Date: 2002-10-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. there is no question that this is a serious debate about the future of our country and about the future that our country will play in the world in which we live. The decision to be made here after this debate is whether or not the United States would declare war on Iraq because. that is what in fact is being debated before the Congress of the United States. The President can argue. as he has. that he wants this resolution for a number of different reasons. He has said that he wants it to have a regime change. Later. he said he wanted it to disarm Saddam Hussein. He now says that he wants it simply to get leverage against the United Nations so that they will do what he has asked them to do. what he has quite properly asked them to do. But. at the end of the day. we will be saddled with a vote to declare war on Iraq. I say this because this is the same administration that was arguing that they did not have to come to the Congress because. from the resolution that we passed in 1991. that they had inherent authority to do this. So I suspect you will be living with the results of the vote here for a long time to come. There is no debate. I believe. in the Congress of the United States or most places in the world that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. that Saddam Hussein is engaged in some of the most atrocious acts against his own citizens and others around the world. But there is also no debate that he is in violation of the agreements that he signed at the end of the war. he is in violation of the United Nations resolutions that have been passed. and a case can be made and clearly was made by the President of the United States that the United Nations should take action because of his contempt of those resolutions and his failure to comply. Those were the agreements that he signed. and. if necessary. the United Nations should back that up with force. This isnot a matter of trusting Saddam Hussein or allowing Saddam Hussein to dictate where the United Nations will inspect or not inspect. and we have all been through that. This is not about him. This is about us. and these are the terms and conditions. and they should be enforced. If that fails. then it is not to suggest that the United States should go to war against Saddam Hussein. It is to suggest that the President then must come back to the Congress and meet the burden of proof that he. in fact. poses an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. So far. from the best information I have been able to receive from my colleagues on the various committees of jurisdiction dealing with intelligence and defense and in the briefings that I have attended. that case has. not been made. That does not mean that it cannot be made. It does not mean that maybe there is information that they are not sharing with the Congress. But understand this: They are supposed to share it with the Congress. But that is a different burden of proof. That is a burden of proof of whether or not we will unilaterally make a decision to put American men and women in harms way and whether or not we will invade another country for those reasons. That is a far different burden of proof. That is a far different decision than whether or not we will be part of or whether the United Nations will assemble a multilateral force to go in and to deal with the violations and the failures to keep the agreements that the United Nations has passed when he surrendered to the multinational force in 1991. But I suggest to my colleagues that if we do it in the manner which was presented in the resolution. not only do we undermine the idea of working with the United Nations. I believe that in the long term we undermine our position in the world and our moral authority to conduct these activities. I think when we combine this with. the announcement by the Bush administration of its doctrine on national security of preemptive strikes. preemptive war.-it is a declaration of war. Be it preemptive or be it defensive. it is war. That is what it is about. We can dress it all up into fancy policy language. but the question is whether or not American men and women will be called upon for that sacrifice to this country. . I think Uiat. when we do that. we have got to make the case to the Congress and to the American people. and I think it is clear that case has not been made. I think it is also clear that the American people believe that we have got to deal With Saddam Hussein. I do believe that the President set out that course of activity when he went to the United Nations and rightfully asked the United Nations to take the action in support of those resolutions. The suggestion is here that somehow if we pass this resolution this will give meaning to the United Nations because they will know. whether they do it or not. we will do it anyway. I suggest it is just the opposite. That suggests to the United Nations that they really need not act because somehow the United States alone will take care of Saddam Hussein. even if that violates the tenets of the reason the United Nations exists. so that nations can act togrther. But if the United Nations does not act. then they remove the means by which we can prevent the unilateral action that so many people say they do not want. At the end of the day. I believe we have an obligation to vote against this resolution. I believe that if we are unsuccessful in the United Nations. then this President should come back to this Congress of the United States. make his case that Saddam Hussein/ Iraq are an imminent threat to the United States. and let the Members of Congress vote how they will when that case has been presented and keep it out of just the notion of giving speeches and going to the newspapers. Come to the Congress and make the case. To date. the administration has not done so.