Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)

[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.

____________________