[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10418-H10426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REGARDING MONITORING OF WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT IN IRAQ

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 75) regarding the monitoring of weapons 
development in Iraq, as required by United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 75

       Whereas the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein engaged the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation of more than 55,000,000 
     Muslims, in a 10-year war, during which Saddam Hussein used 
     chemical weapons against Iran and his own people;
       Whereas Saddam Hussein has pursued a policy of ethnic 
     cleansing against the Kurdish people, killing 5,000 Kurdish 
     civilians with a chemical attack on March 16, 1988, and an 
     estimated 50,000 to 182,000 in the forced relocation of 
     Kurdish civilians in 1988;
       Whereas on August 2, 1990, Iraq without provocation invaded 
     the State of Kuwait, a nation of more than 1,500,000 Muslims;
       Whereas on November 29, 1990, the United Nations Security 
     Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     678, which authorized nations cooperating with the State of 
     Kuwait to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw 
     from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security 
     to the area;
       Whereas on January 17, 1991, the regime of Saddam Hussein 
     without provocation fired 7 Scud missiles into the State of 
     Israel, a nation of approximately 1,000,000 Muslims and 
     5,000,000 Jews;
       Whereas on January 17, 1991, Iraq fired Scud missiles into 
     the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a nation of more than 20,000,000 
     Muslims;
       Whereas on January 29, 1991, Iraq attacked the city of 
     Khafji in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein is a threat to its 
     neighbors and has demonstrated its willingness to use weapons 
     of mass destruction;
       Whereas on February 24, 1991, a broad international 
     coalition of 38 Muslim and non-Muslim nations, including the 
     United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
     Northern Ireland, the State of Kuwait, the Arab Republic of 
     Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian Arab 
     Republic, began a coalition ground operation to liberate 
     Kuwait;
       Whereas on April 6, 1991, Iraq accepted the provisions of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 
     1991) bringing a formal cease-fire into effect;
       Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 
     687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal, 
     or rendering harmless of ``all chemical and biological 
     weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems 
     and components and all research, development, support and 
     manufacturing facilities related thereto'', and ``all 
     ballistic missiles with a range greater than

[[Page H10419]]

     one hundred and fifty kilometers, and related major parts and 
     repair and production facilities'';
       Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 
     687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop 
     any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, 
     nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related 
     research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;
       Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the 
     creation of a United Nations special commission to ``carry 
     out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, 
     chemical, and missile capabilities'' and to assist and 
     cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 
     carrying out the ``destruction, removal or rendering 
     harmless'' of all nuclear-related items and in developing a 
     plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's 
     compliance;
       Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 
     687, the process of destruction, removal, or rendering 
     harmless of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was to have 
     been completed within 45 days of approval by the United 
     Nations Security Council of the weapons inspectors' plan for 
     doing so;
       Whereas Iraq has now been in breach of this requirement for 
     more than a decade;
       Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein consistently impeded 
     the work of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq between 
     1991 and 1998 by denying them access to crucial sites and 
     documents and by obstructing their work in numerous other 
     ways;
       Whereas on October 31, 1998, Iraq banned the United Nations 
     weapons inspectors despite its agreement and obligation to 
     comply with Security Council Resolution 687;
       Whereas on December 15, 1998, the chief United Nations 
     weapons inspector reported that Iraq was withholding 
     cooperation;
       Whereas Congress declared in Public Law 105-235 (112 Stat. 
     1538) that ``the Government of Iraq is in material and 
     unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and 
     therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, 
     in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the 
     United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its 
     international obligations'';
       Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 was adopted under 
     chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and violations of 
     such resolution that threaten international peace and 
     security may be dealt with through military action pursuant 
     to Security Council Resolution 678;
       Whereas the United States has reported that a high risk 
     exists that Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass 
     destruction since the expulsion of United Nations weapons 
     inspectors, in violation of Security Council Resolution 687 
     and subsequent resolutions;
       Whereas such development is a threat to the United States 
     and its friends and allies in the Middle East;
       Whereas Congress declared in Public Law 105-338 (112 Stat. 
     3178) 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'';
       Whereas the attacks of September 11, 2001, illustrate the 
     global reach of terrorists;
       Whereas numerous terrorist groups are seeking to acquire 
     weapons of mass destruction;
       Whereas Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism and has trained 
     members of several terrorist organizations;
       Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate 
     former President George Bush during his visit to the State of 
     Kuwait in 1993;
       Whereas the President has stated that ``any nation that 
     continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by 
     the United States as a hostile regime'' and has committed to 
     ``pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to 
     terrorism''; and
       Whereas on November 26, 2001, President Bush warned that 
     any nation that develops weapons of mass destruction in order 
     to ``terrorize'' others ``will be held accountable'': Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
       (1) the United States and the United Nations Security 
     Council should insist on a complete program of inspection and 
     monitoring to prevent the development of weapons of mass 
     destruction in Iraq;
       (2) Iraq should allow United Nations weapons inspectors 
     ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and 
     all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of 
     transportation which they wish to inspect'', as required by 
     United Nations Security Council Resolutions 707 (August 15, 
     1991) and 1284 (December 17, 1999);
       (3) the United States should ensure that the United Nations 
     does not accept any inspection and monitoring regime that 
     fails to guarantee weapons inspectors immediate, 
     unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, 
     facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation 
     which they wish to inspect;
       (4) Iraq, as a result of its refusal to comply with the 
     terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 
     (April 3, 1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions, remains 
     in material and unacceptable breach of its international 
     obligations; and
       (5) Iraq's refusal to allow United Nations weapons 
     inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access 
     to facilities and documents covered by United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant 
     resolutions presents a mounting threat to the United States, 
     its friends and allies, and international peace and security.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to have the time in 
opposition if neither gentleman is opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California opposed to 
the motion?
  Mr. LANTOS. I am not opposed to the resolution, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas 
will control the time in opposition.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide my 20 
minutes with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to call up House Joint Resolution 75, expressing our 
strong concern about Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the 
weapons inspection requirements established by the United Nations at 
the end of the Persian Gulf War.
  This resolution was introduced December 4 by our former colleague on 
the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham); and I was proud to join him as an original 
cosponsor of the measure. I also want to express my appreciation for 
the strong support given to this resolution by our distinguished 
ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
and also by the chairman and ranking Democratic member of our 
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  The resolution draws attention to the growing threat to international 
peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the 
terms of the cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War. Those 
terms were incorporated by the U.N. Security Council into Resolution 
687 of 1991, and into subsequent resolutions addressing the situation 
in Iraq. Those terms required him to afford U.N. weapons inspectors 
unfettered access to sites in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction 
might be under development, as well as to other relevant locations and 
information in Iraq.
  From 1991 until 1998, Saddam Hussein went through the motions of 
complying with these inspection requirements, while doing everything he 
could to prevent the weapons inspectors from discovering the truth 
about the history of his weapons programs. Since 1998, Saddam has 
stopped complying altogether. In other words, since 1998, Saddam's 
ability to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program, his biological 
weapons program, his chemical weapons program, and his long-range 
missile program has not been constrained by international inspectors. 
There is every reason to believe he has taken advantage of the absence 
of inspectors to revive these weapons programs.
  The events of September 11 demonstrate the severity of this threat, 
and indeed to all civilized countries as well as the United States. The 
terrorists who attacked our country September 11 wanted to kill as many 
Americans as possible. They sought to use aircraft as weapons of mass 
destruction. There can be no doubt if

[[Page H10420]]

they had had access to real weapons of mass destruction, they would 
have used them to kill as many of our fellow citizens as possible.
  Saddam Hussein has a track record of developing such weapons and of 
using them not only against his enemies but against his own people. So 
he certainly would have no qualms about using them against us.
  Just 2 weeks ago, our committee received testimony from two of our 
Nation's leading experts on biological weapons. These experts, Dr. 
Richard Spertzel and Dr. Ken Alibek, agreed that there was most likely 
state involvement in the anthrax attacks that our Nation has 
experienced, and that the most likely state to have been involved was 
Iraq. So we are confronting a very serious threat, something that is 
literally a matter of life and death. This resolution expresses our 
very strong desire to see something done about it.
  This resolution does not seek to give the President legal authority 
to use force against Iraq. There is a debate about whether he already 
has such authority, and I happen to believe he does; but this 
resolution does not speak to that question. All it says is that Iraq is 
violating its obligations under international law and that this 
violation presents a mounting threat to our Nation, to our allies, and 
to international peace and security. These statements are demonstrably 
true, and the truly dangerous course would be to remain silent in the 
face of these facts.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I first want to pay tribute to our colleague, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for introducing this resolution; and I 
want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), for his invaluable work in refining the resolution and in 
bringing it so promptly to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 75, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do so. Our Nation faces a critical terrorist threat that 
goes well beyond that posed by the Taliban and al Qaeda. The threat is 
from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a nation that is both a supporter and a 
generator of international terrorism and a proliferator of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, the media is full of speculation as to 
whether Iraq is the next U.S. target in the war against terrorism. The 
resolution before us today speaks to that issue. Iraq has had more than 
a decade to comply with United Nations resolutions requiring it to end 
its weapons of mass destruction programs. Rather than comply, it has 
made a fool of the international community.
  A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, tells Saddam Hussein this: 
you must comply with the terms of your surrender, once and for all, and 
soon, or you will face the consequences.
  In the past half century, no government has so consistently and 
flagrantly flouted the will of the international community as has 
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. No national leader has so regularly demonstrated 
that he is a threat to the lives of his citizens and his neighbors.
  Without provocation, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, swallowed 
up all of Kuwait in 1990, the first time, Mr. Speaker, since Hitler 
that one nation tried to wipe another off the map. He rained missiles 
on Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1991. He is the only current national 
leader to have employed weapons of mass destruction, using chemical 
weapons to attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and to murder some 
5,000 Kurdish citizens of Iraq itself.
  United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, the cease-fire 
resolution that ended the Gulf War in 1991, required Saddam Hussein to 
transfer his weapons of mass destruction and all related capabilities 
to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, widely known as 
UNSCOM, and to the International Atomic Energy Agency for purposes of 
destruction. This was to have been done by the middle of 1991, Mr. 
Speaker. Now, more than a decade later, Saddam Hussein continues to 
defy contemptuously the requirements of the international community. 
During the past 10 years, Saddam first obstructed and lied to the 
inspectors, then he effectively expelled them, and now he will not let 
them return.
  Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored virtually every United Nations 
Security Council demand, including those dealing with missing Kuwaitis 
taken prisoner by Iraq and property looted from Kuwait during Iraq's 
brutal 1990-1991 occupation. Meanwhile, the state-controlled Iraqi 
media continued to threaten Kuwait with another invasion.
  Saddam Hussein's resort to terror is legendary, including an 
attempted assassination of our former President, George Bush. Most 
recently, we have been reminded of his terrorist activities by the 
capture of a 15-man Iraqi-trained terrorist cell in the West Bank. In 
view of Saddam Hussein's total disregard of the value of human life and 
of his demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and 
terrorism to achieve his aims, nobody in Iraq, the Middle East, or the 
West, including the United States, is safe from his evil designs.

                              {time}  1215

  The world, Mr. Speaker, can no longer live with a Saddam Hussein who 
is developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. 
An Iraqi defector who spent 20 years working on Saddam's nuclear 
program put it well. Khidhir Hamza wrote in the December 10 Wall Street 
Journal, ``Saddam's express goal is to continue building up his 
chemical and biological stockpiles and to ultimately wield a nuclear 
weapon. Each day we wait we allow him to go further toward that goal.''
  Mr. Speaker, September 11 has demonstrated that we must take resolute 
action to prevent disasters before they occur. If our preferred 
recourse for now is to assure that UN's weapons inspectors return to 
Iraq, let this much be clear: The only acceptable inspection regime is 
one that assures, in the words of the UN Security Council resolution 
707, ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all 
weapons of mass destruction facilities and documents.
  I repeat, Mr. Speaker. Saddam Hussein must provide immediate, 
unconditional and unrestricted access to all facilities where weapons 
of mass destruction may be hidden or produced and to all documents 
relating to these programs. An inspection regime that enhances Saddam's 
legitimacy, while allowing him secretively to continue his weapons of 
mass destruction programs, is totally unacceptable.
  The resolution before us today says, in effect, that Saddam Hussein 
has one last chance to do what he was obligated to do over a decade 
ago. I believe, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein poses an imminent danger to 
our Nation, to our friends and to our allies, and there is little time 
to lose before we will have no choice but to take much stronger 
measures. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. 
Res. 75.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking 
the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not 
nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot 
support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam 
Hussein versus Iraq, ``Iraq'' suggesting the people of Iraq, who are 
hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different 
subject. Also changing the word ``aggression'' to ``a mounting 
threat.'' Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I 
would suppose. Even ``a mounting threat'' is a bit threatening to me, 
but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less 
confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly 
see as a threat to our national security.
  One of the reasons why I take an approach on foreign policy where we 
are less involved overseas is mainly because I feel that the number one 
obligation for us in Congress and for the people of this country is to 
preserve liberty and defend it from outside threats. The authors of 
this resolution, I am sure, have the same goals, but,

[[Page H10421]]

over the years, I think those goals have been undermined. We as a 
Nation are now probably weaker rather than stronger and we are more 
threatened because of what we do overseas.
  For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our 
airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for 
those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by 
allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars 
from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, 
friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me 
not to be in the best interests of the United States.
  Take, for instance, one of the whereas's in this resolution. 
``Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' We keep 
hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at 
the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with 
technology.
  So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not 
only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to 
support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the 
opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our 
weapons.
  My idea of national defense is minding our own business, being 
strong, and making sure our borders are secure. After 9/11, we had to 
go to Germany and ask them for help for AWACS airplanes to patrol our 
shores. I understand our ports are not necessarily secure, and yet we 
have Coast Guard cutters down in Colombia and in the Mediterranean Sea. 
I think if we learn anything it is that we ought to work harder to 
protect our country and not make us so vulnerable, yet we continue 
along this way.
  We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might 
be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up 
because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that 
Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there 
has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go 
into Iraq.
  I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that 
if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have 
given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are 
talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation 
of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for 
our oil. I think that is what this is all about.
  Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting 
evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our 
CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the 
suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in 
this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being 
spread in this country.
  It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have 
had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this 
uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The 
plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing 
Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they 
may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous 
about this plan to invade Iraq.
  The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing, 
when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at 
what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and 
yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there, 
and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is 
invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be 
okay.
  Another ``whereas,'' mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared 
that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That 
is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get 
Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can 
perpetuate war forever under that resolution.
  As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules 
and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a 
couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go 
back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you 
have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be 
enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is 
it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When 
did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us?
  So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to 
immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our 
security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more 
cautiously.
  I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it 
does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war 
with Iraq today, and I disagree with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I 
each be given an additional 5 minutes, as we have other colleagues who 
wish to speak on this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in whole-hearted support this joint resolution 
highlighting Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow weapons inspections and 
the threat that this refusal poses to international peace and security.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
for bringing this measure to the floor at this time. I particularly 
want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his 
sponsorship of this very important measure.
  There have been no substantive UN inspections in Iraq for more than 3 
years, and there are numerous reports of Iraqi attempts to reconstitute 
its weapons of mass destruction. Having openly admitted to having 
produced anthrax and other biological agents, Iraq could transfer that 
capability to terrorist organizations it harbors, including the 
notorious Abu Nidal Organization and the Abu Abbas group. We must not 
risk Iraqi biological agents falling into the hands of such barbarians.
  Iraq's weapons and biological programs must be stopped once and for 
all. Some in our Nation and in the Arab world contend, why go after 
Saddam now? He has been relatively quiet recently. That faulty 
rationale reminds us that following the bin Laden bombings of our two 
embassies in Africa, we heard similar arguments, that these threats are 
far away and that bin Laden cannot succeed if he were to attack the 
United States. That threat was minimized by the prior administration, 
regrettably resulting in the September 11 barbaric attacks on our 
Nation.
  We must not repeat those risks when it comes to Saddam Hussein. He 
already invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons against the Kurds and 
Iranians, fired ballistic missiles at our troops, at the Saudis and the 
Israelis. It is questionable if Saddam would be deterred by any U.S. 
military power. It is a risk we must not take.
  Hopefully, this resolution is an important first step in our renewed 
campaign against Saddam Hussein. Not only does he need to be stripped 
of his weapons of mass destruction, but he should be ousted from power. 
He has shown no regard for international law nor for the Iraqi people, 
who, along with his neighbors, would welcome and be gratified to be rid 
of him. He has turned what should have been a rich, progressive nation 
into a bellicose, bully and pariah, working with an indigenous 
opposition.
  We gave the Afghan people a brighter future. Working with the Iraqi 
opposition, we should give the Iraqi people no less. Accordingly, I 
urge my colleagues to fully support this important resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend,

[[Page H10422]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution. More than 10 years have passed since the United States and 
coalition forces defeated Iraq, but the potential threat posed by 
Saddam Hussein remains today.
  This is a man who has used chemical weapons against his own people. 
This is a man who invaded Kuwait and lobbed SKUD missiles into Israel 
and Saudi Arabia. This is a man who must be dealt with once and for 
all.

                              {time}  1230

  Between 1991 and 1998, Saddam Hussein played a game of hide and seek 
with his weapons of mass destruction. He would impede the progress of 
U.N. inspectors as it suited his needs, never fully adhering to U.N. 
Resolution 687 before expelling UNSCOM in 1998.
  As the famous proverb goes, ``When the cat is away, the mice will 
certainly play.''
  The Iraqi regime has spent the last 3 years developing and perfecting 
its chemical, biological, and nuclear program, while the international 
community has stood idly by. Inaction and indifference may have been 
the prevailing sentiments; but on the morning of September 12, we woke 
up to an entirely new and different world with a new and different 
attitude. We awoke to a world that values dialogue over destruction and 
peace over terror.
  Mr. Hussein: no more delays. No more deliberations. No more 
deceptions. Your time is up. If you insist that you have nothing to 
hide, then allow the inspectors back into Iraq to do their job 
immediately. Failure to do so will answer all of the questions that we 
have.
  The security of this region depends on it. The security of the world 
depends on it. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet 
the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and 
this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23 
January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory 
verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under 
IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for 
the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and 
efficiently.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, neither the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) nor I think Saddam Hussein is a nice man or good for the world. 
However, we rise in opposition to this resolution because of the way it 
is being done, the time in which it is being done, and what is implied 
by this resolution, but not clearly stated.
  No one disputes Iraq's behavior. We encouraged the Kurds to rise 
against them, and then we abandoned them. We encouraged the Shia down 
in Bosnia to rise against them, and then we abandoned them. But we have 
not in this place forgotten what Saddam Hussein is about.
  The question is, Why is there sudden rush to do this 48 hours before 
the Congress adjourns for a month, giving the President apparent 
unlimited ability to act?
  Now, after September 11, with the exception of one person on this 
floor, we authorized the President to do what needed to be done with 
respect to the acts of 9-11. Things have gone reasonably well. They are 
not through yet. We do not know where Osama bin Laden is. We do not 
know whether we are precipitating further problems by al Qaeda going 
into Pakistan. We now have India on the borders, armed. We have all 
kinds of questions being raised about that area that have been 
precipitated by our actions. I think, certainly, we knew that some of 
that would happen, but we were willing to take that risk.
  Now we come out here to pass a resolution. This resolution says: the 
President of the United States should insist on monitoring weapons 
development in Iraq. Nobody out here disagrees with that.
  Iraq should allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq as required by 
Security Council Resolution 687. No once disagrees with that.
  Iraq remains a material and unacceptable breach of international 
obligations. No one disagrees with that.
  And now we come to it. The refusal of Iraq to admit U.N. weapons 
inspectors into any facility covered by the provisions of Security 
Council Resolution 687 should be considered an act of aggression, an 
act of aggression against the United States and its allies.
  This is the resolution that is laying on the table out here as the 
one that is being passed on this floor. I know someone is going to 
stand up and say, we have changed it. When we are doing it at 100 miles 
an hour, it is no wonder that Members who care cannot figure out what 
is going on.
  So I would say to everybody here who is going to come down here and 
vote on this, just ask ourselves, are we back in 1964 in the House of 
Representatives when they brought the Gulf of Tonkin out here? They 
brought the Gulf of Tonkin into the Senate; and they were about to vote 
on it, and only two Members of that body voted against it, Earnest 
Gruening of Alaska and Mr. Morris from Oregon. A third member raised a 
question. His name was Nelson, Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin, and he 
said, I want to put in an amendment here that says that this does not 
authorize the putting of troops on the ground in Vietnam.
  Now, Bill Fulbright went down to the White House and said to Lyndon 
Johnson, Lyndon, old Gaylord is going to put an amendment on here that 
we cannot put troops on the ground. And Lyndon Johnson said, well, you 
just go up there and tell old Gaylord I have no intention of putting 
any troops on the ground. Mr. Speaker, 500-and-some-odd thousand later, 
55,000 deaths, and Lyndon Johnson did not have any intention of putting 
anybody on the ground. We can understand why Gaylord voted no.
  I do not know what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and 
his colleagues mean by this: a refusal by Iraq to admit the United 
States weapons inspectors be considered an act of aggression against 
the United States. Is that a declaration of war? Well, if it is a 
declaration of war, then maybe the Geneva Convention should now be 
called in.
  The President of the United States, when we gave him this carte 
blanche in Afghanistan to do whatever he thought necessary, now we have 
military tribunals, secret tribunals. We have people all over this 
country being held without charge, in secrecy, with no access to 
attorneys, because the President deems that is what we are going to do.
  Now, I do not want to go home having given the President carte 
blanche to do whatever he wants for the month of December and January 
in Iraq.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) The 
gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to suggest that my dear 
friend from Washington is in vain against a resolution that does not 
exist. We have taken the word ``aggression'' out. We took it out a long 
time ago. I do not know how it crept into the gentleman's copy, but I 
hope his other notes are more accurate.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Illinois should know that this was picked up in the Speaker's lobby on 
the table where it is his responsibility to put the bills that are 
being considered on the floor. If this is not what it is, then he is 
going too fast, and that is the whole point of what the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are saying.
  We may not disagree. We may agree ultimately we need to go to Iraq, 
but not at 100 miles an hour without anybody understanding. Because 
this is

[[Page H10423]]

what the gentleman put out there for me to read, and I learned to read 
in about the first grade, and I am reading what was here. If that is 
not what was supposed to be out there, I certainly would like to see 
people explain why this was put in on December 12, passed out of 
committee on the December 12, and is here, and we cannot get the right 
version printed to be in the House.
  My colleagues do not care about the process, and the United States 
Congress is losing its power by this kind of action. When my colleagues 
walk away and allow people to put stuff out here without anybody 
reading it, they do not know. We may soon have a package of stimulus 
out here that repeals some parts of the campaign finance law. We are 
all watching carefully to see if we can catch it; but when we do it at 
100 miles an hour, I have to vote against it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, strong support of 
this resolution.
  Ten years ago, the United States of America and our allies blew it. 
We had the opportunity to eliminate a major threat to world peace and 
world stability and a major dictator and tyrant to the people of Iraq, 
and we did not do the job. We did not finish the job.
  Now is the time for us to finish that job. By not finishing the job 
before, we permitted, for example, the Kuwaitis to suffer with hundreds 
of their people still being held prisoners of war, MIAs, prisoners of 
war, the equivalent of 50,000 Americans would be held today without us 
knowing what Saddam Hussein has done to the Kuwaitis and still does to 
them. Saddam Hussein still has a vicious dictatorship; and Saddam 
Hussein is at war with the United States, most importantly.
  I am very happy that the gentleman from Texas does not want us to be 
at war with Iraq. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein is at war with us, no 
matter where we would like to be. And if we permit Saddam Hussein to 
have nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, weapons of mass 
destruction, he will kill millions of Americans. Make no mistake about 
it. He has a blood feud with us.
  We are not talking about a war with Iraq; we are talking about a war 
with Saddam Hussein. We should liberate Iraq in the same way that we 
have liberated Afghanistan, now that we have the chance and the 
opportunity to do so.
  How did we liberate Afghanistan? We simply supported the people; we 
helped the people liberate themselves from the Taliban tyranny. The 
people in Iraq hate Saddam Hussein much more than the people of 
Afghanistan hated the Taliban. By helping them liberate themselves, we 
are protecting our own population from a holocaust, we are protecting 
the world for peace, and we are doing what is right.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China 
was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9-11 
than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing 
to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me put it this 
way. The answer is yes, but I would not right away. Like the President 
says, we must do things sequentially, and we must be absolutely 
committed to the job. If we do things sequentially, the next order of 
business is taking care of the threat in Iraq. And if China is, yes, 
helping terrorists murder thousands of Americans, yes, we should help 
the Chinese people overthrow their dictatorship as well.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would 
the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia 
and Egypt?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
President of the United States that this is a sequential battle against 
terrorism. If those countries are engaged in supporting terrorists who 
kill thousands of Americans or continue a belligerency that threatens 
millions of our lives, yes, one at a time, we have to take care of 
them. If we do not, millions of our people will pay the price. Who 
could have ever guessed that by not taking care of Afghanistan, 
thousands of our people would be dead?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), my old friend, for his generosity. I can assure him I will not 
abuse it. I am also happy to join the former chairman of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), in 
this discussion.
  I want to just throw this out because I may not be correct; but is 
this measure, H.J. Resolution 75, a way of us expanding the war to 
Iraq? I assume the answer is yes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this measure is the exact opposite of what 
the gentleman has just suggested. It demands of Saddam Hussein what he 
agreed to 10 years ago: full and complete access to places where 
weapons of mass destruction are produced. It gives him one chance, one 
final chance to do what he agreed to do when he surrendered 10 years 
ago.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his comment.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), who is more an expert on foreign affairs matters than I, 
said ``Now is the time to finish the job.'' I guess that is not very 
ambiguous, is it? And then he went on to explain something that could 
be troublesome: we are not at war with Iraq, but we are at war with 
Saddam Hussein.
  Well, that introduces a new concept. I am only on the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Our impressions have always been that nations declare 
war on another, we do not declare war on terrorists or a head of a 
country, or anything else.
  I see the gentleman from California in the aisle there.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's quote was a little bit 
mistaken. I said that we are not at war with Iraq, but Saddam Hussein 
is at war with us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Okay. That is much better, because that means, then, 
that we do not have to declare war on China's leaders, either. They are 
at war with us, not the people? Did I get that right? I continue to 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That was only based on if the assessment of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) was correct and they are supporting 
terrorists and planning to kill thousands of Americans. Then, yes, they 
are at war with us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could we not tailor this document a little 
more narrowly than bringing China into this? The gentleman did not do 
it. All right.
  Let me go to the next part. I asked my good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), about the hearings. I was told that there 
were no hearings, no witnesses; but there was a markup last Wednesday.
  Is that right? I have to get something right down here in the well 
before I return my time. Okay. That much is right.
  Mr. Speaker, is there some reason that we did not have witnesses? 
Silence. All right. Then the only other thing that I could add, Mr. 
Speaker, is that there has been a change. There was original language 
that considered that Iraq's refusal to admit U.N. weapons inspectors 
pursuant to Security Resolution 687 should be considered an act of 
aggression against the United

[[Page H10424]]

States and its allies, and that language has been struck.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, we did have hearings, I would say to the 
gentleman from Michigan, on December 4. We had two of the inspectors 
who were over and were shut out by Saddam Hussein, and a lady expert on 
arms control from the Clinton administration. So we had hearings.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Okay, so none of my premises have been right so far. It is like the 
Detroit Lions who broke their record last week. Maybe I can do 
something here.
  Okay. Now, am I right that we have substituted new language for this 
statement? I have them now. The original language was that Iraq's 
refusal to admit U.N. weapons inspectors pursuant to Security 
Resolution 687 ``. . . should be considered an act of aggression 
against the United States and its allies,'' and that language has been 
removed; and we have inserted new language. Does anyone challenge that 
in the body? Okay. All right. I got that in.
  And the new language says that 687 and 707 and other relevant 
resolutions ``present a mounting threat to the United States, its 
allies, and international peace and security.'' Does anyone have 
anything to help me understand that better?
  So, essentially, instead of an act of aggression, we have put in ``a 
mounting threat,'' and I notice there seems to be general agreement on 
that. So we have had hearings and we have had a markup. We modified the 
language for people who may be nervous about where this might be going.
  But I must confess, as I return to my seat, I am not sure if we 
should be expanding the war to Iraq.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions 
have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against 
Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many 
resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be 
enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the 
United States to do the enforcing.
  Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I 
am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we 
please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think 
if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow 
the rules.
  There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein 
without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally 
mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It 
would not go along with UN rules.
  The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow 
the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the 
authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a 
contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long 
time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions 
against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental 
to the children who have died in Iraq.
  Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the 
blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions 
of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we 
get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years?
  This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq. 
I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in 
Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear 
weapons being built.
  But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the 
U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times. 
Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been 
over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting.
  He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as 
to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say 
Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true 
internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But 
this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not 
he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national 
security.
  He said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His 
military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has 
not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass 
destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of 
disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a 
threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United 
States, no, none.''
  Because he is a little bit of a political and a diplomatic threat, we 
are making these plans to pursue war or in reality continue the war 
because the Persian Gulf war has not really ended.
  So once again, I ask my colleagues who are going to be voting on this 
shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary and does not have any 
effect, why bring it to the floor? There would be no purpose. If 
Hussein is aligned with the terrorists, the President already has 
authority to do something about it. So what really is the reason for 
this, especially when it was first announced that this would be an act 
of aggression, which is really what they feel in their hearts, in their 
minds, what they want this to be? It has been toned down a little bit. 
But this resolution is a support for expanding the war and continuing 
what has been going on for 12 years.
  Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle 
things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been 
given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being 
overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress 
who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic 
success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the 
world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this 
tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country.
  But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great 
chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote 
this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman 
from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we 
are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to 
go after Iraq.
  We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of 
national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the 
announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the 
Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe 
that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the 
Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same arguments made, or I have read 
about them in the twenties and the thirties, that our borders are all 
we need to worry about, and do not worry what happens in Europe.
  During the twenties and thirties, that is what we did, we pulled a 
blanket over our heads, and a man named Hitler rearmed, and over across 
the Pacific Tojo rearmed, and the result of our indifference to what 
was going on was that millions of people died, millions of people died.
  The gentleman from Texas says that the only business we have is to 
secure our borders. I suggest our borders do not end with California or 
New Jersey or New York, but what happens in Europe, what happens in 
Asia. In today's world, never mind when we walked away from the League 
of Nations, in today's world our borders are everywhere.
  Why do we have to do it? Because we are the strongest country in the 
world, and if it does not get done by the United States, it will not be 
done.
  Now, the gentleman disparages our concern for oil. Imagine, and it 
does not take a leap of imagination, if Saddam Hussein controlled the 
Persian Gulf, what that would do to the economies of the world. Talk 
about lines at gas stations; it is very important. No.
  Now, about these inspections. The International Atomic Energy 
Commission conducts these inspections, and

[[Page H10425]]

 they are a joke. They are an embarrassing joke, because they only look 
at the premises that are declared by Saddam Hussein. The U.N. was 
kicked out because they conducted real inspections. They were 
intrusive, and they found things over there that embarrassed the 
International Atomic Energy Commission.
  I just suggest to the Members that this is very important; that it is 
a challenge and a threat to civilization to have a monster like Saddam 
Hussein who used chemical warfare on his own people to have access to 
the facilities to create nuclear weapons and weapons of mass 
destruction.

                              {time}  1300

  We are not calling for war, we are calling for enforcement of the 
U.N. resolutions that were agreed to by Saddam.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker. Who gets to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) has 30 seconds remaining on his time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) be granted an additional 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 30 seconds remaining on his 
time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what 
our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution 
does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also 
we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that 
we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China 
were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops 
stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the 
Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi 
Arabia.
  Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco, 
and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that 
operation.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it 
solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the 
legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable 
part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75--the resolution clause 
stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam 
Hussein has been committing an ``act of aggression'' against the United 
States--what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our 
attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: 
finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on 
September 11, 2001.
  Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no 
doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in 
some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's 
government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution 
to our problems in the Middle East--many of which were caused by our 
interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell 
underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, ``I never 
saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas 
coming from various quarters about, `let's go bomb.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just 
after the terrorist attack, states that, ``The president is authorized 
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, 
organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed 
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or 
harbored such organizations or persons.'' From all that we know at 
present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen 
``evidence'' of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States 
proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for 
example, the ``smoking gun'' of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems 
to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that ``the Prague 
meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi 
intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of 
intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against 
Iraq.'' The Times goes on to suggest that the ``Mohamad Atta'' who was 
in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national 
who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never 
took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This 
conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a 
report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi 
involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats--a theory 
forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former 
CIA director James Woolsey--have, with the revelation that the anthrax 
is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.
  Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can 
only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from 
our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly 
seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether 
Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United 
States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have 
made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been 
to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector 
Scott Ritter--who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq--come to 
different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News 
Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a 
threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief 
Inspector Ritter said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely 
nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a 
threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, 
no, none.'' Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to 
consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further 
down the road toward military confrontation?

  The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because 
it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This 
legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that 
Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to 
mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and 
counted on technical and military support from the United States in its 
war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of 
Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was 
sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait 
simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in 
the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein 
regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had 
no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.
  We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do 
to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq 
could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of 
our European allies--critical in maintaining this coalition--have 
explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German 
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was 
``completely united'' in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian 
President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military 
action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around 
cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for 
Iraq, the Russian president said. ``. . . so far I have no 
confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we 
are fighting against.'' Relations with our European allies would suffer 
should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.
  Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could 
collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only 
would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the 
attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well 
produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key 
ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack 
on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the 
coalition that, ``If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not 
resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another 
country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to 
delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on 
our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first 
resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and 
warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without 
exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, 
we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at 
the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed 
at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through 
dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the 
United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign 
policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

[[Page H10426]]

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, even in its watered-
down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our 
interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to 
further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations 
between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of 
life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I 
think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking 
those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly 
seems the time to go out in search of new battles.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), to the author of this very 
contentious resolution,
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, a couple of statements.
  Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspection team in 1998 in breach 
of the cease-fire agreement. If you think we are moving too fast, vote 
no. Last time I checked, it is December 2001. So if we are going too 
fast to make you feel comfortable, vote no.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) says that Saddam Hussein is a 
minor threat to this country. If you believe that, vote no. But you 
ought to go visit the CIA, and you ought to talk to our intelligence 
communities. He is building missiles beyond the agreement, cease-fire 
agreement, for a purpose, to kill people.
  I admire the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so much because 
he suffered from the politics of appeasement. This is not 1964. This is 
the late 30's. This is Neville Chamberlain coming back. Peace in our 
time. What a joke. There will be no peace in our time as long as we 
have the politics of appeasement and let a guy like Saddam Hussein get 
away with building mobile biological weapons systems, larger missiles, 
procuring materials that could only be used in nuclear weapons. For us 
to sit back would be a national travesty, a world travesty. Never again 
shall we do this.
  The hour is at hand. Immediate action must be taken by this Congress 
to support our President. We should have U.N. weapons inspectors on the 
ground now. And if he says no, that is a mounting threat to this 
country because he is procuring, as I speak, weapons of mass 
destruction.
  No more head-in-the-sand politics. Act now or pay later, America. Let 
us act now to get rid of the tyrant who has abused and killed his own 
people, who is procuring weapons of mass destruction, substantial 
evidence to that fact. A failure to do so, we will pay dearly later.
  Have we learned anything from September 11? I think we have, and I 
have every confidence in this body that they will reject the notion 
that we are moving too fast and that Saddam Hussein is a minor threat.
  This resolution makes common sense. It makes legal sense. It is the 
morally right thing to do. America is a great country, and as the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, we have to act greatly when we 
are threatened.
  This is not about any other nation. It is about us. We are the target 
of Saddam Hussein. Us and Israel and his Arab neighbors. Anybody who 
does not want to do business they way he does. We are a threat. Let us 
stand up to this dictator. No more of the politics of appeasement. Let 
us vote as a united body.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) have shown us we can work together for the 
common good. They are an example for all of us to follow. Please vote. 
Act now or we will pay later.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 75, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________