[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 153 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11722-H11736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED FORCES 
   CURRENTLY CARRYING OUT MISSIONS IN AND AROUND PERSIAN GULF REGION

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 612) 
expressing unequivocal support for the men and women of our Armed 
Forces who are currently carrying out missions in and around the 
Persian Gulf region, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate 
consideration in the House, with the previous question ordered to its 
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question except 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
National Security or their designees.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 612

       Whereas the President of the United States has ordered 
     military action against Iraq in response to its refusal to 
     comply with international obligations under United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions;
       Whereas up to 24,000 men and women of the United States 
     Armed Forces are presently involved in operations in and 
     around the Persian Gulf region with the active participation 
     of British Armed Forces and the support of allies in the 
     region;
       Whereas additional United States Armed Forces are being 
     deployed to the region;
       Whereas Congress and the American people have the greatest 
     pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces 
     and strongly support them in their efforts. Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives That:
       (a) the Congress unequivocally supports the men and women 
     of our Armed Forces who are carrying out their missions with 
     prefessionalism, dedication, patriotism, and courage;
       (b) the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of 
     the United States to support efforts to remove the regime 
     headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote 
     the emergence of a democratic government to replace that 
     regime.

  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman 
opposed to the resolution?
  The SPEAKER. The unanimous consent request did not allocate time on 
the basis of opposition.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because I think this resolution offers us a very 
important opportunity to talk with ourselves and to talk with the 
world.
  The United States represents two enormous burdens that we have to 
live out: first, that we are the center of freedom, and that we are 
engaged in the process of self-government; and second, that we must 
carry the burden of leading the world, and that is an operational day-
to-day which never suspends: It does not suspend for elections, it does 
not suspend for Christmas, it does not suspend under any circumstance. 
We have an obligation to prove to ourselves and to the world that we 
can simultaneously govern ourselves in freedom under the rule of law, 
and provide leadership wherever it is needed around the world.
  Let me expand on that for just a moment, because it is a topic I have 
thought a great deal about since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  The United States has to lead. There is no alternative. There is no 
other country capable of organizing against an Iraqi dictator who wants 
to get weapons of mass destruction. There is no other country capable 
of sustaining freedom against a North Korean dictatorship actively 
seeking to get nuclear weapons. There is no other country that can lead 
the world's financial system when it is under stress. There is no other 
country capable of bringing together on a global basis people trying to 
solve problems.
  Yes, it would be nice to run and hide. Yes, it would be nice to find 
some grand isolation in which we could cower behind the walls of the 
Atlantic and Pacific Ocean if this were 150 years ago.
  But today, in the age of the Internet, in the age of worldwide 
instantaneous financial communications, in the age of weapons of mass 
destruction delivered by missiles and by terrorists, for the United 
States to fail to lead is in fact to guarantee chaos and to guarantee 
pain across the planet, and ultimately, pain here in the United States.
  So let me be very clear. I believe the United States has to lead, and 
I believe, as a practical matter, both under our Constitution and in 
the nature of how human beings function, the daily leadership has to be 
an executive function, and the President of the United States has to 
provide that leadership every day, 365 days a year.
  Now, we have a second and in many ways even more important burden, 
because it is the heart of who we are as a people. We are a Nation 
under law. We are a Nation of systems. As Ronald Reagan said in 1981, 
this magic of the transfer of power as a Democratic president yielded 
to a Republican, and then in 1993, as a Republican, George Bush, 
yielded to a Democrat, President Clinton, there is a magic to the 
capacity of the American people to subordinate themselves to the rule 
of law, and that means we are going to have open debates. It means 
newspapers are going to have lurid headlines. It means we are going to 
have television shows that are confusing.
  If you are a dictator, it is easy to look at the turmoil and chaos 
and confusion of a free people and say to yourself, this is the week to 
hit America, because now they must be divided. So we have a chance 
today to say to the world, no matter what our constitutional process, 
whether it is an election eve or it is the eve of a constitutional 
vote, no matter what our debates at home, we are, as a Nation, prepared 
to lead the world.
  So I support what was done this week. I was briefed on it in advance. 
I can assure my colleagues that as Speaker of the House, I felt, and I 
think that the next speaker, Mr. Livingston, can also report that he 
felt we were being legitimately consulted. We were not just informed 
but we had conversations of substance, and this has been an ongoing 
process.
  But let me say two things on the domestic side about my qualified 
support, because I believe the President has two obligations beyond 
this week's activities. First, we need to have a clear and decisive 
commitment to replacing the dictatorship in Iraq, because it has 
consistently now, from 1990 through

[[Page H11723]]

1998, proven that even with 8 years of sanctions, even with 8 years of 
economic hardship for the Iraqi people, who do not deserve it, they 
should not be made to suffer because their dictator is irrational, they 
should not be made to pay the price because their dictator holds them 
in slavery with an armed Republican Guard and secret police, but for 8 
years we have adopted a policy which has punished the people of Iraq 
while the dictatorship has continued.
  The President owes it to this Nation in January and owes it to this 
Congress in January to provide us with a systematic, thorough, and 
methodical campaign plan by which the most powerful Nation in the world 
replaces a dictator who has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he 
is desperate to get weapons of mass destruction, and no student of 
Saddam can doubt that he will either give them to terrorists or use 
them directly.
  So just as in the 1930s there was a magic moment when it would have 
been easy to have destroyed Adolph Hitler and the democracies didn't 
take it, this is our last warning, because sooner or later, our allies 
in the Security Council will falter, and sooner or later Saddam will 
get weapons of mass destruction, and then the genie will be out of the 
bottle.
  Second, I would say, in addition to a strategy for replacing the 
dictatorship, this President owes it to the men and women in uniform 
and to the men and women in our intelligence services to come back to 
this Congress in the beginning of next year and renegotiate the amount 
of funding we need for those two.
  We cannot lead the planet on the current defense budget, and we 
cannot get the information to lead the planet on the current 
intelligence budget. I know that will be unpopular in some quarters, 
but you cannot lead the world on the cheap. If you are not going to be 
for isolation, then you need to rely on the distinguished professionals 
to tell you the truth about what it is going to cost to recruit and 
build the systems we need.

                              {time}  1015

  So I rise today to say to Saddam Hussein and any other dictator who 
has any doubt the United States can both govern itself and lead the 
world simultaneously, and I say to our allies across the planet, we 
have been, since 1941, the bulwark on which your freedom was based, we 
have been the arsenal on which your freedom has been assured, and we 
have been the power on which your security has been procured. We will 
retain those capabilities. And no matter what the temporary arguments, 
no matter what the temporary issues, no one anywhere on this planet 
should doubt the will of the American people to support freedom and the 
will of the American people to provide leadership and our capacity to 
subordinate our personalities and subordinate issues to ensure that we 
as a Nation are strong on this planet.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the President and 
our troops in this latest phase of the Iraqi crisis. I urge all Members 
to join me in voting for this resolution.
  It is extremely important that we be here today to support these 
actions and to support these young men and women who are in the Middle 
East doing their best to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief in 
putting an end to this Iraqi threat to the American interests and to 
the Iraqi neighbors.
  I urge all Members to join in this effort today. We, the 
representatives of the American people, need to express our full 
support of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, last November the 14, the President called off an attack 
against Iraq at the very last minute while aircraft were in the air 
because Iraq promised to allow the United Nations Special Commission to 
do its job. The President's decision at that time was a tough call. 
Many individuals, including some of his closest security advisors, 
disagreed with the choice that he made. I, however, believed that he 
made the right decision and publicly supported his decision.
  I supported the decision because it allowed the United States to show 
the world that we would give Iraq one last chance. As George Robertson, 
the British Minister of Defense, said at the time, ``Even in the Wild 
West, when someone put up their hands, did you not shoot them?''
  Almost 8 years ago, President George Bush ordered American military 
forces into action against Iraq. At that time I supported the decision. 
There was bipartisan support for the action that he took. Yesterday, 8 
years later, President Clinton ordered American military forces into 
action against Iraq. I find myself once again in support of the 
decision of our President. We gave ample warning one month ago that if 
Saddam did not comply with the promises he made to the United Nations, 
that the consequences would be severe. In effect, our national 
credibility was on the line. Had the President not ordered the attack, 
many would have bitterly criticized him for not having followed through 
with the tough words he uttered just one month ago. Others in the 
world, in North Korea and Yugoslavia and elsewhere, would have come to 
the conclusion that the United States, though militarily strong, was 
lacking in will.
  As we proceed with this action, we should have a sustained bombing 
campaign that targets Saddam Hussein's centers of power, especially the 
revolutionary guard and his security services. We should also hit known 
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons sites. This effort will help 
contain Iraq, maybe even spark a coup, but will surely retard his 
effort to rebuild his ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
  I also hope it will help encourage the internal opposition. There are 
no good options, but to have done nothing now would have been the worst 
of all options.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the President in his decision. 
I wholeheartedly support those in uniform who are carrying out those 
orders today, the difficult orders. I respect their determination and 
their professionalism. They are the cream of the crop. And our 
heartfelt and best wishes go with them.
  This resolution will help let them know that we, the representatives 
of the people of America, are in their corner today and in the days 
ahead.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This resolution, which I have sponsored, along with my colleague the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), expresses the strong support of 
the Congress for the courageous, patriotic and dedicated service of our 
men and women in uniform serving in the Persian Gulf who are currently 
conducting military strikes against Iraq.
  Once again, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have 
demonstrated that they comprise the finest fighting force in the world 
today. For years they have selflessly defended America's national 
security interests in the Persian Gulf at great personal sacrifice. All 
Americans can be proud of our troops and the way they have performed. 
They are a credit to our Nation and an inspiration to us all.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the situation with regard to Iraq 
has come to this point. For the past 8 years, since the end of the Gulf 
War, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, has repeatedly 
defied the will of the international community and ignored all 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council designed to ensure 
that Iraq could not reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction 
capability. Saddam Hussein has relentlessly pursued the acquisition of 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic missiles 
that can deliver them. He has invaded his neighbors, launched ballistic 
missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel, and used chemical weapons 
against his own people. To prevent international weapons inspectors 
from further uncovering his prohibited weapons activities, he has 
obstructed inspections, refused to turn over documents and thumbed his 
nose at the world. In short, he has worked methodically to undermine 
the international effort to prevent him from rearming.
  The challenge to United States security posed by Saddam Hussein's 
actions in Iraq is stark. Simply put, the United States cannot allow 
Saddam Hussein to frustrate the efforts of the international community 
and to reconstitute his weapons capability. Doing so

[[Page H11724]]

would again allow him to threaten his neighbors, United States' friends 
and allies in the region, and our own interests.
  Unfortunately, I am concerned that our military action against Iraq 
attacks only the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem 
itself. The root cause of our problems with Iraq is Saddam Hussein 
himself. The time is long overdue to implement a broader and more 
aggressive strategy that has as its ultimate goal the replacement of 
Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime. The Iraqi people have suffered 
long enough.
  Whatever one's view is on the timing of this latest military strike 
against Iraq, we are all unified in support of our servicemen and 
women. We are proud of each and every one of them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and urge all 
Americans to pray for the safety of our sons and daughters, husband and 
wives and those of our allies who are currently in harm's way in the 
Gulf. It is important for them to know that the American people and the 
people's representatives in Congress are behind them 100 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I must comment and say that I 
wholeheartedly agree with the comments of the chairman, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), regarding the outstanding young men 
and women that we have in uniform today. I would like the Record to 
show that I feel as strongly and I support those words of support for 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise this morning in support of President Clinton and our military 
troops dispersed in the Persian Gulf.
  Yesterday the United States military began strikes to subdue the 
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capability of Iraq. For some 
time now Saddam Hussein has flaunted the will of the United Nations by 
impeding the activities of weapons inspectors. Strikes against him, in 
my opinion, and against his regime have been greatly needed and greatly 
overdue.
  I believe, however, that President Clinton has demonstrated great 
restraint and patience and has waited the appropriate time to initiate 
these strikes. Had the United States moved towards strikes at another 
time, we would have been perceived as a bully and would have been 
condemned by much of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this time of crisis, we must put aside 
partisan quarrels and show unified support for our troops. We should 
send our thoughts and prayers to the men and women in uniform who are 
carrying out this attack. We should also keep in our prayers the 
families of these fine men and women. It will be especially difficult 
for them because this is the holiday season.
  In the Middle East today, along with thousands of military personnel, 
are more than 1100 soldiers from Fort Bliss, Texas. These men and women 
are manning Patriot missile systems. I am proud to say that these 
soldiers are led by the first woman ever to command an air defense 
battalion. The Patriot systems are in place to defend our troops 
against possible Scud missile launches from Iraq.
  We know from our experience in the Gulf War that Saddam is willing to 
use Scud missiles against our troops. The presence of these Patriots 
demonstrates how significant our military leaders believe that the 
threat of ballistic missiles is. Every month we learn of more tests of 
ballistic missiles that are faster and reach further distances. The 
countries testing these systems are not our friends and would likely 
actually use these ballistic missile systems armed with chemical, 
biological or even nuclear warheads against others, including the 
United States.
  The strikes to Iraq are significant to slow the development of such 
weapons by that government. But countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea 
and Libya will continue to seek the technology to deliver weapons of 
mass destruction. As such, we must continue to develop as quickly as 
possible defensive systems like the Army's THAAD missile system, the 
theater high altitude area defense system. We must ensure that we are 
capable of meeting the ever growing threat of ballistic missile to our 
troops and to our allies.

                              {time}  1030

  Today we must stand together and support our President and our 
troops. Once again, our thoughts should be with our men and women in 
uniform. God bless each one of them and God bless America.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
and commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for bringing 
it to the floor today.
  While the American people and the Congress may have some question 
about the timing of this attack, one thing remains unquestionable, our 
support for the troops. Once the planes are in the air and the ships 
are at full steam and the troops are on the ground, we categorically 
and wholeheartedly believe in the mission and we believe in the wisdom 
of our military leaders.
  The provocations are many and the time for action is long overdue. 
Saddam Hussein is a psychopathic bully in the international playground. 
As we all know, the only way to deal with a bully is swiftly, directly, 
and harshly. It is unfortunate that over 24,000 brave men and women 
have to be apart from their families during the holiday season, but the 
extraordinary task they are performing will allow the United States and 
its allies to reaffirm that we will not stand idly by while this threat 
to safety, liberty and freedom exists.
  I proudly salute our servicemen and women all over the globe, and our 
thoughts and prayers are with you and your families and our support 
will not waiver.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
absolute support for the steps that our President has taken to degrade 
Iraq's ability to terrorize her neighbors and destabilize the Persian 
Gulf.
  The international community has given Saddam Hussein more than enough 
opportunities to comply with United Nations resolutions. Unfortunately, 
he has chosen to ignore the United Nations and has repeatedly blocked 
the ability of U.N. weapons inspectors to access strategic sites. 
Saddam Hussein clearly has something to hide.
  I am appalled that Members of Congress in both bodies could be so 
crass and thoughtless as to suggest that President Clinton initiated 
this attack to avoid impending legislation addressing his office. To 
question the integrity of this decision is insidious, damaging, and can 
be destabilizing to the presidency and dangerous and demoralizing to 
our troops.
  Those, the leaders of our armed forces, need our support. They do not 
need doubts as regards their motives. I, for one, am proud of our 
President, our military leaders, and our men and women on the ground, 
the air, and the sea who are leading the strike force and showing the 
world once again that America is not afraid to do the right thing.
  I was with the President in the Middle East and witnessed his 
courageous actions in pursuing peace in that region. I was on Air Force 
One with the President, the Secretary of State, the National Security 
Advisor, and Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. The 
President and Secretary of State briefed us just before landing here at 
Andrews regarding the circumstances of Iraq's deliberate misconduct.
  Confluence of events notwithstanding, the President, with 
professionalism, dedication, patriotism, wisdom and courage, took the 
appropriate steps. We stand with the President and our troops and may 
God bless them and all of us.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of our Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H11725]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the leadership of the House in 
bringing this bipartisan resolution to us in support of our military 
initiative in Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.N. 
Secretary Council's resolutions pertaining to his cooperation with the 
U.N. inspectors. I commend, too, the remarks of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) in support of this resolution supporting our 
Nation's military action against Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, in rising in support of this legislation before us 
today, I am pleased that we understand scoring congressional 
unequivocal support for the men and women of our armed forces who are 
now engaged in our Nation's operations against Iraq. We must, as this 
measure points out, take appropriate action to remove the regime headed 
by Saddam Hussein and to promote the emergence of a democratic 
government to replace that regime.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not permit Saddam Hussein to defy the U.N. 
Security Council. It is the U.N. Security Council that empowered UNSCOM 
inspectors that are now being denied access to the sites that need to 
be inspected in Iraq. We cannot permit any suspicious sites to go 
unchecked when someone such as Saddam Hussein is determined to develop 
weapons of mass destruction capable of being unleashed on neighboring 
nations in the Gulf region.
  While there has been some debate on whether earlier actions by Saddam 
should have triggered earlier U.S. military initiatives, the fact 
remains that we are now involved and we must direct our energies toward 
making certain that our military efforts are going to be successful and 
as effective as possible. But we must also make certain that ours is a 
comprehensive policy that seeks to end Saddam's ability to taunt and 
endanger the international community.
  We must also reach out to those groups within Iraq who are willing to 
rise up against Saddam Hussein. And I refer my colleagues to the 
recently enacted Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which spells out how we 
can best accomplish that purpose.
  My colleagues, Saddam has demonstrated no compunction in reaching out 
against his own people and nations in the region in reprehensible ways 
long strongly condemned by the international community. Accordingly, I 
urge strong support for this measure which underscores the need that 
military action which can stop Saddam Hussein be effective and 
continued. We also support and will keep in our prayers the safety and 
early return of those young men and women who are now securing and 
fighting for our nation so gallantly at this time of crisis.
  Hopefully, then, our response is part of a comprehensive strategy 
that not only targets Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but 
has, as its ultimate objective, the eventual removal from power of 
Saddam and his regime, a goal that the President himself has iterated.
  To that end, the Administration should employ an integrated strategy 
in which military action is not an end in itself, but part of a larger 
plan that includes support for the efforts of democratic opponents of 
Saddam to remove him from power.
  Such an approach should include air strikes, not only against 
facilities related to weapons of mass destruction, but also against 
elements that Saddam uses to suppress organized democratic opposition, 
such as military command and control centers, heavy weapons, and 
installations of the Republican Guard and the Special Security 
Organization.
  The President should also declare no-drive zones in northern and 
southern Iraq--in addition to the existing no-fly zones--from which 
Iraqi armor and artillery would be totally excluded by U.S. air power.
  Moreover, the President should utilize the authority under the Iraq 
Liberation Act of 1998, Public Law 105-338, to provide military 
assistance and training to Iraqi democratic opposition groups fighting 
to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.
  In short, U.S. military power needs to be used in a way that will 
complement and reinforce the efforts of Iraqi democratic opposition 
groups to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power.
  Such a strategy is more likely to succeed than air strikes alone. 
While there is no guarantee that such a strategy will succeed in 
overthrowing Saddam, this approach is more likely to lead to that 
result than other strategies that presuppose Saddam's continued grip on 
power.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our whip on the Democratic side.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in support of this 
resolution and in support of our men and women who are engaged in 
combat as we speak. As I look at this issue that is facing us this 
morning, I look at it from two perspectives, Mr. Speaker. Number one, 
the need to deal with Saddam and the production, the sale, the use, the 
delivery of weapons of mass destruction, the destabilizing influence of 
these nuclear and biological and chemical agents and the pain and the 
suffering that they have caused and could cause our community.
  The other issue that we will not hear very much about on this floor 
today or perhaps in the dialogue that we will have over this issue in 
the coming days and months is the policy that we have with respect to 
sanctions in Iraq, which I think that policy is wrong. And I will tell 
my colleagues why I think it is wrong and why it has not worked.
  It has been 8 years, Mr. Speaker. We do not read about the fact that 
there have been over a half a million children in Iraq who have died 
prematurely as a result of this policy. According to preliminary 
numbers in a study conducted by Richard Garfield, Columbia University, 
an epidemiologist and a specialist on health effects of the embargo, 
the death rate of Iraqi children age 5 and under has spiraled up nearly 
tripling since the sanctions were imposed in 1990. At that time, child 
deaths in Iraq were on par with much of the Western world.
  And it is not just children under 5, it is what has happened to the 
total society. They do not have medicine, anesthesia for operations. 
They do not have insulin for diabetics. They do not have heart medicine 
for those with heart problems, and it has caused enormous pain and 
suffering.
  So what we are confronted with today are two real issues here, one 
affecting the security of our people and the region in which we are now 
engaged in a very serious way, threatening way, destabilizing way, and 
the other with a real humanitarian need to address the concerns of the 
Iraqi people who are suffering unimaginable pain as a result of the 
policies of Saddam Hussein but also as a result of the policies of 
these sanctions which have not worked.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel.
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence) for yielding time to me, and to the Speaker-elect, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), let me extend a great 
compliment to him yesterday. While there were many people who were 
questioning the President's motives, questioning the President's 
decision-making process, the gentleman was very thorough, he was very 
methodical in his decisions approaching the Nation's business, and I 
extend a compliment to him for having done that. Because I think he 
made the right decision.
  We were facing the impeachment vote and then we have this response to 
Saddam Hussein. I think many of us here were here last night and we 
listened to the briefing by the Secretary of Defense and the Director 
of the CIA and in particular the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  What is difficult here is that the President, as the Commander in 
Chief, he is always entitled to the benefit of the doubt in his 
decision-making process as he comes to judgment. His policies and his 
judgment are always of question. But how he makes the decision, he is 
given the benefit of the doubt. The benefit gets removed in this case 
because of the diminished credibility and the self-inflicted wounds 
that the President has caused himself.
  Turn and give the benefit of the doubt to the Secretary of the 
Defense, to our military intelligence and to the present circumstances. 
I support this measured and tempered response to the recalcitrance of 
Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender, He is

[[Page H11726]]

a habitual offender, and he needs to be put back in his place. He is a 
Third World tyrant who is a prisoner in the border of his own nation. 
He loves to be elevated and thumb the nose not only to the world but 
elevated to the superpower status where he attempts to stick the eyes 
of America.
  Now, this is measured. There will be a cease to this. Do not over 
blow or over play what this is. This is not an equivalency of the House 
coming to its debate of the use of force during the Gulf War. Do not 
over play your hand to the House.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, when our troops are in harm's way, we all support them 
and we all pray that they will come home safely and as promptly as 
possible. Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about 
the current military action ordered by the President.
  I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the 
United States Congress despite the fact that the Constitution makes it 
very clear that it is this body which declares war. I am concerned that 
while we are ostensibly supporting a United Nations resolution, the 
U.N. did not vote for this attack, does not support this attack, and 
that country after country throughout the world are condemning this 
attack.
  This is important because if the United States is to have credibility 
in the future in terms of condemning aggression, how do we go forward 
with countries saying, hey, we felt aggrieved, we wanted to do it, that 
is what you did, you did not come to the United Nations.
  This article of war, this act of aggression, is not supported by the 
Vatican. Let me quote from the Vatican. ``The Holy See agrees fully 
with the Secretary General of the U.N. that today is a sad day for the 
United Nations and for the world. The Holy See hopes that this 
aggression will end as soon as possible and that international order is 
restored.''

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be 
overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be 
eliminated. I have serious doubts, however, whether the action that we 
are taking today will take us one step forward in that direction, and I 
fear that innocent civilians, that women and children in that country, 
will be killed.
  Mr. Speaker, when American troops are in harm's way we all support 
them and pray that they will come home safely and promptly. There can 
be no disagreement over that.
  Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about the 
current military action ordered by the President.
  I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the 
U.S. Congress, despite the fact that war making responsibility rests 
with the Congress under the Constitution.
  I am concerned that while we are ostensibly supporting a United 
Nations resolution, the United Nations did not vote for this attack. 
Not only was there no vote by the U.N., it appears quite clearly that 
the Security Council does not support this action. And this is an issue 
of grave concern. How will the United States, in the future, be able to 
condemn aggression anywhere in the world when, for all intent and 
purposes, this country has acted unilaterally and without the force of 
law? If Russia, China, North Korea, Great Britain or any country on 
Earth commits unilateral military aggression that we disapprove of, how 
will we be able, in good faith, to condemn them? They will simply 
respond that they are doing precisely what the United States did 
against Iraq.
  While I opposed the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations and the 
world community supported it. That is not the case now, Today, our 
attack is opposed by countries throughout the world, including France, 
Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Sweden, and others.
  On Thursday, Arab-League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid 
denounced the U.S. led attack on Iraq as aggression against an Arab 
country that would not solve Baghdad's dispute with the United Nations 
over arms inspections. It is also opposed by The Vatican. Let me quote 
from The Vatican, ``The Holy See agrees fully with the Secretary 
General of the United Nations that `today is a sad day for the United 
Nations and for the world.' The Holy See hopes that this aggression 
will end as soon as possible and that international order is 
restored.''
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal and illegitimate dictator who 
should be removed from office, and his capability to make weapons of 
mass destruction must be eliminated. In order to do that, we must 
develop a political strategy and support the democratic forces in Iraq 
who are prepared to overthrow him. I have serious doubts whether this 
military action today will take us one step forward in that direction.
  For years now, the women, children and innocent civilians of Iraq, 
whose only ``crime'' is that they live under the tyranny of Saddam 
Hussein, have been punished terribly. They lack medicine, adequate 
food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. We should not 
add to their suffering with attacks like this.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman) chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness.
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to tell Members how 
strongly I endorse and applaud the decision of our Commander in Chief 
and his military advisers to take the action which was taken yesterday 
and which continues today.
  Yes, we all ought to recognize the fact that it was a sad day, sad 
that it had to be taken. But it did have to be taken. I am not one of 
those who object and point and accuse that there is something peculiar 
or wrong in the timing of this decision, not in the context of what we 
expected in terms of the ongoing debate on the subject of the 
presidency and its tenure. I object to it on the basis that in the 
first 2 weeks of November when Saddam Hussein had ceased the 
opportunity for inspections, the Gulf cooperating states, Syria, Egypt 
and an alignment of people or nations favorable to our having done so 
agreed that he was at fault and that military action was justified. But 
we did not undertake that action until 3 days or more after that had 
happened with more forces deployed in the Middle East then than there 
are now. Then at the last moment, as we could have predicted Saddam 
Hussein would have done, he says, ``Okay, I'll cooperate'' and in mid 
flight the planes were called back. That never should have happened. We 
should have gone forward when we had the circumstances and the window 
of opportunity to have done it then. If I thought it should have been 
done earlier, I certainly am in no position to complain that it is 
being done now.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak from my perspective 
as cochairman of the bipartisan House Army Caucus and as the 
representative of Fort Hood in Texas, the largest Army installation in 
the world. In 1991 when President Bush sent U.S. forces into Kuwait and 
Iraq, our Nation stood united in support of our troops. Even 
congressional Democrats and Republicans who preferred economic 
sanctions rather than war against Iraq at that time put aside their 
personal and partisan differences once our armed forces were in harm's 
way. I can tell everyone here that it meant everything to the morale of 
our troops in Iraq in 1991, including 25,000 of my own constituents, 
that Congress and the American people stood together in support of 
them. That is why I am glad to be here to support this resolution 
today.
  However, Mr. Speaker, a resolution supporting our troops must be 
backed up by our words on this floor and off this floor, by our words 
and our deeds. I am saddened that last night a number of Republican 
Members of this House precipitously and without fact charged that the 
timing of this action was totally political. One representative was 
even quoted as saying, without any proof whatsoever, that the President 
was willing to risk the lives of American service men and women to 
protect his own political standing. Mr. Speaker, that type of 
unsubstantiated personal attack against our President at a time when 
brave American pilots and armed forces are in harm's way is wrong. It 
is irresponsible. It does harm to the morale of our forces in the 
Persian Gulf.
  This morning former Secretary Henry Kissinger, a Republican, said 
that political attacks on our Iraqi missions such as some of those made 
last night by Members of Congress would demoralize our troops in the 
Persian

[[Page H11727]]

Gulf. The truth is the timing of this attack was unanimously supported 
by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an attack on the 
integrity of this operation is in effect an attack on the integrity of 
our Joint Chiefs. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a Republican who 
served with dignity and integrity in this House and in the Senate said 
this yesterday, and I quote: ``I am prepared to place 30 years of 
public service on the line to say the only factor that was important in 
this decision is what is in the American people's interest. There were 
no other factors.''
  Mr. Speaker, today is a time to put partisanship and these kind of 
attacks behind us. I urge some of my colleagues to reconsider their 
ill-advised comments of last night. Today we must have two goals: One 
is to say together, the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats do 
indeed support our troops. Finally let us send a clear message to 
Saddam Hussein, do not underestimate the ability of the American 
Congress and people to come together when our national security 
interests are at risk.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Livingston). The Chair must remind all 
Members that although it is permissible to debate and speak critically 
of the President or the administration on matters of policy or 
politics, remarks in debate must not descend to personality by 
arraigning the President's personal conduct or by charging other 
Members with having done so off the floor and by detailing those 
arraignments.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the 
resolution before us today. While questions have been raised about the 
unique circumstances under which this attack has occurred, I believe 
that all Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats alike, need 
to pull together today in support of the young men and women that are 
now in harm's way in support of our Nation's vital interests. I hope we 
will wreak havoc on Saddam's ability to develop weapons of mass 
destruction, to threaten his neighbors and to repress his own people. 
But beyond that, I hope that these strikes are only part of a broader 
strategy by this administration to dismantle this Iraqi regime.
  I also want to express my thanks to the government of the United 
Kingdom which again stands shoulder to shoulder with us in opposition 
to Saddam's defiance to international law. I know that all Americans 
join me today in praying that our men and women in uniform in the Gulf, 
including some 2,000 troops from my northeast Florida area, complete 
this endeavor safely and return home to their families soon.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, of course we want to support American troops as they 
carry out this dangerous and important mission. But let us not lose 
sight of the sad fact that President Clinton has acted in violation of 
the Constitution in ordering these attacks without authority of 
Congress. And let us not forget as well that the decision to go to war 
is vested in Congress and not in the Commander in Chief and that we too 
share the blame for this violation of the Constitution because we have 
time and again defaulted in our responsibility and obligation to insist 
on our proper constitutional role.
  The President, to the extent that he relies on a strict reading of 
the Constitution for other purposes, would be well advised to adhere to 
a strict reading of the war powers clause as well. But instead this 
administration engages in a contrived bit of legal sophistry to conjure 
up a pretext of legality where none exists.
  Shame on him. And shame on us for letting other Presidents and this 
one take away one of the most important powers vested in Congress, 
which the American people have a right to expect us, here, to exercise 
in their behalf.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding me this time. There is certainly no question 
that every Member whether Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, 
moderate, independent, whatever, however we describe ourselves, every 
Member of this House today stands in unequivocal support of our troops 
in the Persian Gulf at this time of danger and risk for them. We wish 
them Godspeed, we wish them good luck, we wish them safe return, we 
wish them swift return. We express our gratitude to them and to their 
families for their sacrifice in support of a peaceful world we all want 
and the security of our Nation that all Americans deserve and demand 
and expect, especially when these heavy duties come during the holiday 
season.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has outlined a policy of containment with 
respect to this military action. Degrading Saddam Hussein's program of 
deadly weapons and fear is a good interim step but it is not the end 
game. I implore the administration not to be satisfied with an interim 
result of containment but rather to work toward dismantling Saddam 
Hussein's destructive regime. Otherwise, we will be doing this again.
  We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We all know that. They 
have suffered too long at the hands of a war criminal leader who is 
ruthless and uses chemistry for genocide in his own country. We want 
the Iraqis to have a peaceful chance to live in this world community 
and that cannot happen as long as Saddam Hussein is the ruler of Iraq. 
We must stand firm. Saddam Hussein must go. He is a war criminal. We 
should bring him to justice. If we are going to risk the lives of 
American troops, that is the purpose that the risk should take place. 
God bless all of them who are doing this heavy, dangerous work now. 
Amen.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops like every American. 
Saddam Hussein deserves this. He earned it. He had it coming. But I do 
not support this process. What has happened to the backbone of the 
Congress of the United States? We have allowed the executive branch to 
usurp nearly all of our authority. If these were political actions, we 
would send the police. If these were peacekeeping missions, we would 
send the Peace Corps. Ladies and gentlemen, what we are doing is 
placing troops on foreign soil in harm's way that could precipitate a 
major problem and the truth of the matter is we are allowing one person 
to do this.
  We all support our troops after the fact. I say it is time to throw 
out the War Powers Act. Throw it out. Get back to the Constitution. My 
God, no one man in America should be able to declare war, and that is 
where we are.
  What is even more problematic today is there are many skeptics out 
there. Everybody is afraid to say what they feel down here. From 
patriots to ``Wag the Dog'' skeptics, people are questioning motives. I 
blame Congress for this. If we get back to the Constitution, do it the 
right way, we would never allow doubt and politics to raise their ugly 
head when our troops are in foreign lands under attack.
  God almighty, what has happened to us? Yes, maybe the constitutional 
process is clumsy, maybe it lacks surprises but you know what? Doing it 
the right way will not only save lives, it will ensure our great 
republic and our freedom.
  I support our troops but I oppose with every fiber in me this 
process. The war declaration powers in Congress are clear. Wise up, 
Congress, before we place America at great risk.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place a statement in the Record in 
support of this resolution but in strong agreement with the previous 
speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to support our men and women in the 
military, and I support this Resolution.

[[Page H11728]]

  I supported the original Gulf War, but I must say that I think the 
situation is very different today.
  Eight years ago, Saddam Hussein had what some described then as the 
largest, most-powerful military in the Middle East.
  He was moving into Kuwait, and most analysts felt that if he was not 
stopped, he would try to take over the entire Middle East.
  Today, after major losses in the Gulf War and 8 years of sanctions, 
Iraq essentially is a defenseless nation in comparison to the U.S.
  We have not been told of any overt military action by Iraq, or even 
of any threatened action, against us on anyone else.
  Several nations, including us and some of our strongest allies, have 
weapons of mass destruction and chemical and biological weapons. We 
cannot bomb every nation that has such weapons.
  We have always prided ourselves as being a peace-loving nation.
  War should be our most reluctant action. We should go to war only as 
a last resort--only if there is no reasonable alternative.
  And we should go to war only if there is a serious threat to our 
national security or there is a vital U.S. interest at stake.
  In this instance, as in the bombing a few weeks ago of Sudan and 
Afghanistan, we have been far too eager to go to war.
  We are now bombing innocent men, women, and children who have done 
nothing to us and have not even threatened us, simply because they are 
ruled by a mad dictator.
  Saddam Hussein is without doubt a horrible tyrant and I would agree 
with anything bad that is said about him.
  But this bombing now is the wrong thing to do, and it is the wrong 
time to do it. In the long run, it will do far more harm than good.
  This Resolution, however, expresses support for our troops in combat 
and supports the removal of Saddam Hussein. Both of these are things 
that all Americans can support even if they have questions about the 
policy and its timing.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for yielding this time to me, and I, too, rise in strong 
support of our men and women in uniform who find themselves today in 
harm's way, indeed of all those who wear the uniform of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note in response to the 
criticism from my friend from Texas that came earlier that there are 
many who confuse dissent with lack of resolve. Indeed the tyrant whom 
we now confront, Saddam Hussein, was heard to brag to the international 
press that he remained in power while George Bush was deposed. Mr. 
Speaker, the tyrant does not understand our constitutional republic, 
and, Mr. Speaker, in that spirit today I rise to celebrate the ability 
of every Member of this House and of every American citizen to come to 
this floor and freely express his or her opinion. That is for one of 
the freedoms we fight, that is one of the freedoms that must be 
preserved, that is part of the constitutional process we confront.
  Mr. Speaker, let us all remember that and embrace it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has two parts. Of course we 
support the troops, of course we do. But the second part of this 
resolution confirms that we should remove a ruler. I cannot believe it 
is in our best interests to decide who rules in what country. 
Democracies are not created by attacks from outside.
  Mr. Speaker, I know mine might be a minority voice today, but I want 
us to take a moment, just a moment to mourn, to mourn the thousands of 
children who will die today and tomorrow. Iraqi children, yes, but they 
are loved by their parents as we love ours. Those children will die 
because they are victims of a world problem. No, they are children, 
they will die.
  Mr. Speaker, war is very seldom an answer. But war is always, always 
a tragedy.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of our Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 2 minutes, but let me 
just say that any Member can stand and perhaps be critical of the 
timing of the attack, but what can not be questioned is the fact that 
the attack should come. It should have come 90 days ago, 60 days ago, 
30 days ago, 2 weeks ago. The truth of the matter is that the attack is 
needed.
  Let me just say that I have stood on this floor and lectured Members 
for many years about the need for a strong military. This is just one 
more example of why we have to maintain a strong national defense that 
will be able to protect the strategic interests of Americans across 
this world. And in doing so, when we depend on an all voluntary 
military, it is absolutely imperative that we give these young men and 
women the best possible weaponry that we possibly can as long as we 
have to ask them to go in harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just appeal to my colleagues on my way out of 
here in a couple of weeks that they continue to maintain a level of 
defense so that the military can continue to attract and recruit the 
kind of young men and women from a cross-section of America that we 
have now. They are the finest young men and women that have ever served 
in the military, going all the way back to my days in 1950 in the 
United States Marine Corps.
  So I praise this body for what they have done, and I certainly 
support this resolution. I hope it passes unanimously.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge its 
unanimous adoption by the House.
  I would have preferred supporting a resolution of this kind 30 days 
ago, 90 days ago, last February, or at any number of other times over 
the past several years. On each and every such time, military strikes 
against Iraq would have been entirely justified.
  Since 1992, Saddam Hussein has established a pattern of noncompliance 
with the international inspection regime, a pattern of outright 
defiance that is so unrelenting and unmistakable that military action 
was called for long before now.
  Personally, I believe the last straw came this past September, when 
Major Scott Ritter described the collapse of the inspection regime in 
such telling detail that we shouldn't have waited another day. The fury 
and abuse that were heaped on him by the higher-ups served only to 
confirm the truth of his warnings.
  But, we play the cards we are dealt, and later is better than never.
  Mr. Speaker, American forces have been committed to action. Troops 
are in the field. Our pilots are in the skies over Iraq. Now is the 
time to pull together and give them the unwavering support they 
deserve. Every one of them is a volunteer--never forget that--and they 
deserve everything we can give them.
  America stands united behind them. Congress stands united behind 
them. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind about that.
  And as other of our colleagues have said here today, let this present 
action against Iraq be the first strike in a comprehensive effort to 
deal with the source of the problem once and for all--not just with the 
symptoms.
  Let us also seize this situation as an urgent reminder that we need 
to maintain a strong military. General Norman Schwarzkopf has put it so 
well; ``It is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in war.''
  One of the clearest lessons of history is this: Peace is only secure 
when the good are strong enough to deter the bad. It is just that 
basic.
  And that is why Congress must continue to be vigilant in making sure 
that our military is the best-trained, best-equipped, best-motivated 
fighting force in the world. We must continue to make sure that the 
incentives we use in recruiting an All-Volunteer Force are the best 
that America can possibly offer.
  Mr. Speaker, standing behind the troops is a full-time obligation. 
They deserve our support in peace, as well as war. Let's send them that 
message today and every day.
  I urge unanimous support for this resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale).
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Member of Congress and perhaps 
more importantly as a veteran of the Gulf War to strongly support the 
resolution now before the House. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that we 
of this Chamber have a profound obligation to those who fought and died 
in the Gulf War to resolutely compel Iraq's compliance with the terms 
of peace negotiated at the end of that conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember almost 8 years ago I stood in the chow line, 
I believe in northern Saudi Arabia, perhaps in Kuwait, behind a young 
Marine who had written on his helmet cover:
  ``It's not about oil.''

[[Page H11729]]

  The wisdom of that young Marine was true then, it remains true today. 
It was not about oil during the Gulf War. The action taken by the 
President yesterday was also about more strategic and significant 
concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about denying access to one of the world's 
tyrants to weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and 
biological capabilities. The action taken by the President yesterday 
was fully justified.
  Our tactical bombardment must now lead to a strategic objective, the 
removal of Saddam Hussein from power. For the past 8 years that tyrant 
has exercised brutal authority in a manner not only adverse to the 
interests of the United States but detrimental to the peace of the 
world. I welcome the President's action and urge him to take all 
necessary steps sufficient to strip Iraq of offensive military 
capabilities, most especially weapons of mass destruction.
  Now I would say to my colleagues:
  Regardless of how we may vote on other issues within the next few 
days, now is the time for nonpartisan national unity in support of our 
President and our forces overseas.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong 
support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But 
this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the 
very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the 
military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a 
war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the 
proper way.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only 
Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of 
the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the 
Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did 
not declare war since there was no justification to because there was 
no national security interests involved.
  Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a 
concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, 
but it has nothing to do with national security.
  This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping 
this action.
  We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that 
resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives 
and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual 
for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any 
more.
  We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much 
authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of 
circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House, 
must assume our responsibilities.
  I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is 
an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. 
We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow 
our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.
  First and foremost, the notion that the United States can dictate the 
political leadership of a foreign policy is immoral. What right have we 
to determine these things for any nation other than our own? The 
answer, clearly, is ``none,'' we have no such right.
  There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to 
nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be 
responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other 
nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would 
invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the 
sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts 
are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.
  One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our 
dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront 
to our nation's sovereignty and our constitution that the President 
presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but 
without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United 
States Congress.
  As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese 
Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not 
free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation 
appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the 
government of a sovereign nation.
  Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be 
employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel 
with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers 
stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. 
Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no 
war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not 
only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price 
of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the 
government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human 
beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be 
American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to 
defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess 
game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the 
removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans 
ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political 
purposes.
  Finally, even by the amoral measure of ``realpolitik'' the policy of 
Saddam's removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated 
to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is 
because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq 
is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its 
neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over 
areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were 
to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to 
regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who 
practice ``realpolitik'' this points to the fact that by the measures 
established by the ``pragmatists'' the stated policy of Saddam's 
removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of 
divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should 
understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is 
also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I support the President's decision to 
attack Iraq. The cat and mouse game with inspection has gone on far too 
long. It is clear that Saddam Hussein does not intend to comply with 
the agreement made at the end of the Gulf War. Our best evidence is 
that Saddam has continued to focus resources on weapons of mass 
destruction. The problem is that chemical and biological weapons are 
relatively unsophisticated. It is relatively easy to produce them and 
hide the production facilities.
  In addition, evidence indicates Saddam continues to produce an array 
of conventional weapons, but the possibility of chemical, biological 
and even nuclear weapons and delivery system production is clearly the 
most troubling issue. Our certainty about what is happening in these 
areas is clouded by Iraq's mistreatment of inspection teams, and this 
is what has precipitated this crisis.
  I was with the President and the congressional delegation, both 
Democrats and Republicans, to the Middle East. We came back Tuesday 
night. There was a paradox here. In the West Bank and in Gaza, instead 
of seeing American flags being burned we saw American flags being 
waived, and we saw the Palestine Committee raise their hands and knock 
out a covenant in their charter that says Israel will be destroyed. The 
President of the United States really was the King of Peace in the 
Middle East, and then on the way back the paradox is that unfortunately 
he had to order an attack on Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we are the luckiest people in the world by having young 
men and women ready and willing to serve. I would add that they deserve 
our undying support.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the resolution.
  The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have once again 
been called on to defend our country's interests abroad. We can no 
longer stand idly by while Saddam Hussein flaunts the will of the world 
and

[[Page H11730]]

thumbs his nose at the inspectors. This action was not only necessary, 
Mr. Speaker, it was long overdue. Our military personnel currently 
serving their Nation in the Persian Gulf should know that this Congress 
and this country is fully behind their new mission.
  One of those sailors is a former intern from my staff, and today I 
would like to tell her that we are thinking about her. The relatives 
and friends of our officers and our enlisted men and women should know 
that their mission is a just one and is clearly in our national 
security interests. While the prospects of their absence over the 
holiday season is discouraging, they should take heart from the 
knowledge that their service today preserves the future for tomorrow's 
generation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, 
and of our men and women in the Armed Services and of our Commander in 
Chief, the President who has made a courageous and correct decision. 
This action has been undertaken for strategic reasons and pursuant to 
tactical judgments of our military and civilian leaders in the 
Pentagon. The President has taken appropriate action to confront and 
weaken one of the world's most dangerous tyrants who has savaged his 
own people and threatened Iraq's neighbors and the world with weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, too often we have historically learned the lesson of 
failing to act in the face of eminent dangers. Saddam Hussein, through 
his policies of dissembling and lack of cooperation and following the 
promises he made following his loss in a war that he precipitated, has 
made the Middle East a more dangerous region and the world a more 
dangerous place.

                              {time}  1115

  The world is a safer place because of the courage and willingness of 
our brave men and women in our armed forces, willing to go in harm's 
way to protect, not only this country, but the interest of 
international stability.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will stand with the President, stand 
with our brave young men and women in the armed services, and stand, 
yes, indeed, with our allies in confronting this, one of the world's 
most dangerous tyrants.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Duncan Hunter), the chairman of our Subcommittee 
on Military Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the President has decided to take this 
action that should have been taken any time over the last several 
years. We have gathered today to commend the troops and to pledge our 
loyalty to them. We know they have a very difficult task. I hope that 
they finish the job. It is going to be a very, very difficult job in 
rooting out and destroying these sites where Saddam Hussein is building 
weapons of mass destruction.
  But we are going to have an obligation to them. I hope that all my 
colleagues who are coming to the floor to pledge undying loyalty to the 
troops will join us on the Committee on National Security in moving to 
increase the defense number to close the 13 percent pay gap that right 
now exists between the civilian sector and the uniform sector, to buy 
that $1.6 billion worth of ammunition that the Army is presently short 
of, to buy the $193 million worth of ammunition that the Marine Corps 
is short right now, and to increase the defense budget by at least 
$28.5 billion a year. Because that is what the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
tell us we are going to have to spend if we want to fill all those 
unfunded requirements that they have been giving this President over 
the last several years and that he has not been responding to.
  So let us reciprocate to these troops in the next several weeks. We 
will have a chance to demonstrate our commitment to them. I hope 
everyone will join with me and other members of the Committee on 
National Security in seeing to it that we, in fact, do reciprocate and 
do rebuild our national defense.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is doing the right thing at the right 
time, for the right reasons. I hope that we give him the support 
necessary so that this campaign continues until we achieve our 
objectives. The President's action have the support of the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, the Republican Secretary of Defense, and the British 
Prime Minister, none of whom would risk the lives of American and 
British troops for the President's political purposes.
  We needed to act now, while the reports of the inspectors still 
provide limited but fresh intelligence; now, before Saddam can complete 
hiding his weapons; now, before the commencement of the holy month of 
Ramadan; now, before the reason for the bombing--Tuesday's U.N. 
report--becomes old news rather than the final straw justifying 
immediate action; now, before the world concludes that America has lost 
its nerve.
  Some critics say that the President should have bombed Iraq on 
November 14th. Mr. Speaker, if the President had done so, those same 
partisan critics would have savaged him, claiming that he was merely 
trying to distract us from the November Judiciary Committee Hearings. 
And if the President had not commenced the bombing yesterday, those 
same critics would be attacking him today for inaction.
  Mr. Speaker--Never underestimate a desperate partisan whose lust for 
the President's blood causes him to make statements which 
unintentionally give aid and comfort to the enemy.
  Those that have made such statements should apologize to our troops, 
to the President, and to the nation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution 
and in support of our troops overseas. We as a Nation and a Congress 
must focus now on the servicemen and women who are risking their lives 
and standing bravely in the days of adversity to ensure safety for all 
Americans.
  Iraq will continue to be a threat to the United States and the rest 
of the world as long as Saddam Hussein is in power and has the ability 
to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been 
given too many chances to comply with United Nations inspections. We 
cannot continue to play this dangerous game of cat and mouse.
  I support the use of force in this region to ensure the safety of 
America and global interests. In what should be a season of peace, my 
thoughts and prayers are with our servicemen and women and their 
families as they help make the world a safer place. God bless them.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all of us to join 
together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to 
express our support and offer our prayers to the young men and women in 
American uniform who are responsible for carrying out the current 
military operation against Saddam Hussein.
  Whatever our troubles and conflicts may be at home at this time, I 
submit that they are rather unimportant compared to the sacrifice these 
young men and women and their families are making at this time.
  Last night, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff General Shelton came to this chamber and provided an 
excellent briefing to us Members of Congress about the military 
operations, their objective, and their timing. I am convinced now more 
than ever that this was the right decision at the right time and for 
the right reason.
  I want to just take a moment to thank our British friends and allies 
who have been partners in peace with us standing together against 
tyranny to help ensure peace and stability, not only in the Persian 
Gulf, but throughout the world.
  This partnership has grown out of commonly held principles of 
democracy, freedom, security and peace.
  Let me conclude by offering my heartfelt thanks and prayers to the 
military personnel and their families

[[Page H11731]]

for the sacrifice they make to their country. This is especially true 
this time of year when everyone would prefer to be home during the 
holidays and with their loved ones.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of my committee, 
along with the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution in the strongest 
terms. I rise to support the two-part resolution which supports our 
military men and women now engaged in the Gulf region. Once again, our 
military has been called upon to beat back an over-aggressive Hussein 
regime in Iraq, a regime that, against the will of the global 
community, has perpetrated the development of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  We have been down this road before. Time and again, we have 
threatened to use force against Hussein's indiscretions. Time and 
again, we have failed to send an adequate message of our resolve. This 
time, we must not fail to punctuate our interest in the region and our 
commitment to peace in the Middle East.
  I would like to highlight the participation of the many brave men and 
women deployed from Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia. 
One hundred forty representatives of the 5th Combat Communications 
group and another 15 from the 78th Security Forces Squadron have been 
deployed since our last buildup in the region. They will be joined by 
150 members of the JOINTSTARS unit and a yet-to-be-determined number of 
our aircraft.
  May God go with them in this holiday season as they carry out their 
duties on behalf of every American to bring peace in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                February 26, 1998.
     The Honorable William J. Clinton,
     The President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In September, 1996, I wrote you with my 
     thoughts and concerns about U.S. policy toward Iraq (see 
     attached), particularly with regard to the Iraqi government's 
     suppression of the Kurd rebels in the north. I write again to 
     express my concerns about this nation's policy toward Iraq 
     and to urge that you make the overthrow of the current Iraqi 
     government a central element of U.S. policy.
       In late 1996, Saddam Hussein and his regime moved 
     aggressively to ensure that anti-Hussein elements in northern 
     Iraq would not pose a political challenge to his authority. 
     In that effort, 2,500 were arrested or murdered by the 
     government. At the same time, some 7,000 of the rebels were 
     evacuated by the U.S. to Guam, and all financial and arms 
     support that had been given to a group of exiled former Iraqi 
     military and political figures (the Iraqi National Accord) 
     was discontinued. The net effect of U.S. policy then was that 
     nearly 10,000 members of the anti-Hussein movement were 
     neutralized in Iraq and all financial backing dried up.
       As an indication of how concerned Hussein is about an 
     internal revolution, intelligence indicates that when a U.S. 
     attack became imminent some weeks ago, Hussein immediately 
     moved to consolidate ground forces toward northern Iraq to 
     deal with a possible uprising. Hussein is clearly concerned 
     about the Kurds. Unfortunately, this nation has done little 
     to promote that threat from within Iraqi borders. In my view, 
     the anti-Hussein element represents the best opportunity for 
     internal change in Iraq. Hussein's regime, which operates as 
     a Republic in name only, is guilty of human rights 
     violations, political oppression and crimes against other 
     nations. This, together with a track record of developing 
     weapons of mass destruction make the restoration of a true 
     Republic in Iraq within the national security interests of 
     the U.S. government.
       Rough parallels may be drawn to longstanding U.S. policy in 
     Central America where this nation's anti-Communist policy not 
     only prevented the spread of Communism in our hemisphere, but 
     also promoted democracy to the extent that only one non-
     democratic government remains. Parallels may also be drawn to 
     our policy late in the Cold War toward the Soviet Union and 
     Poland.
       Your administration's policy that has recently placed 
     little or no emphasis on internal Iraqi resistance has left 
     the U.S. with very few options in the frequent cases when 
     Hussein has sought to challenge the authority of the U.N. 
     resolutions. Without a credible resistance force to support, 
     the proposition of U.S. military strikes leaves the U.S. in 
     the perceived position of ``global bully.''
       On the other hand, if the U.S. does not move to enforce 
     U.N. sanctions, we abandon a situation that is clearly in the 
     national security interests of this nation. Neither position 
     yields acceptable results.
       In light of the recent agreement negotiated by the United 
     Nations, it seems that we may be averting our current course 
     of conflict with Iraq. This offers you an opportunity to 
     reassess your policy in the region. I have supported, and 
     continue to support, American troops in the Middle Eastern 
     theater as well as your authority as Commander-in-Chief. For 
     this reason, I strongly encourage you to adopt a long-term 
     policy that includes the following tenets: maintains as its 
     ultimate priority the elimination from power of the Hussein 
     regime, and the restoration of a true Iraqi republic, or even 
     democracy; fosters internal resistance to the Hussein regime 
     within Iraq to include financial, political, and physical 
     support; if necessary in the short term, limited tactical 
     airstrikes focusing on Iraq's ability to produce weapons of 
     mass destruction; and institution of a comprehensive, 
     nationwide no-fly/no-troop movement zone while the above 
     initiatives are pursued.
       If the U.S. is truly the world leader you and I know it to 
     be, we must act within the accepted rule of law and lead by 
     example. I believe the above-described policy directive meets 
     such a standard. As always, I stand ready to work with you to 
     meet these very real global challenges.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Saxby Chambliss,
                                               Member of Congress.
       Enclosure.


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                September 5, 1996.
     The Honorable William J. Clinton,
     The President of the United States,
     1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: I write to express my sincere concern 
     over recent events in northern Iraq and to ask your 
     consideration of potential policy changes. As a Member of the 
     House Committee on National Security, let me make very clear 
     at the outset that I will firmly and unconditionally support 
     the troops of the United States when they are deployed 
     anywhere in the world. The lessons of history have taught us 
     that irrespective of the debate over policy priorities, our 
     troops must be absolutely certain that they act with the 
     support of our entire nation.
       In addition, let me make it clear that I support your 
     authority as the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Services. 
     Your recognition of strife in northern Iraq is well-founded, 
     and U.S. action in response is entirely warranted. However, 
     allow me to make several observations about subsequent 
     military action you have taken.
       First, President Reagan's leadership in this nation's 
     defeat of communism has left us a very different world than 
     the one we faced for over 40 years. Today, we alone stand as 
     the world's superpower, yet we are surrounded by countless 
     areas of ethnic strife and political insurrection around the 
     globe. Iraq is only the latest example.
       As a result, we have involved our military men and women in 
     more places and more often than ever before. It is critical 
     that while every situation has its individual circumstances, 
     we must maintain a predictable and identifiable set of 
     criteria that guides this nation's military intervention and 
     involvement around the world. In Iraq, I am concerned that 
     our strategic objectives have not clearly been delineated. As 
     a result, it is impossible to determine whether Iraqi 
     military movements satisfy the demands of the United States.
       Second, I am more concerned about the lack of international 
     support for our current military operations in Iraq. While I 
     do not assume international support to be required for this 
     nation's military intervention abroad, I do believe it should 
     be obtained when and if time and circumstances permit. Our 
     efforts in Operation Desert Storm should serve as a blueprint 
     for dealing with hostile aggressors.
       Consequently, I would like you to consider the following 
     courses of action:
       Issue a short-term ultimatum to Saddam Hussein calling for 
     the removal of all soldiers and tanks from the lands around 
     and north of Irbil, Iraq--a ``no troop zone'' north of the 36 
     degree north parallel. In the event that the troops are not 
     removed, Iraq will face the destruction of military targets 
     selected from a predetermined list created by our 
     intelligence sources.
       Extend the current ``no-reinforcement zone'' from the 32 
     degree north to the 33 degree north parallel in accordance 
     with the ``no-fly zone'' extended earlier this week.
       In advance of the issuance of the ``no troop zone'' 
     deadline, increased diplomatic efforts should be made to 
     garner the support of the western powers and at the very 
     least a sampling of the Arab world.
       As I am certain you are aware, this regional instability in 
     Iraq has the potential for blossoming into a full-blown 
     regional conflict involving friend and foe, alike. Reports 
     today indicate the interest of Turkey and Iran to involve 
     their militaries in the region. Clearly, this is a situation 
     that must remain in the control of U.S. forces in the region.
       I appreciate your time and consideration of these concerns. 
     I look forward to working

[[Page H11732]]

     with you as we attempt to resolve this very difficult 
     situation in this very critical region of the world. If there 
     is anything I can do to assist in your efforts to achieve 
     success, please do not hesitate to call on me.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Saxby Chamblis.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
and the steps our President has taken in ordering military strikes 
against Iraq. Almost 8 years ago, on January 12, 1991, I, along with 86 
other Democrats, supported President Bush in going to war against Iraq.
  I strongly believed then that it was important to support the 
President in a bipartisan spirit, and I strongly believe now that we 
need to support our President in the same manner. We need to express 
our full support of the President's decision and the American troops.
  We cannot tolerate Saddam Hussein's actions any further. Iraq refuses 
to live up to its promise to allow the United Nations to conduct on-
site inspections for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has repeatedly 
blocked Unscom from inspecting suspect sites. Saddam Hussein has 
continued to thumb his nose at the United Nations and has no intention 
in keeping his word, and the United States is right to strike.
  This military action serves to protect the interests of the United 
States and the interest of people throughout the Middle East. This was 
a difficult decision for the President. The United States is never 
eager to use force. But with the advice of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President 
acted appropriately.
  Our prayers go out to the men and women of the military. We need to 
show our utmost support of the troops during this difficult time. Their 
courageous acts will not be soon forgotten by the American people.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I believe 
this military action is absolutely necessary. I believe that it should 
have been undertaken well before now.
  Like others, I am troubled by the timing of yesterday's bombing. I do 
not think it is coincidental that the bombs began falling on Iraq only 
a short hour before caucuses were convening here in Washington to 
discuss the impeachment vote.
  I understand those that believe the public, Congress, the judiciary, 
and now even the military may have been manipulated. But while the 
timing may be offensive, the action is absolutely necessary. We must 
support it as a Congress and as a Nation.
  This vote today sends a strong signal to the world and to our troops 
that, while we will investigate our President when he flaunts the law, 
we stand united behind him when he acts to protect our national 
security.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that it 
is not in order to engage in personalities toward the President. 
Although remarks in debate may include criticism of the President's 
official actions or policies, it is a breach of order to question the 
personal conduct of the President whether by actual accusation or by 
mere insinuation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution 
supporting our troops in the Persian Gulf. But, Mr. Speaker, it should 
not have taken a formal resolution to articulate our unwavering support 
for our brave men and women and our military operation. It should have 
been instinctive as it was for most persons.
  For one day, we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics 
should have stopped at the water's edge. I pray that this resolution 
undoes the damage done yesterday by the majority leader of the Senate 
and others who questioned the judgment of the President, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and our British allies who 
outlined the urgency for this action against Iraq.
  They risk handing Saddam Hussein his only hope, a divided America. 
Our troops and this operation deserve our unqualified support.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Duke Cunningham), our Top Gun.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, one day I was fortunate enough to shoot down a MIG 21 
over Vietnam, and all 5,000 men and women were up on the flight deck. 
And as they crowded around the airplane, my plane captain, Willy White, 
an African-American, broke through the crowds. He knocked over Admiral 
Cooper. He jumped up on the left wing, just as I am trying to get the 
ejection seat pin, and he reaches over and grabs me by the arm and he 
says, Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our MIG 
today, didn't we?
  What was Willy telling me? That every single member of the armed 
service is a part of a team, and they feel very, very much a part of 
each of those victories and those losses. I saw plane captains cry when 
their pilots didn't come back; cry, it is that tight.
  We don't need any L.A. protesters, the Tom Haydens, the Jane Fondas, 
and Americans protesting in foreign countries. What we need is to be 
100 percent behind our troops. Regardless if we agree or disagree 
politically, we need to get behind the President. We need to fly his 
wing on this. We need to go in and take care of Saddam Hussein. That is 
important. It is not important to you and I, it is important to those 
men and women that are serving.
  I would ask my colleagues, some on the other side of the aisle that 
continue to want to cut defense, our kids are operating at 300 percent 
above the op tempo level of Vietnam. Our procurement is down 70 
percent. We are only keeping in 23 percent of our enlisted. Our 
experience is gone. We have 1970s technologies in the F-14s, F-15s, and 
F-18s.
  We want to support our kids, not just in our speeches, but support 
our kids in deed, and make this country the strongest country, with 
peace through strength, not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, a few feet from where I stand is a 
portrait of George Washington. He reminds all of us that our Nation was 
founded in a fight for freedom, and that the price for freedom is 
eternal vigilance. Therefore, the President was right to take this 
action, and to take it now.
  Today in this hallowed hall, surrounded by reminders of that 
heritage, our troops are in the Gulf risking their lives to preserve 
freedom, to preserve our way of life, standing against a tyrant who has 
invaded and bombed his neighbors, murdered his own citizens, threatened 
world peace, and refused to comply with international law.
  To our brave troops, I say, we stand with you. Our hearts, our 
prayers, our thanks, our admiration is with you, and we will do all 
that is necessary to support you.
  But the one clear message from the Congress today to Saddam Hussein 
should be, we are at one with our president, the Commander in Chief, in 
support of this military action in order to protect the world from 
Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, and no domestic issue will 
deter or divide us in this resolve.
  Yesterday's actions are the result of Iraq's refusal to grant access 
to UNSCOM inspectors. The United States, the international community, 
and the President have shown great restraint in the past in dealing 
with Iraq.
  The United States has always viewed the use of force as a final 
option, but international aggressors like Saddam Hussein should not 
misinterpret that as a sign of weakness in our resolve to demand that 
Iraq comply with international law and destroy its weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The battles may change, the times may change, the ships may be called 
by

[[Page H11733]]

different names, but the fight remains the same, the fight for liberty, 
peace and security; the fight we began more than 200 years ago for 
freedom.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me take strong umbrage to a comment by the gentleman from 
California, who suggested if we question the motives of the President, 
somehow we are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy; followed by the 
gentleman from Texas, who said on this floor that he was among 86 who 
signed a resolution supporting President Bush. What does he say about 
the rest of Congress at that time, they were unpatriotic?
  Mr. Speaker, we are debating about the lives of men and women in the 
field, and I ask that this House conduct themselves appropriately, and 
discuss that very essential and vital task they have in front of them.
  I want to strongly thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Speaker-elect 
Livingston) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Floyd 
Spence) for calling together Congress last night to hear our defense 
leaders discuss the grave dangers our men and women would face and the 
importance of this mission, because at a time like this, we must rally 
ourselves for those same people.
  I rise in support today of the resolution commending our troops in 
the Persian Gulf. With everything else going on here and the world 
over, too often as a Nation we neglect to note the sacrifices performed 
by our men and women in uniform. As we are reminded last night with the 
sobering images of antiaircraft fire in Baghdad, our brave service men 
and women put their lives on the line to preserve peace and democracy 
in this world.
  Whatever any of us think of the effectiveness of our U.S. foreign 
policy in the Persian Gulf, no one can question the performance of our 
armed forces in carrying out their duty in the Gulf. Time and time 
again our troops have mobilized in response to Saddam Hussein's 
provocations, and each time their professionalism, dedication, and 
courage have inspired fear in the enemy, awe in our allies, and pride 
in our country.
  Let us never forget, when we take to the floor of the House Chamber, 
that it is our men and women in uniform who preserve our right to 
debate what is best for our Nation. In expressing my gratitude to those 
noble men and women, I also want to thank their families, many of whom 
are in my district, and want them to know that our thoughts and prayers 
are with them at this perilous time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to affirm my unconditional 
support for our troops involved in the mission against Saddam Hussein, 
to affirm to the world and to Saddam Hussein that the American people 
and America's elected representatives are united behind the work of our 
Armed Forces.
  We offer each member of our Armed Forces, over 20,000 strong in the 
Gulf, this united support, and we want to tell them that the American 
people stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Their mission, Operation 
Desert Fox, is a continuation of President Bush's efforts to stop a 
dangerous and evil madman who threatens his neighbors and all the world 
with his continuing efforts to manufacture, stockpile, and use 
political, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
  The President's decisive action was the right move at the right time. 
We have given Saddam Hussein enough chances. With or without allies, it 
was time to act, to stand up for our national interests, and to stand 
up for what is right. God bless our service men and women, and God 
bless America.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I commend the 
House leadership for suspending the scheduled business to set aside 
this time for a bipartisan expression of support for our Armed Forces. 
This is in the finest tradition of the United States Congress, and 
sends a signal to the enemies of the United States that we are united 
in the protection of our national interest.
  I have advocated publicly the development of a clear long-term 
strategy in our dealings with Iraq, but despite this wish on my part, I 
certainly support the military strikes, and believe that they are 
justified. I fully support the actions by our President at the 
recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.
  But most importantly, today, I rise to support our troops that are 
overseas. I understand that there are men and women from the Arkansas 
National Guard and other areas of the service serving in the Persian 
Gulf region. I want to express my support for them and recognize their 
service to our country, as well as the men and women from all parts of 
the country.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I rise in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, of course I support our troops and I will support this 
resolution. But I have profound concerns about not only long term 
United States policy toward Iraq, but about the lack of congressional 
authorization for the President's use of force.
  Congress, not the President, has the constitutional authority to 
declare war or initiate broad, non-defensive hostilities against 
foreign nations. Yet every Congress in modern times has failed to 
protect its prerogatives. As a result, Presidents from Harry Truman to 
Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have run roughshod over weak-kneed 
congressional leaders, and spent the Nation's wealth and the lives of 
its young people in overseas entanglements. During my time in Congress, 
I have consistently opposed Presidential war-making, whether it was 
initiated by Republican Presidents or Democrats.
  Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a war criminal who threatens 
the long-term peace and stability of the Middle East. His continuing 
efforts to build weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. The 
United States needs to continue to work with its allies and the 
international community to nullify this threat.
  But after being briefed by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last night, I am not aware of any 
immediate threat that justifies this nearly unilateral action by U.S. 
forces--an action that has not been authorized by the U.S. Congress and 
an action that is opposed by a number of our allies. There was no 
reason in this instance that the President could not have come to 
Congress for its support in this action. There is no reason that we 
could not have taken the time to garner more support from our allies.
  Ultimately, it is up to Congress and its leaders to insist that this 
and future Presidents seek and gain the approval of Congress when U.S. 
Armed Forces are sent to war. Otherwise we can look forward to an 
endless series of foreign entanglements and overseas wars.
  So, while I support this resolution supporting our troops, I will 
continue to oppose Presidential wars and question United States policy 
toward Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks 
I have been dealing a lot with the Constitution of the United States, 
which starts, ``We, the People of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union,'' and which has, as one of its responsibilities, to 
ensure the common defense.
  I am glad we are governed by a Constitution that lives and breathes, 
so it is very important for me to come today to express the abundant 
confidence that I have in the United States military, our men and 
women, who now go to fight for freedom. Freedom is what they fight for, 
for I am sure that as we stand together as a Nation, that we stand with 
them in our prayers and our support as they conduct this vital 
operation.
  The United States and its international partners have long tried to 
preserve a fragile peace, but at every corner in this long road the 
international community has been met with defiance by the leader of 
Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein has refused to live up to the agreements which Iraq 
agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The weapons inspectors have been 
repeatedly denied access to several suspect sites. I would hope that we 
as a body

[[Page H11734]]

would stay away from irresponsible remarks, and realize that we must 
stand together.
  Despite these exhaustive efforts to bring peace, Saddam Hussein's 
regime, by its own conduct, has abused every opportunity for peace that 
was granted by the international community. As our president and 
Commander in Chief said last night, this situation presents a clear and 
present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of 
people everywhere. Hussein, if unchecked, would use these weapons 
again. We must ensure that nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological 
weapons.
  I also say that we in this body, along with the Commander in Chief, 
must have a definitive policy to protect the suffering women and 
children, and to make sure that democracy comes to that region. So I 
join this Congress in supporting our Commander in Chief, and staying 
away from ugly words and bringing our Nation together. God bless our 
troops and God bless America.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard).
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, not thinking that there would be sufficient 
time, I have already submitted my statement for the Record, but I would 
like to simply say that it is refreshing to have a bipartisan across-
the-board support of this resolution that calls for us to support our 
troops.
  I also think it is wise that we use this opportunity to indicate how 
important it is that we increase the defense budget to allow us to meet 
these kinds of crises. We have pared away on the defense budget to 
where it is almost impossible for us to meet these kinds of crises and 
still do what is needed to strengthen our support for the troops with 
equipment and with facilities.
  I hope that every one of those that are supporting this resolution 
will come to support an increase in the defense budget when the time 
comes. I certainly have great love and respect for the servicemen that 
are serving, I wish them well, and certainly pray to God that they will 
be protected as they serve.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and the 
underlying decision to strike military targets in Iraq. Since the end 
of the gulf war, Saddam Hussein has done everything in his power to 
continue to amass and produce weapons of mass destruction. He is a 
threat to our country, and indeed, the world.
  Ambassador Richard Butler has now concluded that UNSCOM can no longer 
effectively conduct weapons inspections in Iraq because of the 
obstacles Saddam has placed in its path. Clearly Saddam's defiance of 
the international community knows no bounds. He has left us with no 
choice but to use force.
  To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the 
midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the 
longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's 
shores. They have set yet another dangerous precedent.

                              {time}  1145

  Shame on you for playing into the hands of Saddam, who clearly staged 
his latest act of defiance to coincide with the impeachment process. 
You have empowered our Nation's enemy.
  Instead of playing petty partisan politics, I hope my friends across 
the aisle heed the words of John McCain, a war hero and a leading 
expert on national security: I believe it was essential to support the 
President. Here, domestically, I think the American people have the 
ability to divide the two issues because they are very separate.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of the American people not only support the 
President's decision but also discount the reckless and irresponsible 
accusations of an ulterior motive. I hope that we can do the same in 
this Chamber.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran National Guardsman and member 
of the Committee on International Relations, I stand in strong support 
of this resolution to support our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. As a 
member of the House International Relations Committee, I commend the 
President and his top military advisors for their decision to launch 
Operation Desert Fox and I support the brave service men and women 
charged with carrying out this important mission. Our thoughts and 
prayers are with them all.
  Yesterday, the U.S. military took strong, decisive, and necessary 
action to degrade Saddam Hussein's capabilities to produce chemical, 
biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the strikes 
continue today. Yet again, Saddam Hussein rebuffed efforts by the 
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to conduct thorough 
inspections of possible weapons manufacturing sites. Enough is enough. 
After Chief Inspector Richard Butler reported of continued acts of 
Iraqi non-compliance with the UNSCOM team, the United States was left 
with no choice but to take such strong actions.
  The United States has done everything it can to diplomatically find 
solutions to the situation in Iraq. Saddam has done everything he can 
to thwart the efforts of UNSCOM, ignore diplomatic remedies and has 
left no alternative but military force. His shell games and deception 
of the UNSCOM inspectors must stop. I look forward to the day when 
there is a new Iraqi government in place, rid of the horrors of 
Saddam's dictatorship. We must do everything in our power to once and 
for all totally eliminate Saddam's capabilities to threaten regional 
and world peace.
  No matter what party divisions, differences in opinion, or domestic 
circumstances we face, now is the time we must unite. We must support 
our troops, support the mission of Desert Fox and support our 
President. May God bless our troops in the Persian Gulf and God bless 
America.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in full support of the 
resolution at hand. I not only support the troops in all of their 
endeavors but I support the decision of the President to take this 
action. There are those, some puzzling developments that I want to make 
clear at least from my own satisfaction in the days to come.
  One is this, the President and later the Secretary of Defense 
emphasized the fact that this strike had to occur now because of the 
advent of Ramadan, the holy period in the Iraqi and Middle Eastern 
world. And that was understandable until the Secretary of Defense went 
on further to say that plans were being implemented for further action 
down the road to include continuous bombing, perhaps after the advent 
of Ramadan.
  If that is the case, then there might be a rationale more consistent 
to wait until more intelligence had been gathered to find out where the 
dispersements could occur of the Republican guard, et cetera. So these 
questions are still unanswered. But this will not deter us from full 
support of the resolution at hand.
  However, the other pausing factor in my appraisal of this entire 
situation is this, that if indeed we did not have to take the first 
strike before the advent of Ramadan, because some of the plans called 
for bombing after the advent of Ramadan, then perhaps we could have had 
a full congressional approval of any forthcoming action so that the 
President would be armed with a resolution from the Congress, as George 
Bush was so armed before launching Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
  In that regard, these are only remarks meant for the record so that 
I, myself, can pursue them. I support this resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the need to halt Saddam 
Hussein's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, concerned about 
the harm to Iraq's children but eternally grateful to our young people, 
to American troops, I rise in strong support of the resolution.

[[Page H11735]]

  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am 
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons 
is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been 
engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology 
which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery 
of the weapons inspection process.
  The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to 
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our 
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens 
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, 
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts 
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers 
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of 
U.S. troops participating in the current action.
  I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, 
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam 
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international 
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. 
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can 
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a 
lasting solution through diplomatic means.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution, 
our troops and our President making the decision. I was one of the 
Democrats 8 years ago to support President Bush. I urge my friends on 
the other side of the aisle to support President Clinton in this 
endeavor.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
and our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important for this Congress and this country to 
show unity and support for the service men and women who are risking 
their lives to protect our freedom. I rise in strong support of the 
resolution.
  I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues who have chosen to question 
the President's motives to launch this attack. Keep in mind that 
Operation Desert Fox has the full support of this nation's entire 
national security team, which includes a former Republican Senator. It 
is also being coordinated with our international allies who are equally 
concerned about Saddam Hussein's willingness to ignore the will of the 
world. Finally, this military action was launched after the UN 
inspectors reported Iraq had once again prevented them from doing their 
jobs to make our country and our citizens safe.
  This is not an attempt to avoid the impeachment debate. This is not 
an attempt to delay the impeachment debate. This is the President of 
the United States acting in the interests of the country he was elected 
to lead.
  When the lives of American service men and women are at stake we owe 
it to them and their families to put our partisan differences aside.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's 
decision to strike Baghdad. It is in our country's best interest. We 
have to ensure that these biological and chemical weapons no longer 
pose a threat.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States and the United Nations have shown a 
great deal of restraint by choosing to first deal with Iraq through 
many rounds of negotiations and diplomacy. However, Iraq's most recent 
actions to prevent weapons inspectors from investigating its weapons of 
mass destruction program have left the world community with no choice 
but to respond with force.
  While I regret that this is the situation, I support the President's 
decision to strike Baghdad. It is in our country's best interest that 
we do all that we can to ensure Saddam's biological and chemical 
weapons no longer pose a threat to his neighbors and the world.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  (Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee on 
National Security in support of this resolution and in support of the 
President's decision to act swiftly and decisively in response to 
Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations resolution requiring 
Saddam to grant permission to the inspection team for full and 
unfettered access to suspected sites as well as to documentation 
relating to the production of chemical and biological weapons.
  Just one month ago, Saddam Hussein was given a second chance to 
demonstrate his willingness to comply with the United Nations 
resolution. In spite of Saddam's record of noncompliance, the President 
agreed to withhold the use of force. However, the President stated 
unequivocally that the trigger would remain cocked and if Saddam failed 
to keep his word, there would be no further delay in our actions.
  When Saddam refused to keep his word and the U.N. inspection team 
leader, Mr. Butler, withdrew his inspectors and filed his report, the 
United States had no option but to carry out military action. Our 
credibility, our Nation's word and our credibility as a leader of world 
peace was at stake.
  May God be with our Nation and with our troops as they defend liberty 
and freedom on this day.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time of my distinguished 
colleague.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today as always to support the American 
military personnel. In fact, we may give the administration the benefit 
of doubt on the timing. But I question his overall long-term foreign 
policy in dealing with Iraq. The Clinton administration has carried out 
for 6 years the most feeble policy against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has 
done everything in his power to block full weapons inspections.
  Do not take my word for it. On August 14 of this year, the Washington 
Post reported, ``the Clinton administration has intervened secretly for 
months, most recently on August 7, 1998, to dissuade the United Nations 
weapons team from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq because it 
wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad government, this is 
according to knowledgeable American and diplomatic accounts.''
  Mr. President, I hope you will inform the American people why the 
administration did all it could to block secret weapons inspections by 
the United Nations team for months, if not for years. And now that Iraq 
predictably continues to block weapons inspections, explain to us the 
timing of this launch.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the American troops. But I question the 
overall long-term policy of the administration in dealing with Saddam 
Hussein.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the Washington 
Post of August 14, 1998.

U.S. Sought To Prevent Iraqi Arms Inspections; Surprise Visits Canceled 
              After Albright Argued That Timing Was Wrong

                          (By Barton Gellman)

       The Clinton administration has intervened secretly for 
     months, most recently last Friday, to dissuade United Nations 
     weapons teams from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq 
     because it wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad 
     government, according to knowledgeable American and 
     diplomatic accounts.
       The American interventions included an Aug. 4 telephone 
     call between Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and 
     Richard Butler, executive chairman of the U.N. Special 
     Commission responsible for Iraq's disarmament, who spoke on a 
     secure line from the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain. As a team of 
     specialists stood poised in Baghdad, according to persons 
     acquainted with the call, Albright urged Butler to rescind 
     closely held orders for the team to mount ``challenge 
     inspections'' at two sites where intelligence leads suggested 
     they could uncover forbidden weapons components and documents 
     describing Iraqi efforts to conceal them.
       After a second high-level caution from Washington last 
     Friday, Butler canceled the special inspection and ordered 
     his team to leave Baghdad. The disclosure was made yesterday 
     by officials who regarded the abandoned leads as the most 
     promising in years and objected to what they described as the 
     American role in squelching them.
       U.S. efforts to forge a go-slow policy in Iraq have 
     coincided with the announcement by the Baghdad government 
     that it would halt nearly all cooperation with the U.N. 
     commission, known as UNSCOM, and the Vienna-based 
     International Atomic Energy Administration. The two panels 
     are responsible

[[Page H11736]]

     for ridding Iraq of ballistic missiles and biological, 
     chemical and nuclear weapons.
       The behind-the-scenes campaign of caution is at odds with 
     the Clinton administration's public position as the strongest 
     proponent of unconditional access for the inspectors to any 
     site in Iraq. Led by the United States, and backed by 
     American threats of war, the U.N. Security Council has 
     demanded repeatedly since 1991--most recently in Resolution 
     1154 on March 2--that Iraq give ``immediate, unconditional 
     and unrestricted'' cooperation to the inspection teams. 
     That last resolution, at U.S. insistence, promised ``the 
     severest consequences for Iraq'' for further defiance and 
     was voted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, 
     which is legal grounds for use of military force.
       Last week, as Albright reportedly sought to rein in Butler, 
     the administration was retreating from the vows it made six 
     months ago to strike immediately and with significant 
     military force if Iraq failed to honor a Feb. 23 agreement 
     that resolved the last such crisis over inspections. At that 
     time, administration spokesmen described a ``snap back'' 
     policy of automatic military retaliation if Iraqi President 
     Saddam Hussein violated his agreement with U.N. Secretary 
     General Kofi Annan.
       Now the administration argues, as White House spokesman 
     P.J. Crowley said yesterday, that Iraq is proposing ``a cat-
     and-mouse game'' and ``we're not going to play.'' He said the 
     United States would continue its ``encouragement'' of Iraq's 
     compliance with its obligations and would not allow economic 
     sanctions to be lifted until it does so.
       Albright, in a one-sentence statement issued through a 
     spokesman, said last night: ``U.S. policy has been to fully 
     support UNSCOM in its inspections and I have never told 
     Ambassador Butler how to do his job.'' She said those 
     speaking for her declined to answer further questions about 
     her Aug. 4 ``private discussions'' with Butler and would not 
     address specifically whether she had advised him to cancel 
     the planned raids.
       Butler, reached by telephone yesterday, said any suggestion 
     that he received orders from Albright would be ``a very 
     considerable distortion of what took place.'' He added, ``No 
     member of the [Security] Council, including the United 
     States, has purported to give me instructions. They all 
     recognize that their job is policy, my job is operations.''
       Asked whether Albright urged him or advised him not to go 
     forward, Butler said any answer ``would be a very slippery 
     slope'' in which ``I'd have to tell you what the Russian 
     ambassador said, what the French ambassador said. Forgive me, 
     but I won't get into that.'' Asked to confirm he spoke to 
     Albright last week, he said, ``I'm becoming concerned now 
     about this line of inquiry.''
       Beginning in June, according to knowledgeable officials, 
     the U.N. inspectors developed secret plans--withheld from 
     most members of their own staff--for surprise raids at two 
     sites where they believed they would find evidence of 
     forbidden chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic 
     missiles capable of deploying them. The officials declined to 
     describe the sites further, noting that they are still in 
     operation.
       In a little-known practice that all parties are loath to 
     acknowledge, Butler dispatched senior lieutenants to London 
     and Washington in late June to provide highly classified 
     briefings on the intended inspection ``targets,'' the sources 
     said. Formally, Butler reports equally to all members of the 
     Security Council and does not give them advance operational 
     plans. But one official said he understands ``it's suicide to 
     go forward with an inspection like this'' without informing 
     his principal sponsors, the United States and Britain.
       The two governments, according to knowledgeable officials, 
     acknowledged to Butler's deputies that UNSCOM had the right 
     to make its own decisions. But they worked in concert in the 
     weeks that followed to dissuade Butler from going forward 
     with the inspection plan.
       After consultations in Washington, Derek Plumbly, director 
     of the British Foreign Office's Middle East Command, flew to 
     New York for a July 15 meeting with Butler. He told the 
     Australian diplomat in no uncertain terms that the time was 
     not ripe for a provocative challenge to Iraq, in part because 
     Baghdad was still cooperating, ostensibly, on a ``schedule of 
     work'' intended to resolve open questions, the sources said.
       Shortly after that meeting, U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, 
     the second-ranking delegate to the United Nations, called in 
     Butler for a consultation in which he raised a long list of 
     U.S. questions and concerns about the planned raids. Reading 
     from prepared guidance, he told Butler the decision was 
     UNSCOM's but left the inspection chief with the plain 
     understanding that the United States did not support his 
     plan, according to a knowledgeable account of the meeting.
       Butler canceled the raids in July but laid contingency 
     plans to reschedule them this month after meetings on Aug. 3 
     and 4 in Baghdad with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Aziz 
     announced late on the first day that Iraq would answer no 
     further questions about its forbidden weapons, asserting that 
     all the answers had long since been made.
       Butler had brought a senior inspection team led by Scott 
     Ritter, who heads UNSCOM's efforts to penetrate Iraqi 
     counterintelligence efforts against the inspectors. Included 
     on Ritter's team, officials said, were language and computer 
     experts, experts on import and export records, and scientists 
     knowledgeable about missiles, chemical and biological 
     weapons.
       On Aug. 4, Butler notified the U.S. government that he had 
     authorized Ritter's team to conduct the raids on Aug. 6. That 
     same  day, he got word that Albright wished to speak with him 
     and traveled to the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain for a secure 
     discussion. Albright argued, according to knowledgeable 
     accounts, that it would be a big mistake to proceed 
     because the political stage had not been set in the 
     Security Council.
       Butler agreed to a three-day delay, to Aug. 9, in hopes 
     that he could build broader support for UNSCOM during 
     informal consultations with the Security Council. But after 
     he briefed the council governments in New York, he got 
     another high-level American call on Friday urging him to have 
     the Ritter team stand down. The same day, he ordered them 
     home.
       In a letter to the council Wednesday, Butler said Iraq's 
     new restrictions ``bring to a halt all of the disarmament 
     activities'' of his inspectors. On Tuesday, Mohamed Baradei, 
     director general of the IAEA, sent a similar letter to the 
     council saying he could no longer give confident assurance 
     that Iraq is not attempting to reconstitute its nuclear 
     weapons program.
       Both men are awaiting further instruction from the Security 
     Council, which is scheduled to take up the matter Tuesday. 
     Yesterday in Baghdad, U.N. special envoy Prakash Shah said he 
     conveyed a message from Annan that ``Iraq should continue its 
     cooperation'' with the weapons inspectors. He announced no 
     results from what he described as a ``cordial'' meeting.

                          ____________________