Promoting a peaceful approach to solving social, political and economic problems! |
[Page: H7739] GPO's PDF---
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 574, proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on the legislative day of Wednesday, October 9, 2002, all time for debate on the joint resolution, as amended, under section 1 of House Resolution 574 had expired.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 107-724.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. LEE
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by Ms. Lee:
Strike the preamble and insert in lieu thereof the matter preceding the resolved clause, below, and strike the text and insert in lieu thereof the matter following the resolved clause, below:
Whereas on April 6, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq accepted the provisions
[Page: H7740] GPO's PDF
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of ``all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto'', and ``all ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and related major parts and repair and production facilities'';
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;
Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the creation of a United Nations special commission to ``carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical, and missile capabilities'' and to assist and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the ``destruction, removal or rendering harmless'' of all nuclear-related items and in developing a plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance;
Whereas United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) between 1991 and 1998 successfully uncovered and destroyed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, nuclear weapons research and development facilities, and Scud missiles, despite the fact that the Government of Iraq sought to obstruct their work in numerous ways;
Whereas in 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq and have not returned since;
Whereas Iraq is not in compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, and additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, and this noncompliance violates international law and Iraq's ceasefire obligations and potentially endangers United States and regional security interests;
Whereas the true extent of Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by such development to the United States and allies in the region are unknown and cannot be known without inspections;
Whereas the United Nations was established for the purpose of preventing war and resolving disputes between nations through peaceful means, including ``by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional arrangements, or other peaceful means'';
Whereas the United Nations remains seized of this matter;
Whereas the President has called upon the United Nations to take responsibility to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the United Nations under existing United Nations Security Council resolutions;
Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of thousands of people at risk, including members of the United States armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and civilian populations in neighboring countries;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may also undermine United States diplomatic relations with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with many other allies;
Whereas a preemptive unilateral United States first strike could both set a dangerous international precedent and significantly weaken the United Nations as an institution; and
Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral United States military action against Iraq and subsequent occupation may be significant in terms of United States casualties, the cost to the United States treasury, and harm to United States diplomatic relations with other countries: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international relations in the 21st century.
Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war.
Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic options.
My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections and enhanced containment.
It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term consequences for the United States of codifying the President's announced doctrine of preemption.
The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them.
We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its people, we do not need this resolution.
If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter.
Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires sober thought and careful reflection.
President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?
I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for peace in the region.
Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we move into the 21st century.
As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process.
In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials or other weapons to Iraq . And we should install surveillance technology on the border to detect such materials.
As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
[Page: H7741] GPO's PDF
All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success.
What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice.
During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. They still should.
I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority.
We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work.
What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.
I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
It does not foreclose any future options.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin who has just been hit by a freight train.
Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children of Iraq . He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that support them.
In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq , including three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape.
On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.
While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and the world does nothing.
So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With conciliation and negotiation.
For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up.
The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security Council veto by Russia, China or France.
The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a goal.
The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity, enough fraud, enough deception. Enough.
I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive, effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not hide it.
These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility.
Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of-the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is wrong.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq . We have done that. They say, let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that.
Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise to uphold the rule of law reas on April 6, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq accepted the provisions
[Page: H7740] GPO's PDF
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of ``all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto'', and ``all ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and related major parts and repair and production facilities'';
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;
Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the creation of a United Nations special commission to ``carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical, and missile capabilities'' and to assist and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the ``destruction, removal or rendering harmless'' of all nuclear-related items and in developing a plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance;
Whereas United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) between 1991 and 1998 successfully uncovered and destroyed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, nuclear weapons research and development facilities, and Scud missiles, despite the fact that the Government of Iraq sought to obstruct their work in numerous ways;
Whereas in 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq and have not returned since;
Whereas Iraq is not in compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, and additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, and this noncompliance violates international law and Iraq's ceasefire obligations and potentially endangers United States and regional security interests;
Whereas the true extent of Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by such development to the United States and allies in the region are unknown and cannot be known without inspections;
Whereas the United Nations was established for the purpose of preventing war and resolving disputes between nations through peaceful means, including ``by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional arrangements, or other peaceful means'';
Whereas the United Nations remains seized of this matter;
Whereas the President has called upon the United Nations to take responsibility to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the United Nations under existing United Nations Security Council resolutions;
Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of thousands of people at risk, including members of the United States armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and civilian populations in neighboring countries;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may also undermine United States diplomatic relations with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with many other allies;
Whereas a preemptive unilateral United States first strike could both set a dangerous international precedent and significantly weaken the United Nations as an institution; and
Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral United States military action against Iraq and subsequent occupation may be significant in terms of United States casualties, the cost to the United States treasury, and harm to United States diplomatic relations with other countries: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international relations in the 21st century.
Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war.
Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic options.
My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections and enhanced containment.
It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term consequences for the United States of codifying the President's announced doctrine of preemption.
The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them.
We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its people, we do not need this resolution.
If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter.
Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires sober thought and careful reflection.
President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?
I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for peace in the region.
Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we move into the 21st century.
As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process.
In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials or other weapons to Iraq . And we should install surveillance technology on the border to detect such materials.
As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
[Page: H7741] GPO's PDF
All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success.
What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice.
During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. They still should.
I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority.
We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work.
What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.
I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
It does not foreclose any future options.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin who has just been hit by a freight train.
Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children of Iraq . He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that support them.
In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq , including three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape.
On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.
While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and the world does nothing.
So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With conciliation and negotiation.
For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up.
The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security Council veto by Russia, China or France.
The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a goal.
The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity, enough fraud, enough deception. Enough.
I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive, effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not hide it.
These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility.
Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of-the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is wrong.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq . We have done that. They say, let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that.
Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise to uphold the rule of law
[Page: H7742] GPO's PDF
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and as a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment asks what the American people want. They want us to work through the United Nations, work through that process, and I want to report and you all know the United Nations has said yes, we will work with you, we will go in, we will have unfettered inspections and we will work and come back. It is not an ``if'' kind of situation, it is an ``is.'' And the ``is'' is that the American people want the United Nations involved and they want the inspections to go forward and at a date determined to come back and report. Our CIA, our intelligence agency, has reported to this Congress and this Nation that there is no imminent threat that Saddam Hussein will attack America. He does not have the capability. Let the U.N. process work, and that is what the Lee amendment asks.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution entrusts to Congress alone the power to declare war, a power we should invoke with great care on evidence of a clear and present danger to our country.
President Bush has asked Congress to cede that power to him to be wielded against Iraq at a time of his choosing, with or without United Nations support, in a unilateral, preemptive strike of his own determination of the level of threat Iraq poses to our national security.
I will not surrender our constitutional authority. I will not vote for the committee resolution which confers upon the President fast-track war-making power. The President should first win U.N. Security Council approval of a new, more rigorous round of arms inspections in Iraq .
If Iraq resists the international inspectors and the mandated inspections fail, the President should then obtain a Security Council authorization of force, as was done in 1990, following which he should ask Congress for approval to wage war against Iraq . The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California respects the Constitution and the American people and will give renewed diplomacy a chance.
The Committee Resolution grants the President a new foreign policy and national security tool that charts us on a fundamental departure from historic U.S. foreign policy toward a dangerous precedent of first strike military authority for future Presidents. Once established, this resolution has enormous global consequences and will set the standard for other nations to attack preemptively, without restraint.
This policy is contrary to our entire national tradition. The United States did not pursue a policy of first strike military authority against the Soviet Union during the Cold War when the Soviets had nuclear weapons directed at U.S. cities and military targets. Nor did the United States strike first against Iraq in 1990-1991.
For most U.S. citizens, the real threat to the nation is our deteriorating domestic security: unemployment, the loss of retirement income, access to affordable prescription drugs, and corporate misfeasance and malfeasance that are eroding workers' retirement and health care security.
Our domestic economy is in serious decline. Congress and the President should, as our top priority, mobilize investments in infrastructure and job training to put the unemployed back to work. We have to mount new strategies to counter unfairly-traded imports that undermine our national security through loss of jobs and income.
Earlier this year, the President made important recommendations in this Section 201 Steel Remedy plan. Since then, however, he has backtracked, granting numerous exemptions to allow significant subsidized steel imports to pour into our nation undermining our domestic steel and iron ore industries. These are essential national security issues.
Our national security begins with domestic security, expressed in a living wage, job security, livable communities, investments in education, health care, and transportation that will ensure a better future for our nation.
The Administration's obsession with Iraq has deflected our national energies from the need to shore up domestic security. We must not allow the pursuit of terrorists at home and abroad, nor vigilance over the threat from Iraq divert our attention from critically urgent domestic priorities.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lee amendment. In effect, the Lee amendment says that if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , we must work to seek and destroy these weapons with our allies in the United Nations.
The amendment further indicates that we will not provide our stamp of approval for a unilateral, preemptive strike unless the administration can verify an imminent threat to our Nation.
Why should we change our national policy from being defenders of freedom and democracy to that of first-strike aggressors?
This amendment does not prevent the President from performing his constitutional duties. He is still the commander in chief of this great Nation. However, it is our constitutional duty to declare war. We must not delegate our authority to declare war to the executive branch.
Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the authority of this amendment and the preceding speakers, I really believe that adopting this amendment would be worse for America than taking no action at all. Adopting this amendment would sanction and legitimize the shameful gamesmanship that Saddam Hussein has shown for 11 years. Saddam views diplomacy without force as his personal game without rules.
We cannot, we dare not ignore his history.
Remember, the world builds an Oil for Food program and Saddam Hussein turns it into a way to rebuild his military and to amass personal wealth. The world builds a no-fly zone to protect innocents from Iraqi aggression. Yet Iraqi forces have fired on coalition planes hundreds of times this year alone.
The world demands and Saddam agrees to destroy his biological and chemical weapons. Yet every objective observer says he still has them and he is building more.
The world demands and Iraq agrees to bring in international weapons inspectors, but when they arrive, they are told that thousands of buildings are off limits. They are delayed, they are hassled until they go home in frustration.
Finally, Saddam declares with a smile that he does not support terrorism. Yet every day, including today, we learn more and more about the training, the resources, the protection that Saddam gives al Qaeda and others.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment, with its ambiguous references to negotiation and resumption of weapons inspections, would continue that game. In fact, it would have this House legitimize that game.
The gentlewoman from California speaks of the dangers of war, and she is right. War is very dangerous. But the last 11 years have shown that giving Saddam Hussein diplomatic cover to build weaponry, terrible weaponry, is even more dangerous.
There is a middle path: diplomacy with teeth. It is the underlying resolution that I support. Let us show that we have learned our lessons. As many have said here today and yesterday, and will say later today, the American people are watching what we do. So is the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, so is Saddam Hussein. Let us show Saddam Hussein that the games are over. They will go on no more.
Let us vote against and reject the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we should support the Lee amendment by giving unfettered, unconditional support for U.N. inspections for disarmament. part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.
[Page: H7741] GPO's PDF
All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success.
What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice.
During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. They still should.
I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority.
We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work.
What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.
I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.
It does not foreclose any future options.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin who has just been hit by a freight train.
Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children of Iraq . He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that support them.
In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq , including three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape.
On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.
While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and the world does nothing.
So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With conciliation and negotiation.
For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up.
The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security Council veto by Russia, China or France.
The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a goal.
The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity, enough fraud, enough deception. Enough.
I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive, effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not hide it.
These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility.
Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of-the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is wrong.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq . We have done that. They say, let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that.
Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise to uphold the rule of law
[Page: H7742] GPO's PDF
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and as a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment asks what the American people want. They want us to work through the United Nations, work through that process, and I want to report and you all know the United Nations has said yes, we will work with you, we will go in, we will have unfettered inspections and we will work and come back. It is not an ``if'' kind of situation, it is an ``is.'' And the ``is'' is that the American people want the United Nations involved and they want the inspections to go forward and at a date determined to come back and report. Our CIA, our intelligence agency, has reported to this Congress and this Nation that there is no imminent threat that Saddam Hussein will attack America. He does not have the capability. Let the U.N. process work, and that is what the Lee amendment asks.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution entrusts to Congress alone the power to declare war, a power we should invoke with great care on evidence of a clear and present danger to our country.
President Bush has asked Congress to cede that power to him to be wielded against Iraq at a time of his choosing, with or without United Nations support, in a unilateral, preemptive strike of his own determination of the level of threat Iraq poses to our national security.
I will not surrender our constitutional authority. I will not vote for the committee resolution which confers upon the President fast-track war-making power. The President should first win U.N. Security Council approval of a new, more rigorous round of arms inspections in Iraq .
If Iraq resists the international inspectors and the mandated inspections fail, the President should then obtain a Security Council authorization of force, as was done in 1990, following which he should ask Congress for approval to wage war against Iraq . The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California respects the Constitution and the American people and will give renewed diplomacy a chance.
The Committee Resolution grants the President a new foreign policy and national security tool that charts us on a fundamental departure from historic U.S. foreign policy toward a dangerous precedent of first strike military authority for future Presidents. Once established, this resolution has enormous global consequences and will set the standard for other nations to attack preemptively, without restraint.
This policy is contrary to our entire national tradition. The United States did not pursue a policy of first strike military authority against the Soviet Union during the Cold War when the Soviets had nuclear weapons directed at U.S. cities and military targets. Nor did the United States strike first against Iraq in 1990-1991.
For most U.S. citizens, the real threat to the nation is our deteriorating domestic security: unemployment, the loss of retirement income, access to affordable prescription drugs, and corporate misfeasance and malfeasance that are eroding workers' retirement and health care security.
Our domestic economy is in serious decline. Congress and the President should, as our top priority, mobilize investments in infrastructure and job training to put the unemployed back to work. We have to mount new strategies to counter unfairly-traded imports that undermine our national security through loss of jobs and income.
Earlier this year, the President made important recommendations in this Section 201 Steel Remedy plan. Since then, however, he has backtracked, granting numerous exemptions to allow significant subsidized steel imports to pour into our nation undermining our domestic steel and iron ore industries. These are essential national security issues.
Our national security begins with domestic security, expressed in a living wage, job security, livable communities, investments in education, health care, and transportation that will ensure a better future for our nation.
The Administration's obsession with Iraq has deflected our national energies from the need to shore up domestic security. We must not allow the pursuit of terrorists at home and abroad, nor vigilance over the threat from Iraq divert our attention from critically urgent domestic priorities.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lee amendment. In effect, the Lee amendment says that if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , we must work to seek and destroy these weapons with our allies in the United Nations.
The amendment further indicates that we will not provide our stamp of approval for a unilateral, preemptive strike unless the administration can verify an imminent threat to our Nation.
Why should we change our national policy from being defenders of freedom and democracy to that of first-strike aggressors?
This amendment does not prevent the President from performing his constitutional duties. He is still the commander in chief of this great Nation. However, it is our constitutional duty to declare war. We must not delegate our authority to declare war to the executive branch.
Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the authority of this amendment and the preceding speakers, I really believe that adopting this amendment would be worse for America than taking no action at all. Adopting this amendment would sanction and legitimize the shameful gamesmanship that Saddam Hussein has shown for 11 years. Saddam views diplomacy without force as his personal game without rules.
We cannot, we dare not ignore his history.
Remember, the world builds an Oil for Food program and Saddam Hussein turns it into a way to rebuild his military and to amass personal wealth. The world builds a no-fly zone to protect innocents from Iraqi aggression. Yet Iraqi forces have fired on coalition planes hundreds of times this year alone.
The world demands and Saddam agrees to destroy his biological and chemical weapons. Yet every objective observer says he still has them and he is building more.
The world demands and Iraq agrees to bring in international weapons inspectors, but when they arrive, they are told that thousands of buildings are off limits. They are delayed, they are hassled until they go home in frustration.
Finally, Saddam declares with a smile that he does not support terrorism. Yet every day, including today, we learn more and more about the training, the resources, the protection that Saddam gives al Qaeda and others.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment, with its ambiguous references to negotiation and resumption of weapons inspections, would continue that game. In fact, it would have this House legitimize that game.
The gentlewoman from California speaks of the dangers of war, and she is right. War is very dangerous. But the last 11 years have shown that giving Saddam Hussein diplomatic cover to build weaponry, terrible weaponry, is even more dangerous.
There is a middle path: diplomacy with teeth. It is the underlying resolution that I support. Let us show that we have learned our lessons. As many have said here today and yesterday, and will say later today, the American people are watching what we do. So is the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, so is Saddam Hussein. Let us show Saddam Hussein that the games are over. They will go on no more.
Let us vote against and reject the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we should support the Lee amendment by giving unfettered, unconditional support for U.N. inspections for disarmament.
[Page: H7743] GPO's PDF
Our government has a history of undermining the United Nations and has been particularly bad regarding Iraq . In 1990, we bribed and threatened and punished the Security Council to force a vote endorsing our war. We bribed poor countries with cheap Saudi oil. We bribed China with diplomatic rehabilitation and new development aid.
And we told Yemen, the only Arab country on the Council, that its vote against our war would be ``the most expensive vote you ever cast.'' And then we punished Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, with a cutoff of our entire $70 million aid package.
As we try to impose our war again on a reluctant United Nations, I fear that the Yemen precedent is being recalled at the U.N. today. I hope that our friends and our allies who might be considering a different approach in the U.N. will not be intimidated by our unilateral abuse of this multilateral institution.
The President can always call us back, if he is ready. He says he is not ready. He says war is not imminent. So why are we giving him such an order?
Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD an article from The Guardian entitled ``The U.S. Has Been Seeking to Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past 8 Years.''
The U.S. Has Been Seeking To Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past Eight Years
There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds.
Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely that ``the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war'' and ``we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands''. Mr. Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.
On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was preparing ``a major air campaign and land invasion'' to ``topple President Saddam Hussein''. The talks immediately collapsed.
Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-entering the country. The US Airforce launched bombing raids on Basra, in southern Iraq , destroying a radar system. As the Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding he inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to let the UN back in. The State Department immediately announced, with more candor than elegance, that it would ``go into thwart mode''.
It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion. The decision about which sites should be ``inspected'' would no longer be made buy the UN alone, but also by ``any permanent member of the security council'', such as the United States. The people inspecting these sites could also be chosen by the US, and they would enjoy ``unrestricted rights to free, unrestricted and immediate movement'' within Iraq , ``including unrestricted access to presidential sites''. They would be permitted to establish ``regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq'' , where they would be ``accompanied ..... by sufficient U.S. security forces to protect them''. They would have the right to declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and ``ground and air transit corridors''. They would be allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up ``encrypted communication'' networks and to seize ``any equipment'' they choose to lay hands on.
The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the U.N. team in 1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector Scott Ritter maintain that the weapons inspectors were joined that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the U.N.'s special access to collect information and encourage the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.
As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the U.S. has been undermining disarmament for years. The U.N.'s principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the security council's resolution 687, which promised that economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state, unilaterally withdrew this promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to comply. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.
The U.S. government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On October 30, 1998, the U.N. rejected a new U.N. proposal by again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the following day, the Iraqi government announced that it would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they completed around 300 operations.
On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of the report recorded that over the past month ``the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation'', but his well-publicized conclusion was that ``no progress'' has been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On December 15, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. warned him that his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq .
From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow U.N. inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His organization had not been involved in the messy business of 1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and complete the job the U.N. had almost finished. The U.S. responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal.The other member states agreed to depose him only after the United States threatened to destroy the organization if he stayed. Now Hans Blinx, the head of the new U.N. inspectorate, may also be feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after an hour-long meeting with U.S. officials, he agreed with the Americans that there should be no inspections until a new resolution had been approved.
For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help, appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the crisis in Iraq . It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the peaceful means have been averted.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution for several reasons.
First, it retains Congress' constitutional authority and obligation to publicly act on any commitment of American troops or resources to military action. Unlike the other two resolutions before us, it does not endow the President with powers that do not exist in the Constitution.
Secondly, it promotes a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It repudiates the administration's recently announced preemptive doctrine, which would change the United States from a worldwide defender of democracy into a first-strike aggressor on the world stage.
Lastly and most importantly, it does not preclude any further action by Congress, should circumstances change, despite the hand-wringing that has gone on about our inability to deal with future instances.
Of course, the President is free to come back and ask the Congress for action. This is best of the three resolutions before us, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
I have been very disappointed with a number of my colleagues who have suggested to me that the Lee amendment is not viable. I submit to them that McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we should support the Lee amendment by giving unfettered, unconditional support for U.N. inspections for disarmament.
[Page: H7743] GPO's PDF
Our government has a history of undermining the United Nations and has been particularly bad regarding Iraq . In 1990, we bribed and threatened and punished the Security Council to force a vote endorsing our war. We bribed poor countries with cheap Saudi oil. We bribed China with diplomatic rehabilitation and new development aid.
And we told Yemen, the only Arab country on the Council, that its vote against our war would be ``the most expensive vote you ever cast.'' And then we punished Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, with a cutoff of our entire $70 million aid package.
As we try to impose our war again on a reluctant United Nations, I fear that the Yemen precedent is being recalled at the U.N. today. I hope that our friends and our allies who might be considering a different approach in the U.N. will not be intimidated by our unilateral abuse of this multilateral institution.
The President can always call us back, if he is ready. He says he is not ready. He says war is not imminent. So why are we giving him such an order?
Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD an article from The Guardian entitled ``The U.S. Has Been Seeking to Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past 8 Years.''
The U.S. Has Been Seeking To Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past Eight Years
There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds.
Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely that ``the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war'' and ``we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands''. Mr. Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.
On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was preparing ``a major air campaign and land invasion'' to ``topple President Saddam Hussein''. The talks immediately collapsed.
Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-entering the country. The US Airforce launched bombing raids on Basra, in southern Iraq , destroying a radar system. As the Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding he inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to let the UN back in. The State Department immediately announced, with more candor than elegance, that it would ``go into thwart mode''.
It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion. The decision about which sites should be ``inspected'' would no longer be made buy the UN alone, but also by ``any permanent member of the security council'', such as the United States. The people inspecting these sites could also be chosen by the US, and they would enjoy ``unrestricted rights to free, unrestricted and immediate movement'' within Iraq , ``including unrestricted access to presidential sites''. They would be permitted to establish ``regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq'' , where they would be ``accompanied ..... by sufficient U.S. security forces to protect them''. They would have the right to declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and ``ground and air transit corridors''. They would be allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up ``encrypted communication'' networks and to seize ``any equipment'' they choose to lay hands on.
The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the U.N. team in 1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector Scott Ritter maintain that the weapons inspectors were joined that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the U.N.'s special access to collect information and encourage the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.
As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the U.S. has been undermining disarmament for years. The U.N.'s principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the security council's resolution 687, which promised that economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state, unilaterally withdrew this promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to comply. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.
The U.S. government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On October 30, 1998, the U.N. rejected a new U.N. proposal by again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the following day, the Iraqi government announced that it would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they completed around 300 operations.
On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of the report recorded that over the past month ``the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation'', but his well-publicized conclusion was that ``no progress'' has been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On December 15, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. warned him that his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq .
From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow U.N. inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His organization had not been involved in the messy business of 1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and complete the job the U.N. had almost finished. The U.S. responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal.The other member states agreed to depose him only after the United States threatened to destroy the organization if he stayed. Now Hans Blinx, the head of the new U.N. inspectorate, may also be feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after an hour-long meeting with U.S. officials, he agreed with the Americans that there should be no inspections until a new resolution had been approved.
For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help, appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the crisis in Iraq . It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the peaceful means have been averted.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution for several reasons.
First, it retains Congress' constitutional authority and obligation to publicly act on any commitment of American troops or resources to military action. Unlike the other two resolutions before us, it does not endow the President with powers that do not exist in the Constitution.
Secondly, it promotes a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It repudiates the administration's recently announced preemptive doctrine, which would change the United States from a worldwide defender of democracy into a first-strike aggressor on the world stage.
Lastly and most importantly, it does not preclude any further action by Congress, should circumstances change, despite the hand-wringing that has gone on about our inability to deal with future instances.
Of course, the President is free to come back and ask the Congress for action. This is best of the three resolutions before us, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
I have been very disappointed with a number of my colleagues who have suggested to me that the Lee amendment is not viable. I submit to them that
[Page: H7744] GPO's PDF
It simply says that we resolve that the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other peaceful means.
This is a peace resolution, a desire to do everything that is reasonably possible through peaceful means before we resort to what is really an unviable option, and that unviable option is war.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding time and express the reason that I come to this floor because it is with a heavy heart. I remind my colleagues, as I know all of them are very conscious of, it is a question of life and death. That is why I rise to support the Lee amendment, because I believe it does not preclude the constitutional duties that this Congress has, and that is the singular duty to declare war.
Might I note in her amendment that she specifically notes that Iraq is not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolution. She acknowledges that the additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, that they are in noncompliance and that they violate international law. Iraq cease-fire obligations potentially endanger the United States and regional security interests.
We know the dangers of Iraq . But what we also say to this body is that the President of the United States has every authority to be able to protect the United States upon the basis of imminent danger, of immediate danger. But what the President does not have, what we are seeking to do is to give him authority for a first strike without the constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war. I rise to support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment because it recognizes that in this time of crisis we have the opportunity to pursue a new vision for the world. This vision affirms the character of our Nation and refutes mistaken attempts to use violence to bring about peace. We have been down that road before. It is time to choose a new way. My constituents understand this. They are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. In fact, they wish I had more than one vote today.
A woman from Santa Rosa wrote to a local paper asking, and I quote, what would war with Iraq accomplish? U.S. aggression would only create more homeless and victimized refugees, more hatred of the United States by the rest of the world, and the death of our sons and daughters in the military. She continues: Violence only creates more violence. The United States is the greatest, the most powerful country in the world. We have the opportunity to be leaders of peace.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Lee resolution and oppose authorizing force in Iraq .
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is a woman of courage, a woman of peace. We thank her for her leadership.
I heard the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, earlier worry about our status as a sovereign Nation if this motion passes. This is a motion which makes our sovereign Nation safer. In the 21st century, the wars against terrorism, those wars require and will require international cooperation. We cannot go it alone in the 21st century. We cannot go it alone in a war against terrorism. We must have the world community with us.
We will be less safe if we do not pass this resolution. America will be less safe if we pass the resolution that the President wants. We dilute our war against terrorism, we increase the possibility of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. The al Qaeda I would think would be cheering the passage of the underlying resolution because the instability of the area, for example, in Pakistan would more likely give them a nuclear weapon. Let us work with the international community. Let us work with the United Nations. Let us follow the path of peace. Let us support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend, chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my friend and colleague from California for her active and valuable contribution to the work of the Committee on International Relations and to the work of this House. I appreciate the views of my colleague from California and I share her view that we must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein, and we all agree that war can be only our very last resort. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before us supports the diplomatic process at the United Nations and it requires the President to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war. Our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is working nonstop at the United Nations to move towards a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of this crisis, and I fully support Secretary Powell's efforts.
However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our diplomacy will achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of Damocles hangs over its head. Our joint bipartisan resolution represents that statement of resolve.
I am also concerned that my friend's amendment disregards the very serious threat posed by Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism, clearly a serious danger to the security and safety of the United States.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached with the White House is approaching a final decision in both the House and the Senate. Our chances of obtaining the support of friends and allies will be dramatically increased by our show of decisiveness and unity in this House. This is not the time to unravel an agreement that is on the verge of ratification. It is for these and many other reasons that I regretfully and respectfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the resolution, the amendment by my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the gentlewoman from California. The reason we should support her amendment is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence that any thinking person could give that says we are in any danger from Saddam Hussein today. You are in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince Georges County that we cannot find.
If you vote against the Lee substitute, you are automatically sentencing, some of you old men who have never been in service or never worn a uniform like the last speaker, thousands of Americans to sure death. You know that the President wants blood. He wants to go to war. That is why we are going through this. And so you are giving an inexperienced, desperate young man in the White House the execution lever to kill thousands of Americans. Some of you did that and you could look at the 50,000 names on the wall down on the Mall. And is Vietnam still in business? The last time I looked. Don't do it again. Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wanted to say there is a curious suggestion here that the people in the U.N. care more about American
[Page: H7745] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional action on Iraq goes back to 1990, to the 101st Congress, the 102nd Congress, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and now 107th, and there are resolutions after resolutions of instruction, of threat, of demands against Iraq and the people because of the repression they had. That is just the United States Congress, Mr. Speaker. Then let us go to the U.N. itself.
Keep in mind America is a sovereign Nation. Unlike the supporters of this amendment, I do not believe that we need to have the U.N.'s permission to defend our own national interests. That is what nations do. We cannot get mad at Germany or France if they do not stand up for something that is not in their national interest. But I do not think the U.N. should interfere with something that is in our national interest, because this attack, this terrorist attack that we are suffering from, 9-11, happened in the United States of America.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us also think about Kosovo. This Congress agreed for President Clinton to bomb Kosovo because of repression of the Muslim population by the largely Christian population, and we in America sided with the Muslims. And President Clinton, I do not know how the supporters of this amendment voted on that, but he did not sit around and say, ``I'd like to take some action in Kosovo. Gee whiz, what would the U.N. say?'' I did not hear that cry and hue from the supporters of this amendment at that time. But if we were to go to the U.N., going back to U.N. Resolution 660, violated; U.N. Resolution 678 on November 1990; Resolution 686 in March 1991; Resolution 687, April 1991; Resolution 688, April 1991; Resolution 707, August 15, 1991; October 11, 1991, Resolution 715.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. I would like to submit these for the RECORD. But the reality is that the U.N. has been calling for Iraq to act and to comply and to discontinue certain activities which they have flagrantly ignored. It is not time to go back to the U.N. for one more resolution. If the U.N. was going to act, they would have done it. They have had countless opportunities since 1991.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998. The minimum agreement here between the hawks and the doves, if you will, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is near nuclear capability. The minimum agreement is they are anti-American, they are dangerous, they are a barbaric regime. The minimum agreement, they have violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now, not waiting on the U.N.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the RECORD:
Congressional Action on Iraq 1990-2002: A Compilation of Legislation
SUMMARY
This report is a compilation of legislation on Iraq from 1990 to the present. The list is composed of resolutions and public laws relating to military action and/or diplomatic pressure to be taken against Iraq . The list does not include foreign aid appropriations bills passed since FY 1994 that deny U.S. funds to any nation in violation of the United Nations sanctions regime against Iraq . Also, measures that were not passed only in either the House or the Senate are not included (with the exception of the proposals in the 107th Congress). For a more in-depth analysis of U.S. action against Iraq , see CRS Issue Brief IB92117, Iraq , Compliance, Sanctions and U.S. Policy. This report will be updated as developments unfold.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON Iraq 1990-2002
101st Congress
H. Con. Res. 382: Expressed the sense of the Congress that the crisis created by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait must be addressed and resolved on its own terms separately from other conflicts in the region. Passed in the House: October 23, 1990.
H. J. Res. 658: Supported the actions taken by the President with respect to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and confirmed United States resolve. Passed in the House: October 1, 1990.
S. Res. 318: Commended the President for his actions taken against Iraq and called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the freezing of Iraqi assets, the cessation of all arms shipments to Iraq , and the imposition of sanctions against Iraq . Passed in the Senate: August 2, 1990.
P.L. 101-509: (H.R. 5241). Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 630). Urged the President to ensure that coalition allies were sharing the burden of collective defense and contributing financially to the war effort. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-510: (H.R. 4739). Defense Authorization Act FY 1991 (Section 1458). Empowered the President to prohibit any and all products of a foreign nation which has violated the economic sanctions against Iraq . Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-513: (H.R. 5114). The Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 (Section 586). Imposed a trade embargo on Iraq and called for the imposition and enforcement of multilateral sanctions in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-515: (H.R. 5021). Department of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 608 a & b). Restricted the use of funds to approve the licensing for export of any supercomputer to any country whose government is assisting Iraq develop its ballistic missile program, or chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capability. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
102nd Congress
P.L. 102-1: (H.J. Res. 77). Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Gave Congressional authorization to expel Iraq from Kuwait in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, which called for the implementation of eleven previous Security Council Resolutions. Became public law: January 12, 1991.
P.L. 102-138: (H.R. 1415). The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 1992 (Section 301). Stated that the President should propose to the Security Council that members of the Iraqi regime be put on trial for war crimes. Became public law: October 28, 1991.
P.L. 102-190: (H.R. 2100). Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 (Section 1095). Supported the use of ``all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1).'' Became public law: December 5, 1991.
103rd Congress
P.L. 103-160: (H.R. 2401). Defense Authorization Act FY 1994 (Section 1164). Denied defectors of the Iraqi military entry into the United States unless those persons had assisted U.S. or coalition forces and had not committed any war crimes. Became public law: November 30, 1993.
P.L. 103-236: (H.R. 2333). Foreign Relations Authorization Act FY 1994, 1995 (Section 507). Expressed the sense of Congress that the United States should continue to advocate the maintenance of Iraq's territorial integrity and the transition to a unified, democratic Iraq . Became public law: April 30, 1994.
104th Congress
H. Res. 120: Urged the President to take ``all appropriate action'' to secure the release and safe exit from Iraq of American citizens William Barloon and David Daliberti, who had mistakenly crossed Iraq's border and were detained. Passed in the House: April 3, 1995.
S. Res. 288: Commended the military action taken by the United States following U.S. air strikes in northern Iraq against Iraqi radar and air defense installations. This action was taken during the brief Kurdish civil war in 1996. Passed in the Senate: September 5, 1996.
105th Congress
H. Res. 322: Supported the pursuit of peaceful and diplomatic efforts in seeking Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq's capability to deliver and produce weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail, ``multilateral military action or unilateral military action should be taken.'' Passed in the House: November 13, 1997.
H. Res. 612: Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. Passed in the House: December 17, 1998.
H. Con. Res. 137: Expressed concern for the urgent need of a criminal tribunal to try members of the Iraqi regime for war crimes. Passed in the House: January 27, 1998.
S. Con. Res. 78: Called for the indictment of Saddam Hussein for war crimes. Passed in the Senate: March 13, 1998.
P.L. 105-174: (H.R. 3579). 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act (Section 17). Expressed the sense of Congress that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise ave been very disappointed with a number of my colleagues who have suggested to me that the Lee amendment is not viable. I submit to them that
[Page: H7744] GPO's PDF
It simply says that we resolve that the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other peaceful means.
This is a peace resolution, a desire to do everything that is reasonably possible through peaceful means before we resort to what is really an unviable option, and that unviable option is war.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding time and express the reason that I come to this floor because it is with a heavy heart. I remind my colleagues, as I know all of them are very conscious of, it is a question of life and death. That is why I rise to support the Lee amendment, because I believe it does not preclude the constitutional duties that this Congress has, and that is the singular duty to declare war.
Might I note in her amendment that she specifically notes that Iraq is not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolution. She acknowledges that the additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, that they are in noncompliance and that they violate international law. Iraq cease-fire obligations potentially endanger the United States and regional security interests.
We know the dangers of Iraq . But what we also say to this body is that the President of the United States has every authority to be able to protect the United States upon the basis of imminent danger, of immediate danger. But what the President does not have, what we are seeking to do is to give him authority for a first strike without the constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war. I rise to support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment because it recognizes that in this time of crisis we have the opportunity to pursue a new vision for the world. This vision affirms the character of our Nation and refutes mistaken attempts to use violence to bring about peace. We have been down that road before. It is time to choose a new way. My constituents understand this. They are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. In fact, they wish I had more than one vote today.
A woman from Santa Rosa wrote to a local paper asking, and I quote, what would war with Iraq accomplish? U.S. aggression would only create more homeless and victimized refugees, more hatred of the United States by the rest of the world, and the death of our sons and daughters in the military. She continues: Violence only creates more violence. The United States is the greatest, the most powerful country in the world. We have the opportunity to be leaders of peace.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Lee resolution and oppose authorizing force in Iraq .
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is a woman of courage, a woman of peace. We thank her for her leadership.
I heard the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, earlier worry about our status as a sovereign Nation if this motion passes. This is a motion which makes our sovereign Nation safer. In the 21st century, the wars against terrorism, those wars require and will require international cooperation. We cannot go it alone in the 21st century. We cannot go it alone in a war against terrorism. We must have the world community with us.
We will be less safe if we do not pass this resolution. America will be less safe if we pass the resolution that the President wants. We dilute our war against terrorism, we increase the possibility of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. The al Qaeda I would think would be cheering the passage of the underlying resolution because the instability of the area, for example, in Pakistan would more likely give them a nuclear weapon. Let us work with the international community. Let us work with the United Nations. Let us follow the path of peace. Let us support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend, chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my friend and colleague from California for her active and valuable contribution to the work of the Committee on International Relations and to the work of this House. I appreciate the views of my colleague from California and I share her view that we must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein, and we all agree that war can be only our very last resort. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before us supports the diplomatic process at the United Nations and it requires the President to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war. Our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is working nonstop at the United Nations to move towards a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of this crisis, and I fully support Secretary Powell's efforts.
However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our diplomacy will achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of Damocles hangs over its head. Our joint bipartisan resolution represents that statement of resolve.
I am also concerned that my friend's amendment disregards the very serious threat posed by Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism, clearly a serious danger to the security and safety of the United States.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached with the White House is approaching a final decision in both the House and the Senate. Our chances of obtaining the support of friends and allies will be dramatically increased by our show of decisiveness and unity in this House. This is not the time to unravel an agreement that is on the verge of ratification. It is for these and many other reasons that I regretfully and respectfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the resolution, the amendment by my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the gentlewoman from California. The reason we should support her amendment is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence that any thinking person could give that says we are in any danger from Saddam Hussein today. You are in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince Georges County that we cannot find.
If you vote against the Lee substitute, you are automatically sentencing, some of you old men who have never been in service or never worn a uniform like the last speaker, thousands of Americans to sure death. You know that the President wants blood. He wants to go to war. That is why we are going through this. And so you are giving an inexperienced, desperate young man in the White House the execution lever to kill thousands of Americans. Some of you did that and you could look at the 50,000 names on the wall down on the Mall. And is Vietnam still in business? The last time I looked. Don't do it again. Support the Lee amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wanted to say there is a curious suggestion here that the people in the U.N. care more about American
[Page: H7745] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional action on Iraq goes back to 1990, to the 101st Congress, the 102nd Congress, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and now 107th, and there are resolutions after resolutions of instruction, of threat, of demands against Iraq and the people because of the repression they had. That is just the United States Congress, Mr. Speaker. Then let us go to the U.N. itself.
Keep in mind America is a sovereign Nation. Unlike the supporters of this amendment, I do not believe that we need to have the U.N.'s permission to defend our own national interests. That is what nations do. We cannot get mad at Germany or France if they do not stand up for something that is not in their national interest. But I do not think the U.N. should interfere with something that is in our national interest, because this attack, this terrorist attack that we are suffering from, 9-11, happened in the United States of America.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us also think about Kosovo. This Congress agreed for President Clinton to bomb Kosovo because of repression of the Muslim population by the largely Christian population, and we in America sided with the Muslims. And President Clinton, I do not know how the supporters of this amendment voted on that, but he did not sit around and say, ``I'd like to take some action in Kosovo. Gee whiz, what would the U.N. say?'' I did not hear that cry and hue from the supporters of this amendment at that time. But if we were to go to the U.N., going back to U.N. Resolution 660, violated; U.N. Resolution 678 on November 1990; Resolution 686 in March 1991; Resolution 687, April 1991; Resolution 688, April 1991; Resolution 707, August 15, 1991; October 11, 1991, Resolution 715.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. I would like to submit these for the RECORD. But the reality is that the U.N. has been calling for Iraq to act and to comply and to discontinue certain activities which they have flagrantly ignored. It is not time to go back to the U.N. for one more resolution. If the U.N. was going to act, they would have done it. They have had countless opportunities since 1991.
Mr. Speaker, we have not had weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998. The minimum agreement here between the hawks and the doves, if you will, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is near nuclear capability. The minimum agreement is they are anti-American, they are dangerous, they are a barbaric regime. The minimum agreement, they have violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now, not waiting on the U.N.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the RECORD:
Congressional Action on Iraq 1990-2002: A Compilation of Legislation
SUMMARY
This report is a compilation of legislation on Iraq from 1990 to the present. The list is composed of resolutions and public laws relating to military action and/or diplomatic pressure to be taken against Iraq . The list does not include foreign aid appropriations bills passed since FY 1994 that deny U.S. funds to any nation in violation of the United Nations sanctions regime against Iraq . Also, measures that were not passed only in either the House or the Senate are not included (with the exception of the proposals in the 107th Congress). For a more in-depth analysis of U.S. action against Iraq , see CRS Issue Brief IB92117, Iraq , Compliance, Sanctions and U.S. Policy. This report will be updated as developments unfold.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON Iraq 1990-2002
101st Congress
H. Con. Res. 382: Expressed the sense of the Congress that the crisis created by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait must be addressed and resolved on its own terms separately from other conflicts in the region. Passed in the House: October 23, 1990.
H. J. Res. 658: Supported the actions taken by the President with respect to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and confirmed United States resolve. Passed in the House: October 1, 1990.
S. Res. 318: Commended the President for his actions taken against Iraq and called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the freezing of Iraqi assets, the cessation of all arms shipments to Iraq , and the imposition of sanctions against Iraq . Passed in the Senate: August 2, 1990.
P.L. 101-509: (H.R. 5241). Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 630). Urged the President to ensure that coalition allies were sharing the burden of collective defense and contributing financially to the war effort. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-510: (H.R. 4739). Defense Authorization Act FY 1991 (Section 1458). Empowered the President to prohibit any and all products of a foreign nation which has violated the economic sanctions against Iraq . Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-513: (H.R. 5114). The Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 (Section 586). Imposed a trade embargo on Iraq and called for the imposition and enforcement of multilateral sanctions in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
P.L. 101-515: (H.R. 5021). Department of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act FY 1991 (Section 608 a & b). Restricted the use of funds to approve the licensing for export of any supercomputer to any country whose government is assisting Iraq develop its ballistic missile program, or chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capability. Became public law: November 5, 1990.
102nd Congress
P.L. 102-1: (H.J. Res. 77). Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Gave Congressional authorization to expel Iraq from Kuwait in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, which called for the implementation of eleven previous Security Council Resolutions. Became public law: January 12, 1991.
P.L. 102-138: (H.R. 1415). The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 1992 (Section 301). Stated that the President should propose to the Security Council that members of the Iraqi regime be put on trial for war crimes. Became public law: October 28, 1991.
P.L. 102-190: (H.R. 2100). Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 (Section 1095). Supported the use of ``all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1).'' Became public law: December 5, 1991.
103rd Congress
P.L. 103-160: (H.R. 2401). Defense Authorization Act FY 1994 (Section 1164). Denied defectors of the Iraqi military entry into the United States unless those persons had assisted U.S. or coalition forces and had not committed any war crimes. Became public law: November 30, 1993.
P.L. 103-236: (H.R. 2333). Foreign Relations Authorization Act FY 1994, 1995 (Section 507). Expressed the sense of Congress that the United States should continue to advocate the maintenance of Iraq's territorial integrity and the transition to a unified, democratic Iraq . Became public law: April 30, 1994.
104th Congress
H. Res. 120: Urged the President to take ``all appropriate action'' to secure the release and safe exit from Iraq of American citizens William Barloon and David Daliberti, who had mistakenly crossed Iraq's border and were detained. Passed in the House: April 3, 1995.
S. Res. 288: Commended the military action taken by the United States following U.S. air strikes in northern Iraq against Iraqi radar and air defense installations. This action was taken during the brief Kurdish civil war in 1996. Passed in the Senate: September 5, 1996.
105th Congress
H. Res. 322: Supported the pursuit of peaceful and diplomatic efforts in seeking Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq's capability to deliver and produce weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail, ``multilateral military action or unilateral military action should be taken.'' Passed in the House: November 13, 1997.
H. Res. 612: Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. Passed in the House: December 17, 1998.
H. Con. Res. 137: Expressed concern for the urgent need of a criminal tribunal to try members of the Iraqi regime for war crimes. Passed in the House: January 27, 1998.
S. Con. Res. 78: Called for the indictment of Saddam Hussein for war crimes. Passed in the Senate: March 13, 1998.
P.L. 105-174: (H.R. 3579). 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act (Section 17). Expressed the sense of Congress that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
[Page: H7746] GPO's PDF
P.L. 105-235: (S.J. Res. 54). Iraqi Breach of International Obligations. Declared that by evicting weapons inspectors, Iraq was in ``material breach'' of its cease-fire agreement. Urged the President to take ``appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' Became public law: August 14, 1998.
P.L. 105-338 (H.R. 4655): Iraq Liberation Act of 1988 (Section 586). Declared that it should be the policy of the United States to ``support efforts'' to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and replace him with a democratic government. Authorized the President to provide the Iraqi democratic opposition with assistance for radio and television broadcasting, defense articles and military training, and humanitarian assistance. Became public law: October 31, 1998.
107th Congress
H.J. Res. 75: Stated that Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors was a material breach of its international obligations and constituted ``a mounting threat to the United States, its friends and allies, and international peace and security.'' Passed in the House: December 20, 2001.
S. 1170 (H.R. 4): Would prohibit the direct or indirect importation of Iraqi-origin petroleum into the United States, notwithstanding action by the Committee established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 authorizing the export of petroleum products from Iraq in exchange for humanitarian assistance. Last major action: July 12, 2001 (Referred to Senate Committee on Finance).
S. Con. Res. 133: Expresses the sense of Congress that ``the United States should not use force against Iraq , outside of the existing rules of engagement, without specific statutory authorization or a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States.'' Last major action: July 30, 2002 (Referred to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
S.J. Res. 41: Calls for the ``consideration and vote on a resolution for the use of force of the United States against Iraq before such force is deployed.'' Last major action: July 18, 2002 (Referred to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
UNSCR 678--NOVEMBER 29, 1990--VIOLATED!
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) ``and all subsequent relevant resolutions.''
Authorizes UN Member States ``to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.''
UNSCR 686--MARCH 3, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687--APRIL 3, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all ``chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.''
Iraq must ``unconditionally agree not acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material'' or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all ``ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.''
Iraq must not ``use, develop, construct or acquire'' any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq .
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688--APRIL 5, 1991--VIOLATED!
``Condemns'' repression of Iraqi civilian population, ``the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.''
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707--AUGUST 15, 1991--VIOLATED!
``Condemns'' Iraq's ``serious violation'' of UNSCR 687.
``Further condemns'' Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq .
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715--OCTOBER 11, 1991--VIOLATED!
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949--OCTOBER 15, 1994--VIOLATED!
``Condemns'' Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq .
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq .
UNSCR 1051--MARCH 27, 1996--VIOLATED!
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060--JUNE 12, 1996--VIOLATED!
``Deplores'' Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and Iraq's ``clear violations'' of previous U.N. resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115--JUNE 21, 1997--VIOLATED!
``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``clear and flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134--OCTOBER 23, 1997--VIOLATED!
``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137--NOVEMBER 12, 1997--VIOLATED!
``Condemns the continued violations by Iraq'' of previous U.N. resolutions, including its ``implicit threat to the safety of'' aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and its tampering with U.N. inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of U.N. inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154--MARCH 2, 1998--VIOLATED!
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the ``severest consequences for Iraq .''
UNSCR 1194--SEPTEMBER 9, 1998--VIOLATED!
``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with'' U.N. and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes ``a totally unacceptable contravention'' of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205--NOVEMBER 5, 1998--VIOLATED!
``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation'' with U.N. inspectors as ``a flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide ``immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284--DECEMBER 17, 1999--VIOLATED!
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, give the United Nations inspectors a chance. That is what the Lee amendment asks.
What does it do? It sets out the potential threat posed by Iraq . She says that there are dangers and that we must eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. But it gives the United Nations inspectors a process to go through diplomatically. It rejects the idea, though, of a unilateral, preemptive first strike in the absence of a verified imminent threat to the United States.
What it does not do, it does not limit the President's authority if we are in danger of a verified, imminent threat. It does not preclude pursuing other paths such as those proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Let us make it clear, the Lee amendment simply says, let us push for peace, let us destroy those weapons of mass destruction if they are there; and we think they are, but let us give diplomacy a chance. Let us not be preemptive. Let us not use first strike. Let us try to see if, with our power, we can have peace through power.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the gentlewoman from California entitled The Alternative to War. It could not be more aptly named. It seeks to commit the United States to fully engaging the diplomatic processes and to work multilaterally through the United Nations to achieve unfettered inspections of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, disarm and, indeed, dismantle.
There is no one in this Chamber who does not believe that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But the President has not made a convincing case that the Hussein regime in Iraq indeed poses an immediate threat. In fact, our own intelligence experts tell us that the most likely threat of the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Iraq would occur if the United States invaded Iraq .
What that suggests is that we should not be authorizing the President to act unilaterally, sending our brave young men and women into harm's way. Indeed, the President has most recently said that war should be the last resort.
This amendment certainly puts peace first and puts war as a last resort. Support this amendment to the resolution.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it will reward us to read the resolution we are being asked to vote upon. It is self-refuting. This resolution would have this Congress find that Iraq and Saddam Hussein unconditionally accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, their obligation to destroy their chemical and biological weapons. That was unconditional.
The resolution has us find that Iraq unconditionally accepted its obligation not to proceed with the development of nuclear weapons. The resolution has us find that Iraq agreed to immediate and unconditional inspections.
The resolution goes on to have us find that Iraq has failed to comply with these obligations over a period of more than a decade. The resolution has us find that Iraq obstructed the inspectors and ultimately expelled them in 1998.
Finally, the resolution has us find that this noncompliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, including specifically Resolution 687, quote, ``endangers U.S. security.''
That is the preamble in this resolution. That is the predicate. Then what would the resolution have us do? Pass yet one more U.N. resolution which, by its terms, lacks enforcement. Only a U.N. resolution that lacks enforcement would be acceptable if we were to pass the resolution that is before us.
What have we learned in 11 years? Surely, without at least the threat of military force, we will get exactly the same result that we have had 16 times in a row. There is a cost, indeed a much heavier cost of doing nothing, of temporizing, of adding a 17th, toothless U.N. resolution to the 16 that Saddam Hussein has already violated.
And to the charge that what we are doing is unilateral, we must say, we have already earned the cooperation of Britain, Turkey, Canada, Poland, Romania, Israel, Bulgaria, Australia, Singapore, Japan and others. If we vote to deny the President of the United States the backing of this Congress at this moment and think that then he can win the support of other nations, we are delusional.
All of us must surely hope that the United Nations passes its next resolution, that Saddam Hussein will, this time, finally see reason and disarm. But as the proverb says, He who lives only by hope will die in despair.
My colleagues, let us unite hope with reason and practicality and a willingness to act. Let us defeat this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment.
What is our goal? Our goal is to end the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through comprehensive and unfettered inspections and disable their ability to develop or deliver them.
How do we get there? Until the Lee amendment, most suggested, with a military stick. I think a carrot is more likely to succeed.
What carrot? The carrot of lifting economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for comprehensive and unfettered inspections. Offering to lift economic sanctions in exchange for unfettered inspections will rally support within Iraq and among our allies.
This positive incentive to get Iraq to comply has not and is currently not being offered by the Congress of the United States. But until we make this overture and change our policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful means and alternatives to force.
Give peace a chance, Mr. Speaker. Nonviolence, negotiations and inspections deserve a chance. Lift economic sanctions on the people of Iraq in exchange for unfettered inspections in Iraq . It will gain support within Iraq and amongst our allies.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment which would give the U.N. inspections process and multilateral diplomacy time and opportunity to work.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House without the Lee amendment takes this country and the world on a dangerous and potentially tragic course.
It is so, first of all, because the resolution violates our own Constitution because it devolves war-making authority from the Congress to the executive branch. It also puts us in violation of our commitments to the United Nations.
But fundamentally it puts us on a dangerous and potentially tragic course because if we follow the resolution, if that resolution is prosecuted by the administration and attacks Iraq unilaterally, that action will galvanize the most fundamental, radical elements of Islam.
It strengthens Wahhabism and it will bring to their cause tens of thousands of new recruits who are prepared to wage war against this country in the way it was waged on September 11 of last year. That will be the end result of the passage and prosecution of the resolution, absent the Lee amendment.
We must pass this amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I rise as an educator, a teacher who for 7 years spent my time in the schools of Pennsylvania, someone who desperately does not want to see war occur.
But I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what we are hearing on the other side, there are times when you have to stand up and you have to be bold and you have to lay down a marker.
The reason I ran for public office in the first place was that my hometown of 5,000 people had become overwhelmed by the Pagans motorcycle gang. Sixty-five of them lived in my neighborhood; all of their drug dealing was controlled from my town. If I listened to the other side, maybe to solve the problem, I should have got them all in a circle, held hands and we should have sang Kum Bay Yah. The problem is, the Pagans do not want to sing Kum Bay Yah. The Pagans do not deal in reality. The Pagans were only concerned with harming people and selling their drugs.
Saddam Hussein is a pagan. Saddam Hussein does not want to deal in realistic terms. We need to give the President the authority to rally the world opinion and the U.N. to follow through on not just the inspections but on disarming weapons of mass destruction.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side where were they during the 1990s when 37 times, 37 times, we had evidence of technology being transferred from Russia and China to Iraq and Iran? Where were they when the administration then only imposed sanctions four times? Where were they when nine times we saw chemical and biological technology being transferred into Iraq and Iran and we sat on our hands? Where were they?
Where were they in 1995 when we caught these going from Russia to Iraq ? These are guidance systems for missiles, a violation of the NTCR. Because Clinton did not want to embarrass Yeltsin we never imposed the required sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, this did not just happen. This technology has been flowing for years. Now we have Saddam equipped with chemical and biological and potentially nuclear capability. He has missiles which he has now enhanced, the same missile that sent 28 young Americans home in body bags in 1991.
Mr. Speaker, everyone wants peace. No one wants war, but there are times where we have to stand up and we have to lay down a marker and back it up with force just as I had to do as a teacher when I ran for mayor and became mayor of my hometown. The pagans did not want to listen to reason. The pagans did not want to respond to what was in the best interests of the citizens. If I had listened to the other side, somehow I would come together and somehow convince them to change their ways, and that did not happen. We fought them with force and we won, and today my hometown is prospering because the pagans no longer have their residence there.
We have to stand together and show the world with the support of this President that we will stand up to the aggression of Saddam, we will stand up to his use of chemical agents on his people, we will stand up to his potential use of biological weapons, and we will lay the foundation for a more peaceful world where the Iraqi people can enjoy the benefits of a new government.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this alternative offers a nonviolent and diplomatic way to wage the peace. We should be serious about this process of waging the peace with U.N. inspections. We should not take a bargain basement approach to U.N. inspections. We are willing to talk casually about spending billions of dollars for war. Let us spend what we need to have these U.N. inspections be credible.
I refer my colleagues to Nightline of last night, Wednesday, October 9, where the inspection process was presented in a way which ridiculed it and showed that a handful of inspectors, scientists and college professors were bullied and harassed and we sent the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein about inspections. Let us have inspections, let us pursue the diplomatic and the nonviolent alternative with the same vigor and seriousness that we will pursue a violent alternative.
Let us have full administrative support, full logistical support, transportation, everything the inspectors need to go in and conduct large numbers of inspections all over Iraq at the same time and have a chain of command that goes right to the Security Council.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from California for all of her leadership on this issue.
One of the prior speakers asked where we were in 1991 and pulled out all these examples of what war was all about. I do not know where he was in 1991, but in 1991 I was back being a prosecutor in Cuyahoga County, but had I been here I would have said let us push and continue to push to reach a resolution and a peaceful resolution.
I am not going to down anybody for their religion. I happen to be Baptist. I happen to be a Protestant, but whatever it is people are we all are a part of this world, and in this United States we talk about freedom of religion and our entitlement to be whoever we are, but all of us want peace, and if we are the big bully, if we are the big dog on the street, then we can afford to be the big dog and sit back and say come on to the table, let us use all of our resources.
I question whether or not the United States has, in fact, in many instances, put all of its power to the U.N. to allow the U.N. to be as strong as it should be. Support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.
For 40 years our policy was to contain and deter Joseph Stalin and the Soviets, to detain and deter Fidel Castro and the Cubans, to detain and deter and restrain Communist aggression by the Chinese, always without invasion. We were able to detain and deter the Soviets and the Chinese and the Communists in Cuba without invasion, but if we go first strike into Iraq the message to the world and to Putin is he can go into Georgia and chase down the Chechnyan rebels and the message to China is they can go into Taiwan and they can come down harder on Tibet and the message to the Pakistanis and the Indians is they can go into Kashmir, maybe even with their nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, go slow. Mr. President, we need aggressive, unfettered inspections in Iraq , complete, thorough, aggressive, unfettered inspections. Then go back to the United Nations. War should be a last resort.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Lee amendment.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The Chair reminds Members to address the Chair in their remarks and not directly the President when addressing the House.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last evening we completed the work on the Defense appropriations bill. That measure is designed to provide the funding whereby America is able to carry forward its responsibility in the world as the force for peace in our world. I am very pleased with the results of that bill, and while we were not discussing this with the other body yesterday, I could not help but from time to time watch the discussions of this measure on the floor.
This resolution is a very, very important statement by the American Congress. It has been crafted by some of the most capable people in both of our bodies, and I want to congratulate the chairman, as well as others who have been so involved.
[Page: H7749] GPO's PDF
I could not help but come to the floor as I watched this discussion begin regarding some substitutes for this resolution. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is most important that we reject those alternatives for the resolution is designed simply to give our Commander-in-Chief some flexibility as he goes forward in projecting our responsibilities for peace in the world.
Indeed, there are those who presume that this automatically means a war in Iraq . This resolution does not automatically take us to war. As a matter of fact, it is a tool for the Commander-in-Chief to indeed go forth with those efforts that are most important in terms of our future hopes for peace.
There is little doubt that America focused again upon the importance of our strength as a result of 9/11 just 1 year ago. There is little doubt that the world understands that a strong America is very important for peace.
I would suggest to my colleagues that the one thing that we could do to undermine that strength is to pass a resolution like this one that is before us at this moment. Indeed, my colleagues, there is much discussion about what the Commander-in-Chief has not done. In the past, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that perhaps his advisers were not as good as some would like.
We look at the Vice President, we look at the Secretary of State, we look at the Secretary of Defense. The community not so long ago was amazed at how great their strength might be. Do we presume that they have not been giving advice and counsel to the Commander-in-Chief?
Indeed, I believe they have a plan that will strengthen our ability to be a force in the world for the good.
Resolutions like this will take us exactly in the opposite direction. Let us not by actions today undermine the President's ability to lead.
At the same time, let me say that most of my colleagues know that I am a strong believer in a bipartisan force in this House. Let us not as a result of these votes today have one of our parties be the party working with the President for peace and have the other party be the party of the United Nations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment and commend my colleague from California for all of her work on behalf of this peaceful effort to resolve this issue.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that he who lives by the sword shall eventually die by the sword.
The first call that I got this morning was from a woman named Barbara Mullarkey who said, ``Danny, vote for peace.''
I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment because it gives me the opportunity to vote the will of the people in my Congressional district who do not believe that we have made the case to go to war. The President has all of the flexibility that he needs to protect us. What he does not have is the flexibility to declare war. That flexibility is left to this Congress.
Vote for the Lee amendment. Vote for peace.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Lee amendment, and I am really surprised after listening to the debate for the last 17 hours why anybody would attack it. Indeed, the Lee amendment and the Lee resolution is the same as what the President has in his resolution if we see in section 2 where the President urges the support of the United States diplomatic efforts to strictly enforce through the United Nations, to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council in the United Nations, that essentially this is the same thing that the Lee amendment does.
It seems to me that anybody who can support the President's amendment ought to support the Lee amendment. What the Lee amendment does not do is it does not leap before it looks. It says look before we leap into war, and I think the message here is very strong, that if the United States is going to leap into war before it looks. What kind of trust are we going to have with the rest of the arrangements around the world with the agreements we have had on treaties and trade treaties? What is going to happen to people who are traveling in the country? Is anybody going to be able to trust our country because we can say, well, if we do not like something we can go it alone?
It is very wise to support the Lee amendment. It is a good look before we leap.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). That is correct.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
My alternative gives the United Nations a chance to do its job while we think through the ramifications of our actions, how many lives would be lost, what will this cost our economy. It provides a very pragmatic opportunity to step back and explain to the American people the implications of authorizing a war. It will give us an opportunity to explain to the American people what our own intelligence agency means, and let me quote this, ``Our intelligence agency says should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, the probability would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action.''
Our action today could cause a reaction of catastrophic proportions, not only in terms of Saddam Hussein but in the destabilization of the Middle East and the setting of a dangerous precedent.
I plead with my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally wrong, it is financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national security interest. We must wait, we must ask these questions, we must know what the economic impact is. We must know what this does in terms of the loss of lives of our young men and women.
This is a day that we must urge reflection. We must urge this body to become attentive to the unanswered questions that are out there. If our own intelligence agencies say to us that authorizing the President's resolution to go to war; that is, supporting that effort to wage war, could be a provocative act against our country, that it could destabilize the region, that it could lead to possible terrorist action, that is very terrifying, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I rise as an educator, a teacher who for 7 years spent my time in the schools of Pennsylvania, someone who desperately does not want to see war occur.
But I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what we are hearing on the other side, there are times when you have to stand up and you have to be bold and you have to lay down a marker.
The reason I ran for public office in the first place was that my hometown of 5,000 people had become overwhelmed by the Pagans motorcycle gang. Sixty-five of them lived in my neighborhood; all of their drug dealing was controlled from my town. If I listened to the other side, maybe to solve the problem, I should have got them all in a circle, held hands and we should have sang Kum Bay Yah. The problem is, the Pagans do not want to sing Kum Bay Yah. The Pagans do not deal in reality. The Pagans were only concerned with harming people and selling their drugs.
Saddam Hussein is a pagan. Saddam Hussein does not want to deal in realistic terms. We need to give the President the authority to rally the world opinion and the U.N. to follow through on not just the inspections but on disarming weapons of mass destruction.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side where were they during the 1990s when 37 times, 37 times, we had evidence of technology being transferred from Russia and China to Iraq and Iran? Where were they when the administration then only imposed sanctions four times? Where were they when nine times we saw chemical and biological technology being transferred into Iraq and Iran and we sat on our hands? Where were they?
Where were they in 1995 when we caught these going from Russia to Iraq ? These are guidance systems for missiles, a violation of the NTCR. Because Clinton did not want to embarrass Yeltsin we never imposed the required sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, this did not just happen. This technology has been flowing for years. Now we have Saddam equipped with chemical and biological and potentially nuclear capability. He has missiles which he has now enhanced, the same missile that sent 28 young Americans home in body bags in 1991.
Mr. Speaker, everyone wants peace. No one wants war, but there are times where we have to stand up and we have to lay down a marker and back it up with force just as I had to do as a teacher when I ran for mayor and became mayor of my hometown. The pagans did not want to listen to reason. The pagans did not want to respond to what was in the best interests of the citizens. If I had listened to the other side, somehow I would come together and somehow convince them to change their ways, and that did not happen. We fought them with force and we won, and today my hometown is prospering because the pagans no longer have their residence there.
We have to stand together and show the world with the support of this President that we will stand up to the aggression of Saddam, we will stand up to his use of chemical agents on his people, we will stand up to his potential use of biological weapons, and we will lay the foundation for a more peaceful world where the Iraqi people can enjoy the benefits of a new government.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this alternative offers a nonviolent and diplomatic way to wage the peace. We should be serious about this process of waging the peace with U.N. inspections. We should not take a bargain basement approach to U.N. inspections. We are willing to talk casually about spending billions of dollars for war. Let us spend what we need to have these U.N. inspections be credible.
I refer my colleagues to Nightline of last night, Wednesday, October 9, where the inspection process was presented in a way which ridiculed it and showed that a handful of inspectors, scientists and college professors were bullied and harassed and we sent the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein about inspections. Let us have inspections, let us pursue the diplomatic and the nonviolent alternative with the same vigor and seriousness that we will pursue a violent alternative.
Let us have full administrative support, full logistical support, transportation, everything the inspectors need to go in and conduct large numbers of inspections all over Iraq at the same time and have a chain of command that goes right to the Security Council.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from California for all of her leadership on this issue.
One of the prior speakers asked where we were in 1991 and pulled out all these examples of what war was all about. I do not know where he was in 1991, but in 1991 I was back being a prosecutor in Cuyahoga County, but had I been here I would have said let us push and continue to push to reach a resolution and a peaceful resolution.
I am not going to down anybody for their religion. I happen to be Baptist. I happen to be a Protestant, but whatever it is people are we all are a part of this world, and in this United States we talk about freedom of religion and our entitlement to be whoever we are, but all of us want peace, and if we are the big bully, if we are the big dog on the street, then we can afford to be the big dog and sit back and say come on to the table, let us use all of our resources.
I question whether or not the United States has, in fact, in many instances, put all of its power to the U.N. to allow the U.N. to be as strong as it should be. Support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.
For 40 years our policy was to contain and deter Joseph Stalin and the Soviets, to detain and deter Fidel Castro and the Cubans, to detain and deter and restrain Communist aggression by the Chinese, always without invasion. We were able to detain and deter the Soviets and the Chinese and the Communists in Cuba without invasion, but if we go first strike into Iraq the message to the world and to Putin is he can go into Georgia and chase down the Chechnyan rebels and the message to China is they can go into Taiwan and they can come down harder on Tibet and the message to the Pakistanis and the Indians is they can go into Kashmir, maybe even with their nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, go slow. Mr. President, we need aggressive, unfettered inspections in Iraq , complete, thorough, aggressive, unfettered inspections. Then go back to the United Nations. War should be a last resort.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Lee amendment.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The Chair reminds Members to address the Chair in their remarks and not directly the President when addressing the House.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last evening we completed the work on the Defense appropriations bill. That measure is designed to provide the funding whereby America is able to carry forward its responsibility in the world as the force for peace in our world. I am very pleased with the results of that bill, and while we were not discussing this with the other body yesterday, I could not help but from time to time watch the discussions of this measure on the floor.
This resolution is a very, very important statement by the American Congress. It has been crafted by some of the most capable people in both of our bodies, and I want to congratulate the chairman, as well as others who have been so involved.
[Page: H7749] GPO's PDF
I could not help but come to the floor as I watched this discussion begin regarding some substitutes for this resolution. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is most important that we reject those alternatives for the resolution is designed simply to give our Commander-in-Chief some flexibility as he goes forward in projecting our responsibilities for peace in the world.
Indeed, there are those who presume that this automatically means a war in Iraq . This resolution does not automatically take us to war. As a matter of fact, it is a tool for the Commander-in-Chief to indeed go forth with those efforts that are most important in terms of our future hopes for peace.
There is little doubt that America focused again upon the importance of our strength as a result of 9/11 just 1 year ago. There is little doubt that the world understands that a strong America is very important for peace.
I would suggest to my colleagues that the one thing that we could do to undermine that strength is to pass a resolution like this one that is before us at this moment. Indeed, my colleagues, there is much discussion about what the Commander-in-Chief has not done. In the past, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that perhaps his advisers were not as good as some would like.
We look at the Vice President, we look at the Secretary of State, we look at the Secretary of Defense. The community not so long ago was amazed at how great their strength might be. Do we presume that they have not been giving advice and counsel to the Commander-in-Chief?
Indeed, I believe they have a plan that will strengthen our ability to be a force in the world for the good.
Resolutions like this will take us exactly in the opposite direction. Let us not by actions today undermine the President's ability to lead.
At the same time, let me say that most of my colleagues know that I am a strong believer in a bipartisan force in this House. Let us not as a result of these votes today have one of our parties be the party working with the President for peace and have the other party be the party of the United Nations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment and commend my colleague from California for all of her work on behalf of this peaceful effort to resolve this issue.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been told that he who lives by the sword shall eventually die by the sword.
The first call that I got this morning was from a woman named Barbara Mullarkey who said, ``Danny, vote for peace.''
I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment because it gives me the opportunity to vote the will of the people in my Congressional district who do not believe that we have made the case to go to war. The President has all of the flexibility that he needs to protect us. What he does not have is the flexibility to declare war. That flexibility is left to this Congress.
Vote for the Lee amendment. Vote for peace.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Lee amendment, and I am really surprised after listening to the debate for the last 17 hours why anybody would attack it. Indeed, the Lee amendment and the Lee resolution is the same as what the President has in his resolution if we see in section 2 where the President urges the support of the United States diplomatic efforts to strictly enforce through the United Nations, to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council in the United Nations, that essentially this is the same thing that the Lee amendment does.
It seems to me that anybody who can support the President's amendment ought to support the Lee amendment. What the Lee amendment does not do is it does not leap before it looks. It says look before we leap into war, and I think the message here is very strong, that if the United States is going to leap into war before it looks. What kind of trust are we going to have with the rest of the arrangements around the world with the agreements we have had on treaties and trade treaties? What is going to happen to people who are traveling in the country? Is anybody going to be able to trust our country because we can say, well, if we do not like something we can go it alone?
It is very wise to support the Lee amendment. It is a good look before we leap.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). That is correct.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
My alternative gives the United Nations a chance to do its job while we think through the ramifications of our actions, how many lives would be lost, what will this cost our economy. It provides a very pragmatic opportunity to step back and explain to the American people the implications of authorizing a war. It will give us an opportunity to explain to the American people what our own intelligence agency means, and let me quote this, ``Our intelligence agency says should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, the probability would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action.''
Our action today could cause a reaction of catastrophic proportions, not only in terms of Saddam Hussein but in the destabilization of the Middle East and the setting of a dangerous precedent.
I plead with my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally wrong, it is financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national security interest. We must wait, we must ask these questions, we must know what the economic impact is. We must know what this does in terms of the loss of lives of our young men and women.
This is a day that we must urge reflection. We must urge this body to become attentive to the unanswered questions that are out there. If our own intelligence agencies say to us that authorizing the President's resolution to go to war; that is, supporting that effort to wage war, could be a provocative act against our country, that it could destabilize the region, that it could lead to possible terrorist action, that is very terrifying, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the House of Representatives must say no to establishing this dangerous precedent. We must not rush to war. We must give the United Nations time to do its work. Inspections worked in the 1990s. We must use the time that the United Nations needs, use that time for us to think through, to debate, and to be truthful to the American people. They deserve it. We need to be truthful with them as to what the cost of this rush to war would mean.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Lee amendment. This amendment is another abdication of the United States' leadership in the world. It is tantamount to saying that Congress should contract out decisions on national security to foreign governments: Paris, Beijing, Damascus.
The United Nations is not an autonomous authority. It is a place to conduct diplomacy between nations. Our Nation's security and sovereignty are inextricably intertwined. We do not subrogate our sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower, must have a policy of restraint to international conflict management, but we
[Page: H7750] GPO's PDF
This amendment ties the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. We should never, ever do that. The President has spoken prudently, talking about bilateral action, meaning bringing other nations with us. Those who have been speaking here for the last hour in support of this amendment have been talking as if the United States is somehow wanting to unilaterally march off to war. They use the phrase ``give peace a chance.''
Mr. Speaker, we are the peaceful Nation. We want to work cooperatively with other nations around the world, and that is what the President is going to do. So when my colleagues say ``give peace a chance,'' it has been 10 years. We have these 16 U.N. resolutions. Let us go back into this regime of the United Nations and weapons inspections. When we look at that, the U.N. was and is hesitant to back up the violations of these 16 U.N. resolutions. Their response has been tepid.
Also, I would ask my colleagues to look with regard to how the inspectors were undermined, as Iraq would appeal directly to the sympathetic Council members and to the Secretary General. Iraq worked consistently to erode the credibility and the positions of these U.N. inspectors over the last 10 years. They would complain to the Security Council, and then the challenges of the claims of the weapons inspectors would suffice. Unfettered access was strictly a myth. Respect for Iraqi concerns relating to national security, sovereignty and dignity took precedence over the findings and destroying of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Effectively, the actions of the Secretary General, when he intervened, made the Iraqis and the inspectors equal in presenting their case before the Security Council.
With regard to Saddam Hussein's motive for having weapons of mass destruction, he believes that they are vital to his power. The regime has two experiences in which it feels its very survival is linked to the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz pointed out that hitting cities deep in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war with long-range missiles and countering human wave attacks with the massive use of chemical munitions saved Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, Baghdad believes that its possession of biological and chemical weapons during the 1991 Gulf War helped deter the United States from marching on to Baghdad.
Now, that is their dimension. That is their understanding. So Saddam will do everything he possibly can to maintain a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. So this thing about give peace a chance, well, we have given peace a chance. The President has also used words of saying that military force will be the means of last resort.
So I think the President has been very clear. We will show the United States has the resolve and power to stand up against Iraq , seek their compliance, force their word in their violations of the cease-fire; but if they do not, then the world will act and disarm Saddam Hussein and change the regime, if necessary, to bring peace and stability to the Middle East as a region.
We should vote down the Lee amendment and support the sovereignty and national dignity of this country.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support today of the Lee substitute, which I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of. I wholeheartedly support the principles of this substitute, and believe they contain a much more humane answer to the grave issue of Iraq .
Like Congresswoman BARBARA LEE I urge the United States to re-engage in the diplomatic process of diplomacy. I also would like to urge our country to remain committed to the UN inspector process. I am also in complete agreement with the Lee substitute's premise that there will likely be horrific consequences of our actions if the United States delivers a first strike against Iraq , particularly without the support of the United Nations.
Like Congresswoman LEE and many of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I stand in strong opposition to a unilateral first strike by the U.S. without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States. I would also like to emphasize that I categorically believe that we must not declare war until every diplomatic option is completely exhausted. The Bush Resolution authorizes the potential use of force immediately, long before diplomatic options have been exhausted or even fully explored. Furthermore, a unilateral first-strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Mideast region and undermine the ability of our nation to address unmet domestic priorities.
The President is asking Congress to give him a blank check. And I say today Mr. President, that your account, has come back overdrawn. This blank check gives him too much power. A blank check that forces Congress to waive its constitutional duty to declare war. A blank check that lets the President declare war, and not consult Congress until 48 hours after the attack has begun.
Not only has the President economically taken us to deficit, but there is deficit in his arguments. Why Iraq , and why today??
You know, in my 10 years of serving in Congress, this is the most serious vote I've taken. And I have to say, the Resolution on Iraq the White House drafted is intentionally misleading. It misleads the American public, the international community, and yes, even the United States Congress.
This is a sad day. Almost as sad as it was 627 days ago when the Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the President. You know, the White House talks about dictators, but we haven't done anything to correct what has happened right here in the United States. It amazes me that we question other governments, when in our own country, we did not have a fair election.
I recently traveled to Russia, China, and South Korea, and believe it would be most unfortunate to damage the good will our nation was receiving after September 11th because of the Bush Administration's reckless actions. We are on our own; NO ONE in the international community is behind us.
I have not seen any new information demonstrating that Iraq poses a threat to our country any more now than it did ten years ago, and certainly am without reason to believe we should attack unilaterally, without the support of the U.N.
In fact, recent poll numbers released suggest that many Americans do not support the way the President is handling the situation with Iraq either. Indeed, polls indicates what I imagined all along; namely, that a majority of Americans believe President Bush and Congress are spending too much time discussing Iraq , while neglecting domestic problems like health care and education. Many also said that they did not want the United States to act without support from allies and by a two to one margin, did not want the U.S. to act before U.N. weapons inspectors had an opportunity to enter Iraq and conduct further investigations.
Although the Administration is attempting to convince the American public otherwise, they have shown me little evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. And little evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat to our country.
Iraq's government is not democratic, but neither are many other countries listed on the State Department's terrorist list: like Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan.
I reiterate my opposition to this Resolution, and to this war.
To my colleagues, it is in your hands. I do believe the world has good and evil, and what you are about to do here today, will tilt it in a negative direction. It will set us on a course, and I hope I'm wrong, but it could set us on a course, that our children's children, will pay for. That the entire world will pay for. And that will put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment.
I am particularly supportive of this amendment because it would place the emphasis where it ought to be--which is in multinational diplomacy and within the context of a strong commitment to the U.N. inspection process--in this important campaign to disarm Iraq and protect our allies national security.
Questions have been raised about our ability to do unfettered and complete inspections, and whether or not we were able to find anything that Sadaam Hussein did not want us to find the first time around.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, that if we have not learned from past experience with Iraq , and if we do not have the technology to search out, find and destroy biological or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, then we are also not prepared to go to war with Iraq .
Many of us have spoken over the past week about the dangerous precedent that would be set by the United States employing a unilateral first strike against Iraq . The other grave concern of many which was supported by the recently released CIA report, is that whatever weapons Sadaam had would be deployed in desperate retaliation bringing unimaginable death and destruction to us and our allies.
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 (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.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296, nays 133, not voting 3, as follows:
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)
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
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.
[Page: S10233] GPO's PDF---
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Pending:
Lieberman/Warner modified amendment No. 4856, in the nature of a substitute;
Byrd amendment No. 4868 (to amendment No. 4856, as modified), to provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq;
Levin amendment No. 4862 (to amendment No. 4856), in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
AMENDMENT NO. 4869, AS MODIFIED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] proposes an amendment numbered 4869, as modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The authorization in section 4(a) shall terminate 12 months after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a period or periods of 12 months each, such authorization if--
(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress for each such period, not later that 60 days before the date of termination of the authorization, that the extension is necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq under section 4(a); and
(2) the Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of the authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 12-month period.
(b) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) shall be considered in the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936-1937), except that--
(A) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) JOINT RESOLUTION DEFINED.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution introduced after the date on which the certification of the President under subsection (a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That, pursuant to section 5 of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, the Congress disapproves the extension of the authorization under section 4(a) of that joint resolution for the additional 12-month period specified in the certification of the President to the Congress dated __.'', with the blank filled in with the appropriate date.
Mr. McCAIN. And the time is running; is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 20 minutes overall--15 minutes to the sponsor of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. If nobody yields time, time will be deducted proportionately.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Arizona wish to use any time at this point?
Mr. McCAIN. No.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts wish?
Mr. KENNEDY. Four and a half minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past few days we have debated the details of a resolution but not the implication of war with Iraq. We were into the debate on the resolutions for 2 days, and then a cloture motion was filed. I am reminded of the excellent statements made by my friend from West Virginia that this subject about war and peace deserves a longer period of time for discussion.
Earlier in the session, we debated for 21 days the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 23 days on the energy bill; 19 days on trade promotion; 18 days on the farm bill--all extremely important, but this issue is far more so.
In facing the global challenges of these times, we defend American values and interests best when war is our last resort, not our first impulse. I commend President Bush for deciding in the end to take America's case to the United Nations. Make no mistake about it, this resolution lets the President go it alone. Iraq should have no doubt of the unity of the American purpose and the seriousness of our intent. Having suffered the tragedy of September 11, we will leave no stone unturned in the defense of innocent Americans.
The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how. And it is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. It is wrong for the President to demand a declaration of war from Congress when he says he has not decided whether to go to war. It is wrong to avert our attention now from the greater and far more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida terrorism.
Pick up the paper and see the different headlines: ``Attacks Put Troops on Alert''; ``They fear contact with al-Qaida''; ``Tape, Assaults Stir Worry About Resurgent
Al Qaeda''; and the list goes on about the al-Qaida activities all over the world.
We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us.
We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and al-Qaida.
We cannot go it alone in attacking Iraq and expect Saddam to keep his weapons of mass destruction at bay against us or our ally Israel.
We cannot go it alone while urging unprincipled regimes to resist invasions of their adversaries.
The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.
By pursuing this course, we maximize the chance that the world can disarm Saddam without our going to war or, if war was necessary, we would be joined by allied troops in the cause. In the end, having tried these options and failed, our allies are far more likely to support our intervention should we elect to attack alone.
The world looks to America not just because of our superior might or economic weight; they admire us and emulate us because we are a friend and ally that defends freedom and promotes our values around the globe. Those same traits that are the envy of the world should guide us today as we conclude this important debate.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield back to him the remainder of my time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. How much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand we have 5 minutes. I yield that 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut however he chooses to use it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona.
The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia which is before us would terminate, 12 months after the date of enactment of the underlying joint resolution, the authorization given in that resolution. In other words, it would put a time limit of a year subject to extension, but, nonetheless, a time limit for a year on the authorization provided in the underlying resolution.
I say to my colleagues respectfully, this amendment is unprecedented and unwise. It is unprecedented in the sense that in brief research overnight, I have not been able to find an occasion in which Congress has exercised authority with regard to military action under article I of the Constitution when Congress has attached a time limit to it.
There was one occasion when time limits were discussed with regard to the deployment of American forces in Bosnia, the Balkans, during the nineties, but I think we saw there why congressional imposition of time limits on authorization of military action is unwise.
Why is it unwise? It is unwise because it gives notice to our enemies that there is a limit to the authority we are giving the President as Commander in Chief of our military forces.
[Page: S10235] GPO's PDF
In Bosnia, when that deadline was articulated by the administration, it created expectations which were quite naturally frustrated and therein created a credibility gap.
There is a deadline in the underlying resolution, and the deadline is what it ought to be and always has been for military actions in which the Armed Forces of the United States have been involved. The authorization ends when the mission is accomplished, and in this case the authorization would end when the two missions stated were accomplished: When the President as Commander in Chief concluded that America was adequately protected, our national security was adequately protected from threats from Iraq, and that the relevant United Nations resolutions were adequately being enforced. That is the deadline.
If the mood of Congress should change, if the attitude of the public should change, Congress always reserves, as it has shown in the past, the power of the purse and the power to change its opinion. But this amendment at this time, as we try to gather our strength and unity of purpose to convince the international community to join with us, as they surely will, is to finally get Saddam Hussein to keep his promise to disarm at the end of the gulf war.
We need no limitations on authority. We need to speak with a clear voice. As it says in the Bible, if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who shall follow? And if we put a 12-month time limit on the authority of the underlying resolution, I fear that fewer will follow and the result will be much less than we want it to be.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, which would sunset the authority Congress would grant to the President in this resolution to defend American security against the threat posed by Iraq.
As the Senator has pointed out, the 12-month limit on congressional authorization for the use of force his amendment would set could be extended by presidential or congressional action. However, these requirements are onerous and infringe upon the authority of the Commander in Chief to meet his obligations to protect American security.
The concept of imposing a deadline after which the President loses his authority to achieve the goals set out in the Iraq resolution strikes me as losing sight of the objective of a congressional authorization of the use of force: ending the threat to the United States and the world posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, so long as it possesses weapons of mass destruction and defies its obligations to the world.
So long as that threat persists, and with Congress and the President having agreed that Saddam Hussein's regime endangers America, congressional authority for the President to use force must remain in force until he has met our common objective of disarming Saddam Hussein.
To place a limit on the amount of time the President possesses this authority, once Congress has granted it to him, would only encourage Saddam Hussein to stall and temporize on his commitments, knowing that the clock is working in his favor. Such an incentive would make us less secure, not more secure.
If the vast majority of Members of Congress and the American people agree upon the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and if we accept that the President will confront this danger within the parameters we have laid out in this congressional resolution, what about that threat would change in 12 months, assuming we have not acted against it by that time, that would somehow negate the President's need for the authority to meet it?
If anything, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime will only grow with time. Private and public estimates are that Saddam Hussein could possess nuclear weapons within six months to a year were he to acquire weapons-grade plutonium on the international market.
That's why the President has requested the authority to act now. Saddam Hussein represents a grave and gathering danger. I hope he is no longer in power 1 year from now. But there is certainly a chance he could be.
Congress cannot foresee the entire course of this conflict. Acting now to deprive the President 12 months from now of the authority we would grant him in this resolution would be an infringement on the authority of the Commander in Chief and a strange way to respond to the grave threat to American national security posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is right that article 1 of the Constitution does not provide for this, but article 1 of the Constitution also does not provide for a declaration of war before the President is asked to go to war. So this is a very different circumstance. The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war. It seems completely consistent with that request that we say: Yes, Mr. President, you have that power to go to war; you can do that within 1 year. If, in fact, you go to war in 1 year, you can extend that 1 year.
Let me put it this way. If we are 2 years down the road still fooling around with Iraq, then my friends from Connecticut and other places have been so dead wrong about what we are supposed to do that it would be amazing.
I point out that this is nothing like Bosnia and nothing like the Balkans. In that case, we were in the Balkans. There were forces there, and there were people on the floor who were attempting to put a time on how long they could stay after we had gone in, after we had already prevailed, after we were in place.
The third point I make in the 2 minutes I have is, we learned from Vietnam the power of the purse is useless. The power of the purse is useless because it presents us with a Hobson's choice. We have our fighting men and women in place and we are told, by the way, the President will not take them home so let's cut off the support for them so they have no guns, no bullets, no ability to fight a war. And no one is willing to do that. This is a prudent way to do this, totally consistent with what the President is asking. I think it makes absolute eminent sense. I congratulate the Senator. Even though I disagree with him on his underlying notion, I do think he is right on this point and I support him.
Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 9 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. BYRD. I ask to be notified when I have 2 minutes left.
Mr. President, 38 years ago I, ROBERT C. BYRD, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to ``repel armed attacks'' and ``to prevent further Communist aggression'' in Southeast Asia.
It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.
It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.
It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.
It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.
It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.
After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.
We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.
But it was too late. Why is it unwise? It is unwise because it gives notice to our enemies that there is a limit to the authority we are giving the President as Commander in Chief of our military forces.
[Page: S10235] GPO's PDF
In Bosnia, when that deadline was articulated by the administration, it created expectations which were quite naturally frustrated and therein created a credibility gap.
There is a deadline in the underlying resolution, and the deadline is what it ought to be and always has been for military actions in which the Armed Forces of the United States have been involved. The authorization ends when the mission is accomplished, and in this case the authorization would end when the two missions stated were accomplished: When the President as Commander in Chief concluded that America was adequately protected, our national security was adequately protected from threats from Iraq, and that the relevant United Nations resolutions were adequately being enforced. That is the deadline.
If the mood of Congress should change, if the attitude of the public should change, Congress always reserves, as it has shown in the past, the power of the purse and the power to change its opinion. But this amendment at this time, as we try to gather our strength and unity of purpose to convince the international community to join with us, as they surely will, is to finally get Saddam Hussein to keep his promise to disarm at the end of the gulf war.
We need no limitations on authority. We need to speak with a clear voice. As it says in the Bible, if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who shall follow? And if we put a 12-month time limit on the authority of the underlying resolution, I fear that fewer will follow and the result will be much less than we want it to be.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, which would sunset the authority Congress would grant to the President in this resolution to defend American security against the threat posed by Iraq.
As the Senator has pointed out, the 12-month limit on congressional authorization for the use of force his amendment would set could be extended by presidential or congressional action. However, these requirements are onerous and infringe upon the authority of the Commander in Chief to meet his obligations to protect American security.
The concept of imposing a deadline after which the President loses his authority to achieve the goals set out in the Iraq resolution strikes me as losing sight of the objective of a congressional authorization of the use of force: ending the threat to the United States and the world posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, so long as it possesses weapons of mass destruction and defies its obligations to the world.
So long as that threat persists, and with Congress and the President having agreed that Saddam Hussein's regime endangers America, congressional authority for the President to use force must remain in force until he has met our common objective of disarming Saddam Hussein.
To place a limit on the amount of time the President possesses this authority, once Congress has granted it to him, would only encourage Saddam Hussein to stall and temporize on his commitments, knowing that the clock is working in his favor. Such an incentive would make us less secure, not more secure.
If the vast majority of Members of Congress and the American people agree upon the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and if we accept that the President will confront this danger within the parameters we have laid out in this congressional resolution, what about that threat would change in 12 months, assuming we have not acted against it by that time, that would somehow negate the President's need for the authority to meet it?
If anything, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime will only grow with time. Private and public estimates are that Saddam Hussein could possess nuclear weapons within six months to a year were he to acquire weapons-grade plutonium on the international market.
That's why the President has requested the authority to act now. Saddam Hussein represents a grave and gathering danger. I hope he is no longer in power 1 year from now. But there is certainly a chance he could be.
Congress cannot foresee the entire course of this conflict. Acting now to deprive the President 12 months from now of the authority we would grant him in this resolution would be an infringement on the authority of the Commander in Chief and a strange way to respond to the grave threat to American national security posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is right that article 1 of the Constitution does not provide for this, but article 1 of the Constitution also does not provide for a declaration of war before the President is asked to go to war. So this is a very different circumstance. The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war. It seems completely consistent with that request that we say: Yes, Mr. President, you have that power to go to war; you can do that within 1 year. If, in fact, you go to war in 1 year, you can extend that 1 year.
Let me put it this way. If we are 2 years down the road still fooling around with Iraq, then my friends from Connecticut and other places have been so dead wrong about what we are supposed to do that it would be amazing.
I point out that this is nothing like Bosnia and nothing like the Balkans. In that case, we were in the Balkans. There were forces there, and there were people on the floor who were attempting to put a time on how long they could stay after we had gone in, after we had already prevailed, after we were in place.
The third point I make in the 2 minutes I have is, we learned from Vietnam the power of the purse is useless. The power of the purse is useless because it presents us with a Hobson's choice. We have our fighting men and women in place and we are told, by the way, the President will not take them home so let's cut off the support for them so they have no guns, no bullets, no ability to fight a war. And no one is willing to do that. This is a prudent way to do this, totally consistent with what the President is asking. I think it makes absolute eminent sense. I congratulate the Senator. Even though I disagree with him on his underlying notion, I do think he is right on this point and I support him.
Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 9 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. BYRD. I ask to be notified when I have 2 minutes left.
Mr. President, 38 years ago I, ROBERT C. BYRD, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to ``repel armed attacks'' and ``to prevent further Communist aggression'' in Southeast Asia.
It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.
It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.
It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.
It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.
It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.
After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.
We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.
But it was too late.
For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator--and make no mistakes, I know and understand that
[Page: S10236] GPO's PDF
If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs.
Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.
I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: ``The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it.''
Many Senators did live to regret it.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained a sunset provision to end military action. S.J. Res. 46 will allow the President to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants as long he feels it will help eliminate the threat posed by Iraq.
With the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Congress could ``terminate'' military action. With S.J. Res. 46 , only the President can terminate military action.
I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Res. 46 do have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment.
This is why I stand here today, before this Chamber, and before this Nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution, for more hard evidence on the need for this resolution.
Before we put this great Nation on the track to war, I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more Presidential rhetoric. In support of this resolution, several people have pointed out that President Kennedy acted unilaterally in the Cuban missile crisis. That is true. I remember that. I was here. I also remember President Kennedy going on national television and showing proof of the threat we faced. I remember him sending our UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the United Nations,
to provide proof to the world that there was a threat to the national security of the United States.
All we get from this administration is rhetoric. In fact, in an address to our NATO colleagues, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the Chicago Tribune, urged our allies to resist the idea for the need of absolute proof about terrorists intent before they took action.
Before we unleash what Thomas Jefferson called the ``dogs of war,'' I want to know, have we exhausted every avenue of peace? My favorite book does not say, blessed are the war makers. It says: ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Have we truly pursued peace?
If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so needed and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? Why is the President on the phone nearly every day trying to convince our allies to join us?
So many people, so many nations in the Arab world already hate and fear us. Why do we want them to hate and fear us even more?
People are correct to point out that September 11 changed everything. We need to be more careful. We need to build up our intelligence efforts and our homeland security. But do we go around pounding everybody, anybody, who might pose a threat to our security? If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow?
When do we attack China? When do we attack North Korea? When do we attack Syria?
Unless I can be shown proof that these distant nations do pose an immediate, serious threat to the national interests and security of the United States, I think we should finish our war on terrorism. I think we should destroy those who destroyed the Trade Towers and attacked the Pentagon. I think we should get thug No. 1 before we worry about thug No. 2.
Yes, September 11 changed many aspects of our lives, but people still bleed. America's mothers will still weep for their sons and their daughters who will not come home.
September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked. We, more than ever, are aware of the damage, the deaths, and the suffering that comes from violent attacks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
This is what we are about to do to other countries. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people.
Of course, we do not talk about this. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. We are talking about taking out Iraq, about ``regime change.''
I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.
During the Civil War, a minister expressed his hope to President Lincoln that the Lord was on the side of the North. The Great Emancipator reportedly rebuked the minister stating:
It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation are on the Lord's side.
Before I vote for this resolution for war, a war in which thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of people may die, I want to make sure that I and this Nation are on God's side.
I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful.
And I want the language that is in this amendment so that Congress can oversee this power grab and act to terminate it at some point in time--giving the President the opportunity to extend the time but let's keep Congress in the act.
Senators, vote for this amendment. I plead with you.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, for this is a resolution to deter war.
The amendment proposed by Senator Byrd would insert into the joint resolution, language which would state that nothing in that joint resolution: is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; or shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the U.S. or its armed forces unless the Congress otherwise authorizes.
The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia attempts to do something that the Framers of the Constitution did not attempt--to define, with particularity, the extent of the President's powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Specifically, it would limit the authority of the President to use Armed Forces to a narrowly defined set of circumstance--``a clear threat of imminent, sudden and direct attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces.'' Even when the United States enjoyed genuine geographic and political isolation from the Old World, such a limitation could not be maintained. Within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States engaged in an undeclared naval war with France. Shortly thereafter, we engaged in undeclared war with the Barbary States of North Africa, who had engaged in piratical depredations against American shipping.
In 1861, President Lincoln, faced with an unprecedented situation, imposed a blockade--an act of war normally employed against a foreign enemy--upon the Southern Confederacy. He did this without congressional authorization. The Supreme Court later upheld this action in the famous Prize Cases, stating that the President had a constitutional duty to meet the insurrection as he found it; the determination that a state of war existed was for him to make.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Since 1945, Presidents of both parties have repeatedly committed American troops abroad without formal congressional approval. Whether in Korea, Grenada, Panama,
[Page: S10237] GPO's PDF
On September 11th of last year the American people
awoke to the realization that they were in imminent danger, had been for some time, and this danger gives no warning. It is a different type of danger, but no less real and no less threatening to the Nation than more traditional ones. As the President reminded us in his speech to the Nation on Monday evening:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints ..... confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.
On the Today Show this week, Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM, was asked how easy it would be for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist group or an individual terrorist with weapons of mass destruction. His response was ``Extremely easy. If they decided to do it, piece of cake!''
They may already have done it. The danger is clear, present, and imminent. We must grant the President the authority to use armed force to protect the Nation, and the flexibility to employ that force as seems best to him. Our enemies are cunning and flexible; we cannot defeat them with anything less.
The Byrd amendment regarding preservation of Congress's constitutional authorities is unnecessary. The portion of the amendment that would limit the authority of the President to wage war is, arguably unconstitutional. The Congress can declare war, but it cannot dictate to the President how to wage war. No law passed by Congress could alter the constitutional separation of powers.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to my friend from Arizona.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful statement. I want to say in the few remaining seconds that to view the cause of the tragedy of the Vietnam war as being the Tonkin Gulf resolution is a somewhat, in my view, simplistic view.
There were a lot of factors that entered into the beginning and the continuation of the Vietnam war. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was simply window dressing. At any time the Congress of the United States could have reversed that resolution and chose not to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time in opposition has expired.
The sponsor has 37 seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again. Let us stop, look, and listen. Let us not give this President, or any President, unchecked power. Remember the Constitution. Remember the Constitution.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Byrd amendment No. 4869, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. LINCOLN) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. MIKULSKI), are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MILLER). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:
The amendment (No. 4869), as modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 45 minutes prior to the cloture vote on amendment No. 4856, as modified. Under the previous order, the first 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the second 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Republican leader, and the third 15 minutes shall be under the control of the majority leader.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my 15 minutes to the distinguish Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore and the Chair.
Mr. President, I have sought this time to register my very strong objection to cloture on this resolution authorizing the use of force, which is the equivalent of a declaration of war. In my 22 years in the Senate, the only issue which has been of equal importance was the authorization for the use of force in 1991. The motion to invoke cloture, which is to cut off debate, is supposed to be done when there is a filibuster. However, there is no filibuster present on this issue.
I came to the floor yesterday in an effort to participate in a colloquy with Senator Lieberman, the lead proponent of the bill, and found that all the time was allotted and all the time was taken. When no one appeared, we had about 3 minutes to discuss an issue which really required 30 minutes or an hour. I then sought time later in the afternoon, and all the time was taken. I then sought time this morning and find that the only time which is available is some time after 5 p.m. this afternoon.
It is customary in the Senate to see two lights on for a quorum call, but there have been very few quorum calls on this resolution--really none--except when Senators are on their way to the floor or when there are discussions. So there has certainly not been any effort to filibuster. Those who sought time to come over and discuss important issues have found that there is no time to do so.
We now have a series of amendments lined up with time allocations which are very brief. To discuss the cloture resolution itself in 45 minutes is very limited. To discuss the amendments which are pending is very difficult.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lieberman-Warner resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. This resolution gives President Bush the flexibility he needs to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including the authority to use military force as he deems appropriate, without ceding too much authority to the executive to wage war outside Iraq. I applaud Senators LIEBERMAN, WARNER, MCCAIN, and so many others who have worked with President Bush to reach an agreement on this critical issue.
I support the President's policy of regime change in Iraq to eliminate the threat Saddam poses to the U.S. and the world, and agree that time is of the essence. I was concerned that the administration's initial draft resolution was too broad, and called for tighter parameters on the Presidential mandate. The resolution now before us addresses my concerns by confining the scope of possible military action to Iraq, rather than the entire Middle East region.
Only last month we commemorated the one-year anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in our history. Today, we face a threat from a regime that would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction against our friends and allies, or against the United States itself, or transfer these weapons to terrorist groups that target Americans.
Saddam Hussein's track record is well-known to all. He ordered the use of chemical weapons--including sarin, VX, tabun, and mustard agents--against his own people, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. His regime invaded two neighbors and threatened others. In 1991, his troops were prepared to invade other countries, had they not been thwarted by the U.S.-led international coalition. His regime launched ballistic missiles at four of its neighbors--Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Bahrain. He ordered the assassination of opponents in Iraq and abroad, including a former president of the United States. His regime beat and tortured American POWs and used them as human shields during the 1991 Persian gulf war. His military continues to fire at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.
Based on the information presented to me in classified briefings, I share President Bush's assessment that Iraqi disarmament must be the objective. Weapon inspections alone will not achieve this goal, and a lengthy inspections regime could inadvertently give Saddam more time to stockpile and conceal weapons of mass destruction. After eleven years of lies and deception, we cannot expect that Saddam will reverse course and willingly disarm. Clearly, regime change in Iraq is the only way to end the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and the world.
What has brought us to this point?
On March 3, 1991, Iraq, having been forced to abandon the territory it overran in Kuwait, agreed to the terms of a cease-fire offered by the allied forces. Since the cease-fire, Iraq has repeatedly violated a series of Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq submits to U.N. inspections, abides by the cease-fire agreement, dismantles its extensive weapons of mass destruction programs, and returns Kuwaiti and other nations' POWs, missing persons, and property seized during the gulf war. The United Nations has found Iraq in ``material breach of cease-fire terms'' on seven occasions, and Iraq remains in violation of the cease-fire to this very day.
For seven and one-half years, Saddam Hussein played a cat-and-mouse game with U.N. inspectors. The Iraqi regime misled, lied, intimidated, and physically obstructed the inspectors; and Iraqi scientists who provided in formation to the inspectors disappeared, most likely into Saddam's dungeons and execution chambers. The inspectors uncovered an enormous amount of biological and chemical weapons materials and production facilities, but by their own account they could not find everything. And any success they may have had was in large measure because Saddam feared a renewed military offensive by the United States. Finally, on November 11, 1998, following Iraq's announcement that it was prohibiting all U.N. inspections, weapons inspections in Iraq ceased. Under increasing international pressure, Iraq again agreed to allow inspectors full access, but then resumed obstructing their operations, and the United Nations withdrew the inspectors on December 15, 1998. Over the next 4 years, Iraq refused to admit weapons inspectors under the terms set forth by the Security Council.
Iraq has had 4 years to refine its techniques of deception. It defies common sense to suggest that a hundred or even a thousand U.N. inspectors could, with any assurance, succeed in finding small WMD stockpiles and facilities in a country the size of the state of California. Many former U.N. inspectors who experienced first-hand Iraq's lies and deceptions have come to the same conclusion.
We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and is developing nuclear weapons. These weapons would immediately threaten U.S. troops and our friends and allies in the region. A Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would radically alter the balance of power in the Middle East, requiring a profound shift in the deployment of American forces and undermine our ability to respond to other potential threats around the globe.
Saddam has worked with terrorist networks for many years. He harbored Abu Nidal, and is reportedly providing safe have to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Saddam has himself ordered acts of terror. He shares many objectives with groups like al-Qaida, and may decide to use terrorists to conceal his responsibility for an attack on the United States.
For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community. Would it be prudent to continue what has failed for 11 long years?
Would it be wise to give Saddam more time, which we know he will devote to realizing his greatest dream--to obtain the nuclear weapons that would allow him to dominate the Middle East with all of its oil and threaten to drive the United States out of a region that is vital to our security?
Never in our history have we been in a position where we could be blackmailed, under the threat of nuclear war, into withdrawing support for our closest allies or sacrificing our national security to prevent the death of millions. And yet this is the danger we face in as little as one year if we do not act to remove this looming threat. Time is not on our side; it is on the side of Saddam Hussein. We cannot wait for a smoking gun, because a gun smokes only after it is fired, and the smoke of a nuclear blast would mean that we are too late.
I applaud the President's decision to seek international support for regime change in Iraq, but U.S. action should not hinge on the endorsement of the United Nations. The United States is leading a coalition of international allies in the war on terror, not the other way around.
In the case of Iraq, U.S. national security interests should not be sacrificed if the U.N. cannot be persuaded of the urgency of this threat. It would be preferable to have U.N. support, but we have to be prepared to go it alone if necessary. We cannot give the United Nations veto power over our decisions to protect our national interests.
I remain concerned about our planning for the future of Iraq if we succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from power. Administration officials have presented a vision of a post-Saddam Iraq that is peaceful, democratic, and unified. Defeating the Iraqi military on the battlefield will not be easy, but ensuring a stable and friendly post-Saddam Iraq will pose even greater challenges, requiring careful planning by the administration in concert with our allies in the region. Iraq could rapidly slide into long-term political instability or even bloody war upon the collapse of the Baathist regime.
Iraq's population is made up of three main components: the Kurdish speaking people in the north, the Arab Sunnis in the center, and the Arab Shiites in the south who make up a majority--some 60 percent--of the entire population of the country. Many Shiites desire a theocratic government similar to that in neighboring Iran. The Kurdish leadership in the north may recognize that independence is an impossible dream, but their experience of ten years of self-government will
[Page: S10342] GPO's PDF
Our military planning should be guided by an awareness that how Saddam's regime falls will shape the Iraq that follows. At some point the American people will need to know the nature and extent of America's commitment to a post-Saddam Iraq. How long will our troops be on the ground in Iraq? What material and financial resources will we be asked to provide to Iraq? What responsibility will the United States have to maintain peace in the region? What help will we get from our allies in rebuilding Iraq?
President Bush has exercised great leadership at a critical time in our history. I am proud to be a part of the debate we are having today in this chamber, which is a powerful demonstration of our democratic institutions. Ours is a nation that is slow to anger. Americans abhor war. I vote in support of this resolution, but hope and pray that the President, united with Congress, will succeed in averting war.
There is no question in my mind that we must disarm Saddam, and that time is running out. Clearly, there are risks involved. But I believe the risks of doing nothing are far greater.
I yield that floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion is vitiated on Senate Joint Resolution 45.
The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 114.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read House Joint Resolution 114 for a third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the preamble is agreed to.
Brought to you by Ed and Jerry, Partners in PeaceComments or Points of View about PeaceWe are a non-commercial, non-partisan, educational organization. |