(00:00:00) Mr. Speaker perspective is always difficult to apply to events of the day, but it would appear that in the last six months a Watership development and international politics has occurred largely due to the Sapient diplomacy of the administration the security Council adopted a panoply of resolutions demanding iraki withdraw from Kuwait and sanctioning civilized countries to employ all appropriate means to achieve this objective for the first time in modern history a credible system of collective security appears on the threshold of being born and here I would observe that if one political party identifies disproportionately with advocacy of collective security. It is the Democratic party collective security was the watchword of Woodrow Wilson who literally drove himself to death defending the principal against his critics Franklin Roosevelt arguably the greatest president of this Century insisted the collective security. Supposed in the Atlantic Charter and be the linchpin of the United Nations Charter yet today. It is a Republican president who in opposition both to the isolationist and go It Alone interventionist themes that have been biblically ambivalently whole Mark much of this Century's conservative tradition who is in the Vanguard of collective security Endeavors in paradoxical contrast liberal leadership in congress appears in the verge of repudiating the philosophy philosophical Heritage of Wilson and Roosevelt as well as Truman and John Kennedy in favor of the more flocculent wait-and-see nostrums that lack historical and philosophical perspective. What is the morality of congressional leadership's wait-and-see approach Saddam Hussein has conducted two workers in the last 10 years which resulted in a million casualties. He has made rape a daily instrument of coercive State policy executions are of epidemic proportions frequently with family members asked to witness and pay for bullets (00:02:05) in this context. Is it (00:02:08) moral to stand by can we allow saddam's model of behavior to be rewarded or replicated elsewhere? Do we want to wait to confront a leader with a nascent nuclear and biological warfare capability. I stress in particular biological weapons at this time. Despite the horrors of ottawa's (00:02:30) and the Hue inhumanity of the Soviet (00:02:33) Gulag. Neither Hitler North Star Island threatened the usage of biological agents Saddam Hussein has (00:02:42) and let me stress (00:02:43) biological weapons are a poor (00:02:45) man's weapon of mass destruction. They are far easier (00:02:48) to develop and far more destructive to employ the nuclear arms confronted with saddam's threats and (00:02:56) weapons development potentiality. He's it is impossible for this member to conclude that a wait-and-see approach fits either the x or the circumstances. On questions of War and Peace there is a societal imperative for caution, but it must be understood that ambivalence is not synonymous with statesmanship and that anxiety ship is no substitute for leadership. I am personally convinced that Saddam has no choice except to Blink before the 15th. Unless America blinks first, but if this Congress sends a message of no confidence to the executive branch, it will be sending a message of no mandate to Secretary General de Cuellar and the historic mission that he is currently on to Baghdad in this context Congressional vacillation makes peace less not more likely the president and his policy of collective security are the last best hope in this Century for establishing a security system, which makes aggression and the swore obsolete support the president not because he is a leader of this great nation, but because the ins in the Vanguard of bringing reality to the dreams of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt because he is right that new world order is only possible if Nations under the rule of law. Accept the obligation to keep the peace.