Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. Berman: Mr. Speaker, I was a fervent opponent of the Vietnam War and a strong supporter of sensible detente with the Soviet Union. But under today's circumstances, the best way to give peace a chance and to save the most lives, American and Iraqi, is for America to stand united and for Congress to authorize the President to use force if Saddam does not give up his weapons of mass destruction. Confront Saddam now, or pay a much heavier price later.
We dismissed the first World Trade Center bombing as an isolated incident. When two embassies were bombed, we failed to see the broader implication of those acts. When the USS Cole was attacked, still we did not read the handwriting on the wall. It was irrational, we thought, that madmen would grow bold enough to attack America on her own shores. We wanted to give peace a chance.
But then came 9/11, and it is time to say "no more." The Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and many of my colleagues have told us why a yes vote is necessary.
We have brought key members of the Clinton national security team to the Hill, architects of our past policy to contain Saddam. These foreign policy experts from the Democratic Party have told us to a person that containment will no longer do the job and that the policy we are asked to endorse today is the right one for a peace-loving people.
On the issue of Saddam Hussein, I have some experience. I begged both the Reagan and first Bush administrations to stop selling Iraq materials and technology that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, to put Iraq on the terrorist list, to impose economic sanctions. Saddam, with a nuclear weapon, is too horrifying to contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate.
As one who has watched this man for 20 years, let me pose an analogy. It is just an analogy, because I reject the unproven efforts to tie Saddam to the events of 9/11.
We are on an airplane, and we know that a few passengers have smuggled box cutters on board. We know these passengers have taken courses to learn how to fly a jumbo jet. We know that their friends have already flown a small plane into a building, killing hundreds of their own neighbors. But those armed passengers have not yet lunged for the cockpit.
What should a peace loving people do? We know that people sitting near these dangerous passengers could be hurt if we take aggressive action. Should we wait until they kill the pilot and take over the airplane before we act? Of course not. We admire those with the courage to surround the armed passengers and demand that they give up their weapons under threat of force. That is what this resolution does.
Is the threat imminent? Well, surely Saddam has box cutters, Saddam has a history of using them, Saddam is in the process of upgrading the box cutters, Saddam has boarded the plane with the box cutters.
Confront Saddam now, or pay a much heavier price later.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the Chairman of our Conference.
Mr. Watts of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution before the House today. Our Nation and our military may very well need to right the wrongs being perpetrated from an evil dictatorship in Iraq. Saddam Hussein poses a long-term threat that could jeopardize the freedoms and the way of life enjoyed by Americans from coast to coast, from border to border, a threat that grows more menacing over time.
I have listened to some of the debate over the last several hours, over the last 24 hours. It has been said time and time again that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to all that would say that, if you want evidence, look no further than September 11, 2001.
I am pleased the President has sought congressional approval for possible military action and has worked diligently with Congress to craft a resolution that is both appropriate and constitutional. There are very few things Congress is explicitly given the sole authority to execute; to declare war is one of them. Article I, section 8 is very clear on that point.
These 24 hours, 24-plus hours reserved for debate on this question is more than we debated Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo combined. President Bush should be commended for acknowledging Congress's authority with regard to any military action in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this leads us to the merits of authorizing such a serious action. Putting our Armed Forces into harm's way should never be an easy decision for anyone. As one who represents a district with two significant Air Force bases and a large Army post, I have talked with countless active duty personnel and military families during my service here in Congress. The pilots, the airmen, soldiers, and other highly trained heroes at Tinker Air Force Base, Altus Air Force Base, Fort Sill Army Post are my friends, my neighbors, they are my constituents. I care deeply for these brave Americans.
They understand, like so many across this country, that freedom is not free, liberty is not easy, and keeping the peace often requires sacrifice. America did not become the leader of the Free World by looking the other way to heinous atrocities and unspeakable evils.
The President told the Nation this past Monday that Iraq has a massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that has never been accounted for, that is capable of killing millions and millions of people. Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities it used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Mark my words on the latter form of destruction. The moment Saddam Hussein acquires a nuclear weapon is the moment the world will be in even more danger, grave danger. I hope my colleagues will reflect deeply on this chilling possibility.
Some people have pondered whether a military strike in Iraq would be just. Will the action of our government constitute a just war? Saint Augustine, the father of just war theory said, "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or State has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
This Congress must decide whether the situation in Iraq warrants military response. I am with the President. I believe this vote supports the just war theory when Saint Augustine wrote, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace."
Saddam Hussein has murdered his own people. His record on human rights is abysmal. He has aided and abetted terrorists. He hates America, he hates freedom, he hates independence, he hates our allies. He hates us.
Mr. Speaker, at this very hour, we know a tyrant in Iraq is devising great evil. We know harm is inevitable if nuclear weapons are indeed acquired by Saddam Hussein. As testimony by a former Iraqi scientist before the Committee on Armed Services said, as he revealed last week, Saddam is on a break-neck pace to acquire those very weapons. I hope my colleagues put their trust and confidence in our military, America's sons and daughters, who love freedom and love liberty, to wage a worthy and just cause.
Military options are the President's last choice. But we must give him the prerogative if the situation in Iraq requires the use of force. I urge the House to pass this legislation to support the President, support our Armed Forces, and support freedom throughout the world. We will prevail. As the President said, we must prevail. Vote "yes" on this resolution.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member, distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr.Doggett: Mr. Speaker, to the occasional charge of "hand- wringing" and "weakness" leveled at the many of us who are voting today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this statement: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
But this statement comes from American patriots, our first President Bush and his National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, in explaining why they rejected the approach some urge today.
As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni.
Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young Americans who die to win this war, nor on those of the American families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too many will view as a new crusade against Islam.
Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote "no" today? We respond not just to those we represent but, most of all, because individually we must answer to the face we see each day in the mirror. We must answer to history. We must answer to our children and our grandchildren.
When more than one of every four members of this House cast our vote against this ill-considered resolution, we vote not against President Bush, who deserves our support and respect, but aware of the conflicting advice he is still receiving we say: listen to the voices of your better nature. The prudent remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive international inspections.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. Hunter.: Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when we went into Iraq, we thought, our best projection was that he was 3 to 5 years away from having a nuclear device. We found out when we got there that he was actually only 6 months to a year away from having a nuclear device. To have waited at that time, as many folks proposed, would have been disastrous.
Now, the Committee on Armed Services, Democrats and Republicans, have held now three classified briefings inviting every Member of the House to participate to see and to understand the weapons of mass destruction program that is ongoing and robust and working toward completion right now in Iraq with respect to nuclear, chemical, and biological systems. My own opinion is that there are going to be nuclear devices manufactured in Iraq within 24 months.
To have waited in 1991 would have been disastrous. To wait today would be disastrous. We have got one leader, one person elected by all the people, our President, who is now our Commander in Chief. It is time for us, having been informed, having understood the problem, to rally behind him and take up this burden. Let us support this resolution.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), our distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
(Mr. Frost asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan resolution. It provides the best opportunity for a peaceful resolution by giving the President the discretion to use force if Iraq does not permit full and comprehensive inspections of all sites that could be used to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
I hope, as do the American people, that the President will use this discretion wisely and that Saddam Hussein will understand that the community of nations will not permit him to develop and maintain weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, today's vote is a difficult one. Many House Members have worn their country's uniform in time of war and have seen the horror of battle firsthand. We all understand the sacrifices that we may be asking our brave young men and women to make in the months to come.
As chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I have presided over numerous meetings on this subject. I have listened carefully to my colleagues and to policy experts who have followed Saddam Hussein's activities over the years.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that the course set out in this resolution is the wisest path for our Nation.
The resolution makes clear that our first preference is for the President to work through the United Nations to obtain multilateral support for a tough regime of weapons inspections. It requires the President to report back to Congress and to consult with us on an ongoing basis. But in the end, it gives the President the authority to commit U.S. troops if all diplomatic efforts fail.
Mr. Speaker, giving the President this discretion is highly appropriate. In so doing, we make clear to Saddam Hussein that it is in his interests to permit the inspectors full and unfettered access now. Should he fail to do so, he will face the full might of the United States military, the strongest and finest fighting force in the world today.
Mr. Speaker, no one wants war. We all want peace, and peace is best achieved from a position of strength.
So I want to personally recognize the work of our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), in narrowing and improving the resolution originally offered by the administration. We vote today on a better, more focused approach because of the hours he spent negotiating with the White House over the final product.
I want to say a word about the role of the minority in our system of government. Some suggest that the minority's role is to automatically oppose everything sought by the President. I disagree. The minority can play a constructive role by working to improve a Presidential proposal and, therefore, helping achieve a national consensus. That is particularly true in matters of foreign policy.
So I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of how my colleagues voted on the Spratt or Lee substitutes, to join Democrats and Republicans in voting for this bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan resolution will send a strong, clear signal that America is committed to ending the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world through democracy, if he will allow it, but through military action if he refuses.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a respected member of our caucus.
Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, more than two millennia ago, the world began a shift from the philosophy of an eye for an eye. We were taught a new gospel of compassion of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is that teaching, that faith and compassion that has sustained the human heart and this Nation.
I believe, as did Washington and Lincoln, that America has been favored by divine providence. But what if we lose our connection to our source by an abuse of power?
We are at a dangerous moment in human history when 20 centuries of moral teachings are about to be turned upside down. Instead of adherence to the Golden Rule, we are being moved toward the rule of liquid gold: do unto others before they do unto you.
No longer are we justified by our faith; we are now justified by our fear. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11, but some fear it was. There is no proof Iraq worked with al Qaeda to cause 9-11, but some fear it did.
It is fear which leads us to war. It is fear which leads us to believe that we must kill or be killed, fear which leads us to attack those who have not attacked us, fear which leads us to ring our Nation and the very heavens with weapons of mass destruction.
The American people need the attention of their government today. People who have worked a lifetime are finding the American dream slipping away. People who have saved, who have invested wisely are suffering because of corruption on Wall Street, the failing economy, and the declining stock market.
People have lost their homes, they have lost their jobs, they have lost their chances for a good education for their children. The American dream is slipping away, and all the people hear from Washington, D.C., is war talk, so loud as to drown out the voices of the American people calling for help.
Seventy years ago, Franklin Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," calling America to a domestic agenda, a New Deal for America. Faith in our country calls us to that again. Faith in our country calls us to work with the world community to create peace through inspection, not destruction. Faith in our country calls us to use our talents and abilities to address the urgent concerns of America today.
Let us not fear our ability to create a new, more peaceful world through the science of human relations. Faith, America; courage, America; peace, America.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. Thune: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, today Congress faces a momentous decision. We have had a spirited and vigorous debate about an issue of the utmost importance to this institution, to our government, and to our Nation. In the end, each of us must decide for our constituents and for ourselves whether or not to support authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.
President Bush has called for an end to the international appeasement of Saddam Hussein. He has challenged the world to face up to its responsibilities and stop this evil man with his evil designs.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we would all prefer that diplomacy could solve this problem. At the same time, we must understand that diplomacy has not worked with Iraq. We have been patient over this last decade, yet Iraq continues to defy the world community. Saddam has had his opportunity. The United States must now determine for itself how we should protect our Nation and our citizens.
It is we, Members of Congress, the President, and the American people who should determine the fate of our Nation. Members of Congress have the difficult decision of determining whether or not the Nation should go to war. As a Member of Congress, I accept my responsibilities to weigh the evidence and to vote yea or nay, knowing full well what the consequences may be. I take this job seriously, and am willing to do my part to protect our Nation and ensure that Americans, both at home and abroad, are safe.
I have concluded that, to protect the lives and safety of our country and our people, we must act. Mr. Speaker, it is time to give the President the authority he has requested to deal with the imminent threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and to the world. I hope that diplomacy will work and that Saddam will finally yield unconditionally to international inspections for weapons of mass destruction. I also hope that the United Nations will join the United States in this effort.
However, we cannot, as a Nation, make our national security dependent upon any other institution, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. In the end, the growing coalition of countries supporting our efforts will see the overwhelming bipartisan support in the vote today as a symbol of the unity and commitment of this Nation to disarming Saddam Hussein.
In the end, our actions today, Mr. Speaker, will be seen as the correct course for our Nation and for our world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution and in support of our President as we cast our votes today.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant to his own people and a threat to ourselves and to others. If this were simply a referendum on him, the vote today would be unanimous.
But the resolution before us raises two questions of fundamental importance, questions that are agonizing for Members of this body: First, how do we diminish the threat from Iraq without empowering Islamic fundamentalism and creating new recruits for terrorist groups; and, second, how do we avoid setting a dangerous global precedent for other nations to launch unilateral preemptive attacks as a legitimate tool of national policy?
The resolution negotiated between the President and House leadership is still a blank check. The Spratt substitute, in its essence, said that we are not willing to provide a blank check now for unilateral military action, though we are willing to provide or authorize military force multilaterally.
This resolution unwisely justifies action against Iraq under the Bush administration's new doctrine of preemption and regime change. This justification has the potential to create precedents that will come back to haunt us if adopted by our Nation or by others.
Under the Constitution, the President and Congress share warmaking powers. Yet, the underlying resolution represents an abdication of Congress' historic role. We cannot look into the future. If we act unilaterally, we do not know today what support we might have from some allies, how many troops it would take, what the President has in mind. A decision to use unilateral force should be postponed to a later date.
In the war on terrorism, we need more friends and allies and fewer enemies. We will get to that place if we first make a commitment to working with our allies, and only later, if necessary, authorize the use of unilateral force.
I urge my colleagues not to give our rights away in this Congress, and to reject the resolution.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. Kirk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before: The Inter-Allied Control Commission of inspectors were granted full freedom of movement, all necessary facilities, documents, and designs. Three hundred thirty- seven weapons inspectors were deployed in 11 districts.
They reported that they destroyed 33,384 cannons, 37,211,551 artillery shells, 87,000 machine guns, and 920 tons of poison gas. In sum, they reported 97 percent of artillery and 98 percent of men under arms were rendered ineffective.
These reports were not about Iraq, they were about post World War I Germany, and told us not to worry. When the Commission finally started reporting on German violations on inspections, the leading French diplomat wrote to President Wilson the following:
"Elements in each of the nations of the League will be quite naturally inclined to deny reports disturbing to their peace of mind and more or less consciously espouse the cause of the German government which will deny the said reports. We must recall the opposition of these elements at the time when Germany armed to the teeth and openly made ready the aggression of 1870 and 1914.
"To sum up, the Germans will deny, their government will discuss, and, meanwhile, public opinion will be divided, alarmed, and nervous."
In the end, Germany rearmed under the eyes of 300 international inspectors. As evidence of violations mounted, the international community lost its nerve to impose the will of international law.
This resolution offers the best hope that Secretary Powell will get inspectors, real inspectors, back to Iraq.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of our Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, today I speak of duty. This is the third time that I have stood at this podium with the question of military action in the balance. There is no more serious vote nor more sacred duty than this, deciding to ask those who serve this great country to go into harm's way.
So it is a decision that must be taken soberly and deliberately. It must be taken mindful of the regional implications, and it must balance the risks of not acting with those of not acting prudently.
Winston Churchill's book "The Gathering Storm" details the world's slide into holocaust. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that his book is subtitled "How the English-Speaking Peoples, Through Their Unwisdom, Carelessness, and Good Nature, Allowed the Wicked to Rearm." Many of us saw firsthand the consequence of that rearmament. Never again, Mr. Speaker, never again.
The issue of Iraq was never whether evil should be confronted, but how. My own questioning began in a letter to the President on September 4. My concerns were to emphasize multilateral action, understanding the implications of using military force for the United States' role in the world.
We must have a plan for the rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary. We must ensure that America's commitments to the war on terrorism and to other missions throughout the globe will be upheld.
In short, to paraphrase the great military strategist, Carl von Clausewitz, we must not take the first step in this conflict without considering the last.
This resolution, while not perfect, is a vast improvement from that originally sent by the White House. To my mind, this resolution makes clear Congress's intention that America achieve its goals multilaterally if possible. As importantly, it announces our determination to stay the course and deal with the aftermath if military action is taken.
Having achieved these clarifications, the question before the House is this: Shall we stay the hand of the miscreant, or permit the world's worst government to brandish the world's worst weapons?
I believe that, Mr. Speaker, difficult as it is, there can be only one answer. I support the resolution.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, as was so horribly demonstrated on September 11, the greatest threat to our country today comes not from the world's greatest powers but, rather, from unstable and dangerous individuals scattered across much of the world with nothing more in common than their hatred of the United States.
Some of these individuals are itinerant phantoms, like Osama bin Laden. A very few control territory and governments, like Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein.
It is for this reason that we are forced to deal with Iraq. It is not merely that Iraq's brutal and ruthless dictatorship is hostile to America, or that it has given comfort to the al Qaeda terrorists, or even that it possesses the most gruesome weapons of mass murder.
Beyond all of this, Iraq's barbaric dictator, like the al Qaeda fanatics whom he supports, is unstable and a proven killer. We cannot deal with him or the territory that he controls by terror as if it were a nation state like any other. It is not. Saddam Hussein does not merely possess chemical weapons; he has used them. He does not merely mouth hatred for the United States; it is well known that he attempted to assassinate our President. He does not merely tolerate global terrorism; he is one of its main incubators.
We must ask, however, is confronting Saddam Hussein worth the cost that we will surely have to bear if we are required to make good on our threat of force? To that we must answer that there is potentially an even heavier cost of temporizing, of doing nothing, of adding a 17th toothless U.N. resolution to the 16 that Saddam Hussein that is already violated.
What we learned on September 11 is that turning a blind eye to the metastasizing of cancer cells, of terrorist cells, is the costliest choice we can make.
What of our friends and sometime allies, such as, for example, France and Russia, who have accused us of going it alone? If we approve this resolution today without their prior agreement, will we not simply display to Saddam Hussein that the world lacks the international agreement that is necessary to win the war on terror?
To that I am afraid we must answer that if even such great nations as France and Russia cannot be convinced to see their own self-interest in protecting the civilized world from the likes of Saddam Hussein, then, in fact, the war on terrorism will indeed be compromised.
But this is not the end, it is the beginning. Just as Saddam Hussein must know that America is serious, so, too, must our friends and allies. If we vote to deny the President the backing of this Congress and think that then he can win the support of additional nations, we are delusional.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose is a good one; and we must lead. To save a nation from terrorist rule, as with Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein, protects not only the citizens of those countries but our own country and the entire world. All of us must hope that when the United Nations passes its resolution, Saddam Hussein will this time finally see reason and disarm.
But as the proverb says, he who lives only by hope will die in despair. I ask my colleagues to unite hope with reason and practicality and willingness to act. Let us support this resolution.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).
(Mr. Luther asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Luther: Mr. Speaker, the language of the resolution has been improved significantly. I will vote to give this administration authority, and I ask that this authority be exercised judiciously and morally.
Mr. Speaker, the intense debate we are having is what the American people deserve on a subject as serious as the matter before us.
Like most Americans, I believe Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and that he has stepped up his nuclear program. Left unchecked, these activities are a serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to the United States.
While this alone may not justify military action, we are living in a changed world today. The new challenges we face require a new way of thinking, and our country's leaders must make every effort to anticipate and prevent future attacks on the people of our country.
I will therefore support the resolution to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein. I am concerned that the administration initially approached the situation in Iraq in a hasty and simplistic manner. While the administration is now pursuing a more responsible course of action that could over time unify the American people and the world community, I remain concerned about the timing, ultimate objectives, international effects, long-term consequences and human cost of any large-scale invasion of Iraq.
Nevertheless, the language of the resolution has been improved significantly since proposed by the administration and Congress will have additional opportunities to consult and work with the President in the future. In supporting this resolution it is my hope and expectation that the President will use his authority in a thoughtful, measured and responsible way consistent with the moral leadership America needs to provide the world.
First, the Administration should work in concert with the global community, including our allies in the Middle East, to build an international coalition in support of our goals, as was successfully shown by the first President Bush in the Gulf War. Any plan to go it alone has the potential to inflame global mistrust of the United States and increase the possibility of renewed terrorist activity.
Second, our country must get its fiscal house in order as the war on terrorism continues. Military action is very costly and common sense dictates that our allies and other nations that benefit from ridding the world of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should also share the financial burden.
Third, it is important to have a clear plan and commitment on how to ensure stability in the region after our goals in Iraq are achieved. Disarming Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power without a concrete plan to ensure a stable and less hostile new regime would be a mistake.
Finally, the administration must continue to engage the American people, Congress, the United Nations and our international allies to build support for the disarmament of Iraq. This course is our best hope for achieving our goals without war.
Since coming to Congress in 1994, I have consistently supported an activist role for the United States in the world community. I have supported giving the administration, regardless of political party and despite intense criticism at times, the necessary military authority and resources to combat threats to our national security and to promote human rights and American values around the globe. I strongly supported our country's attacks during the 1990's on military targets in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan, and I wholeheartedly supported our country's efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo long before the tragedy of September 11th.
I will vote to give this administration similar authority and I ask that this authority be exercised judiciously and morally.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Moran of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there are compelling, fundamental reasons why this body should oppose this resolution. With great power comes great responsibility, great responsibility to conduct our foreign policy in a manner worthy of our world leadership, consistent with the international standards of conduct that we have worked so hard to establish for the better part of the 20th century. The United States must continue to act in a manner that serves as an example to the rest of the world.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress is the people's body. That is why before we offer up the lives of our sons and daughters in the cause of war, we must have the final say. The amendment that just failed was about upholding the integrity of this institution and the U.S. Constitution that must guide all our actions. We should be making Saddam Hussein irrelevant, not marginalizing the United States Congress. We make him irrelevant by disarming him, discovering and destroying all of his weapons of mass destruction and his means of delivering them.
We can accomplish that objective without leaving our allies on the sidelines or further inflaming the passions of people, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, who do not understand or trust our noble intent.
We are not the only people prepared to sacrifice our lives for the family security and individual freedoms that motivate the human race.
We oppose this resolution for the same reasons the first President Bush delayed a comparable debate until after the midterm congressional elections a decade ago, why he pressed so hard and successfully for the United Nations Security Council's support, and why he successfully achieved the support of Iraq's Arab neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a new national security strategy that, with a policy of unilateral preemption, tramples the foundation of the international rules of law that has been this generation's legacy to this small planet. We should be standing on the shoulders of the great leaders who have preceded us in this body and who are the true authors of our existing national security strategy that remains the best hope of peace and progress for all of mankind.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my part in this great debate as I began in tribute to the patriotism of every Member of this body and with special thanks to my dear friend and distinguished counterpart on the Republican side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), a combat veteran of World War II.
Over the course of the last 2 days, my colleagues have expressed many different views, but all have affirmed their commitment to safeguard our national security, to pursue peace and to wage war only as a very last resort. The depth and dignity of the debate is worthy of this great subject and of our great democracy.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our Democratic leader, my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). In the proud tradition of that great Republican Senator, Arthur Vanderberg, half a century ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) transcends parties and politics to craft and champion a bipartisan resolution that best serves the interest of our Nation. His leadership has been a true profile in courage.
Mr. Speaker, as our debate has shown, none deny the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. We differ only in the means of addressing this mounting threat; and in doing so, we grapple with two paradoxes. The first is the paradox of peace: Faced with an implacable and belligerent foe, how do we avert war? The answer, as our resolution affirms, lies not in disavowing the use of force, but in authorizing it. It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war, if necessary, that peace becomes possible. Saddam, like his mentor, Stalin, and all dictators, recoils before strength and pounces on weakness.
The second paradox, Mr. Speaker, is the paradox of leadership. Faced with skepticism from some friends and timid bystanders, how do we form the broadest possible coalition to confront Saddam? Publicly, few nations have responded to our call to arms against Iraq. Privately, as I have learned in innumerable meetings with heads of state, foreign ministers and ambassadors from the Arab world and beyond, the United States enjoys strong support. Bridging the divide between public opposition and private support requires that the United States assert leadership. Our joint resolution will demonstrate to the world our steadfast resolve. It will convince others that joining us is the best hope for securing peace. If we show the courage to lead, others will follow.
To preserve peace, we must authorize force. To build support, we must be prepared to lead. Our resolution resolves these paradoxes and represents the best means of averting war and of marshaling international cooperation. It is for these reasons that I urge support for our bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in moments we will be casting our vote and we will make history. In so doing, we dare not repeat the history of the last century, a history characterized too often by appeasement and inaction in the face of tyranny. It is a history that should haunt all of us. Let us cast a vote in favor of this resolution. It will be a vote for American leadership. It will be a vote for peace.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, I believe history tells us that supporting this resolution and empowering the President for peace is the surest chance to removing the threat to America without conflict and giving the authority to defend America and freedom, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I would quote Theodore Roosevelt, from a speech he gave in 1916 while the rest of the world was engaged in the Great War, "The belief that international public opinion, unbacked by force, has the slightest effect in restraining a powerful military nation in any course of action has been shown to be a pathetic fallacy."
Mr. Speaker, in the weeks since the Iraq policy debate came to the forefront of the national agenda, I have thought long and hard about how I would vote if it became my responsibility. This vote is the most important vote I will cast since I was elected to serve in Congress.
As Members of this august body, the people's house, it is the essence of our constitutional oath to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
It is at times like these that I reflect on the words of a man who inspired me to the cause of public service, John F. Kennedy: "I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it."
Mr. Speaker, in framing my thoughts on this momentous debate, I looked to history as a guide. I am unable to escape its harsher lessons.
I think of that lone voice in the House of Commons in the 1930s, who tried to alert his country to a growing danger. Winston Churchill warned against making agreements with an aggressor who had no intention of honoring them, all in the name of "peace." Others' reluctance to confront a growing evil resulted in countless deaths and untold suffering.
More recently, Ronald Reagan challenged America and the rest of the free world to remember its historical roots and stand up to Soviet expansionism. With the simple words, "Evil Empire," he succinctly characterized the nature of our adversary in the decades-old standoff between East and West. Man in the international community believed Ronald Reagan's abandonment of detente for his policy of peace through strength would bring war. Instead, the Soviet Union collapsed and because of the bold stand of an American president, countless millions were liberated without a shot being fired and the bright light of freedom was able to shine anew.
The age-old struggle of freedom against tyranny has entered a new century. Yet when faced with the choice of negotiating with an aggressor in the name of peace, or confronting aggression before it is too late, history's lesson is clear.
Mr. Speaker, it has been our tradition to fight for freedom and prosperity, going back to our Republic's infancy and America's lonely fight against the Barbary Pirates on the shores of Tripoli.
It is this chapter of our history that brought to mind the undesirable possibility that America would again have to confront evil on its own.
I am relieved that this is not the case in our struggle with Iraq with friends and allies like Britain, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Australia, and Qatar publicly stating their support for our efforts to rid the world of this great danger.
Yet, as we now ask the United Nations to act in the name of its own relevancy, Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask ourselves, should America's ability to defend her citizens be held hostage to countries that have more to lose, because of strong commercial ties, and less to gain from the liberation of Iraq?
We should ask ourselves, would Paris or Moscow or Beijing be in Saddam Hussein's crosshairs or would it be New York or Washington?
I have thought seriously about the concerns that dealing with Iraq would prove to be a distraction from the War on Terror.
But it's integral to the war on terror to remove one of the foremost sponsors of terrorist activity in the world. It is well known that this is a man who subsidizes suicide bombers, providing support to those who stand in the way of progress toward Mideast peace.
The War on Terror's central tenet is, if you stand with the terrorists, you will be treated as one.
Many are rightfully concerned about a long-term American commitment in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, we are already committed to the region and to Iraq. We have stationed a large military force in the region for more than a decade. We have maintained a military force throughout the Gulf region to keep the peace and enforce no-fly zones. We can and must nurture an open and democratic Iraq.
Some of those whose voices are loudest in protest of an American-led liberation of Iraq may themselves fear it will undermine their own authoritarian regimes. Is the real fear of Iran's mullahs instability or a free Iraq next door?
What excuses will be left to the leaders of a failed Palestinian state once the Saddam regime joins the tyrannies of the 20th century on the ash heap of history?
I have an 18-year-old son I took to college a little over a month ago. It never leaves my thoughts what a war means in human terms. but no member of this body should forget the consequences of inaction.
As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace."
For all these reasons, I will pray for peace. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to give President Bush the authority to needs to defend America, to defend freedom, and keep our people safe. I pray that by following history's guide, we will again find peace and freedom without using force.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr.Portman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as we reach the conclusion of this historic and dignified debate, now is the appropriate time to review the facts that compel the United States to act in self-defense and in defense of the civilized world.
The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the Iraqi regime is employing the vast wealth of his country to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in direct violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and in violation of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The fact is that the Iraqi regime is responsible for two wars against its neighbors resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
The fact is that the regime's abuse of the U.N. administered Oil For Food Program is creating catastrophic shortages of food and medicine for thousands of Iraqi women and children.
The fact is that the regime's association with terrorists undermines stability in the Middle East and threatens the security of the United States of America.
The fact is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of someone who sanctions the wholesale murder, starvation, rape and mutilation of ethnic Kurds, Shiite Muslims and other opponents is a clear and present danger to the security of the world.
Does the discovery by U.N. inspectors of detailed drawings for constructing a small nuclear device in Saddam's three as-yet- undismantled uranium enrichment facilities not sufficiently reveal the dangerous ambitions of this dictator?
Time and time again over the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, these facts have been acknowledged by all of those who have spoken. And yet opponents of this resolution continue to resist what I believe is the obvious conclusion.
Yes, the President should continue the diplomacy, should work with the United Nations to fashion stronger sanctions and a regime of coercive inspections. That work is under way as I speak. But what incentive does the Iraqi regime have to honor its international obligations if Congress fails to give the President the tools he needs to compel them to do so? What incentive is there for the United Nations to act with courage and conviction if Congress fails to do so?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wish this problem away. We must save ourselves. We must act. I support the resolution.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, because I believe the debate on this resolution is a matter of life or death for hundreds of thousands of Americans and other innocent persons and believe that it should only be done on a declaration of war by this constitutionally constituted body, this Congress, I rise to oppose this resolution.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my San Francisco neighbor and dear friend, our distinguished whip, a person of extraordinary talents and qualifications.
Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his recognition and his kind words.
First, I wish to congratulate all of the Members of the House of Representatives for the patriotism that has been demonstrated on this floor in the last 2 days. I think the American people saw something very special. They saw what we show every day, that people here love our country, are committed to its value, and are committed to and respect our men and women in uniform.
I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.
From that perspective, though, of 10 years on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise in opposition to the resolution on national security grounds. The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism. I say flat out that unilateral use of force without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on terrorism.
For the past 13 months, it will be 13 months tomorrow, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush to remove the threat of terrorism posed by the al Qaeda. Our work is not done. Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the other al Qaeda terrorist leaders have not been accounted for. We have unfinished business. We are risking the cooperation that we have from over 60 nations of having their intelligence and their cooperation in fighting this war on terrorism.
There are many, many costs involved in this war, and one of them is the cost to the war on terrorism. We cannot let this coalition unravel.
Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons. This is a threat not only from him but from other countries of concern in the past.
I want to call to the attention of my colleagues a statement about Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons that was just declassified and sent to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The question is: If we initiate an attack and he thought he was an extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack that Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons? This is a letter from George Tenet, the head of the CIA to the committee. The response: Pretty high, if we initiate the attack.
Force protection is our top priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We must protect our men and women in uniform. They are courageous. They risk their lives for our freedom, for our country. We cannot put them in harm's way unless we take every measure possible to protect them. So another cost is not only the cost on the war on terrorism but in the cost of human lives of our young people by making Saddam Hussein the person who determines their fates.
Another cost is to our economy. The markets do not like war. They do not like the uncertainty of war. Our economy is fragile as it is. The President has spoken. In his speech the other night, he talked about rebuilding Iraq's economy after our invasion. We have problems with our own economy. We must focus on building our own economy before we worry about Iraq's economy after we invade Iraq.
So let us do what is proportionate, what is appropriate, which mitigates the risk for our young people.
Another cost in addition to human lives, the cost of terrorism, cost to our economy, another cost is to our budget. This cost can be unlimited, unlimited. There is no political solution on the ground in Iraq. Let us not be fooled by that. So when we go in, the occupation, which is now being called liberation, could be interminable and so could the amount of money, unlimited that it will cost, $100-, $200 billion. We will pay any prices to protect the American people, but is this the right way to go, to jeopardize in a serious way our young people when that can be avoided?
We respect the judgments of our military leaders. It is a civilian decision to go to war, but the military leaders present us with options which they know are to be a last resort.
These costs to the war on terrorism, the loss of life, the cost to our economy, the cost in dollars to our budget, these costs must be answered for. If we go in, certainly we can show our power to Saddam Hussein. If we resolve this issue diplomatically, we can show our strength as a great country, as a great country.
Let us show our greatness. Vote no on this resolution.
