Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the work that they have done, not just on this but the whole issue of the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have always had to summon courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement. The perils of complacency were driven home to us in September of last year. We saw in tragic detail that evil is far more than some abstract concept. No longer should America allow dangers to gather and multiply. No longer should we stand idle as terrorists and terrorist states plot to murder our citizens.
As a free society, we have to defeat dangers before they ripen. The war on terrorism will be fought here at home, unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks.
President Bush certainly understands this imperative for action. The President is demonstrating the strong, moral leadership to find and defeat threats to the United States before they strike. Because once a madman like Saddam Hussein is able to deliver his arsenal, whether it is chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, there is no telling when an American city will be attacked at his direction or with his support.
A nuclear armed Iraq would soon become the world's largest safe haven and refuge for the world's terrorist organizations. Waiting to act until after Saddam has nuclear weapons will leave free nations with an awful dilemma. Will they, on the one hand, risk nuclear annihilation by confronting terrorists in Iraq or will they give in to fear by failing to confront these terrorist groups?
For that reason, regime change in Iraq is a central goal of the war on terror. It is vital because a war on terrorism that leaves the world's leading purveyor and practitioner of terror in power would be a bald failure.
Some call Hussein a diversion, but far from being a diversion, confronting Saddam Hussein is a defining measure of whether we still wage the war on terror fully and effectively. It is the difference between aggressive action and misguided passivity.
The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was thrust upon us. Our only choice is between victory or defeat.
And let us just be clear about it. In the war on terror, victory cannot be secured at a bargaining table.
Iraq's vile dictator is a central power of the axis of evil. President Bush and this Congress are committed to removing the threat from Saddam Hussein's terrorist state. Only regime change in Iraq can accomplish that objective. Only regime change can remove the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of his hands and destroying them can we be certain that terror weapons will not wind up in the hands of the terrorists.
Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a single moment. He is trying to spread that grip of fear beyond his own borders, and he is consumed with hatred for America.
But I am not here today to offer that definitive indictment of Iraq's tyrant. That has already been very clearly documented and well- established in this debate.
In the wicked litany of crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein has composed a scarlet chapter of terror. Our only responsible option is to confront this threat before Americans die. Time works to the advantage of our enemies, not ours.
Under our Constitution, America speaks through the United States Constitution; and our resolution is very, very clear. The enemies of a free and a moral people will find no safe harbor in this world.
Today, the free world chooses strength over temporizing and timidity. Terrorists and tyrants will see that the fruits of their evil will be certain destruction by the forces of democracy.
Now we seek broad support, but I am telling my colleagues that fighting this war on terrorism by committee or consensus is a certain prescription for defeat. We will defend our country by defeating terrorists wherever they may flee around the world.
None of us take the gravity of this vote and its ramifications lightly, but history informs us that the dangers of complacency and inaction far outweigh the calculated risks of confronting evil.
In the fullness of time, America will be proud that in our hour of testing we chose the bold path of action, not the hollow comfort of appeasement.
So let us just take this stand today against tyranny. Let us take this stand against terror. Let us take this stand against fear. Let us stand with the President of the United States.
I say to my colleagues, just trust the cherished principles on which we were founded. Put faith in freedom and raise our voices and send this message to the world: The forces of freedom are on the march and terrorists will find no safe harbor in this world.
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride in his judgment, wisdom and statesmanlike leadership that I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. Gephardt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Gephardt: Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago, I was fortunate to be elected by my constituents to serve in this House, and I represent today the district in which I was born. I am proud that the people of my district trust me to try to represent them every day. It is an honor that I feel every day that I walk into this building, that I am carrying the hopes and wishes of over a half a million people in Missouri, and I know today is a moment of sacred responsibility.
We come into this building hundreds of times during the year to cast very important votes, but on days like today, when we consider how we will protect our Nation, our people, the districts we come from and represent, these are the days when we must look deep inside and make sure that what we are doing is right.
Our gravest responsibility as legislators is authorizing the President to use military force. Part of the majesty of our democracy is that we do not entrust this power to one human being, the President, but we share it with a co-equal branch of this government; and in a democracy, the decision to put American lives on the line or perhaps go to war is ultimately a decision of the American people through their elected representatives.
No one wants to go to war. No one wants to put our young men and women in harm's way, and I know we hope that our actions today will avert war. But our decision is not so simple, because we must weigh the dangers of sending our young people into hostilities against the threat presented by Iraq to our citizens' safety.
Every Member of Congress must make their own decision on the level of the threat posed by Iraq and what to do to respond to that threat. I have said many times to my colleagues that each Member should be guided by his or her conscience, free from others trying to politicize the issue or questioning others' motives.
This is an issue of life and death, and the preoccupation by some to ascribe political motives to the conclusion of each of us demeans all of us and what we are here to do.
Let me say to my colleagues and my constituents in Missouri why I have decided to vote for this resolution.
First, September 11 has made all the difference. The events of that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad but also to strike us here at home. We have clear evidence now that they even desire to use weapons of mass destruction against us.
Before 9/11, we experienced the terrorist attacks on Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, on two embassies in Africa, but we did not believe it would happen here. On 9/11, it did happen here; and it can happen again.
September 11 was the ultimate wake-up call. We must now do everything in our power to prevent further terrorist attacks and ensure that an attack with a weapon of mass destruction cannot happen. The consequences of such an attack are unimaginable. We spent 50 years in a Cold War and trillions of dollars deterring a weapon of mass destruction attack on the United States by another country. Now we must prevent such an attack by terrorists who, unlike our previous adversaries, are willing to die.
In these new circumstances, deterrence well may not work. With these new dangers, prevention must work.
If my colleagues worry about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction or their components from countries, the first candidate we must worry about is Iraq. The 12-year history of the U.N. effort to disarm Iraq convinces me that Iraq is a problem that must be dealt with diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must.
I did not come to this view overnight. It has, instead, evolved over time, as we have learned the facts about the Iraqi regime with clarity. As you know, I opposed the use of force against Iran in 1991 in favor of giving sanctions more time to work. Others supported force, but thought that by dislodging Iraq from Kuwait we would neutralize the threat. In hindsight, both of these assessments were wrong.
In 1991, no one knew the extent to which Saddam Hussein would sacrifice the needs of his people in order to sustain his hold on power, deceive the international community in order to preserve his weapons of mass destruction programs, or take hostile actions against U.S. interests in the region.
Saddam Hussein's track record is too compelling to ignore, and we know that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices; and he may soon have the ability to use nuclear weapons against other nations. I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent.
As I stated in a speech in June, I believe we must confront the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly. But given the stakes involved, and the potential risks to our security and the region, we must proceed carefully and deliberately. That is why I felt it was essential to engage in negotiations in order to craft an effective and responsible authorization for the use of force, if necessary, so we can defend our Nation and enforce U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
At the insistence of many of us, the resolution includes a provision urging President Bush to continue his efforts to get the U.N. to effectively enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. I have told the President directly, on numerous occasions, that in my view, and in the view of a lot of us, he must do everything he possibly can to achieve our objectives with the support of the United Nations. His speech to the U.N. on September 12 was an excellent beginning to this effort.
Exhausting all efforts at the U.N. is essential. But let us remember why. We started the U.N. over 50 years ago. We remain the greatest advocate of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. We must do everything we can to get the U.N. to succeed. It is in our own self-interest to do that. In 1945, Harry Truman told the Senate that the creation of the U.N. constituted, in his words, an expression of national necessity. He said the U.N. points down the only road to enduring peace. He said let us not hesitate to start down that road, with God's help, and with firm resolve that we can and will reach our goal: peace and security for all Americans.
Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment. It is too high a price to pay. I am glad the President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice for resolving this matter.
This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President's authority to use force. It requires Presidential determinations before our Armed Forces may be used against Iraq, including assurances to Congress that he has pursued all diplomatic means to address this threat and that any military action will not undermine our ongoing efforts against terrorism.
Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and reporting to Congress on the administration's diplomatic and military efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, the planning for assistance, reconstruction, and regional stabilization efforts in a postconflict Iraq.
The efforts we must undertake in a postconflict Iraq could be the most enduring challenge we face in this entire endeavor, which is another reason for doing everything humanly possible to work through the U.N. to reach our goals.
Now a word on what this resolution, in my view, is not. In my view, it is not an endorsement or an acceptance of the President's new policy of preemption. Iraq is unique, and this resolution is a unique response. A full discussion of the President's new preemption policy must come at another time. But the acceptance of such a momentous change in policy must not be inferred from the language of this resolution.
It is also important to say that, thus far, the President's predominant response to 9-11 has been the use of military power. Obviously, self-defense requires the use of effective military force. But the exercise of military power is not a foreign policy. It is one means of implementing foreign policy. In the post-9-11 world, we must motivate and inform our citizens about how we construct a foreign policy that promotes universal values, improves living standards, increases freedom in all countries and, ultimately, prevents thousands and thousands of young people across this world from deciding to become terrorists. We will never defeat terrorism by dealing with its symptoms. We must get to its root causes.
In anticipation of the serious debate and vote that we have finally reached today, I have had many conversations with my colleagues and friends in this body, friends and colleagues that I respect deeply. I know for many of you this resolution is not what you want, and it is true for Democrats and some Republicans. And in some ways it is true for me. Many of my colleagues have had compelling arguments and important differences with this language. These differences do not diminish my respect or my trust for my colleagues as the true representatives of the people in this great Nation.
I believe, as a whole, the resolution incorporates the key notion that we want to give diplomacy the best possible opportunity to resolve this conflict, but we are prepared to take further steps, if necessary, to protect our Nation. I have heard in this debate some Members say they love America. I love America. I think every Member of this body loves America. That is not the issue. The issue is how to best protect America, and I believe this resolution does that.
I want to say a final word to those watching beyond our borders. To our friends around the world, I say thank you for standing with us in our time of trial. Your support strengthens the bonds of friendship between our people and the people of the world.
To our enemies, who watch this democratic debate and wonder if America speaks with one voice, I say have no doubt. We are united as a people in defending ourselves and we debate the best means for doing that. Do not mistake our resolve. Do not underestimate our determination. Do not misunderstand that we stand here today not as arguing Republicans and Democrats but as Americans, using the sacred right of free speech and thought and freedom to determine our collective course.
Finally, I thank God for those who have gone before us and used their freedom wisely, for those who have died to protect it and have created a stronger Nation and a better world because of their bravery. I pray that we may act today as wisely and courageously as those who have gone before. God bless this House. God bless America.
Mr. Speaker, as a co-author of H.J. Res. 114, I would like to take this opportunity to address certain elements of the joint resolution in order to clarify their intent.
As I stated in a speech I delivered in June, I believe we must confront the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly. But given the stakes involved and the potential risks to our security and the region, we must proceed carefully and deliberately.
That's why I felt it was essential to engage in negotiations in order to craft an effective and responsible authorization for the use of force if necessary--so we can defend our nation and enforce U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
At the insistence of many of us, the resolution includes provisions urging President Bush to continue his efforts to get the U.N. to effectively enforce its resolution against Iraq. I have told the President directly, on numerous occasions, that in my view of a lot of us, he must do everything he possibly can to achieve our objectives with the support of the United Nations. His speech to the U.N. on September 12 was an excellent beginning to this effort. Exhausting all efforts at the U.N. is essential.
Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment. That is too high a price to pay. I am glad the President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice for resolving this critical matter.
This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President's authority to use force, unlike the Administrations original proposal. The resolution and its accompanying report define the threat posed by Iraq as consisting primarily of its weapons of mass destruction programs and its support for international terrorism. They also note that we should continue to press for Iraqi compliance with all outstanding U.N. resolutions, but suggest that we only contemplate using force to implement those that are relevant to our nation's security.
As for the duration of this authorization, this resolution confines it to the continuing threat posed by Iraq; that is, its current and ongoing weapons programs and support for terrorists. We do not want Congress to provide this or subsequent Presidents with open-ended authority to use force against any future threats that Iraq might pose to the United States that are not related to its current weapons of mass destruction programs and support for international terrorism. The President would need to seek a new authorization from Congress to respond to any such future threats.
Third, this resolution requires important presidential determinations to Congress before our Armed Forces are used against Iraq. These include assurances by the President that he has pursued all diplomatic and other peaceful means to address the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and that any military action against Iraq will not undermine our ongoing efforts against terrorism. These determinations ensure that the Executive Branch remains accountable to Congress if it resorts to military force, and stays focused on the broader war on terrorism that must remain of highest priority.
Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and reporting to Congress on the Administration's diplomatic and military efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, on the planning for assistance, reconstruction and regional stabilization efforts in a post-conflict Iraq. The efforts we must undertake in a post-conflict Iraq could be the most enduring challenge we face in this entire endeavor, which is another reason for doing everything humanly possible to work through the U.N. to reach our goals.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. Armey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just take a moment to appreciate this body. I had resolved to cherish my last days in this body by being as attentive as I could to everything that I had the privilege of experiencing.
For the past 2 days, I have watched my friends in this body, from both sides of the aisle, from both sides of the issue, conduct what has to be regarded as one of the greatest debates we have seen in this body during my tenure here. I have been struck in the last 2 days with the sobriety, the thoughtfulness, the eloquence, and the respect with which the countervailing positions have been presented. And I would like to say thank you to my colleagues for letting me be part of this debate.
The distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), had a sentence in his speech we heard just a minute ago where he said we had to see the facts with clarity. To see the facts with clarity. This is not an ideological debate. This is not a debate about philosophy. This is a debate about the sober business of safety in the face of danger, honor in the face of fear, responsibility in the face of timidity. We must turn to the facts when we face issues of this gravity, and we have done that.
Intensely, for the last month or so, most of us have been looking at the facts that we hoped we would never have to pay attention to. Let me just relate some of my travels in this past month through the facts.
Is Saddam evil? Who could doubt it? The evils that this man perpetrates, as described on this floor by our young colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), from a book he read from, strike terror in the heart of the worst that we have ever seen before.
This man is evil. It is an evil that this world should never have to observe and that the poor victims, particularly those in Iraq, should not have to live with on a daily basis. The atrocities are beyond belief, beyond tolerance. And those poor people in Iraq live with it each day, afraid to leave their home, afraid to speak at their own dinner table, frightened for their children who might be tortured in order to punish the parents' careless moment.
Saddam is evil. That is a fact.
Does he have dangerous assets? More so than we thought, more so than we ever wanted to believe. And does he have an ongoing, consistent program and plan to acquire, to enhance those evil assets that are described by the term weapons of mass destruction, beyond what any of us imagined?
The acquisition of the weaponry, the resources, the resourcefulness, the ability to put together the device that would destroy hundreds of thousands in a fell swoop has never been even mitigated against by the commitments he made to the U.N. 11 years ago.
Can he strike our interests, our citizens, our land, and our responsibilities with them? Irrefutably, yes. Through the conventional means that we recognize and fear, things like SCUD missiles, yes. American people, American citizens, American resources in his immediate area, through the insidious means that would be deployed by his ongoing working relationship with a myriad of evil terrorist organizations, yes. Through simple-looking, innocent-looking little suitcases left in a train depot, a service station, an airport in Chicago, Illinois. Yes, he can strike us, our interests and our responsibilities. I know no other way to put that.
America is the most unique Nation ever in the history of the world. We have accepted responsibility for freedom, safety, and dignity of people other than ourselves. Those proud nations with those brave people that live as islands of freedom and hope within seas of threat and terror look for and understand they can depend upon the protection of the United States. That is who we are, that is who we have been, our heroes, our parents.
They spent their heroism, they spent their life all too often on foreign, distant lands fighting for the freedom of people other than themselves. No other nation has ever done that like we have done.
A nation such as Israel, not exclusively Israel, but right now in the world today, at a level of danger that is unparalleled by any other nation of the world, Israel struggles for its freedom, safety and dignity; and it is in imminent, immediate danger by a strike from Saddam Hussein. And that represents a responsibility we have, not only to what role we have played in the world, not only to our heroes who have acted it out and sacrificed, but to the character of this Nation that we cherish and protect.
I have said it as clearly as I can. To me, an attack on Israel is an attack on America; and it is imminently in danger.
Will he do so? Who can doubt that? He has a record of having done so that is deplorable in the most evil and insidious ways. The question is when will he do so; not will he do so.
Why does one violate one's own commitments to the world, to the United Nations accord with resolve, and consistently acquire these resources if you have no intent to use them? Why do you deny your own citizens the resources for food and shelter and clothing and health care in order to divert that to the expenditure on weapons of mass destruction and instruments of horror if you do not intend to use them? Why would he deny his own clear volitions in actions past if he had the resources to strike? Saddam will strike.
Is action against Saddam compliant with the character of our great Nation? I struggled with this. It was a hurdle for me for a long time. It all gets involved with this question of preemptive strike.
First of all, it is not a preemptive strike. This is a man who has consistently been in violation of his own commitments to the world for 11 years. As I put it, this snake is out of his hole. We are not striking an innocent here, we are correcting an error of complacency. So it is not a question of a new doctrine.
But even if we were to examine the doctrine of preemptive strike, let us not forget the Cuban missile crisis. An embargo on the high seas is an act of war, and the threat to us I would submit was not as dangerous as it was at that time, and it was certainly not so insidious as it is today.
There have been other instances in our history. When necessary, America does what it needs to do to keep America safe. America does have a pride which is exhibited in movies like "13 Days" for the courage that was displayed when the action was necessary.
There is an argument that this is a diversion from the war on terrorism. If we are going to conduct a war on terrorism, then we must stop that person who is most likely and most able to arm the terrorists with those things which will frighten us the most. A strike on Saddam is an integral part, a necessary part, of the war on terrorism.
Now we turn to questions about our ability. Can we be swift and decisive and conduct this operation with minimal risk to the brave men and women that we ask to carry it out?
It is possible. We saw that in Desert Storm. It is even more possible now. It will be a difficult operation, and our people will be at risk. But we have the resources and the resourcefulness, and we have the ability to plan and execute an operation that rids the world of this scourge conducted by our young men and women and their allies in such a manner to keep them at minimal risk.
That is all we can do, the moral imperative that we have, when we ask our brave young men and women who have volunteered to serve this Nation and the world in the cause of freedom, to take the field of danger, we have an obligation, and we can say we can construct the plan, outfit you in such a way, support you in such a manner that you can carry out this deed with minimal risk. We can do that. We will do that. We have an administration. We have a Secretary of Defense that respects our people.
Should we vote this resolution that says in effect that we, the Congress of the United States, the representation of the people of the United States, say, Mr. President, we trust you and we rely on you in a dangerous time to be our Commander-in-Chief and to use the resources we place at your disposal? Yes, even by two bills we will vote on later today, to protect freedom? The answer is, yes.
Mr. President, we are about to give you a great trust. Those brave young men and women who have volunteered in our Nation's military services of their own free will to take their place in history alongside the American heroes of the past deserve our respect and our support, Mr. President. We trust that you will plan for them, use them, care for them, and be guided by your own notion of tender mercies.
But we also have an obligation to the parents, the children, the siblings, the grandparents of those brave young men and women. We lend our children to the cause of liberty. I have said so many times. I do not care if he is 240 pounds of solid muscle, the brightest kid in the class, when he puts on that uniform, he is my baby and I have fear, and I demand that you treat him properly as his Commander-in-Chief.
We all have that right to expect. Can we expect that from this President? I would say so.
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking yesterday with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who remembered embarking for Desert Storm, saying good-bye to his family. At the last moment, he approached his father, proud veteran of the Korean War with his veteran's hat. His proud father put his hands on Steve's shoulder and looked at him and said, "You are the best I have to give."
Mr. President, we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, Sleep safely, my baby.
Mr. Markey: Mr. Speaker, the President has asked this Congress to support action that foresees the possibility of sending our loved ones--our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors--into combat in a foreign land. No more serious a decision ever faces Congress.
The threat that we confront is Saddam Hussein. Saddam is in a category of his own. No other head-of-state has been the subject of an 11-year international campaign to disarm and sanction him. He has invaded two of his neighbors, assassinated 16 of his own family members, tried to assassinate former President Bush, lied about his weapons buildup, fired missiles at Israel, and gassed his own people. The prospect that such a despot has biological and chemical weapons--anthrax, sarin gas, smallpox--and is nearing nuclear capability is a looming threat to millions.
We as a nation have the responsibility to stop him.
I would have preferred that we proceed in the manner outlined in the Spratt substitute, which would have given the President all the authority needed at this time to disarm Saddam. The Spratt substitute would have allowed the UN to proceed with tough "anytime-anywhere" inspections, given the UN the military backing to make those inspections work, and ensured that Saddam Hussein lost his capacity to threaten the world.
Unfortunately, the Spratt substitute failed, and we are now faced with a vote, up or down, on the broader resolution negotiated between the White House, Minority Leader Gephardt, and others.
This too would accomplish the goal of giving the President sufficient authority to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq, particularly those that address the continuing threat posed by Iraq's possession and development of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Although this is a broader resolution than the Spratt resolution, I will vote for it because it represents the best remaining hope of disarming Saddam. While the resolution does not require it, the President has said that it is his intention to continue to work towards a new UN resolution that can make the inspections program effective.
The President initially resisted going to the UN, but he changed course. He initially resisted coming to Congress to explain his purpose and to seek our support, but he changed course. We should respect the distance he has traveled towards a multilateral, measured process that includes the UN. We should support him as long as he remains on that course.
I do so today knowing full well this administration's record on the issue of nonproliferation, arms control and multilateral treaties has often been incomprehensible. At times he has spoken and acted as if he would prefer to act without allies and without the UN. Several weeks ago, the President announced a strategic doctrine that embraces the "preemptive use of force" as its touchstone. This new Bush Doctrine is dangerous and destabilizing in its own right. It makes it harder to hold together the fragile international coalition on which we rely for success in the ongoing war on terror.
The contradictions and double-standards that define his non- proliferation policy are particularly troubling. His "Axis of Evil" speech, for example, lumped together Iraq, Iran and North Korea in a turn of the phrase that is hard to untie. They have all been accused of attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Yet our response in Iran is not to use force, but to complain to the Russians about their sale of reactors to Iran that could facilitate the acquisition of nuclear weapons. And in North Korea, our response is to make our own sale of nuclear reactors to that country. The President has also failed to seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban, pursued new nuclear weapons like the earth penetrating warheads, and turned his back on the biological weapons convention. This makes no sense and belies a lack of any coherent policy at all.
It is certainly true that George W. Bush is not the first president to be self-contradictory regarding weapons of mass destruction. I have spent considerable effort during the last 26 years working to prevent the constant undermining of nonproliferation policy by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Carter Administration shipped nuclear fuel to India notwithstanding that countries' ongoing undeclared nuclear weapons program. The Reagan Administration condemned Israel in the UN for destroying Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor. The same administration promoted nuclear trade with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Both President Reagan and President Clinton allowed trade with Communist China to trump efforts to stop China from retransferring nuclear materials and technology to Pakistan.
Now it is the Bush administration that fails to connect the dots of weapons proliferation. When he promotes nuclear reprocessing, or tritium production for bombs in commercial reactors, he undermines nonproliferation. When he allows the export of sensitive nuclear technology, discards the comprehensive test ban treaty, or fails to negotiate progressive measures leading to global disarmament--as mandated by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--he strengthens the proliferators.
These decisions come back to haunt us when, as now, we find that diplomatic options are exhausted and the use of force appears necessary.
But even as our overall nonproliferation policy keeps lurching from side to side, the United States and the international community have, in the particular case of Iraq, remained focused for more than a decade on the very real menace of Saddam's drive to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against his perceived enemies.
Now, after 11 years of insufficient inspections and sanctions, we cannot stand idle. Something has to change. We have nearly exhausted the non-violent alternatives. The sanctions are contributing to a significant loss of innocent life daily. Saddam has built up his chemical and biological weapons capacities during this period and he has missiles to deliver a nuclear payload and the money to buy it. It is apparent that but for our demonstration of resolve to follow through the UN-sponsored goal of disarming him, Saddam Hussein intends to make good on his pledge to acquire nuclear weapons.
I wish the resort to force were unnecessary and, if the inspections can be made effective, armed conflict can still be avoided. But while force is a last resort, is an option that cannot be ruled out if we intend to deal effectively with Saddam Hussein.
Ms. Roybal-Allard: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues of both parties and in both chambers, the national debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq, and under what circumstances, has weighed heavily on my mind and heart.
For, clearly, sending the young men and women of our armed forces into harm's way is one of the most serious and far reaching decisions a member of Congress will ever have to make.
Like all Americans, I take pride in the fact that we are a peaceful nation, but one that will defend itself if needed against real and imminent dangers.
Like all Americans, I take very seriously our responsibility as the world's global superpower, and realize how our words and actions can have huge repercussions throughout the world.
For that reason, I attended briefings and studied the materials provided us. I have listened to the administration, my constituents, my colleagues on both sides of the issue, both sides of the aisle, and both sides of this Congress, and I remain deeply concerned about our march to war without a supportive coalition, nor a clear and moral justification.
Before making a final decision on how to cast my vote, I also asked myself, as a mother, what would I want our nation's leaders to do before sending my son, my daughter or any loved one to war.
While I support our President's efforts to keep our nation and the world safe, I firmly believe that the President has not made the case for granting him the far-reaching power to declare preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq.
There is no question that Sadam Hussein is a dangerous and unconscionable dictator with little regard for human life. And, there is no question that he must be disarmed and removed from power.
The facts presented thus far however, do not support the premise that Sadam is an immediate danger to our country. For that reason, I believe it is in the best interest of our nation and our American troops to make every possible effort to prevent war by exhausting diplomatic efforts, by giving United Nations weapons inspectors the resources and opportunity to perform their work, and by establishing a United Nations Security Council multilateral coalition to use force if necessary.
If this fails, the President can then bring his case to Congress on the need to initiate a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq because a blank check authorization for military force at this time is unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience support the administration's request for near `carte blanche' authority to wage war when the case to do so has not been justified.
I will, however, support the resolutions of my colleagues Representative Barbara Lee and Representative John Spratt. The Lee resolution urges congress to work with the United Nations using all peaceful means possible to resolve the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Spratt resolution includes similar requirements with regard to the United Nations, but also authorizes the use of force if the United Nations efforts fail.
The Spratt resolution brings responsibility and accountability to our effort to protect our country against Sadam Hussein, and makes the Administration and the Congress joint partners in any military action against Iraq. The Spratt proposal honors our nation's fundamental system of checks and balances.
And, makes it possible for me to say to my constituents, and our sons and daughters: "I did everything in my power to keep you from harm's way."
Mr. Underwood: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Guam, I would like to express my support for President Bush and the international community in forcefully addressing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq. In this regard, I strongly support the efforts of the President to seek and secure unconditional Iraqi compliance with full-fledged arms inspections. His seeking United Nations renewal and approval of these efforts is to be commended and supported by this Congress. However, while I believe that the United States must act to disarm Iraq, I hope that we do not do so alone. I support efforts to gain as much international backing as possible to meet our disarmament objective. We must act alone only if absolutely necessary and only after the international community has been given the full opportunity to support this important cause.
In the course of debate on this important issue, I believe that I must also express my concerns about the impact that an impending armed conflict in the Middle East will have on my home island of Guam. As the Member of Congress representing a district located closest to the area of concern and to the theater of operation that our Armed Forces may be increasingly engaged in as a result of this resolution, I remain acutely aware of the challenges we find ourselves confronted with today. As I indicated on the House floor last week, these challenges do not affect all communities around the country in the same way. The people of Guam will undoubtedly feel the effects of a decision to use force against Iraq in many disproportionate ways. History proves this to be the case.
Servicemen and women from Guam will likely find themselves contributing to the war effort in higher numbers per capita than most other U.S. jurisdictions. Sadly, this may result in higher casualties for our service members than it would for other communities. During each major war of the last century, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War, Guam endured disproportionate military casualties of native sons per capita in the United States. Today, our people serve disproportionately in high numbers in the armed services. While this demonstrates our support for the nation's military, it also underscores our vulnerability to war's disproportionate effects on our community.
Although, we would inevitably witness a build-up in military activity on our island, the economy of Guam would be adversely impacted by any decision to go to war. We are directly economically challenged by this impending armed conflict because our economy is primarily based on tourism. Eighty percent of our visitors come from Japan and nothing is more disconcerting to Japanese tourists than the prospect of war and conflict. If the situation which occurred in Guam immediately after the Gulf War crisis or immediately after September 11 of last year again unfolds as a result of an armed conflict with Iraq, we will see a dramatic downturn in visitor arrivals which in turn will further weaken our struggling economy.
However, despite these probable disproportionate effects, for which we will prepare to cope with, I stand in strong support to the use of force should Saddam Hussein continue to pose an imminent threat to regional and world peace and security. His efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction are just as troubling to us in Guam as they are for the rest of the country. His weapons of mass destruction stockpile and capability must be permanently eliminated. His threatening and deplorable behavior must be confronted and stopped. His flagrant violation of international law must be directly dealt with and his disarmament obligation must be compelled. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I understand, through voluminous testimony that has been presented to the committee over the past few weeks, that this is a matter of serious importance that demands our immediate action.
Guam has time and time again done its part to support the foreign and military policy of the United States in the Western Pacific region. In 1975, more than 115,000 evacuees from the fall of Vietnam were repatriated via Guam as part of Operation New Life. In 1996, 6,600 Kurdish refugees who feared retaliation by Saddam Hussein were housed and comforted on Guam as part of Operation Pacific Haven. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Guam has served as a vital part of our national effort to protect our homeland and an essential military base in the war against terrorism. Combat aircraft capable of intercepting and diverting any unauthorized or threatening aircraft that would approach the continental United States from the Pacific, was quickly positioned on Guam as part of Operational Noble Eagle. Andersen Air Force Base has served as a critical air bridge for airlift in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Here again, we find ourselves ready to support the nation during this urgent situation, ready to do our part in the effort to further rid the world of terror.
As our country prepares to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime, I want to reiterate the people of Guam's support for our troops and Guam's role to assist our nation in our national security needs in the Western Pacific region.
