Mr. Hastings of Florida: Mr. Speaker, we are about to set the course for our nation's foreign policy that will impact the rest of this century, and we are about to decide the destiny of many of our young men and women.
There is not doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat to the United States. He has violated every U.N. Security Council Resolution and has committed unspeakable atrocities against his own people. If there is an axis of evil, then Saddam Hussein is its lynchpin. However, the question before the Congress today is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a threat. The question is what do we do about it? And when? And how?
To begin, war must be the last option, not the first solution. We must demonstrate to the world that we will continue to exhaust diplomatic and peaceful options to protect our security and national interests.
As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we must demand a Resolution that allows unhampered--any time any place--access to any and all areas within Iraq for inspection, and we must equip the inspection teams with thousands of coalition forces to ensure both their protection and the United Nations' commitment to peace.
A preemptive strike will have serious repercussions on the entire Middle East region. While the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is obvious, it is equally obvious that any aggressive actions taken by the United States will prompt Saddam Hussein to strike back not only on the U.S. directly, but also on our allies and interests in the region, and specifically, Israel.
The provocation of an Iraqi strike by the U.S. is the last thing we should be doing as Israel continues to seek peace with the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon. Should Iraq attack Israel, as it did in 1991, Israel will respond--and who can blame them?
This won't be a war that Israel has asked for, but it may well be one they are forced to engage in. I do not want to have to explain to my constituents why I voted for a war that guarantees the injury or death of Israelis.
While there is not doubt in my mind that the U.S. can prosecute a war to successful conclusion, I remind the Commander in Chief that the men and women of our Armed Forces are already fully engaged in a war on terrorism.
In addition to that war, we have military commitments in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. We also have over 3 thousand troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, almost 5 thousand in Saudi Arabia, over 4 thousand in Kuwait, and another 5 thousand in Serbia, to name a few. How will a war with Iraq, and make no mistake, this will be a full-fledged war, affect our peacekeeping and peace enforcement obligations in these and other parts of the world?
H.J. Res 114 lacks even the barest essentials for good foreign policy and is bereft of any consideration of global politics. It does not include any short or long term planning. I submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, and my Resolution included a number of preconditions that the President would have been forced to follow, prior to receiving authority from Congress to engage U.S. troops in war.
Those preconditions included verification that all peaceful means to obtain compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions have been exhausted, a commitment that the war on terrorism remain the nation's highest priority, a plan for stabilizing a free Iraq, and a commitment to protect the health and safety of the Iraqi people. I am sorry that the full House was not to permitted to vote on my proposal.
We are about to determine the destiny of far too many of our nation's young men and women. We must be absolutely certain that peaceful options have been exhausted and that we have achievable goals for stability in the region.
I am not yet certain that we have these plans or have exhausted these options. I will not support H.J. Res 114, or any other Resolution that authorizes a preemptive military strike against another nation, until these preconditions have been met. I urge my colleagues to adhere to these same standards.
Mr. Bilirakis: Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, I came to this floor and voted, with a heavy heart, to authorize military action against Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Sadly, I rise today to support another resolution which once again authorizes the use of military force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I think everyone agrees that military action, especially unilateral action, should never be undertaken lightly, and that judicious thought must be given to the consequences of such action. While I strongly believe that diplomacy is always preferable, it has become clear to me that we can no longer afford to ignore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.
It has been well documented by previous speakers today that since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the threats posed by Iraq have actually increased rather than diminished. For more than a decade, Saddam has persisted in violating numerous United Nations resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. At the same time, he has consistently tried to circumvent U.N. economic sanctions against his brutal regime. Iraq continues to breach its international obligations by pursuing its efforts to develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking nuclear weapons capability and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Given his abysmal record for violating international obligations, there is no reason to believe that Saddam can be trusted to abide by his most recent promises for cooperation. Rather than making a true commitment to international peace, his latest statements are nothing more than ruse designed to give him ore time to further strengthen his own arsenal of weapons to use against us and our allies.
We cannot sit idly by and let Saddam Hussein wreck havoc on the world. Nor can we afford to wait until another terrorist attack claims the lives of more innocent Americans. History has taught us that there are severe consequences for inaction against a brutal dictator.
The United States is unique because it is the only country whose very existence was based on an idea--the idea of freedom; it is an idea that must be constantly guarded. It is a noble but a fragile thing that can be stolen or snuffed out if not protected.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the use of military force can be avoided but we cannot shy away from it out of fear. Giving the president the authority to use military force as a last resort may be the best way to avoid actually having to us it at all.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 114.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about the question of life or death as we have considered the steps we will take to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The Constitution was not created for us to be silent. It is a body of law that provides the roadmap of democracy in this country, and like any roadmap, it is designed to be followed.
Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed his own people in the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with his neighbors in the region. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the gulf war, and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be needed in the future to defend the United States.
Right now, however, we are moving too far too quickly with many alarmist representations yet undocumented. There is no proof that our Nation is in imminent danger, because if there were, every single member of this body would rightfully expect and approve of the President acting immediately to protect the country.
It is not too late for peace. With tough weapons inspections and strict adherence to the Security Council resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction, war can still be averted if we are willing to pursue aggressive diplomacy. Since we are a just nation, we should wield our power judiciously--restraining where possible for the greater good.
We should make good on the promise to the people that we made in the passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. We should do all that we can to assist the people of Iraq because as President Dwight Eisenhower said, "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
Mr. Gonzalez Mr. Speaker, all Members of Congress agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and tyrannical man. He is the enemy of the United States and all other civilized nations and his ability to wage biological and chemical warfare must eventually be extinguished. But this can and must be accomplished without imperiling the security of our citizens or the moral integrity that has characterized the United States as the greatest democracy in the world.
Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility in the decision to wage war and invade another country. This resolution makes possible a unilateral declaration of war against Iraq based on the sole determination of the President. He can do this without exhausting multi-national efforts and for any reason he deems appropriate. This is an overly broad delegation of authority from the legislative branch to the executive branch which is contrary to Constitutional authority.
Mr. Speaker, the substitute offered by Congressman Spratt, which failed today, would have told the United Nations, Saddam Hussein and the entire world that the United States insists on unrestricted inspections, an abbreviated and absolute inspection timetable, strict standards of verification and accountability, and disarmament by any appropriate means at the proper time. Under this substitute, failure to accomplish these goals under U.N. auspices would have resulted in a vote in the U.S. Congress on whether to proceed unilaterally. This approach was the superior, more reasoned choice . . . both in responsibly protecting the American people and remaining faithful to Congress' Constitutional duties.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a smart man wins a war, a wise man avoids a war. Today Congress did not act wisely.
Mr. Pascrell: Mr. Speaker, many years from now, when those so inclined decide to examine the Congress of this era, I am confident that they will find ours to be a thoughtful, involved House, one that judiciously examined every issue essential to the defense and freedom of our Nation and her allies.
For 3 days, members marched to the floor to offer their support for, or opposition to, this bipartisan resolution. Indeed, the true essence of democracy has been displayed on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am proud to have been a part of the dialogue concerning this important issue of our time.
And it was with much deliberation, consultation, and discussion that I came to support the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq if that force becomes necessary and if all other means of eliminating this threat fail.
Let me be clear. This is not a declaration of war from the Congress. This was Congress ensuring that the President has the authority he needs to deal with the very real threat of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat. He is the epitome of malevolence. Indeed, the record of this murderous regime has been outlined forcefully in this body, and by our Commander in Chief.
Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He waged war with Iran; he invaded Kuwait. For the last 11 years he has defied the will of the entire planet as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations Security Council.
I know of no thinking person who argues against the profound necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology. We all agree on the menace he poses and desire a world where he is not a factor.
Saddam Hussein's repeated defiance when it comes to permitting weapons inspections is a strong indication that his regime poses a very real threat to the civilized world right now.
Ultimately, I believe that Saddam Hussein is dangerous. Dangerous in his country, dangerous to his region, and dangerous to the United States. Therefore I feel that giving the President the authority to use force against Iraq is an important matter of international-national security. Iraq poses an immediate biological and chemical threat to 50,000 American troops in the Middle East. This exacerbates the already enormous instability in the region.
However, I do not give the President this authority without reservation. To be sure, in my view, there are still important lingering questions that demand further discussion from the President and this Administration.
For example, should military force be required, when what? After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve?
Why have more nations thus far chosen not to join us in this coalition against the threat of Saddam? How will we share the costs of war with those allies who have joined with us?
If Iraq is truly part of our war on terror, what about those other nations that seem to fit this criteria of harboring terrorists and possessing weapons of mass destruction? Will we address those threats next, and if so, how? The President must be prepared to answer this question of why Iraq and not others.
Further, we must make absolutely certain that whatever is done in Iraq does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12 months ago--the war on terrorism. Al Queada has already taken thousands of our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. We cannot waver one bit in our pursuit of those who attacked this nation on September 11, 2001.
An we must continually emphasize that our nation must work with its allies. It is critical that we try to attain as much international support as possible. Working together with other nations on this front will expedite the intervention process and enhance the chances for post-war success.
It is this last point that I find absolutely critical. That is why I was a cosponsor of the Spratt substitute resolution. It mandated the administration to fully work through the possibility of securing a new resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before any pursuit of unilateral action.
Although I am disappointed that the mandate of the Spratt substitute did not pass, I am confident that as long as Congress exercises thorough oversight, then the president will proceed judiciously.
The resolution that passed the House today was negotiated with the Democratic leadership. This was a bipartisan compromise, incorporating may provisions that were left out of the President's initial draft proposal. President Bush has shown good faith thus far in his dealings with our party. It is time to unite behind our commander-in-chief.
Nobody wants this conflict to end up in war. Nobody fails to comprehend the gravity of this decision. Nobody wants one American soldier to be in harm's way.
In fact, we all hope that through the use of other means, including exhausting our diplomatic options, Iraq can be disarmed such that the world community determines that force is not necessary.
But shall that avenue fail, our nation must be prepared to protect its citizens fully and completely from those who wish us harm.
Indeed, it is imperative that the United States speaks with one voice to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve to protect and defend this nation, and the House accomplished this today.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne. These brave men and women may likely be among the first soldiers called into duty in the event we go to war with Iraq. The 101st was called into service during Operation Desert Storm, and more recently they continue to serve their country with pride in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is an evil man who cannot be trusted. Almost everyone in this esteemed body agrees with that statement. If we allow Saddam to develop or obtain weapons of mass destruction, how then will we be able to stop him? As the President said on Monday night, we don't fully know what his weapons capabilities are, and we need to have our inspectors go to Iraq to find out. If Saddam continues to defy the will of the United Nations Security Council and of the global community, we must act.
No one wants to go to war with Iraq. I would prefer that the men and women at Fort Campbell, who I represent, not be forced to leave their families. However, I know that they are ready for another "rendezvous with destiny" should they be called upon.
Four years ago, an overwhelming majority of this House, including many of those who now speak out against action in Iraq, voted to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of our government. What has changed since then? Has Saddam allowed weapons inspectors full unfettered access in Iraq? Has he destroyed his weapons of mass destruction and stopped programs to develop these weapons? The answer is no.
Saddam has defied the U.N. Security Council and the global community by ignoring countless U.N. resolutions. Our Commander-in-Chief has called upon this great body to give him the authority to hold Saddam accountable. We must Act.
After World War II, when what some have deemed our "greatest generation" fought for freedom in Europe and in the Pacific, we promised ourselves "never again." Never again would we allow tyrannical dictators to threaten the global peace and to use unjust and immoral force against his own or other people. Unfortunately, again may be happening. I know that this generation will live up to its calling, and someday, we may just be calling those brave men and women our greatest generation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is not only important for our security, but for the security of the entire free world.
Mr. Moore Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
Because this action could ultimately send our sons and daughters to war, my decision to support this resolution is one I have considered very carefully. I have spent the past several months gathering information from experts in this and previous administrations, from other experts in the field, and from my constituents in Kansas. I have spoken to community leaders, religious leaders, and my family.
When I began this process, I stated my belief that the President should present to Congress, the American people, and the international community a compelling case for intervention in Iraq. I have been presented with evidence and intelligence--some of it classified-- regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that we must take action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
This resolution is not the same as the measure originally proposed by the White House. The resolution is a compromise agreed to by the President and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. It requires that the President exhaust all diplomatic options and notify Congress before implementing military action. Diplomacy must be our Nation's first priority in resolving the crisis in Iraq. I hope the use of force won't be necessary. But in order for diplomacy to be successful, the threat to use force must be credible.
The resolution also encourages the President to work with our allies and the United Nations in dealing with Saddam. We were successful in the Persian Gulf War and, more recently, in Afghanistan by working cooperatively with our allies and the United Nations. That policy should guide the President and Congress as we confront the threat from Iraq.
As a father and grandfather, this decision that could send our sons and daughters to war is the most difficult one I have faced as your congressman. But we must confront Saddam's threat to our security. And we must keep America safe. The resolution allows us to do that.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical and biological weapons. There is also no question that he is working to develop a nuclear capability. He could be in possession of a working nuclear device in a matter of several months to a few years.
There is also no question that Saddam has shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other countries and his own people. And there is growing evidence of his willingness to share his weapons with terrorists and rogue agents who might use those weapons against America.
Saddam's aggressive nature knows few bounds. He represents a clear and present danger to the United States, our citizens, and our interests in the world. Based upon the evidence and intelligence I have reviewed, I believe Iraq presents a clear threat to the United States. I will support and vote for the use of force resolution the President and congressional leadership agreed to on October 2. This measure gives the President the authority he needs to enforce the U.N. resolutions Iraq has violated, while limiting the scope and duration of the authority to address the current threats posed by Iraq.
There's an old saying: "Politics stops at the water's edge." That is the case here. We must show the world that we are united in our determination to protect our Nation and our people from threat posed by Iraq.
Mr. Holt: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. "Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war," he asked? "Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?" His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security?
I will vote "no" on this resolution.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency.
I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now.
As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will an attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.
Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA recently reported that Iraq is much more likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a U.S.-led invasion can no longer be deterred.
In addition, I am also concerned that an American invasion of Iraq would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americanism, giving rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt that we would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the United States. And the ensuing anti-American sentiment could reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one that America has largely neglected.
The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also simply failed to explain to the American public what our responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?
This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. Instead, we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, not by taking unilateral military action. If we consult actively with our allies in the region, with NATO, with the U.N. Security Counsel, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run.
As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last resort.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in violation of the rules of the House and directs the Sergeant-at-Arms to restore order.
Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?
Mr. Kucinich: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kucinich moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res. 114 to the Committee on International Relations with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Page 9, after line 2, insert the following:
(c) Additional Requirement.--Prior to the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force, the President shall transmit to Congress a report, in unclassified form, that addresses the impact of such use of force on the national security interests of the United States. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1)(A) An estimate of the costs associated with military action against Iraq, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, and an estimate of the costs associated with the reconstruction of Iraq, as determined by the Secretary of State.
(B) An estimate by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget of any additional funding to pay the costs referred to in subparagraph (A) to be derived from one of more of the following:
(i) Offsetting reductions in other Federal programs.
(ii) Increases in Federal revenues.
(iii) Increases in public borrowing.
(2) An analysis by the Secretary of the Treasury of the impact on the United States economy likely to result from military action against Iraq, including the impact on the gross domestic product, the unemployment rate, the Federal Funds rate, and the financial markets.
(3) An estimate by the Secretary of Energy of any change in the price of crude oil and downstream products likely to result from military action against Iraq and an analysis of the impact of such change on the United States economy.
(4) A comprehensive plan developed by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for United States financial and political commitment to provide short-term humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq and to provide long-term economic and political stabilization assistance for Iraq.
(5) An assurance by the Secretary of Defense that all United States Armed Forces to be deployed pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in subsection (a) have been provided with equipment to protect against chemical and biological agents (A) in levels sufficient to meet minimum required levels previously established by the Department of Defense, and (B) in conditions that are neither defective nor expired.
(6) An estimate by the Secretary of Defense of the number of United States military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties that would result from military action against Iraq, including an estimate of the number of such casualties that would result from military actions in and around Baghdad.
(7) A comprehensive statement by the Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of State that details the nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq, and the effects, if any, military action against Iraq would have on the broader war on terrorism, including, but not limited to, the effect on the support of United States allies in the Middle East.
(8) An analysis by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Comptroller General of the assertions of the intelligence community with respect to Iraq's current capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction. In the preceding sentence, the term "intelligence community" has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947.
(9) A comprehensive analysis by the Secretary of State of the effect on the stability of Iraq and the region of any change in the government of Iraq that may occur as the result of United States military action, including, but not limited to, the effect on the national aspirations of the Kurds, Turkey and its continued support for United States policy in the region, the economic and political impact on Jordan and the stability of the Jordanian Monarchy, and the economic and political stability of Saudi Arabia.
(10) A comprehensive analysis by the Secretary of State of the long-term impact of a preemptive first strike attack by United States Armed Forces against Iraq on the stability of the United States and the world. The analysis should include, but not be limited to, the impact on regional conflicts involving the Russian Federation and the Republic of Georgia, Pakistan and India, Israel and the Palestinians, and the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. The analysis should also include the long-term impact on the United States of the international sentiment that a preemptive first strike attack by United States Armed Forces against Iraq would breach international law.
Page 9, line 3, strike "(c)" and insert "(d)".
Mr. Kucinich (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. Kucinich.: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms Lee).
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
We know that for every action there is a reaction. We do not know what danger lies before us. Every American has the right to know what price in terms of human lives and economic resources that they will have to pay. We owe them some answers. This is about life or death. We owe them answers to the questions the gentleman from Ohio has raised and will raise, and far more. In a democracy the people have a right to know.
Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my colleague and neighbor.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
In the Committee on International Relations, I offered this language embodied in the Kucinich recommittal motion: if we give the President the authority to radically change, to radically change, our decades-old military doctrine of containment and deterrence, we need answers to questions the American people are asking. If we strike Iraq on our own, will our coalition against terrorism fracture? Most of our allies in the war on terror oppose U.S. unilateral action against Iraq. And what will a unilateral strike tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to attack Georgia to chase down Chechneyan rebels? Does it set an international precedent for China to go into Taiwan or to deal even more harshly with Tibet? Does it embolden India, Pakistan, or both, each with nuclear weapons from going to war to protect their interests in Kashmir? And if we win a unilateral war, will we be responsible for unilaterally rebuilding Iraq?
This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the administration can detail what it plans to do and how we deal with the consequences of our actions. Vote "yes" on the recommittal motion.
Mr. Kucinich:. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes.
The joint resolution, H.J. Res. 114, gives the President the authority to use all necessary force at his discretion. This motion to recommit is neutral on this central point. And I know there are people on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the proposition before us, who are interested in knowing that, that that resolution does not take a position on the underlying bill. But with power comes responsibility, and in a democracy the responsibility is to the people. This motion to recommit would assign the administration with the responsibility to inform the American people on key questions raised by a use of force in Iraq, questions that Members on both sides of this proposition have raised.
The American people want to know what will use of force in Iraq cost, and how will it be paid for. With budget cuts? With more borrowing? With tax increases? The American people want to know what financial commitment the administration is making to address humanitarian consequences of a use of force in Iraq. The American people want to know what impact will the use of force in Iraq have on the economy of the United States and on the important price of oil. The American people want to know how a use of force in Iraq will affect efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks. The American people want to know these things because they know that ultimately they will be required to pay the price. They are entitled to answers, and the motion to recommit ensures that they will get those answers before they get the bill.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, I have sat in on several meetings where the Department of Defense, Inspector General, and the General Accounting Office have informed the Congress that 250,000 biological and chemical protective suits are defective; 250,000 of these suits are defective, but the Department of Defense cannot account for them. This motion before us would help protect our troops by requiring assurance that the United States Armed Forces deployed have been provided with functioning equipment to protect against chemical and biological agents in sufficient levels and that this equipment is not defective. Mr. Speaker, this becomes particularly urgent since the Central Intelligence Agency has just informed the Congress that if the United States invades Iraq, Saddam Hussein can be expected to use whatever biological or chemical weapons he may have.
Whatever our position on the war, I am certain that we want to protect our troops who would be called upon to put their lives on the line to protect this country. This is an example of the information which the American people have a right to know.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate for our Nation. People on both sides of this proposition as to whether or not the United States should pursue action against Iraq are doing the best they can to represent our country. All of us love our country; but our love of country should include our desire to get answers on behalf of our constituents, answers on behalf of those who would be called to serve overseas. So it is in that spirit that I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this proposition to join in support of this motion to recommit with instructions.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): Is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. Hyde: I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit; and if anybody wants detailed reasons, I suggest they read it. It sets up roadblocks that I think are virtually insurmountable.
In the thousands of words we have heard in the last couple of days uttered on Iraq, a few important truths emerge. First, Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous person. The history of his regime is one of unrestrained violence against Iran, against Kuwait, against the Kurds, against the Shias, and against others whose only offense is to oppose his despotic regime. Secondly, he hates America. Thirdly, he is making a feverish attempt to arm with weapons of immeasurable destructive capacity; and when he is ready, he will use them.
Do you remember the first time you saw the films of the mushroom cloud engulfing Hiroshima and then you learned about the deadly effect of radiation on humans? That was 1945. Does the fact that modern thermal nuclear weapons would unleash a thousand times the destructive power of Hiroshima worry you at all? You might ask why are we debating this resolution at this moment in time. The answer should be apparent: September 11, which was more than a wake-up call. It shook us out of a long, deep sleep and held us by the throat. It taught us there are people in the world willing to destroy themselves to gratify their hatred and we had better take them seriously.
We tend to visualize what we call weapons of mass destruction in terms of bombs reducing buildings to rubble, but missiles can carry bombs with chemical and biological agents that can poison a city as well as destroy its infrastructure. Either way, it is death and destruction on a horrendous scale. Is such an attack imminent? Did we know Pearl Harbor was imminent? Did we know the World Trade Center attacks were imminent? The willingness to destroy must never marry the capability to destroy. And Santayana was right, those who do not read history are condemned to relive it.
In a book written sometime after, I suppose, in the 1940's by William C. Bullit, who was our first ambassador to Russia appointed by President Roosevelt called "The Great Globe Itself," he said: "To beat our swords into plowshares while the spiritual descendants of Genghis Khan stalk the earth is to die and leave no descendants."
The world looks to us for leadership. The world looks to us for strength and resolve. We make no demands for territory or commercial advantage. All we want is a peaceful world. "If you love peace, prepare for war," said the ancient Romans. There are ideals and ideas worth fighting for. They are the civilizing forces that make life worth living, that respect the dignity that is every person's entitlement. Those ideals and principles are under attack and we must defend them. By supporting the President, we send a message to the forces of conquest and chaos that America, the West, is not as decadent as they may think. Support the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Speaker pro tempore: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Kucinich:. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker pro tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 101, nays 325, not voting 5, as follows:
| Roll No. 454 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--101 | ||||
| Allen | Baldwin | Barrett | Becerra | Blumenauer |
| Bonior | Brown (FL) | Brown (OH) | Capps | Capuano |
| Carson (IN) | Clay | Clayton | Clyburn | Condit |
| Conyers | Coyne | Crowley | Cummings | Davis (IL) |
| DeFazio | DeGette | Delahunt | Dingell | Doggett |
| Eshoo | Evans | Farr | Fattah | Filner |
| Frank | Green (TX) | Harman | Hastings (FL) | Hilliard |
| Hinchey | Hinojosa | Holt | Honda | Hooley |
| Inslee | Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Jefferson | Johnson, E. B. |
| Jones (OH) | Kaptur | Kilpatrick | Kleczka | Kucinich |
| Lee | Lewis (GA) | Maloney (NY) | Markey | Matsui |
| McCollum | McDermott | McGovern | Meehan | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Miller, George | Moran (VA) | Napolitano | Neal |
| Oberstar | Obey | Olver | Owens | Pascrell |
| Pastor | Paul | Payne | Pelosi | Rangel |
| Rodriguez | Roybal-Allard | Rush | Sabo | Sanchez |
| Sanders | Sawyer | Schakowsky | Scott | Slaughter |
| Solis | Stark | Tauscher | Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) |
| Tierney | Towns | Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) | Velazquez |
| Watson (CA) | Watt (NC) | Waxman | Wexler | Woolsey |
| Wu | ||||
| Nays--NAYS--325 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Aderholt | Akin | Andrews |
| Armey | Baca | Bachus | Baird | Baker |
| Baldacci | Ballenger | Barcia | Barr | Bartlett |
| Barton | Bass | Bentsen | Bereuter | Berkley |
| Berman | Berry | Biggert | Bilirakis | Bishop |
| Blagojevich | Blunt | Boehlert | Boehner | Bonilla |
| Bono | Boozman | Borski | Boswell | Boucher |
| Boyd | Brady (PA) | Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Bryant |
| Burr | Burton | Buyer | Callahan | Calvert |
| Camp | Cannon | Cantor | Capito | Cardin |
| Carson (OK) | Castle | Chabot | Chambliss | Clement |
| Coble | Collins | Combest | Cooksey | Costello |
| Cox | Cramer | Crane | Crenshaw | Cubin |
| Culberson | Cunningham | Davis (CA) | Davis (FL) | Davis, Jo Ann |
| Davis, Tom | Deal | DeLauro | DeLay | DeMint |
| Deutsch | Diaz-Balart | Dicks | Dooley | Doolittle |
| Doyle | Dreier | Duncan | Dunn | Edwards |
| Ehlers | Ehrlich | Emerson | Engel | English |
| Etheridge | Everett | Ferguson | Flake | Fletcher |
| Foley | Forbes | Ford | Fossella | Frelinghuysen |
| Frost | Gallegly | Ganske | Gekas | Gephardt |
| Gibbons | Gilchrest | Gillmor | Gilman | Gonzalez |
| Goode | Goodlatte | Gordon | Goss | Graham |
| Granger | Graves | Green (WI) | Greenwood | Grucci |
| Gutknecht | Hall (TX) | Hansen | Hart | Hastings (WA) |
| Hayes | Hayworth | Hefley | Herger | Hill |
| Hilleary | Hobson | Hoeffel | Hoekstra | Holden |
| Horn | Hostettler | Houghton | Hoyer | Hulshof |
| Hunter | Hyde | Isakson | Israel | Issa |
| Istook | Jenkins | John | Johnson (CT) | Johnson (IL) |
| Johnson, Sam | Jones (NC) | Kanjorski | Keller | Kelly |
| Kennedy (MN) | Kennedy (RI) | Kerns | Kildee | Kind (WI) |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kirk | Knollenberg | Kolbe |
| LaFalce | LaHood | Lampson | Langevin | Lantos |
| Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | Latham | LaTourette | Leach |
| Levin | Lewis (CA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder | Lipinski |
| LoBiondo | Lofgren | Lowey | Lucas (KY) | Lucas (OK) |
| Luther | Lynch | Maloney (CT) | Manzullo | Mascara |
| Matheson | McCarthy (MO) | McCarthy (NY) | McCrery | McHugh |
| McInnis | McIntyre | McKeon | McNulty | Menendez |
| Mica | Millender-McDonald | Miller, Dan | Miller, Gary | Miller, Jeff |
| Mollohan | Moore | Moran (KS) | Morella | Murtha |
| Myrick | Nadler | Nethercutt | Ney | Northup |
| Norwood | Nussle | Osborne | Ose | Otter |
| Oxley | Pallone | Pence | Peterson (MN) | Peterson (PA) |
| Petri | Phelps | Pickering | Pitts | Platts |
| Pombo | Pomeroy | Portman | Price (NC) | Pryce (OH) |
| Putnam | Quinn | Radanovich | Rahall | Ramstad |
| Regula | Rehberg | Reyes | Reynolds | Riley |
| Rivers | Roemer | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher |
| Ros-Lehtinen | Ross | Rothman | Royce | Ryan (WI) |
| Ryun (KS) | Sandlin | Saxton | Schaffer | Schiff |
| Schrock | Sensenbrenner | Serrano | Sessions | Shadegg |
| Shaw | Shays | Sherman | Sherwood | Shimkus |
| Shows | Shuster | Simmons | Simpson | Skeen |
| Skelton | Smith (MI) | Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Smith (WA) |
| Snyder | Souder | Spratt | Stearns | Stenholm |
| Strickland | Stupak | Sullivan | Sununu | Sweeney |
| Tancredo | Tanner | Tauzin | Taylor (MS) | Taylor (NC) |
| Terry | Thomas | Thornberry | Thune | Thurman |
| Tiahrt | Tiberi | Toomey | Turner | Upton |
| Visclosky | Vitter | Walden | Walsh | Wamp |
| Waters | Watkins (OK) | Watts (OK) | Weiner | Weldon (FL) |
| Weldon (PA) | Weller | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) |
| Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Wynn | Young (AK) | Young (FL) |
| NOT VOTING--5 | ||||
| Gutierrez | McKinney | Ortiz | Roukema | Stump |
Messrs. Baird, Goss, Latham, Portman, Gary G. Miller of California, SMITH of Michigan, and LUTHER, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. DeGette, and Mr. Matsui changed their vote from "nay" to "yea."
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. Waters Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454 I inadvertently voted "nay". I intended to vote "yea".
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood): The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296, nays 133, not voting 3, as follows:
| Roll No. 455 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--296 | ||||
| Ackerman | Aderholt | Akin | Andrews | Armey |
| Bachus | Baker | Ballenger | Barcia | Barr |
| Bartlett | Barton | Bass | Bentsen | Bereuter |
| Berkley | Berman | Berry | Biggert | Bilirakis |
| Bishop | Blagojevich | Blunt | Boehlert | Boehner |
| Bonilla | Bono | Boozman | Borski | Boswell |
| Boucher | Boyd | Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Bryant |
| Burr | Burton | Buyer | Callahan | Calvert |
| Camp | Cannon | Cantor | Capito | Carson (OK) |
| Castle | Chabot | Chambliss | Clement | Coble |
| Collins | Combest | Cooksey | Cox | Cramer |
| Crane | Crenshaw | Crowley | Cubin | Culberson |
| Cunningham | Davis (FL) | Davis, Jo Ann | Davis, Tom | Deal |
| DeLay | DeMint | Deutsch | Diaz-Balart | Dicks |
| Dooley | Doolittle | Dreier | Dunn | Edwards |
| Ehlers | Ehrlich | Emerson | Engel | English |
| Etheridge | Everett | Ferguson | Flake | Fletcher |
| Foley | Forbes | Ford | Fossella | Frelinghuysen |
| Frost | Gallegly | Ganske | Gekas | Gephardt |
| Gibbons | Gilchrest | Gillmor | Gilman | Goode |
| Goodlatte | Gordon | Goss | Graham | Granger |
| Graves | Green (TX) | Green (WI) | Greenwood | Grucci |
| Gutknecht | Hall (TX) | Hansen | Harman | Hart |
| Hastert | Hastings (WA) | Hayes | Hayworth | Hefley |
| Herger | Hill | Hilleary | Hobson | Hoeffel |
| Hoekstra | Holden | Horn | Hoyer | Hulshof |
| Hunter | Hyde | Isakson | Israel | Issa |
| Istook | Jefferson | Jenkins | John | Johnson (CT) |
| Johnson (IL) | Johnson, Sam | Jones (NC) | Kanjorski | Keller |
| Kelly | Kennedy (MN) | Kennedy (RI) | Kerns | Kind (WI) |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kirk | Knollenberg | Kolbe |
| LaHood | Lampson | Lantos | Latham | LaTourette |
| Lewis (CA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder | LoBiondo | Lowey |
| Lucas (KY) | Lucas (OK) | Luther | Lynch | Maloney (NY) |
| Manzullo | Markey | Mascara | Matheson | McCarthy (NY) |
| McCrery | McHugh | McInnis | McIntyre | McKeon |
| McNulty | Meehan | Mica | Miller, Dan | Miller, Gary |
| Miller, Jeff | Moore | Moran (KS) | Murtha | Myrick |
| Nethercutt | Ney | Northup | Norwood | Nussle |
| Osborne | Ose | Otter | Oxley | Pascrell |
| Pence | Peterson (MN) | Peterson (PA) | Petri | Phelps |
| Pickering | Pitts | Platts | Pombo | Pomeroy |
| Portman | Pryce (OH) | Putnam | Quinn | Radanovich |
| Ramstad | Regula | Rehberg | Reynolds | Riley |
| Roemer | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher | Ros-Lehtinen |
| Ross | Rothman | Royce | Ryan (WI) | Ryun (KS) |
| Sandlin | Saxton | Schaffer | Schiff | Schrock |
| Sensenbrenner | Sessions | Shadegg | Shaw | Shays |
| Sherman | Sherwood | Shimkus | Shows | Shuster |
| Simmons | Simpson | Skeen | Skelton | Smith (MI) |
| Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Smith (WA) | Souder | Spratt |
| Stearns | Stenholm | Sullivan | Sununu | Sweeney |
| Tancredo | Tanner | Tauscher | Tauzin | Taylor (MS) |
| Taylor (NC) | Terry | Thomas | Thornberry | Thune |
| Thurman | Tiahrt | Tiberi | Toomey | Turner |
| Upton | Vitter | Walden | Walsh | Wamp |
| Watkins (OK) | Watts (OK) | Waxman | Weiner | Weldon (FL) |
| Weldon (PA) | Weller | Wexler | Whitfield | Wicker |
| Wilson (NM) | Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Wynn | Young (AK) |
| Young (FL) | ||||
| Nays--133 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Allen | Baca | Baird | Baldacci |
| Baldwin | Barrett | Becerra | Blumenauer | Bonior |
| Brady (PA) | Brown (FL) | Brown (OH) | Capps | Capuano |
| Cardin | Carson (IN) | Clay | Clayton | Clyburn |
| Condit | Conyers | Costello | Coyne | Cummings |
| Davis (CA) | Davis (IL) | DeFazio | DeGette | Delahunt |
| DeLauro | Dingell | Doggett | Doyle | Duncan |
| Eshoo | Evans | Farr | Fattah | Filner |
| Frank | Gonzalez | Gutierrez | Hastings (FL) | Hilliard |
| Hinchey | Hinojosa | Holt | Honda | Hooley |
| Hostettler | Houghton | Inslee | Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) |
| Johnson, E. B. | Jones (OH) | Kaptur | Kildee | Kilpatrick |
| Kleczka | Kucinich | LaFalce | Langevin | Larsen (WA) |
| Larson (CT) | Leach | Lee | Levin | Lewis (GA) |
| Lipinski | Lofgren | Maloney (CT) | Matsui | McCarthy (MO) |
| McCollum | McDermott | McGovern | McKinney | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Menendez | Millender-McDonald | Miller, George | Mollohan |
| Moran (VA) | Morella | Nadler | Napolitano | Neal |
| Oberstar | Obey | Olver | Owens | Pallone |
| Pastor | Paul | Payne | Pelosi | Price (NC) |
| Rahall | Rangel | Reyes | Rivers | Rodriguez |
| Roybal-Allard | Rush | Sabo | Sanchez | Sanders |
| Sawyer | Schakowsky | Scott | Serrano | Slaughter |
| Snyder | Solis | Stark | Strickland | Stupak |
| Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) | Tierney | Towns | Udall (CO) |
| Udall (NM) | Velazquez | Visclosky | Waters | Watson (CA) |
| Watt (NC) | Woolsey | Wu | ||
| NOT VOTING--3 | ||||
| Ortiz | Roukema | Stump | ||
So the joint resolution was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
