[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 131 (Tuesday, October 8, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7268-H7301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
                 FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, but in his other life he was a nuclear physicist and a 
person who certainly knows the danger of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding 
me this time.
  Madam Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a 
firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. ``Why 
have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? ``Why 
haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with 
Saddam?''
  His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other 
Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our 
servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could 
threaten rather than strengthen our national security?
  I will vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to 
his own people, to the Asian region, to the world. His relentless 
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a 
legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant 
violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human 
decency.
  I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the 
Iraqi threat. This is something that I followed with concern since I 
worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear 
nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature and 
more likely contrary to our national interests, the national interests 
of the United States, for Congress to authorize military action against 
Iraq now.
  As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found 
myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would a unilateral 
American military attack against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam 
Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain 
destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of 
mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? 
Will a unilateral military attack against Iraq strengthen our greater 
and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will 
it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security 
interests around the world? In other words, will it make Americans more 
secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding 
no.
  Why should we undertake actions that make more likely the very thing 
we want to prevent?
  Madam Speaker, I also believe that the reaction to such a unilateral 
act would irrevocably weaken the international coalition we have built 
to fight terrorism across the globe. Yes, Iraq is one of the major 
threats facing international order, but it is by no means the only 
dangerous one. We cannot allow our contempt for the Hussein regime to 
detract us from achieving our long-term security goals.

[[Page H7269]]

  Now, while I have no doubt that our military would successfully 
depose Saddam Hussein, we risk inflaming rather than diminishing the 
terrorist threat to the United States. We are adding a likely threat to 
our security.
  The administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime 
is an immediate threat to American security, and it has simply failed 
to explain to the American people what would be the costs and what 
would be our responsibilities in a post-Saddam Iraq.
  This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words 
of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new 
military and diplomatic doctrine, a dangerous, unwise doctrine.
  I believe that by taking unilateral, preemptive military action 
against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten 
the international order. I believe that we can and should take the lead 
in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein not by taking 
unilateral military action. I believe that if we consult actively with 
our allies in the region, in NATO, in the U.N. Security Council, we 
will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's 
threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to 
take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be 
successful in the long run.
  Madam Speaker, we can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's 
threat. The United Nations and the international community may 
recognize the need to take military action. The American people will 
understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. 
Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must 
always be our last recourse.
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), an active member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution, not as some would mistakenly say in strong support of war 
but, rather, as history will proclaim, in strong support of an America 
free from the fear of terrorism.
  Today, this House finds itself debating at one of the most 
significant crossroads in our fight against terrorism, as we ask why we 
must now focus our attention on the most powerful terrorist in the 
world, Saddam Hussein.
  I ask this question of those who would have us close our eyes and sit 
on our hands: Can we afford to wait any longer?
  Since September 11, 2001, the United States has worked to ensure that 
future attacks on our soil do not occur. We did not choose that fight. 
We did not choose to have thousands of innocent victims perish in 
brutal attacks. But we now have to win this fight against all of those 
who would seek to use force against the American people. It is no 
longer enough to punish evil after it has destroyed innocent lives. We 
must fight to ensure that evil does not succeed and protect the 
innocent as well as punish the guilty. Such a threat lies in Saddam 
Hussein if he is not disarmed and ousted as leader of his regime in 
Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia is home 
to many servicemen and women. They are not statistics, they are not 
numbers, they are my friends, my neighbors, and members of my church. 
But, Madam Speaker, they are ready to remove the Iraqi leader who seeks 
to destroy the freedoms that we as Americans hold dear.
  The President addressed last night, and I think it is important to 
reiterate today, that we have a duty to act now to prevent a first 
strike attack by Iraq. Procrastination will only increase the threat 
that terrorist agents will once again cross over into our borders. But 
why now? Because over the past 11 years, the international community 
agreed on 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions designed to 
ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and 
security. Because the world witnessed what an unchecked Saddam Hussein 
was capable of doing, and the world has waited while Saddam Hussein has 
violated each and every resolution that the United Nations has put 
forward.
  To those who today cry, wait, wait, wait, I ask, if we have waited 
over 11 years for Saddam to fully disarm his chemical and biological 
weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of inspectors, how 
much longer should we wait? If we have waited 11 years for Saddam to 
disarm all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, 
how much longer should we wait?

                              {time}  2115

  If we have waited 11 years for Saddam to agree to not use, develop, 
construct, or acquire any weapons of mass destruction, how much longer 
should we wait?
  If we have waited 8 years for Saddam to agree not to enhance military 
capability in southern Iraq, how much longer should we wait?
  If we have waited 6 years for Saddam to report shipments of dual-
purpose items related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and 
IAEA, how much longer should we wait?
  And if we have waited 5 years for Saddam to give immediate, 
unfettered access to the Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to 
interview, how much longer should we wait?
  And if we have waited 4 years for Saddam to reinstate U.N. weapons 
inspectors to have full and unrestricted access to weapons production 
facilities, how much longer should we wait?
  Madam Speaker, we have waited long enough. We cannot wait until 
Saddam completes reconstruction of his weapons factories. We cannot 
wait until we are allowed to read the certificate of occupancy posted 
on the walls of these facilities, announcing more fear and terror to 
the free world. We cannot wait until he has nuclear capabilities. We 
cannot wait for history to repeat itself while trying to appease yet 
another unchecked dictator.
  Now is the time to act. Now is the time to fulfill our obligation to 
protect the American people. Now is the time to pass this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and 
a person who has personally gone in harm's way in the war between 
Ethiopia and Eritrea, so he knows the devastation of war.
  Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, as one of the 435 Members of this House, I 
have found this issue facing us for the last several weeks and months 
just one of those visceral, gut issues that just tears us up.
  I have my space shuttle tie on this morning. I got up this morning 
and wore it because the space shuttle is way there, and right now every 
90 minutes they are looking at this magnificent globe and they are 
seeing this beautiful Earth. We are down here debating about the 
ugliness; they are up there seeing the beauty. It tears me up, and I 
know it tears up all Americans as we are debating this.
  I have to take some reaction with the previous speaker. Just because 
I disagree with the resolution on the floor does not mean I have my 
eyes closed, and it does not mean I am sitting on my hands. It may mean 
that I have a different and better approach, and we would do better to 
listen to each other than to accuse folks of being blinded and somehow 
not seeing the world as it is.
  The very process that we have set up here, in which we divide time 
between yes and no and yes and no, I think there are a lot of people in 
this House that have a lot of questions, and a lot of questions are 
being asked by people who are already staking out a position. Even 
those of us who have decided have a lot of questions about what is 
happening.
  We all want to be loyal to our President. That is not an issue. I 
know that my Republican friends have had their leadership come and say, 
we have to be loyal to our President. He is all our President. We all 
want him to do well. The issue is, how can we best help our President, 
George W. Bush, do well?
  I will tell the Members one thing, overstatements do not help. 
Comparing, on one side, Saddam Hussein or Iraq to Nazi Germany, or on 
the other side comparing Saddam Hussein to Vietnam, they do not help. 
This is a peculiar situation facing the world now, and we had better 
deal with it, recognizing it is a peculiar situation never before faced 
in the world.
  We all have proof Saddam is a bad guy; that is not the issue. The 
issue is,

[[Page H7270]]

how do we approach this particular bad guy at this moment in history? 
We had better approach this with some humility. This Congress has done 
a lousy job of predicting budget surpluses and deficits in our own 
Congress for 1 year, and yet we are now making predictions on both 
sides about what the world will look like if we do or do not take 
certain actions. We had better approach this with a great deal of 
humility about our ability to predict future events.
  One thing that I have done, as a lot of Members have in the last few 
months, is try to spend time with as many military officers as I can. A 
lot of them are retired. There are a lot of doubts being expressed by 
people who have retired from the military.
  The Philadelphia Enquirer has a story today: ``Officials' Private 
Doubts on Iraq War. Some military intelligence and diplomatic sources 
say hawks are overstating the danger that Baghdad poses,'' talking 
about doubts being expressed by those in the military.
  We still have a couple of days left. I would encourage the Members 
who are still asking those questions to take the time to sit down with 
retired military or even their close friends within the military and 
just say, in complete and honest candor, what do you think? Maybe that 
will help resolve some of those questions.
  The United Nations, those of us who think that the United Nations 
would be helpful in this process are not turning over the national 
security to the United Nations, but it is a different fact situation 
for this Congress and for the American people if we go alone or if we 
go with the United Nations.
  That is not an unreasonable question to ask: Is it different if the 
United States goes alone? Is it different if the United States does it 
with the United Nations? I am one of those who thinks that we would be 
much stronger in the future if we go with the United Nations. It does 
not mean I am turning over the national security to the United Nations.
  Is there anything wrong with the Congress deciding this very specific 
fact situation several weeks or months from now if the President 
decides we are going to have to go alone in this business without the 
United Nations? That is a different fact situation than if the United 
Nations is behind us. It does not mean we are turning over the national 
security to the U.N.
  Resentment. I do not know how we can predict these future events, but 
the resentment of the Arab world, I just talked with General Zinni a 
few days ago, is as great as he has ever seen. If we mishandle the 
situation, it will be even greater. I would encourage Members to be 
analyzing this situation: What do our words and actions do for the next 
few years with our relationships with Arab countries?
  I think our number one strategic goal and interest in the Middle East 
is to solve the security issues for the Israelis and Palestinians, even 
if it means 40,000 or 50,000 U.S. troops stationed there for years. 
What best helps that situation to be resolved? I think a lot of Members 
are saying that taking out Saddam Hussein may help, but we can sure 
come up with scenarios that it may not help guarantee the security of 
Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state.
  The commitment to rebuild, I was talking to one of my colleagues in 
Arkansas, talking about our commitment to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. 
He said we have never fulfilled our commitment to rebuild the Delta 
after the Civil War. Why do we think we may actually follow through 
with our commitment to rebuild Iraq and rebuild democracy in Iraq? It 
is a very important issue.
  Probably the overriding issue for me is war should only be used as a 
last resort. So the overriding question for me, in addition to what 
best helps reduce the risks of something happening to Americans, is 
have we reached the point where this is the last resort? I do not think 
we have reached that point.
  The President said last night that we may not have to go to war. 
Those of us who very much are loyal to our President are saying, Mr. 
President, you would get a bigger vote for your resolution if you would 
say, first let me try it at the United Nations. If I am not successful, 
then I will come back to you, because then I would know that war 
unilaterally for America is the last resort. But we are not at that 
point today.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has offered an 
amendment with several of us that I think resolves a lot of these 
issues. It will get a bigger vote, if it was the base resolution, it 
would have a larger vote if the President would support it than the 
underlying resolution. It would send a strong signal to the 
international community.
  It would say to the President, if you get the U.N. behind you in a 
way that you find satisfactory, you are authorized to use force; 
however, if you are not successful, please come back and let the 
Congress analyze the fact situation representing the American people at 
that time, and let us together decide what is best with the 
authorization of force in this very difficult world that we face today.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who care so much about these 
issues.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I do feel compelled to respond to one point that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, made. We need to make clear 
that the leadership and the President have not come to any Members of 
the body and asked them to support him as a matter of loyalty or for 
anything else.
  There are 435 Members of this body who will each come to their own 
decision on the justness and the rightness of this cause, and each of 
us will vote as a matter of conscience as individuals; and the 
President and leadership have not twisted our arms, or even asked us to 
do anything otherwise.
  Madam Speaker, the President has asked the Congress for the authority 
to use force against Iraq. This week the Congress will consider a 
resolution giving him that authority. I will be voting in favor of the 
Joint Resolution.
  There is a very high standard and a narrow set of circumstances that 
would cause me to vote to authorize the use of force other than in 
self-defense against an armed attack against the United States or its 
allies.
  Over the last month, I have listened to briefings and testimony, 
reviewed evidence, read reports and sought out independent experts to 
ask questions about Iraq and its nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons program. I believe that, if left unchecked, it is likely that 
Saddam Hussein will cause these weapons to be used against the American 
people. The effect of such an attack would be devastating. We cannot 
wait for him to strike first.
  The evidence that Iraq has and is further developing weapons of mass 
destruction is convincing. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons 
including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and anthrax. We believe he may 
have other deadly diseases he is making into weapons. Iraq had an 
advanced nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and is seeking to 
develop nuclear weapons again.
  Saddam Hussein's intent is more difficult to discern. I believe the 
evidence of his ultimate intent to use these weapons or cause them to 
be used against the American people is strong enough that we cannot 
afford to ignore it. Iraq is developing missiles that can hit 
neighboring states and is building unmanned aerial vehicles to spread 
chemical and biological agents. I am concerned that Iraq is exploring 
ways to use these aerial vehicles for missions targeting the United 
States.
  Saddam's aggressiveness, hatred of the United States and willingness 
to use chemical weapons is clearly established. Iraq has invaded its 
neighbors and has used chemical weapons against its own people. He is a 
brutal dictator and a tyrant. Being a brutal tyrant does not justify 
the use of force by America; the world has plenty of tyrants. But his 
past behavior provides context and credence to the assessment of his 
intent.
  We are a moral people. We do not covet anyone else's territory or 
resources. We do not seek to destroy other civilizations or involve 
ourselves in the internal affairs of other states. The decision to 
authorize the use of force in advance of any attack is a grave one 
which I do not take lightly.
  One of the defining characteristics of international relations in the 
twentieth century was the steadily declining legitimacy of the use of 
force by states other than in self-defense. This trend enhanced the 
stability and order of the system of sovereign states that has 
developed since the sixteenth century.
  At the zenith of our military power, wielding enormous political, 
economic and social influence, America must not squander our moral 
authority by yielding to the temptation to justify using our military 
power preemptively other than in highly unusual circumstances. While 
the current threat posed by Iraq meets that high standard, we should be 
careful to acknowledge just how high the standard is. Otherwise, our 
rhetoric and actions could be used

[[Page H7271]]

to justify erosion of the general prohibition of the use of force by 
other states, undermining the stability of the system we seek to 
bolster.
  I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it 
possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the 
means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends 
to use those weapons against Americans.
  We should not go to war because another country represses its own 
minorities. Repression of minorities is a widespread human rights 
violation. We should not go to war because another country has failed 
to account for missing prisoners of war, as disdainful as that is. We 
should not go to war because another country simply possesses weapons 
of mass destruction. There are at least 12 states that already posses 
nuclear weapons, including some of our allies as well as former 
adversaries. Possession of these weapons alone is insufficient 
justification. We should not go to war because a country is trading 
outside of a sanctions regime.
  Iraq is doing all of these things. But the set of circumstances that 
justifies this authorization to use force is very narrow and is related 
to Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program and Saddam's 
intent to use those weapons against Americans. There is no objection to 
wait for him to strike first. We have a limited right of anticipatory 
self-defense and we must exercise it in this case. We cannot make a 
clear statement about the imminence of the threat from Saddam nor is it 
likely we would ever be able to until it was too late. In that sense, 
the threats of the twenty-first century are unlike those of the past. 
With these weapons, imminence is imperceptible and the risk of inaction 
is incalculable.

  The joint resolution supports the President's diplomatic efforts to 
build a coalition to confront Iraq. Iraq has defied resolutions of the 
UN Security Council with impunity. The President was right to go to the 
UN and make the case for action against Iraq. In some respects, this 
current crisis is a test of the UN's continued relevance. If the UN is 
not willing to act collectively, we will have to build a coalition of 
states outside of the UN to act. This is, without doubt, a turning 
point for the United Nations as an institution.
  Our top foreign policy priority must be to win the war on terrorism. 
There are ninety-plus states cooperating in that effort--for the most 
part involving their law enforcement and intelligence services. By 
building international support for any action against Iraq we can 
minimize the possibility that any of those states will distance 
themselves from this cooperation. Perhaps more importantly for the long 
term, military action against Iraq is bound to stir opposition among 
some in the Middle East. It will be easier to manage resentment if we 
build a coalition of states, including states in the Gulf Region.
  While much of our attention has been focused on whether we should 
confront Iraq, in making my decision to support this resolution, I have 
also considered whether we can. Over the last year our military forces 
have been at increased operational tempo fighting a war in Afghanistan 
and defending the homeland. While Saddam's forces are considerably 
smaller than they were during the Gulf War, so are ours. I have been 
repeatedly assured by our military commanders and our civilian defense 
leadership that we have the forces, munitions, logistics, 
communications systems, spare parts, and the people it will take to 
prevail. They are trained and combat readiness levels are restored or 
being restored.
  I have also been assured that our military strategy will be tied to 
our political objective. I opposed the use of force in Kosovo because 
we had a military strategy that used limited air power to achieve a 
largely humanitarian mission to prevent door-to-door ethnic cleansing 
in Kosovo. I have been assured that we will act with the full power of 
the U.S. military, giving them the force necessary to win and come home 
again.
  The Congress authorizes the President to use force if all other means 
fail. We do not command the military or instruct the diplomats. I hope 
that, faced with the military might of a united coalition led by the 
United States, Saddam will choose to end his nuclear, chemical and 
biological weapons program and disarm. I hope this will not require 
military action, but it may.
  People who have served in uniform are often the most reluctant to go 
to war--and I am no exception to that general rule. We know the risks; 
we know the limitations; and we know many of the likely participants. 
There are great risks in this potential action. But those risks will 
not diminish over time. And there are also great risks of inaction.
  We did not choose this challenge. But faced with it, we cannot turn 
away.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her leadership tonight; and at this 
time I would like, as one of the newest Members of Congress and the 
most junior member of the Committee on Armed Services, to join in 
support of this bipartisan resolution.
  I am here tonight with a number of different perspectives. The first 
is that I am a military parent. Additionally, I am a member of the Army 
National Guard. Also, I am a desert war trainee and a Member of 
Congress.
  The most important role that I have tonight is that I am a military 
parent. I am very proud that I have three sons in the military. My 
oldest son, Alan, is a first lieutenant in the field artillery of the 
Army National Guard in South Carolina. He has just returned from 
advanced training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
  Additionally, I am very proud of my son, Addison, Jr., who is a Naval 
Academy graduate and an ensign in the U.S. Navy, and he is currently at 
USUMS, the uniformed services university medical school here at 
Bethesda, Maryland.
  Finally, I have another son, Julian, who is a junior at Clemson 
University, which is in the district of my colleague, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). He is a member of the Army ROTC, and 
his heritage is extremely significant to me. His grandfather, Julian 
Dusenbury, was awarded the Naval Cross for his service at Okinawa in 
the seizure of Shuri Castle.
  Finally, I am here also as a member of the National Guard. I am the 
only Member of Congress who is serving currently in the National Guard, 
and I am very proud of the people that I serve and work with. I know 
that they are trained and they are competent and they are dedicated to 
protecting America.
  I am here as a person who, 2 years ago, and I may have the most 
recent desert war training, served at Fort Irwin in California, the 
Mojave Desert, at the National Training Center in a rotation. I know 
that the American military is trained and ready for military service.
  As a Member of Congress, I know, Madam Speaker, that today we are 
discussing one of the most important decisions that we as United States 
Representatives will ever face. The question before us is whether or 
not to support the bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of 
American military force against Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi regime as 
part of the continuing war on terrorism.
  There is no doubt that each of us brings different perspectives to 
this debate, and for good reason. This is the people's House of 
Representatives; and, therefore, we should reflect the different people 
across this great country.
  In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a brutal 
dictator in possession of chemical and biological weapons of mass 
destruction and aggressively, according to the British Prime Minister, 
seeking nuclear capabilities. He has shown his willingness to use these 
weapons even against his own people.
  Saddam has continually harbored and supported known terrorist 
organizations, including members of the al Qaeda, the terrorist group 
linked to the murderous attacks on September 11 in New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Washington.
  Saddam has also attempted to assassinate a U.S. President and fired 
thousands of attacks against American and British Air Forces in the no-
fly zones of Iraq.
  In his own country, Saddam Hussein has carried on one of the most 
cruel and barbaric regimes in the world, murdering political enemies, 
raping the wives of his foes, and torturing their children.
  So what are we to do about this madman? Saddam Hussein is an enemy of 
the United States. This is a Stalin and a Hitler who has the capability 
of murder of thousands of innocent American men, women, and children, 
and who supports and harbors terrorists.
  In history, there have been some enemies of freedom and liberty that 
respect nothing but the threat of superior military force. Saddam 
Hussein's Iraqi regime is such a threat. America has become the target 
because America is the world's symbol of freedom, liberty, and 
democracy. As one of America's great Presidents, Ronald Reagan, showed 
us in the Cold War, peace is achieved through strength, as he achieved 
victory in the Cold War.

[[Page H7272]]

  While I have no desire to see my children sent to war, we may be left 
with no other choice. I can assure the Members that as a member of the 
military, as a military parent, that the American military is ready and 
willing to answer the call to preserve freedom and liberty for 
generations to come, and to stop the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to 
the innocent lives of the American public.

                              {time}  2130

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a 
fighter for human rights.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, when September 11, 2001, happened, I was 
in New York City. And as the enormity of what terrorism could do to my 
city hit me, I was stunned. Then I wept with all of those innocent 
people who were simply doing their jobs and living their lives when one 
moment of hate lost their lives. There has, however, not been any 
conclusive evidence that links al Qaeda to those responsible for the 
tragedy with Iraq.
  Some question whether those who oppose this resolution are forgetting 
those who died on September 11. Some question our patriotism. Though I 
should not have to affirm my patriotism, I say simply that I love my 
country, I love my city of New York, and I am not afraid to deal with 
those who attacked it. It is the most basic of our purposes as a 
national government to defend our Nation. But here we speak of a 
different matter.
  If our ultimate goal is to disarm Iraq and all chemical and 
biological weapons, how does giving our President this right to go to 
war accomplish that goal? Would not working with the U.N. to implement 
a program of rigorous inspections move us closer to our goal?
  This new doctrine announced by the President that the U.S. has the 
right to engage in a preemptive strike, which he seeks to implement 
through this resolution, frightens me and establishes a troubling 
precedent. This is a doctrine better left unused. It contravenes a half 
century of developed international law of which the U.S. has been a 
champion. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion means that India 
and Pakistan, for instance, nations with nuclear weapons and a history 
of conflict, may no longer feel bound by the limitations on the use of 
force that have been agreed to by the family of nations. The U.N. would 
become irrelevant, and the checks and balances that membership in the 
U.N. places on its members states will no longer apply.
  Even if we have strike and successfully defeat Iraq militarily, will 
this make our Nation a safer place to live?
  The administration often talks about regime change in Iraq and the 
need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet in 1991 we decided 
against regime change because of concern of the overall stability of 
the region. What has happened since that time that has changed the 
goals of military action?
  As a Nation we need to plan and think beyond what passage of this 
resolution and a military victory would mean. The U.S. would need to 
expend at least the next 10 years involved in occupation, 
reconstruction and rebuilding. That is the point that no one seems to 
talk about, the fact that after we defeat Saddam Hussein we have to 
stay in Iraq, some experts say, at least for 10 years.
  One point also that surprises me that very few people, if any, bring 
up is, has anyone told us how we will defend Israel when Saddam Hussein 
and his madness, against the wall, decides to attack Israel? Those of 
us who support the State of Israel know that that is not part of this 
discussion at all.
  The last point that I would like to make is that we should, in our 
expending a lot of energy in trying to reach out to young Arab men and 
women, to tell them, to show them that we are not their enemy. By 
attacking an Arab country when even our allies in the Arab world do not 
support us will only, in my opinion, grow the hatred against this 
country. At the expense of sounding ridiculous, it could be said that 
it would be an increase in al Qaeda membership.
  We were founded on the principles of justice and strong morality. We 
have to be careful now that as we take and embark on this road we do 
not hurt ourselves while we try to help ourselves.
  We embarked on a war against terrorism. Now we are being told that 
attacking Iraq is part of that war. Yet Osama bin Laden, from all 
accounts, is still alive; and there is still work that has to be done.
  This is by far the most difficult vote that anyone can take. But I 
end this speech tonight as I began it and as I spoke 11 or 12 years 
ago. We have to be careful. We have to know what we are doing, and we 
have to know the severity of our actions. I will vote against this 
resolution because I cannot agree with the course that our great Nation 
is embarking on, one that brings the threat of war closer and the goal 
of peace further away.
  Madam Speaker, it is our children we will be sending to war. It is 
the people of Iraq we will engage in a war. We should think and think. 
And, Mr. President, I suspect that you will get the support of this 
Congress. Use this power wisely.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another member of the Committee on 
Armed Services and an officer in the Naval Reserve and a veteran of 
Northern Watch as well as Kosovo.
  (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, 140 years ago a gentleman from Illinois 
wrote the following:
  ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. 
The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with this 
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We 
must disenthrall ourselves and we shall save our country.
  ``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and 
this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No 
personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. 
The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or 
dishonor, to the latest generation.
  ``We say we are for Union. The world will not forget we say this. We 
know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We, 
even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving 
freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in 
what we give and what we preserve.
  ``We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. 
Other means may succeed. This could fail. The way is plain, peaceful, 
generous and just, a way which if followed the world will forever 
applaud and God must forever bless.''
  Abraham Lincoln wrote those words on the eve of his most important 
decision. The occasion before us here is also drenched in significance.
  I am often asked whether I am a dove or a hawk on the question of 
Iraq. I prefer to be an owl, one who approaches this with steady, firm 
judgment.
  I believe we must deal with the enforcement of the United Nations 
Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm as part of an 
international coalition. Diplomatic efforts must be our primary effort, 
with a use of armed force only as a last resort.
  Along well-settled principles of constitutional and international 
law, the United States may declare war only with the formal approval of 
the Congress; and we should try to endeavor to operate with the 
approval of the U.N. Security Council.
  As a veteran myself, I believe that making the decision between war 
and peace is the most sacred duty of the Congress. Many people who 
never saw war are quick to urge military actions. Veterans can report 
with firsthand experience that waging war is a cruel and blunt 
instrument to be used only by a free people as their last choice. In my 
own experience, war has taught me to be the best friend of our State 
Department, a place where diplomacy is always the preferred course of 
action.
  I used to work in the State Department, and I applaud Secretary of 
State Colin Powell in his efforts to build a large coalition of like-
minded nations

[[Page H7273]]

to enforce the will of the Security Council.
  In reviewing of the reports of the United Nations, our allies and 
respected human rights groups, it is clear that the Iraqi regime 
represents a growing present danger to the United States and its allies 
and its own people. Given its proximity to Iraq, our allies in Israel 
probably face the greatest danger. I believe that the disarmament of 
Iraq is important to the security of the United States but is vital to 
the security of our allies in Israel.
  In my judgment, the existence of Israel hangs on the success or 
failure of the U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq. This is why the government 
of Israel, like Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, so 
strongly supports our goal. It is clear that this steadfast, 
concentrated action by the international community is needed to reduce 
the danger to the United States and our allies.
  While some say that inspections against a government determined to 
conceal its weapons are certain to fail, I disagree. Unlike the 
inspectors that we sent into post-war Germany after World War I or even 
Iraq, a new Security Council resolution could lay out clear rules 
granting free, unescorted and unannounced access by inspectors to Iraqi 
programs.
  In my work on this issue, I joined with the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews), a representative of the opposite party, to form an Iraq 
working group here in the House where we have convened many meetings 
with U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraqis and administration officials to 
learn more about this issue. Our meetings with the U.N. inspectors have 
been some of the most fruitful.
  Dr. David Kay, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector, reported 
that if he were to return to Iraq he would need a new Security Council 
resolution with two major changes: one, complete access to all sites, 
including presidential sites and Northern Iraq, which were denied to 
previous U.N. inspectors; and, two, the power to grant permanent asylum 
to any scientist or their families who could be taken out of Iraq and 
debriefed on the weapons of mass destruction program that employed 
them.
  Dr. Kay reported that President Bush, Sr., and President Clinton both 
denied him the authority to force access to key sites and failed to 
grant him the power to bring any Iraqi and their families. He reported 
to our working group that, with these two changes granted under a new 
Security Council resolution, he would be willing to return to Iraq and 
carry out the will of the United Nations to disarm the government.
  We have had several conversations with the National Security Advisor, 
Dr. Rice, and members of our United Nations Mission in New York who 
report that, without the credible threat of force, Secretary of State 
Powell has little chance for passing the kind of Security Council 
resolution that Dr. Kay outlined would be needed to peacefully disarm 
Iraq.
  I am encouraged that this resolution before the House has the support 
of senior Democratic and Republican leaders. It underscores the 
consideration of this issue should be without partisan rancor or 
advantage, and we should not consider this measure as partisans but as 
Americans.
  This resolution offers the best hope for a new U.N. Security Council 
resolution to rewrite the rules of inspection to make them more 
effective. Secretary Powell has asked for this resolution to pass the 
Congress to give him the tools he needs for U.N. support, and I voted 
to give him that support.
  As a veteran, I see any potential military action first through the 
eyes of young men and women who volunteered to wear the uniform and 
would carry out the mission. As I have detailed here, I believe that 
this resolution unlocks the door for more effective inspections. We 
must use the opportunities we have to take non-military action through 
the U.N. to determine if unrestricted inspections of Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction program can take place. If these inspections succeed, 
we will have accomplished our objectives without loss of life. And if 
they fail, it will rally international support against an isolated 
Iraq, making any more decisive action quicker and more likely to 
succeed.
  Madam Speaker, 140 years ago, a gentleman from Illinois wrote the 
following passage--one that applies to the question now before this 
House:
  ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. 
The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the 
occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We 
must disenthrall ourselves and we shall save our country.
  Fellow citizens we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and 
this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No 
personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. 
The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or 
dishonor, to the latest generation.
  We say we are for Union. The world will not forget that we say this. 
We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save 
it. We--even we here--hold the power and bear the responsibility. In 
giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable 
alike in what we give and what we preserve.
  We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. 
Other means may succeed; this could fail. The way is plain, peaceful, 
generous, just--a way which if followed, the world will forever 
applaud, and God must forever bless.''
  Abraham Lincoln wrote those words on the eve of his most important 
decision of the Civil War. The occasion before us here is also drenched 
in historical significance.
  I am often asked if I am a ``Dove'' or ``Hawk'' on the question of 
Iraq. I prefer to be an ``Owl''--one who approaches this with a steady, 
firm judgment.
  I believe that we must deal with the enforcement of the United 
Nations (UN) Security Council resolution requiring Iraq to disarm as 
part of an international coalition. Diplomatic efforts must be our 
primary effort, with a use of armed force only as a last resort. Along 
well-settled principles of Constitutional and International Law, the 
United States may declare war only with the formal approval of the 
Congress and should try to endeavor to operate with the approval of the 
UN Security Council.
  As a veteran myself, I believe that making the decision between war 
and peace to be the most sacred duty of the Congress. Many people who 
never saw war are quick to urge military action. Veterans can report 
with first-hand experience that waging war is a cruel and blunt 
instrument to be used only by a free people as their last choice. In my 
own experience, war taught me to be the best friend of our State 
Department--a place where diplomacy is always the preferred course of 
action. I used to work in the State Department and I applaud Secretary 
of State Colin Powell in his efforts to build a large coalition of 
like-minded nations to enforce the will of the Security Council.

  With regard to military force, our founding fathers debated the 
proper place for the power to make war at the Constitutional Convention 
and feared it most in a new democracy. They specifically rejected 
proposals to give such a power to the President and directed that only 
the elected representatives of the American people in our Congress 
could declare war. For most of our history, Presidents followed the 
restrictions of the Constitution when going to war. In the 1950s and 
1960s, we deviated from the clear requirements of the Constitution to 
our profound detriment. I believe that it is far worse to send our 
uniformed men and women into a conflict the American people do not 
support than to never send them at all.
  In recent years, Presidents Bush and Clinton returned to our 
historic, constitutional practice of Congress voting before sending 
uniformed Americans into harm's way. Congress voted on U.S. military 
actions in Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo prior to deployment. As a 
military officer involved in each of these campaigns, I can report that 
the long congressional debate and formal approval of our missions made 
a difference improving our morale and clarity of purpose. The 
Administration should follow these precedents and obtain congressional 
sanction to engage in military action against Iraq. Congress must 
approve any military action against Iraq before it happens. Without 
such formal approval, no action should be taken.
  When the United States and our allies emerged victorious after the 
Second World War, we remade the ineffective League of Nations into a 
more effective United Nations. Under the charter of the UN, all member 
states are required by international law to abide by the decisions of 
the UN's Security Council. By the terms of the UN Charter, permanent 
members of the Security Council--the United States, China, Russia, 
France and Britain--retain the power to veto any proposed action by the 
Council. While the Council has not always been able to take decisive 
action, it has moved on many occasions to enforce the will of the 
international community in Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo.

[[Page H7274]]

  President Bush's decision to seek approval by the UN Security Council 
to enforce its previously-passed resolutions underscores a fundamental 
political and military requirement for the United States military to 
build allied support and to isolate any potential opponent of the 
international community. By acting under a UN resolution, U.S. armed 
forces could join as part of a broad coalition opposing an enemy that 
has little to no international support. For this key reason, the 
resolution clearly outlines that the United States should try to act 
with approval of the UN in dealing with Iraq.
  The decision to go to war is the most important decision that I can 
make as a representative in Congress. As a veteran, I see any potential 
military action first through the eyes of the young men and women who 
volunteered to wear the uniform and would carry out such a mission. We 
must use the opportunities we have to take non-military action through 
the UN to determine if unrestricted inspections of Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction can take place. If these inspections succeed, we will 
have accomplished our objectives without loss of life. If they fail, it 
will rally international support against an isolated foe, making any 
more decisive action quicker and much more likely to succeed.
  When we look at the situation in Iraq, we should not take military 
action until two basic questions are answered:
  1. Does Iraq Present a Clear and Present Danger to the United States 
and Our Allies?
  2. Will Non-military Action by the International Community Achieve 
Our Objectives?
  So, does Iraq present a clear and present danger?
  With regard to Iraq, the United Nations Security Council passed 
Resolution 686 in March of 1991 requiring Iraq to release all prisoners 
of war, return Kuwaiti property and pay damages. To date, the UN 
reports that Iraq failed to return 609 prisoners from 14 UN member 
states, including one American pilot. Iraq also holds over 5,000 
Iranian POWs. In total, the respected human rights group Amnesty 
International reports that Iraq failed to account for 16,000 people 
held in its custody. The UN staff reported to the Security Council on 
this issue that ``no progress [has been] made on return . . .'' Iraq 
also failed to return Kuwaiti military equipment and items from its 
state archives.
  In April of 1991, the Security Council passed Resolution 687. The 
resolution required Iraq to ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, 
removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' all 
``chemical and biological weapons.'' The resolution also required Iraq 
to ``unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or 
nuclear weapons usable material'' or construct ``any research, 
development or manufacturing facilities.'' Finally, the resolution also 
required Iraq to ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or 
rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all 
``ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major 
parts and repair and production facilities.
  Despite the requirement not to possess chemical and biological 
weapons, UN staff reported that Iraq lied to the UN Special Commission 
on Iraq (UNSCOM) in 1995 after Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to 
Jordan and told of the dictator's still-thriving biological and 
chemical weapons programs. Iraq then admitted it produced thousands of 
liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin for use with Scud 
missile warheads, aerial bombs and artillery. UNSCOM reported to the 
Security Council that Iraq concealed its biological weapons program and 
failed to account for three tons of growth material for biological 
agents. The UN also reported that Iraq failed to account for 15,000 
artillery rockets filled with nerve gas and 550 artillery shells filled 
with mustard gas.

  In January 2001, our Defense Department reported that Iraq converted 
Czech L-29 jets into chemical and biological delivery vehicles. Iraq 
also modified a second jet for use as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (AUV) 
to spray chemical and biological weapons. We have evidence that Iraq 
has built a third unmanned aerial vehicle that is much smaller than the 
larger jets. There are reports that this smaller AUV is the intended 
final vehicle for use delivering chemical and biological weapons in a 
way that would not be detected on radar. There is compelling further 
evidence on this program which remains classified.
  Reporting on the violation of commitments on ballistic missiles, 
UNSCOM disclosed that, contrary to UN resolutions, Iraq had retained a 
number of Scud missiles. Iraq also began work on two new missiles, a 
liquid-fueled missile (the al-Samoud) and solid-fueled missile (the 
Ababil), both capable of flying far beyond the 150 km limit imposed by 
the UN Security Council. Such missiles could deliver a weapon of mass 
destruction against Israel in under 250 seconds. Iraq also rebuilt the 
al-Mamoun missile test facility that had been dismantled by the UN to 
prevent the construction of long-range missiles. Work is underway to 
test a much larger missile engine to support even longer-range 
missiles.
  Despite promises not to acquire or test nuclear components, Iraq has 
a large nuclear weapons complex. Saddam Hussein regularly makes 
reference to his ``nuclear mujahadeen'' and UNSCOM reports over 40,000 
Iraqis work on the nuclear weapons program. British intelligence 
services report that Iraq stepped up purchases of nuclear weapons 
material over the last 14 months. The New York Times recently reported 
Iraqi agents attempted to purchase 114,000 parts of a nuclear 
centrifuge to refine fissile material for a nuclear bomb. In September, 
the British International Institute for Strategic Studies reported that 
absent the Gulf War, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by 1993 and 
could now possess a weapon within months of obtaining fissile material.
  Last year, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, an Iraqi defector, reported 
that he visited 20 secret facilities dedicated to producing nuclear, 
biological and chemical weapons. He supported his report with copies of 
Iraqi government contracts and technical specifications. It is clear 
that Iraq is advancing program to develop weapons of mass destruction 
in violation of its commitments imposed by the UN Security Council.

  Following the deployment of UNSCOM to Iraq, Saddam Hussein barred 
international inspector access to key individuals, sites and equipment 
necessary to verify compliance with international law. The UN condemned 
Iraq for failing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on 
August 15, 1991. The UN Security Council subsequently passed 12 more 
resolutions between 1991 and 1999 condemning Iraq and attempting to 
enforce the will of the international community. The President of the 
Council also made 30 statements condemning Iraq's non-compliance.
  Beyond commitments to return prisoners and to disarm weapons of mass 
destruction, the UN Security Council also passed Resolution 688 
requiring Iraq to end repression of the Iraqi people ``the consequences 
of which threaten international peace and security.'' The UN Commission 
on Human Rights and UN General Assembly reported on ``systematic, 
widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights'' citing an 
``all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based 
discrimination and widespread terror.'' The Iraqi government blocked 
all visits by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights from 1992 to 
the present.
  Amnesty International reported that in October 2000, Iraq executed 
dozens of women on charges of prostitution. Amnesty also reported the 
decapitation of numerous women accused of crimes with victims heads 
displayed in front of homes for several days. They further reported 
that the female relatives of prisoners are often raped as part of their 
torture. The UN Special Rapporteur, Max Van der Stoel, reported that 
hundreds of Iraqi Kurds were used as subjects in Iraq's testing of new 
chemical and biological weapons. Van der Stoel also reported at least 
1,500 executions of political opponents. Sometime between September of 
1998 and December of 1999, the town of Albu `Aysh was destroyed with 
extensive civilian casualties. UNSCOM also reported on a special prison 
for the children of adult prisoners. The Human Rights Alliance also 
reported that over 500 journalists and intellectuals have been 
executed.
  Under Resolution 688, the United States, France and Britain were 
directed to operate no-fly zones over southern Iraq to protect the Shia 
minority (Iraq's governing elite is exclusively Sunni) and northern 
Iraq to protect five million Kurdish citizens of Iraq. The Iraqis of 
these communities strongly support the no-fly zones and believe that it 
is the key to safety for their families. I am a veteran of Operation 
Northern Watch and was proud to serve my country to protect helpless 
minorities. On September 16th, Iraq offered the UN Secretary General 
the opportunity to return UNSCOM to Iraq for ``unrestricted'' 
inspections. On September 17th, Iraqi armed forces fired on UN aircraft 
patrolling the no-fly zone. They did so again the following day. To 
date, the Iraqis have fired on UN aircraft over 60 times since their 
offer of ``unrestricted'' inspections.

  Iraq is also prohibited from carrying out terrorist acts under the 
terms of the UN Security Council's Resolution 687. Despite this 
requirement, agents of the Iraqi Intelligence Service attempted to use 
a car bomb in 1993 to assassinate former President George Bush. Iraq 
harbors the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) that killed several Americans. It 
also housed the Palestine Liberation Front, best known for killing 
American Leon Klinghoffer and many attacks against Israel. Iraq also 
sheltered the Abu Nidal organization and now pays $10,000 to the 
families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Defectors report that Iraq 
operates an international terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, open 
to Arab and non-Arabs alike. While there is no clear link between the 
Iraqi government and the September 11th attacks, Iraq now harbors 
several members of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.

[[Page H7275]]

  Much of this activity by Iraq costs money. Iraq must operate under a 
UN embargo that allows it to sell oil with proceeds going into an 
account controlled by the UN. Despite protests from average Iraqis, the 
government of Iraq regularly applies for the use of the UN oil-for-food 
money to purchase luxury cars, electronic equipment and elite infant 
diet formula. Much of the funding under the UN program was used by Iraq 
to construct several ``presidential palaces'' detailed in a well-
covered speech by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright. In order 
to generate funding for its weapons of mass destruction program and 
missile development, Iraq exports thousands of barrels of oil on the 
black market in violation of the UN program, with proceeds controlled 
by Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusai. Total proceeds exceed several 
billion dollars--more than enough to fund a large weapons of mass 
destruction program.
  In reviewing the reports of the UN, our allies and respected outside 
human rights groups, it is clear that the Iraqi regime represents a 
growing present danger to the United States, our allies, and its own 
people. Given its proximity to Iraq, our allies in Israel probably face 
the greatest danger. I believe that the disarmament of Iraq is 
important to the security of the United States but is vital to the 
security of our allies in Israel. In my judgment, the existence of 
Israel hangs on the success or failure of the UN effort to disarm Iraq. 
That is why the government of Israel, like Her Majesty's Government in 
the United Kingdom, strongly supports this goal. It is clear that 
steadfast, concentrated action by the international community is needed 
to reduce the danger to the United States and our key allies.
  Will Non-military Action by the International Community Achieve Our 
Objectives?
  Between 1991 and 1997, UNSCOM was able to demilitarize a large number 
of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and missiles. It is clear that 
UNSCOM was able to delay the expected 1993 date when Iraq was expected 
to possess a nuclear arsenal. UNSCOM's two chiefs, Ambassador David Kay 
and Ambassador Richard Butler, emphasize that while inspections yielded 
results, they had to be supported by strong international action to 
bolster the authority of the UN. This support waned in 1997 and allowed 
Iraq to force the withdrawal of UNSCOM in 1998.
  There have been no inspections in Iraq for four years and less is 
known now about the progress Iraq has made on its weapons of mass 
destruction program. More is known about the resources Iraq spends on 
this program with indications that Iraq has substantially increased 
spending on special military projects over the years since UN 
inspectors were forced to leave. A steady stream of defectors and 
reports from other UN members indicate that Iraq is accelerating its 
work on nuclear, biological and missile programs.
  Ambassador Kay testified before the House Armed Services Committee 
that further inspections would not be effective unless the UN was given 
a carte blanche to visit any site with no notice, retaining the right 
to produce any witness at any time. He advised the Committee that he 
believed Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection policy.
  He was wrong.
  On September 16th, Saddam Hussein advised the Secretary General of 
the UN that Iraq would permit the redeployment of UN inspectors in Iraq 
with no restrictions. Many observers are understandably skeptical that 
Iraq will actually allow UN inspectors to peacefully disarm Iraq of its 
most deadly and expensive weapons.
  Nevertheless, this is an opportunity that we cannot ignore.
  The UN should mount an inspection mission to Iraq with the authority 
to conduct the most aggressive plan possible. It is possible that non-
military action by the international community will achieve our 
objectives in Iraq.
  The history of international arms inspection shows some failures. 
Eighty years ago, the international community imposed an inspection 
regime on the government of Germany. The League of Nations created an 
``Inter-Allied Control Commission'' for the ``complete execution of 
delivery, destruction, rendering useless of weapons, ammunition and 
material carried out at the expense of the German government.'' 
Inspectors were granted full freedom of movement, all necessary 
facilities, documents and designs. 337 inspectors were deployed in 11 
districts across the country. The Commission reported the following 
results: Cannons Destroyed, 33,384; Artillery Shells Destroyed, 
37,211,551; Machine Guns Destroyed, 87,240; and Poison Gas Cylinders 
Destroyed, 920 tons.

  In sum, they reported that 97% of Germany's artillery and 98% of her 
men under arms were rendered ineffective.
  The Commission's reports on German violations were very 
controversial. Andre Tardieu, the leading French diplomat for 
implementing the inspections, wrote to President Wilson on the 
controversy of inspector reports:
  ``The pacifist element in each of the nations of the League will be 
quite naturally inclined to deny reports disturbing to their peace of 
mind and more or less consciously espouse the cause of the German 
government which will deny the said reports. We must recall the 
opposition of these pacifist elements at the time when Germany armed to 
the teeth and openly made ready the aggression of 1870 and 1914. To sum 
up:
  --Germany will deny.
  --Their government will discuss.
  --Public opinion will be divided, alarmed, [and] nervous. The League, 
unarmed, will have brought to pass in the world not general peace but 
general uncertainty which will give birth to a kind of interior and 
exterior conflict.''
  In the end, Germany rearmed under the eyes of over 300 international 
inspectors. As evidence of violations mounted, the international 
community lost its nerve to impose the will of the League of Nations. 
This lesson of history is instructive and we should use it to make sure 
international inspections in Iraq do not suffer the same fate.
  The record of inspections in Iraq is uneven. While the UN Special 
Commission on Iraq reported an impressive amount of Iraqi weaponry 
destroyed, its lack of cooperation from the government and failure to 
achieve a complete accounting show that it was not a complete success.
  While some may say that inspections against a government determined 
to conceal are certain to fail, I disagree. Unlike the inspectors of 
Germany or even Iraq, a new Security Council resolution could lay out 
clear rules granting free, unescorted and unannounced access by 
inspectors to the Iraq programs. In my work on this issue, I joined 
with Representative Robert Andrews of New Jersey--a representative of 
the opposite party--to form an ``Iraq Working Group'' here in the 
House. We have convened many meetings with UN Inspectors, Iraqis and 
Administration officials to learn more about this issue.

  Our meetings with UN inspectors have been some of the most fruitful. 
Dr. David Kay, the United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector, reported 
that if he was to return to Iraq, he would need a new Security Council 
Resolution with two major changes to foster success:
  1. Complete access to all sites, including ``Presidential sites'' and 
Northern Iraq, which were denied to previous UN inspectors, and
  2. The power to grant permanent asylum to any scientist and their 
families who could be taken out of Iraq and debriefed on the weapons of 
mass destruction program that employed them.
  Kay reported that President Bush Sr. and President Clinton had denied 
him the authority to force access to key sites and failed to grant him 
the power to bring any Iraqi and their family members out of Iraq. He 
reported to our working group that with these two changes--granted by a 
new Security Council resolution--he would be willing to return to Iraq 
to carry out the will of the United Nations to disarm the government.
  I have had several conversations with our National Security Advisor, 
Dr. Rice, and Members of our United Nations mission in New York who 
report that without a credible threat of force, Secretary of State 
Powell has little chance for passing the kind of Security Council 
resolution that Dr. Kay outlined would be needed to peacefully disarm 
Iraq.
  They report that two key permanent members of the Council, Russia and 
France, have clear interests in this question. Russia is owned over $8 
billion by the government of Iraq. She sees a possible war or 
interfering with debt repayments and--as a good banker--therefore is 
inclined against it. If the U.S. leads an international coalition to 
replace the government of Iraq and Russia opposed this move, then 
Russia would see its debt repudiated. Russia cannot allow that to 
happen and therefore would have to back an international effort once it 
forms. France's position is similar. France's number one goal in the 
region is access to the Iraqi export market. But if a new government is 
installed and France opposed this action, France would suffer a loss of 
a key export market. Therefore, if international pressure is formed, 
France cannot afford to be left out. Diplomats reported to me that this 
is similar to the situation facing the Council in September of 1990. 
Most members did not want to rescue Kuwait and preferred to let Iraq 
administer this former UN member as a new ``19th province of Iraq.'' 
Once US action was imminent, the Council and many Arab nations 
supported the United States because they could not afford to offend the 
newly rescued Kuwaiti government. In similar fashion, if action is 
inevitable against Iraq, then the support of such nations will come 
because they cannot afford to be excluded from a new Iraq.
  It is for these reasons, I support the action of this resolution. I 
am encouraged that the resolution has the support of the Senior 
Democratic and Republican leaders of this House. It underscores that 
the consideration of this issue should be without partisan rancor or 
advantage. We should not consider this

[[Page H7276]]

measure as partisans but as Americans. This resolution offers the best 
hope for a UN Security Council resolution to rewrite the rules of 
inspection to make them effective. Secretary Powell has asked for this 
resolution to pass the Congress to give him the tools he needs to win 
UN support. I will vote to support him and this effort.
  As a veteran, I see any potential military action first through the 
eyes of the young men and women who volunteered to wear the uniform and 
would carry out such a mission. As I have detailed here, I believe this 
resolution unlocks the door to more effective inspections. We must use 
the opportunities we have to take non-military action through the UN to 
determine if unrestricted inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction can take place. If these inspections succeed, we will have 
accomplished our objectives without loss of life. If they fail, it will 
rally international support against an isolated Iraq, making any more 
decisive action quicker and much more likely to succeed.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, a former Foreign Service employee of the U.S. 
government, and a person who recently returned from Iraq to ask 
questions firsthand.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, the true question before us today is: Why should we go 
to war with Iraq? This is the last chance we will have before it 
starts.
  The rule has been that the people of this country do not wage war and 
lay down lives when there might be a threat. The rule has been that the 
people of this country do not wage war and lay down lives to achieve 
regime change in another country. With Iraq, we are moving into brand 
new territory. We are not just demanding disarmament. We are demanding 
that a ruler be removed.
  The President's press secretary publicly suggested assassination. 
This is new, Madam Speaker. This is new, and we should say no today.
  Because, first, their resolution is premature. There has been no 
showing by the intelligence agencies or the White House of imminent 
danger to the United States. That Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator 
who has committed heinous crimes is undeniable. It is likely that he 
still seeks weapons of mass destruction. But we have a way to thwart 
his desire: inspection and disarmament.
  For regime change, we stand alone. For inspection and disarmament, we 
have allies, we have a coalition, we have the U.N.
  Last march, the Iraq government began discussions with Dr. Hans Blix 
and UNMOVIC about resuming inspections so that the oppressive sanctions 
could be lifted. The Iraqi Parliament then invited Members of Congress 
to come to Baghdad with their own inspectors.

                              {time}  2145

  I spoke with Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in September in New York for 
an hour about the absolute necessity for unfettered inspections. I told 
him if I went to Iraq, I wanted ``my inspectors'' to be UNMOVIC, the 
U.N. inspectors.
  As I left he said, ``I think the Congress will be surprised soon.'' 
Three days later, Sabri wrote to Kofi Annan, accepting the inspectors 
under the existing U.N. resolutions.
  Unfortunately, instead of welcoming the shift in Iraq's position, 
President Bush could not take ``yes'' for an answer.
  Madam Speaker, we must let these inspections take place immediately, 
with or without a new U.N. resolution. Let Blix do his job. If, God 
forbid, the Iraqis return to obstruction, we are ready to return to the 
Security Council for whatever Dr. Blix needs to get the job done. The 
stakes are high if we make a hasty decision today.
  If we focus on disarmament, we may be able to hold onto the coalition 
we have built to fight terrorism. But if we do not, we force Middle 
Eastern countries to choose between their Arab neighbors and us.
  If we act alone to achieve regime change, the whole Arab world will 
wonder, who is next? Our President will become the poster boy for al 
Qaeda recruiters; and Americans will be less, not more, safe at home 
and abroad.
  If we pass this resolution, we are setting precedents that we will 
regret, that America can start preemptive wars and that Congress can 
turn over authority to start a war to the President.
  Vote ``no'' to honor the constitutional principle that only Congress 
can declare war. War cannot be started, or launched without 
declaration, on the word of a President whose attention span for 
diplomacy is exhausted and who notifies Congress 48 hours after the 
missiles have been launched.
  The legacies of wars remain with us forever. I learned that not from 
a textbook, but from people who fought in a confusing and undeclared 
war. From 1968 to 1970, I served in the United States Navy as a 
psychiatrist treating sailors and Marines suffering from post-traumatic 
stress disorder. I saw firsthand the price in grief and anger the 
troops and their families paid when they were sent into a war whose 
goals were at best obscure, and at worse deceptive.
  Under the terms of this resolution, the United States may attack Iraq 
solely on the basis of the President's view, and only the President's 
view, that diplomacy has failed. When Congress was given responsibility 
for declarations of war, the Founders had just finished a war. They 
knew the human cost. They decided the responsibility for going to war 
should not reside in one person, but must be the duty of the whole 
Congress. We cannot cede this responsibility to any occupant of the 
White House, no matter how wise or from which party he or she comes.
  I have a suggestion. Let us adjourn for an hour right now and go down 
to the Vietnam Memorial before we commit ourselves and our children to 
an unknown world in which any President can decide to go to war as long 
as he or she determines it is in the national interest at the moment. 
Let us look at the names one more time before we wipe away the efforts 
of 60 years to weave the world together through the U.N. and 
international law.
  After two World Wars in 25 years, world leaders have remained 
committed to doing their best to prevent such an event ever given. By 
and large, they have succeeded. Let us not, in pursuit of oil or power 
or the blandishments of empire, be the ones who lead the world to 
failure.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record two articles which expand on 
my position.

                [From the Institute for Public Accuracy]

         Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq

       Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati 
     welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all 
     coming.
       Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave 
     threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world 
     in confronting that threat.
       The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the 
     Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its 
     drive toward an arsenal of terror.
       Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East Report: ``This might 
     indicate that Iraq is actively threatening the peace in the 
     region. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq is doing 
     so, or has any intention of doing so. Other powers are 
     actively disrupting the peace in the region: Israel is trying 
     to crush Palestinian resistance to occupation with brute 
     force, and the U.S. and Britain have bombed Iraq 46 times in 
     2002 when their aircraft are `targeted' by Iraqi air defense 
     systems in the bilaterally enforced no-fly zones. Most of our 
     `friends' in the region--Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan--have 
     strongly urged us not to go to war, and to tone down the war 
     rhetoric. Aren't they better positioned than we are to judge 
     what threatens their safety?''
       Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian 
     Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its 
     weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such 
     weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
       Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on 
     Terrorism: Resolution 687 also speaks of `establishing in the 
     Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction'--
     which also means Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons as well as 
     Syria's and Egypt's apparent chemical weapons capabilities, 
     and any nuclear capability the U.S. has placed in the 
     region.''
       The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It 
     possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
       As'ad Abukhalil, author of Bin Laden, Islam & America's New 
     `War on Terrorism' and associate professor of political 
     science at California State University at Stanislaus: ``The 
     president fails to credit Reagan's and his father's 
     adminsitrations--prominent members of which included Rumsfeld 
     and Cheney--for their help in the construction of Saddam's 
     arsenal, especially in the area of germ warfare.''
       Toensing: ``After being presented with evidence that Iraq 
     had used chemical weapons

[[Page H7277]]

     to attack the Kurds in 1987-88, the Reagan administration 
     blocked a Senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and 
     continued to pursue good relations with the regime.''
       James Jennings, president of Conscience International, a 
     humanitarian aid organization that has worked in Iraq since 
     1991: ``The evidence that Iraq gassed its own people is also 
     not about a current event, but one that happened fourteen 
     years ago. If that did not constitute a good enough reason 
     for going to war with Iraq in 1988 (which the U.S. did not 
     even contemplate at the time), it certainly is not a good 
     enough reason now.''
       It is seeking nuclear weapons.
       Susan Wright, co-author of Biological Warfare and 
     Disarmament: New Problems/New Perspectives: ``How does Bush 
     know this? It's as if the inspections have already been 
     conducted and we know the outcome. We're expected to accept 
     the administration's word for this without seeing any 
     evidence. We have no way of judging the accuracy of these 
     claims and the only way to do so is to hold inspections. The 
     only country in the region that is known to possess a nuclear 
     arsenal is Israel.'' [The Administration says that it does 
     not know if Israel has nuclear weapons: www.commondreams.org/
headlines02/0521-06.htm]
       Mahajan: ``There's no evidence that Iraq has gotten 
     anywhere with seeking nuclear weapons. The pitiful status of 
     evidence in this regards is shown by claims in e.g. Blair's 
     dossier that Iraq is seeking uranium from Africa, year and 
     country unspecified. South Africa is, of course, the only 
     country in the continent that has potentially the capacity 
     for enrichment of uranium to bomb quality, and claims not to 
     have supplied Iraq with uranium. Unenriched uranium does Iraq 
     little good, since enrichment facilities are large, require 
     huge investment, and cannot easily be hidden.''
       It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices 
     terror against its own people.
       The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of 
     defiance, deception, and bad faith.
       We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent 
     history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its 
     vulnerability--even to threats that gather on the other side 
     of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to 
     confront every threat, from any source, that could bring 
     sudden terror and suffering to America.
       Members of the Congress of both political parties, and 
     members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that 
     Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree 
     that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten 
     America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, 
     and gases, and atomic weapons.
       Toensing: ``Only two members of the U.N. Security council 
     would appear to agree with the idea that Iraq threatens, or 
     will threaten, `America and the world' with Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction, making the next sentence disingenuous at best.''
       Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we 
     best achieve it?
       Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the 
     nature of the threat. About the urgency of action--and why be 
     concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons 
     of terror, and the wider war on terror.
       These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully 
     within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those 
     discussions with you.
       Toensing: ``Bush may have shared the discussion, but he did 
     not share the evidence, saying, like the British dossier and 
     CIA reports, that intelligence has established the threat. 
     But Americans apparently will not be seeing it.''
       First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries 
     or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are 
     many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands 
     alone--because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age 
     in one place.
       Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a 
     murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to 
     kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to 
     dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a 
     small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and 
     holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
       Stephen Zunes, author of ``Tinderbox: U.S., Middle East 
     Policy and the Roots of Terrorism'' and associate professor 
     of politics at the University of San Francisco: ``The 
     hostility towards the United States is a direct consequence 
     of U.S. hostility toward Iraq. Iraq was quite unhostile to 
     the United States when it was receiving support from the 
     United States during the 1980s. The answer is certainly not 
     to appease Iraq's tyrannical regime, as was done in the past. 
     However, to imply this hostility is unrelated to the U.S. 
     destruction of much of Iraq's civilian infrastructure and 
     other actions during the Gulf War which went far beyond what 
     was necessary to rid Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the U.S.-
     led sanctions and its impact upon the civilian population is 
     very misleading.''
       AbuKhalil: ``If Bush wants to punish nations that `tried to 
     dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a 
     small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning' 
     then he would have to punish Israel for an occupation of 
     Palestinian lands that lasted far longer than the now famous 
     (yet brief) Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Of course, Iraq did 
     attack Iran and Kuwait, and Israel in the span of 30 years 
     has attacked Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, 
     Jordan, not to mention Palestine, and not to mention a 
     civilian Libyan airliner that was downed by Israeli forces in 
     1973.''
       By its past and present actions, buy its technological 
     capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is 
     unique.
       As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, 
     ``The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the 
     regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is 
     addicted to weapons of mass destruction.''
       Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the 
     world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows 
     worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous 
     weapons today--and we do--does it make any sense for the 
     world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and 
     develops even more dangerous weapons?
       Zunes: ``He was far more dangerous in the 1980s when the 
     U.S., was supporting him. It will take many years, assuming 
     military sanctions continue to effect, before he comes close 
     to the strength he was then. If U.N. inspectors are allowed 
     to return, it would be impossible--even if they don't find 
     100 percent of everything--to get much stronger than he is 
     today.''
       In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, 
     the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then 
     that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more 
     than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological 
     agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had 
     likely produced two to four times that amount.
       Zunes: ``If this is really a concern, then why did the 
     United States supply Iraq with the seed stock of anthrax 
     spores back in the 1980s'' [William Blum, ``Anthrax for 
     Export: U.S. Companies Sold Iraq the Ingredients for a 
     Witch's Brew,'' The Progressive, April 1998, p. 18]
       This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has 
     never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.
       Zunes: ``This is like saying that a man is capable of 
     making millions of women pregnant. It's a matter of delivery 
     systems, of which there is no proof that Iraq currently 
     has.''
       We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of 
     chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and 
     VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using 
     chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, 
     and on more than forty villages in his own country. These 
     actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than 
     six times the number of people who died in the attacks of 
     September 11.
       Mahajan: ``All of this was done with the full support, 
     approval, and connivance of the U.S. government. U.S.-
     supplied `agricultural credits' helped fund the sustained 
     counterinsurgency campaign in northern Iraq; the United 
     States supplied military intelligence to Iraq for use against 
     Iran even when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons in the 
     war; and the United States ran diplomat interference for Iraq 
     at the U.N.''
       Toensing: ``The U.S. restored diplomatic relations with 
     Iraq in 1984, while it was in the midst of fighting the first 
     of these wars of aggression, because the U.S. wanted to 
     contain the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The U.S. and Britain 
     tilted toward Iraq throughout the war, and U.S. allies in the 
     region, chief among them Saudi Arabia, bankrolled the Iraqi 
     war effort. The U.S. was still trying to become closer to 
     Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.''
       Zunes: ``He attacked Iranian troops because he knew Iran 
     had no allies that would defend it. And we now know that 
     officials from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assisted 
     Iraq in targeting Iranian forces in the full knowledge that 
     they were using chemical weapons. Saddam used chemical 
     weapons against Kurdish civilians because he knew they 
     couldn't fight back. And the U.S. helped cover up the Halabja 
     massacre and other assaults by falsely claiming the Iranians 
     were responsible. In other words, Saddam is a coward. He will 
     use WMDs when he knows he won't have to suffer the 
     consequences, especially when the world's most powerful 
     country is supporting him.''
       And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is 
     rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical 
     and biological weapons.
       Toensing: ``That it `has used.' The last time Bush made a 
     big deal of this, he claimed that Iraq was again using the 
     facilities in this way, an assertion which the IAEA promptly 
     rebutted as unverifiable. It still is unverifiable.''
       Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes 
     is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian 
     Gulf War in 1991.
       Mahajan: ``There are no credible allegations that Iraq 
     produced chemical or biological agents while inspectors were 
     in the country, until December 1998. The reason we don't know 
     whether they are producing those agents or not since then is 
     that inspectors were withdrawn at the U.S. behest preparatory 
     to the Desert Fox bombing campaign.''
       Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these 
     weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and 
     isolation from the civilized world.
       [The U.S. has maintained for years that it would continue 
     the sanctions regardless of Iraq's behavior regarding 
     weapons, see ``Autopsy of a Disaster: The U.S. Sanctions 
     Policy on Iraq--Myth: The Sanctions Will be

[[Page H7278]]

     Lifted When Iraq Complies with the U.N. Inspections'': 
     www.accuracy.org/iraq]
       Zunes: ``Again, the U.S. has yet to produce evidence that 
     Iraq is building such weapons. Also, U.N. Security Council 
     Resolution 687 calls for Iraqi disarmament as part of a 
     region-wide disarmament effort which the United States has 
     refused to enforce or even support.''
       Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of 
     hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, 
     Turkey, and other nations--in a region where more than 
     135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.
       Toensing: ``That is a neat rhetorical trick. Bush knows 
     that Turkey and Saudi Arabia themselves do not feel under 
     threat from Iraq's WMD, so he doesn't claim that. Rather, 
     it's the threat to U.S. servicemen and oil company employees 
     based in those countries which should concern us. The 
     questions left unasked are why Iraq would attack Americans, 
     knowing the massive response that would incur, and of course 
     why so many American troops `live and work' in Turkey and 
     Saudi Arabia. They're partly there in forward deployment 
     against Iraq.''
       Zunes: ``According to UNSCOM, 817 of Iraq's 819 Soviet-
     built ballistic missiles have been accounted for and 
     destroyed. They may possess up to a couple of dozen home-made 
     versions, but none of these have been tested and it is 
     questionable whether they have any function launchers.''
       We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a 
     growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that 
     could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons 
     across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring 
     ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
       Toensing: ``Other intelligence experts have disputed that 
     UAVs are a threat, because the agents they released might 
     disperse to basically harmless levels by the time they 
     reached the ground if the UAV was trying to cover such a 
     broad area.''
       Mahajan: ``The claim that these UAVs have ranges that would 
     enable attacking the United States, and that they could reach 
     it undetected, is a startling new one, and entirely 
     untenable. No one has ever produced evidence of Iraqi 
     capability or intent to target the United States directly.''
       And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not 
     required for a chemical or biological attack--all that might 
     be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi 
     intelligence operative to delivery it.
       Mahajan: ``Bioterrorist attacks and delivery of biological 
     agents aren't that easy--the very limited effects of the 
     anthrax attacks showed that. In fact, the loss of life in the 
     anthrax attacks occurred mostly among the postal workers who 
     were not issued antibiotics, and not among the congressional 
     staff who were. As for chemical attacks with `a small 
     container and one terrorist,' they would be severely limited 
     in effect.''
       And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam 
     Hussein's link to international terrorist groups.
       Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists 
     such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more 
     than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed 
     or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
       Michael Ratner is president of the Center for 
     Constitutional Rights: ``Although U.S. intelligence agencies 
     have not found a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al 
     Qaeda, Bush mentions one, but no evidence is shown. Likewise 
     he tries to frighten Americans by talking about the crimes of 
     Abu Nidal, but Abu Nidal is dead. Again it is an attempt to 
     create fear by association with something from the past, not 
     evidence of a current threat.''
       Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was 
     responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an 
     American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to 
     finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use 
     terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
       Toensing: ``Yes, but neither of these groups is 
     ideologically anti-American. Their attacks are aimed at 
     Israel and Israeli interests, including the killing of Leon 
     Klinghoffer and other Americans. This is a crucial piece of 
     context.''
       We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share 
     a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that 
     Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a 
     decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to 
     Iraq.
       These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received 
     medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been 
     associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. 
     We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in 
     bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.
       Jennings: ``The claim that al-Qaeda is in Iraq is 
     disingenuous, if not an outright lie. Yes, the U.S. has known 
     for some time that up to 400 al-Qaeda-type Muslim 
     extremists, the Ansar al-Ialam, formerly `Jund al-Islam,' 
     a splinter of the Iranian-backed Islamic Unity Movement of 
     Kurdistan, were operating inside the Kurdish security zone 
     set up under U.S. protection in the North of Iraq. For 
     some reason this was kept quiet and has not been much 
     reported in the mainstream media. Finally last Spring the 
     Kurds themselves attacked and killed most of the 
     terrorists in their territory, sending the rest fleeing 
     for their lives across the border into Iran. Since this 
     area was under U.S. protection, and not under Saddam 
     Hussein's rule, it's pretty hard to claim that al-Qaeda 
     operates in Iraq.''
       Mahajan: ``Al-Qaeda has carried out no chemical or 
     biological attacks. The anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001 
     were almost certainly from a U.S. government employee. It's 
     hard to know what, if anything, to make of claims that one 
     ``senior al Qaeda leader'' got medical treatment in Baghdad. 
     Giving medical treatment, even to criminals, is not illegal, 
     and with so little evidence given to us, there's no reason to 
     suppose this isn't another story like the one about a meeting 
     between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague (now 
     discredited).''
       And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's 
     regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. 
     Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or 
     chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual 
     terrorists. Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi 
     regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
       Mahajan: ``Biological or chemical weapons would undoubtedly 
     leave fingerprints, just as the anthrax attacks in the fall 
     did. Even if Iraq couldn't be conclusively shown to be the 
     source of such materials, the U.S. government would assume 
     Iraq was the source. Iraq has been under the gun ever since 
     the Gulf War, and can't possibly assume that it could get 
     away with such an attack. Moreover, Saddam has traditionally 
     seen WMD as his ace in the hole, protecting him from defeat. 
     Paranoid dictators do not give control of something they see 
     as the foundation of their security into the hands of 
     networks, like al-Qaeda, which they can't control.''
       Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq 
     could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, 
     confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning 
     the war on terror.
       When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said 
     that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the 
     terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists 
     and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death 
     and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply 
     too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror 
     network.
       Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass 
     destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our 
     security requires that we confront both. And the United 
     States military is capable of confronting both.
       Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to 
     developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that 
     is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence 
     indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from 
     developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international 
     inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The 
     regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon 
     no later than 1993.
       The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear 
     weapons development program, had a design for a workable 
     nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of 
     enriching uranium for a bomb.
       Toensing: ``Yes, inspectors learned all of this--the 
     inspections worked.''
       Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-
     related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.
       Robert Jensen, author of ``Writing Dissent'' and an 
     associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin: 
     ``Bush at least acknowledged that we know little about 
     Saddam's nuclear capability, but he lied about why. Bush 
     claimed that Iraq barred the inspectors of the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency in 1998. In fact, the inspectors, along 
     with those from the U.N. Special Commission, were withdrawn 
     by their agencies--not expelled by Iraq--in December 1998 
     when it became clear the Clinton administration was going to 
     bomb Iraq (as it did) and the safety of the inspectors 
     couldn't be guaranteed. The inspectors also spied for the 
     United States, in violation of their mandate.''
       This same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi 
     nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his 
     public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear 
     program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is 
     reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
       Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi 
     nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ``nuclear 
     mujahedeen''--his nuclear holy warriors.
       Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding 
     facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear 
     program in the past.
       Toensing: ``As Lincoln Chafee said on NPR, if these 
     satellite photos exist, then surely the public has a right to 
     see them. Surely mere photos would not compromise sources and 
     methods.'' [In 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. 
     government claimed that Iraqi troops were threatening Saudi 
     Arabia; this turned out to be false.]
       Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes 
     and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are 
     used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
       Mahajan: ``The aluminum tubes can also be used in 
     conventional artillery, which Iraq is allowed to have. In the 
     past, when Iraq tried to build such centrifuges, they used 
     steel tubes. This is an incredibly weak indicator.''
       If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an 
     amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a 
     single softball, it

[[Page H7279]]

     could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
       Toensing: ``Both the CIA report and the British dossier say 
     that this is very unlikely as long as Iraqi remains under 
     sanctions.''
       Mahajan: ``This means only that it has the technological 
     know-how to create the high-explosive `lenses' necessary to 
     set off the appropriate nuclear chain reaction. As long as it 
     retains its scientists, this will remain the case.''
       And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be 
     crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail 
     anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position 
     to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to 
     threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position 
     to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
       Mahajan: ``Again, such an act is not at all consonant with 
     the history or the mindset of Saddam Hussein. One 
     organization hosted by the Iraqi government, which is 
     classified as terrorist by the State Department, is the 
     Iranian Mujahedin-I-Khalq, whose activities are directed 
     against the current government of Iran. They have never had 
     access to any nonconventional resources from the Government 
     of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sees the radical Islamist terrorist 
     networks like al-Qaeda as a huge potential threat to his own 
     rule, something that concerns him far more than any 
     unrealistic ideas of revenge against the United States. 
     Anything that could allow al-Qaeda (which, in its turn, is 
     likely more concerned with replacing regimes in the Middle 
     East with new radical Islamist regimes) to blackmail him 
     would be the last thing he would give them.''
       Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this 
     problem, why do we need to confront it now?
       There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of 
     September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are 
     willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent 
     people. Our enemies would be no less willing--in fact they 
     would be eager--to use a biological, or chemical, or a 
     nuclear weapon.
       Mahajan: ``Invoking September 11 without showing any kind 
     of link between the government of Iraq and those attacks is 
     just transparent manipulation. What he really means is that 
     after September 11 he thinks he can get away with such a 
     policy.''
       Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat 
     gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we 
     cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that could 
     come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
       As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: ``Neither the 
     United States of America nor the world community of nations 
     can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on 
     the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in 
     a world,'' he said, ``where only the actual firing of weapons 
     represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to 
     constitute maximum peril.''
       Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western 
     States Legal Foundation: ``The hypocrisy in this speech--and 
     in the Bush Administration's overall national security 
     strategy--is monumental. If having weapons of mass 
     destruction and a history of using them is a criteria, then 
     surely the United States must pose the greatest threat to 
     humanity that has ever existed. While Bush warns that `we 
     cannot wait for the final proof. . . . the smoking gun that 
     could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,' his September 
     2002 National Security Strategy states that `America will act 
     against. . .  emerging threats before they are fully formed. 
     . . . by acting preemptively.' And his top-secret Nuclear 
     Posture Review, leaked to the New York Times earlier this 
     year, reveals that `U.S. nuclear forces will continue to 
     provide assurance. . . in the event of surprising military 
     developments. . . Current examples of immediate contingencies 
     include an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors. . . .' It 
     doesn't take a lot of imagination to predict that if Iraq is 
     attacked by the U.S. it might launch whatever it has at 
     Israel-itself a nuclear power. Further, while the U.S. is 
     massively expanding its biological weapons research 
     capabilities for example by upgrading its bioresearch 
     facilities at the Livermore and Los Alamos Nuclear weapons 
     labs to aerosolize live anthrax and genetically modify 
     bioorganisms it is blocking a protocol to the Biological 
     Weapons Convention that would allow international inspectors 
     into U.S. facilities. The Bush Administration's unilateral 
     headlong rush to war threatens to unleash unprecedented 
     regional instability and potentially catastrophic loss of 
     life. It's hard to image a more self-destructive course of 
     action.''
       Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs 
     and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to 
     assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the 
     worst from occurring.
       Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming 
     the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and 
     economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has 
     tried to do since 1991.
       The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic 
     deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of 
     inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged 
     documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons 
     facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
       Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-
     limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually 
     encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both 
     above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could 
     be hidden.
       [In fact, there were inspections of these ``presidential 
     palaces.'']
       Zunes: ``These are not off-limits. They are open to 
     unfettered inspections as long as an Iraqi official is 
     accompanying the inspectors. Such a proviso is quite legal 
     under U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing the 
     creation of UNMOVIC, resolutions that were supported by the 
     United States.''
       The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched 
     Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund 
     more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs 
     of the Iraqi people.
       Toensing: `Yes, and all the while, the U.S. and Britain 
     were undermining the logic of sanctions and inspections by 
     speaking of regime change, giving the regime no incentive to 
     cooperate.''
       Mahajan: ``The government-instituted food ration program in 
     Iraq has been widely praised, characterized as `second to 
     none' by Tun Myat, current U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in 
     Iraq. Money that comes in under the Oil for Food program 
     cannot, despite constant allegations, be used for weapons 
     purchases--all proceeds from such sales are deposited to an 
     escrow account in New York which is controlled by the U.N. 
     Sanctions Committee. The government of Iraq cannot touch any 
     of this money.''
       The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy 
     Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities only to see 
     them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even 
     exist.
       Mahajan: ``For `world' here, read `United States and its 
     lieutenant, the United Kingdom.' Those military strikes were 
     a blatant violation of international law, done without 
     Security Council authorization.''
       The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from 
     terrorizing his own people . . . and in the last year alone, 
     the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots 
     more than 750 times.
       Toensing: ``Another remarkable rhetorical trick. The no-fly 
     zones did not protect the Kurds from Iraqi incursions in 
     1995-96, nor have they protected the Shia or the marsh Arabs 
     from ground-based repression throughout the decade. But 
     rather than mention these somewhat significant failures, Bush 
     concentrates on Iraqi air defenses, which have yet to come 
     close to actually hitting a U.S. or U.K. jet. As with the 
     Saudi-Turkish point above, it appears that U.S.-U.K. attempts 
     to protect the peoples of the region are to be counted as 
     failures because the U.S. and U.K. are in danger.''
       Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the 
     University of Illinois College of Law and author of The 
     Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: ``It is the U.S. 
     government that is violating the United Nations Charter . . . 
     by using military force to allegedly `police' these illegal 
     `no-fly' zones that have never been authorized by the U.N. 
     Security Council or by the U.S. Congress, in violation of the 
     1973 War Powers Resolution as well. Iraq is simply exercising 
     its legitimate right of self-defense under U.N. Charter 
     article 51. The Bush administration has deliberately put U.S. 
     pilots in harm's way in order to concoct a pretext for a 
     catastrophic war of aggression against Iraq. The best way for 
     the American people to protect the lives of our military 
     personnel in the Persian Gulf is to bring them all home.''
       Mahajan: ``Again, the no-fly zones don't involve the 
     `world,' but are a naked projection of American and British 
     power (France, the third partner in the no-fly zones, 
     withdrew in 1996), unsanctioned by the Security Council.''
       After 11 years during which we have tried containment, 
     sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the 
     end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and 
     biological weapons, and is increasing his capabilities to 
     make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a 
     nuclear weapon.
       Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, 
     or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. 
     America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that 
     helps to keep the peace. That is why we are urging the 
     Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting our tough, 
     immediate requirements.
       AbuKhalil: ``Bush also fails to mention American violations 
     of the sanctions regime, by using the inspectors to spy on 
     Iraq, and to obtain information unrelated to the U.N. 
     mandate.''
       Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and 
     destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass 
     destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime 
     must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be 
     interviewed outside of the country.
       And these witnesses must be free to bring their families 
     with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam 
     Hussein's terror and murder.
       And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, 
     without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
       Susan Wright: ``[The evidence] suggests that the United 
     States and the United Kingdom intend to set such tough 
     conditions for the further arms inspections in Iraq that they 
     would create a double bind. If Iraq rejects the conditions, 
     then war with the United States will follow. If Iraq attempts 
     to comply and an ambiguity triggers action by the security 
     forces of one of the permanent members of the Security 
     Council, which according to this draft, might accompany an 
     inspection team, war could follow anyway.

[[Page H7280]]

     Other members of the Security Council should reject such 
     traps. It is also essential to avoid a situation in which the 
     inspection force is effectively hijacked by the United States 
     and used for espionage, as was the case with the U.N. Special 
     Commission in the 1990s.''
       The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to 
     an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself--or, for the sake 
     of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
       Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam 
     Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to 
     defending the international security that protects the lives 
     of both our citizens and theirs.
       AbuKhalil: ``When Bush speaks about `many nations' 
     supporting the U.S., he certainly means Israel and U.K., 
     although public opinion in U.K. is running solidly against 
     Bush's war.''
       And that is why America is challenging all nations to take 
     the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
       Zunes: ``There are well over 90 U.N. Security Council 
     resolutions that are currently being violated by countries 
     other than Iraq. The vast majority of these resolutions are 
     being violated by allies of the United States that receive 
     U.S. military, economic and diplomatic support. Indeed, the 
     U.S. has effectively blocked the U.N. Security Council from 
     enforcing these resolutions against its allies.''
       Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring 
     and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq 
     must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the 
     persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all 
     illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must 
     release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an 
     American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
       Zunes: ``Most of these do not fall under Chapter VII, which 
     allows for the UNSC to authorize the use of force.''
       AbuKhalil: ``And Bush's sudden concern for U.N. resolutions 
     should not lead one to believe that he will next move to 
     implement all U.N. resolutions--including those against U.S. 
     allies''.
       By taking these steps, and only by taking these steps, the 
     Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. These 
     steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime 
     itself.
       America hopes the regime will make that choice.
       Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to 
     expect it. This is why two administrations--mine and 
     President Clinton's--have stated that regime change in Iraq 
     is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our 
     nation.
       I hope this will not require military action, but it may. 
     And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime 
     faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate 
     measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his 
     generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If 
     they do not refuse, they must understand that all war 
     criminals will be pursued and punished.
       If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is 
     possible. We will plan carefully, we will act with the full 
     power of the United States military, we will act with allies 
     at our side, and we will prevail.
       There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have 
     argued we should wait--and that is an option. In my view, it 
     is the riskiest of all options--because the longer we wait, 
     the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could 
     wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to 
     terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapons to blackmail the 
     world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all 
     evidence.
       As Americans, we want peace--we work and sacrifice for 
     peace--and there can be no peace if our security depends on 
     the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I 
     am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam 
     Hussein.
       Mahajan: ``Throughout all of this, there has never been any 
     credible evidence introduced to indicate that Hussein has any 
     policy of trying to target Americans. His depredations have 
     almost always been distinguished by actions against people 
     that the Western powers don't care about.''
       Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow 
     terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make 
     blackmail a permanent feature of world events.
       The United Nations would betray the purpose of its 
     founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. 
     And through its inaction, the United States would resign 
     itself to a future of fear.
       That is not the America I know. That is not the America I 
     serve. We refuse to live in fear. This nation--in world war 
     and in Cold War--has never permitted the brutal and lawless 
     to set history's course.
       Zunes: ``Then why did the United States support Indonesian 
     dictator Suharto for over three decades, as he oversaw the 
     massacre of over a half million of his own people, invaded 
     the tiny nation or East Timor, resulting in the deaths of an 
     additional 200,000? How about brutal and lawless governments 
     in Turkey, Morocco and Israel that have invaded neighboring 
     countries at the cost of thousands of civilian lives? How 
     about Pinochet and other Latin American tyrants supported by 
     the U.S.?''
       Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our 
     freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. Some 
     worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create 
     instability and make the situation worse. The situation could 
     hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of 
     Iraq.
       The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if 
     Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of 
     Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.
       Toensing: ``Given what is known about the return of 
     warlordism and chaos to Afghanistan--not to mention the 
     fiction that Afghan women have all thrown away their burqas--
     this is a debatable proposition, and indicative of the 
     administration's lack of interest in rebuilding Afghanistan. 
     Why would Iraq be any different?''
       Mahajan: ``On every test of justice and of pragmatism, the 
     war on Afghanistan fails. Worse, every one of these aspects, 
     from an increased threat of terrorism to large numbers of 
     civilian deaths to installation of a U.S.-controlled puppet 
     regime is due to play out again in the war on Iraq. In fact, 
     though it has been little noted, the sanctions regime has 
     made Iraqis dependent on centralized, government-distributed 
     food to survive and relief agencies have already expressed 
     their concerns about the potential for a humanitarian crisis 
     once war starts.''
       The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder 
     as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and 
     within his own army, and even within his own family.
       On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been 
     decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have 
     been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and 
     political prisoners have been forced to watch their own 
     children being tortured.
       Jensen: ``All of that and more was going on while Iraq was 
     a `valued ally' of the United States--hence the hypocrisy of 
     the next few sentences.''
       America believes that all people are entitled to hope and 
     human rights--to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.
       People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to 
     squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture.
       America is a friend to the people of Iraq.
       Anthony Arnove, editor of the book Iraq Under Siege: ``But 
     the people of Iraq have good reason to feel otherwise. As 
     Nichols Kristof of the New York Times noted in his October 4 
     report from Baghdad, `while ordinary Iraqis were very 
     friendly toward me, they were enraged at the U.S. after 11 
     years of economic sanctions. . . . Worse, U.S. bombing of 
     water treatment plants, difficulties importing purification 
     chemicals like chlorine (which can be used for weapons), and 
     shortages of medicines led to a more than doubling of infant 
     mortality, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
     Organization.' Another war on Iraq--this time, a `pre-
     emptive' attack aimed at `regime change'--will lead to more 
     civilian casualties and damage to Iraq's infrastructure. And 
     Iraqis are right to worry that the regime Washington 
     installs, in violation of their right to self-determination, 
     will be one that serves U.S. interests, not their own. We 
     should recall the impact of the last war. In the words of 
     Gulf War veteran Anthony Swofford, a former Marine corporal, 
     writing in the New York Times, October 2, `From the ground, I 
     witnessed the savage results of American air superiority: 
     tanks and troop carriers turned upside down and ripped inside 
     out; rotten, burned, half-buried bodies littering the desert 
     like the detritus of years--not weeks--of combat.' We should 
     be skeptical of Bush's stated concern for the Iraqi people. 
     His real interests in this war are not the Iraq people, or 
     defending Americans from attack, but expanding U.S. hegemony 
     in the Middle East.''
       Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves 
     them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first 
     and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and 
     children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, 
     Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity 
     of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
       Jennings: ``The president has repeatedly claimed, `We have 
     no quarrel with the Iraqi people.' In his speech to the 
     nation on Oct. 7, he said, `America is a friend of the people 
     of Iraq.' Try telling that to a friend of mine in Baghdad who 
     walked out of his house following a U.S. bomb attack to find 
     his neighbor's head rolling down the street; or to a taxi 
     driver I met whose four year old child shook uncontrollably 
     for three days following Clinton's 1998 `Monicagate' bombing 
     diversion. Try telling it to the mother of Omran ibn Jwair, 
     whom I met in the village of Toq al-Ghazzalat after a U.S. 
     missile killed her 13 year old son while he was tending sheep 
     in the field. Try telling it to the hundreds of mothers I 
     have seen crying over their dying babies in Iraqi hospitals, 
     and to the hundreds of thousands of parents who have actually 
     lost their infant children due to the cruel U.S. blockade, 
     euphemistically called `sanctions.' Are the Iraqi people 
     supposed to rejoice now that a new war is being forced upon 
     them by their so-called `friends'? It is understandable that 
     people are frightened following the disastrous attacks of 
     September 11. But fear is not a good reason to stop thinking. 
     In fact, when we are in danger is when clear thinking is 
     needed most of all.''
       Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. 
     Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be 
     able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If 
     military action is necessary, the United States and our 
     allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and 
     create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace 
     with its neighbors.

[[Page H7281]]

       Later this week the United States Congress will vote on 
     this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of 
     America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. 
     Security Council demands.
       John Berg, director of graduate studies of the government 
     department at Suffolk University: ``Our Constitution makes it 
     clear that Congress, not the President, is to `declare war'--
     that is, make the decision that war is necessary in a given 
     situation. For Congress to delegate this determination to the 
     President would be an abdication of its Constitutional 
     responsibility.
       Zunes: ``According to the articles 41 and 42 of the United 
     Nations charter, this can only be done if the U.N. Security 
     Council finds the violator in material breach of the 
     resolution, determines all non-military means of enforcement 
     have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of 
     force. Otherwise, it will be illegal. Members of Congress 
     would therefore be obliged to vote against it since--
     according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution--
     international treaties such as the U.N. Charter are the 
     supreme law of the land. Furthermore, if the United States 
     can invade Iraq for its violations of U.N. Security Council 
     resolutions, then Britain could invade Morocco, France could 
     invade Turkey, Russia could invade Israel, etc.''
       Approving this resolution does not mean that military 
     action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell 
     the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with 
     one voice and is determined to make the demands of the 
     civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending 
     a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only choice is 
     full compliance--and the time remaining for that choice is 
     limited.
       Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am 
     confident they will fully consider the facts and their 
     duties.
       The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast 
     oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic 
     date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs.
       Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more 
     clearly defined--and whose consequences could be far more 
     deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice--and 
     there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
       We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept 
     it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the 
     responsibility of defending human liberty against violence 
     and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to 
     others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our 
     actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a 
     better day.
       Phyllis Bennis, author of the just-released book Before and 
     After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis and a 
     fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies: ``President 
     Bush's speech ignored Congress, and instead was aimed at U.S. 
     public opinion (where his support is dwindling) and 
     international allies in the U.N. (where the U.S. is 
     significantly isolated). It was designed to divert attention 
     from the real reason for this coming war: oil and empire. It 
     is a war designed to rewrite the political map of the Middle 
     East, and is not dependent on the particular threat posed by 
     a particular dictator. The crimes of the Iraqi regime are 
     serious and longstanding--back to the days of massive U.S. 
     economic and military support, and U.S. provision of the 
     biological seed stock for the anthrax and other germs 
     President Bush warned us about. But launching a massive 
     bombing campaign against Baghdad, a city of more than 5 
     million inhabitants--grandmothers, kindergarten classes, 
     teenagers--will not secure human rights for those living and 
     dying under those bombs.``
       Thank you, and good night.
                                  ____


                   [From the Guardian, Oct. 8, 2002]

                         Inspection as Invasion

                          (By George Monbiot)

       There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war 
     with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked 
     his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to 
     consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror 
     to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House 
     as the singing of birds.
       Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but 
     necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our 
     consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence 
     which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all 
     those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No 
     task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies 
     contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely 
     that ``the United States does not desire military conflict, 
     because we know the awful nature of war'' and ``we hope that 
     Iraq complies with the world's demands''. Mr. Bush appears to 
     have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from 
     complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that 
     military conflict becomes inevitable.
       On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of 
     the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the 
     return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN 
     inspection for three and a half years, but now it felt the 
     screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of 
     capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to 
     the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was 
     preparing ``a major air campaign and land invasion'' to 
     ``topple President Saddam Hussein''. The talks immediately 
     collapsed.
       Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the 
     head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi 
     officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-
     entering the country. The US airforce launched bombing raids 
     on Basra, in southern Iraq, destroying a radar system. As the 
     Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely 
     have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this 
     time the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding 
     the inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to 
     let the UN back in. The State Department immediately 
     announced, with more candour than elegance, that it would 
     ``go into thwart mode''.
       It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft 
     resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN 
     Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan 
     for unopposed invasion. The decisions about which sites 
     should be ``inspected'' would no longer be made by the UN 
     alone, but also by ``any permanent member of the security 
     council'', such as the United States. The people inspecting 
     these sites could also be chosen by the US, and they would 
     enjoy ``unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq'' 
     and ``the right to free, unrestricted and immediate 
     movement'' within Iraq, ``including unrestricted access to 
     presidential sites''. They would be permitted to establish 
     ``regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq'', where 
     they would be ``accompanied . . . by sufficient US security 
     forces to protect them''. They would have the right to 
     declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and ``ground and air 
     transit corridors''. They would be allowed to fly and land as 
     many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as 
     they want, to set up ``encrypted communication'' networks and 
     to seize ``any equipment'' they choose to lay hands on.
       The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to 
     remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the UN team in 
     1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector 
     Scott Ritter that the weapons inspectors were joined that 
     year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the UN's 
     special access to collect information and encourage the 
     republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and 
     the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not to 
     enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.
       As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the US has 
     been undermining disarmament for years. The UN's principal 
     means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the security 
     council's resolution 687, which promised that economic 
     sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons 
     of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, 
     the US secretary of state, unilaterally withdrew this 
     promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to comply. Three 
     years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that 
     sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.
       The US government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled 
     the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On 
     October 30, 1998, the US rejected a new UN proposal by again 
     refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the 
     following day, the Iraqi government announced that it would 
     cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted 
     them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they 
     completed around 300 operations.
       On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection 
     team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of 
     the report recorded that over the past month ``the majority 
     of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing 
     monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation'', 
     but his well-publicised conclusion was that ``no progress'' 
     had been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On 
     December 15, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. warned him that 
     his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled 
     out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq.
       From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow U.N. 
     inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, 
     the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical 
     Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His 
     organisation had not been involved in the messy business of 
     1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and 
     complete the job the U.N. had almost finished. The U.S. 
     responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal. The other member 
     states agreed to depose him only after the United States 
     threatened to destroy the organisation if he stayed. Hans 
     Blix, the head of the new U.N. inspectorate, may also be 
     feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take 
     his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after 
     an hour-long meeting with U.S. officials, he agreed with the 
     Americans that there should be no inspections until a new 
     resolution had been approved.
       For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help, 
     appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution on the 
     crisis in Iraq. It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, 
     as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion 
     demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest 
     mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far 
     failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more 
     necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only

[[Page H7282]]

     when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, 
     the peaceful means have been averted.

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, it is difficult not to respond in full to the comments 
of the previous speaker. Those of us on both sides of the aisle who 
support this resolution understand the impact of war as well as the 
gentleman does, and we walk by with sadness not only at the Vietnam 
Memorial but also at the Holocaust Museum.
  There are risks of action, but there are also risks of inaction. We 
take our responsibility here tonight seriously, and we face this 
resolution and the situation that we cannot turn away from.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I have a rule, too; and that rule is I will 
not go to an enemy's country and say that that leader is telling the 
truth and our President is misleading the American people.
  As Winston Churchill said, the price of greatness is responsibility. 
Today we have the responsibility to do what is right and what is just, 
and what will provide for the security of the American people. We all 
without exception seek peace, but not at any price. We seek a lasting, 
long-term peace. That peace is obtainable because our President has 
forced Saddam Hussein to the negotiating table. And because we will 
speak with one voice, lasting peace through disarmament is possible, 
nothing less is acceptable.
  I would first like to highlight the strikes that Iraq fires on our 
pilots. Acts of Iraqi aggression against our American and British air 
patrols in the no-fly zone occur on a daily basis. U.S. and allied 
forces have patrolled the no-fly zone since 1991. In the past 2\1/2\ 
years alone, U.S. fighters have been fired upon more than 2,300 times. 
In fact, just an hour after the letter was delivered to the U.N. 
stating that Iraq would again consider allowing weapons inspectors to 
their facilities, an American jet patrolling a no-fly zone was fired on 
six times.
  Following the Gulf War in April 1991, the United Nations as a cease-
fire condition ordered Iraq to completely open themselves to arms 
inspectors to ensure that Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of 
mass destruction. The U.N. Security Council enacted Resolution 687 
requiring Iraq to declare, destroy or render harmless its weapons of 
mass destruction in production infrastructure. Eleven years have 
passed; nothing has changed. Saddam Hussein continues to defy that 
order, and there is overwhelming evidence indicating that Saddam 
Hussein is developing mass quantities of chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons.
  Saddam is using weapons against other nations and against his own 
people. With these weapons Saddam Hussein will become the merchant for 
weapons of mass destruction for terrorists around the globe. Saddam 
Hussein is also aggressively trying to build nuclear weapons. He has 
the technology and know-how to build such devices. All he lacks is the 
fissile material. Once he acquires that material, he will be months or 
days away from being able to fire nuclear weapons beyond his own 
border.
  Once he has that technology, he can bind U.S. hands through blackmail 
and intimidation and rule the Gulf region through threat and coercion. 
Saddam Hussein and his regime pose serious threats to peace and 
stability in the world. We cannot stand idly by and watch this happen.
  Pursuing Iraq is a continuing of the war on terrorism, and our forces 
are up to the test. We must ask ourselves what is the responsible 
course of action for our country. Are we obliged to sit by and idly 
wait for a chemical, biological or nuclear 9-11? Or is it our 
responsibility to take steps to deal with the threat before we are 
attacked?
  We have an obligation to defend against an attack on our people. We 
should be clear on the issue before us. It is not enough to get 
inspectors in. We have done this before, and we know this mad man has 
biological weapons.
  To quote the wise words of my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we cannot entrust our fate to others, for 
others may never come. If we are not prepared to defend ourselves and 
to defend ourselves alone if need be, if we cannot convince the world 
that we are unshakeably resolved to do so, then there can be no 
security for us, no safety to be purchased, no refuge to be found.
  Today Republicans and Democrats alike are concluding that this 
resolution needs to be passed to ensure that Saddam Hussein never has 
the opportunity to use his weapons of mass destruction against the 
United States. Iraq needs to not only subject itself to full 
inspections, but also disarm itself of all existing weapons.
  The legislation in front of us gives the President the authority he 
needs to protect the American people and U.S. interests from Saddam 
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction while at the same time respecting 
the prerogatives of Congress. We have the responsibility to act.
  I encourage all Members to keep the constituents in mind and support 
this resolution. The way to peace is through strength. As President 
Bush said on Monday night, war is neither imminent nor inevitable. 
Compliance without exception to the resolutions in place and total 
disarmament equals peace. Anything less is an unacceptable risk to the 
safety and the lives of all Americans.
  Without disarmament, we will lead an international coalition that 
will disarm Saddam Hussein. Churchill said an appeaser is one who feeds 
a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. A vote for appeasement, not on 
my watch.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, previous speakers have referenced the fact that 
supporters of this resolution, supporters of authorizing force as a way 
of maximizing our chances of putting together meaningful Security 
Council action and multilateral action for the use of force, if 
necessary, this is being done on a bipartisan basis.
  I simply want to reiterate that because I think our colleagues here 
and the American people should understand that this is not simply a 
position that the Bush administration or the Republican Party endorses, 
that a number of key people in the Clinton administration's national 
security team agree that an ``aye'' vote on this resolution is the 
right vote on this resolution.
  Each of the following people have indicated that to me and to other 
Members of Congress in their visits to the Hill in the last month: our 
National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger; the Deputy National Security 
Adviser, James Steinberg; our Ambassador in the Clinton administration 
to the United Nations and the man rumored as likely to have become 
Secretary of State if Al Gore had become President, Richard Holbrooke; 
the architects of the dual-containment policy in the early 1990s who 
recognized that at this particular time containment of Saddam Hussein 
is no longer a sensible policy, Martin Indyk, first with the National 
Security Council and then Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs; 
Dennis Ross, Special Envoy to the Middle East; and Ken Pollack in 
charge of implementing the containment policy in the Clinton 
administration for the National Security Council; and Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy, Walter Slocum. All of these top Clinton 
administration officials, dealing with critical national security 
issues, say that for us building the right vote is an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the base 
resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. First and 
foremost, the administration has failed to demonstrate that we face 
such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, 
preemptive strike is critical to our continued well-being.
  Yes, we know that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. 
Yes, we know that Saddam Hussein has used them against the Iranians and 
the Kurds in northern Iraq. But we also know that Iraq has not 
demonstrated an intent to use weapons of mass destruction against the 
U.S., our interests abroad, or any of our allies.
  And as a result of expert testimony given before the Committee on 
Armed

[[Page H7283]]

Services, we also know Saddam Hussein is a decade away from acquiring 
nuclear-equipped ICBMs capable of reaching the United States.
  In contrast, we have been presented evidence that a war in Iraq would 
significantly destabilize the Middle East.

                              {time}  2200

  Even worse, it could potentially topple friendly governments in 
countries such as Pakistan, Kuwait, and Jordan. If President Musharraf 
were to lose control of Pakistan, nuclear weapons would fall into the 
hands of a fundamentalist regime.
  We have been presented evidence that a war in Iraq would cost the 
United States between $100 billion and $200 billion at the time when 
funds are desperately needed elsewhere, especially in our fight against 
Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. And we do know that deterrence 
has worked. The fact is that Hussein has failed to use his vast arsenal 
of biological and chemical weapons thus far because the threat of 
collective, immediate retaliation from the global community has kept 
Saddam within his own borders. In a worst-case scenario, the threat of 
his impending downfall could finally compel him to use these weapons, 
and our troops would be the ones to suffer the consequences.
  Thus far, I have not seen evidence that warrants the loss of American 
lives in Iraq. Under no circumstance should our servicemen and women be 
asked to risk their lives unless there is no recourse.
  Clearly, the United States and the rest of the international 
community, for that matter, is accurately aware that Saddam Hussein is 
a brutal, repressive dictator who has ruthlessly tormented his people 
for decades, but it is evident that any action we take against the 
state of Iraq, if it is to be successful, will require the help of our 
allies. It should require the cooperation of the United Nations and its 
Security Council. These things should be in place before we tilt 
against our enemy. Otherwise, we risk becoming what we are fighting so 
hard against, a nation that creates its own rules and does not care 
about the international community. By taking unilateral action prior to 
exhausting all diplomatic efforts, the U.S. would set a dangerous 
precedent and undermine decades of relative international stability.
  According to former President Jimmy Carter, one of the most basic 
principles for making and keeping peace within and between nations is 
that in political, military, moral and spiritual confrontations there 
should be an honest attempt at the reconciliation of differences before 
resorting to combat.
  In light of this, I will support the gentleman from South Carolina's 
(Mr. Spratt) amendment. In the event that diplomacy fails, in the event 
that Saddam Hussein again obstructs access to military facilities, it 
is imperative that Congress readdress this issue. If Saddam does not 
let unfettered inspections in, I will join with my colleagues in 
Congress to authorize the unilateral use of force, but until then we 
must act within the boundaries of international law if we expect our 
allies to emulate our actions when resolving a crisis of their own.
  Harry S. Truman once said there is a right kind and a wrong kind of 
victory, just as there are wars for the right things and wars that are 
misdirected. And based on evidence that I have received, this potential 
war is misdirected. Our enemy was named on September 11. It is al 
Qaeda. Its name is Osama bin Laden.
  On March 12, CIA Director Tenet testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that al Qaeda remains the most immediate and serious 
threat to our country, despite the progress that we have made in 
Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere. We have seen what 
al Qaeda is capable of, that it is al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein, that 
has continually restated its desire to continue a wave of crippling, 
devastating attacks against us. U.S. and military intelligence 
resources should be focused on seeking out and disbanding the al Qaeda 
network. We owe it to the loved ones of those lost on 9/11. We owe it 
to every American family, for that matter, to finish what we have 
started.
  As the most powerful military force in the world, a successful 
military strike can be easily carried out. Diplomacy, however, is 
immensely more difficult but shows more strength.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), another member of the House 
Committee on Armed Services as well as one of the leaders on education 
in this House.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I also thank her for the great leadership she has provided on 
this issue and many other issues before us in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here now almost 10 years, and we have heard 
before from our leadership that this will be the most important vote we 
take or this will be the most important vote we take, and granted those 
were important votes but I think they pale in significance to the vote 
that we will take on this issue. I think that is the reason why our 
colleagues for the most part have addressed this in a very serious 
manner, and I want to congratulate my colleagues for the way that this 
debate has been conducted.
  This is something that I think that none of us wants to be 
discussing. We would much rather live in a world of peace, and none of 
us would have liked to have happen what happened September 11 or in 
other places around the world, but we do not have those wishes. We have 
to deal with reality.
  During August and during my other trips home since then, I do not 
think I talked to a single person that did not ask, are we going into 
Iraq and what is happening? As we discussed issue, some of them 
expressed to me strong reservations against going into Iraq. Some 
expressed strong support for going into Iraq or whatever we needed to 
do to defeat terrorism.
  Today, we face a dilemma much like the dilemma that challenged 
Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s. He was confronted with the prospect 
of waging war against a madman or brokering peace based on thin 
promises. Chamberlain signed a treaty with Hitler hoping against reason 
that it would mean peace. Hitler mocked Chamberlain and he mocked the 
world when he ignored the treaty and broke his promises. Inaction in 
trying to appease Hitler resulted in ruin. By the war's end, Hitler's 
death toll had reached over 30 million people.
  If we do not learn from history's mistakes, we are doomed to repeat 
them. Saddam Hussein is one of today's madmen and, like Hitler, he 
makes promises that last just long enough to quiet international fears. 
When the eyes of the world are not carefully trained on him, he returns 
to his evil ways.
  The publicly available evidence against Saddam Hussein is compelling:
  His aggressive invasion of Kuwait and brutal impression of the 
Kuwaiti people in 1990.
  His record in complying with UN inspections. In total, Saddam Hussein 
currently stands in violation of 16 United Nations resolutions.
  His repeated attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons.
  His public praise of the attacks of September 11. While ideologically 
al Qaeda and Saddam are opposites, their common goal is the destruction 
of America. These two evils united pose a great threat to our security.
  Because of the real threat that Saddam poses, President Bush has 
petitioned Congress to adopt the resolution before us. And as has been 
pointed out, leaders on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of this 
Chamber have worked with the President in drafting this resolution.
  Today the debate is not really whether Saddam wants to gain nuclear 
weapons and use them on the U.S. and our allies. This is a frightening 
and well-documented truth. The true debate is whether or not America 
should seek permission from the UN before ridding the world of a 
regional and international danger.
  While the resolution supports the President's efforts to work with 
the United Nations, it does not require that the U.S. receive U.N. 
approval before taking military action against Saddam Hussein. 
President Bush is committed to confronting the Iraqi regime with or 
without the support of the international community. He is committed and 
this Congress should be committed because, post-September 11, we know 
the harm that can be caused by combining Saddam's arsenal with al

[[Page H7284]]

Qaeda's will. Evidence of al Qaeda forces in Iraq is growing by the 
day, which means that the time to act is now.
  Throughout our Nation's history, we have always led the cause of 
freedom, but even with freedom and security so clearly in danger we 
have treaded lightly when considering whether to wage war. We have 
treaded lightly because we value human life. Now we must move boldly 
because Saddam Hussein does not.
  I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, last night, our President explained very 
clearly that Saddam Hussein is a malicious tyrant with weapons of mass 
destruction and the ability to use them. He has ignored U.N. 
resolutions more than a dozen times. He has supported terrorism. He 
cannot be trusted, and he can no longer be tolerated.
  I have met with President Bush twice in the past 2 weeks to discuss 
Iraq and the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to America. President 
Bush provided me the evidence I need to support this resolution. Saddam 
Hussein is training terrorists to make and use weapons of mass 
destruction. He has these weapons, and I believe he will use them 
against our country and our people.
  I have a brother-in-law in the United States Air Force and a first 
cousin in the United States Army. I do not want war. None of us want 
war. We all want peace. We all want to know America like we did before 
September 11, 2001. I do not want war, but what I do want is to prevent 
another attack on our people.
  September 11, 2001, taught us a painful but unforgettable lesson 
about the evil that our enemies are capable of displaying and, yes, 
carrying out against our country and its people.
  Our world has changed, our enemy has changed, and our approach must 
also change. This is a decision I never thought I would have to make. 
It is a difficult decision that has weighed heavily on me. But for the 
sake of my family, my neighbors, my constituents, and our country, I 
know it is the right decision, and that is why I will reach across 
party lines and stand by our President.
  This resolution authorizes our President to use military action 
against Iraq as a last resort. He has said that he will continue to 
work with the U.N. and that he will seek to form a coalition of allies 
to disarm Iraq, if necessary.
  Our responsibility is clear. We must rise to meet this challenge and 
pass this resolution so our men and women in the military, our allies 
across the globe, members of the United Nations, and, yes, even Saddam 
Hussein himself will know that we are united in our mission to make 
America safe again.
  Our world has changed, our enemy has changed, and our approach must 
also change.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the last time I speak 
on the floor of the House. It just suddenly dawned upon me. I do not 
know what the future holds for me, but I am not really worried about me 
tonight.
  We have dealt with weighty issues during my 8 years here but none 
more important than this. I rise in support of the resolution, and I 
appreciate all of our Democratic colleagues who made it happen. I know 
the pressures on some of our friends on the other side are probably a 
lot more immense than they have been on me, and I applaud their 
courage.

                              {time}  2215

  I applaud your courage. For those who vote ``no,'' I respect you and 
I understand you are voting your conscience, and that is the way it 
should be. The resolution, I do believe, is balanced, is firm, and is 
focused on defending the United States, in my opinion.
  People in America need to know the following: this passage is a 
certainty. Debating is almost over. Action will soon follow.
  Please make no mistake about what faces our Nation. The U.N. will 
act; Saddam Hussein will not comply; the United States and its allies, 
sooner rather than later, will use force to bring about regime change; 
U.S. lives will be lost; civilians will be killed and harmed. Victory 
will come at a very large price.
  We are setting in motion tonight forces long overdue. When the smoke 
clears, the Iraqi people will taste freedom for the first time in 
decades, the terrorists will have one less ally, the world will be much 
smaller.
  Evil is about to face the forces of good. Thanks to the men and women 
who serve us and their counterparts worldwide, one more domino will 
soon fall in the war on terrorism.
  Regardless of how we vote, we will pull together soon and we will be 
one people, supporting our President. I ask for God's protection and 
guidance of our President and for all who serve under him. With God's 
guidance and his grace, we will prevail; and the world will soon be a 
better and safer place.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the Committee on Financial 
Services and the Committee on Government Reform, a person who speaks 
for truth and justice and has the courage of her convictions.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the letters and e-mails that I have received 
from my district, about 5,000 of them. These support authorizing the 
President to launch a preemptive unilateral war on Iraq, 14 of them; 
and all the rest of them are saying no to war.
  These are letters from veterans and teachers, mothers and fathers, 
Republicans and Democrats. In many different voices they are all 
saying, ``War is not just another policy option. It must be the very 
last resort.'' These are serious and thoughtful letters from patriots 
who are deeply concerned, not only about the security of the United 
States, but the soul of the United States.
  One constituent said, ``Unilateral behavior is not the example we as 
Americans should display to the rest of the world. We should support 
and ensure the United Nations resolutions to the fullest. And, if 
necessary, we should lead in enforcing the United Nations 
resolutions.''
  Many others believe the President has provided no convincing evidence 
that going to war with Iraq is necessary or is the only option the U.S. 
has at this time. If the President does have the compelling evidence of 
imminent threat that my constituents want, he has not shown it to the 
Congress.
  If Saddam is such a grave threat, why has the administration waited 
until this moment to try to make its case? And why, as recently as 
1998, was Halliburton, the company headed by Vice President Cheney, 
doing business with Iraq and helping them rebuild their oil fields?
  Some of my constituents suggest that oil might have something to do 
with this, and some suggest it has more to do with November 5 than 
September 11. Many others raise the concerns of the constituent that 
says, ``There are far too many other things that need to be dealt with 
in our country today, including health care, the state of the economy, 
corporate corruption, as well as a host of environmental and 
international issues, for us to make preemptive war.''
  The two things never suggested in these letters are, first, that 
Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil and merciless dictator, 
and, second, that the United States should sit back and do nothing to 
disarm him. Yet the President in his speech dismissed those who oppose 
a preemptive strike by saying, ``We could wait and hope that Saddam 
does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to 
blackmail the world.''
  Well, with all due respect, Mr. President, there are no waiters or 
hopers in this pile or in this Congress. This is not about action 
versus inaction, and certainly not about appeasement. No one in this 
Chamber is a Neville Chamberlain.
  As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, who wrote a column called 
``Appeasement Myths,'' said, since Desert Storm, ``No one has been 
appeasing him. On the contrary, we have let Hussein know that if he 
ever sets one toe across any of his borders, we will stomp him flatter 
than a straw hat on the interstate. The policy of containment backed by 
nuclear deterrent

[[Page H7285]]

is the same policy the United States employed against the Soviet Union 
for 40 years with successful results.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will include the full article for the Record.
  A preemptive strike, in my view, puts America and the world in more 
danger, not less. CIA Director Tenet wrote, ``Should Saddam conclude 
that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would 
become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.''
  To me, this means Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, would 
become a target of those attacks, Saddam would likely unleash whatever 
chemical and biological weapons it may have on Israel, the Middle East 
would be in flames and the Arab and Muslim world united against the 
United States and Israel. The careful coalition that the United States 
assembled to fight what is an imminent threat, the terrorist threat of 
al Qaeda, would come apart. The United States would be at war, bearing 
all the costs and all the cleanup, which could take many years alone.
  We would be putting our young men and women in uniform, as many as 
300,000 of them in harm's way, in the way of very serious harm.
  Information provided by the General Accounting Office and the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense raises very serious 
questions about our ability to adequately protect our troops from 
chemical and biological weapons. Can we justify sending them off to war 
with protective suits that may have holes in them when there are viable 
alternatives?
  After World War II, the United States took the lead in creating the 
United Nations for the purpose of extending the rule of law. We took 
the lead in creating the United Nations for the purpose of extending 
the rule of law around the world in order to prevent future wars.
  That goal, though too often elusive, is even more compelling today in 
a shrinking world in which technology makes it possible to virtually 
destroy the planet. The United States, the undisputed superpower, has 
the opportunity to use its great strength to lead the nations of the 
world toward accepting the rule of law; or we can, as the new Bush 
doctrine spells out, use our power to attack at will those who may in 
the future pose a threat. This dangerous and contagious idea of 
preemptive strike will usher in a new century of violence and even 
catastrophe.
  We should vote ``no'' on this resolution granting the President the 
power to go to war, but we can vote ``yes'' for more appropriate and 
more sensible options. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) have provided us with 
resolutions that allow us to address the threat from Iraq without first 
choosing war.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article written by Steve 
Chapman, ``Appeasement Myths, the Realities of Iraq.''

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 6, 2002]

                Appeasement Myths, the Realities of Iraq

                           (By Steve Chapman)

       Should we go to war to stop Hitler? That question may 
     surprise you--at least if you operate on the assumption that 
     Hitler is dead and not about to go anywhere.
       But conservatives insist that Hitler has been reincarnated 
     in the form of Saddam Hussein. They say that like the British 
     of the 1930s, who had to choose between the concessions 
     offered by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the 
     military action urged by Winston Churchill, we have to decide 
     between cowardice and courage.
       The Weekly Standard magazine labels all the opponents of 
     this pre-emptive war ``the axis of appeasement.'' The Daily 
     Telegraph of London sneers, ``Just as the prospect of 
     invading Iraq provokes clerical and secular hand-wringing 
     now, so did the prospect of taking up arms against Nazism 
     then.'' When Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin announced he would 
     vote against a resolution authorizing the president to invade 
     Iraq, his Republican opponent Jim Durkin immediately detected 
     the stench of ``appeasement.''
       Exhuming the Nazis to justify war is not a tactic unique to 
     conservatives. Liberals accused the United States of 
     shameless appeasement in refusing to send troops to stop the 
     war in Bosnia. Both sides claim to have learned the lessons 
     of history, but the only episode they can ever seem to 
     remember is the rise of the Third Reich.
       But they don't even known much of that history. Anyone 
     trying to apply the experience of Nazi Germany to the case of 
     Iraq can see two obvious things: Saddam Hussein is no Hitler, 
     and our policy over the last 11 years looks nothing like 
     appeasement.
       Hitler had been in power just five years when he annexed 
     Austria in 1938. Before that year was over, he had coerced 
     Britain and France to surrender part of Czechoslovakia. In 
     1939 he invaded Poland. Denmark, Norway, Belgium and France 
     soon followed. In 1941, he marched on Moscow.
       It was a plan of conquest breathtaking in its speed and 
     scope. Just eight years after gaining power, Hitler was on 
     the verge of controlling an empire stretching from the 
     Atlantic to the Pacific.
       And where is Saddam's imperial plan? He has been in charge 
     of Iraq for some 30 years, and so far he's initiated 
     hostilities with only two countries, Iran and Kuwait. Hitler 
     dreamed of ruling the world. Hussein's grand vision was to 
     control the whole of the Shatt al Arab waterway and some oil 
     fields to his south.
       For all his vicious nature, he has shown no interest in 
     building an empire. In any case, that would be an 
     impossibility for Iraq, which has just 23 million people and 
     is surrounded by bigger nations.
       As for his domestic realm, Hussein is unquestionably a 
     ruthless despot willing to kill anyone who stands in his way. 
     But that description would not begin to capture Hitler, who 
     slaughtered innocents across the continent on a gargantuan 
     scale. To equate Hussein with Hitler is like equating a snow 
     flurry with an ice age.
       If finding someone to impersonate the Fuhrer is tough, 
     finding a modern-day Neville Chamberlain is even harder. When 
     Hitler demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Britain 
     and France meekly gave it to him. When he proceeded to 
     swallow up the rest of the country, nobody tried to stop him. 
     When Hussein invaded Kuwait, by contrast, he unleashed 
     Operation Desert Storm on himself.
       No one has been appeasing him since then, either. On the 
     contrary, we've kept the Iraqi regime confined to a tight 
     little cage.
       The two no-fly zones enforced by British and American 
     fighters cover most of Iraq. Meanwhile, economic sanctions 
     have kept him from buying weapons and spare parts, or doing 
     much of anything to rebuild his army. ``Hitler got more 
     powerful with time, while Saddam has gotten weaker,'' notes 
     John Mearsheimer, a defense scholar at the University of 
     Chicago.
       We've stationed thousands of troops in Kuwait, we have air 
     bases in Saudi Arabia, and we generally keep an aircraft 
     carrier within striking distance of Iraq at all times. In 
     short, we've let Hussein know that if he ever sets one toe 
     across any of his borders, we'll stomp him flatter than a 
     straw hat on the interstate.
       ``Everyone agrees we have to take action against him,'' 
     says Mearsheimer, who says the choice is not between war and 
     appeasement, but ``containment versus rollback.'' The policy 
     of containment, backed by our nuclear deterrent, is the same 
     policy the United States employed against the Soviet Union 
     for 40 years, with successful results.
       Hawks claim to be rejecting the policies of Neville 
     Chamberlain that brought on World War II. What they're really 
     rejecting is the policy of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan--
     which won the Cold War and can win this one.

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my colleague from Illinois. I 
respect your feelings and your reasons for voting the way that you are 
going to vote when this resolution comes to a vote, and you are very 
honest in your expression of them. But I have to say that those who are 
supporting this resolution have similarly honest feelings and reasons 
for doing so.
  It bothers me a little that you are questioning the motivation of 
those who support this resolution, and indeed the motivations of the 
President and the Vice President of the United States, at least 
indirectly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), also a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. 
Authorizing the use of military force is not a decision for any 
Congress or any individual Member to take lightly. I approach the issue 
recognizing that American service men and women may well sacrifice 
their lives as a result. I also recognize that American use of force 
may have strategic repercussions that extend far into the future and 
into all areas of the globe.
  Making this decision may well be the most somber responsibility that 
any Member of Congress has. Just because a decision is difficult, 
however, does not mean that we should try to avoid it or that we should 
automatically look for some option that makes us all feel more 
comfortable. There are those who seem to think that we should just 
continue along, waiting for an international consensus or deferring to 
the

[[Page H7286]]

United Nations, and thus avoiding having to make hard choices.
  But wishful thinking and further delay will not lessen the dangers we 
face, but actually will increase them. History is replete with 
instances where failure to face up to a difficult circumstance in a 
timely manner ultimately resulted in a far greater price being exacted.
  However difficult the choices, however uncertain the future, however 
alone we feel, we must do our best with the facts before us.
  And there are certain facts that are beyond dispute. One is that 
Saddam Hussein heads an evil, aggressive regime which has brought 
immeasurable misery upon the Iraqi people and their neighbors. We know 
Hussein is a merciless killer who does not hesitate to massacre 
innocent civilians and has an intense hatred of the United States.
  Another fact beyond dispute is that Saddam Hussein will stop at 
nothing to obtain the most deadly, terrifying weapons possible. As one 
of his former scientists has said, Iraq has been turned into ``one 
giant WMD factory.'' We know he now has relatively advanced dangerous 
chemical and biological weapons. We know he is willing to use them, 
because he has used them before. We know for certain he is actively 
trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we should not forget how badly 
we underestimated how close he was to actually building a nuclear 
device at the time of the Persian Gulf war.
  So we know the character of the man and the regime, we know the kinds 
of weapons he has and is trying to acquire, and we know he is perfectly 
willing to use them. The only relevant facts we do not know are when 
Saddam Hussein will act and exactly what his tactics will be. But those 
are details that do not really affect the essential choice before us.

  That choice is quite simple. On one hand, we can continue the 
approach of the past 10 years, hoping that Iraq can be contained and 
that Hussein will not use the weapons he has hungered for and that he 
has sacrificed so much to acquire. We can hope that one day he will 
choke on a chicken bone and be replaced by somebody who will 
voluntarily dismantle Iraqi weapons and weapon-making capability. With 
that option, we stake our future and our security upon wishful 
thinking.
  The other option is to act. We can act with as many other nations as 
will responsibly join us to rid the world of the menace that Iraqi's 
weapons of mass destruction present. And we can act to better prepare 
our homeland for the kinds of dangers Hussein and those like him 
present.
  There is no doubt that the United States is Hussein's primary target. 
Acting to eliminate this threat is acting to defend the country and the 
lives of our citizens. But given the unique position we occupy in the 
world, acting to eliminate this threat also fulfills a special 
responsibility America has, a responsibility to lead, to be a force for 
good.
  Some argue Hussein will not use his weapons, that he wants to possess 
them only for prestige in the region. They do not believe that he would 
ever assist terrorist networks like al Qaeda from acquiring and using 
such weapons against us, in spite of the fact he has a history of 
relations with these terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot risk the lives of my constituents or my 
children on guesses about what course this tyrant might take. I believe 
there are no limits to what Hussein will do if he, in his perverted 
world view, believes something is in his best interests, and that 
includes assisting other terrorists in attacking us.
  With all of the uncertainties and risks, with less international 
support so far than we would like, the responsibility to deal with this 
evil still rests with us. I believe we should authorize the President 
to use military force to address this threat, and that we should fully 
support the President and the troops carrying out his commands as they 
strive to make this a safer, more just world.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get on the record a response to one of the 
prior assertions about the level of preparedness, equipment and 
training for U.S. troops who might be sent into harm's way.

                              {time}  2230

  I am proud to serve on the Committee on Armed Services, along with 
many of the Members who are here on the floor at this time. I believe 
we may be the most bipartisan or nonpartisan committee in the House.
  As we led up to this debate, we have been briefed by the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff and other leaders of the military who have assured us that 
every conceivable means of protection, every conceivable tool that can 
be made available to the men and women who serve in uniform will be 
made available to them. We, in turn, have assured the military leaders 
that we as a committee and we as a Congress will spare no expense to 
make sure that is the case.
  I just do not want there to be any misconception that if it is 
necessary to send these young men and women into combat that they will 
not have the very finest and best tools of protection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we hear over and over 
again this reference to preemptive war. I reject the notion that this 
is under the legal doctrine of preemptive war. We are dealing with a 
country, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, that has 
violated resolution after resolution adopted by the Security Council of 
the United Nations, including resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, 
the peacemaking, peace-enforcing provisions of the United Nations 
charter. To engage in acts to seek to assure compliance with those 
resolutions and enforcement of those resolutions is not preemptive war 
in the traditional legal sense of the word; it is the enforcement.
  I would remind my colleagues in my own party that this body voted on, 
and 181 of my democratic colleagues supported, the authorization of the 
use of air strikes to bomb key targets in Yugoslavia in order to stop 
humanitarian slaughter of Kosovars without a Security Council 
resolution, after the bombing had already started, and thought, 
properly so, that we were engaging in the right position for the United 
States. I would suggest that not only the humanitarian arguments in 
favor of dealing with Saddam's regime but the national security 
arguments, which I would suggest are even greater than those that 
existed when we authorized the use of force against Yugoslavia, compel 
a very similar conclusion here in the name of enforcing U.N. Security 
Council resolutions.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
pointing out that fact; and he is accurate, that the Committee on Armed 
Services has received those assurances.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. 
Hostettler), another member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
for yielding me this time.
  Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall 
we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United 
States or its fielded military forces abroad?''
  We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a 
political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across 
the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of 
Florida?''
  Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of 
aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his 
sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could 
plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep 
spiral.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are 
not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on 
September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and 
our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and 
Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism. It is with 
their blood, sweat, and tears that they are winning, for

[[Page H7287]]

every one of us who will lay our heads down in peace this night, the 
right to wake up tomorrow, free.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is ``Will the House of 
Representatives vote to initiate war on another sovereign nation?''
  Article I, Section 8 of the governing document of this Republic, the 
United States Constitution, gives to Congress the power to provide for 
the common defense. It follows that Congress's power to declare war 
must be in keeping with the notion of providing for the common defense.
  Today, a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good 
offense. But is this the power that the Framers of the Constitution 
meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us 
the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers 
would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters 
because of the possibility of future aggression? Mr. Speaker, I humbly 
submit that they did not.
  As I was preparing these remarks, I was reminded of an entry on my 
desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, 
Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads, ``At dawn on this 
morning, April 19, 1775, some 70 Minutemen were assembled on 
Lexington's green. All eyes kept returning to where the road from 
Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and 
double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the 
drummer boy to cease his beat, the Minuteman Captain, John Parker, gave 
his fateful command: `Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to 
have a war, let it begin here.''
  ``Don't fire unless fired upon.'' It is a notion that is at least as 
old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the 
Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution.
  We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing 
to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what 
might be.
  We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might 
use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our 
interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to al Qaeda or 
another terrorist organization. But based on the best of our 
intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The 
evidence supporting what might be is tenuous, at best.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a 
threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a 
preemptive military strike at this time.
  Voting for this resolution not only would set an ominous precedent 
for using the administration's parameters to justify war against the 
remaining partners in the ``Axis of Evil,'' but such a vote for 
preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would 
seek to hold America to and which the rest of the world could 
justifiably follow.
  War should be waged by necessity, and I do not believe that such 
necessity is at hand at this time. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the resolution to approve 
force at this time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks), a new, strong voice on the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to debate an issue that is 
of great importance, an issue that involves both the known and unknown 
consequences that only a war can produce, for America, the Middle East, 
and indeed, the entire world. This will be by far the most difficult 
vote that I have had to take since I became a Member of this body in 
1998. It comes at a time when many Americans, particularly many New 
Yorkers from the Sixth Congressional District which I am proud and 
honored to represent, are still in pain from the trauma of the attack 
on 9/11.
  I have no love for Saddam's brutal regime, and I would support any 
action that the international community and the United Nations and our 
friends in Europe and Asia and the Islamic world would agree was in the 
best security interests of the world community. I, however, do have 
questions about why we must take this vote now. What is different 
between now, 4 months ago, 12 months ago, 24 months ago, or 48 months 
ago?
  More importantly, I have deep concerns, many echoed by allies and 
Iraq's neighbors, about the unforeseen consequences and instability 
which would be caused by the U.S. military attack on Iraq.
  At a time when the economy is faltering and so many other domestic 
issues are being left unattended, this Congress is being forced to 
consider the authorization of the use of force, perhaps unilaterally, 
against a regime we have known about for 20 years, a regime which has 
always been undemocratic and brutal against its own people. Yet our 
government once ignored those facts because it was felt it was in our 
best interests to support the regime with the very same capabilities we 
now say threaten America.
  At a time when we are in the middle of a war against terrorism with 
the help of a number of majority Muslim nations who are protecting 
American lives against known threats, this authorization of use of 
force against potential threats could result in the reduction of help 
from new friends and allies and, thus, put the lives of Americans at 
risk. Is that what we want to do?
  It is not surprising that during a time of mourning and healing and, 
most of all, fear, we would speak of the evils of Saddam as a threat to 
America and a threat to the world but yet not provide this Congress 
with the evidence to support such claims.
  Certainly, when it comes to our security, there is no debating that I 
stand with all Americans when it comes to protecting Americans, and 
that is why I fully supported any and all actions to bring those who 
committed attacks on 9/11 to justice.
  Yet, as of last night, no evidence has been offered linking Saddam 
Hussein to those who attacked us on 9/11.
  More importantly, let us not tell the American people and the world 
that we would use force against Iraq in the name of the world's freedom 
and security. Let us not say we are authorizing the President to use 
force against Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations by 
enforcing all U.N. security resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
  I have yet to see the world, nor Iraq's neighbors, ask America to 
protect it from Iraq. In fact, many friends and allies in our own 
intelligence agencies say a number of other nations pose far greater 
threats to security.
  Others, both inside and outside this administration, speak about 
``sending a message'' and that the ``credibility'' of our Nation and 
the world is at risk if we do not stand ready to act with force.
  I want every Member to say that they are ready to comfort a loved one 
of an American soldier who might give their life for their country not 
to confront a threat but because it was important to send a message. 
Since when do we authorize the use of force not to address a threat but 
because not to use the force would hurt our credibility?
  It is not surprising that during a time of mourning and healing and, 
most of all, fear, we would speak of these potential threats from Iraq 
and mix them with the war against terror as a pretext for bringing back 
an old approach to national security and call it a new policy.
  The ideas of using pre-emptive military strikes against unknown 
threats and even the ability to potentially threaten, as stated in the 
administration's new national security strategy on September 20, 2002, 
are not new. The very same ideas can also be found in the 1992 Draft 
Defense Planning Guidance document and the 1993 Defense Strategy for 
the 1990s document. Both of these documents were written under the 
direction of the current Vice President, the Deputy Defense Secretary 
and Secretary of State when they served in various Defense Department-
related positions in the last Bush administration.
  If we truly live in the new world, then why is the Bush 
administration presenting us with what it calls a ``new approach'' to 
national security for Americans in a new world, using the same old 
ideas that were once rejected by the American people, ideas which even 
Nelson Mandela said could be a threat to world security?

[[Page H7288]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that this debate about 
Iraq raises two fundamental questions for our Nation and for our 
generation, questions which, depending upon how they are answered, will 
affect the lives of generations to come.
  One, what kind of world do Americans want our children to live in?
  Two, in the 21st century, do Americans think the best way to achieve 
security is by U.S. global military dominance or U.S. global 
cooperation?
  I believe that after 9/11 it is now more important than ever for the 
American people to have a greater say on whether they believe they will 
be safer in America and, in an increasingly smaller world, if their 
government adopts a posture of global military dominance or a posture 
of global cooperation.
  Many Americans feel that increased public diplomacy must be a part of 
the war against terrorism because one of the reasons why a murderer 
like bin Laden was able to recruit individuals to attack Americans is 
because some in the world are isolated and do not know the truth about 
America.
  Fighting terrorism requires global solutions, which can only be 
obtained through cooperation, not by threatening the world that we will 
go it alone whenever the world does not see things our way.
  The use of the world's greatest military power in a preemptive strike 
against others is not a foreign policy of strength. It is a foreign 
policy of fear.
  I will always stand for protecting America and given the fact that we 
will soon begin spending more money on defense than the combined 
spending of the next 19 nations in the world, I am confident that our 
military power assures that any nation that attacked us would be 
defeated in battle.
  We were not attacked by any nation on 9/11. When it comes to 
protecting America from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, recent history 
shows that we can beat them as well, when we have the help and 
cooperation of others.
  A pre-emptive strike against Iraq will squander the opportunity to 
build on the existing cooperation we now enjoy and to create even 
greater levels of global cooperation on other issues of concern to the 
world--including issues which are the root causes of terrorism.
  We can take action and we should. We can work with others in the same 
way we are working with the world to combat Al Qaeda. We can 
demonstrate true leadership by exhausting all diplomatic means rather 
than by simply falling back on the use of force.
  I'm sure that this Administration and this Congress will always 
reserve the right to pursue a course of action to protect America's 
national security. However, we must realize that no matter how powerful 
our military is, our security is linked to the world's security. If 
this crisis is truly an issue of global peace, I urge America to work 
with the world to secure the peace for all.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said today, and I am sure over the next 
few days much more will be said, as it should. The issue of authorizing 
the use of our Armed Forces is a momentous one, and it demands the 
thorough consideration of this Congress, and I believe we will be 
giving this some 30 hours of debate.
  September 11 was a cruel wake-up call. After the Cold War, I am 
afraid our country indulged in the notion that we could shut out the 
world.

                              {time}  2245

  The Soviet military power that existed, coupled with the expansionist 
ideology of Marxism, had vanished as a threat to the United States. 
There was exuberance that America could cruise on the international 
front. During that time, we lowered our defenses and downplayed many 
troubling developments, including the rise of al-Qaeda and the rise of 
Saddam Hussein's capabilities, with his development of weapons of mass 
destruction, to harm our Nation.
  September 11 harshly brought home the fact that the world is a 
dangerous place, it has always been, and that threats must be dealt 
with before they hit home, as they did hit home last year with such 
terrible impact.
  Last night, President Bush made a powerful case against Saddam 
Hussein's regime. It has hostile intentions; it possesses weapons of 
mass destruction; it has means to harm us massively, means that are 
increasing daily; and that it is only a matter of time before Saddam 
strikes again against America's interests.
  The President spoke even of Iraq possessing, and I am going to quote 
from his speech, ``a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial 
vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons 
across broad areas.''
  Well, that is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We 
have had a long debate today, and I would like to address a point that 
was raised earlier.
  Iraq was described as an impoverished Third World nation. The 
suggestion was that there is no threat there. Many Americans may think 
of Iraq in this way. If so, they must realize that while many Iraqis 
are suffering under Saddam, his regime is not impoverished. As a matter 
of fact, our General Accounting Office, our GAO, did a study in which 
they found that some $6.6 billion between 1996 and 2001 was siphoned 
off for use by the regime.
  British intelligence, that did their own analysis all the way up 
until several weeks ago, tells us that between 9 billion and $10 
billion has been siphoned off in surcharges, kickbacks, illegal 
exports. Let me tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, that $9 billion to $10 
billion pays for the development of a lot of weapons of mass 
destruction. One could buy a lot with that amount of money.
  It is not improbable that Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear 
weapons and the means to deliver them. I tell the Members that U.N. 
inspectors found plans for a bomb that would require 34 pounds of 
enriched uranium. I had an opportunity in the Committee on 
International Relations to ask our former CIA Director, James Woolsey, 
how long it would take if Saddam obtained the U-235, the enriched 
uranium, that he is attempting to obtain right now. He said if he had 
the uranium, it would take them about 4 months before a nuclear weapon 
was ready.
  He may already have that uranium; and as we know from other reports, 
if he is not able to buy it on the world market, it is only a matter of 
time, 3 years at the most, before he develops that capability himself. 
So it is only a matter of time.
  The Iraqi regime has long employed very capable scientists and 
technicians. Those of us who have traveled to Moscow talked to the 
Russians who ran their program, who have shared with us that some of 
their very capable scientists are in the Middle East today, some of 
them working in Iraq.
  Iraq has access to a developed infrastructure. The regime has ample 
resources from its oil wealth, giving it the ability to bid for the 
considerable scientific and technological expertise. They use front 
organizations and front companies in order to obtain this technology 
into Iraq. They have key materials that have been floating around since 
the break-up of the East bloc.
  So this is not a ragtag dictatorship we are dealing with; it is an 
able tyranny dedicated and capable of doing us real harm. That is why 
action has to be taken to disarm Saddam Hussein.
  I would like to address some of the other concerns that have been 
expressed on the floor of this House today. Some opponents of this 
resolution have asked, why now? I would like to point out to my 
colleagues that it was in 1998, 4 years ago, that Congress concluded 
that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction program threatened 
vital U.S. interests. Congress then urged the President to take 
appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international 
obligations, including relinquishing its weapons of mass destruction.
  The Iraqi Liberation Act that Congress passed that year endorsed a 
change of the Iraqi regime, and that was 4 years ago. Our Nation did 
not do anything to effectively address this, but Congress recognized it 
as being a real threat.
  By authorizing action to forcefully address this challenge now, we 
are hardly being rash. If anything, this action is overdue. The fact is 
that Iraq for years has pursued weapons of mass destruction with 
great determination. It had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to 
the Gulf War. It is estimated that were it not for the war, Iraq would 
have had nuclear weapons no later than 1993.

  Neither Saddam's Gulf War defeat nor a slew of U.N. resolutions were 
a deterrent. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled 
extensive nuclear weapons facilities in

[[Page H7289]]

Iraq, including three uranium enrichment sites, as President Bush noted 
last night. This regime has been operating free of inspectors for the 
last 4 years. Is there any reason to believe that Iraq is not near 
acquiring a nuclear weapon?
  Some have charged that all questions have not been answered. What 
will a post-Saddam Iraq look like? Yes, it is our responsibility to 
best anticipate what a post-Saddam Middle East will look like and best 
account for it, but we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the 
uncertainty that is part and parcel of international politics. To 
resist acting in the face of a mortal threat because we do not have a 
crystal ball would be folly.
  Did we have all the answers when we intervened in Afghanistan? No. We 
heard that we would get bogged down in a bloody quagmire, as the 
Russians did a dozen years earlier. We did not. Yes, we have much work 
left to do in Afghanistan, but our military has performed in the 
stellar way many of us expected it would. The Taliban was routed, as 
was part of al-Qaeda.
  Those who oppose this resolution based upon concerns about stability 
in Iraq and the region should ask why their vision of stability in Iraq 
and the region is based upon Saddam's continued role. Is that the best 
this region can do?
  Some have raised concerns about the Iraqi people, suggesting they 
will suffer. If war comes, there certainly will be suffering, but I 
suggest that nothing is harming Iraqis more than Saddam's tyranny. We 
do have Iraqi children without food and medicine, but let us lay 
responsibility where responsibility belongs: on this palace-building 
dictator who squanders his nation's resources.
  This is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Amnesty 
International has reported that Iraq is the country with the greatest 
number of people missing or unaccounted for. One human rights group 
reports that Saddam has killed over 500 journalists and intellectuals, 
and tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary Iraqi 
citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, 
torture, burning, electric shocks, starvation, mutilation, and rape. 
This is how Saddam's regime makes Iraqis suffer. I can only imagine its 
disdain for Americans.
  Saddam is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He is working 
to advance his deadly arsenal. Can there be any doubt that we must act 
before our Nation is hit?
  It is always easier to kick a problem down the road, to deal with it 
later. We do that too often around here. What is required to beat that 
syndrome is leadership, leadership willing to deal with an unpleasant 
situation head on. That is what our President and his national security 
team are showing.
  Critics say that the administration is not exploring all options. It 
is exploring options. We may avoid war. What option the President has 
no interest in, though, and I think this is to his credit, is shirking 
his responsibility for the defense of our Nation. He certainly is not 
willing to allow the nations of the United Nations Security Council to 
dictate the terms by which our Nation is defended, which is what some 
are calling for.
  After any military action, it will be incumbent upon our country to 
stay the course to see that the new Iraq no longer threatens us. That 
means ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction, but also 
helping to see that Iraq has a chance of becoming a successful state. 
This will mean helping the Iraqi people, to whom, it should be 
emphasized, we hold no hostility.
  Helping build stability is our current challenge in Afghanistan, and 
helping to give Afghanistan and Iraq a chance for stability and a 
decent government will require a substantial U.S. commitment. Given the 
threat to our security that Iraq and Afghanistan pose, we must make 
this investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Armed Services had a couple 
of minutes left, but I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in this House, and indeed, in homes across America, we 
are debating whether to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein if he fails 
to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations, if he fails to 
submit to unfettered inspections, and even if we must go it alone.
  The President has come before the Nation to make the case for strong 
intervention and to attempt to answer many of the difficult questions 
being posed by the American people: Why is Iraq unique when other 
nations possess weapons of mass destruction? Why now, when Iraq has 
been ignoring the U.N. resolutions for 11 years? What effect will this 
have on the broader war on terrorism? Will an invasion of Iraq in the 
end make us safer or more at risk?
  All of these questions are legitimate. None admits of a simple 
answer; and none can be answered completely, depending, as they do, 
upon the unknowable caprice of a despot. But there are certain facts 
which I believe are indisputable.
  First, Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and is 
developing a nuclear weapons capacity.
  Second, an inspection regime in which hundreds of acres of so-called 
palace grounds are off limits is no inspection regime at all. In fact, 
it is worse than no inspections, giving, as it does, a false sense of 
security and effectiveness.
  Third, Saddam Hussein will never submit to a real inspection regime 
without the credible threat of force.
  Fourth, we cannot continue to allow Saddam Hussein to fire on 
American pilots who seek to enforce United Nations resolutions.
  Finally, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons program will 
only grow over time; and in time, he will have the atomic bomb.
  Of all the dilemmas facing our Nation in light of these facts, the 
central issue is this: How imminent is the threat to this country from 
Iraq?
  The threats we face after September 11 are different in kind than 
those we have faced in the past. We will never likely see enemy troops 
massing on our borders, threatening to dominate Europe, or attacking 
our bases with large fleets of ships or planes. The predominant threat 
we must now address comes from terrorists and the states that sponsor 
them, terrorists who cannot be contained and cannot be deterred, and 
terrorists that can act with great suddenness and ferocity, causing 
dramatic loss of life.
  It is fair to ask ourselves whether, on September 10, prior to the 
devastating attacks on this country, we would have adjudged al Qaeda an 
imminent enough threat to justify the strenuous use of force to rout 
out the terrorists in Afghanistan. Apparently, we did not. Just as 
plainly, we cannot wait until 3,000 more Americans lie in their graves 
to warrant our intervention when other threats materialize.

                              {time}  2300

  The narrow question before Congress right now is whether the threat 
from Iraq is imminent enough to support a resolution authorizing the 
use of force to compel this armament if persuasion fails. On the basis 
of information I have received, both classified and unclassified, from 
meetings with the President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of 
State, regional experts, defectors and others, I believe it is; and I 
am concerned that the failure of such a resolution at a time when our 
Commander-in-Chief is before the United Nations would be deleterious to 
our efforts to engage that world body.
  The original resolution drafted by the President was too broad, and I 
did not support it. Through negotiation with the Democratic leadership, 
the resolution was considerably narrowed to require the President to 
exhaust all efforts through diplomatic and other peaceful means before 
any resort to force could be made, to limit the scope of his authority 
to Iraq, rather than the entire region, to require compliance with the 
War Powers Act and to compel frequent consultation with Congress.
  In the House Committee on International Relations on which I serve, I 
supported amendments to narrow the President's authority further still, 
including the Biden-Lugar amendment, which contained even stronger 
language compelling the use of force to compel disarmament. These 
amendments were unsuccessful, and I supported the bipartisan compromise 
resolution on final passage out of the committee, and I will support it 
here on the floor.

[[Page H7290]]

  My vote in favor of this resolution and my desire to support the 
administration's efforts that the United Nations should not, however, 
be taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the administration's handling 
of Iraq over the last year. It is not. The administration must not go 
about this alone or unilaterally but redouble its effort to enlist the 
support of our allies until it is successful, as I believe it can be. 
The administration must change the nature of its rhetoric, rhetoric 
which on a host of issue has shown too great a willingness, at times an 
eagerness, to go it alone on a whole range of issues, a policy and a 
tone which has made the process of gathering international support much 
more difficult than it should have been.
  I share the concerns expressed by hundreds of my constituents that 
this country not rush to establish a precedent that every country is 
justified in unilateral military action against all perceived threats 
and that the best way to distinguish our conduct from other nations 
considering their own preemptive actions in the future is to persevere 
in our determination to build international support for international 
action.
  I hope that military force is not necessary. As the President said in 
his speech last night, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that 
military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' But if force is required 
to disarm Iraq, I have great faith in the men and women of the U.S. 
Armed Forces. They will do their job bravely and effectively, and we 
will be successful. We will win the war.
  Let us resolve also to take the longer and no less complex task of 
winning the peace. We must not risk the lives of American soldiers to 
replace one Baath party dictator with another, to allow Iraq to 
disintegrate or degenerate into tribal warfare. We must be committed to 
the long-term prosperity of the Iraqi people, to the establishment of 
the democratic institutions, and to the rights of speech and 
association and the free exercise of religion.
  We must embrace a broad vision, one that works to democratize the 
Middle East, to secure its rebirth and the elevation of its 
civilization, and a vision comparable to the Marshall Plan at the end 
of World War II. This will be no minor undertaking and will represent a 
significant departure from past policies, which have too often favored 
oil and friendly autocracy over principle and popular democracy. It 
will also require an investment in the very future of the very nations 
which now threaten us. But as post World War II Europe has illustrated, 
with every effort we make and every dollar we contribute, our own 
peace, security and prosperity will be rewarded.
  On September 10, the danger from terrorists was imminent, and we took 
no action. On September 11, we were devastated. Now it will forever be 
September 12, the day we realized that our military might alone, 
stationary and defensive, could not deter, could not prevent, could not 
contain the threats against us. And so we must gather the freedom-
loving nations of the world and act to disarm Iraq peacefully if at all 
possible, but to disarm. And in time also to rebuild so that what was 
once a cradle of civilization can again be a light to the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret but strong conviction that I rise 
today to express my support for House Joint Resolution 114.
  No member of this body ever wishes to cast a vote that could 
ultimately lead to the loss of even one American life. Yet that is 
exactly what all of us, those who vote for this resolution and those 
who vote against, are doing today. Those of us who vote for the 
resolution must know that granting the President the authority to use 
force could lead to an invasion of Iraq and the possible loss of 
American troops. Those who vote against the resolution must know that 
denying the President the authority to use force could allow Saddam 
Hussein to use his weapons of mass destruction against us, costing 
untold loss of American lives.
  So the question before us is not whether there is a safe course of 
action that will guarantee no loss of American life. Unfortunately, 
there is no such guarantee and no such option. Instead, the question is 
whether the threat posed by Saddam Hussein can best be removed by 
granting our President the authority to use force against him. In 
short, is this mission in our vital national interest?
  Well, I say there is no interest more vital to the United States than 
protecting our citizens from the kind of attacks we suffered on 9/11 
and could well suffer again at the hands of Saddam Hussein's weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Must we grant the President the authority to use force in order to 
achieve this goal? In my view, the answer is yes. Force and the threat 
of force are the only message that Saddam Hussein understands. He is 
not a rational leader who acts in the interest of his citizenry. He is 
a despotic dictator who terrorizes his own people, his neighbors and 
the world community at large.
  President Bush put it best in his address to the United Nations when 
he said that Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. He has 
ignored with impunity every promise made, every commitment undertaken 
and every Security Council resolution passed.
  Why has he done this? Because he can. We must grant our President the 
tools he needs to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he no longer 
can. He no longer can fire at our aircrafts, evade U.N. inspectors or 
continue his quest for weapons of mass destruction.
  If granted this potent authority, will our President do the right 
thing? I say he will do the right thing.
  No President of the United States ever wants to live again a day like 
9/11. No President ever wishes to account for a fatal breach in 
national security. No President ever wishes to send our troops into 
harm's way for the sake of anything short of our vital national 
interest. And I have no doubt that no President, least of all this 
President, will use force unless it is the best means possible to keep 
America and Americans safe and secure.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on Financial 
Services and the Committee on the Judiciary. But, more importantly, for 
many decades she has been a strong voice for women, for those who have 
no voice.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) for yielding me time; and I commend him on the tremendous work 
that he does in this Congress dealing with the many complicated 
problems of foreign relations. I thank him for the time that he is 
allocating to me this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution which would authorize 
the President to use unilateral military force against Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President has provided sufficient 
evidence to conclude that Saddam Hussein currently possesses 
significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction. Although I am 
aware that weapons inspectors found significant amounts of chemical and 
biological weapons in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, those materials have 
been destroyed. Since that date, there have been allegations of a 
growing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, but there is to 
date no credible evidence of such an arsenal's existence.

                              {time}  2310

  Even if Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction, Iraq 
does not represent an imminent threat to the United States of America. 
There is simply no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with the 9-11 
terrorist attacks. There is also no evidence to indicate that Saddam 
Hussein has ever given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.
  Furthermore, Iraq is 6,000 miles away from the United States and the 
Iraqi regime lacks the capability to strike the United States from 
within its own borders.
  The ultimate weapons of mass destruction are nuclear weapons. If 
administration officials are really concerned about other countries 
having weapons of mass destruction, they should turn their attention to 
Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, all

[[Page H7291]]

of which are known to possess nuclear weapons.
  No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is a potential threat to his 
neighbors in the Middle East. He has attacked them in the past, and 
certainly he could do it again. However, Saddam Hussein's neighbors do 
not support military action against Iraq at this time, and it would be 
diplomatically and militarily unwise for the United States to initiate 
a war in the Middle East without the support and participation of a 
coalition of countries in the region.
  If administration officials are concerned about countries that 
support terrorism, perhaps they should turn their attention to our 
friend and ally, the most undemocratic country, Saudi Arabia. Saudi 
Arabia has been financing extremist Islamist madrassahs in Pakistan and 
other Islamic countries. These madrassahs, or schools, teach young boys 
an extreme interpretation of Islam, combined with a support for 
terrorism and hatred for America. But they are our friends, and I do 
not see talk or discussion from this administration about trying to 
bring about democracy in Saudi Arabia, or being concerned about the 
financing of the madrassahs and the things they have been doing for so 
very long.
  The human and economic cost of a war on Iraq are completely 
unjustified. It has been estimated that a war on Iraq would cost 
between $100 and $200 billion. This would come at a time when we are 
already spending billions of dollars to wage a war against terrorism in 
Afghanistan. A war on Iraq could lead to the deaths of thousands of 
innocent citizens in Iraq and unknown numbers of American servicemen 
and women.
  Mr. Speaker, we would like the President to finish the war on 
terrorism. While we have had some success in Afghanistan, we still have 
not located Osama bin Laden. Our servicemen have been fired on in 
Afghanistan every day, and they are all set to assassinate the 
President or the leader that we have supported in Afghanistan, and it 
could happen at any time.
  I am deeply concerned that a unilateral war on Iraq would make 
Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home. A unilateral 
war on Iraq could lead to an increase in anti-American extremism 
throughout the Muslim world. This could destabilize countries in the 
Middle East and South Asia. It could also provide al Qaeda with an 
opportunity to recruit additional terrorists within these countries.
  Al Qaeda is America's greatest enemy. We should be focusing our 
efforts on confronting the al Qaeda threat, while encouraging the 
people of the Middle East and South Asia to support democracy and 
oppose terrorism.
  Instead of authorizing a unilateral war, Congress should support the 
efforts of the United Nations to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. 
The resumption of weapons inspections would allow us to determine 
whether Saddam Hussein has the weapons of mass destruction that the 
Bush administration claims he has. Working with the United Nations 
would also illustrate to our allies and people throughout the Muslim 
world that the United States respects the rule of law and considers war 
a last resort.
  I urge Members to oppose unilateral use of America's Armed Forces and 
give United Nations weapons inspectors an opportunity to do their work. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentlewoman and to the argument in 
terms of what has not been found regarding weapons of mass destruction. 
The Committee on International Relations had a hearing on this very 
recently.
  During that hearing we heard testimony to the fact that Saddam 
Hussein was on the edge of a precipice with regards to the ability to 
unleash weapons of mass destruction. I am just going to briefly mention 
some of the work of Jeffrey Goldberg, who spent many months inside 
Iraq; and as he says, when Saddam Hussein maneuvered UNSCOM, the 
weapons inspectors, out of the country in 1998, the weapons inspectors 
had found a sizable portion of his arsenal, but were vexed by what they 
could not find. His scientists have produced and weaponized anthrax. 
They have manufactured botulinum toxin which causes muscular paralysis 
and death. They have made a bacterium which causes gas gangrene, a 
condition in which the flesh rots. They have also made wheat-cover smut 
which can be used to poison crops, and ricin, which, when absorbed into 
the lungs, causes hemorrhagic pneumonia.
  And according to Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin 
Project on Nuclear Arms Control, whose Iraq Watch project monitors 
Saddam's weapons capabilities, inspectors could not account for a great 
deal of weaponry that is in Iraq's possession, including 4 tons of 
nerve agent VX, 600 tons of ingredients for VX, as much as 3,000 tons 
of other poison gas agents, at least 550 artillery shells filled with 
mustard gas; nor did they find the stores of aflatoxin which have been 
manufactured there that have been put on warheads.
  I guess I would just echo the words of Jeffrey Goldberg when he says 
Saddam Hussein's motives are unclear because for the past decade the 
development of these weapons has caused nothing but trouble for him. 
His international isolation grows not from his past crimes, but from 
his refusal to let weapons inspectors dismantle his nonconventional 
weapons programs.
  When Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya was asked why Saddam Hussein is so 
committed to these programs he said, ``I think this regime developed a 
very specific ideology associated with power and how to extend that 
power, and these weapons play a very important psychological and 
political part.''
  So yes, we do have ample evidence.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to talk about 
what really has happened with the relationship that we have had with 
Saddam Hussein.
  Does the gentleman understand that we are the ones that gave him 
anthrax?
  Mr. ROYCE. No, I do not understand that. I respectfully disagree with 
the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WATERS. I disagrees with the gentleman, also; and I appreciate 
the time that the gentleman is giving me to counter some of his points.
  In addition, would the gentleman agree that our inspectors decided to 
leave Iraq after it was discovered that they were there doing some of 
the work of the CIA instead of doing the inspections that they were 
supposed to be doing?

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Saddam Hussein was very 
effective in maneuvering our inspectors out of Iraq and has not allowed 
in our inspectors or any other inspectors for 4 years; and I also 
understand that during that 4-year time frame he has been developing 
not only chemical and gas weaponry, biological weaponry, but also 
nuclear weaponry. That is what I know. And I would commend to the 
gentlewoman to review our transcript of our hearing on this very 
subject.
  Reclaiming my time, I would just say there may be some debate among 
arms controls experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear 
capability, but there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will 
have them soon and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the balance 
of power in the Middle East. I think there is very little doubt that 
Saddam, if he had an atomic bomb and with these stocks of biological 
and chemical weapons, might not use that for the purpose of power.
  Because when Jeffrey Goldberg talked about Saddam's past with the 
medical geneticist Christine Gosden, who has been there on the ground 
in Kurdistan working with Kurds, some 4 million of which are estimated 
to have been affected at one point or another by chemical attack, she 
said one thing. She said, please understand the Kurds were for 
practice. They were practicing with different types of chemical and 
biological weapons on the Kurdish population.
  I think, under these circumstances, if we do not move forward with a 
plan to disarm Saddam Hussein, it would be folly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

[[Page H7292]]

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time; 
and I appreciate being part of this historic debate.
  It has often been said that the most difficult decision a Member of 
Congress will ever have to make is a decision to send people in America 
to war. We are often told that we ought to approach it as if we are 
sending our own child to war. I do not have any children old enough to 
participate in a war at this time, but I do have one family member who 
will likely participate in this conflict. That adds extra gravity to 
this debate for me.
  Earlier in this debate it was also mentioned that we ought to visit 
some of the war memorials around town. I did so last night. Late last 
night, I visited the Vietnam Memorial; and I can tell my colleagues 
that seeing so many names on that wall adds importance to the debate 
that we are having tonight, that we will have throughout this week.
  We ought to let history be our guide here. But the most recent 
history in this case that we ought to look at is the vote that took 
place in this Chamber 12 years ago. During that time, we faced a very 
similar decision. Should we thwart Saddam Hussein in his attempt to go 
beyond his boundaries or should we appease him? Fortunately, the 
majority of this body and the other body agreed we ought to thwart him; 
and I think we can all agree that, had we not done so, that the 
biological and chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein possesses would be 
added to nuclear weapons which he would certainly possess today had he 
not been thwarted at that time.
  We are in this position today, I would submit, because we have no 
other choice. This is our only reasonable option. War will no doubt 
come at great cost. When we visit the war memorials, we see that cost, 
but the cost of appeasement is far greater.
  I commend the House leadership for bringing this resolution forward 
and for shepherding it through process. I especially commend our 
President who so forcefully pushed for this resolution and who has so 
deliberately pushed for this resolution.
  I urge support for the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to make a short statement that I am not so sure that the 
attempt to avoid war, the attempt to avoid death and destruction, the 
attempt to use as a last resort the horrific weapons of destruction and 
death that we have in our arsenals, weapons, smart weapons, weapons 10 
times more accurate and deadly than we used 10 years ago, is 
necessarily appeasement. I think that we should use every deliberate 
ounce of strength in our bodies to avoid death and destruction, and to 
avoid that I think is stretching it when that is considered 
appeasement.
  I yield 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a person who serves on the Committee on 
Agriculture and whose strong voice we will miss as this is the last 
term she will be serving in this august body. She has made a strong 
mark for the great State of North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, like most persons of deeply held conscience, I come to 
the House floor tonight deeply troubled. I am concerned about the 
threat of national security. I am concerned about the threat that 
Saddam Hussein poses to the world at large, and I am concerned about 
Saddam Hussein's willingness to thumb his nose at rest of the world.
  However, these are not my only concerns. I am also deeply concerned 
about the way in which the administration is approaching this state of 
affairs. President Bush has said that Iraq possesses weapons of mass 
destruction, but he has not made a convincing and compelling case that 
Saddam Hussein poses such a dangerous, verifiable and immediate threat 
that the President should be granted the authority to attack Iraq 
preemptively or unilaterally. We have known for years that Iraq 
possesses chemical and biological weapons and, sadly, that he has used 
these weapons on people from his own country. We know factually that 
Iraq has refused to obey the resolutions of the United Nations.
  Two troubling questions remain, Mr. Speaker.
  First, why, after so many years, do the actions of Saddam Hussein 
become so immediate and so pressing that they cloud the consideration 
of any other matter of similar importance, especially on the domestic 
agenda?
  The second question, Mr. Speaker, is who should enforce international 
law?
  The President's latest address to the American people did not provide 
any new information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Neither 
did it provides any conclusive evidence of Iraq's ability to develop 
nuclear weapons or a timetable for such development. We need more 
evidence. Therefore, I am calling on the United States to work with the 
United Nations to assure immediate resuming of unfettered inspection of 
Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capacity. Only in this 
way can the President and the Congress make the case to the American 
people and our friends and allies that Saddam Hussein poses a real and 
dangerous and verifiable threat not only to his own people and Iraq's 
neighbors in the Middle East but to the United States and the cause of 
world peace. Only this way can we demonstrate to the American people 
and the rest of the world that we are committed to exhausting all 
potential diplomatic and international efforts before taking violent 
action.
  Committing our Nation to war is a grave action in any circumstances. 
I cannot without personal struggle decide to end an effort for peace, 
send our young people into terrible danger and put the lives of 
countless innocent citizens at risk. My faith, my humanity requires me 
to always seek peace over war, diplomacy over military action, 
compassion over aggression. In the current circumstances, when we have 
no clear reason to believe that Iraq poses imminent threat, though 
threat he has, we must act decisively, with all possible caution and 
humility. This is the only reasonable way to proceed.
  Before we move to military action, we must assure that all other 
methods to resolve the situation has been tried and there is no other 
alternative. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that this is the strategy 
that President Bush followed in getting other nations to join us in the 
fight against terrorism.

                              {time}  2330

  He would be well advised and we would be well advised to follow that 
same course. A unilateral first strike action would undermine the moral 
authority of the United States, result in untold loss of life, 
destabilize the Middle East, and undermine our ability to address 
pressing domestic needs. The Congress should, therefore, authorize the 
President to use force only in concert with the United Nations and only 
if weapons inspections fail.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record an editorial on 
Patsy Mink. I remind my colleagues that we lost Patsy Mink almost 10 
days ago. In the Honolulu Advertiser, the editorial is entitled 
``Remember Patsy Mink: Slow the Rush to War.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is very wise advice for us too.

               Remember Patsy Mink: Slow the Rush to War

       As Patsy Mink is honored today in our state Capitol's 
     atrium, her colleagues in the nation's Capitol begin in 
     earnest a debate on the language of a resolution authorizing 
     the use of military force against Iraq.
       How we wish she were there to participate in that debate.
       Thirty years ago, Mrs. Mink, seemingly tilting at 
     windmills, ran for president of the United States in the 
     Oregon primary election in a campaign that made withdrawal 
     from Vietnam its only issue. Ignoring such epithets as 
     ``Patsy Pink,'' she won a scant 2 percent of the vote--and 
     the moral high ground.
       Today a handful of voices have been raised in warning as 
     this nation teeters on the brink of war. They warn of 
     ``unintended consequences.'' By 1972, of course, most of the 
     dreadful consequences that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, 
     Johnson and Nixon had failed to foresee in Southeast Asia had 
     become painfully clear. What had begun as a war against a 
     backward peasant nation became in many ways, both home and in 
     Vietnam, a wasted decade.
       Mrs. Mink, of course, would not fail to recognize the evil 
     intent of Saddam Hussein. Yet in today's debate, she would 
     not stand for one minute for her party's strategy that says 
     the quicker they can settle the war question, the quicker 
     they can turn the page to the domestic issues on which they 
     think they can get the traction needed to make gains in the 
     upcoming midterm elections.

[[Page H7293]]

       In this unseemly haste, the debate ignores momentous 
     issues: whether the United States must fight and pay for this 
     war alone, and what it would do to our global standing; 
     whether the Bush administration has any plan at all for a 
     post-Saddam Iraq; whether it has considered the destructive 
     forces that might be released from this nation hastily carved 
     from the Ottoman Empire after World War I, with its disparate 
     population of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd and Turkmen peoples; 
     whether it has accurately assessed the cost of treasure and 
     young blood in what could become another decade of armed neo-
     colonialism.
       The Democrats have allowed this debate to become so 
     narrowly framed as to be nearly meaningless. The debate, in 
     essence, is over how soon we invade Iraq. That is, if the 
     Democrats get their way, they will need to be assured by 
     President Bush that he has exhausted diplomatic means; that 
     U.N. sanctions and inspections haven't worked; and that the 
     new war won't set back the ``old'' one--the war against 
     terrorism.
       These conditions may slow the coming war by weeks or 
     months, but they won't stop it.
       Omitted entirely from the debate is Bush's new National 
     Security Strategy, which advances a doctrine of ``pre-
     emptive'' war-making that suggests that Iraq is only the 
     first step in a violent reordering of the world.
       Congress has already effectively ceded to Bush the 
     authority to wage a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq, 
     whether or not the United Nations approves.
       We urge the rest of Hawaii's congressional delegation to 
     reflect well on Mink's honorable legacy of peacemaking--and 
     to carry it back with them to the debate in Washington.

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a Member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, the 
resolution to give the President authority to use force against Iraq, 
if necessary, to protect our vital national security interests and to 
enforce the multiple resolutions of the United Nations calling for 
disarmament of that country.
  I do not cast this vote lightly, as I know the President does not 
commit American forces to battle lightly. I have served in the Armed 
Forces of this country, and I have been in combat in Vietnam. I pray 
that no young American man or woman will ever have to go to war again.
  But if we are to avoid war, we must be prepared to wage it. Iraq is a 
clear threat to this Nation and to all peaceable nations in the world. 
Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant, whose cruel and evil acts against 
his own people would make Joseph Stalin proud. But it is the threat he 
poses to other nations and other peoples that demands action now by 
this Congress and by this Nation.
  He has previously invaded and subjugated other countries. He has used 
weapons of mass destruction against his own people and those of 
neighboring Iran. He has launched missiles against other Middle East 
countries. He has brutalized and starved and murdered minorities and 
opponents, real and imagined, in his own country. He has defied the 
United Nations demands that he submit to inspectors and disarm his 
ghastly weapons of mass murder. He has supported elements of terrorism 
operating around the world.
  For 10 years, the civilized world has maintained a policy of 
containment for Iraq that includes economic sanctions, no-fly zones, 
diplomatic isolation, and a credible military presence in the region. 
While it has contained Iraqi aggression to this date, it is no longer 
sufficient. Now we must be prepared to take stronger action.
  In his speech Monday evening, President Bush made a persuasive 
argument for immediate steps to destroy the deadly weapons Saddam 
Hussein possesses. I will support this resolution, which gives the 
President authority to use force to accomplish that goal.
  We all hope conflict can be avoided, but there should be no doubt in 
the minds of any here today or any in the world that the best hope of 
avoiding conflict is for the United States and the United Nations to 
adopt strong, unequivocal positions, making crystal clear our 
intentions to destroy those deadly weapons.
  There must be no crack in our resolve that allows Saddam Hussein to 
slip through. There must be no glimmer of equivocation that can give 
rise to further delay on his part. If war is to be avoided, he must 
disarm, and he must disarm now.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I am very conscious of the 
responsibilities we and other nations in our coalition will assume in 
the aftermath of conflict. We must be prepared for large movement of 
refugees, particularly if Saddam Hussein uses chemical and biological 
weapons against populated areas. We must be prepared to treat victims 
of his cruel crimes. We must be prepared to provide humanitarian 
assistance to those who need it.
  In the longer term, we will also need to be prepared to deal with the 
reconstruction of Iraq, physically and politically. The former will be 
easier, for this is a country with revenues that can be generated from 
oil and with an infrastructure that is excellent by developing-country 
standards.
  Providing transition to a democracy will be more difficult. This is a 
country ruled by a tyrant that has brooked no dissent for a generation. 
It lacks the most rudimentary institutions that can be used to create a 
pluralistic, multi-ethnic democratic form of government. Achieving this 
will require a sustained, long-term commitment on our part, as well as 
from other nations in Europe, in Asia, and most important, in the 
region surrounding Iraq.
  This commitment, if sustained, could have benefits far beyond Iraq's 
borders and far beyond the events that bring about a new regime. 
Democracy in Iraq could speed a settlement of the terrible Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. It could convince other countries in the region 
that transition to democracy is possible without cataclysmic political 
upheaval.
  No one should imagine this will be easy. No one must doubt the 
difficulties that lie ahead of us, the dangers that lurk at every 
corner. But if we are prepared to assume the responsibility for the 
future of Iraq in war, we must also be willing to shoulder that burden 
in the peace that follows.
  My colleagues in this House, not one of us relishes this moment. The 
burden falls heaviest on the President, but it also falls on our 
shoulders as we prepare to authorize the use of force. Our men and 
women in uniform will be put in harm's way. And if there is to be a 
war, civilians will die.
  But the consequences of not acting are much graver, far worse. The 
prospect of Saddam Hussein having more weapons of death to use is too 
real, the possibilities of loss of life numbering in the tens of 
thousands or hundreds of thousands too monstrous to contemplate.
  We act with great reluctance, but this Congress will act. We seek 
peace, but Saddam Hussein must know this President, this Congress, this 
Nation, will not flinch when called upon to protect our national 
interests. We will vote to give the President the authority he needs to 
wage war that we might secure peace.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond briefly to a couple of the comments made by my colleague from 
North Carolina.
  Although we agree on many of the same underlying facts, we have 
disagreed on the conclusion to be drawn from those facts. But there was 
one point in particular on which I wanted to note my agreement, and 
that is the point that I think it would be very important for the 
administration to show more of the evidence it possesses of Saddam 
Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
  The President in his speech last night quoted, quite appropriately, 
from President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. But probably 
the most vivid image that most Americans have of that period was the 
demonstration of the aerial photographs of missile silos in Cuba, the 
very direct, very unequivocal proof of that threat 90 miles from our 
shore.
  So, too, I think it would be important for this administration to be 
more forthcoming with the evidence it possesses, to demonstrate 
unequivocally to the American people, for whom many still have 
questions that Saddam Hussein does in fact possess chemical and 
biological weapons, because he does possess them; is in fact working to 
acquire nuclear weapons, because in fact he is working in that 
direction.
  Now, I realize that that chore is made more difficult in some 
respects, but easier in others. More difficult in the fact that some of 
the technology we are talking about is dual-use technology, and from 
aero-satellite it may

[[Page H7294]]

not be possible to determine whether the rebuilding of chemical and 
biological weapon facilities which is currently ongoing can be argued 
to be done in the interests of some civilian application.
  But while there are those challenges, and, of course the challenge 
that once we disclose our knowledge of the whereabouts of chemical or 
biological weapons, those weapons will be moved, thwarting later 
inspections, while those challenges are, nonetheless, real and great, 
we also have a commensurate increase in our technological ability. Our 
ability to gather intelligence is much greater than it was in the early 
1960s. And, notwithstanding the cost of sharing some of that evidence, 
the benefit that would accrue to the administration in making its case 
to the American people would be substantial.

                              {time}  2340

  Iraq, Saddam Hussein, his foreign minister, his spokesman, all 
unequivocally deny the presence of chemical and biological weapons. 
Showing the proof of that lie, I believe, is very important for the 
administration to do and very much within its capability.
  The second point I wish to emphasize tonight which I think the 
administration will be well served to emphasize and which was lacking, 
perhaps, in the President's speech, and that is the importance of 
talking more deliberately and more thoroughly about the Iraq that 
America would like to see in the future, an Iraq with free 
institutions, an Iraq that is once again prosperous. Our long-term 
commitment for that is what it will have to be, a prosperous and free 
Iraq.
  This is not only important I think in terms of the American people 
understanding that this is not about oil, that this is about the long-
term peace and security of that region and our own long-term peace and 
security, but it is also important for the rest of the world to 
understand. And I think it may be even most important for the Iraqi 
people to understand, the possibilities that the future holds for the 
people of Iraq once the regime in Baghdad changes.
  So I would urge the administration, notwithstanding the support that 
I think will come from this body and from the Senate for the 
resolution, to be more demonstrative in the proof that it does possess 
of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction now and also to be more 
thoughtful and more articulate in describing the type of Iraq the 
administration is committed to seeing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last weeks I have heard from and spent time 
with many of my western Pennsylvania constituents. Some are World War 
II veterans, Korean veterans, some steelworkers, homemakers, business 
people, teachers. As I stand here tonight on the House floor, though, 
foremost in my thoughts is a small group of constituents who marched 
and prayed in support of peace outside of my office in Bridgewater, 
Pennsylvania.
  I share these individuals' desire for peace.
  Following the attacks on September 11, we Members of Congress were 
asked to do all that we can to prevent anything like that from ever 
happening again. It is our responsibility to defend this Nation.
  America stands as a beacon of freedom to the world, one that blazes 
even more brightly as a result of our response to last September 11. 
Unfortunately, we continue to be despised by madmen like Saddam 
Hussein, a madman who has access to chemical and biological weapons of 
mass destruction and has been increasing his capacity to use them.
  Our deliberations on this resolution can follow but one light, the 
light of experience, and our experience has shown that Saddam Hussein 
has ignored countless peaceful overtures that would have prevented our 
current dilemma. He has murdered his own people in barbaric and 
horrible ways. He has attacked his neighbors and continues to build 
weapons of mass destruction unchecked. Given this and his stated 
pathological hatred for America, the devastation he can inflict upon us 
is a severe risk. Simply allowing this risk to increase is 
unacceptable.
  We cannot continue to deceive ourselves. This is a problem that will 
not disappear and will not take care of itself.
  As this chart shows, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations 
and the very resolutions to which he agreed following the Gulf War over 
and over again. Today, 11 years later, he continues to ignore the 
United Nations, retains chemical and biological weapons, and amasses 
more offensive weaponry as each day passes.
  Our resolution makes it abundantly clear that this must stop.
  Patrick Henry once said, ``It is natural to indulge in illusions of 
hope, to shut our eyes to a painful truth.'' We must, however, open our 
eyes to the looming threat Saddam Hussein poses to the world.
  As I said, I and the rest of this Congress share my constituents' 
hope for peace. I believe that passage of this resolution can prompt a 
peaceful outcome by making it clear to our enemy that it is time for 
him to comply with disarmament requests. In light of this resolution, 
the U.N. Security Council's resolve can be buttressed. This resolution 
can guide the U.N. to pass a new set of resolutions, ones that will be 
tough and effective and, more importantly, resolutions that will be 
enforced.
  This Congress has a responsibility to protect the American people. It 
is our duty to deal with the threats that face this great Nation and 
the world. This resolution shows that we are a united America, that we 
stand firm in our resolve to rid the world of terrorism. It shows the 
United Nations and the world what leadership means: We prepare for 
action while pursuing avenues to peace.
  Yes, our goal is peace, but a lasting peace, and not continued 
appeasement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and 
one who is a strong voice for our Federal employees.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think it is instructive to 
review the history of how we got to this debate tonight.
  Yes, Saddam Hussein does deserve to be demonized, but after the Shah 
of Iran was overthrown in the late 1970s, Saddam became our guy in the 
Persian Gulf. During the Reagan years, we helped train his army and 
equipped him with weapons we now deplore his using against Iran in 
their deadly 10-year war. In fact, The New York Times reported back 
then that our satellites provided the coordinates for some of the 
deadly attacks against the Kurds and Iranians. We even inadvertently, I 
trust, gave him some reason to believe that the U.S. would not react if 
he attacked Kuwait over disputed oil fields.
  Well, President Bush did react, but, in retrospect, he reacted in a 
more responsible manner than what his son now proposes. He waited until 
just after the mid-term congressional election. He sought and got the 
support of the other Arab nations. He worked with and through the 
United Nations Security Council.
  When the U.N. deadline for withdrawal arrived, Saddam ordered a 
retreat out of Kuwait. We attacked the next day. While we killed tens 
of thousands of retreating Iraqi conscripts, we lost very few American 
lives, but we did leave a Republican Guard largely intact and Saddam 
still in charge. He proceeded to massacre the Shiites and the Kurds we 
had encouraged to rebel from his rule.
  We stationed our troops in Saudi Arabia as a residual measure to 
prevent further Iraqi aggression, motivating a homicidal terrorist, 
Osama bin Laden, also trained by the United States in the Mujahedin's 
war against the secular Russian presence in Afghanistan, to attack this 
country on that infamous day in September.
  Now, a decade after the Persian Gulf War, President Bush's son is 
still stuck with the same demon. This President Bush had followed his 
father's example in preparing to attack Iraq by working through the 
United Nations Security Council and getting the support of his Arab 
neighbors. But Kuwait recently

[[Page H7295]]

agreed to a bilateral trade agreement with Iraq, and no other Arab 
nation thinks it is in their interests or ours to attack Saddam at this 
time, particularly with the intensity of animosity generated by the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  What we should do is lay out the same arguments the President 
presented to the American people last night to the United Nations and 
to the rest of the free world. Do we really think that other nations 
are less concerned about homicidal tyrants in their midst, less 
protective of their families and their freedoms? But when we go it 
alone, we create resentment, even among our allies. We become a 
singular target for vengeance for the deaths that we cause, and it will 
likely become our principal responsibility to rebuild the human and the 
fiscal infrastructure we destroy.
  We should be focusing on making Saddam weak and irrelevant by 
discovering and destroying all weapons of mass destruction, their 
storage and production facilities and any missile capability to deliver 
them. The President cannot obtain a sufficiently robust, coercive 
resolution from the United Nations that includes all Saddam's palaces 
and all 500 to 600 potential sites or, if Iraq again interferes with 
U.N. inspectors as they did during the 1990s, this Congress will 
assuredly give our President authority to use all necessary military 
force on an expedited basis.

                              {time}  2350

  But, Mr. Speaker, we should be marginalizing Saddam Hussein, not 
marginalizing the United States Congress. We should vote for the 
alternative resolution that has been made in order, consistent with 
Senator Levin's and Senator Biden's approach in the Senate.
  Preemptive unilateralism is not what made us the undisputed leader of 
the free world. Constructive cooperation and resolution, principled 
leadership is what has made us great and is what should guide us in 
this profoundly important vote.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a West Pointer, an infantry officer who 
was trained as a Ranger and paratrooper, and he still serves as a 
lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 29 I joined with my colleagues on the other side 
to support the resolution that said the President needed to come to the 
House, make the case, have a vote, and have a debate. That is what we 
are doing here tonight.
  I supported it for three reasons: the constitutional reasons that we 
would get more information, we could give that information to the 
country, and we could help unify the international community with this 
debate. The President has done that by the U.N. speech and provided 
more information to Members.
  I have had many briefings since that time; and with his resolution 
and the changed resolution, I am now convinced that Iraq has not 
complied with a ceasefire agreement; has weapons of mass destruction, 
chemical and biological; is pursuing the nuclear option; has used mass 
destruction on his own citizens and his neighbors; and al Qaeda 
operates in Baghdad.
  Many people asked for the smoking gun, but the smoking gun is a gun 
that has already been fired. We cannot allow the use of weapons of mass 
destruction on our own citizens.
  I would like to quote Geoffrey Goldberg's article in the New Yorker 
Magazine where he says, `` `My uncle said we should go outside,' 
Nasreen said. We knew there were chemicals in the air. We were getting 
red eyes, and some of us had liquid coming out of them. We decided to 
run. Nasreen and her relatives stepped outside gingerly. `Our cow was 
lying on its side . . . it was breathing very fast, as if it had been 
running. The leaves were falling off the trees, even though it was 
spring. The partridge was dead. There were smoke clouds around, 
clinging to the ground.' ''
  We cannot allow that to happen in our country. The primary role of 
the national government is the protection of its citizens. That is what 
we are doing with this resolution. We are about that work here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to support this resolution. May God bless 
America.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, the most painful and difficult and important 
decision that any of us here in Congress will ever face is the decision 
to send young men and women to war, knowing, as we all do, that many 
will be injured, some will die, as will, sadly, but unavoidably, 
soldiers and civilians in the country we are fighting.
  So we have an obligation to think very long and hard and wrestle with 
many questions, including those that have been raised by a number of my 
friends and colleagues who oppose this resolution, and to consider 
those questions before we take that decision.
  I wanted to reflect on two questions that have been raised several 
times today in this debate. First is the question of whether or not 
Saddam Hussein poses a sufficient and a sufficiently imminent threat to 
Americans to justify American military action against his regime. Let 
us consider what we know for facts.
  First, we know he has massive stockpiles of chemical weapons, we know 
he has huge stockpiles of biological weapons, and we know he has full-
scale and urgent programs under way to develop nuclear weapons, as 
well. No one disputes that he has these terrible weapons.
  So the next question becomes, well, is there much chance that he 
would ever consider using them against us? Well, consider this is a 
regime that has invaded its neighbors without provocation, resulting in 
untold thousands of deaths; that Saddam Hussein has ordered chemical 
attacks on Iran, and on more than 40 villages in his own country, 
resulting in the death of his own people.
  In the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American 
and British pilots more than 750 times. He has repeatedly expressed his 
deep hatred of the United States. Also, Iraq is and continues to harbor 
terrorists and to finance terrorism.
  Given his weapons, his history, his threats, and his relationships 
with known terrorists, my question is, How could we possibly sit back 
and just wait? The first and most important responsibility of the 
Federal Government is to protect the lives of our citizens, and the 
catastrophe that would result if he used weapons of mass destruction on 
Americans is so great that we simply cannot risk that event.
  Now, the President has described Saddam Hussein as presenting a grave 
and gathering threat. I think he aptly invokes the term that Winston 
Churchill used in the title of the first volume of his seminal series 
on the history of World War II, which he called ``The Gathering 
Storm.''
  Hitler and the Nazis were, in the 1930s, a gathering threat; and 
today Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat, gathering in the sense that 
it is a growing, accumulating, worsening threat and becoming more and 
more dangerous as his weapons grow in size and sophistication.
  For these reasons, I believe that the threat is sufficient and 
sufficiently imminent that, should we fail to eliminate that threat, we 
would be shirking that first and foremost responsibility that we have 
to protect our fellow citizens.
  Others have suggested that, unless we get permission for this action 
from the U.N., we would basically lack the legal and moral authority to 
use military force. Mr. Speaker, to that I respond that our 
Constitution does not delegate to the U.N. responsibility to provide 
for the common defense of our citizens. That is our responsibility. We 
would be wrong to abdicate that responsibility.
  While I hope that we get a strong resolution from the U.N., and I 
hope we have a broad international coalition to support this effort, if 
we cannot get that broad support, our responsibility is to proceed with 
those allies who will join us.
  Still others have suggested that using the Armed Forces to preempt an 
adversary is without precedent in

[[Page H7296]]

American history. That is just factually wrong. On other occasions, 
including in 1962 when the United States Government imposed a naval 
blockade of Cuba, it did so to prevent a threat from emerging.
  There are many other legitimate questions, Mr. Speaker; and I have 
tried to evaluate them honestly and dispassionately. The conclusion 
that I keep coming to is that this is a grave and gathering threat that 
is simply too dangerous and could result in too many lost American 
lives, should we ignore it any longer.
  We have tried diplomacy, embargoes, inspectors, all forms of 
political and economic pressure; and all the while the threat has 
gathered and grown. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Unless Saddam 
Hussein immediately, completely, openly acknowledges and destroys all 
of his weapons of mass destruction and allows immediate, unfettered 
access to really every inch of his country, to weapons inspectors that 
can operate freely, whenever, wherever, without providing notice, 
failure to do that means we must achieve this disarmament by force.
  That is what this resolution authorizes the President to do. That is 
why I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the 
resolution; not with joy nor with blood lust nor with a sense of 
vengeance, but instead, with a clear-eyed analysis of the threat that 
is presented.
  Mr. Speaker, I give thanks for the fact that this debate is occurring 
not via satellite television from Baghdad, but, as it should, on the 
floor of the United States House of Representatives, where people of 
good will and honest conviction can disagree.
  In the preceding few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some embrace 
a collective multilateralism as the doctrine and seeming salvation of 
this new century.

                              {time}  0000

  There is one major flaw with that notion, and it is expressed in the 
first action all 435 of us who serve here take when we raise our right 
hand and take the oath of office. Because, Mr. Speaker, when we do so, 
we pledge to uphold not the charter of the United Nations but the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Do not mistake the desirability of coalitions. There is a place. They 
are desirable. Our own Secretary of Defense has told us in this war 
there will be many different coalitions. There will be those that come 
to support us out front. There will be others behind closed doors. 
There will be different ways different nations will show their support.
  But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, our Founders quite properly, in 
enumerating the responsibilities of this government in a document of 
limited and specified powers, first and foremost, we are to provide for 
the common defense. We do that not by seeking the permission of the 
Congo or Cameroon or France or Germany. We do that by clearly, 
unmistakenly, and unashamedly protecting the lives and interests of the 
American Nation.
  Make no mistake, this will not be easy. This will not be pleasant. 
This war has been thrust upon us when, on a beautiful morning a year 
and a month ago, innocent Americans were attacked and killed by a 
regime of terror, a regime that our Commander-in-Chief just informed us 
last night has had repeated contacts with the government of Iraq.
  The dictator of Iraq cares not a whit for the world community, and he 
certainly cares not for the welfare of American citizens, nor our 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, it is reluctantly but with a sense of resolute faith 
that I stand in support of the resolution to protect the American 
people and to protect the American Nation.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to see if I could add something to this debate 
that had not been covered tonight, because I think on both sides of the 
aisle we have had very articulate arguments. So I have brought with me 
a book called The Threatening Storm by Mr. Kenneth Pollack. Mr. Pollack 
was the expert on Iraq in the Clinton administration in both the CIA 
and at the Security Council, and I would like to read a quick passage 
about the kind of regime that Saddam Hussein imposes on his own people.
  ``This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force 
confessions from their parents and grandparents. This a regime that 
will crush all of the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force 
her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that 
will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the 
child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a 
regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or 
comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge 
vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of 
execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies 
of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. 
This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the 
regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing 
does not match, will be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue. 
This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female 
victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter or 
other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is 
a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or 
other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely 
considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime 
that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and 
children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This 
is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens, not 
just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other 
villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical 
and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the 
POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse 
the agents to inflict the greatest damages.
  ``This is the fate that awaits thousands of Iraqis each year. The 
roughest estimates are that over the last 20 years more than 200,000 
people have disappeared into Saddam's prison system, never to be heard 
from again. Hundreds of thousands of others were taken away and, after 
unforgettable bouts of torture that left them psychologically and often 
physically mangled, eventually were released or escaped. To give a 
sense of scale, just the numbers of Iraqis never heard from again would 
be equivalent to about 2.5 million Americans suffering such a fate.''
  Mr. Speaker, not since Hitler and not since Stalin have we seen so 
much evil delivered by one man. On top of that, these are the least of 
the reasons why this authorization is needed. This tyrant has amassed a 
large cache of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and 
is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons. He sees America as the only 
obstacle to his perverse ambitions, and that is what he shares with al 
Qaeda, these terrorists against us, this deep hatred for America. We 
must not let him share anything else with these terrorists, Mr. 
Speaker.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it is a painful vote, it is a painful 
subject, it is a painful issue, but this is a cause that we cannot go 
unanswered. I urge a yes vote, and I urge passage of this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, these are times that try our souls. These are decisions 
that all Members of Congress hope they will never have to make. All of 
us have in our own way prayed for the wisdom of Solomon.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said earlier in quoting 
Abraham Lincoln, ``We cannot escape history.''

[[Page H7297]]

  Our ancestors understood that negotiation alone would not bring 
freedom or peace to the colonies. Today we stand on the shoulders of 
the patriots who knew that freedom is not free. Patrick Henry warned 
that peace could always be purchased at the price of chains and 
slavery. He closed with, ``Forbid that Almighty God.''
  Nearly 64 years ago to this very week, Prime Minister Neville 
Chamberlain believed that he could reason and negotiate with a despot. 
He returned from Munich smiling, waving a paper, touting, ``Peace in 
our time.''
  A few days later, a wiser Winston Churchill went to the House of 
Commons and said, ``Mr. Prime Minister, you have been given the choice 
between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and we shall surely 
have war.''
  How much blood? How much treasure could have been spared had we have 
stopped the despot when all he wanted was liebensprau?
  Last year I led a delegation of Members from the House to 
Northeastern Germany. We toured a small camp near the Baltic called 
Peenemunde. It was there, understand total secrecy, that the Nazi war 
machine perfected the lethal buzz bomb rockets that set Great Britain 
ablaze.
  We did not know until after the war that they were also working on 
nuclear weapons and a multi-stage rocket capable of hitting the United 
States. Our delegation saw a cartoon drawing on the wall of one of labs 
that showed these rockets raining down on New York City. We liberated 
Germany just in the nick of time.
  Today our intelligence is far from perfect, but it is much better 
than it was in 1940. We know that Saddam is rebuilding his arsenal of 
death. We know that he has used chemical and biological weapons to kill 
thousands of his own people. We know that he is attempting to acquire 
nuclear capabilities. We know that he has attacked his Arab neighbors. 
We know that he plotted the assassination of a former U.S. President. 
And worst and most sobering, we know that he has repeatedly pledged to 
lead a holy war against the United States.
  For more than a decade the terrorists and the rogue states that 
harbor them have been at war with the United States. They have killed 
hundreds of innocents at our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We 
launched a few Scud missiles. They killed dozens of our sailors on the 
U.S.S. Cole. We did little. So September 11 they crossed the ocean and 
killed thousands.

                              {time}  0010

  They crossed the line. They attacked we the people on our home soil. 
We the people will do everything in our power to make sure that this 
never happens again. Now the battle is joined.
  In many respects the confrontation with Saddam Hussein is an 
important chapter in ridding the world of the vicious hatred which bred 
those bloody attacks on American soil. In our bones we all know that 
sooner or later we will have to lead the effort to confront this 
despot. The only real question is when. It is once again left to the 
Americans to liberate Iraq.
  We must join together and speak with one voice. We must give our 
President the authority to make the peace, to free the Iraqi people of 
this despot and leave to all the children of the world a safer planet. 
No, we cannot escape history; and history expects no less.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who, as a member of the Committee on Government 
Reform, has done extensive work on the issue of terrorism.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, based on all we have learned during 4 years 
of hearings by the Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on 
National Security and International Relations, it cannot be disputed, 
Saddam Hussein had a robust chemical, biological and nuclear weapons 
program before the Gulf War. He had a robust program after the war. And 
he ejected United Nations inspectors when we had successfully begun to 
dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, particularly when we got 
below the weeds to the real roots, the engineers and scientists who 
sustain the program.
  No credible source, public or classified, has met the burden of proof 
on Iraq to demonstrate Saddam Hussein has stopped pursuing weapons of 
mass destruction and disarmed. Having learned the hard lesson that we 
cannot be defeated in conventional combat, he is more determined than 
ever to deploy chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons 
against us. His support of terrorist groups also means he is likely to 
deploy these weapons using surrogates.
  Some say until Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States and 
until he both has a nuclear weapon and threatens to use it, or until we 
have smoking-gun evidence Saddam Hussein launched the planes into the 
World Trade Center, we should be content to contain and deter an Iraqi 
regime openly amassing weapons of mass death.
  I could not disagree more. Saddam Hussein will not be deterred, and 
he will not be contained. Testifying before our committee all three 
national commissions on terrorism stressed the need for a real-time 
threat assessment, a new strategy to confront the threat, and a 
restructured Federal Government to implement the strategy. Containment, 
deterrence, and mutually assured destruction no longer assure our 
national security.
  Our policy, and the structure of government to carry it out, must be 
proactive and preemptive.
  As a free and open society, we are vulnerable to catastrophic attack 
by those who see no moral or political ``red line'' to constrain them.
  As former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminded us, 
September 11, 2001, was a wake-up call from hell. We need to wake up. 
On that day, quaint Cold War doctrines justifying action only against 
clear and present dangers died with those 3,000 innocents in the World 
Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania.
  The dangers we face may never be clear again. The mere existence of 
weapons of mass destruction in the hands of despots, tyrants, and 
terrorists constitutes an imminent threat to our security. That threat 
must be addressed before it manifests itself full-blown in a smallpox 
epidemic or a mushroom cloud.
  Ironically, only the possibility of unilateral action by the United 
States will draw our allies into effective multilateral action. So we 
must maintain the right to act in our sovereign security interests, 
with our allies whenever we can, alone if we must.
  Over the course of 41 hearings and briefings since 1999, our 
Subcommittee on National Security has learned that weapons of mass 
destruction proliferation possess a grave threat to the United States.
  Iraq is both a producer and potential consumer of illicit weapons and 
materials. Dr. Hamza, a former head of the Iraqi nuclear program, told 
us recently Saddam Hussein will never yield access to the scientists 
who sustain his weapons programs.
  Dr. Alibek, former deputy director of the Biopreparat, the civilian 
arm of the Soviet Union biological weapons program, testified he 
considered it inevitable biological weapons will fall into terrorist 
hands.
  According to the British Government's recent analysis of Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction program and a similar dossier by the 
respected International Institute for Security Studies, Saddam Hussein 
need only acquire a core of highly enriched uranium the size of a 
single softball to become nuclear capable within a matter of months.
  With uncertain controls over the weapons grade material in the former 
Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein has already tried to go shopping for the 
missing core of his malevolent nuclear aspirations. Lucky for us, he 
has fallen prey to black market scam and bought atomic junk. But we 
cannot base our fundamental security on his continued bad luck.
  As proposed, U.N. inspections will never succeed in disarming an 
Iraqi regime determined to hide or reacquire weapons of mass 
destruction capability. We heard testimony from former UNSCOM 
inspectors and U.S. nonproliferation experts who concluded nothing 
short of utterly unfettered, that is anytime, anywhere unannounced, 
inspections would ever get close to discerning Iraq's true 
capabilities.
  Even then, without a powerful incentive for Iraq to point inspectors 
in the

[[Page H7298]]

right direction, most conclude even those inspections would not 
guarantee complete disarmament. Only the option of force authorized in 
this resolution can provide the incentive for the Iraqi regime to step 
out of the way and allow the civilized world to assert its rights to 
security and peace.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I represent 81 families who lost loved 
ones in the attacks of 9-11 and the World Trade Center. I have visited 
with these families, consoled them, wept with them, and each of them 
share a common thread.
  What I heard from these families over and over and over again was a 
plea, please do everything in your power to prevent this heartache, 
this destruction, these attacks from ever happening again.
  Today we face a tyrant, a cowardly dictator in Iraq who we know is 
building an arsenal of biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons; 
weapons that have the potential to deliver untold destruction upon 
freedom-loving people, and innocent civilians of the United States are 
clearly in his sights. He has made no secret of his intent to use these 
weapons of mass destruction on America or Israel or other allies, just 
as he has brutally used them on his own people.
  Saddam Hussein has lied over and over and over again, deceived the 
international community and the United Nations for 11 years promising 
to disarm and to allow inspections, and then betraying our trust and 
our goodwill. He has clear ties to terrorists and to terrorist 
organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and, yes, even al Qaeda. His goal, 
to kill as many people as possible and to force the civilized world to 
live in fear.
  As we heard from the President of the United States last night, we 
refuse to live in fear. The cost of action may be high, but I would 
suggest that the cost of inaction is far, far greater. This is a dire 
situation, and it calls for action. It calls for good and noble action 
from freedom-loving people around this Nation and around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I made a promise to the 81 families in my district to 
take action, to do all in my power to prevent the devastation of 
terrorist attacks like those we saw on 9-11.

                              {time}  0020

  I will keep that promise by voting in favor of this resolution which 
will authorize the President and administration and the men and women 
of our Armed Forces to protect the United States from future 9/11s or 
worse. Diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must, we all have 
an obligation to keep our promise to do all we can to protect those we 
serve; and I will do it by voting for this important resolution. I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time. I noticed that the clock is ticking past 12, and 
I shall remember the words of the country preacher who said, blessed be 
the brief, for they shall be invited back.
  I rise to support the resolution to respond to the threat that Iraq 
poses to us and to most nations of the world. If we adopt this 
resolution, the position of the President will be strengthened in 
dealing with foreign nations and those in the Middle East. If we 
present a strong front and indicate to Saddam Hussein that the United 
States is resolute in seeing the United States and other nations safe 
from attack by Iraq, then Iraq may recognize that further stalling and 
prevaricating are futile and open itself up for unfettered inspections.
  Appeasement and ignoring clear violations of past resolutions and 
agreements does not guarantee peace and safety. It will only lay us 
open to a sneak assault. As the President said, war should be the last 
resort.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  As this greatest of all deliberative bodies debates this resolution 
tonight, we are confronted with the same questions that every nation, 
every family, and every individual must answer when deciding matters of 
monumental proportions.
  The first question embodies many avenues of inquiry, and that 
question is, simply, why? After all, Iraq is half a world away and 
lacks long-range missile capability. Under normal circumstances that 
would be a valid reason to withhold action. But we all know that 
chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons can be delivered through 
unconventional methods such as suitcases, trucks and cargo containers.
  Secondly, the question, why now? Why authorize force before all 
diplomatic approaches have been exhausted? Unfortunately, for those who 
expect the United Nations to resolve this issue, thus far the U.N. has 
failed miserably. If the U.N. expects to maintain the respect of the 
United States or any other member nation, it must show that its 
resolutions mean something.
  Why did the U.N. not take action when the weapons inspectors were 
kicked out of the country? Why has the U.N. not responded to the 
attacks on our aircraft as they patrol the no-fly zones in Iraq? If the 
U.N. wants to maintain its relevance and prove that it is more than an 
international social club, now is the time and this resolution gives it 
that opportunity.
  Some have also insisted that any action on our part must occur only 
if our allies are with us. That would be nice, but I do not think it is 
essential. If we are in the right, we should act whether others choose 
to join us or not.
  Throughout this debate both sides have drawn conclusions from the 
lessons of history. As we attempt to probe the fog of the future, 
certainly the established facts of the past are relevant; and some of 
those facts are as follows: Saddam Hussein has refused to abide by the 
peace agreement that ended the Gulf war. Instead of eliminating 
weapons, he has continued to build and buy more sophisticated and 
dangerous ones. Iraq has aided, abetted, and harbored terrorists that 
intend to harm us or our allies.
  How can our future be bright when it is polluted with these alarming 
facts of history that are consistently being transformed into the 
realities of the present? The fruit our actions on this resolution may 
require that they be harvested by our men and women in uniform. That is 
the reality of a world where old men give speeches while young men wage 
wars. All of us sincerely pray that force will not be necessary, but 
those who fail to do what righteousness requires for fear of resistance 
have sounded the call of retreat before the enemy is engaged.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, for there is another lesson 
of history that we cannot avoid, and that is that every generation must 
engage the forces of evil that confront it. We cannot defeat evil by 
displaying the medals of valor that have been won by our forefathers, 
nor can we appease evil in the hope that it will behave until our time 
has passed. So the answers to the questions of why and why not are 
simple. It is our time and our obligation to make our down payment on 
our heritage of freedom.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the joint resolution to 
authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we are a 
peaceful Nation, a Nation that wants and promotes peace and a Nation 
that uses force only as a last option. I believe that the President, my 
constituents, and the American people do not want to wage war against 
Iraq. Unfortunately, we face a very real and dangerous situation.
  The information the President presented to us confirms that Saddam 
Hussein has and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. We 
have the cold, hard facts; and as a Nation we must now decide how we 
confront this serious threat. Do we proceed with our eyes wide open, or 
do we wait until Saddam has uses the weapons of mass destruction, 
killing thousands of innocent people?
  Many people are asking the question why now, why can't we wait? We 
must remember that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated obligations 
set forth

[[Page H7299]]

by the United Nations Security Council, has ignored 16 U.N. Security 
Council resolutions and diverts money intended to buy food for his 
people to purchase lethal chemical and biological materials, missile 
technology and nuclear fission materials.
  Why does Saddam need biological and chemical weapons? While we can 
only guess his intentions, we must not let Saddam and his regime have 
the opportunity to use his weapons of mass destruction or sell these 
weapons to a terrorist group. Therefore, the purpose of this joint 
resolution is to give Saddam and his regime a clear choice: Allow 
complete and unfettered inspections or face the consequences of 
military action. It is that simple. If Saddam allows complete and 
unfettered inspections and we destroy his weapons of mass destruction, 
then he can avert military action.
  Soon a special independent commission will investigate our 
intelligence lapses that led to the tragic and horrible events of 
September 11. If we compare the intelligence information we had before 
September 11 to the volumes of known information we have today about 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, then the President's 
case against Iraq is clear and undisputable.
  Some still believe that we should take Saddam at his word. That is 
foolishness. Saddam cannot be trusted. Look at what he agreed to do and 
what he failed to do. He shoots at our planes, he murders and tortures 
his own people, and he develops weapons that can only do harm to 
innocent people.
  While I have voted on many important issues, this is the most 
important vote I will take. I believe the right vote is to support this 
joint resolution to disarm Iraq. We can no longer allow Saddam to thumb 
his nose at the U.N., the international community, and at the United 
States. His madness must end, and we must send a strong message that 
the world will not tolerate terrorism in any form.
  I close by telling you what Lieutenant Colonel Walt Piatt, a 
constituent of mine from Somerset, Pennsylvania, told me after I 
visited with him in Afghanistan. Colonel Piatt said the American 
military strength is not our smart bombs, our state-of-the-art 
aircraft, or our brave troops. Our support lies in the support and will 
of the American people.
  Let us reflect on Piatt's words, and let us send a message to Saddam 
that America stands united. We will act if necessary. Vote yes on this 
resolution and end Saddam's threat to the world and to the American 
people.

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude tonight by noting that we have 
spoken of chemical weapons of mass destruction, and I would like to 
bring to my colleagues' attention some of the observations of New 
Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who traveled to Northern Iraq, spent 
quite some time there interviewing hundreds of women now barren, 
hundreds of people now blind, as a result of chemical attack. As he 
interviewed the survivors of the attacks on the Kurds, he had some 
observations that I think we should pay attention to, because during 
his research he found that a biological agent called aflatoxin had been 
manufactured.
  In 1995, the government of Saddam Hussein admitted to UN weapons 
inspectors that his scientists had weaponized this deadly biological 
agent. Aflatoxin is unique, because what it does is it causes liver 
cancer. It produces it particularly well in children. Weapons 
inspectors found that Saddam was able to load aflatoxin into two 
warheads capable of being fitted on to Skud missiles.
  Americans need a good sense of who we are dealing with. This is a 
race against time.
  In answer to the question, of all the dictatorships, why this one, we 
have this answer from the man who interviewed all of these survivors of 
those chemical attacks. He said, ``Because this is a figure of singular 
danger. To review,'' he said, ``there is no dictator in power anywhere 
in the world who has so far in his career invaded two neighboring 
countries, fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other 
neighboring countries, tried to have assassinated an ex-president of 
the United States, harbored al Qaeda fugitives, attacked civilians with 
chemical weapons, attacked the soldiers of an enemy country with 
chemical weapons, conducted biological weapons experiments on human 
subjects, committed genocide, and then there is, of course, the matter 
of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool of mass murder, a tool of nothing 
else except mass murder.''
  He said, ``I do not know how any thinking person could believe that 
Saddam Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one comes close to 
matching his extraordinary and variegated record of malevolence.''
  So, Saddam Hussein, in his words, is ``uniquely evil, the only ruler 
in power today and the first one since Hitler to commit chemical 
genocide.''
  ``Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power?'' He asked 
himself that question, and he says, ``I would say yes, if never again 
is in fact actually to mean never again, because Saddam is a man 
without any moral limits. That is why it is so important to keep 
nuclear weapons from his hands.''
  Well, the current threat posed by Iraq is not like the Gulf War, and 
I appreciate that the case for action may not appear as clear-cut to 
some. A hostile army has not crossed a border, as Saddam's did then; an 
invaded state has not asked us for help, as Kuwait did.
  But the battlefield in the new war on terrorism is not the desert of 
Iraq and Kuwait. Unfortunately, we must now be concerned with the 
conniving of a relatively few number of terrorists and the regimes that 
harbor them.
  Today's world, with modern technology, sadly, has been transformed. I 
have no doubts that the regime of Saddam Hussein, its generals, its 
intelligence service, scientists and technicians, poses a mortal threat 
to our country, and we must act.
  Finally, I would like to commend the men and women of the U.S. Armed 
Forces. We hope that they do not have to go into battle against Iraq. 
We hope to defend Hussein's regime without firing a shot. We hope to 
disarm him of his chemical, biological and nuclear program.
  But if that is not the case, if our troops are dispatched against 
Iraq, we know that the American people will stand behind the brave 
Americans wearing the uniform. They have served us well in Afghanistan 
and in so many other regions of the world, defending our great country 
and its enduring values. We owe our service men and women and all who 
have served before a great deal of gratitude.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, tonight, an impending threat to our nation 
and its allies sits ready to strike at a given opportunity. Weapons of 
mass destruction, both chemical and biological, have been developed and 
stockpiled. Saddam Hussein, a dictator who has performed unthinkable 
atrocities, commands the soldiers who could launch them on Israel, on 
Saudi Arabia or even a city in the United States.
  Tonight, as I see it, there is two very different kinds of hope--hope 
that is reasonable and hope that is not.
  Hope that is reasonable understands the consequences of inaction. By 
preventing a madman addicted to weapons of mass destruction from 
slaughtering innocent people, we can imagine a new democratically 
elected government committed to peace and prosperity.
  Hope that is not reasonable relies on a dictator who strives for 
power and destruction to abdicate his authority and allow unconditional 
searches of his production plants and palaces by the United Nations and 
the United States.
  Hope that is not reasonable thinks that Saddam Hussein will comply 
with the 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions that he has defied for 
more than a decade.
  Hope that is not reasonable will trust this murder of innocent lives 
to stop gassing, intimidating and killing people that live within his 
countries borders.
  Tonight, I rise to encourage my colleagues to provide reasonable hope 
to the people of Iraq by granting President Bush the authority to take 
care of the threat posed by Hussein and his regime, either 
diplomatically or with our armed forces.
  This resolution is one of the most important votes each of us will 
ever cast. I urge support for reasonable hope and encourage my 
colleagues to pass this resolution.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Resolution 114, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force

[[Page H7300]]

against Iraq and in strong support of President Bush as he leads our 
nation in this most dangerous time.
  We are here today to debate a resolution which would authorize the 
United States to sue military force to disarm and possibly remove 
Saddam Hussein from his tyrannical reign in Iraq. But let's be clear, 
this vote is about whether we, the United States House of 
Representatives, supports going to war to stop Saddam Hussein. It means 
putting our brave young men and women in uniform in harm's way and 
possibly putting them on the most dangerous of battlefields--one where 
the enemy may resort to weapons of mass destruction in his final 
desperate hour.
  In deciding on how to vote on this resolution we must debate and 
answer one question; does the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein pose 
enough of an immediate danger to the United States and peace to warrant 
going to war to end that danger?
  In my opinion, the answer is a resolute but somber yes.
  To me, these vital facts stand out in this debate.
  First, Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons of 
mass destruction. He has enough anthrax to kill millions of people. 
Most of his biological stockpile has never been accounted for. He has 
thousands of tons of chemical weapons to include VX gas, sarin gas, and 
mustard gas. And we know, as President Bush revealed on Monday, that he 
is feverishly working to gain nuclear weapons.
  Second, Saddam Hussein has a clear history of using weapons of mass 
destruction. During the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties, he ordered that 
chemical weapons be used against his enemy on the battle field. He 
ordered chemical attacks against his own people and tens of thousands 
of innocent men, women, and children died a horrible death.
  Third, Saddam Hussein has unabashedly disregarded the rule of 
international law and the demands of the United Nations. Since his 
aggression against Kuwait was stopped in 1991, the Iraqi regime has 
ignored U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution to disarm. Over a period 
from 1991 to 1998, the Iraqi regime has lied and deceived in the most 
systematic way to conceal its collection of weapons of mass 
destruction. To make matters worse the forces of Saddam Hussein have 
also aggressively fired on American and British pilots enforcing the 
United Nation's no-fly zones with the intent to kill over 750 times.
  And fourth, and potentially most chilling, Saddam Hussein is working 
in concert with terrorist organizations around the world including al 
Qaeda. We know that agents of the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda have held 
high level contact dating back more than a decade. We know that many al 
Qaeda members fled Afghanistan and now reside in Iraq. And we know that 
Saddam Hussein proudly celebrated the terrorist attacks on our Nation 
on September 11, 2001.
  Given Saddam's violent history, the weapons of mass destruction in 
his possession, his flagrant disregard for the United Nations, and his 
current association with al Qaeda, the answer to the question I posed 
earlier is clear. Yes, we must pass this resolution and yes we must be 
willing to go to war to end the threat from Saddam Hussein once and for 
all.
  It is my hope that the U.N. Security Council will vote to support 
military action against the Iraqi regime if it does not submit to 
international rule and allow U.N. inspectors complete and unfettered 
access to the country. Although I do not hold out hope that Saddam 
Hussein, given his duplicitous actions of the past, will submit to the 
United Nation's will to allow U.N. inspectors in his country to find 
and dismantle all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we must 
attempt all diplomatic options. I also urge President Bush to continue 
to work with our allies to build an international coalition in support 
of any necessary military action. His speech before the United Nations 
on September 12 of this year laid an excellent groundwork for this 
coalition.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am supremely confident that if it 
comes to war that our brave young men and women in uniform will grandly 
succeed and perform to the highest standards of their proud traditions. 
I am also secure in the leadership of President Bush and his 
administration and the counsel he will receive from this body.
  Let us go forth with this debate in the spirit that good and honest 
people--including the Members of this House--can disagree, but with the 
knowledge that in the end should we go to war we are as one. One voice 
for peace, one voice for defense of our freedom, and one voice for the 
security of the world.
  I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I join my many esteemed colleagues today in 
support of this resolution authorizing the President to use force 
against Iraq. This is an historic moment for our country--a moment that 
should not be taken lightly. This is hopefully the last chapter in a 
long saga of our country's effort to deal with the threats of Saddam 
Hussein and his cruel regime. We have already given Saddam every chance 
to prevent war. We have spent ten years working through multilateral 
institutions, diplomatic channels, and the United Nations, trying to 
convince him to change. We have tried using sanctions to control his 
access to weapons. We have tried sending weapons inspectors into Iraq 
to find and dismantle his weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, none of these efforts have brought any success. On the 
contrary, Saddam has only continued his brutal oppression of his own 
people, his weapons of mass destruction programs, and his support for 
terrorist groups that are committed to attacking America. Over the past 
ten years, he has made a mockery of the United Nations and multilateral 
diplomacy. He has systematically undermined United Nations resolutions 
that were designed to disarm and reform his regime. He threw out 
weapons inspectors in 1998 and has aggressively rebuilt his weapons of 
mass destruction programs. And he has targeted America, attempting to 
assassinate former President George Bush in 1993.
  The proverbial ``last straw'' that pushed us to action was when we 
realized that Saddam could strike us on our home soil just as easily as 
Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network did on September 11, 2001. We 
know that Saddam is all too willing to use weapons of mass destruction 
against his enemies. To hope that he will keep these weapons as 
``deterrent'' and never use them is to stick our heads in the sand and 
ignore over 20 years of history. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to 
defend ourselves in the face of Saddam's threats. We cannot afford to 
remain silent while our enemies plot their next attack.
  We make this decision because we have exhausted all other options. 
King Solomon, in his wisdom, wrote, ``There is a time for everything: a 
time to be born and a time to die, a time to kill and a time to heal . 
. . a time to be silent and a time to speak . . . a time for war and a 
time for peace.'' Mr. Speaker, now is the time to break our silence, 
now is the time to finish the process Saddam himself began in 1990. It 
is time for the United States to use the full force of its military to 
remove Saddam and give the people of Iraq the opportunity to live in 
peace and security. I urge my colleagues to support the President 
during this critical time in our nation's history and to vote in favor 
of this resolution.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a resolution that, 
without a doubt, weighs heavy on everyone's heart. To cast a vote on 
whether or not to authorize our President to use military force against 
an enemy is one of the most important responsibilities we have as 
Members of Congress.
  This is not an easy decision. It is a very complex state of affairs 
that will have foreign policy and national security implications for 
many years--beyond the service of many Members here today.
  So, we must not simply think about today, but we must also think 
about what the future holds. With this said, we must look at the big 
picture. It is a complex picture, but there are several things we do 
know for sure.
  (1) For many years, Saddam Hussein has brutally oppressed his people. 
He has committed mass murder, mass starvation, and gross violations of 
human rights.
  (2) Saddam Hussein has developed chemical and biological weapons with 
the capability to attack neighboring countries, like Israel, Jordan, 
and Saudi Arabia--our allies.
  (3) Saddam has already used chemical and biological weapons against 
his own people and his enemies--we know he is not afraid to use them.
  (4) Saddam has vowed to use these weapons against anyone or any 
country that stands in his way, including the U.S., our allies, and 
even the Shia population in his own country.
  (5) Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons and is not far from obtaining 
this capability, and
  (6) For over a decade, Saddam has routinely disregarded the will of 
the U.N. and obstructed its weapons inspectors.
  I could go on, but the point is clear. Saddam is a tyrant and a 
madman that poses a direct threat to the United States, our allies, and 
his own people. His reign of terror must end.
  That is why we are here today. And that is why we must pass this 
resolution and show the international community and Iraq that the 
United States speaks with a single voice. We should show Saddam and his 
regime that his days are numbered.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this extremely 
important resolution, I feel compelled to voice my concerns and those 
of my constituents who are very uneasy with the way President Bush has 
presented his case. In the minds of many, President Bush has failed to 
make a convincing case for using military force against Iraq. 
Throughout our history, this country has not militarily attacked 
another nation-state for any other reason except for self defense.
   As a member of the House International Relations Committee, I 
offered an amendment

[[Page H7301]]

that would have addressed many of these concerns by making the 
resolution more narrow and precise in scope. Unfortunately, this 
amendment was not passed in Committee, and I was not allowed to offer 
my alternative on the floor today.
  Thus, I face what will certainly be the most important vote I will 
ever cast with a very heavy heart, knowing that my vote could put our 
men and women in harm's way. While the resolution we are voting on 
today does not address all of my concerns, it has come a long way since 
the early days of the Administration rhetoric. Just two months ago, 
President Bush and his advisors where talking albout using force first, 
rather than last, and taking unilateral action to facilitate regime 
change in order to confront an imminent threat from Iraq. While the 
President has not convinced me that Iraq is a clear and present danger 
to the security of the United States, today, as reflected in this 
resolution, the President is committed to working with the United 
Nations to build a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, 
knowing the historical background of Saddam Hussein, only a resolution 
that gives the President the credible threat of force will give America 
and the world a chance to disarm him without engaging in war. Thus, I 
will support House Joint Resolution 114.
   Mr. Speaker, if force proves necessary, we must forge a coalition of 
other countries supporting and participating with our armed forces to 
the greatest extent practical. A formidable, multilateral alliance, 
similar to the one assembled during the Persian Gulf War, is necessary 
before, during and after the war, and will help continue the momentum 
in the international war on terrorism. The United States should resolve 
the situation using all of the political and diplomatic resources at 
our disposal, keeping in mind that military action is sometimes the 
only option available.
  Although I will support this resolution, I still have a number of 
concerns: this resolution will give the President broad authority to 
make war form any reasons well beyond disarming Saddam Hussein of his 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the resolution's standard to 
justify going to war is too low.
  In an attempt to address this and other concerns, I offered an 
amendment in the House International Relations Committee, similar to a 
proposal authored by Senators Biden and Lugar, which makes perfectly 
clear that the goal of the resolution is disarmament. To that end, the 
amendment would have limited the President's war-making power by 
focusing the authorization to use military force on securing the 
dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, not human rights 
violations, prisoners of war, or the failure to return property as 
called for under the resolution we debate today.

  In addition, my amendment emphasized the importance of international 
support and encouraged the President to exhaust diplomatic efforts at 
the UN, while reserving the right to act unilaterally if the UN fails 
to approve a new resolution requiring the dismantlement of Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction in a timely fashion.
  Lastly, the amendment would have raised the standard for 
justification of going to war by elevating the risk assessment from 
``continuing'' to ``grave''. The U.S. faces many continuing risks but 
they do not warrant the use of military force. By requiring the 
President to inform Congress that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
pose a ``grave'' risk to the United States, the amendment raised the 
standard which must be met before placing American men and women in 
harm's way, something President Bush's resolution fails to do. 
Remember, President Bush warned that Iraq is a ``grave and gathering'' 
danger during his excellent speech to the United Nations General 
Assembly on September 12, 2002.
  Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, my amendment did not pass the 
House International Relations Committee and it was not made in order by 
the Rules Committee.
  The authority this Congress is about to give to the President must be 
used judiciously. After all, war is the ultimate failure of diplomacy. 
I expect that after this important authority is granted, Congress and 
the President will closely work together.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 574, the Chair postpones further consideration of the joint 
resolution until the legislative day of Wednesday.

                          ____________________