[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7309-H7345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
574, proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on the 
legislative day of Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 5 hours 50\1/2\ minutes of 
debate remained on the joint resolution, as amended.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 1 hour 47 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 1 hour 42\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has 1 
hour 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) 
has 60 minutes remaining.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GOSS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GOSS. Would the Speaker explain the rotation in the time 
allotments just announced?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will first recognize the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss). The Chair will then recognize whoever is ready 
to yield time, and then continue in the same order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I and the other 
Members quite often get in very emotional debates, each believing in 
their position. I think that is the case with the subject that we are 
breaching now. I would hope to bring some light as far as to why my 
feelings are as strong as they are.
  New York, the Pentagon, Pennsylvania, over 3,000 men, women, and 
children dying, that is horrific and remains a bitter taste in all 
Americans' lives. But imagine New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles like 
Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Think of the pain and the agony that we would go 
through. Imagine millions of Americans dying with ebola, with smallpox, 
anthrax, or even nerve gas, which would render generations genetically 
with problems.
  Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Yes. As a member on the 
Committee on Intelligence, I would say it is highly probable if we wait 
and do nothing.
  Fact: In 1981, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear plant in Iraq ready 
to develop weapons-grade plutonium. In 1990, right in my hometown in 
San Diego, Iraqis were caught with nuclear triggers on their way to 
Iraq.
  Fact: In 2002, a small amount of weapons-grade plutonium was 
intercepted heading for Iraq.
  Fact: Saddam Hussein does have chemical and biological weapons, and 
even today he denies that. We know 100 percent that he has them, and he 
is working towards nuclear weapons.
  Saddam Hussein has been expanding the delivery systems, including 
pilotless aircraft. Guess what is in range of those pilotless aircraft: 
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, where thousands of Americans and other 
citizens of other nations reside.
  Saddam Hussein is dispersing, as we speak, and it is not just his 
capability with chemical and biological weapons, but he is dispersing 
those weapons of mass destruction to other terrorist groups.
  Saddam really does not care for al Qaeda, but they have a common 
goal, and that is to hurt the United States.
  It is a fact that Saddam pays $700 for a Palestinian that is wounded; 
and he pays $1,500 for a Palestinian that is wounded in a terrorist 
attack; and Saddam Hussein pays $25,000 to the family of someone that 
straps a bomb on themselves and blows up men, women, and children. 
Americans have been killed in Israel from suicide bombers.
  Mr. Speaker, my eyes tear even 30 years later from friends that I saw 
die in combat. This is no simple thing. My

[[Page H7310]]

mother was rushed to a hospital when she learned that I was shot down.
  I know the horrors brought on the men and women that we will ask to 
go to war, but I also know the heartache and the pain of the families 
that are left behind. I would say to my colleagues, do we want to 
subject them to the horrors of war in our own country?
  That is why I have this resolve. I think it is highly probable that 
terrorists would act against the U.S. if we do not act; and I ask my 
colleagues, do not let it happen.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, in doing so, I cannot minimize the gravity of its 
ultimate outcome--the potential deployment of American Service men and 
women to engage in war against our enemy. There is no more solemn 
responsibility, or burden, for a Member of Congress than acting to put 
our troops in harm's way.
  I am supporting this resolution because I believe President Bush has 
made a solid case for acting to remove weapons of mass destruction from 
Iraq. He has taken the appropriate steps to achieve United Nations' 
support through a new Security Council resolution, and I remain hopeful 
this initiative will be successful. However, it is imperative that 
Congress give consensus to our commander in chief as he navigates 
through difficult diplomatic channels, and so we must give this measure 
a strong, favorable vote.
  During my service here, I have joined my colleagues too many times to 
send our military personnel to war--from the gulf war to Bosnia to 
Afghanistan. Despite reservations, I have supported former Presidents 
Bush and Clinton because it is their constitutional role to make 
decisions involving war. We must all be nonpartisan on these issues and 
not support only the President of our party. To act in a partisan 
manner damages our Nation's credibility abroad and harms the reputation 
of Congress.
  This will be one of my final votes in the House and it does not get 
any easier to act on matters of war. This vote late in my 18-year 
career will be one of the hardest. I am confident it is the right vote.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I know I speak for all of my 
colleagues across the political aisle in paying tribute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of the true military 
heroes serving currently in the Congress of the United States.
  Here is a man who participated in battles, knows the tragedy of war, 
but also understands that while war is horrible, appeasement brings far 
greater tragedies.

                              {time}  1115

  Before yielding to one of our most distinguished Members, I would 
like to pay tribute to every colleague yesterday who participated in 
this debate. The debate, Mr. Speaker, took place in a dignified, 
statesman-like, serious manner as befits the topic; and I want to pay 
tribute to every single Republican and Democratic colleague who took 
part in yesterday's debate, and I know today's debate will be similar 
in tone and tenor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), my dear friend and one of the most distinguished Members of 
this body and one of the leaders on the Democratic side.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, today and tomorrow the Members of this House 
consider our most solemn constitutional obligation, a resolution that 
authorizes our Commander in Chief to use our Nation's Armed Forces. We 
do not savor this awesome responsibility, but we will not shrink from 
it either. The seriousness of this occasion dictates that we debate 
today not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans, Americans 
of conscience and principle who love their country and who are 
committed to the security of this Nation and its people.
  This resolution in my view does not sound the drumbeat of war. 
Rather, it provides Saddam Hussein with his last chance for peace. I 
will support it. The resolution reflects the concerns and judgment of 
Members of this House from both sides of the aisle. It supports our 
diplomatic efforts, limits and defines the scope of authorization and 
requires the President to notify Congress before using force and to 
consult with Congress throughout the process.
  Saddam Hussein's malevolence and expansionist designs are not in 
dispute. He used mustard gas and attacked civilians during his 8-year 
war with Iran. He attacked Kurdish villages in northern Iraq with 
chemical weapons. He invaded Kuwait before an international coalition 
repulsed him. He fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. He 
attempted to assassinate our own President, former President George 
Bush. And he has and continues to savage and enslave his own people.
  Saddam Hussein is a vanquished tyrant who owes his existence to the 
fact that the international community did not effect his ouster in 
1991. In hindsight, the cause of peace and regional stability, as well 
as the well-being of the Iraqi people who toil under his boot, dictated 
that result. Yet, like the long line of aggressors who pockmark 
history, Hussein has preyed on international irresolution. He disdains 
and refuses to submit to weapons inspections.
  He continues his efforts to develop and acquire weapons of mass 
destruction, and he sponsors international terrorism. Saddam Hussein 
continues to be an unacceptable threat whose duplicity requires action, 
action now. Reverting to a failed inspection regime would permit hope 
to ignore history. Hussein is in no position to negotiate. He must 
provide unrestricted access to all Iraqi sites with no single 
compensation acceptable. And if he refuses, he must realize the 
consequences and realize as well that he is solely responsible for 
those consequences.
  The United States must continue to seek the widest support for a 
tough inspection regime that ensures Hussein is disarmed. Unilateral 
action carries tremendous risk. Yet we know that international 
vacillation has often emboldened tyrants and compounded bloodshed and 
instability. In just the last decade, a halting, indecisive United 
Nations bore witness to genocide in the former Yugoslavia and 
tragically did little to stop it.
  The reign of terror perpetuated by Slobodan Milosovic blazed until 
NATO extinguished it. Thus, in the face of tyranny, we must not allow 
our commitment to secure the imprimatur and participation of the 
international community to become the sine qua non of American policy.
  The risk of inaction today in my opinion poses previously unfathomed 
dangers for tomorrow. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
and the most virulent strain of terrorism which targets innocents and 
glories in suicidal mass murder could render national inaction a 
virtual death sentence to far too many.
  Let there be no mistake, the United States must continue to be a 
leading proponent of multilateral institutions and the peaceful 
resolutions of disputes. However, in the absence of international unity 
in confronting Hussein and his criminal regime, we must not be frozen 
into inaction in the face of a clear and present danger.
  Let me add, with all due respect to my colleagues who have expressed 
their sincere concern that this resolution authorizes the President to 
use Armed Forces preemptively, that I see a clear distinction here. We 
have had an ongoing engagement in Iraq since that nation agreed to 
terminate its hostility towards its neighbors in 1991.
  Our pilots who have been fired on by Iraqi military can attest that 
our engagement continues. Thus, I do not agree that we are setting a 
possibly dangerous precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, we have given and should continue to give diplomacy and 
international coalition-building efforts every opportunity. Saddam 
Hussein has chosen to ignore his obligations and to continue his 
dangerous designs. If he fails to seize this last chance for peace, 
then he will bear sole responsibility for his own destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our purpose is 
not territorial acquisition. Our purpose is the protection and security 
of our people, and the promotion of peace, stability and the rule of 
law in Iraq, the Middle East and the international community. We must 
not shrink from this responsibility.

[[Page H7311]]

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared statement, I just 
wanted to say a word about the extraordinary leadership that we have on 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from our chairman. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is an extraordinary chairman. He has 
done so much. He has done a great job for our committee and for America 
since 9-11, and he deserves an awful lot of praise for the work he has 
done with the administration for all the Members of this House in 
really just doing an extraordinary job as chairman of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 114, a bipartisan 
resolution that authorizes the use of our Armed Forces against Iraq. I 
want to take a moment to applaud the President and his team for 
continuing to work to garner international support to bring Iraq into 
compliance with U.N. resolutions, for continuing to update the Congress 
on the situation in Iraq, and for continuing to work with Members on 
both sides of the aisle in formulating the resolution we are discussing 
today.
  We do not take lightly what we are voting on here today. The decision 
to authorize the potential use of our Nation's Armed Forces is very 
difficult. However, this resolution is not a rush to war. Our immediate 
goal is to allow weapons inspectors complete and unrestricted accesses 
to determine Iraq's compliance with disarmament requirements. This 
resolution explicitly expresses support for the President's ongoing 
efforts to work with the U.N. Security Council to quickly and 
decisively act to ensure Iraqi compliance with all Security Council 
resolutions. However, the resolution also provides for the 
authorization of the use of military force that may be needed to 
protect U.S. national security and enforce Security Council resolutions 
if diplomatic efforts alone are no longer effective. Congress will be 
kept informed.
  Saddam Hussein knew what was required to end the Persian Gulf War: 
destroying all existing weapons of mass destruction, discontinuing any 
development of these weapons, and allow United Nations' weapons 
inspectors unrestricted access so compliance with these demands could 
be ensured. Iraq has failed to comply with each and every U.N. 
resolution and has continued to stockpile and develop weapons that are 
a threat to not only its neighbors in the Middle East, but also the 
entire world.
  Iraq's history of violations, combined with its present policy of 
working to acquire weapons while continuing to restrict U.N. access, 
led to a future where the United States and the United Nations must be 
able to commit whatever resources are necessary to ensure Iraqi 
disarmament.
  I am proud to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and have had the opportunity to carefully study the ongoing weapons 
activity in Iraq. And I am convinced that this resolution is needed to 
allow us to use every option at our disposal to deal with Iraq. We know 
what Iraq is capable of, and we know that Saddam Hussein is striving to 
expand that capability. The people of Iraq are not safe. American 
military personnel who serve in the Persian Gulf are not safe. And, in 
fact, the world is not safe if Iraq does not begin to comply with U.S. 
and U.N. resolutions and disarmament demands.
  I believe it is important for the Iraqi people to know that the 
United States and the United Nations will not allow the continued 
development and buildup of the stockpile of weapons in their country. 
Saddam Hussein has turned these terrible weapons against his own people 
who continue to suffer repression at the hands of this dictator's 
persistent and willful violations of his international obligations.
  I am pleased that this is a bipartisan resolution. The security of 
the United States and the security of the world rise above partisan 
points of view. This resolution shows Iraq that we are united in its 
condemnation of its continued flagrant violation of all U.N. 
resolution, and in our determination to achieve Iraqi disarmament.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the President for his ongoing efforts to 
work with the international community and the Congress. And I want to 
thank my colleagues for this opportunity to use this to thoroughly 
discuss this resolution, which is one of the most significant pieces of 
legislation many of us will ever vote on during our time in Congress. 
Most importantly, I want to thank the men and women who serve in our 
Nation's Armed Forces, continually working to achieve and maintain 
peace, in the Persian Gulf region and around the world. And they 
deserve our devoted and unrestrained thanks for the wonderful, 
wonderful service that they provide to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, commend both 
sides on this very important issue and the manner in which this 
discussion has moved forward for close to 12 hours. From about 1 p.m. 
to 1 a.m. on yesterday we had all views expressed, and that is really 
what makes this a great House, and that is what makes this a great 
country. That is what makes me proud and privileged to be a part of 
this institution.

                              {time}  1130

  I would like to certainly commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) who has conducted himself with tremendous leadership, a true 
gentleman from Illinois who has shown his leadership in so many 
capacities. During the 14 years I have been in Congress, this is 
certainly one of the most important issues that I have been involved 
in, and it will be a very important vote.
  I would also like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), because all of us feel proud of what he has done to make 
our Nation a stronger place, and it is great to have heroes in our 
body.
  Also, let me commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
who continues his eloquence, his vision. He is one of the most 
expressive persons that I know in the House, and, for that, this place 
is a better place.
  Let me say that I would like to briefly share with my colleagues a 
front page article in today's Washington Post which states that 
unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Saddam Hussein is ``unlikely to 
initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' 
This was contained in a report provided by intelligence agencies to 
senators last week. If a U.S.-led attack could not be stopped, Saddam 
might launch a chemical/biological counterattack, the analysts 
forewarned.
  The report said that Saddam might decide that the extreme step of 
assisting Islamic terrorism in conducting a war, in conducting a 
weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States would be 
his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims 
with him.
  This appears to suggest that an attack on Iraq could trigger the very 
thing that our President has said that he is trying to prevent, the use 
of chemical or biological weapons by Hussein.
  In view of this report, the policy of a preemptive strike is 
troublesome. Haste in attacking Iraq would place untold numbers of 
people in harm's way.
  In Ecclesiastes it says that there is a season for all things; there 
is a time to laugh and a time to cry, a time to plan and a time to 
pluck up that which has been planted, a time of peace and a time of 
war. The question before us is whether this is a time for peace or a 
time for war. The question is whether we can continue to use diplomacy, 
whether we have exhausted all means to try to have peace, whether we 
have maximized the use of the United Nations and other international 
agencies.
  Let us give peace a chance. Let us try to get our inspectors in, 
identify weapons of mass destruction, have them destroyed and then move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) a very key leader in our Democratic Caucus, a person who 
has served her people in Connecticut so well, a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.

[[Page H7312]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for authorizing the use of America's 
military weighs heavily on all of us today, and I have no doubt that we 
each rise knowing that the Constitution and the Nation now call on each 
of us and no one else.
  Nearly all assembled today, including myself, voted to authorize 
force and empower our war on terrorism. Our response was immediate and 
unified. The Taliban government had to fall. Al Qaeda had to be 
confronted in Afghanistan and all across the globe, and we carried into 
battle the full moral authority of a world stirred to action.
  I oppose the resolution today reluctantly because I fully anticipate 
that we will need to act against Iraq before very long. I have no 
illusions about Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein and his regime threaten 
the safety of our country and his neighbors, many of whom are our 
allies. He has invaded and occupied neighboring countries and launched 
deadly missiles at civilian populations. This is a regime that has used 
and intends to use chemical and biological weapons and has done its 
best to develop a nuclear weapons program.
  This is a murderous regime that has slaughtered its own people. 
Saddam Hussein is a war criminal who should be on trial, along with 
Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague.
  I rise in opposition reluctantly but no less certain of the 
importance of a no vote. Because of the nature of this regime and 
because of the war on terrorism, we must marshal the moral authority 
and strategic resources that can end this grave threat and secure 
America's long-term interests. This resolution does not meet that 
historic requirement, in my view.
  While it is an improvement over the original proposal, it represents 
a nod to the U.N., our allies and our long-term interests but requires 
almost nothing before America goes to war. It does not require that we 
seek to operate under a U.N. resolution or to seek unfettered U.N. 
inspection or to build broad support from allies before America goes to 
war. In doing so, we weaken our moral authority, our military 
effectiveness and our ability to keep events under control afterwards.
  And if we go it alone against Iraq, as this resolution permits, I am 
concerned that our efforts will lack the legitimacy that an operation 
of this magnitude requires. I am concerned that the United States will 
have to carry the full burden of renewal and policing Iraq, which will 
surely be high.
  Without U.N. sanction, I believe this action could increase 
instability in the region and indeed throughout the world. It could 
very well undermine the war on terrorism, alienating countries the 
United States will need to achieve the broader objective of uncovering 
and dismantling al Qaeda cells across the world.
  I support the Spratt substitute because I believe it fully accepts 
the goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. It 
accounts for Saddam Hussein's record of deceit, of lying to the world 
and forestalling the inspection process by anticipating the use of 
force, but the Spratt substitute rightly considers force something that 
is multiplied in effectiveness when the right stage is set.
  It requires the President to certify that the U.N. Security Council 
has not acted or acted insufficiently to achieve Iraqi disarmament. The 
substitute requires that he certify that unilateral force is the only 
option, that military force is necessary to make Iraq comply and that 
the United States is forming as broad-based a coalition as possible.
  Having taken every possible diplomatic action, it requires the 
President to certify that military action in Iraq will not interfere 
with the broader war on terrorism.
  The Spratt substitute takes the responsible course of action, 
exhausting diplomatic efforts and building an international coalition 
first, while acknowledging that military action may be inevitable. I 
believe this path both ensures that we will be able to continue our 
success in the war on terrorism in the long term without compromising 
our safety in the short term.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has asked that we pass the resolution to 
send the message to the U.N. I hope we pass the Spratt substitute so 
that we can send a message that our war on terrorism will not be 
compromised, and I hope that a no vote will urge the President to act 
with the force of nations to achieve our noble and our essential goals.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Science and a member of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, what is the rush? That question was asked 
of me Monday evening following the President's speech. It was asked of 
me last week and the week before and the week before. As a matter of 
fact, it was first posed to me by a thoughtful questioner at a League 
of Women Voters candidates forum in Cortland, New York, some 7 weeks 
ago.
  My answer to him then was the same answer I give to everyone now. 
There is no rush. The President is prudent, measured and firm in 
dealing with a decade of defiance, deception and bad faith on the part 
of Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly ignored U.N. resolutions and 
turned his back on agreements that he himself embraced. There is 
widespread agreement with the President. The time for denying, 
deceiving and delay is over.
  Iraq has a chemical and biological weapons capability which can be 
launched at a moment's notice and is in the process of acquiring a 
nuclear capability. From my vantage point as chairman of the Committee 
on Science, I am familiar with the havoc that can be wreaked with 
chemical and biological weapons; and as a senior member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am most familiar with the 
evidence that Saddam Hussein has an accelerated program to acquire a 
nuclear capability.
  The case has been made. The question is, what do we do about it?
  In my view, the President is going about it in the correct way. He is 
not some rogue cowboy from Texas, acting as the Lone Ranger, but a 
thoughtful, international leader, rising to the occasion with calm and 
reason and resolve.
  The case has indeed been made, and it is up to us to respond. The 
President went to the United Nations and in a very orderly, methodical 
way outlined the evidence to that body and to the international 
community.
  The President has repeatedly consulted with the Congress, not just 
with a few leaders, but all of us. There have been meetings at the 
White House. Just yesterday, for example, I started my day at 7:30 at 
the Pentagon with a briefing by the Secretary of Defense and his top 
people, followed by a return to Capitol Hill for several hours of 
meetings with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, followed 
by a luncheon meeting with a group of us with Condoleeza Rice, the 
National Security Adviser.
  The Congress is involved. It has been presented the evidence, and the 
President is engaging the American people with a thoughtful, sober, 
analytical presentation. And I have to confess great disappointment 
because if my colleagues turned on the television set Monday night, on 
the three national channels they found their usual programming, not to 
be interrupted by something so minor as the President of the United 
States addressing the world on one of the most serious subjects of the 
moment.
  I think overlooked in that speech to the American people Monday night 
was this fact, and the speech made it abundantly clear. Approving this 
resolution does not mean that immediate action is imminent or 
unavoidable. I am comforted by the fact that the President has advisers 
like Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice. 
They are going about this in the correct way, and I urge support for 
the Commander-in-Chief.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland 
Security.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in support of this resolution.
  The threat from Iraq is very real and increasingly dangerous. Saddam 
Hussein's belligerent intentions, and his

[[Page H7313]]

possession and ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction to 
fulfill those intentions, make him a clear and present danger to the 
United States and the world.
  Particularly worrisome is the evidence of Iraq's UAV capability. 
Iraq's ability to use uninhabited aerial vehicles to deliver biological 
and chemical weapons far outside its national borders represents a 
qualitative increase in the danger it poses. History demonstrates 
Saddam Hussein's willingness to use such weapons against unarmed 
civilians, including his own people; and it demonstrates his 
unhesitating instincts to invade his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, and to 
attack Israel.
  That he appears to quote Director Tenet's recent letter, ``to be 
drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks'' does not 
persuade me that he will not. He is impulsive, irrational, vicious and 
cruel. Unchecked, he will only grow stronger as he develops capability 
to match his disdain for America and his Middle East neighbors.
  History shows that had Israel not destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 
1981, Saddam Hussein would now have nuclear capability, but he did not 
cease his nuclear ambitions. Had coalition military forces not swept 
through Iraq in 1991, he would have possessed nuclear weapons by 1993.

                              {time}  1145

  The CIA now reports that Iraq is 1 year away from a functional 
nuclear device once it acquires fissile material. Waiting 1 hour, 1 
day, 1 month in such an environment, as some suggest, is too risky.
  The resolution we are considering is greatly improved from the draft 
the administration proposed, and I commend Leader Gephardt for 
negotiating these improvements. This resolution narrows the scope of 
action to the threats to national security posed by Iraq and enforcing 
compliance with U.N. resolutions.
  This resolution stresses a strong preference for peaceful and 
diplomatic action, authorizing the use of force only if peaceful 
options have failed.
  This resolution requires the President to comply with the War Powers 
Act and report regularly to Congress should military action become 
necessary, as well as after the use of force is completed.
  This resolution addresses post-disarmament Iraq and the role of the 
United States and the international community in rebuilding.
  And of crucial importance, this resolution requires the President to 
certify to Congress that action in Iraq will not dilute our ability to 
wage the war on terrorism.
  Removing WMD from Iraq is an important priority, but it cannot 
replace our counterterrorism efforts at home and abroad. We must ensure 
we do not divert attention from protecting our homeland, beginning with 
the creation of a Department of Homeland Security.
  We must also strengthen and expand programs and policies aimed at 
stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their 
components.
  Sentiment in my district is high, both in favor and in opposition to 
this resolution. I thank my constituents for sharing their views with 
me. I have listened carefully, learned as much as I could; and now it 
is time to lead. Like all my colleagues, I fervently hope that the U.S. 
will not need to use force, but the best chance to avoid military 
action is to show the U.N. and Iraq that we will not flinch from it.
  Giving diplomatic efforts every chance is the right policy, and this 
resolution gives diplomacy its maximum chance to succeed.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
who has done a great job not only regarding foreign operations, but 
also for her State of Michigan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the 435 who serve in this body, and the 100 in the other 
body, will shortly cast the most important vote of our career, should 
we send our young men and women to war. It is a decision not to be 
taken lightly, and I highly respect both sides of the argument. But I 
stand here today with a heavy heart because I am not able to support 
the resolution before us.
  September 11, 2001, the most dastardly deed ever imagined on a people 
was committed in this country. The terrorist threat is alive and well. 
It ought to be the number one priority of this country, of this 
President, to root out terrorism, to make sure we bring the culprit who 
planned, organized, and attacked our Nation to justice. We have not 
done that. Nothing should divert us from that.
  There has been no intelligence, no information given to this Member, 
and I might add my ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, that would say Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to 
America at this time. No information to the highest ranking Democrat on 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Does he have weapons? Can he harm? Yes, he can. The President went to 
the United Nations and spoke before 189 nations of the world not long 
ago, and the U.N. Security Council, which is composed of many 
countries, China, Russia, Germany, France and others, whose 
responsibility it is to act. And if a unilateral strike were necessary 
right now, do any of us believe that China, Russia, France, Germany, 
who are also a part of this world, would join with the United States? 
They have chosen not to do so. Therefore, that leaves the United States 
alone.
  Yes, we are the most powerful. Yes, this is a great country, and we 
want to remain that. I am very concerned that a unilateral first strike 
will upset the global economy, will upset the world. And what about the 
other 20-plus countries that have weapons of mass destruction? Can 
China then attack Taiwan? Can India then attack Pakistan? North Korea? 
South Korea? Where does it stop?
  The United States is the leader in the world, and we must show that 
leadership; and we do that by multilaterally acting with our allies, 
working together so we do not have the loss of 50,000, so that we will 
not have to spend $200 billion-plus of taxpayers' money, and so that we 
can then use it for health care and housing and prescription drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore the American citizens to look at the issue and 
to get to their Congressperson and Senator. Yes, we have to disarm 
Saddam Hussein. Yes, we have to go after the weapons of mass 
destruction. But we are the leaders of the free world, and we have no 
allies with us on this first strike.
  We ought to ask some questions here. What will be the consequences in 
the Middle East when America makes this first strike? What will be the 
cost to the world? How many lives will be lost? What resources are we 
going to pledge as we strike and then as we rebuild that part of the 
world? What will happen with Iran and Saudi Arabia? Will they sit idly 
by?
  If we pass this resolution in October and not go to war until 
February or March, what will happen in the interim to American 
businesses all over the world? Will they be safe?
  I urge my colleagues to look at some of these questions. There is no 
plan. Attack and then what? We have not been given a plan for striking 
nor a plan for exiting. I think that is wrong. And as Members of 
Congress who have pledged to represent over 600,000 people apiece, we 
owe our constituents that answer, these very same constituents whose 
sons and daughters will be on the front line risking their lives in a 
war where there has not yet been proven to be an imminent threat to our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next several hours I ask my constituents to 
please listen to the comments of our colleagues. And, again, I respect 
both sides; but I think my constituents sent this Member here to 
represent and to report to them, and what I am reporting today is that 
there is no information, no intelligence presented that either this 
Member or our ranking member on our Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our country 
today.
  Let the U.N. process work. Go in with unfettered inspections, and 
then let us make an intelligent response. Then multilaterally put the 
coalition together that we have to have to rid Iraq of weapons of mass 
destruction. But then also invest in America to save our health care 
institutions, to build new

[[Page H7314]]

schools. I am telling my colleagues, and America, to rise up, to speak 
out. The time is now.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), a member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about what will be the most 
difficult vote many of us will ever cast. The decision to authorize our 
President to use force is never an easy one. Leadership is never easy. 
Like many people in my district, I struggled with this decision. Just 
as I do not believe any of my constituents wants to go to war, I do not 
believe any person in this Chamber wants to go to war. But there are 
those in this world who may leave us no choice. They have already 
declared war on America. That is where we find ourselves today.
  Much has changed in our country since the attacks of September 11. We 
have awakened to a world in which the threats that existed before only 
outside of our borders are now very real inside of them. None of us 
will ever forget that day, the horror, and then explaining to our 
children how the most powerful Nation in the world, in a matter of 
seconds, became one of its most vulnerable.
  On September 11 we lost over 3,000 people. They were ordinary 
Americans going about the business of their lives when they became 
victims of the global war that terrorists have launched against 
America. They were not the first victims. Throughout the 1990s, al 
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations attacked our Nation. We did not 
heed the warning signs. We see these warning signs in Iraq now.
  Saddam Hussein has already used weapons of mass destruction against 
his own people and the people of Iran. He has systematically thwarted 
every attempt by the United Nations to conduct thorough inspections of 
his chemical, biological and nuclear arms-making capabilities. He has 
ignored a decade-plus of U.N. resolutions.
  The question now is how long do we wait? Do we wait for a dictator 
who has shown no limits in his willingness to flaunt international law, 
to killing innocent people? Do we wait to give al Qaeda or some other 
terrorist group a weapon of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has 
provided to them?
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our 
Nation and to the peace of this planet. He is a rogue leader seeking 
the world's deadliest weapons, and there is little doubt he will use 
them for his own evil purposes. Now is the time for the U.S. to lead, 
to demonstrate real leadership at the United Nations, to demonstrate 
our conviction and resolve to the dissidents in Iraq that we stand with 
them.
  By exercising leadership in the world community, we will send a 
powerful message to Saddam and terrorists that peace-loving nations and 
peace-loving people will not stand by silently as they threaten the 
values that we stand for. In times of crisis, America has always led. 
Now is the time for the President, for this Congress, and for America 
to once again show leadership in a dangerous world.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise not as a Democrat, but as an 
American who shares the belief with President Bush that, once and for 
all, the time has come to end the threat of Saddam Hussein and his 
weapons of mass destruction. For that reason, I intend to support the 
authorization of military force against Iraq, even as I hope and pray 
for peace.
  Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the murder and deaths of 
hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. How many more 
people, how many more innocent victims must die at his hands before the 
world finally says enough is enough?
  Saddam Hussein has built chemical and biological weapons. He has 
pursued the ultimate weapon of terror, a nuclear bomb. How many more 
weapons of mass destruction must he build before the world finally says 
enough is enough?
  There comes a time when a tyrant's repeated disdain for the rules of 
civilized society makes it necessary for society to protect itself. I 
say that time is now.
  Some of my colleagues in Congress say, in good faith, let us continue 
to try diplomacy with Saddam Hussein, and I respect their right to that 
view. Eleven years ago, I too had hoped diplomacy would have worked, in 
that case to stop Saddam Hussein from his unprovoked aggression against 
his neighbor, Kuwait. The Arab League tried diplomacy and failed. The 
European Community tried diplomacy and failed. The United Nations tried 
diplomacy and failed. And for 11 long years since, the world community, 
acting through the United Nations, has tried to use diplomacy to 
convince Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  1200

  Once again, the world community and diplomacy have failed.
  Is that failure the fault of the United States, the United Nations? 
Absolutely not. The fault lies squarely with one person and one person 
alone, Saddam Hussein. He is the guilty one, not us.
  The reality is that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist of historic 
proportions who has gassed his own citizens and killed his own 
neighbors. Now with his weapons of mass destruction he is a genuine 
threat to his declared enemy, the United States. Nothing, absolutely 
nothing Saddam Hussein has done since his invasion of Kuwait would 
suggest that his disrespect for the rules of civilized society has 
changed one iota. If anything, that disrespect has grown as he has 
arrogantly ignored U.N. resolution after resolution, year after year.
  Do I hope for peace without war? Fervently so. Because I represent 
40,000 soldiers in my district who may be sent off to that war, and I 
represent their families. Yet, sadly, 11 years of his actions suggest 
Saddam Hussein has no respect for the principles of diplomacy and 
peace.
  The responsibility to only use war as a last resort does not negate 
the profound obligation of the President and Congress to protect 
American citizens from weapons of mass destruction. The United States 
as the one superpower in the world has an abiding responsibility to 
ensure that the terrorist attacks of September 11 do not become a 
prelude for biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism either here or 
anywhere in the world.
  I respect President Bush, as I do his father, for standing up to the 
menace of Saddam Hussein. I applaud the President's recent challenge to 
the United Nations. The interest of our Nation and all nations will be 
served if the U.N. enforces its resolutions against Saddam Hussein and 
Iraq. But if the U.N. does not take decisive action, the threat posed 
by Saddam Hussein and Iraq does not go away.
  Tigers do not change their stripes, and Saddam Hussein has not 
changed his. Not in 11 years, and not now. He was a brutal dictator, a 
dangerous dictator over 11 years ago; and he is a brutal, dangerous 
dictator today. The reality is diplomacy has failed and delay could be 
dangerous. The time to act is now.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and a 
teacher for over 50 years. This is the gentlewoman's last term, and we 
appreciate her service to our country.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  As a woman of peace, I am compelled to rise in opposition to this 
resolution. I oppose this resolution as someone who loves this country 
very deeply. Perhaps one would have had to have grown up under 
segregation in the deep South, as I did, to truly appreciate how much 
this Nation means to me and how honored I am to serve my country in 
Congress.
  As one of the most senior Members of Congress, few have seen what I 
have seen in this Nation's history. I remember clearly the Japanese 
preemptive attack, or first strike, against the United States that 
plunged us into World War II. We called it a sneak attack and an act of 
cowardice. They called it a preemptive attack against a foreign enemy 
that threatened their interests.
  I also remember clearly when we went to war in South Korea, and after

[[Page H7315]]

50 years we are still in Korea. Since I have been in Congress these 
past 10 years, I have supported every Defense authorization and Defense 
appropriations bill, every one of them. I feel very strongly that we 
need a strong national defense, and we need to be prepared, and indeed 
we are.
  We are the strongest Nation in the world, and number two is not even 
close to us. I believe that our Nation sets the standard for the world. 
What we do and how we do it has a huge impact on the actions and things 
that other nations do. I also believe that we need a strong Presidency. 
I felt that way under President Clinton, and I feel that way under 
President Bush. However, we must use our power very carefully. We must 
set standards for other nations and promote our security, our interests 
and our goals. A strong chief executive should not be an all-powerful 
chief executive; strong, but not all-powerful.
  It is for these reasons I oppose this resolution.
  Are we in imminent danger of attack? The claims of proof are lacking. 
The media has reported today that the consensus of all relevant U.S. 
military intelligence agencies is that Saddam Hussein is unlikely to 
initiate an attack upon us. In fact, the relevant U.S. intelligence 
agencies have concluded that the major threat to the United States is 
not a first strike but the weapons of mass destruction against our 
invading troops.
  Is Saddam Hussein an enemy? Yes, he is. Is Saddam Hussein interested 
in military conquests? Unquestionably. Do we need to take action 
against him to dismantle any existing weapons and prevent the 
construction of others? Emphatically yes. But is he an imminent threat 
to the United States? The answer is, no. Such a serious threat that we 
have no choice but to immediately attack him? The President simply has 
not even come close to proving his case on that to me, representing 
over 600,000 people, or to the American people, nor have those who are 
promoting this war.
  Under such shaky justifications when we have other options, why are 
we in such a hurry to start a war? Why are there so many people beating 
the drums of war? My answer to this resolution is that we do not have 
clear evidence, we do not have a demonstrated imminent threat, and so 
we do not have a compelling reason to pass this resolution.
  As I said, I believe in a strong chief executive, but I also believe 
in a strong constitutional government. Only Congress has the authority 
under the Constitution to declare war. This resolution authorizes the 
use of force immediately regardless of our efforts to gain the support 
and assent of the other nations that share the world with us. I am 
certainly not willing to approve this blank check to give such power to 
any President, whether he be Democrat or Republican.
  As a leading member of the international community, the United States 
must live and get along with and set example for the other nations of 
the world. If we claim the right to attack other nations on our own, 
what would we do when other nations claim that same right and then act 
upon it? The world is filled with nations that already have weapons of 
mass destruction and that already have hate and fear their neighbors. 
How would we contain the preemptive attacks by other countries that 
would be justified by our own actions? Such attacks could even be 
directed against us.
  Finally, I believe we should fully and aggressively utilize every 
diplomatic option available to us. We have worked with the United 
Nations in the past, and we can do it again.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the world of President William McKinley. The 
real and imminent threat to our Nation is from terrorism, not from 
other nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

                    Analysts Discount Attack by Iraq


                    counterattack is called possible

                            (By Dana Priest)

       Unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Iraqi President 
     Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or 
     biological attack against the United States, intelligence 
     agencies concluded in a classified report given to select 
     senators last week.
       However, the report added, ``should Saddam conclude that a 
     US-led attack could no longer be deterred,'' he might launch 
     a chemical-biological counterattack. Hussein might ``decide 
     that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in 
     conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against 
     the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance 
     by taking a large number of victims with him.''
       The assessment was first made in a classified National 
     Intelligence Estimate, which includes the analysis and 
     opinions of all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies, that was 
     given to the Senate intelligence committee last week. A 
     declassified ``white paper'' on Iraq was released days later. 
     At the urging of the committee, which is controlled by 
     Democrats, additional portions of the classified intelligence 
     report were declassified by the CIA Monday and released last 
     night.
       With lawmakers poised to vote this week on a resolution 
     giving President Bush authority to attack Iraq, the new 
     intelligence report offers grist both for supporters and 
     critics of the administration's policy. The CIA assessment 
     appears to suggest that an attack on Iraq could provoke the 
     very thing the president has said he is trying to forestall; 
     the use of chemical or biological weapons by Hussein.
       But the CIA also declassified other elements of analysis 
     that seem to back up the president's assertion that Iraq has 
     active ties to al Qaeda--a growing feature of the 
     administration's case for considering military action.
       Among the intelligence assessments linking Iraq with al 
     Qaeda is ``credible reporting'' that the group's ``leaders 
     sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD 
     capabilities,'' according to a letter to senators from CIA 
     Director George J. Tenet.
       Tenet added: ``Iraq's increasing support to extremist 
     Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a 
     relationship'' with al Qaeda ``suggest Baghdad's links to 
     terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.''
       In his speech to the nation Monday night, Bush said: ``Iraq 
     could decide on any given day to provide a biological or 
     chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual 
     terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi 
     regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.''
       The letter's release shed light on a behind-the-scenes 
     battle over Iraq-related intelligence. The CIA's detailed, 
     unvarnished view of the threat posed by Iraq is central, say 
     many lawmakers, to how they will vote on the matter. Yet an 
     increasing number of intelligence officials, including former 
     and current intelligence agency employees, are concerned the 
     agency is tailoring its public stance to fit the 
     administration's views.
       The CIA works for the president, but its role is to provide 
     him with information untainted by political agendas.
       Caught in the tug of war over intelligence, say former 
     intelligence officials familiar with current CIA intelligence 
     and analysis on Iraq, has been the CIA's rank and file, and 
     to some extent, Tenet.
       ``There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the CIA to 
     substantiate positions that have already been adopted by the 
     administration,'' said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of 
     counterterrorism at the CIA.
       Tenet last night released a statement that was meant to 
     dispel assertions that the letter contained new information 
     that would undercut the case Bush made in his speech.
       ``There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's 
     growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in 
     this speech,'' the statement read. ``Although we think the 
     chances of Saddam initiating a WMD attack at this moment are 
     low--in part because it would constitute an admission that he 
     possesses WMD--there is no question that the likelihood of 
     Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in 
     the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as 
     his arsenal continues to build.''
       In explaining why the items in the letter were not also 
     released before, Tenet said he did not want to provide 
     ``Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and 
     shortcomings, or with insight into our expectations of how he 
     will and will not act.''
       Still, he noted, the agency could nevertheless declassify 
     further information not previously disclosed. Included in his 
     letter were snippets of an Oct. 2 closed-door session.
       Included in that was questioning by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-
     Mich.), in which he asked an unnamed intelligence official 
     whether it ``is likely that [Hussein] would initiate an 
     attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
       The official answered: ``.  .  . in the foreseeable future, 
     given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I 
     think would be low.''
       Levin asked: ``If we initiate an attack and he thought he 
     was in extremis .  .  . what's the likelihood in response to 
     our attack that he would use chemical or biological 
     weapons?''
       The answer came: ``Pretty high, in my view.''
       In his letter, Tenet responded to senators' questions about 
     Iraq's connections to al Qaeda. ``We have sold reporting of 
     senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Quada going back a 
     decade,'' Tenet wrote. ``Credible information'' also 
     indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda ``have discussed safe haven 
     and reciprocal non-aggression.''

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire about the division of 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Illinois

[[Page H7316]]

(Mr. Hyde) has 1 hour 47 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) has 1 hour 25 minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has 1 hour 2 minutes remaining; and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 44\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) for not only his leadership as chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence but also for the gentleman's 
leadership in the debate on this issue on this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but I want to take 
a moment to thank my colleagues who seek a peaceful solution to this 
crisis. I, too, would prefer peace to war.
  As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Andrew Jackson in 1806, ``Always a 
friend to peace, and believing it to promote the happiness and 
prosperity of mankind, I am ever unwilling that it should be disturbed, 
as long as the rights and interests of the Nation can be preserved.''
  Jefferson went on to say in this letter, when our rights and 
interests are threatened, ``we must meet our duty and convince the 
world that we are just friends and brave enemies.''
  Mr. Speaker, the rights and the interests of our Nation are 
threatened today. Voting to send our military into battle, even 
potential battle, is among the hardest things we will do as Members of 
Congress. It is not a duty to take lightly. However, I have come to the 
realization that there are times when such votes are necessary. This is 
one of those times.
  The threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and 
his growing ties to the networks of international terror cannot be 
underestimated and should not be ignored. Willful blindness to this 
threat will not make it go away.
  In a little more than a decade, we have sent our Armed Forces to war 
on behalf of the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Somalis, the Bosnians, and 
the Kosovars. Some in our military made the ultimate sacrifice.
  It may soon prove necessary to send our troops to war on behalf and 
in defense of the American people. I cannot in good conscience ignore 
the dangers posed by Iraq to my constituents, including the servicemen 
and women who call North Carolina home. Inaction on our part may very 
well be more costly to our Nation than action. The threat is real.
  As a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I have heard 
testimony from countless officials on the status of our Nation's 
preparation for chemical and biological attacks. I know firsthand the 
need to eliminate this threat while we continue with our preparation.
  As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have 
reviewed the evidence of Iraqi's weapons programs and its increasing 
ties to international terror. I have participated in countless hearings 
on the terror threat and the state of the war against terrorism. I have 
seen, heard and read things that keep me awake at night.
  Iraq brings the dangers of chemical and biological weapons, their 
use, and international terrorism together in one clear, defined threat. 
Addressing this threat is mandated by our duty to protect our Nation's 
rights and interests.
  The reason for my support of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is simple. 
No matter how well we protect our borders, increase our military 
spending and strengthen our intelligence community, we cannot secure 
our homeland without eliminating the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons 
present to America and to the world. We must find them. We must destroy 
them. We must be prepared to take action when the international 
community will not, and we must fulfill our duty.
  I will conclude with President Jefferson's letter to John Adams in 
September 1821. ``The flames kindled on the 4th of July, 1776, have 
spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble 
engine of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines 
and all who work them.''
  One wonders what President Jefferson would say about the weapons 
available to our enemies on this day at this time. Today, the bright 
flames of July 4th find themselves in struggle with the dark fires of 
September 11. Those fires, lit by the enemies of freedom, cannot be 
allowed to prevail. Will we allow them to advance, possibly in the 
ashes of a nuclear holocaust, or will we extinguish them before they 
gain a foothold? Those dark fires may not have been lit in Baghdad, but 
they are certainly fanned from that city.
  It is time to extinguish those fires. The evidence is clear, the 
cause is just, and timing is of the essence. We must give our President 
the tools he needs to protect our Nation, our interests, and our 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

                              {time}  1215

  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), for yielding me this time, and the chairman of our committee. 
We have had an interesting several months together and not all fun; but 
it is a very, very serious thing.
  I would like to start off my comments by saying that this Member, 
although I am a veteran, as many are here, I am not a hawk, I am not a 
dove. I am a concerned American who wants our country and our people to 
be safe. I have had some of those sleepless nights. I think of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I think of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the price he paid. I think of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson) and many others who have served and know something as 
well as I what it is like to face war. It is not a good thing.
  I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 
I have tried to prepare myself with knowledge and information, and some 
things I am convinced of and I would share with you today. I am 
convinced that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. I am 
convinced that he has the chemical and biological and he wants very 
badly to have the nuclear; and given a chance, he will have them. I am 
convinced that he would use them. He is a despot. No question about it 
in my mind. But he would not only use them, I think he would make them 
available to others if they came to buy or he would even give them to 
them.
  So I am very concerned about this, and I have had my sleepless 
nights. It almost reminds me of some of the times going into a major 
operation when I was in Vietnam. It was pretty hard to sleep when we 
knew that lives would be lost that next day and we might have to write 
the letters to the next of kin, the moms, the dads and the husbands, 
the spouses about how their son paid the supreme sacrifice that day.
  I served 20 years, served a couple of tours over in NATO. I know 
something about the international relationship that needs to be there 
as we go into this world that we live in today. It is a very, very 
serious matter, and I have no quarrel with those that have spoken just 
as the last speaker. I respect that. But I am concerned about the 
tomorrow for my children and my grandchildren.
  I know that when I went to Vietnam, I settled my family there in a 
little farm there in southern Iowa the night before I was to leave. My 
little daughter, who now has a teen-age child, came out to the yard 
where my wife and I were sitting and having kind of a quiet moment as 
the sun was going on. She said, Daddy don't go. So I said, Sweetheart, 
I'm a soldier. I have to go. She said, Please don't go. I am afraid. 
Think about this, your own child: I am afraid you may not come back. So 
I tried to give her assurance as I had the first time I had gone that I 
would come back. Lucky for me, I did; but everybody did not come back. 
So I understand that this is one of the most serious things we deal 
with.

[[Page H7317]]

  I had the occasion to get invited over to the White House 2 weeks ago 
tomorrow with several of my colleagues. Some of my colleagues might be 
listening. And I was one of the four or five that the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a few 
were there and others to have dialogue with the President. And I said 
to the President I think that he is right, that the U.N. ought to lead 
on this. That is their charter and their responsibility. But they might 
not. If he really believes hard facts that Saddam has had his finger on 
the trigger or he may have, we have to deal with this, but let us have 
the American people behind this.
  I will give a contrast. When we sent our troops off to Desert Storm, 
the communities were behind the troops when they left, when they were 
there, and they brought them back. By contrast I said, Mr. President, I 
went to Vietnam twice. The American people were not behind us. It was 
pretty tough to go and give everything we had to fulfill the commitment 
that we were given, the mission to give all we had and not have the 
American people behind us. And they were not.
  And I said, Mr. President, remember how we left Vietnam? We were 
thrown out. I remember the scene, people falling off the helicopters 
trying to get out of the embassy. But what did we bring back? We 
brought back 56,000 body bags, and some of us have put people in those 
body bags and carried them back to the collection point. But the 
American people were not with us.
  So if he commits our troops, have good cause, have his facts straight 
and tell the American people. He has been doing that. I think there has 
been a constant stream, Mr. Speaker, going over to the White House to 
talk about this; and I think that his speech and the other things he 
has done, his trip to the United Nations, he is making the efforts to 
do what is right, and I hope he is being straightforward and honest 
about it. I accept his statement that he said to us, to me, ``The last 
thing I want to do is to send our troops into harm's way.''
  I am accepting that and I am also saying to the President that it is 
up to him in his position as leader, President, Commander in Chief, 
that he keep the American people informed that they understand and that 
they know that this country is doing this because we want to preserve 
it safely for our future, for our children, my grandchildren, my teen-
age grandchild. Cindy who was so worried about her dad going, of 
course, is concerned about her son and others across this country.
  If he is the person we think he is, then we have to be ready to tell 
him do not do it or the consequences will be severe, and that is what 
has brought me from this point today from undecided and walking the 
floor to say that I will support this resolution. It is a hard 
decision, but it is one we have to make. And I am proud to have served 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), as I see him on 
the floor now, and the others I have mentioned. But our country is a 
precious thing, and we have to save it for the future; and this is our 
moment to deal with this now.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez). She is the ranking member on the Committee on 
Small Business, a spokesperson for women and minority businesses.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 114. This so-called compromise resolution on Iraq is 
not compromise at all, but a blank check to give President Bush 
unprecedented power to launch preemptive war on Iraq. There is no 
justification for such an action, and the case that the administration 
has made is suspect at best. Even though we are engaged in a war on 
terrorism, here we are today, no mention of Osama bin Laden, no mention 
of how this resolution accomplishes the goal we all stood unified on 1 
year ago.
  Not only has the case not been made to the American people, we have 
not made the case to the international community, and we cannot go it 
alone. We cannot act unilaterally. We must work closely with the United 
Nations and other countries in the global community. Without them we 
cannot move towards a new, more peaceful world.
  We need to be mindful that we were able to act quickly and decisively 
during the Gulf War because we stood as a world community. Today we 
stand alone. Is Saddam Hussein evil? Absolutely. But we have not been 
shown that there is an imminent threat compelling us to act. We know 
what an imminent threat looks like. We saw it during the Cuban Missile 
Crisis, in the buildup to the Six-Day War in the Middle East, and when 
Iraqi tanks poised on the border with Kuwait in 1990. By contrast, the 
evidence here looks more like the Gulf of Tonkin.
  War is our last resort, not our first option. The United States must 
exhaust all diplomatic channels before waging another war. The 
President needs to work closely with the international community to 
demand completely unfettered inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction programs. With continued pressure from the world's only 
superpower, we can pressure the Iraqi Government to allow United 
Nations inspectors in so we can know exactly what Saddam Hussein has in 
his weapons arsenal before we act. At this time we do not have such 
firm information, only the past record of the Iraqi regime. If we did 
have this information and if this government consults with, rather than 
dictates to, our allies and the international community, only then 
could we act against the threat that Iraq poses.
  We do need to act, but we do not need to rush into war. War is one 
answer, but it is not the only answer. Will war solve the Iraqi problem 
and wipe out terrorism in the world as we know it? Maybe, but probably 
not. Our actions may simply spur greater resentment against our 
increasingly imperial power, producing an endless stream of new enemies 
finding new and terrifying ways to attack us.
  What we must do at this critical juncture in our Nation's history is 
to affirm American values of peace, justice, and democracy. These 
values are what brought this country to the preeminent position as the 
``indispensable Nation,'' and they are the reason why we embody the 
hopes and aspirations of people around the world. We must not let them 
down. We demonstrate our peaceful intent by pursuing diplomatic means 
to pressure the Iraqi regime. We may pursue justice by seeking an 
indictment of Saddam Hussein for war crimes in the International 
Criminal Court, and we must affirm our democratic values by consulting 
allies and working with the United Nations to resolve this crisis. But 
the enumeration of Iraq's past crimes, concerns over preemption and our 
place in the world, pale when compared to the reality of sending our 
young men and women into harm's way. We know that some of them will 
die.
  Before we vote to send them to war, we must be able to look in the 
eyes of the mothers and fathers whose sons and daughters have died for 
us and tell them that their sacrifice was worth it. I cannot do that 
today in good conscience, and that is why I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support President Bush and 
this resolution to authorize the use of force to defend the national 
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by 
Iraq. It is important to note that the thrust of the resolution is to 
remove the capability from Saddam Hussein to deliver weapons of mass 
destruction. The oppressive regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is 
a clear and present danger to international peace and stability, 
particularly to the United States. The threat to the national security 
of the United States is real.
  For 11 years Saddam has systematically violated United Nations 
Security Council resolutions. We know that Iraq is aggressively 
pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction, supporting 
international terrorism, including harboring terrorists and repressing 
minorities within Iraq.
  However, I am most troubled by the Iraqi regime's persistent efforts 
to acquire biological, chemical, and nuclear

[[Page H7318]]

weapons, as well as long-range missiles. In a report released by the 
CIA last week, the intelligence community confirmed that since U.N. 
inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has continued its determined efforts to 
maintain a chemical weapons capability, invested heavily in developing 
biological weapons, rebuilt missile facilities, and is working to build 
unmanned aerial vehicles as a lethal means to deliver biological and 
chemical agents. Moreover, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is intent on 
acquiring nuclear weapons. Experts believe that if the Iraq regime can 
get its hands on highly enriched uranium, it is very likely that Iraq 
could build a nuclear weapon in less than a year. This is a threat we 
cannot allow to mature.

                              {time}  1230

  Iraq's obstruction of U.N. inspectors and extensive efforts to hide 
its mass destruction efforts seem to make it obvious that the current 
regime cannot be trusted. Let there be no mistake about it. As the 
number one target of Saddam Hussein's wrath, there is no question as to 
who these dangerous weapons would be used against; that is, the United 
States and our friends. The cost of inaction will be paid for with the 
blood of innocent Americans.
  In addition to the fact that our military is targeted almost daily by 
the Iraqi military in the no-fly zones, the Iraqi regime has engaged in 
despicable acts. They attempted to assassinate former President George 
Bush and the Emir of Kuwait and have offered rewards to the families of 
suicide bombers. Not only does Iraq harbor international terrorist 
organizations such as al Qaeda, Abu Nidal and the MEK, the Iraqi regime 
has direct links to international terrorist groups and continues to 
provide support, training and resources to terrorists.
  President Bush has demonstrated unambiguous and forceful leadership 
in addressing the Iraqi threat. He has clearly explained the threat the 
current Iraqi dictator poses in the world and made a very strong case 
for the need for a regime change in Iraq. The President stated his case 
before the United Nations and has reached out to an international 
coalition of partners who share our concerns about the current regime 
in Iraq.
  The American people can show by support of this resolution that we 
stand 100 percent behind the President of the United States to remove 
the capability of delivery of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam 
Hussein. I urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished friend from 
California, a Vietnam decorated veteran, the Top Gun.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I was unable to finish my discussion. 
I hate not being in control. But I would like to finish it at this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if you take every emotion you have ever felt, of love, 
anger, hate, it swells up in a person. If you can imagine what it is 
like to see a friend or friends go down in flames, and even more know 
how that is going to affect the families, this vote rips my heart out.
  But, yet, being on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and 
the Committee on Armed Services, I would tell my friends that disagree, 
I believe with every fiber in my heart that it is necessary to give the 
President the flexibility to stop not only terrorists but Saddam 
Hussein, because I believe that threat will reach the shores of the 
United States.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Technical and Tactical Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Members of this body are called to face an 
awesome challenge and a very perplexing dilemma. We must decide whether 
or not to authorize the President to use the Armed Forces of the United 
States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to defend the 
national security of the United States against the continuing threat 
posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq.
  The measure requires that before military action is begun or as soon 
thereafter as feasible, but not later than 48 hours, the President must 
report to Congress that all diplomatic efforts to protect the security 
of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce all 
relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq have been exhausted.
  The resolution also requires that the President must report to the 
Congress that military action against Iraq is consistent with our 
continued actions against international terrorists, including those 
responsible for 9/11.
  The resolution states that it is consistent with the War Powers Act 
and constitutes specific authorization within the meaning of the War 
Powers Act.
  It states that Congress supports the President's efforts to strictly 
enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant 
Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in 
those efforts, supports his efforts to obtain prompt and decisive 
action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its 
strategy of delay, evasion, noncompliance and promptly and strictly 
complies with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions.
  It requires the President at least once every 60 days to report to 
the Congress on the matters relevant to this resolution, including the 
use of force and on efforts to support Iraq's transition to democracy 
after Saddam Hussein is gone.
  I intend to support the resolution. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that 
Saddam Hussein has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents and 
used them against Iran and 40 Iraqi villages. He has rebuilt facilities 
that were used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons in 
violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War. He possesses 
ballistic missiles with a range great enough to strike Saudi Arabia, 
Israel, Turkey and other nations in the region, where more than 135,000 
American civilians and service personnel now live and work.
  He has a fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be 
used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. It 
would not take sophisticated delivery systems to deliver these chemical 
and biological agents to harm the 135,000 Americans I have cited.
  We do not know the extent of his nuclear weapons development since he 
threw out the inspectors 4 years ago, but we do know he was just months 
away from success; and in spite of U.N. prohibitions, he has continued 
his quest. He has had 4 years of unrestricted freedom to pursue his 
nasty goals.
  We know that, as good as our intelligence community is, 9/11 and 
numerous inquiries thereafter have proven that our intelligence 
community is not perfect. We need unfettered, unrestricted 
international inspections to get accurate information on compliance or 
noncompliance.
  History is replete with evidence that, without a show of force, 
Saddam will not respond. I believe that empowering the President to use 
Armed Forces to assure that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction 
to threaten the lives of American civilians and service members and 
innocent neighbors or to give terrorists, this will give Secretary 
Powell the strength that he needs to get a strong U.N. resolution.
  When he goes to the Security Council, he needs to be carrying a big 
stick, speaking with unquestioned resolve of the Congress and the 
American people.
  I do not take lightly the risks that our sons and daughters will be 
sent into harm's way. I do not take lightly the unprecedented 
probability of unilateral action by the United States, but we live in a 
new and different and dangerous time, and the threat of weapons of mass 
destruction demand that we take unprecedented actions to protect 
America, her people and civilized nations from the death and 
destruction of a Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the adoption of the resolution. I support the 
Spratt substitute, but there must be verification, there must be 
inspections; and the time to assure the safety of Americans, and the 
safety of the world, is now.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on

[[Page H7319]]

Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I share the same revulsion that many 
others have toward Saddam Hussein. We all know that he is brutal and 
that his regime has terrorized the Iraqi people and the peoples of 
nearby countries.
  But there was a time not so long ago when, despite all of this, we 
chose to allow him to be our friend. There was a time when we supplied 
him with chemical weapons and other military technology.
  If our Nation really cared about Iraq's neighbors, we would never 
have supplied him the military arsenal that we did. And if we really 
cared about his people, we would have done something to alleviate the 
suffering of the Kurds, who for years have been brutalized by the Iraqi 
military. If we cared about the Iraqi people, we would have done 
something to lift the burdens imposed on them by U.N. sanctions, which 
to date have claimed in excess of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children. 
But the truth is we did not really care about any of that suffering. 
Madeline Albright even said that the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi 
children was worth it.
  Now, however, we claim to care.
  Now, Saddam Hussein has just become another name on a long list of 
other tyrants who we once aided and abetted but now oppose.
  But what to do? In the past, other tyrants we have grown tired of 
were assassinated, like Jonas Savimbi; or charged with war crimes, like 
Slobodan Milosevic; or forced from power through U.S.-backed uprisings, 
like Mobutu Sese Seko.
  President Bush is confronted with the ``what to do question.'' He 
appears to be choosing war to get rid of this tyrant; and, of course, 
he has to justify it. That is the public relations part of the 
equation.
  The words ``Gulf of Tonkin'' have echoed around Washington this last 
month, with many people concerned that the Bush Administration is now 
manufacturing an international crisis in order to launch a preemptive 
military strike against Saddam Hussein.
  In 1964, there were some courageous Members of this House who knew 
that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a political ruse being used by the 
Johnson administration in order to justify the United States going to 
war in Vietnam. For their courage to speak out and resist, they 
suffered a tidal wave of public ridicule. But we now know that they 
were right and that the Vietnam War was a monumental mistake that cost 
the lives of some 60,000 brave young Americans and hundreds of 
thousands of Vietnamese.
  And, still, we have many Americans and Vietnamese who suffer the 
health effects of Agent Orange and other toxins faced on the 
battlefield. And all across the American and European landscape today, 
veterans still suffer from Gulf War Syndrome and exposure to depleted 
uranium.
  Will we let this President create yet another generation of veterans 
to whom we have broken our promise? I see too many of these veterans 
sleeping on our streets. The President can see them, too, if he would 
just look. They sleep on the sidewalks, the benches and the heating 
vents just across the street from the White House. And, sadly, one of 
the first things our President did after he declared this war on 
terrorism was to deprive our young men and women who are now fighting 
on the front lines of their high deployment overtime pay. He does not 
even want to pay them.
  Mr. Speaker, do we give this President the green light to go to war 
with Iraq based on evidence which many weapons experts believe to be 
exaggerated? Are we now turning a blind eye to another Gulf of Tonkin-
type incident? Should we not trust the legal and diplomatic means of 
the United Nations?
  Do we give the President the green light to go to war in Iraq because 
it has refused to comply with U.N. Security Council weapons inspections 
resolutions? At the same time, Israel refuses to comply with U.N. 
resolutions with respect to the occupied territories. Do we have 
different standards for different countries?
  Mr. Speaker, the Cuban missile crisis and the Gulf of Tonkin, if they 
taught us anything, they taught us the dangers of choosing the military 
option over diplomatic and legal alternatives.
  The current terrorist crisis confronting our Nation is so much bigger 
and more complicated than this call for war on Iraq. Should we 
miscalculate our military actions in Iraq, we could cause many American 
servicemen and women to lose their lives. Needless to say, we could 
also cause untold numbers of Iraqis to be killed or injured. Worse 
still, instead of solving the current threat of terrorism against us, 
going to war in Iraq might well make things far worse for us, both at 
home and abroad.
  I hope and pray that we choose our options carefully; and, for that 
reason, I will be voting no on this resolution to go to war in Iraq.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our national security 
and in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker I rise today to join my colleagues that are in support of 
this resolution.
  Last year there were two very significant events in my life--one was 
the birth of my first grandchild, Emerson Ann. The second was the 
September 11th attack on our Nation. both of these events had a deep 
impact on me personally.
  I want for Emerson Ann what every parent wants for their children, 
and what every grandparent wants for their grandchildren, an 
environment where she is able to grow up secure and safe, living the 
experience of freedom upon which our Nation was founded. September 11th 
reminded us that in order to protect freedom we must not turn a blind 
eye to the real dangers around the World in hopes that they will not 
affect us.
  After numerous briefings on Iraq and the activities of its leader--
Saddam Hussein--there is no doubt in my mind that he is clear and 
present danger to the United States and freedom loving people around 
the World.
  The evidence mounts with each passing day. Many analysts believe that 
Iraq may be, or become, a breeding ground and source of support for 
terrorism. Iraq retains its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, 
and there is strong evidence that it is also developing nuclear 
weapons. There is no way of knowing for sure the extent of Iraq's plans 
or capabilities, since U.N. weapons. There is no way of knowing for 
sure the extent of Iraq's plans or capabilities, since U.N. weapons 
inspectors were forced out of the country in 1998, and since Iraq's 
current government seems committed to hiding weapons of mass 
destruction, delaying the return of inspectors, and making inspection 
efforts ineffective.
  Saddam Hussein governs his country by de facto dictatorship, and has 
a long history of human rights abuses against his own people. And, 
based on the actions of Iraq's current government under Hussein, it 
would be shortsighted and naive to assume that Iraq's intentions 
through his actions are benign.
  I believe that a regime change in Iraq is in the best interest of the 
United States and our allies. And, I believe that, as we have done 
throughout our history, the United States must one again display our 
leadership in the fight against terrorism throughout the World and 
eliminate the threat to security imposed by Iraq.
  While this resolution authorizes military action, I will hold out 
hope that it will be used only as a last resort.
  History has taught us that freedom is not free.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to the United States 
House of Representatives, I took an oath to protect and defend the 
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Fortunately, 
in my 10 years in Congress, we have had few opportunities to vote on 
authorizing the use of military force to protect our country from these 
enemies. Authorization of military force is one of the most solemn 
decisions that we can make as Members of Congress, and it is a decision 
that must be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration.
  Our Nation now faces a clear and present danger from the regime of 
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Saddam has been without international 
supervision; and I have received information, both from public and from 
classified hearings, that suggests that the Iraqi regime could be 
merely months

[[Page H7320]]

away from attaining the necessary resources to complete his mission of 
developing nuclear weapons.
  Saddam has made it clear that he will do whatever is necessary to 
prohibit inspections of his compounds for the purpose of determining 
the extent to which he has stockpiled the necessary components to 
produce these weapons. He has the technology and the know-how to build 
such a device. All that he lacks is materials. The Intelligence 
community says that Iraq is 3 to 5 years away from developing a nuclear 
device if it has to produce its own nuclear bomb material, and months 
away if it acquires this material from outside sources. The problem is, 
we do not know when the clock started on either scenario.
  Additionally, Saddam's government has repeatedly violated the 1991 
cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War and Iraq's 
obligation to unconditionally disarm its weapons of mass destruction. 
Not only does Saddam Hussein continue to halt the will of the 
international community with regard to inspections, he continues to 
shoot at coalition aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly 
zones daily.
  For us not to recognize the clear and present danger that the Iraqi 
regime of Saddam Hussein represents to our country would be tragically 
wrong. We must protect and defend our Nation against this madman and 
his ability to destroy tens of thousands of Americans.
  The resolution authorizing the use of military force that we are 
considering today gives the President the flexibility and authority he 
needs to protect the American people while, at the same time, 
preserving the prerogatives of Congress.
  The findings at the beginning of this resolution offer more than 
enough evidence of Saddam Hussein's crimes. The authorization in 
section 3 has been appropriately modified in a bipartisan manner. It 
authorizes the use of military force as the President determines 
necessary and appropriate to: ``(1), defend the national security of 
the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2), 
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions 
regarding Iraq.''
  The resolution also requires a timely ``presidential determination'' 
that all means short of war have been exhausted, and that acting 
pursuant to this authorization is consistent with ongoing activities in 
the war against terrorism.
  Finally, this resolution contains reporting requirements to ensure 
that Congress and the American people are fully apprised on all matters 
relevant to this resolution and that both are full partners in an 
effort to rid the United States of the Iraqi threat.
  Mr. Speaker, September 11 changed our country and the world forever. 
For all of these reasons, I intend to vote in favor of the resolution 
and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), for yielding me this time.
  I want to begin by quoting General William Sherman in the Civil War 
who simply stated, ``War is hell.'' And I can also say, having visited 
the Pentagon the night of the attacks on September 11 and visiting New 
York City at Ground Zero just a few days after the attacks, that 
terrorism is hell; and the pain and agony that that has inflicted on 
our country, on men and women and children and families, has been 
excruciating. And this resolution that we debate in this Chamber today 
and will vote on tomorrow is one of the most difficult, heart-stabbing, 
gut-wrenching votes that one can cast.
  My first vote as a freshman was on the Persian Gulf War, which had 
something to do with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, and now one of my 
last votes will be on war. And in between, we have had votes on Somalia 
and Kosovo and Bosnia, and we have had a vote to declare war on 
terrorism. These are difficult, excruciating votes that I think every 
Member in this body takes extremely seriously.
  I will vote in favor of the President's resolution for three reasons. 
One is because of the chemical and biological and nuclear threat that 
Saddam Hussein poses with these weapons. I have to say that I do not 
think the administration has made the case with connections to al 
Qaeda, nor have they made the case with connections to 9-11. But I 
think in a compelling and convincing fashion, we must, in post-9-11 
concern, be very aware of how these weapons can be used against the 
United States, even in America, against our allies in the region, and 
all over the world.
  When airplanes filled with people and gasoline can be commandeered 
and flown into our buildings in America, we can only imagine what can 
be done, not just with a vial of smallpox that Saddam Hussein or some 
other terrorist group may have, but we are talking about a few hundred 
metric tons of chemical weapons that Iraq possesses. We are talking 
about, and I quote from a declassified CIA report: ``Baghdad has begun 
renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including 
mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX.'' It goes on to say, ``Saddam 
probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.'' Finally, 
``All key aspects: research and development, production, and 
weaponization, of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and most 
elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf 
War.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a compelling concern, this is a present danger, 
this is grave and growing.
  Now, I think that is the evidence that we are voting on today. I 
think that is the reason for our resolution going forward.
  Secondly, I am voting for this because this resolution has gone in a 
more positive direction from when the Bush administration first 
introduced it. It is narrowed in scope to Iraq instead of broadly 
applying to the region. It applies to try to put together diplomatic 
and multilateral efforts. These, Mr. President, should be exhaustive 
before we engage in war in Baghdad or in Iraq. I think this resolution 
has moved in a positive direction in terms of engagement and 
consultation with Congress and the War Powers Act. So that is the 
second reason I intend to vote for this.
  Mr. Speaker, thirdly, 15 days after Desert Storm ended in 1991, the 
U.N. started passing one of its 16 resolutions to say we must look into 
Iraq and inspect the sites where they are developing these weapons. 
That has been ignored for the past 10 years. Not only has it been 
ignored, but Saddam Hussein said, you will not look, you will not 
investigate, you will not inspect these compounds, presidential 
palaces, so-called compounds, some of which are 12.5 square miles. The 
city of D.C. is 67 square miles. That is a fifth of the size of our 
Nation's Capital of one compound that Saddam Hussein does not want our 
inspectors or the world community anywhere near.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats said in their policy platform of the year 
2000, we did not talk about preemptive strikes; we talked about forward 
engagement as part of our foreign policy to try to stop, whether it be 
in the environment or in war, bad things from happening. Let us exhaust 
our diplomatic means, but let us use the force of war and the threat of 
war with Saddam Hussein to open up these compounds and these 
presidential palaces and have the world look at these sites and rid 
Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time on 
this very important issue that we debate.
  There are many things that make me proud to be an American. One of 
them is to be here today to be able to debate this issue. As my 
previous colleague stated when he quoted a general that said that war 
is hell, take it from somebody that has been there. Thirty-five years 
ago, I found myself half a world away in a place called Vietnam. I can 
tell my colleagues that war is hell. There are a lot of us here today 
that have had that same experience, but are taking different positions 
on this resolution. Some of my colleagues have asked why, when they 
hear my

[[Page H7321]]

friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), 
talk about his experience and his favoring in support of the 
resolution.
  I will tell my colleagues that I intend to vote against this 
resolution. I intend to do so because in meetings I have held in my 
district, mothers and fathers and veterans come to me and tell me, 
please, do not let us get back into a war without exhausting all other 
avenues. I think every one of us in this House brings our own 
experiences as we represent our constituents. Every one of us here 
wrestles with a very tough decision as to whether or not to go forward 
with a resolution on war. Every one of us understands that we are a 
nation of laws, that we lead the world by example, that we have a great 
respect for process and to protect the rights of everyone.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly today rise in opposition 
against this resolution, because I think that the President has not 
made a case as to why Iraq and why attack Saddam Hussein. As a member 
of the Committee on Intelligence, I have asked consistently the 
questions to those that have come before us with information, I have 
asked the question of what is the connection between 9-11 and Iraq and 
Saddam Hussein. None.

                              {time}  1300

  What is the connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda? 
Very little, if any.
  As to the weapons of mass destruction, the delivery systems and all 
of these things, we have clearly heard that there is a lot of 
speculation about those capabilities.
  Last week, I was part of a group of colleagues that met with a 
retired general that was in charge of this conflicted area of our 
world. He was asking the same question that we were: Why Iraq, and why 
Saddam Hussein?
  In fact, when we asked him to list in priority order a war against 
Iraq and Saddam Hussein, he listed it as his seventh priority. When we 
asked him, what would you do in our situation, he was as perplexed as 
we are being in this situation.
  September 11 changed things. I concede that. More than that, for me 
personally being a first-time grandfather changed things as well. I 
bring to this position and to this decision the experience that I 
brought as a Member of Congress.
  My staff asked me, Congressman, what are you going to say to the 
troops? Because I have taken the opportunity to go out and visit our 
troops in Afghanistan three times since Easter. I know the conditions 
they are living in, and I know the conditions they are fighting in. 
Those are similar to the same conditions of some 35 years ago. War is 
hell, and we ought to exhaust every single possible remedy before going 
to war, before subjecting our troops, our men and women in uniform, to 
those kinds of consequences.
  So I tell my staff, I will tell the troops the same thing that I will 
tell the American people on the floor of Congress, that I oppose this 
resolution because I think that the case has not been made. I do not 
take giving my support for war lightly, as neither do my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. But each one of us has to wrestle with his or 
her own conscience.
  I want to make sure that my granddaughter, Amelia, maybe 35 years 
from now, can look and say, my grandfather made his decision on the 
information that he had. He opposed the resolution because he did not 
think it was the right thing to do.
  But I will tell the Members this: When and if the President makes a 
decision to commit troops, when and if the President commits us to a 
war, I intend to be there. Because my experience in coming to this 
Congress, my experience of some 35 years ago, returning from Vietnam 
and seeing all the protests and seeing all the signs and seeing all the 
things that they were calling us, was very divisive.
  So it is inherent upon us to do what our conscience dictates on this 
issue today. I oppose it reluctantly under those circumstances, but I 
will support whatever decision our President and our country makes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former Governor and a member 
of our committee and the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and 
Tactical Intelligence.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence not only for yielding to me 
but for the extraordinary work he does for this country on a day-in-
and-day-out basis in a very difficult circumstance right now.
  The vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force to disarm 
Saddam Hussein is one of the most important decisions we will ever have 
to make as Members of the House of Representatives. Every Member of 
Congress wants to do what is right, not only for America but for the 
entire world.
  Today I speak both as the Representative of the people of Delaware 
and as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Like 
many, I have been traveling throughout my State over the past few 
weeks, and Iraq is on everyone's minds. Individuals have crossed the 
street to give me their opinions, and seniors have approached me at our 
annual beach day event.
  I have received many personal letters, e-mails, and phone calls from 
people who have taken the time to sit down and really think about this 
very difficult issue. They know Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical dictator 
and would like to see him go. They hope war can be avoided but also 
want to support the President.
  They want to know if immediate military action is necessary and if 
the risks to our young men and women in uniform are necessary; how will 
other nations respond if the United States decides to enter the 
conflict without United Nations' support; what could be the effect on 
the stability of the Middle East and the fate of the Iraqi people.
  I share many of their concerns. That is why I have tried to gather as 
much information as possible by reading reports, attending briefings, 
and talking with other Members of Congress. Here is what I have 
learned: the security of our Nation is at risk.
  For the past several months, I have participated in intelligence 
hearings on the September 11 terrorist attacks and have studied the 
hatred some nations and groups have toward America. Saddam Hussein is 
encouraging and promoting this hatred by openly praising the attacks on 
the United States. The Director of Central Intelligence recently 
published an unclassified summary of the evidence against Saddam 
Hussein, and it is substantial.
  We know that Iraq has continued building weapons of mass destruction, 
energized its missile program, and is investing in biological weapons. 
Saddam Hussein is determined to get weapons-grade material to develop 
nuclear weapons. Its biological weapons program is larger and more 
advanced than before the Gulf War. Iraq also is attempting to build 
unmanned vehicles, UAVs, to possibly deliver biological warfare agents. 
All of this has been done in flagrant violation of the U.N. Security 
Council resolutions.
  Some may react to this evidence by saying that, in the past, other 
countries have had similar arsenals and the United States did not get 
involved. But as President Bush has told us and as Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld reiterated yesterday in a meeting, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is 
different. This is a ruthless dictator whose record is despicable. He 
has waged war against his neighbors and on his own people. He has 
brutalized and tortured his own citizens, harbored terrorist networks, 
engaged in terrorist acts, lied, cheated, and defied the will of the 
international community.
  Mr. Speaker, I have examined this information and some of the more 
specific classified reports. The bottom line is, we do not want to get 
caught off guard. We must take all precautions to avoid a catastrophic 
event similar to September 11.
  In recent meetings, the National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza 
Rice, rightly called this coercive diplomacy. It is my hope that 
through forceful diplomacy, backed by clear resolve, we can avoid war. 
Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein's history of deception makes a new 
attempt to disarm him difficult. Additionally, our goal to disarm him 
must also be connected to a plan to end his regime, should he refuse to 
disarm.
  For all these reasons, I would encourage all of us to support this 
resolution as the best resolution to make this happen.

[[Page H7322]]

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Iraq, it is time for the United States 
of America to state forcefully and without equivocation: Enough is 
enough. Either Saddam Hussein yields to the resolutions of the United 
Nations, providing for completely unrestricted inspection and 
disarmament, or the United States and other nations will use military 
force against his government to enforce his compliance.
  This is terribly, terribly serious business, Mr. Speaker, potentially 
one of life and death for those that will be involved in prosecuting 
this action. Therefore, I, like so many others, have expressed the view 
that this vote is one of the most important votes that I will ever cast 
in this Chamber on behalf of the people of North Dakota.
  I reached the conclusion that the resolution authorizing the 
President to use force should pass, and I do that based upon the 
following undeniable and uncontroverted facts:
  First, Saddam Hussein is a uniquely evil and threatening leader. His 
past is absolutely replete with nonstop belligerence and aggression, as 
well as atrocities.
  Two, he has been determined to have developed weapons of mass 
destruction, biological and chemical. He continues to seek nuclear 
capacity and is believed to be within mere months of having that 
capacity, in the event he could get his hands on the requisite 
materials.
  Three, he now continues to produce weapons of mass destruction, 
having effectively completely thwarted the inspection and disarmament 
requirements of the United Nations; and he has made it increasingly 
difficult to detect his production facilities, even as he continues to 
add to his arsenals.
  Four, he is harboring and has well-developed relationships with 
terrorists, including senior al Qaeda operatives.
  Five, he certainly has demonstrated that he is not above using 
weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, he has used them on his own 
people.
  Now, under these terrible circumstances, I have concluded that doing 
nothing is simply not acceptable for the United States of America. We 
need to act, and determining exactly how to act is the question before 
this Chamber.
  I believe that we should support the President as he builds an 
international consensus to reinstitute completely unfettered 
inspections, or to use force in the event it is not forthcoming. In 
dealing with Saddam Hussein, I believe our only hope of enlisting the 
cooperation of his government is if he knows for an absolute certainty 
there will be terrible consequences if he does not comply.
  Therefore, in looking at the resolutions before this body, I think we 
can only conclude that the President needs the authorization to act if 
he is to have any hope of enlisting the cooperation from Saddam 
Hussein. A two-vote alternative in my view sends a mixed signal: Go try 
and enlist his cooperation, and we will evaluate what to do if you do 
not succeed.
  The administration has made it very, very clear, and I have heard the 
President express this personally, that the use of force would be his 
absolute last wish. I believe, therefore, we need to give him the 
resolution and the authority from this body that, first, seek 
disarmament and under terms that are unlike any other imposed upon Iraq 
any time, anywhere, by any person; and in the event that is not 
forthcoming, there shall be force to insist on his cooperation, or to 
replace the regime and obtain cooperation from a new government.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of this decision. But, 
again, the facts are clear, and doing nothing is not acceptable. I urge 
adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a 
leader on health issues.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, although we all know this war resolution 
will pass, I nevertheless must question the wisdom and morality of an 
unprovoked attack on another foreign nation. The guiding principle of 
our foreign policy for over 50 years has been one of containment and 
deterrence. This is the same strategy that kept the former Soviet Union 
in check, a power whose possession of weapons of mass destruction had 
been proven and not speculated, and in fact led to its downfall.
  The administration asserts that this time-tested policy is not 
sufficient to deal with this, yes, dangerous but small, economically 
weakened Middle Eastern nation. Instead, they support a new policy of a 
unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq, citing the unproven 
possibility that Saddam Hussein might be a risk to the security of the 
United States.
  The long-term effects of this go-it-alone, shoot-first policy will be 
to lose the high moral ground we have exercised in the past to deter 
other nations from attacking militarily when they felt their security 
was at stake. The next time Pakistani and Indian troops mass at their 
borders with both nations' fingers on nuclear triggers, what moral 
authority will we have to prevent a potential catastrophe? They would 
justifiably ignore our pleas for diplomatic or negotiated approaches 
and instead simply follow our lead.
  The administration continues to assert that Iraq is an urgent threat 
to our national security and that we are at risk of an Iraqi surprise 
attack. But the resolution before us offers no substantiation of these 
allegations, speaking only of hunches, probabilities, and suspicions. 
That is not sufficient justification to start a war.
  Further, there is reference to the 9/11 terrorism we suffered and the 
assertion that members of al Qaeda are in Iraq. After extensive 
investigation, our intelligence community could find no link between 
the Iraqi regime and the plot that led to last year's deadly terrorist 
attacks.

                              {time}  1315

  Also it has become reported that al Qaeda members are in Iran, 
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Do we attack them next?
  The resolution further asserts also without any evidence that there 
is a great risk that Iraq could launch a surprise attack on the United 
States with weapons of mass destruction. It is fact that Saddam does 
not possess a delivery system that has the throw power of 8,000 miles 
or anything even close. And if there is such a great risk that he has 
and will use biological and chemical weapons against us, why did he not 
do so in the Gulf War? The answer is because he knew that our response 
would be strong, swift, and fatal. Hussein is not a martyr; he is a 
survivalist.
  Similarly, the evidence does not show that Iraq has any nuclear 
capabilities. General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO forces in 
Europe, contends that ``despite all the talk of `loose nukes,' Saddam 
does not have any,'' or the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to 
enable him to construct them.
  Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, recently concurred, admitting that the consensus is that Saddam 
Hussein ``does not have a nuclear weapon, but he wants one.''
  One of the goals of the President is to force a regime change in 
Iraq. Who are we to dictate to another country that their leadership 
must be changed? What would be our reaction if another country demanded 
or threatened to remove President Bush? All of us, Republicans and 
Democrats alike and each and every American, would be infuriated by 
such an inference and rise up against them. Changes in regimes must 
come from within.
  The result of voting for this resolution will be to give the 
President a blank check with broad authority to use our Armed Forces to 
unilaterally attack Iraq. He merely has to tell us why he believes that 
continued diplomatic efforts will fail and does not have to give that 
information to Congress until 48 hours after he has begun the war.
  The more meaningful provision would be to provide for a two-step 
process where after all diplomatic efforts have failed, the President 
would come back to Congress and make the case that military force is 
now necessary.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has 
that provision in his alternative and it deserves our careful 
consideration. Let us

[[Page H7323]]

make no mistake about it, Hussein is a brutal dictator who has 
flagrantly defied the will of the world community. But the case has 
simply not been made either by this resolution or by the administration 
that there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United 
States which would warrant this Nation embarking on its first 
unprovoked preemptive attack in our 226-year history.
  The President must continue to work together with our allies in the 
U.N. Security Council to ensure that the Iraqi regime is disarmed. Mr. 
Speaker, war should always be the last resort and not the first. For 
all these reasons, I cannot support this resolution and must vote 
``no.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.J. Res. 114. 
I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and House 
leadership for working in a bipartisan manner with the White House to 
develop what I believe is a very strong, but balanced, resolution.
  Last week by a strong vote the Committee on International Relations 
passed this resolution. As part of its responsibility to carry out its 
role in helping shape United States foreign policy toward Iraq, our 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), deserve a great 
deal of credit for their efforts in guiding this effort through the 
committee process.
  September 11 has tragically taught us the price of not acting when 
faced with a clear and present danger, and there should be no doubt 
today we face a clear and present danger in the form of weapons of mass 
destruction in the possession of Saddam Hussein. We know after the 1991 
liberation of Kuwait, Iraq unequivocally agreed to eliminate its 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and agreed to allow 
international weapons inspectors to ensure that be accomplished.
  But as we all know, Iraq has willfully and in direct violation of its 
own agreement and those of the United Nations Security Council thwarted 
over and over again the efforts of the inspectors to find and destroy 
those weapons. This can only mean one thing, Mr. Speaker. Saddam 
intends to hold on to these weapons and use them at the appropriate 
time and in the manner he deems necessary.
  As early as 1998, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in a letter to 
the Security Council stated, ``No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq's 
refusal to honor its commitments under Security Council resolutions 
regarding its weapons of mass destruction constituted a threat.''
  These words remain even more true today in light of the scourge of 
global terrorism. Today the threat to the national security of the 
United States and to international peace and security continues to 
grow. It is especially serious because we know that Saddam Hussein 
supports terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and could very well 
be working with these agents at this very moment providing them with 
the expertise to use chemical and biological weapons against the United 
States and others.
  In 1991 in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, I led a 
group of our colleagues in the House in introducing a resolution 
authorizing then-President Bush the use of all necessary means to force 
Iraq from Kuwait. There were dissenters who felt we should not go to 
war, but in the end there is no question we were proven right. In 1998 
I strongly supported the House resolution which declared Iraq to be in 
breach of its international obligations, and we urged the President to 
take appropriate actions to bring Iraq into compliance.
  However, at that time significant penalties for noncompliance were 
not invoked, and so here we are again today, confronting the same issue 
without an inch of change in Saddam's attitude or actions.
  Today we are faced with the same proposition and very similar 
arguments on both sides; but with the passage of this resolution, we 
will again provide the President the authority he may need to take the 
appropriate actions necessary to protect the national security of this 
great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this time around we must have an absolute commitment to 
not allow Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons 
anymore. But the enforcement of Security Council resolutions this time 
must include significant penalty for noncompliance which are immediate 
and automatic. The resolution we are debating today is forceful in that 
it again gives the President the authority to use whatever means, 
including force, to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. But 
this resolution is balanced in that it encourages the President to 
pursue diplomatic avenues to achieve international support of enforcing 
U.N. mandates and provide for an important role in the Congress.
  I believe the gravity of this issue mandates that we act now to give 
the President the tools he should have to deal with this significant 
threat. The potential terror of weapons of mass destruction in the 
hands of a madman to the world must be addressed, and it must be 
addressed decisively and now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it should be stated at the outset that not one Member of 
this body wants war. We all want peace. The decision whether to send 
American soldiers into battle is the most agonizing vote we will cast 
in Congress. It is a choice between confronting the horrors of war 
versus allowing a potentially devastating attack on our homeland, one 
that could kill tens of thousands of Americans.
  But make no mistake, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein also 
ultimately threatens world peace and stability. It is for this reason 
that we must consider the resolution before us today, allowing the 
President to take unilateral military action to disarm Iraq in the 
interest of long-term peace.
  First, I believe we must consider this issue in the context of the 
post-September 11 world. Our enemies and their supporters have 
demonstrated their willingness to strike at us in covert and highly-
destructive ways. As a result of briefings I have received from 
military experts, former weapons inspectors and colleagues in the 
intelligence community, I am convinced that Iraq does indeed possess 
weapons of mass destruction.
  First, chemical and biological threats. Saddam Hussein has VX nerve 
gas, mustard gas, and anthrax. These toxins are deadly and could kill 
thousands.
  Second, we know that Saddam has a growing fleet of manned and 
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, that could be used to disburse chemical 
and biological weapons across broad areas. Intelligence data suggests 
that Iraq may be exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions 
targeting the United States.
  Third, as we learned from last fall's anthrax attacks, sophisticated 
delivery systems are not required. For chemical and biological attacks, 
all that is required is a small container and one willing adversary.
  Next consider the nuclear threat. Iraq can develop nuclear 
capabilities in 1 to 2 years. We know that Iraq has already 
experimented with dirty bombs. There is nothing to suggest that they 
have discontinued this program. With enriched uranium and subsequently 
an atomic bomb, Iraq could use nuclear blackmail to conquer other 
countries in the region and threaten U.S. national security.
  Now, some people that say that our focus should be on the war against 
terrorism. In my view, the Iraqi threat is part and parcel of the war 
against terrorism. There is ample evidence of al Qaeda and Iraqi 
contacts in the development of chemical and biological weapons. 
Additionally, Saddam has harbored known terrorists such as Abu Nidal, 
who, prior to his mysterious death, was connected to at least 90 
attacks throughout the world.
  Iraq poses a threat to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East as well 
as

[[Page H7324]]

110,000 United States American troops and civilians.
  As a representative from the Washington, D.C. suburbs, I am 
particularly concerned about the threat to our homeland and the 
Washington metropolitan region. We learned on September 11 that the 
D.C. area is indeed a terrorist target, and a prime target.
  Now, many ask why is Iraq unique? Other countries have weapons of 
mass destruction and hostile intentions. This is true. But none have 
the unique history of Iraq. I submit to you some of Iraq's prior 
aggressions and violations:
  First, Saddam's invasion of Iran.
  Second, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
  Third, Saddam's use of chemical and biological weaponry against his 
own people as well as his enemies.
  Fourth, Saddam has continued to obstruct U.N. weapons inspections. We 
cannot continue to ignore these violations. And in his most recent 
gambit, he tells us yes, we will accept inspections, but you can not 
inspect my palaces, some of which are as big as small cities. This is 
unacceptable.
  I believe that actions speak louder than words and that past is 
prologue. In Saddam Hussein we are dealing with a shrewd and diabolical 
aggressor who must be thwarted.
  However, despite all of this, what we want is inspections and 
disarmament, not war. I agree with those who believe war should be our 
last option. Thus, we must consider the viability of diplomatic 
measures. Although Saddam has defied 16 U.N. resolutions over the past 
decade, the President has asked the United Nations to pass another 
resolution requiring complete, unconditional inspections of all sites. 
The U.N. can do this.
  To those who can say we only act multilaterally with our allies, I 
say yes, and I hope they will support us in the United Nations Security 
Council. Unfortunately, some of our allies are willing to appease 
Saddam Hussein.
  Winston Churchill said, ``An appeaser is one who would feed a 
crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.''
  Like a crocodile, the longer Saddam Hussein is left unchecked, the 
stronger and hungrier he will get.
  This resolution sends Saddam Hussein the type of clear message 
aggressors understand, that we will no longer stand idly by while he 
threatens U.S. interests and American lives. Disarm or bear the 
consequences of your actions.
  Many of my colleagues believe that this resolution will start war. 
However, as the President said about the resolution now before us 
during his speech 2 days ago, ``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 it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world 
mean something.''
  Thus, I believe this resolution can be used to apply maximum leverage 
on the United Nations to step up to the plate and avoid war.
  As provided in an amendment I introduced to this resolution, I urged 
the President to give the United Nations a reasonable opportunity to 
pass and implement a new resolution for unfettered and unconditional 
weapons inspections.

                              {time}  1330

  If the President takes his prudent approach, allowing a reasonable 
opportunity for the U.N. to act, it would demonstrate our desire for 
international support and cooperation and a peaceful resolution to the 
Iraqi problem. I believe our patience could garner further support.
  Finally, should military force be necessary, I believe nation 
building is a requirement. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have 
opposed nation building. I am pleased to see the President say we must 
have nation building if we implement a military action.
  Finally, this end game strategy is as important as military action if 
we are to achieve our long-term goal of peace in the region. In the 
final analysis, we all want peace, we all want a diplomatic solution or 
a multinational military effort. If we can achieve these things, fine.
  However, being a world leader means more than just waving flags and 
saying that we are the greatest country in the world and waiting for 
others to be willing to act. Sometimes we have to make difficult 
decisions and sacrifices in order to stand for principles and against 
aggression. Sometimes the willingness to fight a war avoids the 
necessity to fight.
  I support this bipartisan resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do 
so.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, longest serving Democrat in the House.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution now 
before the Congress. I supported the father of the current President on 
his resolution and was one of the few Democrats who did. I was right. 
There was a strong, present imperative by this country and by the 
nations of the world. It made sense, it was good, and it was something 
which was accepted and followed by the people of the world.
  There is no evidence that our allies in Europe support the efforts 
that are described by the President to be made by the United States. 
The people and the countries in the area do not support this 
undertaking; and, overwhelmingly, the American people oppose this kind 
of effort, an effort intelligently, wisely and necessary to be made to 
achieve the purposes of everybody, that is, elimination of weapons of 
mass destruction from within the country of Iraq.
  Mr. Saddam Hussein has no friends in the world. Everybody fears him 
and most despise him, but the President has chosen the wrong course. He 
has given us a request for a blank check. There has been inadequate or 
no discussion with our allies and friends. There has not been 
sufficient discussion with the Congress or the people of the United 
States, and the countries in the area are troubled because they feel 
that they do not understand what it is the United States intends to do, 
when, how or why.
  We are embarking upon a unique and new doctrine. We will engage in a 
unilateral preemptive strike, if the early pronouncements of the 
administration are to be believed, and our purpose there is the removal 
of Saddam Hussein, obviously a desirable change. But, more recently, 
the President has said our purpose now is to disarm Mr. Hussein and 
Iraq of their weapons of mass destruction. I am not clear what course 
it is that the President has in mind, but I am convinced that 
proceeding into this situation without allies, without bases, without 
proper and adequate logistic support is an act of great folly. It poses 
enormous risks to the troops that we would be sending, and it poses 
enormous risk to this country and to our foreign policy.
  Not only is it novel and dangerous to talk about preemptive strikes, 
but it is something which need not be done. A proper exercise of 
leadership in the U.N. will cause that institution to follow the United 
States; and I would urge us, as the remaining superpower, to exercise 
leadership and have enough confidence in ourselves and our capacity to 
lead to proceed to embark upon that course. I do not see this 
resolution before us as being a device which stimulates or encourages 
that. Perhaps the President would exercise that kind of leadership. I 
see no evidence that such, however, is to be the case.
  I was here during the time of the missile crisis, and I remember that 
the President at that time observed that the worst course to be taken 
was a preemptive war. Our policy succeeded. We forced the missiles out. 
And when the matter was discussed in the United Nations, our ambassador 
there, Mr. Stevenson, showed them a photograph of what was transpiring 
and that the Soviets had moved missiles into Cuba. The world accepted, 
approved and followed the United States.
  We have not seen that the people of the world are convinced that we 
have made the case that Mr. Saddam Hussein would embark immediately or 
at a time of risk to the United States on the use of weapons of mass 
destruction. Perhaps he would, and I do not trust him, but I would note 
to my colleagues that there is a sensible way of achieving the 
following and the support of the people of the world.
  George Herbert Walker Bush chose it, and I supported him. He went 
around the world and he assembled not just the countries in the area, 
not just our

[[Page H7325]]

allies, but the whole world. And but for the fact that we pulled out 
too soon, the matter would have been disposed of completely and 
satisfactorily then.
  We have not taken the steps that are necessary to assure either that 
the nations of the world, our friends and allies in Europe or the 
nations in the area would support this undertaking. I am not a dove, 
and I am not a hawk. I am a very sensible Polish American, and it is my 
view that the game here is to win, and we best win by using the 
resources of the United Nations and the following of the whole world as 
we assemble a coalition to disarm or dispose of Saddam Hussein. To take 
some other course is to accept foolish risks, including the risk of 
failure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution now before the 
Congress. I supported the father of the current president on his 
resolution and was one of the few Democrats who did. I was right. There 
was a strong, present imperative by this country and by the nations of 
the world. It made sense, it was good, and it was something which was 
accepted and followed by the people of the world.
  There is no evidence that our allies in Europe support the efforts 
that are described by the President to be made by the United States. 
The people and the countries in the area do not support this 
undertaking; and, overwhelmingly, the American people oppose this kind 
of effort, because it is not made intelligently, wisely and in ways 
necessary to achieve its purpose. The basic purpose is the elimination 
of weapons of mass destruction from within the country of Iraq.
  Mr. Saddam Hussein has no friends in the world. People fear him and 
most despise him. But the President has chosen the wrong course. He has 
given us a request for a blank check. There has been inadequate or no 
discussion with our allies and fiends. There has not been sufficient 
discussion with the Congress or the people of the Untied States, and 
the countries in the area are troubled because they feel that they do 
not understand what it is the United States intends to do, when, how or 
why.
  We are embarking on a unique and new doctrine. We propose to engage 
in a unilateral preemptive strike, if the early pronouncements of the 
administration are to be believed. Our purpose there is the removal of 
Saddam Hussein, obviously a desirable change, but again done 
unilaterally--a great strategic and tactical error. More recently, the 
President has said that our purpose now is to disarm Mr. Hussein and 
Iraq of their weapons of mass destruction. I am not clear what course 
it is that the President has in mind, but I am convinced that 
proceeding into this situation without allies, without bases, without 
proper and adequate logistical support is risky, indeed, it is an act 
of great folly. It poses enormous risks to the troops that we would be 
sending, and it poses enormous risk to this country, to the success of 
the undertaking, and to our foreign policy.
  Not only is it novel and dangerous to talk about preemptive strikes, 
but it is something which need not be done. A proper exercise of 
leadership in the U.N. will cause that institution and its members to 
follow the United States. I would urge us, as the remaining superpower, 
to exercise leadership and have enough confidence in ourselves, and in 
our capacity to lead, to embark upon that wiser and more propitious 
course. I do not see this resolution before us as being a device which 
stimulates or encourages other nations to follow the United States. 
Perhaps the President would exercise that kind of leadership. He 
certainly should. I would support him in that. I see no evidence that 
such, however, is to be the case.
  I was here during the time of the missile crisis, and I remember that 
President Kennedy at that time observed that the worst course to be 
taken was a preemptive war. His policies succeeded. We forced the 
missiles out, peace was maintained, and when the matter was discussed 
in the United Nations, our ambassador there, Mr. Stevenson, showed them 
a photograph of what was transpiring and that the Soviets had moved 
missiles into Cuba. The world accepted, approved and followed the 
United States.

  We have not seen that the people of the world are convinced that we 
have made the case that Mr. Saddam Hussein would embark immediately or 
at some early time to use weapons of mass destruction. I do not trust 
him, and he might, but losing to him in this matter would make such use 
of weapons of mass destruction more certain. I would note to my 
colleagues that there is a sensible way of achieving the following of 
the world and the support of the nations of the world.
  President George Herbert Walker Bush chose it, and I supported him. 
That President went around the world and assembled not just the 
countries in the Middle East, not just our allies, but the whole world. 
And but for the fact that we pulled out too soon, the matter would have 
been disposed of completely and satisfactorily then.
  We have not taken the steps that are necessary to assure either that 
the nations of the world, our friends and allies in Europe, or the 
friendly nations in the Middle East will support this undertaking. I am 
not a dove, and I am not a hawk. I am very sensible Polish American, 
and it is my view that the game here is to win. And we best win by 
using the resources of the United Nations and the following of the 
whole world as we assemble a coalition to disarm or dispose of Saddam 
Hussein. To take some other course is to accept foolish risks, 
including the risk of failure. Let us do it right. If we do, we will 
win.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I insert into the Record, a letter I sent 
the President outlining my views and questions to be addressed before 
we embark on this risky endeavor.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In recent weeks there has been much 
     debate, public and private, over the possibility of a United 
     States military campaign against Iraq. I agree with the 
     notion that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who continues to 
     pose a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. 
     However, as one who voted in favor of authorizing the use of 
     force prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and supported 
     George H. W. Bush through the duration of that conflict, I 
     write to express my deep reservations over launching an 
     attack against Iraq. Without a clear purpose or strategy, I 
     question whether you have established that waging a war at 
     this time would be advantageous to the United States.
       Mr. President, most of the world agrees that Saddam Hussein 
     is a menace to the region, the international community, and 
     the Iraqi people. Iraq refuses to comply with its obligations 
     regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD), nor does it 
     observe U.N.-imposed no-flight zones. Saddam Hussein's Iraq 
     has rejected its neighbors calls for reconciliation, 
     repeatedly threatened to attack Kuwait, failed to account for 
     600 missing Kuwaiti citizens and as recently as last year 
     conducted raids into Saudi Arabian territory.
       Saddam Hussein's repressive policies have resulted in the 
     deaths of countless Iraqi citizens. While defying the 
     international community, Saddam Hussein has manipulated 
     public opinion by blaming the United States and the United 
     Nations for the intense hardships faced by the people of 
     Iraq. The UN has repeatedly found that the Iraqi government 
     supports massive and systematic human rights abuses, and has 
     demonstrated in act and deed that it would rather manipulate 
     the suffering of innocent civilians for propaganda effect 
     result than take full advantage of humanitarian relief 
     efforts, such as the oil-for-food program.
       That being said, there is great concern in the United 
     States and around the globe over the possibility of the U.S. 
     launching a unilateral, sustained military operation against 
     Iraq. To date, the United States has not clearly stated its 
     rationale for attacking Iraq, nor have we answered questions 
     pertaining to the possible consequences of opting for 
     military confrontation. This has triggered intense criticism 
     of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iraq at home and abroad. Without 
     outlining the objectives and rationale for an attack or 
     obtaining the necessary domestic and international support, a 
     U.S. military campaign would be unwise. Accordingly, I firmly 
     believe the Administration must meet the following conditions 
     pertaining to Iraq in order to justify and guarantee the 
     success of a military campaign:
       (1) The Bush Administration must consult and obtain 
     approval from Congress before launching a sustained attack of 
     Iraq.
       Congress must be provided with any and all facts justifying 
     the need for military action, and must be offered a clear 
     explanation as to the goals of a military campaign, including 
     an exit strategy. The Administration must also explain to 
     Congress why military action against the Iraqi regime is 
     vital to the security of the United States, and why it is 
     necessary now.
       The Administration must make a clear and convincing case 
     that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction--biological, 
     chemical, or nuclear--and the means to deliver such agents. 
     The Administration must explain why it believes Iraq will 
     employ these kinds of weapons in imminent attacks on other 
     nations.
       (2) Any sustained military campaign must have the support 
     of the international community.
       We must first be certain that our nation's traditional 
     allies in Europe and elsewhere support a military operation 
     against Iraq.
       The Administration must secure the support of our regional 
     allies, and gain access to military bases in those nations 
     bordering Iraq which are vital to the success of a military 
     operation.
       The United States must have the support of, and/or be able 
     to coordinate with, the armed forces of our regional and 
     other allies necessary to guarantee success militarily and 
     diplomatically.
       The matter of Iraq must be fully debated by the United 
     Nations. An attack on Iraq must have the support of the U.N., 
     and must be carried out under U.N. auspices.
       (3) The Administration must formulate and explain its 
     strategy for port-way Iraq. The

[[Page H7326]]

     U.S. must answer questions as to how it will assist in 
     reconstituting a united Iraq, maintain Iraqi territorial 
     integrity, and build a peaceful government and stable society 
     that does not pose a threat to the U.S., our allies, or the 
     region.
       (4) Congress and the American people must be informed of 
     the anticipated cost of opting for military action, both in 
     lives and dollars. The Administration must fully explain the 
     cost of waging a war in Iraq, economically, militarily, and 
     diplomatically. It must demonstrate that the considerable 
     cost of a military endeavor justify an attack on Iraq.
       Again, I would caution against unilaterally unleashing U.S. 
     military might on Iraq until a compelling case is made to the 
     American people, Congress, and the international community. 
     Needless to say, we must also have clear objectives in the 
     short and long term, less we risk suffering unintended 
     consequences.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the blue sky times of the past peace have clearly 
clouded over, and we have now come to realize that as Americans that 
our part of the world is not sheltered from global storms either. Our 
country was hit a terrible blow on September 11, one that was delivered 
by depraved men, not by Mother Nature, and unlike the forces of nature, 
the destructive power of man can and must be stopped before it surges 
and reaches our shores again. It is time we go straight to the eye and 
dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive 
tyranny and oppression radiate.
  Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and their radical ilk are at the 
epicenter of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Nobody doubts that. 
It is not debatable. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and others 
have made convincing cases about the threats the despotic Iraqi regime 
poses to world peace and stability today, today, as well as tomorrow. 
The list of offenses is long, and it has been much discussed.
  Briefly, Iraq has not lived up to the terms of peace it agreed to at 
the end of the Gulf War. So we are in a continuation of the Gulf War. 
It has illegally sold oil and fired missiles repeatedly at U.S. 
aircraft in no-fly zones. I am sorry that CNN does not run every night 
the aerial combat that goes on in the no-fly zones. The Iraqis are 
trying to kill our troops over there who are enforcing the sanctions 
the Iraqi regime agreed to. The policemen we put there, with their 
agreement, they are trying to take out.
  Iraq has expanded its weapons of mass destruction capabilities 
against its pledge not to. It still has deadly chemical weapons hidden 
throughout the country, and it has tried to develop nuclear devices as 
well.
  It is certain that Iraq has ties to many Islamic terror groups in the 
region, including al Qaeda. Evidence supports Iraq's involvement in the 
first and probably the second World Trade Center bombing.
  The ultimate goal of an Iraq invasion is clear. It is the removal of 
weaponry and the Saddam Hussein regime. Saddam Hussein, as we all know, 
is aggressive, he is a rogue leader, he ruthlessly crushes his 
political dissent. He ignores the most basic tenets of human dignity 
and uses fear and brutality to stay in power. He has not been truthful. 
There is no reason for anyone to believe him.
  He is known from our intelligence sources to be a master of deceit 
and deception in word and in deed. He would not be missed by his 
friends in that region, and no one, no one is defending him in this 
body that I have heard yet.
  Debate now, followed by unlimited inspection and full, effective 
enforcement of the sanctions are the best way to achieve his removal 
and reduction of weapons of mass destruction and the threat they 
represent. Now is not the time to sit back and observe the storm.
  As the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I 
can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt. I can 
attest to the capabilities of his dreadful arsenal of weaponry and the 
inventory that that danger will grow geometrically the longer we wait 
to disable him. Those are undeniable realities that we have to live 
with and deal with.
  We know about him. What about us? What are we going to do about it? 
That is what this debate really is, the how and the when of dealing 
with something we have to deal with.
  President Bush asked in this resolution that we give him flexibility 
and support to handle this in the most effective way with the least 
risk to our troops, the least risk to further dangers for the people of 
this great Nation and our allies and friends around the world.
  We should support our President. I will support him with my vote; and 
I hope others will, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the Chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, for the purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) will control the remainder of the gentleman's time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart because 
the decision to go to war is the greatest vote a Member of Congress can 
make. I take my sworn constitutional duty in this matter very 
seriously. Accordingly, I have conducted a thorough analysis of this 
situation since the President indicated discussions several months ago 
about the possible need for American military action in Iraq. The 
examination and analysis has resulted in my conclusion to support this 
resolution.
  Ultimately, we must do what is right for the security of our Nation. 
Before the United States agrees to commit troops abroad, we must first 
determine that Iraq represents an imminent and serious threat to the 
American interests.
  We have known for some time that Iraq possesses biological and 
chemical weapons of mass destruction and material, an unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations. Additionally, Iraq seeks to 
produce nuclear weapons. Moreover, we have evidence that Iraq has 
worked to build the delivery systems and now has the capacity to 
deliver these weapons all over the world.
  After considerable deliberations, I have, therefore, determined that 
a convincing case has been made that Iraq presents an imminent threat 
to our national security. Without question, we know that we cannot 
trust Saddam Hussein. Other nations might have the same deadly 
capacities as Iraq, but none has a leader like Saddam Hussein, who is a 
vicious and dangerous man.
  At this critical junction, we must, therefore, act quickly to 
safeguard our national security and the security of our allies. If we 
do not, millions may die. Let us err on the side of national security.

                              {time}  1345

  Further, we have before us a well-crafted compromise resolution to 
authorize the use of force against Iraq. This resolution imposes some 
appropriate checks on the President's authority to use force against 
Iraq. It also represents a reasonable compromise between what the 
President had initially requested and what the Congress felt was wise 
to allow. After all, under our Constitution, only Congress has the 
power to declare war.
  We must additionally consider the consequences of military 
intervention for our diplomatic relations with other nations. In my 
mind, the President has made a convincing case to Congress about the 
need for such action in this instance. His administration in recent 
weeks has made progress in educating the rest of the world about the 
need for such action. Furthermore, the resolution before us today 
prioritizes U.S. diplomatic efforts in the United Nations for resolving 
this escalating situation. As a result, it is my hope we will resolve 
the situation through diplomatic means. But should those efforts fail, 
we must and we need to ensure that the President has the tools he needs 
to protect our national security.
  Further, if we must use force against Iraq, it is imperative that we 
not leave a vacuum of power so that one dangerous regime replaces 
another dangerous regime. If we fail in the second part of our mission 
in Iraq, we will not have accomplished much.
  If we ultimately pursue military action, we must therefore commit 
this Congress and the American people to provide assistance, as we did 
after the war in Europe. Consequently, I am pleased that the President 
has expressed his support for rebuilding Iraq's economy and creating 
institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

[[Page H7327]]

  Mr. Speaker, Congress must act swiftly to pass this resolution so 
that the United States can fully protect the national security of the 
American people. The resolution now before us represents a reasonable 
compromise between the desires of the administration and the goals of 
Congress to protect the American people. We should, as a result, 
support this resolution and support the President as he upholds the 
duties he was sworn to do.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce dealing with trade energy and air quality.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will all have to cast one of the 
most difficult votes of our careers. I know this will be the most 
difficult vote I will have to cast in the 8 years that I have had the 
privilege of representing the people of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is 
a vote that I have given much thought to because, Mr. Speaker, we are 
talking about the possibility of sending America's sons and daughters 
to war; and that is something that we must never take lightly.
  Now, all of us here in the Congress have been to many briefings. I 
have talked to the Director of the CIA, the DIA, the National Security 
Adviser. We have heard from many people from the administration, all of 
us, I believe, in an effort to get the facts, to seek the truth, to 
help us make a decision that we think is in the best interest of our 
country.
  And I want to say at the beginning that I think we are going to reach 
different conclusions tomorrow. There are basically three different 
ways we can vote tomorrow, and I do not question anyone's vote 
tomorrow. I think everyone in the House is a patriot and will vote in a 
manner which they think is the best way for our country to proceed. I 
want to say that up front.
  But we do have three choices and we are confronted with some 
realities. I think all of us would agree that Iraq poses a threat. They 
have biological and chemical weapons. We know that. We know they have 
designs on reconstituting their nuclear arsenal. They are not there 
yet. They may not be there for a year or so. But we know they have 
intentions to do that. So we agree there is a threat. Some of us would 
observe that the threat is equal to or certainly no greater than the 
threats posed by many other countries, Iran, North Korea, China, Syria. 
But I think we all agree that it is in the interest of the United 
States and the world community that Iraq be disarmed.
  So the question is what is the best way to do that, and tomorrow we 
are going to have three choices. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) would have us do this exclusively through the United Nations; that 
we would just work through the U.N. to try to effect disarmament of 
Iraq. The President's resolution gives broad authority to the President 
to do whatever he sees fit to disarm Iraq and protect this country. And 
then there is a third alternative, the Spratt amendment, which seeks to 
limit the broad authority given to the President, but nothing to the 
point that it ties the President's hands.
  I really believe, in looking at all three proposals, that the Spratt 
amendment makes the most sense. First of all, it makes it clear that 
the primary aim that we have is disarming Iraq from all weapons of mass 
destruction. It keeps the Congress engaged.
  Whatever happened to keeping the Congress engaged in what goes on in 
our country? I have watched trade agreements where we have abdicated 
our responsibilities in trade agreements to the executive branch, no 
oversight with these fast track agreements. And now we are talking 
about maybe sending our sons and daughters to war; and the Congress is 
ready to, once again, just abdicate its oversight to the executive 
branch. I think we need to be engaged, and the Spratt amendment allows 
us to be engaged.
  The Spratt amendment commends the President for taking the case 
against Iraq to the United Nations. It encourages him to persist in his 
efforts to obtain Security Council approval. And it calls on him to 
seek and also for the Security Council to approve a new resolution 
mandating tougher rounds of arms inspections. We think this is an 
important first step that thinks that the first order of business 
should be to get compliance through the Security Council first.
  It also authorizes the use of force if sanctioned by the Security 
Council. If Iraq resists the weapons inspectors and the new rounds of 
inspections fail, then the Security Council is going to have to 
confront the use of military force against Iraq. And if they authorize 
such force, as they did in 1990, the President does not need any 
further approval from Congress. He need not come back to us.
  But if the Security Council does not adopt the new resolution, or if 
the President considers its resolution too weak to wipe out Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction, then the President can seek, on an 
expedited basis, an up-or-down vote by the Congress to use military 
force to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
  Now, we ask that the President certify that he has sought a new 
resolution from the Security Council and that it has either failed to 
pass that resolution or it is insufficient; that military force is 
necessary to make Iraq comply; that the U.S. is forming as broad based 
a coalition as it can; and that military action against Iraq will not 
interfere with the war on terrorism.
  Security Council approval is in the interest of the United States in 
the long term, because it is going to help persuade neighboring 
countries, especially countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to grant 
us basing and over-flight rights and other means of support. It allows 
moderate Arab and Muslim states to support the U.S. action, deflecting 
the resentment an attack on Iraq by the U.S. alone would generate in 
the Arab and Muslim populations, and it enhances the chances of postwar 
successes. Allies with us on the takeoff are far more likely to be with 
us after the conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something we need to think through. What is a 
post-Saddam Iraq going to look like? How many years and how many troops 
will we have to station there? Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is 
simple. In the last few speeches, the President has made it clear by 
saying he will not attack Iraq without first attempting to build an 
international coalition of support from our allies. And I appreciate 
that because I think that is the right way to go.
  The Spratt amendment deals with Iraq in the right way by providing 
for a more thorough and narrowly focused process that I believe 
increases significantly our chances of success in this delicate and 
difficult situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the Spratt resolution. I think it is 
the right way to go. I intend to vote against the President's 
resolution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time to speak, and I rise today with a heavy heart over one of the most 
difficult decisions that we as elected officials are called upon to 
make. It is literally a decision of life or death.
  As a mother who has raised nine children, I cannot help but think 
about this issue on a personal basis. Can I or can any parent look into 
the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear 
conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending 
him into the perils of conflict? Are we certain that the strongest 
possible case has been made that the threat posed by Iraq rises to the 
level of risking the lives of tens of thousands of our young citizens? 
Can we say to that young man with sufficient moral certainty that the 
time must be now, and that we can afford to work no longer on an 
alternative to war?
  Mr. Speaker, the world is watching us today as we show how the 
world's last remaining superpower sees fit to use its great influence. 
We are looked to as we set an example for the world. Are we a Nation 
that will work within the world community, or will we go it alone? Are 
we willing to exhaust every possible chance for a peaceful resolution, 
or are we ready now to commit to war? Have we made the strongest case 
for action that we can make to the world? And do we honestly have a 
plan for a post-war Iraq?
  This great struggle against evil is not a Christian struggle, a 
Jewish

[[Page H7328]]

struggle, or a Muslim struggle. It is a common struggle among people of 
all faiths. But as a Nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, 
and as a Member who represents a district of all of these faiths, we 
should look toward the common thread of all our beliefs that it is our 
responsibility to win this struggle through peace, through negotiation, 
through coalition building, and as an international, not unilateral, 
effort.
  As the world's last superpower, I believe that we must have a better 
plan for our Nation and for the world for a post-war Iraq. We must 
reassure those neighbors in the Middle East that we are committed first 
to peace and stability and second to regime change. And we must not 
give our friends and foes in the region more reason to distrust our 
sincerity and desire for peace by ignoring the world community's role 
in addressing this problem.
  I commend our President for his commitment to protecting our national 
security and his honest heartfelt desire to do what he thinks is right 
to make our world safe for democracy and safe for future generations. I 
know that in his heart he will continue to do what is right. But I 
believe as a Nation we owe it to ourselves and to those of other 
nations who would fall victim to the horror of this war to make sure 
that every other option has been exhausted before we take this final 
and irrevocable step of authorizing full-scale military action.
  I will follow my conscience and vote against House Joint Resolution 
114.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this debate is occurring at an auspicious 
anniversary in our Nation's history. Forty years ago this month, our 
Nation stood at the brink of nuclear annihilation. Offensive nuclear 
weapons were being placed 90 miles from Miami. A dictator stood ready 
to launch a missile strike against this Nation. And the United States, 
while supported by the world community, stood alone in confronting the 
menace.
  Mr. Speaker, there are ominous parallels to the missiles of October 
1962 and the Iraqi threat of 2002. While we debate this resolution, I 
believe it is illuminating to go remember what President Kennedy faced 
40 Octobers ago. President Kennedy did not want to go to war. He knew 
what war meant. But he also knew the dangers of inaction far outweighed 
the risk of action.
  We are faced with a similar situation today. A tyrant is building a 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capability designed only for 
offensive use.

                              {time}  1400

  International mediation is preferred, but not an absolute method of 
engagement. The threat is real, and inaction on our part today will put 
us at greater risk tomorrow.
  This resolution is not a blank check to go to war. It is not defiant 
of the world community to pass this resolution. No one wants to go to 
war and see lives lost. No one wants our blood and treasures spent in 
far-off lands. But just as President Kennedy acted with threat of force 
of our military to end a threat 40 years ago, we must not remove this 
option from President Bush today. I urge support of this bipartisan 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), a leader in the battle against this resolution, and a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today, we must speak not with one voice, 
but as one democracy--giving voice to the millions of Americans 
increasingly concerned with an Administration's deliberate choice to 
make the terrible weapon of war a predominant instrument in its foreign 
policy.
  Among the more than three thousand communications I have received 
from my neighbors in Central Texas concerned with this rush to inflame 
a region that is as volatile as the oil it holds, is that of Bill 
Hilgers, a World War II veteran with 30 bombing missions over Germany 
and a Purple Heart. He writes, ``No one can foresee the potential 
damage [to] our troops or citizens. . . . We stake our future on an 
unprecedented breach of our moral principles . . . and our past 
commitment to peace. [W]e should . . . use every diplomatic strategy . 
. . to see that Iraq's weapons are destroyed before [using] military 
force.''
  A more recent veteran, General Norman Schwarzkopf, writing of the 
Gulf War, was more direct: ``I am certain that had we taken all of 
Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit.'' [``It 
Doesn't Take a Hero, Bantam Books, 1992, page 498]
  The house-to-house urban warfare that would likely result from a land 
invasion would endanger our soldiers, detract from our ongoing war on 
terrorism, and expose our families to terrorism for years to come, in 
what to many in that part of the world would perceive as a war on 
Islam.
  Many Americans are asking, ``how best do we protect our families?'' 
And, ``do they know something in Washington that we do not know?''
  From our briefings in Congress, we do know something about which the 
public is uncertain and fearful. We have been shown no evidence that 
Iraq is connected to 9/11. We have been shown no evidence that Iraq 
poses an imminent threat to the security of American families today. 
From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until very recently 
and finally released, we know that terrorism, not Iraq, is the real 
threat. The CIA has concluded that an American invasion of Iraq is more 
likely to drive our enemies together against us and certainly more 
likely to make Saddam Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that 
he may possess.
  How do we make our families safe at this time? Certainly, through a 
military second to none, yes. Through effective law enforcement here at 
home, yes. But arms alone are insufficient protection, as the tragedy 
of September 11 demonstrated all too well.
  True security means working together with nations, large and small. 
It means that we must be wise enough to rely on America's other 
strengths to rid the world of Iraq's danger, rather than unilaterally 
imposing our will by force that will only unite our enemies while 
dividing our natural allies.
  Overreliance on packing the biggest gun and on having the fastest 
draw, will not make us safer. Rather, it is a formula for international 
anarchy. A quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at 
the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for 
international law and order, and, ultimately endangering each of our 
families.
  President Bush has correctly said, I would not trust Saddam Hussein 
with one American life. What fool would trust him? But that is not our 
choice today. Nor is it a choice between ``war'' and ``doing nothing,'' 
or between ``war'' and ``appeasement.''
  The better choice today is for effective, comprehensive, 
international inspections and the disarmament of Iraq of any weapons of 
mass destruction that we believe it possesses. The better choice is to 
follow the prudent, indeed the conservative approach, a firm policy of 
containment that kept the threat to American families at bay.
  Abandoning that successful policy, a policy which Ronald Reagan used 
against another ``evil empire,'' abandoning that policy which avoided 
nuclear Armageddon, abandoning that policy which we used successfully 
against Muammar Qadhafi--that abandonment will place America on a truly 
perilous path.
  Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are 
clearly superior to the new ``first-strike'' formula that risks wars 
without end.
  America has the might and right to defend itself against imminent 
threats to its security, even unilaterally. If in fact the quality of 
the President's evidence matched the quality of his oratory, I would be 
``ready to roll.'' The President does not need us to consent to saber 
rattle, but let him return to Congress if he has any clear evidence, 
not yet provided, to show us it is time to let the saber strike.
  With this daily talk of war overshadowing all our hopes and dreams 
for this country and world, I would address my final remarks to those 
who are struggling with how to respond. Continue to thoughtfully, 
respectfully but forcefully voice your opposition. Do not lose hope. 
Petition for peace. Pray for peace. Do not give up on peace. Let us 
work together for an America that remains, indeed, a beacon for the 
world, that joins with its allies in ensuring the collective security 
of families here and around the globe.

[[Page H7329]]

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, decisions involving war and peace are by far the most 
difficult and agonizing as they potentially involve putting America's 
sons and daughters in harm's way. That is why I focused heavily on the 
Iraq resolution for weeks, attending every possible briefing from the 
CIA, National Security Council, Joint Chiefs, and the State Department. 
I have examined the classified data made available by our intelligence 
officials.
  I have also listened to the people of Minnesota. I realize there are 
people of goodwill and good conscience who will disagree with my 
conclusion.
  My fundamental principles approaching this resolution are several:
  First, the highest responsibility of the Federal Government is to 
keep the American people safe.
  Second, the greatest danger to our national security is terrorists 
with weapons of mass destruction.
  Third, diplomacy should always be exhausted and proven unworkable 
prior to the use of force.
  Fourth, war should always be the last option.
  Consistent with these beliefs, my oath of office, and my conscience, 
and based on all of the briefings and classified data I have seen, I 
have decided to vote for this bipartisan resolution for several 
reasons.
  First, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to 
terrorists pose a clear and present danger to our national security.
  Second, this resolution is the last best chance for a peaceful 
outcome with Iraq, because diplomacy not backed by the threat of force 
will not work with Saddam Hussein.
  Third, this resolution puts maximum pressure on the United Nations to 
enforce its own resolutions and on Saddam Hussein to comply.
  Fourth, this resolution requires the President to exhaust all 
possible diplomatic efforts and certify that diplomacy is unworkable 
prior to the use of force.
  I am hopeful that diplomacy backed by the threat of force will work 
to get the United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq to disarm 
Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As history has taught us, 
diplomacy without the threat of force does not work with dictators.
  Since September 11, the world has changed. Protecting our national 
security now means preventing terrorists from getting weapons of mass 
destruction. Our highest duty is to assure that no weapons of mass 
destruction are used to harm the people of the United States.
  The overwhelming evidence is that Iraq continues to possess and 
develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability and is 
actively developing a nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, 
declassified intelligence reports document ties between al Qaeda and 
the Iraqi government, including the presence of senior members of al 
Qaeda in Baghdad. We also know from high-ranking terrorist prisoners at 
Guantanamo Bay that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda in 
developing chemical and biological weapons.
  In conclusion, I believe the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) 
summed it up best when he said, ``Iraq presents a problem after 
September 11 that it did not before, and we should deal with it 
diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. And I think this 
resolution does that.''
  Like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), I believe this 
resolution will strengthen our diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam 
Hussein and enhance the prospect of a peaceful outcome.
  I ask all Members to vote their conscience, as I will in supporting 
this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and a spokesperson for children.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, we live in a dangerous world. We always 
have. But every day, the greatest democracy on earth wakes. All of us 
from Minnesota, we get up every day. We take our children to school. We 
go to work. We enjoy the hope, opportunity and freedom of this great 
Nation. We know that our democracy provides hope and opportunity not 
only for our own families here in America but for nations around the 
world.
  Nevertheless, we do live in a dangerous world. We always have. I am 
48 years old. There has never been a time in my life when the United 
States was not targeted by another country or countries with nuclear 
weapons, or when another nation has not had the capacity to attack us 
with chemical and biological weapons. How many nations today have the 
capacity to strike us within our borders? How many actually have 
targeted us today?
  The world is filled with dangers, and Saddam Hussein and his regime 
pose a real danger to America, to the global community. Osama bin Laden 
and al Qaeda remain free and continue to pose a real danger to America. 
The anonymous assassin who 1 year ago murdered five Americans with 
anthrax remains free and is a real danger. How many other rogue states, 
terrorist organizations, drug cartels or pandemics pose a real security 
threat to the United States, our citizens and the millions of people 
around the world? If Saddam Hussein is today's threat, who or what is 
the next?
  Today, I rise in opposition to this resolution because I do not 
believe we should provide a blank check to this administration to 
unilaterally attack Saddam Hussein. The world looks to America to 
promote freedom and justice, not alone but in concert with the global 
community. In the past decades, we have had models of this success. Let 
us build again a global coalition.
  In 1991, the senior President Bush collectively and carefully 
assembled a broad coalition against Iraq, unified in purpose and in 
action. We succeeded, and we brought freedom back to the Kuwaiti 
people.
  After September 11, President Bush tapped the collective will of the 
international body to respond to terrorism around the world; and with 
the support of our allies, we rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. We sent 
operatives of the al Qaeda network scrambling, and we restored freedom 
to the Afghani people.
  But, today, the President seeks to engage the American people in 
another conflict, void of broad-based international support and lacking 
a cohesive international voice. Today, some of our allies are beginning 
to move forward, begrudgingly, to join us, spurred more by a threat of 
a weakened relationship with the United States than by an immediate 
threat of Saddam Hussein.

                              {time}  1415

  While I believe Saddam is a threat, I do not believe we should take 
offensive military action, the first strike, without broad-based 
international coalition support. I ask why are we not standing side by 
side with our neighbors in the region, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, 
Egypt, our allies around Europe and around the world? The United States 
possesses the intelligence capacity to assess potential threats to our 
security. A diplomatic corps capable of diffusing tensions and a potent 
military force prepared to take appropriate action if necessary. Why 
have been unable to convince our closest allies to join us in this 
military undertaking against Iraq? This is a question that the families 
in my district have been asking me. This is a question that no one in 
this administration has been able to answer.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, we live in a dangerous world; and I want to 
be very clear if Iraq possesses an immediate threat to the American 
people, the President has all the authority he needs to take military 
action to protect our Nation without this resolution. The brave men and 
women of our Armed Forces must not be sent into harm's way alone. 
America's duty is to build a coalition of allies, seize the moral high 
ground, and act as part of a community of nations against Saddam's 
regime. When this administration convinces our allies in the region and 
around the world the need for joint military action, then the President 
will have my full support to take every action necessary to eliminate 
the danger in Iraq.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

[[Page H7330]]

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Iraq's President, 
Saddam Hussein, is a dangerous individual. Under his control Iraq has 
violated United Nations resolutions on the development of weapons of 
mass destruction. Iraq possesses significant quantities of chemical and 
biological weapons and is attempting to develop nuclear and 
radiological weapons all in contravention of the U.N. resolutions.
  Iraq has shown a disposition to use weapons of mass destruction when 
the regime used chemical weapons against its own citizens. Iraq has had 
4 years to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction program without U.N. 
oversight or inspection. The current regime has also supported 
terrorism. It is in the interest of the United States to take action 
against Iraq to enforce the U.N. resolutions, mandating that Iraq 
destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The preferred course for the 
United States is to pursue that action through the United Nations. The 
use of force should be a matter of last resort if all other diplomatic 
means prove ineffective.
  I support President Bush's efforts to secure a resolution in the 
United Nations Security Council along with a time schedule for 
enforcement. I also support President Bush's stated intent that force 
should only be used as a matter of last resort and that it is in the 
best interest of our Nation to avoid the use of force.
  The question before Congress is how we should best address the threat 
posed by Saddam Hussein as he seeks to strengthen his arsenal of 
weapons of mass destruction. We all agree that the United States must 
exercise leadership at this critical time in world history. It is 
unfortunate that H.J. Res. 114 goes well beyond the President's 
statements. Under the resolution the President could take unilateral 
military action against Iraq without seeking the support of the United 
Nations. The President could also take unilateral military action 
against Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions unrelated to weapons of mass 
destruction. The President has indicated that he will use his authority 
more narrowly but that it is useful to have broader legislative 
authority. However, the Congress has the responsibility under the War 
Powers Act to be very cautious on the authorization of the use of 
force.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and I presented a substitute 
resolution to the Committee on Rules. That resolution was originally 
proposed by Senators Biden and Lugar of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations. It would have limited the use of force to the specific 
threat against our Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in 
the House refused to allow that resolution to be considered. The only 
other option on the use of force to the President's resolution is the 
substitute resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt). That resolution allows the President to use force if 
authorized by the United Nations to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction. If the United Nations does not approve a resolution 
authorizing force, then the President could seek an immediate vote of 
Congress if he still believed the use of force by the United States is 
necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I shall support the Spratt substitute resolution because 
when compared to the President's resolution, I believe it most closely 
reflects the proper authorization from Congress. It is important that 
we speak as a united country in our determination to eliminate Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction. I urge the President to follow the path he 
has announced in seeking U.N. action, limiting our forces to the 
elimination of weapons of mass destruction and working with the 
international community.
  I have grave concerns about the consequences of unilateral preemptive 
military attack by the United States. Such a course of action could 
endanger our global coalition against terrorism, particularly from our 
moderate Arab allies. It also may increase terrorism activities around 
the world. The United States could also set a dangerous precedent in 
international law which could be invoked, for example, by India against 
Pakistan, Russia against Georgia, or China against Taiwan. In addition, 
we must not overlook the massive cost and effort that the United States 
would have to undertake in a post-Saddam Hussein regime. The United 
States will need the help of its allies as it attempts to transition 
Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy which has the full respect of 
religious freedom and minority rights of the Kurds, Shiites, and 
Sunnis.
  Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, by working through the United Nations we 
create an international coalition that will be critical in any future 
military campaign against Iraq or in any effort to stabilize and 
rebuild Iraq.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), someone who has a great deal of 
experience in leadership in the area of antiterrorism, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for yielding me this time and for that nice introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, soon each Member of Congress will vote on a historic 
resolution to authorize the President to use military force against 
Saddam Hussein. This is not a declaration of war, and war is not 
inevitable. Saddam Hussein may yet yield to international pressure and 
reveal his weapons of mass destruction and destroy them, or the Iraqi 
people might still install a new regime.
  No President wants to send our sons and daughters into combat, but a 
President should be able to take action he deems necessary to respond 
to terrorist threats and protect American lives. I know that given all 
the facts, President Bush will make the right decision.
  Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man with dangerous weapons, weapons of 
mass destruction. His regime has stockpiled large amounts of chemical 
and biological weapons and is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, 
has repeatedly violated United Nations Security Council resolutions, 
has repeatedly fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, has aided known 
terrorist organizations, and has openly praised the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, which killed 3,000 people.
  Mr. Speaker, hoping that Saddam Hussein will not use his weapons or 
wishing that his threat to world peace will go away is not a 
responsible policy and certainly not a guarantee of success. Hope is 
not a strategy. Mr. Speaker, evil must be confronted and condemned. 
Either it will destroy itself or it must be neutralized. Avoiding the 
task only makes the future more dangerous and difficult. We should 
always pray for peace, but if the use of force becomes necessary, we 
must pray for victory.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu), a person who exemplifies the struggle and fight for 
human rights, a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was at home this weekend; and on Saturday morning at 
my very first town hall meeting, the first speaker or questioner got up 
and said, You know, I don't understand all this talk about Iraq in 
Washington, D.C. I have been out of work for over a year. I work in 
high tech. I have been looking hard and I have not been able to find a 
job, and all I hear about in Washington is this talk of war in Iraq. 
What are you going to do about the economy?
  I gave the man the best answer I could, the things that I have been 
trying to do, some of which have been passed, some of which have not. 
This Congress owes that Oregonian that answer about that economy, and 
this government ultimately owes that Oregonian an answer also.
  But we are here today on the most serious of topics, whether to send 
American men and women to war, and I oppose the resolution to grant the 
President's unilateral authority to go to war. Make no mistake about 
it, I would not hesitate to use force if there were sufficient evidence 
of an imminent threat to the United States, our allies, or our military 
forces; but in all the briefings that I have attended, in all of my 
study and research, I have not found sufficient evidence of an imminent 
threat to us, our allies, or our military. And if there were, the main 
resolution that we are considering delegates so much war-making power 
to

[[Page H7331]]

one person, I believe that if the Founders of this Republic were to 
read this resolution, they would tremble at the thought that one 
individual ever in America would have such terrible power in his or her 
hands no matter how much we trust that person or no matter how much we 
like that person. That is not the American way, to put so much 
unilateral power into one person's hands.
  The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) resolution is a much 
better solution to this problem. It requires the President to take all 
steps and then to come back after exhausting diplomatic and other 
means.
  I want to also seriously address the new first-strike doctrine which 
is being advocated by this administration. It is not a preemption 
doctrine because preemption assumes that there is an imminent danger 
and that is what we are preempting. This doctrine allows for first 
strikes even absent imminent danger.
  Where will we draw the line? Will we strike next at the other nations 
of the Axis of Evil? What about Pakistan with a nuclear capacity and 
known ties to terrorists? Where will other countries draw the line? 
There are at least half a dozen hot spots around the world where 
conflicts could be of a conventional or a nuclear nature.
  For over 200 years we have rarely been the first to shoot. For over 
200 years American Presidents have taken a united America to war. 
Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, they all made their public case 
that war was necessary and that there was an imminent threat. The 
exceptions: President Madison, President Johnson. I do not think that 
we want to fall into the historic situations in which those two 
Presidents ultimately found themselves. This first-strike doctrine puts 
us on the edge of a terrible, terrible precipice.
  The vote on this resolution is a foregone conclusion. I think it is a 
foregone conclusion that we will be at war in January. We are fighting 
against the second war, the third war, the fourth war, the fifth war. 
We are trying to cut that chain of wars off as soon as we can. But make 
no mistake about it, with this first strike, with this first war, we 
will lose the high moral ground that has taken Americans 200 years to 
build. We will no longer be in a position through moral suasion or 
otherwise to be an example to the world, for democracy, human rights, 
and the rule of law. We will not be able to have others stay their hand 
by the example of us staying ours.
  From the Lexington Green to Fort Sumpter, from the submarine campaign 
in the north Atlantic before our entry into World War I to the Cuban 
Missile Crisis, American Presidents have been restrained in their use 
of power.

                              {time}  1430

  Let not the innocent 3,000 of September 11 die in vain. If we lash 
out, if we strike blindly, if we start a series of wars because of 
September 11, we will have given Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Let us 
stop as soon as we can.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are in the midst 
of a great and historic debate. In fulfilling the pledge that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) made yesterday, I ask unanimous 
consent that the time for debate on this resolution be extended for 4 
hours, to be equally divided between the majority and the minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. This is in 
accordance with the agreement set prior to the beginning of the debate, 
and I appreciate the cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 hour of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and that he be allowed to 
control that time and yield it to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a Member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Americans are a peace-loving people. While we desire a diplomatic 
resolution to the Iraqi crisis, we must be prepared to support the 
President if military force becomes necessary.
  Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and unpredictable despot who has 
committed genocide, including the use of chemical weapons to slaughter 
his own people. It is estimated that Saddam has butchered over 200,000 
of his own citizens in the past decade. He led his country into an 8-
year war with Iran, a disastrous conflict with the U.S.-led coalition 
in 1991, and is open about his financial and technical support for 
Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
  Saddam has always overestimated his military capabilities and 
underestimated the resolve of the civilized world. He surrounds himself 
with ``yes men'' who reinforce his ego and ambition and fail to warn 
him of the consequences of his actions. This makes Saddam an immediate 
threat to America who can neither be trusted nor dealt with rationally, 
in spite of the testimonials provided by two Members of Congress who 
recently visited Iraq.
  We cannot wait for Saddam to develop a nuclear device and the 
missiles to threaten our troops, allies, and our own territory.
  We cannot ask what will happen if we act, but, rather, what will 
happen if we do not. We must not only remove Saddam's weapons of mass 
destruction, but Saddam himself.
  We cannot wait for Saddam to arm terrorist groups with weapons of 
mass destruction, nor can we allow him to use these weapons to 
blackmail his neighbors. He has proven himself to be a menace to the 
stability of the entire Gulf region.
  In Afghanistan, U.S. forces worked with the anti-Taliban opposition 
to free the country. We also reversed an impending famine in that 
country. The U.S. is working with the new Afghan government to build 
the foundation for a civilized society that respects human rights and 
international law. No less should be expected for the people of Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the world to be tormented by terrorists 
or tyrants. The problem is the regime. The problem is Saddam. We know 
who the enemy is, we know what he does, and we know what we must now 
do.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution.
  Iraq, under the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, has been 
in violation of 16 different United Nations' resolutions over the past 
decade, resolutions passed to ensure that Iraq dismantle its chemical, 
biological and nuclear weapons programs and destroy any remaining 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Ensuring compliance with these U.N. resolutions, which represent the 
will of the international community, is essential. Iraq has 
demonstrated its willingness to use these horrific weapons in battle 
and against its own people.
  One particularly gruesome example occurred in the late 1980s when 
Saddam Hussein unleashed deadly chemical gas attacks over entire 
villages in Iraq, killing thousands of innocent men, women and 
children, so he could experiment, experiment, with finding the most 
efficient ways to spread nerve, blister and mustard gas.
  Given Saddam Hussein's 11-year record of defying and misleading the 
international community, I believe the United States, our allies and 
the United Nations are justified in their efforts to rid Iraq of 
biological and chemical weapons.
  Just this week, a new CIA report exposed Saddam's vigorous 
concealment record as further proof that he has no intention whatsoever 
of honoring his U.N. commitments by giving up his ever-expanding 
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
  Month by month, Saddam Hussein increases his arsenal of chemical and 
biological weapons, while he aggressively works to build nuclear 
capacity. The CIA now believes that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon 
within a year if it manages to obtain weapons-grade material from 
abroad.

[[Page H7332]]

  The CIA further reports that Saddam is intent on acquiring nuclear 
weapons, and Iraq's expanding international trade provides growing 
access to the necessary materials.
  Given these developments, we simply cannot wait any longer.
  September 11 taught us that there are those who would use any means 
to harm Americans. I am increasingly concerned about weapons of mass 
destruction being transferred from Iraq to terrorists like Osama bin 
Laden's al Qaeda network, bent on destroying Americans, or being used 
by Saddam himself against his neighbors, our allies, or against the 
United States.
  The United States should seek to achieve our objective with as little 
risk to Americans and Iraqi civilians as possible. However, we must act 
to permanently disarm Saddam Hussein, because the cost in lives and 
misery if we do not act will be incalculable.
  Before any action is taken, the President is right in seeking 
approval of Congress, and I commend him for that. The more information 
the American people have, the stronger our Nation will be.
  Further, it is important that we continue to make every effort to 
marshal international support. I would prefer to work in concert with 
the United Nations. Saddam Hussein is, after all, a threat to 
international security. But, in the final analysis, my responsibility 
is to protect my constituents and protect the national security of our 
Nation, so I will be voting in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on Resources and a great 
addition to this House.
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the House is engaged in a great 
and serious debate on an issue of incredible importance; and, given the 
strong arguments on both sides, we may have missed the fact that we 
actually agree on many points.
  We all agree with the President that Saddam Hussein is a brutal 
dictator. We all agree with the President that both Iraq and the world 
would be better off without him. We all agree with the President that 
Iraq must be rid of its weapons of mass destruction. So, as the 
President said on Monday night, we all agree on the goal. The issue is 
how best to achieve it.
  Right now, we have two choices. We can vote for the resolution before 
us, or we can vote against it. If we vote for it we are, in effect, 
granting the President unprecedented authority to launch a unilateral, 
preemptive strike against Iraq.
  Much has been made of the fact that the resolution is not the blank 
check originally submitted by the President, that concessions have been 
made, that under the current resolution the President is required to 
exhaust all diplomatic measures before launching an attack on Iraq, 
that the President is required to give Congress prior notice of such an 
attack.
  Rhetoric and semantics aside, this is still a blank check. The 
President alone makes the final determination of exhaustion of 
diplomatic remedies. This resolution simply adds a step to the process. 
It will not have an impact on the final decision. It will not give 
Congress a greater role in the decision making. Notice to Congress is a 
mere formality.
  Sadly, proper deference has not been given to the authority vested in 
the Congress by the Constitution to exercise the power to declare war. 
The Founders must have believed, as I do now, that the power to wage 
war is too awesome a power to vest in the executive. War is too 
dangerous and too important a matter to be left to the discretion of 
one man or woman.
  This war would be especially dangerous. We would be acting alone, not 
only without allies but also with the hostile condemnation of the rest 
of the Arab world. We would undermine the war against terrorism and, 
indeed, increase the risk of future terrorist attacks against our own 
country. We would undermine the authority and mission of the United 
Nations, our best hope for a peaceful solution.
  It is dangerous to go forward without knowing how long this war will 
take; without knowing how many lives will be lost, military and 
civilian; how much it will cost; how much of a drain it will be on our 
already dangerously weak economy; how long it will take to rebuild a 
devastated Iraq; and whether Iraq will ever be a viable democracy.
  So, before we vote, we must ask, why now? Why the rush? There is too 
much danger lurking in the unknown and the untried. With the election 
only weeks away, there is too much of the taint of political expediency 
to gain the trust of our international friends.
  I cannot support this resolution. I will support the United Nations 
leading an international coalition to disarm Iraq. At the very least, 
we should give the U.N. a chance before we embark on the dangerous path 
this resolution takes us.
  I will vote against H.J. Res. 114.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), a Member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution 
granting President Bush the authority he seeks to take decisive action 
against Saddam Hussein. Clearly, this decision is one of the most 
sobering I have had to make during my time in public service. It is a 
decision that no Member of Congress considers lightly. It is also one 
that I take confidently and with great moral clarity.
  The President's critics urge dealing with this threat through 
diplomatic and U.N. efforts, but passage of this resolution is the only 
way Saddam will take those ongoing efforts at the U.N. seriously. It 
is, in fact, the only hope for those continuing efforts.
  Many of those same critics say that our government should have 
connected the dots and better understood the terrorist threat before 
September 11. Well, that is exactly what we are doing here now, 
connecting the dots and better understanding a closely-related threat.
  Saddam Hussein has proved time and again that his totalitarian regime 
threatens America, our allies and even his own people. He is a known 
exporter of terrorism. He causes regional instability. He actively 
pursues weapons of mass destruction. He has proven he is willing to use 
them. So inaction, or the mere return to the old frustrated U.N. 
resolutions, is clearly the riskiest path of all.
  My constant prayers are for the members of our Armed Forces around 
the world as they embark on their missions. May God bless them, and may 
God bless America.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I just returned this morning from a 
16-hour flight from my district, hoping very much that I would be able 
to participate in some small way in this most important debate now 
pending before this body.
  In the course of the weekend, I had the opportunity of participating 
in the dedication of the opening of the construction of the brand-new 
U.S. Army Reserve Center that we are establishing in my district for 
the purpose of accommodating some 450 of our men and women in military 
uniform; also, in essence, sharing with my people the historical 
aspects of our participation in our unit as part of the famous 100th 
battalion 442nd infantry Army Reserve organization out of the State of 
Hawaii. I did this, in observing these men and women in uniform, as I 
reflected on the fact that in a couple of days I would be here before 
my colleagues expressing my opinion of what we should do in the 
aftermath of the President asking us to make a decision on this 
important issue.
  As a member of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Speaker, 
I voted in favor, in support of the proposed resolution now under 
consideration by this body. In principle, House Joint Resolution 114 
embodies our Nation's efforts to work with our allies and work with the 
United Nations Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly 
to seriously consider the demands and the dangers that are now posed by 
the current regime ruled by dictator Saddam Hussein.

[[Page H7333]]

  I am happy to observe that our President's initial rhetoric on this 
most serious matter is now more realistically applied. The fact is that 
our President must come to the Congress not just to consult, but must 
come to the Congress to justify himself on whether or not we should 
commit our men and women in military uniform and put them in harm's 
way. I am sure my colleagues need not be reminded of the wisdom of how 
the Founding Fathers established our system of government as plainly 
written, clearly written in the Constitution, where, this power in this 
most serious matter, is given to the Congress and not to the President, 
the power to declare war.
  I think another matter that also needs to be restated in the aspects 
of how our government functions, Congress also is given the important 
responsibility of raising an Army and a Navy, not the President. I 
think it shows quite well how our Founding Fathers said, we do not want 
another emperor or another king; we want to make sure that there is a 
checks and balance system. I think this is how we came out with such an 
excellent way of proceeding to make sure that this kind of authority or 
power is not given exclusively just to the President.
  When our Secretary of State Powell appeared before our Committee on 
International Relations, I asked Secretary Powell some questions that 
were very dear to my heart. I asked, ``Secretary Powell, if and when 
our Nation should ever declare war, are we going to go there to win and 
nothing less? Secretary Powell, I don't want another Vietnam War. I 
don't want to hear another bunch of half-baked plans and objectives 
being done by some bureaucrats in the Pentagon, and then a policy where 
the enemy soldiers can shoot at you, but you can't shoot back.'' 
Secretary Powell's response was, ``Yes, if we are going to go to war, 
we are going to go to win.''
  I also asked Secretary Powell, ``Are we going to be working with the 
Security Council and the United Nations?'' Again he responded and said, 
``Yes, exactly. This is our objective as far as the administration is 
concerned.''
  I also asked Secretary Powell, ``Will our Nation take up the 
responsibility as well to provide for some millions of Iraqi refugees 
who will be fleeing from these horrible consequences of war which, I 
believe, will also cause serious economic and social conditions to the 
surrounding Arab countries in the Middle East?'' And he said, ``Yes, we 
will also have to take up that responsibility.''
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider this matter now before us, I am reminded 
of an incident that occurred years ago in the Middle East where a 
terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, where 
hundreds of Marines were needlessly killed as a result of that 
incident. At that time our Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, was 
literally tortured by this incident. As a result, he proposed six 
principles or criteria or tests that I think our Nation must answer 
positively before our Nation should commit its sons and daughters to 
war. I want to share these six principles with my colleagues here this 
afternoon.
  Test number one, ``Commit only if our allies and our vital interests 
are at stake. Number two, if we commit, do so with all of the resources 
necessary to win. Number three, go in only with clear political and 
military objectives. Number four, be ready to change the commitment if 
the objectives change, since war is rarely standstill. Number five, 
only take on commitments that gain the support of the American people 
and the Congress. And, number six, commit U.S. forces only as a last 
resort.''
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues a statement made by a 
general some 2,500 years ago named General Sun Tzu. He said, ``The art 
of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and 
death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence, under no 
circumstances can it be neglected.''
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, but known as the fierce fighter for 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I am 
deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to 
bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and 
cautious diplomacy.
  The bottom line is that I do not trust the President and his 
advisors.
  Make no mistake. We are voting on a resolution that grants total 
authority to a President who wants to invade a sovereign nation without 
any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States 
to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. And it sets 
a precedent for our Nation or any nation to exercise brute force 
anywhere in the world without regard to international law or 
international consensus. Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a 
President who has been so callous as to proceed without reservation as 
if the war is of no real consequence.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of 
Texas politics wrote, ``For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way 
too hard, at a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy. 
Somebody,'' she wrote, ``should be worrying about how all this could 
affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.'' 
Pretty prophetic, Ms. Ivins.
  Let us not forget that our President, our Commander in Chief, has no 
experience or knowledge of war. In fact, he admits that he was at best 
ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service 
and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard; and he 
reported years later that, at the height of the conflict in 1968, he 
did not notice any ``heavy stuff'' going on.
  So we have a President who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's 
dug-out and Kashmir is a sweater. What is most unconscionable is that 
there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. 
Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give 
any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or 
family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a 
just cause? Is the President's need for revenge for the threat once 
posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American? I 
submit the answer to these questions is no.
  Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by 
who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The 
Administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion. Now, wealthy 
individuals will not pay; they have big tax cuts already. Corporations 
will not pay; they will just continue to cook the books and move 
overseas and send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids 
will not pay; their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did 
for George W.
  Well, then, who will pay? School kids will pay. There will be no 
money to keep them from being left behind, way behind. Seniors will 
pay. They will pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social 
Security and continue to rob the trust fund to pay for this capricious 
war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable, 
and there will not be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will 
spend it on a war. Working folks will pay through loss of jobs, job 
security, and bargaining rights. And our grandchildren will pay, 
through the degradation of our air and water quality, and the entire 
Nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's 
rights, and religious freedom in a rush to phoney patriotism and to 
courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.
  The questions before the Members of this House and to all Americans 
are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently 
confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call 
for war is wrong.
  What greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that 
this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the 
world, but for the short-term political interests of our President.
  Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have 
also put political calculation above the President's accountability to 
truth and reason by supporting this resolution.
  But I conclude that the only answer is to vote ``no'' on the 
resolution before us.

[[Page H7334]]

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair would 
remind the Member that it is not in order to refer to the President in 
personal terms. Although remarks in debate may include criticism of the 
President's official actions or policies, they may not include 
criticism on a personal level.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that 
reminder. I think it is an important reminder, especially when we are 
debating such serious matters here.
  It is my honor, Mr. Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. In 
dealing with Iraq, we must act in the best interests of our national 
security. Based on the evidence against Saddam Hussein, we no longer 
wonder if he has weapons of mass destruction or if he will use them, 
but when.
  Defectors have reported the existence of mobile germ warfare 
laboratories. Dump trucks purchased through the U.N. humanitarian aid 
program have been converted into military vehicles. Saddam Hussein is 
an expert in dual technologies. Computers used in hospitals can also 
generate designs for nuclear weapons. Saddam imports dual-use 
technologies and then diverts them to military use.

                              {time}  1500

  His regime is founded upon the hatred of America and Israel, his 
loathing for freedom and liberty, and his fear for democracy. Saddam is 
driven by the fantasy to triumph over the free world. We must implement 
a long-term solution to neutralize this threat that Saddam poses to 
America, to the free world, and to his own people.
  Military action is not the desired means of resolving the Iraqi 
situation. I do not take lightly the prospect of sending our young 
Americans to war. Force, however, may be an eventuality for which we 
must prepare. This resolution permits the use of force to prevent a 
ruthless dictator from using deadly weapons of mass destruction.
  Without regard to U.N. resolutions or international law he has 
sought, obtained, and used weapons of mass destruction even on his own 
people. Unless the U.N. resolutions are backed by action, he will 
brazenly frustrate similar attempts to inspect and disarm his arsenal. 
Military consequences are the only way to stop Saddam Hussein's games 
and force legitimate inspections.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New 
York, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for the resolution before us 
and to offer my support for our President.
  There is no task that any of us faces that is more serious than 
making the decision to commit our military to danger abroad. Mr. 
Speaker, I do not take this task lightly, but with the decision that 
currently faces us, I feel we have no choice.
  Above all, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to work 
with the President to protect our citizens from danger. While it is my 
hope that continued diplomatic efforts ultimately prove this resolution 
unnecessary, history has shown that we should not and cannot take that 
chance.
  As our esteemed colleague, the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, reminded us yesterday, 66 years ago another 
brutal dictator terrorized his own people, instigated religious and 
ethnic persecution on a massive scale, and declared his aggressive 
intent against his neighbors. The world still bears the scars from the 
mistake of ignoring the threat of evil posed by Adolph Hitler.
  History has shown that Saddam Hussein, too, is a brutal dictator and 
he needs to be held in check. We know what he has done to the Kurds. We 
know what he has done to his own people. We cannot turn our backs as 
the threat of Saddam Hussein continues to plague our Nation and the 
world.
  Iraq's use and its continued development of weapons of mass 
destruction, as well as its connections with terrorist organizations 
that wish to do the United States harm, demand that we act prudently to 
protect our citizens from danger.
  While it is necessary for us to make the preparations to go to war, 
we should not be going at it alone. I encourage President Bush to work 
hard for the passage of a U.N. resolution acknowledging the threat that 
Iraq poses to the world. The United States does not suffer alone from 
the threat that Saddam poses. We should not go at it alone in 
combatting that threat either. Just as we did during the Gulf War, this 
administration should work to build a multinational coalition to share 
the burden of any possible military action against Iraq.
  In conclusion, let me reiterate my support for this resolution.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and vice-chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution, a 
resolution which I believe will send a clear and an unmistakable 
message to our own citizens, our allies, and our enemies, as well, that 
Congress stands behind our President in defense of America's national 
security interests.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more serious an issue for Congress to debate 
than the question of authorizing the use of America's Armed Forces. We 
are a peaceful Nation, preferring instead to rely on diplomacy in our 
relations with other countries.
  On the question of Iraq in particular, the United States and the 
United Nations have been exceedingly patient, working steadily to 
integrate Iraq into the community of law-abiding nations, but to date 
we have failed. In the decades since Desert Storm, Iraq has chosen a 
very different path. Iraq has worked to develop weapons of mass 
destruction, including chemical and biological agents; and Saddam 
Hussein has repeatedly ignored U.N. resolutions demanding that he 
disarm. He has refused to allow weapons inspectors access to potential 
sites. Thus, the threat of obtaining stocks of these terrible weapons 
continues to grow.
  Most troubling of all, Saddam Hussein has shown, has demonstrated, 
his willingness to use such horrible weapons against other nations and 
against his own people. Only when military action is imminent does the 
Iraqi regime begin to discuss allowing inspectors to return, but the 
restrictions they wish to place on these inspectors would effectively 
render their mission useless and, instead, simply delay action and 
allow a covert weapons program to begin to bear terrifying results.
  If we wait until Iraq succeeds in achieving these goals, we will have 
waited too long.
  The resolution we are debating today encourages a diplomatic solution 
to the threat that Iraq poses to our national security. The President 
has called on the U.N. to act effectively to enforce Iraq's disarmament 
and ensure full compliance with Security Council resolutions. But if 
the U.N. cannot act effectively, this resolution will provide the 
President with full support to use all appropriate means.
  Mr. Speaker, neither I nor any Member of this body want to see a 
renewed conflict in Iraq. We must be prepared to act give the President 
flexibility that he needs to respond to this gathering threat to 
protect American lives and address the threat to global peace.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation and a fighter for the people of her 
district.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before the Members today, one of three African 
Americans sent to the United States Congress 10 years ago, the first 
time in 129 years that Florida sent an African American to Congress 
from the great State of Florida; the scene of the crime of the 2000 
Presidential election, where thousands of African American votes were 
not counted, over 27,000 thrown out in my district, with the Supreme

[[Page H7335]]

Court selecting the President in a 5-4 decision.
  Many of my colleagues say that the President is the only person 
elected by all of the people. Did I miss something? This President was 
selected by the Supreme Court, and that fateful decision was over 600 
days ago. Now this President, who runs our country without a mandate, 
has pushed us to the brink of war.
  The President is asking Congress to give him a blank check. I say 
today to the President, his account has come back overdrawn. This blank 
check gives him too much power: a blank check that forces Congress to 
waive its constitutional duties to declare war, a blank check that lets 
the President declare war and not consult Congress until 48 hours after 
the attack begins. Let me repeat that, a blank check that lets the 
President declare war and not even consult with Congress until 48 hours 
after the attack has begun.
  Not only has the President given us an economic deficit, but there is 
a deficit in his argument. Why Iraq, and why today?
  In the 10 years that I served in Congress, this is the most serious 
vote I will take. I have to say, the resolution on Iraq the White House 
drafted is intentionally misleading. It misleads the American people, 
the international community and, yes, the United States Congress.
  This is a sad day, almost as sad as it was 627 days ago when the 
Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the President. The White House 
talks about dictators, but we have not done anything to correct what 
has happened right here in the United States. It amazes me that we 
question other governments when in our country we did not have a fair 
election.
  I recently traveled to Russia, China, and South Korea; and I believe 
it would be unfortunate to damage the goodwill our Nation was receiving 
after September 11. But there is a song, ``You are on your own.'' Mr. 
Speaker, we are on our own with this. No one in the international 
community is behind us.
  I have not seen any information demonstrating that Iraq poses a 
threat to our country any more than it did 10 years ago, and certainly 
I do not have reason to believe we should attack unilaterally without 
the support of the U.N. In fact, recent poll numbers suggest that many 
Americans do not support the way that the President is handling the 
situation and, indeed, the way Congress handles the situation. They 
think we are spending too much time talking about Iraq and not 
discussing problems like health care, education and, yes, their 
pensions.
  Many also say they do not want the United States to act without 
support by allies and, by a 2 to 1 margin, do not want the United 
States to act before the U.N. weapons inspectors have had an 
opportunity to enter Iraq and conduct further investigations.
  Although the administration is attempting to convince the American 
public otherwise, they have not shown any evidence of a connection 
between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq's government is not a democracy, but 
neither are many other countries on the State Department terrorist 
list.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is in the hands of my colleagues. I do 
believe that there is good and evil in the world, and what we are about 
to do here in the next couple of days will tilt it in a negative 
direction. I do hope that I am wrong, but I do believe what we will do 
here today will not only affect our children, but our children's 
children will pay for what we are about to do.
  May God have mercy on America, and God bless America.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as part of this great debate, I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member 
of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  No person of common sense wants war. Rational people agree that war 
should be the last resort. But there is a real, dangerous, and deadly 
threat posed by Iraq; and we must face this challenge head on or suffer 
the consequences of inaction.
  Saddam Hussein ignores repeated demands to stop accumulating weapons 
of mass destruction. These are not our demands, they are the demands of 
the world.
  In an ideal world, Saddam Hussein would disarm immediately. In an 
ideal world, Saddam Hussein would stop manufacturing, stockpiling, and 
pursuing weapons of mass destruction. In an ideal world, Saddam Hussein 
would tell us what happened to Captain Scott Speicher, a young man, a 
Navy pilot from my hometown of Jacksonville, who was the first man shot 
down behind enemy lines during the Gulf War. In an ideal world, Iraq 
would honor the 16 United Nations resolutions that he has thumbed his 
nose at for the last 11 years.
  But we do not live in an ideal world. The reality demands that we 
act. We must act because the danger is grave and growing. We must act 
because Saddam Hussein is a man with no moral limits. He is uniquely 
evil, and the only ruler in power today, and the only one since Hitler, 
to commit a campaign of chemical genocide against his own people.
  We must act because the worst thing we could do is turn our heads and 
pretend that Saddam Hussein does not exist. We must not allow this 
dictator to arm himself with nuclear capabilities and position himself 
further as the world's bully, blackmailing those within his nuclear 
grasp, blindsiding regional stability, and threatening our national 
security through his dealings with terrorists.
  There is nothing desirable about breaching the bounds of civility to 
forge peace. Even so, I believe there are situations that cause a 
nation to rise with certainty and defend itself.
  I urge my colleagues to send a clear message to Saddam Hussein: 
disarm, or face the consequences. There is no middle ground.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution because I believe that the threat of force is required if we 
are to have any hope of disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the 
threat that he presents to our Nation and to the world.
  Just about everybody agrees that Saddam Hussein does in fact pose a 
threat. The debate seems to be about how large that threat is, how 
imminent it is, and how much it is directed at us. I think the evidence 
makes it clear that we face a threat.
  I am sympathetic to those who would like to wish away that threat 
because of the hard choice that we have to face when we realize that we 
do have a threat against us, but it does not change the facts. Saddam 
Hussein has a long history of trying to develop the most deadly weapons 
possible: chemical, biological, and nuclear. He was first thwarted in 
1981 by Israel, then in 1991 by the Gulf War, and now all evidence 
points to the fact that he is trying to develop those weapons again. 
That makes him a threat right off the bat.
  Plus he has a proven propensity for violence, a proven propensity to 
use those weapons. As bad as we think Iran and North Korea are, and the 
Soviet Union was, none of those countries have ever used chemical 
weapons. They drew the line; Saddam Hussein did not. He crossed over 
it, and he used chemical weapons against his own people.
  He also has clearly expressed his disdain for the United States of 
America ever since the Gulf War, so clearly he is a threat to us.

                              {time}  1515

  The presence of international terrorism changes the nature of this 
threat. Many have said we have not proven a link to 9-11, we have not 
proven a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, but there is ample 
evidence that some degree of connection is there. And there is 
certainly ample reason that tells us that Saddam Hussein coming 
together with the international terrorists who oppose us is quite 
likely and quite possible; and that makes the threats both imminent and 
to the U.S. because terrorism would enable Saddam Hussein to deliver 
these weapons through means other than having to develop an 
intercontinental missile. He could deliver them in any manner of 
different ways and has shown a certain willingness towards violence 
against the U.S.
  We face a threat. We cannot wish away that threat because of 
consequences of acknowledging it. We face

[[Page H7336]]

that threat, and we must stand up to it, and the threat of force 
against him is necessary to meet it.
  Now, I want to deal with the preemptive argument because many have 
said we are becoming a rogue nation by doing this. And I regret what 
the President has said about a policy of preemptive strike because I 
think it has muddied the waters. We do not have to violate 
international law to go to war with Saddam Hussein. We are in an 
armistice with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We went to war with them in 
1991. That war was only ended by an armistice, an armistice which 
everyone knows Saddam Hussein is in violation of. We are clearly within 
the bounds of international law to use force to enforce that armistice. 
We do not have to get into a debate about first strikes and preemptive 
action. We are clearly within the bounds of the international law.
  It has also been said that we should work multilaterally. I 
completely agree that we should. Again, I regret the approach the 
President took earlier this year when stories were leaked about how he 
could do it without congressional approval. He did not want to go to 
the U.N. He wanted to do it unilaterally. I think that was a mistake. I 
think he should have learned from his father's example when Iraq 
invaded Kuwait. The first thing the first George Bush did was to call 
the U.N. and say let us work together. We should have taken that 
approach, but now we are.
  It has been said, How can we give this power to the President who 
wants to go right over our heads and totally ignore Congress? We are 
here talking about it. He is not going over our heads. He is asking us 
for that support. So that too is not an issue.
  We should act multilaterally. We are. It is my profound hope that we 
will not go to war, that Saddam Hussein faced with this threat will 
allow for the disarmament to happen. But absent this threat, rest 
assured he will not react in the way that we want him to.
  I also regret that politics has been brought into this. During the 
time when we were trying to deal with the crises in Kosovo and Bosnia 
and even Iraq in 1998, I was deeply angered by Republican colleagues 
who attacked the President's character as he tried to deal with this 
threat.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair requests the doormen in the gallery to take care of that 
cellphone noise and remove it. Will the Sergeant at Arms find that and 
have it removed from the gallery?
  The gentleman will continue.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the criticisms of President 
Clinton were that in trying to deal with Saddam Hussein, when he 
finally so thwarted the U.N. inspectors that they were forced to leave 
because they could not do their job, criticism was that the President 
was ``wagging the dog,'' he was dealing with his personal problems. We 
undercut our own President at a time when he needed us most. And now 
when I see Democrats doing the same thing by questioning the 
President's motives at a time when we need to come together as a 
country, I similarly destain that partisanship.
  There is plenty of room to disagree here about whether or not we 
should go to war. We do not need to question the personal motives of 
our President now any more than we should have back in 1998 when it was 
Republicans doing it to Democrats instead of Democrats doing it to 
Republicans.
  Lastly, I would like to deal with the issue of how this affects the 
people of Iraq. There has been much criticism of the sanctions regime 
on Iraq, much criticism of the effect that has had on the Iraqi people. 
Ironically, that criticism has come from some of the same people who 
now criticize our threat to use force against Iraq. I think the 
criticism was this is harming the Iraqi people and doing nothing to 
Saddam Hussein.
  So if we do not threaten to use force and back it up if necessary to 
disarm Saddam Hussein and remove that threat, what are we left with? Do 
we simply remove the economic sanctions and say it is okay for Saddam 
Hussein to make a mockery of international law, to make a mockery of 
the same multilateralism that we claim to support, to continue to 
develop weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and the world and 
simply say we will do nothing?
  I fully admit this is a hard choice. Going to war is not easy, but we 
cannot wish away the threat and pretend somehow this is simply 
motivated by personal motivations of the President. There is a clear 
threat here we must deal with. I hope the threat of force deals with 
it; but if the threat does not, we must follow through in order to 
protect ourselves and protect the world.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a veteran of the U.S. Air 
Force, someone who understands the dangers of war very well.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, before 9-11 the threat of terrorists and 
those states that harbored them was unfortunately not taken as 
seriously.
  In the 1990's, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, two American 
embassies, an American barracks, and the USS Cole. We took only limited 
action then, but now we cannot let the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans 
on September 11 be in vain. We vowed after that to do our best to rid 
the world of terrorists and fear.
  Over the past 12 years, the United Nations has issued numerous 
warnings about the blatant defiance of Iraq. Additionally, we know that 
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has used biological and chemical weapons 
against even his own citizens. Hussein has violated the Oil for Food 
Program, diverting uncounted millions to fund a military buildup and 
develop weapons of mass destruction, all the while allowing a reported 
1 million children to die of starvation.
  The oppressed citizens of Iraq are not our enemy, only the evil 
regime of Saddam Hussein. This resolution is a grave, but necessary, 
step in confronting the danger of his regime. It does not inevitably 
lead us to war. It encourages the United Nations to live up to its true 
purpose.
  President John F. Kennedy described courage as ``doing what is right 
even in the face of unrelenting pressure.'' The time has come for the 
U.N. to take decisive action, but we cannot let the U.N.'s inaction 
keep us from defending our national security.
  President Bush is effectively building an international coalition, 
but for those countries afraid or unwilling to join our coalition, this 
resolution encourages them to help in our effort to preserve peace and 
democracy.
  A few weeks after September 11, I personally visited Ground Zero. I 
will never forget the smouldering rubble where innocent thousands lost 
their lives. There I spoke with the New York City firefighter who lost 
so many of his heroic colleagues. And before I departed, he 
passionately challenged me, saying, ``Don't you ever let them forget 
what happened here.''
  I now have the honor to speak on behalf of that brave firefighter and 
challenge this Congress. We must not forget those who lost their lives 
on 9-11, and we must overwhelmingly support this resolution to defend 
our freedom.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), a leading member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
substitute resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) and in opposition to the Hastert-Gephardt resolution.
  The Spratt-Allen-Price-Snyder-Clyburn - Matsui - Larson - Moran - 
Reyes -Levin resolution recognizes the danger posed by Iraq's 
possession and development of weapons of mass destruction, and it 
recognizes the need to enforce United Nations resolutions providing for 
the destruction of these weapons and of the capacity to produce them.
  It authorizes the President to utilize armed forces to protect and 
support arms inspectors and to undertake enforcement actions under U.N. 
auspices. It does not, however, give the President open-ended 
authorization to use force unilaterally or preemptively. For that he 
would have to come to Congress for a specific vote after other means 
had been exhausted.
  As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has testified, ``A 
second vote is not an imposition on the

[[Page H7337]]

President's powers. It is the age-old system of checks and balances and 
one way Congress can say that we prefer for any action against Iraq to 
have the sanction of the Security Council and the support of a 
broadbased coalition.''
  An up-or-down congressional vote on a resolution authorizing force is 
a blunt instrument at best. And regardless of which resolution passes, 
the President and Congress and the country will still face critical 
decisions down the road. The Iraqi threat, as grave as it is, must be 
assessed in the context of other antiterrorist and diplomatic 
objectives. After all, the war against al Qaeda is hardly won. It is 
critical, as the Spratt resolution states, that action against Iraq not 
imperil international cooperation in the fight against terrorism or 
displace related diplomatic endeavors such as pursuit of an Israeli-
Palestinian settlement.
  Moreover, a complex of policies is either already in place or is 
envisioned in the resolutions before us: a regime of coercive 
inspections; U.N. enforcement of the mandate to disarm; readiness for a 
devastating response to any aggressive Iraqi military action; no-fly 
zones; intense surveillance; a tight embargo on strategic and dual-use 
materials. Could these policies contain, deter, and ultimately disarm 
Iraq, making a military invasion unnecessary and enabling us to attend 
to other equally important antiterrorist priorities?
  We cannot answer that question now. But should we not know that 
answer before we authorize a massive military invasion which surely 
represents an extreme option?
  We should not make this congressional vote any blunter an instrument 
than it needs to be. We are being asked to line up behind an open-ended 
resolution that has been improved by hortatory language but still 
authorizes the President to invade unilaterally or preemptively under 
circumstances, weeks or months hence, that we cannot possibly foresee. 
This, we are told, will help the administration influence the U.N. 
Security Council and apply maximum pressure on Iraq. Now, that is not a 
negligible argument; but it does not do justice to our duty, as members 
of a coordinate branch of government, to help set national policy.
  Our job is to provide a responsible and rational guide to policy, 
should compliance and enforcement fail. The open-ended resolution 
requested by the President would represent an abdication of that 
responsibility.
  The Spratt resolution with its required second vote would give us the 
means to exercise our constitutional role more fully and with better 
command of the facts. And, no less than the Hastert-Gephardt 
resolution, it would serve notice now of our resolve to see United 
Nations resolutions upheld and Iraq disarmed.
  Our concern about granting open-ended authority to make war should be 
heightened as we consider the administration's recently enunciated 
``doctrine'' of the right of one country to take preemptive or even 
preventative military action against hostile states.
  This doctrine goes far beyond the recognized right of anticipatory 
self-defense.
  A unilateral attack on Iraq would be difficult to justify under 
existing standards, for even the Bush administration has not 
consistently argued that the threat to the U.S. from Iraq is imminent. 
But we must ask how this new doctrine would play out as other nations 
eagerly adopt it and act on it for their own purposes.
  As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently stated, ``It 
cannot be either in the American national interest or in the world's 
interest to develop principles that grant every nation an unfettered 
right of preemption against its own definition of threats to its 
security.''
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not whether but how best to 
address the threats posed by Iraq's weapons programs and its continued 
defiance of the world community.
  A purely military response, particularly one taken unilaterally or 
preemptively, would have costs and risks that should lead us to regard 
it as a last resort. We must deal with the threat in ways that do not 
compromise our broader war on terrorism and that maintain the support 
and engagement of our allies.
  The Spratt substitute resolution keeps these priorities straight. It 
upholds Congress' role in authorizing military operations, not 
indiscriminately, but under specific conditions for specific purposes. 
It is vastly preferable to the open-ended Hastert-Gephardt resolution, 
and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a veteran of the National Guard 
and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to 
give the President of the United States the authority to exercise his 
sworn duty to protect the people of this Nation.
  There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United 
States and other parts of the world. He has used weapons of mass 
destruction against his own people, killing and maiming thousands upon 
thousands of innocents, including women and children. He has deceived 
weapons inspectors and violated the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire 
agreement with the United Nations. He has continued to stockpile 
chemical and biological weapons, and recent intelligence tells us he is 
much closer than we previously thought possible to developing and 
constructing a usable nuclear weapon.
  Over the past few years, we have learned many painful lessons 
regarding the Middle East and terrorism: the Marine barracks in Beirut; 
the airmen we lost in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi; the 
foreign service personnel we lost in Tanzania and Kenya; and then the 
sailors weapon lost in Yemen; and, finally, Mr. Speaker, the people we 
lost in New York and in D.C.

                              {time}  1530

  Intelligence tells us that Saddam Hussein has massive stockpiles of 
weapons and he has missiles, the capability of delivering those 
weapons.
  Our President does not easily want to go to war. He has even stated 
this repeatedly on many occasions, but it is a difficult situation that 
he is in and we are in, Mr. Speaker. But this resolution demonstrates 
the resolve of the American people to force Saddam Hussein to comply 
with U.N. regulations which, until now, he has flagrantly abused.
  This resolution will send a clear message to the Middle East, to the 
oppressive dictator, the Butcher of Baghdad, and to the rest of the 
world that we will not live in fear; that we will not tolerate 
terrorism; and that we will use the force necessary to protect our 
people, our freedoms and our way of life from those who seek only to 
destroy such.
  It goes without saying this President has sworn to do a duty. We must 
give him the power and the necessary authorization to do so.
  I strongly support this resolution and ask my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether or not to support the 
President of the United States in his efforts to exercise his sworn 
duty to protect the nation.
  That there is a gathering threat to America from the dictator Saddam 
Hussein goes without saying, but let me reiterate some of the past 
actions that demonstrate that threat.
  Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait without provocation. He has 
used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, killing and 
maiming thousands upon thousands of innocents, including women and 
children. In 1993. Saddam sent a Land Cruiser loaded with 400 pounds of 
explosives into Kuwait to attempt to assassinate former President 
George Bush. He has deceived weapons inspectors and violated the 
conditions of the 1991 Cease-fire agreement with the United Nations. He 
has continued to stockpile chemical and biological weapons, and recent 
intelligence tells us, is much closer than we previously thought 
possible to developing and constructing a usable nuclear weapon.
  Over the past 12 years we have learned many painful lessons regarding 
the Middle East and terrorism. Our citizens have been attacked and 
killed repeatedly. The 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers by Saudi 
dissidents funded and organized by Iranian Leadership killed 19 of our 
servicemen and women. In 1998, the coordinated bombing of American 
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya killed 224 people, including 12 
Americans. In 2000, 17 American Sailors were killed in the Port of 
Yemen when terrorists bombed the USS Cole.
  And our nation still reels from the effects of September 11, 2001 
when thousands of our countrymen were tragically lost to us in 
devastating attacks.
  And yet, as painful as each of these incidents has been, nothing can 
compare to the

[[Page H7338]]

destructive and deadly capability of Saddam Hussein's arsenal of 
terror. Imagine for a moment the complete destruction of a city the 
size of Atlanta, with its entire population of 4.1 million people 
suddenly silenced in a nuclear blast. Imagine New York City and its 19 
million residents dead from the effects of Sarin or VX Nerve gas. 
Imagine Washington, DC and its half million residents, sick or dying 
from Anthrax, Botulism, or one of the other deadly biological agents in 
Saddam's arsenal.
  And can there be any doubt that he would fully use such weapons in 
American if given the chance. If you doubt it, I ask you to consider 
the Kurds who opposed Saddam and the horrid fate they met at his bloody 
hands.
  Our President does not eagerly anticipate war. He is not bent on 
sending young men and women into harm's way. He has even stated 
repeatedly his desire to avoid a conflict. But this resolution 
demonstrates the resolve of the American people to force Saddam Hussein 
to comply with UN Resolutions which, until now he has flagrantly 
disregarded. Without the teeth provided by this resolution, nothing 
will change. This resolution will send a clear message to the Middle 
East; to the oppressive dictator--the Butcher of Baghdad; and to the 
rest of the world that we will not live in fear, that we will not 
tolerate terrorism, and that we will use the force necessary to protect 
our people, our freedoms, and our way of life from those who seek only 
to destroy.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us today is not about whether we 
will go to war against Iraq, it is about whether we will take the 
necessary precautions to protect American citizens from a cruel 
dictator, and while doing so, remove the yoke of oppression from the 
necks of the people of Iraq. It is about empowering the President to do 
the job he has sworn to do. It is about enforcing the United Nations 
mandates against a nation that has repeatedly disregarded them. It is 
about assuring our safety, security, and freedom. And it is a necessary 
tool to ensure the disarmament of Iraq and the removal of Saddam 
Hussein and his regime of terror.
  I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to pass it.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a member of the House Committee on 
Resources and a leader in health care, and she has brought attention to 
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must preface my remarks by reminding my colleagues 
that as the representative of the people of the Virgin Islands, who 
serve in some of the highest per capita numbers in our Armed Forces, I 
do not get to directly influence this decision because I am not allowed 
to cast a vote on the resolution we are debating today.
  Nevertheless, I rise because it is important that I speak on behalf 
of my constituents on this critical issue which affects them, as it 
does all Americans, despite the fact that neither do we vote for our 
Commander-in-Chief.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with a heavy heart, preferring 
that I could do so having sufficient information to justify the 
President's request so that I could support it. Instead, I must come to 
express my opposition to H.J. Res. 114 which would, in effect, 
preauthorize the use of unlimited military force against Iraq and 
invest this awesome authority in one person, the President of the 
United States.
  As many of my colleagues before me have stated, the decision that is 
ours by the authority bestowed upon us as Members of Congress by the 
writers of the Constitution, the Founders of this great country, to 
send our brave young men and women to war is the most solemn and 
serious choice we are ever called on to make.
  I hold to the principle that war should be a last resort. This 
resolution makes it the first resort.
  The President is asking for authority to wage a preemptive strike. I 
have attended many briefings, and, to date, nothing has been 
forthcoming to justify such an action at this time. The case has yet to 
be made that Iraq poses an imminent threat to our safety and national 
security.
  In adopting H.J. Res. 114 without amendment, we would be setting a 
dangerous precedent, embarking upon a course which could allow nations 
to determine, without international support, who among their neighbors 
pose a threat to their national security and, upon that assertion, wage 
a first strike offensive attack, plunging the world once again into the 
dangerous era of unilateral preemptive use of force by nations. We 
should not be charting such a course.
  While most Americans share the President's view, as do I, that Saddam 
Hussein is a dangerous man and the world would be better off without 
his brand of tyranny, we are gravely concerned about the repercussions 
of such a war if we have to fight it alone. The American people are 
concerned that, absent the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council, a 
unilateral first strike by us would lead to more terror at home and a 
wider war in the Middle East.
  So, Mr. Speaker, taking heed of the reluctance and the concerns of my 
constituents and the American public at large, I also join with those 
who hold that we must exhaust all diplomatic efforts and fully utilize 
all options available to us through the United Nations first as 
proposed in the Lee amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Spratt-Moran amendment, which I also support, which 
closely mirrors the statement of principles adopted by the 
Congressional Black Caucus, authorizes the President to use military 
force pursuant to a new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates 
the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. 
The Spratt-Moran amendment would also provide that if the Security 
Council does not adopt such a resolution, the President should seek 
authorization from Congress to use military force.
  This threat of force included in the Spratt-Moran amendment clearly 
gives the Secretary of State and the administration the clout they need 
and they seek to pressure Iraq into full compliance.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember one of our colleagues lamenting the 
possibility immediately after September 11 that the Constitution would 
be the first casualty of the war on terrorism. It has unfortunately 
been gravely wounded, but the mortal blow would come should we forfeit 
our constitutional authority to declare war and grant unlimited 
authority to the President at any time, and under whatever 
circumstances he sees fit, to take this country into war and too many 
of our young people to an untimely death.
  To relinquish such an important constitutional authority sets another 
dangerous precedent that could endanger other provisions of the body of 
laws that has guided this Nation so well for over 226 years.
  Finally, this yet-to-be-justified war would not only commit thousands 
of lives but would also commit resources that this country needs to 
improve and save the lives of people right here at home. This proposed 
war, which again we have not been convinced we need to undertake now, 
will undermine the war against terrorism, our homeland security and 
further threaten the very fabric of our society.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not take action that would undermine the 
constitutional authority of the Congress. Vote no on H.J. Res. 114 and 
support both the Lee and Spratt-Moran amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and Committee on Government Reform.
  (Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, 
this country saw evil demonstrated as we had never imagined possible. 
Last year's attacks on our Nation showed us all too well the immorality 
of evil persons who are determined to attack us, our way of life and 
the freedom we cherish. We must act to ensure that no such attack ever 
occurs again, and it is today more imperative than ever that Iraq's 
weapons programs be brought to light, halted and terminated. The 
consequences of not acting to prevent Iraq from continuing its weapons 
development are simply too great to be ignored.
  For over a decade, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime has defied and 
deceived the international community. In its blatant and deliberate 
violation of international will and its development of weapons of mass 
destruction, Iraq has continued to pose a real and significant threat 
to the security of its

[[Page H7339]]

neighbors and the entire Persian Gulf region, the national security of 
the United States and, indeed, the security of the civilized world.
  Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and evil dictator of a regime that has 
again and again showed no respect for international norms and the rule 
of law or respect for human life, just like the terrorists responsible 
for the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans last year. As such, Saddam 
Hussein is as much a terrorist and a threat to our Nation as those 
directly responsible for last September's heinous acts.
  What we know about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is 
unquestionably troubling, and, as President Bush said, what we do not 
know is even more so. His continued research and development of 
chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the extent of 
which is unknown due to his flagrant violation of international 
mandates, is a tremendous threat to the security of this Nation and 
must be stopped.
  The power to declare war and authorize the use of military force is 
one of the most significant powers the Constitution gives this body. It 
is a responsibility that every Member of Congress takes seriously, and 
there is no more difficult decision that we can make than to choose to 
send our military into action. Ensuring the security of this Nation and 
the safety of the citizens is a responsibility that we all take 
seriously, and I provide my support to President Bush as he makes the 
tough decisions ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to provide 
the President authorization to use the United States Armed Forces 
against Iraq.
  A little over a year ago, this country saw evil demonstrated as we 
had never before imagined. Last year's attacks on our nation showed us 
all too well the immorality of evil persons who are determined to 
attack us, our way of life, and the freedom that we cherish. We must 
act to ensure that no such attack ever occurs again, and it is today 
more imperative than ever that Iraq's weapons programs be brought to 
light, halted, and terminated. The consequences of not acting to 
prevent Iraq from continuing its weapons development are simply too 
great to be ignored.
  For over a decade now, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime has defied 
and deceived the international community. In its blatant and deliberate 
violation of international will and its development of weapons of mass 
destruction, Iraq has continued to pose a real and significant threat 
to the security of its neighbors and the entire Persian Gulf region, 
the national security of the United States, and indeed the security of 
the civilized world.
  When Iraq accepted the provisions of the United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 687 in 1991, it unconditionally accepted the 
inspection, destruction, and removal of its weapons of mass destruction 
and missile programs under international supervision. Unfortunately, 
however, the United Nations Special Commission's (UNSCOM) inspectors 
were repeatedly impeded and prevented from carrying out their mission, 
and were ultimately banned from Iraq in October 1998. Since then, Iraq 
has indisputably been in breach of its obligations, and its weapons of 
mass destruction programs have gone completely unchecked.
  Saddam Hussein is an evil person who cannot be trusted. Under his 
leadership, the Iraqi regime has had a repeated history of aggression 
against its neighbors, repression of its people, and hostility toward 
the international community and the United States of America. The facts 
speak for themselves:
  When Iraq invaded its neighbor Iran in 1980, the ensuing eight year 
war saw over one million casualties;
  Just ten years later, Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 
was followed by the detention and use of foreign nationals as human 
shields, the torture of Kuwaiti citizens and coalition servicemen 
including Americans;
  A year after the close of the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime 
plotted a foiled assassination attempt on President George H. W. Bush 
during his visit to Kuwait in 1993; and
  International coalition warplanes patrolling and enforcing the UN 
designated ``no-fly zones'' over Iraq--zones agreed to by the Iraqi 
regime--have continuously and repeatedly come under attack from Iraqi 
anti-aircraft installations.

  But most troubling is Iraq's capability and capacity to use weapons 
of mass destruction:
  45,000 Iranians were killed when Iraq used chemical weapons during 
the Iran-Iraq War;
  5,000 Kurdish civilians were killed and another 7,000 injured when 
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people in 1988; and
  Iraq again threatened to use chemical weapons against international 
coalition forces during the Persian Gulf War.
  Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and evil dictator of a regime that has 
again and again shown no respect for international norms and the rule 
of law, or respect for human life--just like those terrorists 
responsible for the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans last year. As 
such, Suddam Hussein is as much a terrorist and a threat to our nation 
as those directly responsible for last September's heinous acts.
  What we know about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is 
unquestionably troubling, and as President Bush said, what we don't 
know is even more so. His continued research and development of 
chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction--the extent of 
which is unknown due to his flagrant violation of international 
mandates--is a tremendous threat to the security of this nation and 
must be stopped.
  The power to declare war and authorize the use of military force is 
one of the most significant powers the Constitution gives this body. It 
is a responsibility that every Member of Congress takes very seriously, 
and there is no more difficult decision that we can make than to choose 
to send our military into action. Ensuing the security of this nation 
and the safety of her citizens is also a responsibility that I and the 
other members of this body take very seriously, and that is why I will 
vote in support of this resolution. I know that President Bush shares 
this concern for the security of this nation, and I have the utmost 
confidence that he will continue to demonstrate the leadership 
necessary to protect this nation, just as he has in our war on 
terrorism.
  I urge passage of this resolution, to give the President the 
necessary flexibility to provide for the security of this great nation 
by authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and a real reformer.
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the previous colleague just said, the 
decision of whether or not to send our young men and women to danger 
and to possibly kill or harm others is certainly the most solemn and 
serious decision the Members of Congress will have to make.
  There was no ambiguity between Congress and the President with 
respect to our response to the events of September 11, 2001, but now 
the issue is how to deal with a nation under control of an undeniably 
dangerous and treacherous individual, Saddam Hussein.
  The administration seeks to go it alone, seeks a resolution that 
would allow the President alone to decide and determine whether or not 
it is necessary to attack Iraq. It also seeks authorization to act for 
reasons beyond Iraq's failure to disarm after inspections. I believe 
there is a better way, a way recommended by other past commanders and 
present, names like Admiral Clark, Zinni and others. We should work 
within the international framework to create a consensus to impose 
inspections and disarmament and authorize the United States to 
participate in that U.N. Security Council effort to enforce those 
inspections and disarmament.
  That resolution should also say that if efforts are honestly and 
diligently pursued and they prove unsuccessful, then the administration 
should return to Congress for the determination of what appropriate 
action the United States, and other countries choosing to act with it, 
should then take.
  If Iraq were attacking the United States now, Congress would 
undoubtedly act with the same speed it did on September 14, 2001. If 
Iraq were doing that, we would act, but it is not attacking the United 
States at this point in time.
  The administration presents the case that, as the world's remaining 
superpower, it is justified in using its global military superiority to 
preempt perceived threats before they occur. We all know that America 
always knows that it can act to prevent disaster, but elevation of that 
unilateral preemptive policy to a new norm would mean that any 
militarily stronger nation may perceive a not-yet-established imminent 
threat and act preemptively. That would conjure up thoughts of India 
and Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, and China and Taiwan.
  This would turn decades of international law and norms on their head, 
years in which the United States was a leader in establishing 
international entities and laws, just so that nations

[[Page H7340]]

would not act presumptuously and attack others, and instead we set up 
an international system within which differences could be resolved 
without preemptive attacks being the first resort.
  The administration says that Hussein is bad, and no one disagrees, 
nor do we disagree with the notion that the U.N. resolutions must be 
enforced by the U.N. Security Council action. The administration, 
though, asserts that the United States must act peremptorily and right 
now because Iraq is an imminent threat, but the truth be told, it has 
not met the burden of proof with respect for that claim.
  Yes, Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and has had them for 
some time. Yes, they may have been trying unsuccessfully to get nuclear 
capabilities, but we have stopped them from doing that. In fact, the 
inspections were successful in inhibiting those attempts, and Iraq does 
not have nuclear capability nor does it have the means to deliver 
weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
  We have kept those materials from Iraq and from terrorists. And the 
irony is that, while the administration cavalierly talks about a $100 
to $200 billion cost of attack and rebuilding Iraq, it fails to come to 
this body and push for legislation that would be far less costly under 
the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction to safeguard weapons of 
mass destruction materials from getting into the hands of terrorists or 
Iraq or anyone else; and that simply is the path we should take.
  There is currently insufficient evidence of Iraq's complicity with 
terrorists, and today we learned through declassified CIA reports that 
Iraq is not likely to use biological/chemical weapons against the 
United States unless we send people in and provoke it in that region, 
and a number of reports so indicate.
  Given the absence of a direct threat to the United States and the 
absence of an imminent threat to the United States, we should proceed, 
but first, the United States, as a founder and a leader of the Security 
Council, should lead the international council to enforce inspection 
and disarmament, and we should seek further to get rid of weapons of 
mass destruction throughout that Middle East region and not stop with 
just Iraq. We should also use our diplomatic efforts to do that for 
every country, particularly in that region.
  We should also use the time that we would have by going the 
international route to disclose fully to the United States the cost of 
action, if it is necessary, in people and in treasuries. As the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts said, what casualties would there be if we 
fight in the desert or if we fight door to door in the city or 
biological/chemical weapons are used on our troops? What will happen 
with Iraqi civilian victims and what are our intentions to minimize 
those victims' problems? What about the sacrifice in terms of our 
economy? What will people be asked to forego in terms of education and 
health care and prescription drugs and infrastructure and getting 
people back to work? What about our plans for reoccupying and 
restabilizing Iraq?
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, if we go it alone, how will we deal with 
maintaining the cooperation of other nations, especially Arab and 
Muslim countries, and our number one threat of terrorism, should we 
lose our leadership? Countries look to us for that.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller), a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, no Member of this body ever 
wants to put our men and women in harm's way in a war, a war that will 
undoubtedly cost lives and inflict anxiety on the families of the loved 
ones who are in harm's way.
  My community hosts the Navy's future force in schoolhouses, in the 
Air Force's current command and wing commands and special operation 
units. It is these brave men and women who will fight this war.

                              {time}  1545

  These are the men and women who will put their lives on the line for 
us and defend freedom.
  I do not question the need for this action. I do not question the 
risk that is presented. But I do not wish for this war. I wish with all 
my soul that this monster could be removed from power without firing a 
single shot. I wish the people of Iraq would rise up and put their 
lives on the line, as our military personnel will. I wish we did not 
have to send America's sons and daughters to liberate their sons and 
daughters from a man who murders his own people. I wish our European 
partners would see the threat as we do. I wish they would use their 
tools to unite a common response to Iraq rather than sow the seeds of 
division seen in the parliaments and personal political campaigns of 
our allies. But most of all, we see that the world is content to ride 
our backs to prosperity and to freedom, a weight that we have carried 
before and, apparently, will carry again.
  Mr. Speaker, I know this task must be carried out by the United 
States of America. We must face this continued threat of terrorism head 
on, alone, or with our friends. And this position is no different than 
our position in the past. As leaders of the free world, we have always 
walked point. Mr. Speaker, we must trust our values, protect our 
freedom, and let liberty be our guide. This strategy has served us well 
over the past 200 years, and I can think of no reason to turn our back 
on it today.
  I support the President of the United States, and I support this 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a person who has proposed a peace committee; a 
person who has been a strong advocate against this resolution
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership and his work with all of 
us here.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday students held a peace rally on the west front 
of the Capitol. It may have been the first rally on the Capitol grounds 
in opposition to war with Iraq I attended, and I heard representatives 
of America's youth asking questions. Why? Why war against the people of 
Iraq? Why assert military power, which threatens innocent civilians? 
Why war to settle differences? Why separate our Nation from the world 
community? Why not give peaceful resolution a chance?
  I looked into the eyes of our youth. I looked at their fresh faces, 
faces hopeful and optimistic yet challenging, asking why. Soon the 
voices of our youth will be heard across this Nation, and we should pay 
them heed. They will be heard on campuses, in town halls, and many 
marches. They will be raised to challenge and to confront senseless 
violence, mindless war, the death of innocents, the destruction of 
villages to save villages.
  Voices will be lifted up in urgency because the future knows when the 
place it needs to build could be destroyed. The future knows and is 
skeptical about promises of peace that are wrapped in fire and 
brimstone. Our young people opposing war represent a message from the 
future America, the America that can be, and with the upwardly-
spiraling aspirations of millions of Americans of all ages, the America 
that will be.
  The future America works to make nonviolence an organizing principle 
in our society. The future America works to make war archaic. It is a 
Nation that lives courageously in peace, working to settle differences 
at home and abroad, without killing. The future America comprehends the 
world as an interconnected whole. It understands that changes in 
transportation, communication, and trades have made people throughout 
the world neighbors.
  The future America believes that each person is sacred, that each 
person makes a difference, that each choice we make affects others, 
that an injury to one person is an injury to all, that justice ought to 
be international, and that vengeance is reserved to the Lord. It is an 
America where human rights and workers' rights and environmental 
quality principles are within the arc of the human covenant. It is a 
Nation where each life is given an opportunity to unfold, where all 
have access to health care, to higher education, to jobs, and to a 
secure retirement; where quality of life matters, where people build 
families, build communities, build an American community of our dreams; 
where our highest aspirations

[[Page H7341]]

light the way to a better Nation and to a better world.
  The future America is a Nation which works to sustain life on Earth. 
It champions protection of the global environment. It works with all 
nations to abolish nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological 
weapons. It is a Nation which preserves the heavens for the restless 
human soul, and it rejects putting weapons in space because it knows 
that the kingdom that will come from the stars should bring eternal 
peace and not war. While some voices clamor for war, a future America 
looks for deeper unity of all people worldwide and seeks not empire but 
harmony.
  So to you, young America protesting this war, I sing a hymn of 
praise. Because while some may want to send you marching off to fight 
yesterday's wars, you are advancing from the future, reminding us that 
our Nation has a higher calling, reminding us of an America that can 
be, reminding us that there has to be a better way, reminding us to 
find that better way, joining with us to make straight the path of 
democracy.
  This is a time for caution as we would face war; but it is also a 
cause for joy, because the same revelry that sounds a battle cry and 
clangs the toxins of war brings forth legions of others enlisted in a 
holy cause to relight the lamp of freedom in our own land. So come 
forth young and old, prepare for America's future.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  On the eve of potential military action abroad, I am reminded of 
President Reagan's speech before the British House of Commons when he 
said, ``If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the 
face of unpleasant facts is folly.'' Reagan was speaking to a people 
who knew well the ravages of war and the terrible price of appeasement.
  Churchill called World War II the unnecessary war. He did not mean 
that it was unnecessary to rise to the occasion and defeat Nazism, he 
meant that had we taken early notice of Hitler's clearly stated 
intentions rather than naively drifting through the 1930s, a world war 
may not have been necessary. Weary of conflict, some of the allies 
adopted a policy of peace at any price, but no peace that a freedom-
loving people could tolerate.
  While the circumstances are different, there are lessons to be drawn 
from the annals of history. Just because we ignore evil does not mean 
that it ceases to exist. Appeasement invites aggression. Dictators, 
tyrants and megalomaniacs should not be trusted.
  Saddam Hussein has used weapons of bioterror against his own 
countrymen. He has committed genocide, killing between 50,000 and 
100,000 people in northern Iraq. His regime is responsible for 
widespread human rights abuses, including imprisonment, executions, 
torture and rape. Just in the past 12 years, he has invaded Kuwait, he 
has launched ballistic missiles at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and 
previously at Iran.
  Following the Gulf War, he arrogantly defied the international 
community, violating sanctions and continued in the development of 
weapons of mass destruction while evading international inspectors. His 
regime has violated 16 U.N. resolutions devoid of consequences.
  Most ominously, in the wake of the September 11 terrorists' attacks, 
Saddam has quantifiable links to known terrorists. Iraq and al Qaeda 
have had high-level contacts stretching back a decade.
  We know based on intelligence reports and satellite photos that 
Saddam is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He possesses 
stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and he is aggressively 
seeking nuclear weapons. Every weapon he possesses is a violation of 
the Gulf War truce. A crazed man in possession of these instruments of 
death is a frightening prospect, indeed.
  Had Saddam possessed nuclear capabilities at the time of the Gulf 
War, we may not have gone into Kuwait. Should he acquire nuclear 
capabilities, his aggressions would be virtually unchecked. Deterrence 
can no longer be relied upon.
  President Bush was accurate to characterize Saddam as a grave and 
gathering danger. The President challenged the U.N., calling into 
question their relevance should they leave unchecked Saddam's blatant 
disregard for their authority. He consulted Congress and made a case to 
the American people. The President should continue to push for a U.N. 
resolution with uncompromising and immediate requirements for the Iraqi 
regime, thereby rejecting the tried course of empty diplomacy, 
fruitless inspections, and failed containment.
  Americans looked on in horror as the events of September 11 unfolded. 
At the end of the day, the skyline of one of our greatest cities was 
forever changed; the Pentagon, a symbol of America's military might, 
was still smoldering; and a previously indistinguishable field in 
western Pennsylvania had suddenly and terribly become an unmarked grave 
for America's newest heroes.
  In the aftermath, Americans have been asking questions, some of which 
we may never have satisfying answers to. But today we know that a sworn 
enemy is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. It is incumbent upon the 
free world, led by the United States, to dismantle these destructive 
capabilities. We have before us a resolution which will authorize, if 
necessary, the use of America's military to enforce the demands of the 
U.N. Security Council.
  There is no greater responsibility for us as elected officials than 
to provide for the common defense of our fellow countrymen. In voting 
for this resolution, we send a message to a tyrant that he should not 
rest easy; that those who would venture to strike at our Nation will 
encounter consequences. We send a message to the Iraqi people that the 
world has not forgotten them and their suffering at the hands of a 
madman. We send a message to the world community that we are unified as 
a Nation; that the President possesses the full faith and backing of 
this distinguished body; that we are committed to defending the 
liberties which are the very foundation of our Republic; and that we 
are steadfast in our resolve in the war on terror.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lampson), the conscience of the Congress on the issue of 
finding lost children.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard many times over the course of yesterday 
and today that this is the most important vote that we will be asked to 
make in our service in Congress. And I, as all the rest of my 
colleagues, take it very seriously.
  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein poses a 
clear danger to the United States and to the world and he must be dealt 
with quickly and decisively.

                              {time}  1600

  It is my hope that this resolution will send a message to Saddam 
Hussein that America means business, and in return we will hear that 
U.N. inspectors will be granted unfettered access to any location 
deemed necessary with no exceptions.
  I am pleased that the House leadership listened to the concerns of 
Members of both parties and developed a bipartisan resolution that does 
not give blanket approval to the President to carry this battle across 
the globe without consulting the American people, Congress, or our 
allies. I am also pleased that the President is continuing to enlist 
the support of other nations and that our action will not be 
unilateral.
  The intent of Congress must be clear that this is not an endorsement 
of a foreign policy of preemptive strikes, but instead a resolution 
authorizing the President to take specific action against a specific, 
demonstrated threat, Saddam Hussein.
  Action against Saddam Hussein is not a preemptive strike, it is a 
response to Saddam Hussein's blatant attacks, ranging from firing on 
our aircraft to the attempted assassination of

[[Page H7342]]

a former President. Foreign policy is not an exact science. What we as 
Members of Congress must do is weigh the evidence and at some point we 
must trust the President, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and others in 
the administration to use this resolution as a tool, not just as a 
club.
  After countless hours of briefings, soul searching and prayer, I am 
confident that this is our best course of action. I ask our President 
that, as I reach across this aisle to support him on this resolution, I 
must express in the strongest possible terms my disappointment with the 
President's handling of our economy. It is a disaster. Layoffs are 
occurring as we speak. The stock market is in a ditch, and the people 
of the 9th Congressional District of Texas and in this Nation are 
concerned for their family's future. There is a growing concern that 
the administration is asleep at the wheel on domestic issues.
  This cannot continue. Just as I have reached across the aisle to 
support the President on foreign policy, I am urging the President to 
reach back across this aisle to help me and my colleagues address the 
economic problems facing this Nation, because that, too, poses a clear 
and present danger to the United States of America.
  God bless America and all of the peoples of this world.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, last night the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) gave a very fine statement on this matter.
  In his remarks, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) quoted the 
book ``The Threatening Storm'' by Kenneth Pollack, who served as the 
Clinton administration's expert on Iraq. This quotation cuts to the 
very heart of this debate by laying out the horrific nature of Saddam 
Hussein.
  It paints a picture that no civilized person can find acceptable: the 
torture of children, the rape of women, the fiendish maiming of 
opponents, the gassing of entire Kurdish villages to spread terror.
  Mr. Speaker, these crimes are well documented. We have eyewitness 
accounts, news photographs and videotapes of gas attacks against the 
Kurdish villages. We have first-person testimony on Saddam Hussein's 
reign of terror within Iraq. It is estimated that Saddam Hussein has 
murdered more than 200,000 of his own countrymen, generals and 
relatives included.
  Given his record of brutality, there should be no question what 
Saddam Hussein will do once he obtains nuclear weapons. We must face 
squarely the true nature of this tyrant. We must act to deal with the 
threat he poses.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution. 
It is the right thing for America and humanity.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, should Congress authorize the President to 
use the Armed Forces of the United States to attack Iraq? The President 
is asking us to pass this resolution now, but he has not yet made the 
case for war.
  I cannot support the President's request that we authorize military 
force against Iraq. I make this very difficult decision for three 
important reasons: The United States is not acting in self-defense or 
from an imminent threat from Iraq, the United States should not be 
pursuing unilateral action without international support, and the 
President has not stated an exit strategy.
  I believe there are times when countries must resort to war, and 
indeed international law recognizes the rights of nations to defend 
themselves. I strongly support our campaign against terrorism. But are 
we voting this week on a case of self-defense? It would certainly be 
self-defense if Iraq supported the al Qaeda attack on September 11, but 
the evidence of such support is lacking.
  I have listened to the administration and met with top officials. I 
have yet to see any credible evidence that Iraq is connected with al 
Qaeda. The experts readily admit that there is no real connection.
  I can believe that Iraq is a threat to the region and to some 
American interests overseas, but I do not believe the threat is 
imminent or must be handled with a unilateral military strike.
  The President is now choosing a new and dangerous policy, the America 
Strikes First Doctrine, when he argues we can attack any time we feel 
threatened.
  I am the mother of a 17-year-old son. Maybe that is why I understand 
when mothers ask me about Iraq. A life lost to save America is a 
stinging pain that will always be with a Gold Star Mother. But the 
knowledge that the loss was necessary to protect the home of the brave 
and the land of the free gives both comfort and cause.
  Is America prepared to sacrifice lives when the cause is not to 
defend America but to start a war unilaterally without a threat? I have 
not heard the American people say so.
  We would be having a far different debate had President Bush come to 
Congress leading the world community and the United Nations or NATO. As 
of this moment, Great Britain is the only other nation dedicated to 
military action with us in Iraq. When even Canada is not prepared to 
march by our side, we have cause to pause and reflect. The United 
States should be leading the world, working with the world community to 
resolve an international issue. We should be here, Mr. Speaker, 
debating a resolution because all other efforts have failed. Sadly, we 
are here discussing an end result with no end game in mind.
  This resolution is an unwise step for America that will in the end 
weaken America. We are at our best when we are first among allies, 
standing tall for the free world. Let us be at our best when we deal 
with Iraq.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote to authorize the 
President to carry out a unilateral and costly ground war against Iraq.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) for his tremendous leadership in bringing this resolution to 
the floor. In addition, I would like to commend President Bush for 
providing courageous leadership during this time of national crisis.
  As America continues to wage a world war against terrorism, the time 
has come to weigh the dangers of confrontation against the risks of 
inaction.
  A year ago on September 11, the United States, our people, and our 
institutions were attacked. That day the war began. I respond to those 
of my colleagues posing the question: Where is the imminent threat? Why 
must we confront Iraq now? I ask simply: How many more innocent 
Americans must die in order for the threat to be imminent?
  We face an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill Americans, 
including taking their own lives. This enemy could not survive without 
the state sponsorship it receives from Saddam Hussein, an oppressive 
dictator who is a sworn enemy of the United States. In order to win the 
war on terror, we must effect a regime change in Baghdad.
  As we consider the resolution before us, we must consider two 
fundamental questions: Does Saddam Hussein have the desire to harm the 
United States of America? And does Saddam Hussein have the ability to 
carry out that objective?
  In answering the first question, we must be mindful that he has 
aligned his regime with the world's most unsavory characters who 
continue to seek the destruction of freedom and democracy around the 
world. He has openly praised the attacks of September 11, attempted to 
assassinate a former U.S. President, and directly ordered acts of 
terror against innocent civilians. Our national security requires us to 
conclude that he aims to threaten the lives of American citizens.
  Saddam Hussein is an oppressive tyrant who, with each passing day, 
increases his ability to terrorize the world with the most destructive 
weapons known to man. He currently has chemical and biological weapons 
and is actively pursuing a nuclear capability. The accumulation of 
these weapons is

[[Page H7343]]

transforming Saddam Hussein from a regional threat into a global 
menace. Whether we act to prevent him from acquiring such weapons, or 
act to prevent him from using them once he has them, action is 
required.
  Although the United States is a peace-loving Nation, there will never 
be peace and security so long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Effecting 
a regime change and liberating the people of Iraq is the official 
policy of the United States Government. President Bush has demonstrated 
a willingness to pursue peace, yet he must also have the authority to 
present Saddam Hussein with the absolute certainty that the full force 
of the United States military is ready to act.
  This resolution gives the President this necessary authority, and I 
wholeheartedly urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we confront in this Chamber today a decision 
of utmost gravity, to authorize the President to use military force if 
necessary to remove the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons from the hands of Saddam Hussein.
  To risk the lives of our sons and daughters for this cause burdens 
the hearts and minds of every Member of Congress. For the past several 
weeks, we have weighed this decision in the balance. People of goodwill 
have had their differences of opinion. We know that military action by 
its nature is an assumption of risk, risk to the lives and safety of 
our military forces, risk of outcome and duration of battle, and risk 
of economic and political dislocations.
  In spite of these dangers, the greatest danger is to do nothing. The 
failure to act will leave an international outlaw undeterred and will 
sacrifice a freedom that President Franklin Roosevelt called 
fundamental, the freedom from fear.
  On a clear autumn morning on September 11 we were awakened to the 
reality of a new and growing threat to our security. We saw all too 
vividly how vulnerable our Nation can be to unconventional warfare. We 
were forced to face the stark reality that an international terrorist 
organization named al Qaeda exists and is dedicated to the destruction 
of America and our way of life.
  Our time-honored policy of security through deterrence backed by our 
overwhelming military superiority is no longer sufficient to protect 
our Nation from a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a single 
terrorist on a suicide mission.
  Opinions differ on the question of whether Saddam Hussein will engage 
in a terrorist act against our Nation or place weapons of mass 
destruction in the hands of terrorists, but there is no debate that the 
motive and the means are present; and, in my judgment, the threat is 
unacceptable.
  Much of what we know, we have known for a long time. We know Saddam 
Hussein has developed biological weapons. We know that Saddam has 
developed chemical weapons. We know that he has used them in war and 
against helpless civilians, and we know that he is working feverishly 
to acquire nuclear weapons. We know he has launched ballistic missiles 
at his neighboring countries of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel; 
and he continues to develop missiles that can hit American bases. We 
know he invaded Iran in 1980, causing the deaths of over 1 million 
people.

                              {time}  1615

  We know he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and ordered the torture and murder 
of tens of thousands of civilians. We know this man and we know his 
works. He has the capability and he has the motive to bring great harm 
to our Nation. We have been at war with him for over 10 years. His 
hatred for the United States has no limits, and his cruelty and 
atrocities committed against his own people, his closest associates, 
and even his family leave no room to doubt his murderous nature.
  For 10 years the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 
to open Iraq to weapons inspectors, to disarm Saddam, to take away his 
weapons of mass destruction. For 10 years he has avoided, evaded, and 
escaped the rules we tried to use to secure the peace. Saddam Hussein 
is in material breach of international law.
  Mr. Speaker, knowing these things to be true, to protect our 
homeland, to take weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of a 
tyrant, and to uphold the rule of law, I support the President in his 
request for authorization to use force, if necessary, to accomplish 
these goals in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an international outlaw who is a 
clear and present danger to our country, and time is not on our side. 
To meet this threat, we will work with the United Nations, but we will 
not wait for the United Nations. We do not seek war, and the best way 
to avoid it is to be clear with our intent and be prepared to act. 
Saddam must have no doubt about our course. He can disarm or his days 
are numbered.
  Some have suggested that we adopt a two-step resolution that would 
assure our allies that we seek U.N. approval; and if approval is 
denied, the President would seek a second resolution from this Congress 
authorizing the use of unilateral force. This could weaken our 
President's hand in the effort to secure Security Council support and 
work contrary to our very interest of securing multilateral 
cooperation. If the U.N. declined to act and then we had a subsequent 
resolution on this floor, we would be in a position that we all seek to 
avoid; and in addition, a two-step resolution would detract from the 
effort to send a clear message to Saddam to give up his weapons of mass 
destruction without delay.
  The quest for America's security in the 21st century begins with us. 
The Bible tells us to whom much has been given, much is required. Our 
duty and our responsibility to future generations of Americans leave us 
no option but to act with resolve, with courage, and the will to win.
  America is a special place. God has blessed us beyond measure; and 
while a few pursue hatred and destruction and can bring us harm, there 
are millions every day who seek to come to this land of promise because 
we stand for peace, for justice, and for democracy.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the value of this resolution is cast in a way 
that its failure to be enacted by this Congress would make havoc reign 
in the House of Representatives. What do I mean by that? If we should 
fail to adopt this resolution and some new terror strike visits our 
land and kills more of our people, God forbid, then we will be rushing 
back to this floor. Remember now, if this resolution fails, we will be 
rushing back to this floor eager to give new powers to the President to 
do something about the new terror attack. That is what the value of 
this resolution is.
  We are preparing the President, we are preparing the Congress of the 
United States, we are preparing the people of the United States, and 
more vitally we are preparing the Armed Forces of the United States in 
a stalwart resolution which outlines the resolve of the United States 
to prepare for any kind of action that might be required not just to 
stabilize the region in which Iraq lies but also to stabilize the 
entire civilized world with respect to the threat and fear of terror.
  And so if we forget everything else about what the resolution may do, 
if we recognize that our national security is the matter that 
atmospheres across every single word of the resolution, then we have 
additional rationale for adopting the resolution. The Armed Forces 
always look to the Commander in Chief for guidance, for leadership, as 
they will within this case; but they also look to see are the people of 
the United States, our people, our families, our neighborhoods at home, 
are they backing us? Are they supporting us? This resolution crosses 
through all the lines of communication right to the barracks of our 
Armed Forces and gives indication to them that the people of the United 
States, the people they are sworn to serve and for whom they would risk 
their life and limb that they are behind their actions.
  I remember as a member of the Armed Forces myself in our own company 
that the words of the then-Commander in Chief were very important to us 
as to where and what direction we should go and whether or not the 
whole

[[Page H7344]]

thing was worth it; it is to the Armed Forces once they know that this 
resolution will pass and will guide them, in the words of the Commander 
in Chief, in the interest of national security.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa), member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
and a diligent fighter for Hispanic-serving institutions to increase 
funding.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 114, giving authorization for military force against Iraq. I 
am determined to convince my colleagues to pass the substitute 
amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt). I agree with my colleague that the resolution reported by 
the Committee on International Relations authorizing the use of force 
against Iraq is an amendment and an improvement over the original House 
draft; and, yes, I also agree with him that we must limit the broad 
authority it grants to our President.
  While no one in this House believes that Saddam Hussein should be 
allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, my fellow colleagues 
should see the need to encourage the President to persist in his 
efforts to obtain Security Council approval for any action taken 
against Iraq. The President should also be required to seek a Security 
Council resolution mandating a new and tougher round of arms 
inspection.
  When the Gulf War ended, Iraq agreed to destroy all of its chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons; and, yes, Iraq should be held to that 
commitment. The safety of America and the world depends on Iraq's 
compliance with the United Nations resolutions. Because the Spratt 
substitute would call on the United Nations to approve the use of 
force, if necessary, to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to 
disarm, the United Nations Security Council's approval of action in 
Iraq would provide several crucial benefits. It would encourage all 
allies to fall in line and support our efforts. It would allow moderate 
Arab states to use the council's approval as a guide to support our 
troops' presence in Iraq, consequently enhancing the chances of post-
war democracy and economic success in Iraq. If Saddam Hussein's regime 
is toppled, a new government will have to be formed to revive Iraq's 
economy and bring together the various ethnic factions to form a viable 
government.
  Nation-building should be the work of the United Nations, not the 
U.S. military. As I have said, U.N. approval of our efforts would 
improve our ties with our allies, both European and Arab, and would 
likely lead to a fledgling, yet strong, democracy. If the United 
Nations decides not to impose additional sanctions or to cooperate, 
then America should take unilateral action against Iraq within the 
guidelines of the Constitution.
  Everyone in this Congress has sworn to uphold the Constitution. It 
was in 1787 that the founders of our country gave Congress, not the 
President, the power and the responsibility of declaring war and 
sending American troops oversees. The Spratt substitute would require 
the President to come to Congress and ask for the support through an 
expedited process after it is determined that the United Nations will 
not act. I think this is the appropriate manner in which to conduct 
such a serious endeavor as another war. We need to remind ourselves 
that we are not just entering and referring to a congressional 
resolution, we are talking about the potential loss of American troops 
and the lives of civilian Iraqis.
  Life is too precious a gift to grant such broad powers even to our 
President without a thorough discourse with the United Nations or with 
the United States Congress. I do not question our President's authority 
to protect our national security. I am asking that our President work 
through the United Nations and consult Congress prior to engaging in 
what will become a serious international conflict.
  In closing, over the last few weeks I have talked to many of my 
constituents from all walks of life: farmers, ranchers, veterans, 
educators, parents, students, doctors, businessmen, and businesswomen. 
I have listened carefully to all of their views and concerns; and as a 
result, I will vote against House Joint Resolution 114. I respectfully 
urge my colleagues to support the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because it provides 
an opportunity for peace through diplomacy while preserving the 
President's flexibility to engage the full force of our military to 
protect national security. The resolution before us does not preordain 
a path for our President to choose. Rather, this resolution provides 
the President with all possible options.
  Enacting the resolution does not mean that an attack is imminent. It 
does mean that an escalation of our current military conflict with Iraq 
is a real possibility. Enacting this resolution does not mean that the 
President will stop pursuing diplomatic and peaceful means to a 
solution. It does mean that there can be consequences to continued 
inaction by the Iraqi regime. Enacting this resolution will show the 
world, our traditional allies, our potential allies, the Iraqi people, 
and most importantly Saddam Hussein, that the United States speaks with 
one voice in our determination to bring peace and stability to the 
world.
  The resolution references the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Make 
no mistake, this threat is real and it is growing. It is not just that 
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Speaker. He has 
used them. He used them against Iran. He used chemical weapons against 
his country's own people, the Kurds of northern Iraq. And we have to 
ask ourselves this question, Mr. Speaker: Since Saddam Hussein has no 
greater opponent than the United States and our people and since he 
continues to develop more and more weapons, where will he use them 
next?
  In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, countless voices asked this 
question: Did we do everything we could do to prevent this tragedy? To 
answer that question in the world that exists today, in a world in 
which an enemy can inflict damage with an army of one, we must be 
willing to change fundamentally our security strategy by accepting that 
intervention is a necessary part of protecting our safety.
  With the passage of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein will 
be able to choose his destiny. Either Saddam Hussein's regime must 
change the way it acts or the regime itself must change.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution before us. This is one of the most important votes I ever 
expect to cast on this House floor, and I make it after much serious 
thought and deliberation.
  The events of the past year have affected every single person in 
America. Our lives will never be the same. The terrorists on September 
11 tried to break the spirit of America, but they failed. The spirit of 
our Nation is unbreakable and unwaivering. As a Nation, we will work 
together to fight the war on terrorism, to preserve our own lives and 
the lives of our peace-loving friends all around the world.

                              {time}  1630

  During his address to the United Nations on September 12, and again 
on Tuesday in Cincinnati, the President outlined a powerful case as to 
why pursuing regime changes by military means, if necessary, in Iraq, 
is in the vital national interests of America and all freedom-loving 
people everywhere. I feel that the President provided a clear and 
compelling case that will lead to broad international support of our 
objectives.
  The President told us that Iraq possesses the physical infrastructure 
required to build nuclear weapons and maintains stockpiles of chemical 
and biological agents for the purpose of killing literally thousands of 
people. U.N. inspectors have stated that they believe Iraq has produced 
as much as four times the amount of biological agents it claims to 
possess and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of 
material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Along with 
this threat, Iraq possesses a

[[Page H7345]]

force of SKUD-type missiles with ranges beyond the 94-mile limit 
permitted by the U.N. resolutions.
  Last week, I stood with the President and congressional leadership in 
the White House Rose Garden in support of this resolution authorizing 
the use of force against Iraq, and I am proud to rise to the support of 
that resolution today. All the while, I fervently hope and pray that 
force will not be necessary. However, I strongly believe that American 
foreign policy, especially with regard to eradicating weapons of mass 
destruction and terrorism, must be a top priority.
  Our actions do not come without sacrifice or consequence; and I want 
to personally recognize our young men and women, these brave young men 
and women who are currently engaged in the war on terrorism and who may 
be called to service in Iraq. As a parent, I know firsthand the 
sacrifice that military personnel and their families are making.
  I was a pilot in the Air Force, and nothing made my wife Mary and me 
more proud than our son Lance as he served his country as an Air Force 
pilot in the Desert Storm conflict. We know firsthand what it is like 
to have a loved one in harm's way.
  However, once again, America is forced to defend herself against 
forces that do not respect human life, freedom or the American way.
  We cannot wait until Saddam Hussein or one of his terrorist allies 
strikes first. We cannot let another horrific event like September 11 
happen again while we stand idly by.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in support of 
this important resolution.

                          ____________________