the U.S. State Department.
Wehter he is tied in with al-Qaeda is still subject to debate, but they share an intense hatred for the United States, Israel, and our allies, and in their willingness to attack civilians to achieve their purposes.
In a perfect world the Iraqi people would have been able to seize their destiny and liberate their country. In a perfect world the U.N. resolutions calling for Saddam's disarmament would have been properly enforced.
But this is not a perfect world, and so today we struggle with how best to achieve that disarmament. That is our objective--our debate today is over the right means to that necessary end.
Eleven years ago, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling for the liberation of Kuwait, and the disarmament of Saddam. This occurred before we voted in Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq in January 1991.
Eleven years ago, in other words, we in Congress were voting to endorse the consensus reached in the United Nations over what the world should do to repel Saddam's aggression in the region and provide the basis for an Iraq that could not threaten its neighbors via war or weapons of mass destruction.
Today, the order is reversed and it is the Congress that is voting first on a resolution of war. And that is being done in the hope that it will help force a consensus in the United Nations so that the world--not just the United States--can pursue these issues on the soundest possible basis, with the strongest degree of support from as many nations as possible.
This is why we have to get this resolution right. And this is why I strongly support the substitute, which emphasizes action by the UN and the international community. It outlines the importance of working with a coalition, and before American lives are placed at risk, exhausting all other options through diplomacy and unfettered inspections. We should do all we can to secure a Security Council endorsement for an invasion of Iraq, and possibly to avoid a war by forcing Saddam to abide by the UN requirements for disarmament.
War must always be a last resort. In my view, Saddam has nearly brought us to that point. We have tried containment and sanctions over the last ten years, and both have failed. Sanctions hurt the people of Iraq and Saddam did not care about them. Inspections have failed because he has frustrated the inspectors and eventually forced them out of his country four years ago.
We've tried surgical strikes on his facilities and no fly zones over large parts of his territory. He has responded by continuing to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction. He has turned the humanitarian efforts to allow oil sales for food into a $2 billion pot of money for weapons.
In light of all this, if the UN does not act, it not only leaves Saddam unchecked but it undermines, perhaps fatally, the purpose of having or supporting a UN in the first place.
If the UN does not or cannot act, the substitute does nothing to compromise the ability of the Congress to authorize the use of force to protect America's interests--unilaterally if necessary--if we believe it necessary at a later time.
Under the substitute, we sacrifice none of our sovereignty--none--and maximize every opportunity for diplomacy and consensus. The substitute correctly recognizes that should we reach the point of last resort, that is the time for Congress to declare war.
For all those reasons, I urge the House of Representatives to adopt the substitute and hope it will be the course we follow. It is the better choice and is the one most of my constituents and other Americans support.
It is possible, however, that the substitute will be defeated. The question, then, is whether to support the Resolution President Bush has sent us, as modified through negotiations with Representative Richard Gephardt, the House Democratic Leader.
Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush's domestic policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action.
Despite my misgivings about the President's approach, I believe it's essential that Congress send the strongest bipartisan signal of unity possible so the U.N. will act. Some have even suggested that taking the threat of force out of the equation might undermine that result.
In a post September 11 world, it is important we speak with one voice and send one message--particularly when the lives of our men and women in the armed forces are at stake.
And it is important that we not send a confused signal to Iraq, so that there be no doubt about our resolve.
Mr. Speaker, the goal I want is decisive U.N. action and the effective disarmament of Iraq. The substitute achieves that goal and should be approved. But if it is defeated, I believe supporting the President's proposal brings us closer to realizing that goal than defeating the Resolution.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support the President's resolution if it is before us.
Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and for his important leadership on this critical issue and so many others.
I support the Spratt substitute because it is simply the right resolution for this House to adopt.
It is not soft on Iraq.
It requires that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed.
It places the decisions Congress must make in their proper order.
It strengthens the role of the United States to build consensus and lead the international community through the U.N. Security Council.
Most importantly, the Spratt substitute ensures that war, if needed, is the last option exercised, not the first.
And should Congress need to act on a resolution to authorize military force, we would at least have the benefit of debating a well-defined mission for our troops.
Unlike the current resolution that provides no clues as to what we are actually committing our troops to do, the Spratt substitute ensures that we in the United States Congress remain accountable to the American people and our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities.
The Spratt amendment reflects the successful model used by then- President Bush in 1991.
It is a model worth following.
I ask all my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute.
Mr. Matsui: Mr. Speaker, the United States is both blessed and burdened with enormous power. We have a responsibility to our constituents, to our country, and to the world, to ensure that the United States wields this power wisely.
That's why I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Representative Spratt of South Carolina, which recognizes the threat posed by Iraq and ensures that Congress deals with this threat appropriately. This amendment challenges the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities by forcing Iraq to abide by its commitments to the international community. It places value in multilateral action, but also recognizes the reality that sometimes the United States must be prepared to act alone. This is an amendment that each of us can support with a clear conscience.
The amendment encourages the President to continue working with the U.N. to craft a tough Security Council Resolution that leaves no room for Saddam Hussein to delay or impede weapons inspections on his territory, under the threat of immediate multilateral force.
Should the U.N. shirk or fail in its duty, Congress should then consider, in an expedited fashion, the authorization of force to be used against Iraq. That way, we will vote with the full knowledge that all diplomatic efforts have indeed failed. It is at that time and at that time alone, that we, as Members of Congress entrusted with the solemn and terrible duty to send our young men and women to war, should be called upon to cast that vote. In short, Congress should vote to authorize force when and only when there is no other option.
We are fortunate to have before us the opportunity to craft a sensible and responsible policy for the United States, one that reflects, I believe, the very reasonable view of the majority of Americans. Americans are not hungry for war. We do not seek conflict, but neither do we shrink from our responsibilities. We will go to war only when we must--but not a moment before.
But now Congress is faced with a vote on a resolution that asks us to authorize a war that may not be necessary at this particular time. That's not how Congress has dealt with issues of war and peace in the past, and there's no reason to violate that precedent now. A premature authorization of force is inconsistent with the traditions of the Congress and the character of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, we can and must act to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But Congress should not grant this authority prematurely, nor should we seek to do so. The Spratt amendment treats this matter with the gravity and circumspection it deserves. I urge my colleagues to consider carefully the alternatives before them, to vote yes for the Spratt amendment, and no on the majority resolution.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 155, nays 270, not voting 6, as follows:
| Roll No. 453 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--155 | ||||
| Allen | Baca | Baird | Baldacci | Baldwin |
| Barcia | Barrett | Bartlett | Becerra | Bentsen |
| Berry | Bishop | Blagojevich | Blumenauer | Borski |
| Boucher | Boyd | Brady (PA) | Brown (FL) | Brown (OH) |
| Capps | Capuano | Cardin | Carson (IN) | Clay |
| Clayton | Clyburn | Condit | Conyers | Costello |
| Coyne | Crowley | Cummings | Davis (CA) | Davis (FL) |
| DeFazio | DeGette | Delahunt | DeLauro | Dingell |
| Doggett | Doyle | Engel | Eshoo | Etheridge |
| Evans | Fattah | Filner | Ford | Frank |
| Gonzalez | Gutierrez | Hastings (FL) | Hill | Hilliard |
| Hinchey | Hinojosa | Hoeffel | Holt | Hooley |
| Hoyer | Hulshof | Inslee | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Jefferson |
| Johnson, E. B. | Jones (NC) | Kaptur | Kildee | Kilpatrick |
| Kind (WI) | Kleczka | LaFalce | Lampson | Langevin |
| Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | LaTourette | Levin | Lipinski |
| Lofgren | Luther | Lynch | Maloney (CT) | Maloney (NY) |
| Markey | Mascara | Matsui | McCarthy (MO) | McCarthy (NY) |
| McCollum | McGovern | McIntyre | Meehan | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Menendez | Millender-McDonald | Miller, George | Mollohan |
| Moran (VA) | Morella | Nadler | Napolitano | Neal |
| Obey | Olver | Pallone | Pascrell | Pastor |
| Paul | Payne | Pelosi | Peterson (MN) | Price (NC) |
| Rahall | Reyes | Rodriguez | Roybal-Allard | Sabo |
| Sanchez | Sanders | Sandlin | Sawyer | Schakowsky |
| Schiff | Scott | Sherman | Simmons | Skelton |
| Slaughter | Smith (WA) | Snyder | Solis | Spratt |
| Stark | Strickland | Stupak | Tanner | Tauscher |
| Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) | Thurman | Tierney | Udall (CO) |
| Udall (NM) | Visclosky | Waters | Watson (CA) | Watt (NC) |
| Waxman | Weiner | Wexler | Wu | Wynn |
| Nays--270 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Aderholt | Akin | Andrews |
| Armey | Bachus | Baker | Ballenger | Barton |
| Bass | Bereuter | Berkley | Berman | Biggert |
| Bilirakis | Blunt | Boehlert | Boehner | Bonilla |
| Bonior | Bono | Boozman | Boswell | Brady (TX) |
| Brown (SC) | Bryant | Burr | Burton | Buyer |
| Callahan | Calvert | Camp | Cannon | Cantor |
| Capito | Carson (OK) | Castle | Chabot | Chambliss |
| Clement | Coble | Collins | Combest | Cox |
| Cramer | Crane | Crenshaw | Cubin | Culberson |
| Cunningham | Davis (IL) | Davis, Jo Ann | Davis, Tom | Deal |
| DeLay | DeMint | Deutsch | Diaz-Balart | Dicks |
| Dooley | Doolittle | Dreier | Duncan | Dunn |
| Edwards | Ehlers | Ehrlich | Emerson | English |
| Everett | Farr | Ferguson | Flake | Foley |
| Forbes | Fossella | Frelinghuysen | Frost | Gallegly |
| Ganske | Gekas | Gephardt | Gibbons | Gilchrest |
| Gillmor | Gilman | Goode | Goodlatte | Gordon |
| Goss | Graham | Granger | Graves | Green (TX) |
| Green (WI) | Greenwood | Grucci | Gutknecht | Hall (TX) |
| Hansen | Harman | Hart | Hastings (WA) | Hayes |
| Hayworth | Hefley | Herger | Hilleary | Hobson |
| Hoekstra | Holden | Honda | Horn | Hostettler |
| Houghton | Hunter | Hyde | Isakson | Israel |
| Issa | Istook | Jackson (IL) | Jenkins | John |
| Johnson (CT) | Johnson (IL) | Johnson, Sam | Jones (OH) | Kanjorski |
| Keller | Kelly | Kennedy (MN) | Kennedy (RI) | Kerns |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kirk | Knollenberg | Kolbe |
| Kucinich | LaHood | Lantos | Latham | Leach |
| Lee | Lewis (CA) | Lewis (GA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder |
| LoBiondo | Lowey | Lucas (KY) | Lucas (OK) | Manzullo |
| Matheson | McCrery | McDermott | McHugh | McInnis |
| McKeon | McKinney | McNulty | Mica | Miller, Dan |
| Miller, Gary | Miller, Jeff | Moore | Moran (KS) | Murtha |
| Myrick | Nethercutt | Ney | Northup | Norwood |
| Nussle | Oberstar | Osborne | Ose | Otter |
| Owens | Oxley | Pence | Peterson (PA) | Petri |
| Phelps | Pickering | Pitts | Platts | Pombo |
| Pomeroy | Portman | Pryce (OH) | Putnam | Quinn |
| Radanovich | Ramstad | Rangel | Regula | Rehberg |
| Reynolds | Riley | Rivers | Roemer | Rogers (KY) |
| Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher | Ros-Lehtinen | Ross | Rothman |
| Royce | Rush | Ryan (WI) | Ryun (KS) | Saxton |
| Schaffer | Schrock | Sensenbrenner | Serrano | Sessions |
| Shadegg | Shaw | Shays | Sherwood | Shimkus |
| Shows | Shuster | Simpson | Skeen | Smith (MI) |
| Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Souder | Stearns | Stenholm |
| Sullivan | Sununu | Sweeney | Tancredo | Tauzin |
| Taylor (MS) | Taylor (NC) | Terry | Thomas | Thornberry |
| Thune | Tiahrt | Tiberi | Toomey | Towns |
| Turner | Upton | Velazquez | Vitter | Walden |
| Walsh | Wamp | Watkins (OK) | Watts (OK) | Weldon (FL) |
| Weldon (PA) | Weller | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) |
| Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Woolsey | Young (AK) | Young (FL) |
| NOT VOTING--6 | ||||
| Barr | Cooksey | Fletcher | Ortiz | Roukema |
| Stump | ||||
Messrs. Baker, Flake, Rush, Schaffer, and Ms. Velazquez changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): It is now in order to proceed to a final period of debate on the joint resolution, as amended.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. Flake: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. Ehlers asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Mr. Ehlers: Mr. Speaker, casting a vote over whether to authorize military action may be the most difficult decision a member of Congress is asked to make. It certainly is for me. No matter who the opponent or what the circumstances, the consequences of a collective "yes" vote likely will be the loss of life. But failure to act holds the potential of even more terrible outcomes. Such a vote presents an excruciating moral dilemma.
For the past year, our nation has been engaged in a great civic debate. How do we protect our nation from those who would do us harm? How can we ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren here and around the world? Should we take action against potentially hostile nations? These are questions without simple answers.
President George W. Bush asked Congress to grant him the authority to take military action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as part of our war on terrorism. No member of Congress takes such a request lightly. We may have different views and concerns, but each of us deals with this issue very seriously and solemnly.
On such issues, persons are often characterized as hawks or doves. I am neither. Instead, I seek to be wise as an owl. I listened to the concerns voiced by many of my constituents. I wrote President Bush informing him of their concerns and seeking answers to their questions and mine. I studied Saddam Hussein and his past actions. I sought and received extensive briefings from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Central Intelligence Agency and others. And, because of my scientific background, I also received a detailed scientific briefing from civilian officials at the Pentagon about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities.
This information has convinced me of several things. Saddam Hussein continues to have dangerous, warlike ambitions. He is Hitler-like in his methods of repression, especially in gassing his own people. He has thumbed his nose at the United Nations by evicting inspectors and using the UN's "oil-for-food" program to fund weapons rather than feed his impoverished people.
Saddam Hussein continues, in violation of the U.N.'s sanctions and the peace agreement he signed, to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons for war and terror. Most troubling, he continues to develop nuclear weapons and may be as little as a year or two away from success. As a nuclear physicist, I know the destructive force of nuclear weapons. If a weapon of the type he is developing was detonated over Calder Plaza, the blast would devastate all of Grand Rapids and the near suburbs, a firestorm would consume the rest of the suburbs and a lethal dose of radiation would envelop much of the downwind area. All told, upwards of 300,000 people would be killed. Saddam Hussein's regime poses a very real threat to the safety of the United States, the safety of his own people and, indeed, the safety of the rest of the world.
Early in this debate, I thought President Bush and his advisers were seeking to strike Iraq preemptively. But I found they view that as a final alternative, not a first step. The Bush Administration continues to work with the U.N. and our allies to build a coalition and seek a peaceful end to this situation through inspections and disarmament. However, we must grant the President the power to take action against Iraq because Hussein will not acquiesce until he faces a superior force. We may have to put troops on Iraq's border before he will comply, but I hope, along with many others in Congress and the Administration, that military action ultimately will not be necessary.
I abhor the idea of the U.S. making a preemptive strike. Our philosophy has always been to take the first punch before we act. But when the first punch can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people, we must consider ways to stop that first punch.
I commend President Bush for his recent speeches in which he more clearly stated his intentions and reasons for requesting this resolution. I also commend him for working with Congress to craft a resolution that is not as broad as his original proposal and meets many of the concerns raised by Congress and our constituents. The legislative process has worked in structuring the approach and limiting action to only Iraq.
And so, after many days and weeks of thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I've decided to support this resolution. In this case, I've concluded not acting is more dangerous than acting.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. Rangel asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Rangel: Mr. Speaker, in June of 2000, President Clinton allowed me the great honor to take some veterans back to Korea in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. They were all members of the Second Infantry Division. We left Fort Lewis, Washington, in July and August of 1950, and we had left more men behind dead than came home.
The raggedy group of veterans that went back, all black because we were in a segregated infantry unit, most had not gone to college, and, like myself, some had not even finished high school, we thought then that we were fighting for our country. But the more education I got, the more sophisticated I got, I realized we were fighting for the United Nations.
Then when I became a Member of Congress and I led this same group of tattered veterans back to the same battlefields, they asked, why did Congress send them to South Korea and expose them to North Korean and Chinese warfare? And I had to tell them that this Congress never did send them there. No vote was ever taken in this Congress to say that they were at war with the people of North Korea or the People's Republic of China.
I made a vow to them, and I am keeping it today, that never will I delegate the responsibility of considering the dangers of war. I will not leave it to the President, unless he brings me evidence that we are in danger. I will not give it to the United Nations, because I do not believe that this sacred responsibility should be transferred. And I do believe that each and every one of those veterans, if they thought our beloved country was in trouble, would be the first to stand up to salute the flag and be prepared to destroy what enemy we had, preemptive or not.
I am against this resolution.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
(Mr. Gillmor asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Gillmor: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
I rise today in strong support of this resolution, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq and the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. Our President needs the assurance of this body that it will support his actions to keep our nation and the global community safe, from the current Iraqi government and its demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
As the Administration continues its negotiations with members of the United Nations Security Council, to compel Iraqi compliance with current U.N. resolutions, the rest of the world must know that we stand united in our actions. The United States government can not allow Saddam Hussein's continued development of chemical and biological agents and weapons of mass destruction. These actions are in direct violation of Iraq's obligations under the 1991 cease-fire agreement that brought an end to the Gulf War.
I was a member of this body during the 102nd Congress and do not consider lightly any congressional action that may lead to the loss of American Servicemen's lives, or those of innocent civilians. Let us be clear about what we are communicating with this resolution here today. Because it is vital to United States' national security, we are supporting the President's efforts through the UN Security Council "to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly" abides by all relevant Security Council resolutions. We are calling for war.
President Bush has made clear his commitment to work with the United Nations to address the common threat posed by the Iraqi regime but we can not restrict his options for protecting the American people. I have full confidence in our President and Administration to continue productive negotiations; and, if the decision is made necessary, lead this country in effective military action to bring an end to this clear and present danger.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin)
Mrs. Cubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as I have traveled through Wyoming, my fellow citizens have made their feelings very clear on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by his support of terrorism.
They support the President's actions to ensure that Saddam Hussein's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons is totally dismantled, his ties to terrorist organizations are severed and the people of Iraq are given a chance to emerge from Saddam's oppressive shadow. The people of Wyoming hope and pray for peace, but they will not accept peace at the price of fear.
Wyoming has a proud history of defending our Nation, from the Peacekeeper and the Minuteman missile silos based in our State that helped win the Cold War, to our many sons and daughters who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of liberty.
One of the first casualties in our war on terror was a young man from Cheyenne, Wyoming. His name was John Edmunds. Should we let this threat build and tell John Edmunds' widow and his parents, Donn and Mary, that his death was in vain, that it did not mean anything? How would we explain that we lacked the will to finish what we started? By explaining that the U.N. was not ready?
Saddam Hussein has long been an enemy of humanity and freedom. He has murdered his own people with poison gas. He has attempted to assassinate an American president. He heaps praise on homicide bombers and rewards their families. Right now, as we debate in this Chamber, agents work to provide him with nuclear weapons. Should we wait a little longer to see if he gets it right this time?
I understand that some in Congress are concerned about international support of his actions. But our first obligation is not to European governments like Paris or Berlin. It is to the safety and the security of the people of the United States of America.
In an ideal world, we would not have to go it alone, and I believe we will not have to go it alone. But thanks to the likes of Saddam Hussein, this is not an ideal world. Saddam has made it clear to the world where he stands. Now Congress must let the world know where we stand, against him and with our President.
Mr. Speaker, I end with a final question: Ask yourselves, why does Saddam Hussein seek an atom bomb? The people of Wyoming know. I know. I believe we all know.
