Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important decisions Congress can make, and, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I do not take it lightly.  Last month, I held a listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my constituents’ concerns about military action in Iraq.  I have spent many hours being briefed in the Armed Services Committee and at the White House by Administration officials and other experts.  From these conversations, I have grown increasingly alarmed by the widening body of evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to the security of the United States.  His development of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations resolutions and threatens the stability of the region.  His oppression of the Iraqi people, including his use of chemical weapons against civilians, strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human rights.  He has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us and our allies, firing on aircraft enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones 2,500 times since 1991.  And while it may be difficult for some to imagine what horrors this tyrant is planning over 6,000 miles away, I am convinced that the threat is real.  

The question therefore becomes how best to deal with this danger.  I have heard overwhelming concern from my constituents that the United States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we act unilaterally against Iraq.  Equally important, I share their concern that we will damage our moral authority as the world’s sole remaining superpower if do not proceed responsibly.  For this reason, we must engage the global community in our efforts to neutralize the threat of Saddam Hussein.  Cooperation with the United Nations and our allies is critical, and I hope that we are collectively able to develop a strong mandate for the disarmament of Iraq.  In his speech on Monday night, President Bush pledged to engage the UN Security Council in drafting a new resolution, and I fully expect him to pursue this strategy, not only to establish broader support and deeper confidence for our mission, but also to protect the integrity of the United States.

If new weapons inspections do not achieve total disarmament, we must not rule out using military action to force compliance with UN resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive capabilities, and protect the American people.  Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with other nations.  President Bush stated we would act "with allies at our side," and we must hold him to his promise.  We cannot ignore that unilateral action against Iraq could have dangerous ramifications on the region and America’s own efforts in the war on terrorism.  Furthermore, an international coalition would also be essential in promoting a new government in Iraq – an effort that should be undertaken as seriously as the Marshall Plan.  Tomorrow, I will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require cooperation with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible.  When contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to our cause.  

If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support the underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security Council and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force.  Though that vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental in shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued commitment to these goals.  

The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain inactive.  We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September 11 fall into place.  We cannot risk a single American life waiting for promises from a madman.  We now have the opportunity to improve the safety of our citizens and the stability of the Middle East.  However, there is a right way and a wrong way of approaching this complicated issue.  Just as a prosecutor must lay out facts to establish guilt, we must make our case before the world community.  This is the only approach to guarantee that our efforts to disarm Iraq will have the full force of international support and not undermine our greater war against terrorism.

I appreciate the opportunity to share in this debate and urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment and against the underlying resolution.