Imagini ale paginilor

Second, that an inspection regime in which hundreds of acres of so-called palace grounds are off limits is no inspection regime at all. It is worse than nothing, for it gives the false impression of safety and effectiveness.

Third, that Saddam Hussein will never submit to a real inspection regime without the credible threat of force.

Fourth, that we cannot continue to allow Saddam Hussein to fire on American pilots.

And, fifth, that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons program will only grow over time and that in time he will get the atomic bomb.

The narrow question before us today is whether the threat from Iraq is imminent enough to support a resolution authorizing the use of force to compel disarmament if persuasion fails. I believe it is, and I am concerned that the failure of such a resolution at a time when the Commander in Chief is before the United Nations will be deleterious to our efforts to engage that body.

My support for this resolution must not be taken as an unequivocal endorsement, however, of the Administration's handling of Iraq over the last year. It is not. I believe the Administration must make every effort to gather support at the U.N. for a rigorous and meaningful inspections program. The Administration must not go about this alone or unilaterally, but must redouble its effort to enlist the support of our allies until it is successful, as I believe it can be.

The Administration must change the nature of its rhetoric, rhetoric which on a host of issues has shown too great a willingness, at times an eagerness to go it alone on a whole range of issues, a policy and a tone which has made the process of gathering international support much more difficult than it should have been.

I share the concerns expressed by hundreds of my constituents that this country not rush to establish a precedent that every country is justified in unilateral military action against all perceived threats, and that the best way to distinguish our actions from other nations considering their own preemptive actions in the future is to persevere in our determination to build international support for international action.

And I urge the President to go before the American people, to make the case for international action directly, as did his father. I urge him not to wait until inspections have failed or been thwarted and military action is imminent, but now to appear before the American people and demonstrate his commitment to make every effort to enlist our allies and the United Nations in an effort to disarm Iraq peacefully if at all possible.

And I urge the Administration to share the evidence with the American people of Saddam Hussein's ongoing weapons program, as President Kennedy did so graphically in the Cuban missile crisis.

And finally, I urge the President to demonstrate his commitment to the establishment of democratic institutions in the Iraq of the future. In the end our only true path to peace and security lies in the propagation of freedom and democracy around the world. Democracy, not oil, will be the ultimate guarantor of our future.

The germ of terrorism is difficult to eradicate completely. We will never eliminate every last terrorist. But we can, in concert with fellow democracies around the world, change the soil. The Administration must embrace a broader vision, one that works to democratize the Middle East, to secure its rebirth and prosperity, a vision comparable in its breadth and audacity as the Marshall Plan at the of World War II.

The circumstances call for nothing less. As Lincoln once said, as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. Only then, Mr. Chairman, do I believe we can secure our Nation.

I vield back.

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. And now, truly I recognize the next person with great joy, not because she is the last of a long line, but because she always has something instructive to say. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate and engage an exchange of views on the new compromise resolution language. You have great patience.

Debate and exchange of views are critical to the democratic process. And perhaps the greatest underpinning of democracy is the freedom to question. While it is a foregone conclusion that the resolution will receive the votes to pass, I still have serious reservations about the timing and justification for the use of force against Iraq.

The resolution still gives the President wide authority to act unilaterally and preemptively. A presidential determination section has been added to the new resolution, which requires the President to certify to Congress that all diplomatic options have been exhausted and that the Administration's actions are consistent with the United States' ongoing war on terrorism.

I believe that the resolution must contain language that specifically calls upon the United Nations to reimpose its inspection system, and that the U.S. should consider the options of the use of force, preferably with the backing of the United Nations, only after all deliberate measures have been taken, and only after it has been established that the U.N. inspectors have been hindered in their work.

It is only by working through the United Nations that the United States can establish a real justification for the use of force. Preventative or preemptive war, which is still an option for the President in this resolution, is not sufficient justification. Moreover, it is bad and a dangerous policy. It will only alienate and isolate the United States in the world community, and undermine our Nation's commitment to international order and the rule of law.

I would also note that recent pools suggest that the American people overwhelming support a war against Iraq with allied backing. However, support among Americans for intervention in Iraq drops off sharply when they are asked to support unilateral action in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution and will vote against it. Not a shred of new evidence has been offered by the Administration to demonstrate that Iraq is any more of a threat than it was a year ago. When I heard the President in his State of the

Union speech say the axis of evil, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then it brings home that Iraq would be the first invasion, then it will be followed by Iran, and then North Korea.

So we set a precedent here. And I just have to call attention to something that I saw in the Nation on Monday September 30th, as it was describing a rally here in Washington, DC, and their mantra was inspections, not war, and they say there has been enough killing in the past year. Killing a bunch of Iraqis won't help anything. And they also go on to say that the President has made the world less secure by asserting, in a new foreign policy doctrine, that the United States may strike first against hostile states developing weapons of mass destruction.

They further say, but we cannot have a world run by preemptive strikes. That would indeed be a world of perpetual war.

So, Mr. Chairman, I heard the word "peace" used too few times, and my constituents have come to me and said no war. I have had not one request to go to war against Iraq. I have had multiple requests to discuss a peace initiative. It is time that we start that. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman for your patience.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, gentlelady. And without objection, the Committee stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 8:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]







The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order.

Yesterday we began consideration of H.J. Res. 114, authorization for use of military force against Iraq. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes himself to strike the last word. [The resolution, H.J. Res. 114, follows:]

« ÎnapoiContinuă »