Note: External links, forms and search boxes may not function within this collection
This is an archived Web site from the Library of Congress
http://www.house.gov/cummings/speech/sp100902.htm
Archived: 12/12/2002 at 14:42:26
First (12/12/2002)
Previous
#1 of 1
Next 
Last (12/12/2002) 
|
|
Congressman Elijah
E. Cummings |
|
October 9, 2002
Statement of Representative Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland
on the Floor of the United States House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
107th Congress
In Opposition to H.J. Res. 114:
"Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq"
Washington, D.C
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation once again considers a course of action that will define our moral standing in the history of free peoples. I agree that America should speak with one voice in response to the challenges to international peace, security, and human rights posed by the regime in Iraq. That voice must be founded on the most fundamental of moral principles: the sanctity of human life.
The value of human life has been the basis for the settled, bipartisan international policy toward Iraq that we in this Congress have expressed in the past. In 1998, Congress reflected a strong, unified voice when we voted to support legislation that noted Iraq's violation of U.N. disarmament demands to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, as well as their development.
In that same year, we also enacted the Iraq Liberation Act that authorized U.S. support for Iraqi liberation forces in their efforts to replace the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. We did so because Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a serious threat to regional stability in the Middle East, a growing threat to the United States, and a leader who deserves to be tried in an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. However, we did not authorize the unilateral use of U.S. military forces towards that end.
Neither the American people nor their elected representatives have wavered in our support for the values of human rights, security, international stability, and democracy reflected in those 1998 congressional resolutions.
However, as we consider this resolution, we must not forget one essential fact. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has concluded, we have seen no evidence or no intelligence to suggest that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our Nation. In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, I cannot support the resolution proposed by the Bush administration that would authorize preemptive military strikes by the U.S. forces to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions, some of which deal with issues other than Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
I agree with the senior Senator from West Virginia, who has observed that the President's proposed resolution is dangerously hasty, redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch.
The resolution proposed by the administration would codify the doctrine of preemption, the assertion that America has the unilateral right to attack a nation that has not attacked us. This, in my view, would be a precedent with disastrous consequences. A unilateral first strike would almost certainly result in substantial loss of life, both among American troops and among Iraqi civilians. A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States and could set a devastating international precedent that we could then see echoed in conflicts between India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, China and Taiwan, and in many other corners of the world.
In addition, unilateral U.S. action may well destabilize the Middle East, harming the international cooperation that we need to defend America against terrorism.
Experts tell us that the United States might have to remain in Iraq for a decade, a commitment requiring international support and engagement.
Finally, the economic costs of going it alone would undermine the ability of our Nation to address our unmet domestic priorities.
Although this resolution would authorize the President to take this Nation to war, it is not a declaration of war, it is a blank check to use force without the moral or political authority of a declaration of war. Congress must not abandon its authority under the Constitution. This resolution would do just that.
The course of action that is more consistent with the values and security interests of the United States is to support a multinational collective security strategy towards the threats to regional peace and international stability that are posed by the regime in Iraq. The administration has indicated some progress within the United Nations Security Council towards that goal. I join the President in urging all members of the Council to act with due diligence.
I also join in the position advanced by our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who has proposed that we once again authorize U.S. military support for a renewed and strengthened U.N. Security Council resolution that demands true disarmament by Iraq. This is a threat that the civilized world must face together. The regime of Saddam Hussein, after all, is the world's problem as well as our own.
Thank You.
