[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7375-H7410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, ``When in the course of human events it 
becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which 
have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of 
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel 
them.''
  When the delegates to the Second Continental Congress began to debate 
those immortal words in July of 1776, they did not have the long lens 
of history to guide them. These bold men adopted the radical idea of 
independence based upon deeply-held convictions and beliefs that 
bloodshed, though unwanted, was a probable course. Indeed, when the 
document declaring independence was executed in August of that year, 
30,000 British and Hessian troops were assembled at Staten Island, New 
York, a 3 days' journey from Philadelphia.
  At first blush, those of you reminded of this narrative would quickly 
make the distinction that those Philadelphia delegates and the 
colonists they represented were in imminent peril, and we are not. Is 
that in fact the case after September 11? America's enemies today do 
not dispatch columns of infantrymen ``across the green'' or battleships 
upon the high seas. Instead, we face a deadlier threat in chemical and 
biological weapons willing to be dispersed by an army of anonymous 
killers. This 107th Congress, as our forefathers before, must face this 
difficult issue without the benefit of history's clarity.
  I have been contacted by a number of Missourians with wide-ranging 
opinions, and some have proclaimed, ``Let us not wage war with Iraq.'' 
Would that I could will it so, possessing the knowledge as I do of the 
threat Iraq poses. Would that Saddam Hussein lay down his arms, those 
weapons designed to commit mass murder against the defenseless.
  Now, time does not permit me to make my case, but there has been a 
lot of discussion about the case that has been made, and I am convinced 
that Iraq continues to possess and manufacture weapons of mass 
destruction in defiance of 12 years of Security Council resolutions.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a good 
friend, a moment ago said there is no definitive link between Iraq and 
the attacks of September 11, 2001; and I acknowledge that. However, our 
United States intelligence services have detected that Saddam's regime 
has begun efforts to reach out to terrorist groups with global reach.
  I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein's regime is largely secular and has 
often clashed with fanatical religious fundamentalist groups. However, 
I am mindful of a disquieting adage, the enemy of my enemy is my 
friend.
  The resolution I support today suggests a variety of means to disarm 
Iraq without immediately resorting to the end of open warfare. It is 
imperative that the United Nations take strong action to implement a 
comprehensive and unfettered regime of weapons inspections. It is 
deeply troubling to me, however, that the only thing that seems to 
compel Saddam Hussein into compliance is the threat of military force. 
Certainly many questions remain. However, the risks of inaction are 
greater, in my mind, than the risks of action.
  Ironically, a number of family members who lost loved ones last 
September have come to Capitol Hill and have questioned the inability 
of our intelligence agencies to foresee those attacks prior to 
September 11. Why did we not act upon those threads of information, 
they ask plaintively? Why did we not prevent the horrific attacks of 
that crisp, clear morning?
  Mr. Speaker, let us not allow that tragic history to be repeated. We 
have a moral responsibility to defend our Nation from harm. This 
conflict has been brought to us, and we have provoked it only by being 
free. We must move forward decisively, confident in the knowledge that 
our voices, which cry out so desperately for a lasting peace, have been 
and will be heard by the rest of the world.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the House Committee on 
Appropriations, a top member of the Committee on Energy and Water and 
on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the war against terrorism 
and believe that stopping Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of 
mass destruction is a necessary part of that effort. But at this time, 
however, I believe it is premature to authorize a unilateral attack on 
Iraq.
  Working with the international community is the surest means of 
addressing this threat effectively, sharing costs and resources and 
ensuring stability in Iraq and throughout the Middle East in the event 
of a regime change. While the President has spoken of the value of a 
coalition effort, the resolution before the House today undermines the 
importance of our allies and of maintaining the momentum of 
international cooperation in the wider war on terrorism.
  I support the Spratt amendment to this resolution. This amendment 
would authorize the use of U.S. forces in support of a new U.N. 
Security Council resolution mandating the elimination, by force, if 
necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and means of 
producing such weapons. Should the Security Council fail to produce 
such a resolution, the amendment calls on the President then to seek 
authorization for unilateral military action. In this way, the 
amendment emphasizes our preference for a peaceful solution and 
coalition support, while recognizing that military force and unilateral 
action may be appropriate at some point.
  We should not rush into war without the support of our allies. We 
should not send American troops into combat before making a full-faith 
effort to put U.N. inspectors back into Iraq under a more forceful 
resolution. We should not turn to a policy of preemptive attack, which 
we have so long and so rightly

[[Page H7376]]

condemned, without first providing a limited-time option for peaceful 
resolution of the threat.
  America has long stood behind the principles of exhausting diplomacy 
before resorting to war; and, at times like this, we must lead by 
example.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, 
authorization of use of force against Iraq.
  After the attacks of September 11, Congress reaffirmed our commitment 
to keep the American people safe from international threats. That 
commitment faces its first true test as we debate this resolution.
  We are faced with clear evidence of a threat against the security of 
the American people. We have several options to deal with this threat. 
This resolution will provide all necessary options to the President for 
protecting the security interests of the American people.
  By giving the President the needed flexibility, Iraq and the rest of 
the world will know that we are prepared to enforce our demands for 
disarmament with the use of force.
  By giving the President this flexibility, the American people can be 
fully defended from the threat Iraq poses to our national security.
  It is clear that Saddam Hussein constitutes a grave threat to the 
security of the United States through his motives, history, 
technological capabilities and his support for international terrorism. 
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who has sworn eternal hostility 
to the United States. There is evidence that this same dictator has 
financed and supported international terrorism, including harboring 
members of al Qaeda. Despite agreeing to fully disarm by ridding itself 
of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has worked to actually enhance its 
weapons program, increasing its stockpiles of biological and chemical 
weapons and working to build nuclear weapons.
  Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his 
neighbors and his own people. He has attempted assassinations of 
foreign leaders, including an American president.
  Alone, these facts are very troubling. Together, they present a clear 
and present danger to the national security of the United States. 
Saddam Hussein has the motive, has the capabilities and the absence of 
humanity that is all too clear. Ignoring this evidence would be 
abandoning our duty to the security of the American people.
  Now we are faced with this question: How do we deal with this threat? 
The answer is to leave all options at the President's disposal on the 
table, including military options. Like everyone in this Chamber, I 
sincerely hope and pray it will never come to that. Nevertheless, I 
believe the evidence justifies the President to act in the interests of 
our national security. This resolution gives the President the 
necessary authority to deal with this threat.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will come before us for final 
passage has already been written at the White House. I very much wish 
that it had a different phraseology, but that is not the choice of 
individual Members. The only question that will come before us that we 
can influence as individual Members is by what margin does that 
resolution pass. Does it get 325 votes, or 375, or somewhere in 
between?

                              {time}  1645

  Saddam Hussein does not fully understand our political process. He 
sees a nation in the throws of an election where we speak quite harshly 
to each other on domestic issues, and we will be doing more of that in 
the coming weeks. There is no better way to assure that Saddam 
capitulates on the issue of inspectors, no better way to assure that 
this war does not have to be fought, no better way to assure a peaceful 
resolution of this conflict than for us to pass this resolution by the 
largest possible margin and make sure that Saddam understands that 
America is united and capitulation on the issue of inspectors is the 
only rational course and the only course that will assure his own 
personal safety.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this most balanced resolution. Like most 
of my colleagues who support the President in this important matter, I 
am not voting for this resolution because I have any wish to speed to 
war; I am voting for this resolution because I hold out hope for peace, 
a peace that can still come, but only if the United Nations will apply 
decisive pressure to Iraq to open itself to unconditional, unfettered 
weapons inspection.
  Unfortunately, the last decade has shown that without the use of 
force as a threat, Saddam Hussein will continue to stonewall and ignore 
every resolution issued by the United Nations, all the while amassing 
weapons of terror. The resolution before us today does not send us to 
war, but it does provide a powerful incentive for Hussein to finally 
comply with the dictates of the United Nations. With the threat of 
force, the United Nations and President Bush will be able to negotiate 
from a position of strength.
  Nobody, no legislator, Republican or Democrat, takes this 
responsibility of sending our children off to war lightly, but nor can 
we stand by as Saddam Hussein and his regime continue to work to amass 
stockpiles of the world's most deadly weapons. My deepest fears lay in 
the thought that he could soon supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. 
We simply cannot ignore our responsibility to protect our country, 
democracy, and our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, the State 
of Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I hold out my hope for peace; but to rely upon a 
dictatorial madman with little respect for the life of even his own 
people, let alone American life, to bring about a peaceful resolution 
to this crisis would be foolhardy. It is for that reason I strongly 
believe that we must strengthen the President's hand. With a hopeful 
heart, but realistic concern over this threat, I will cast my vote in 
support of this resolution as a last chance for peace.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations and former ambassador to Micronesia.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I stand to oppose H.J. Res. 
114, the authorization for military force against Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I have attended numerous administrative hearings on Iraq 
where not one bit of new evidence was offered to demonstrate that 
presently Saddam Hussein is more of a menace than that proven 
diabolical character, Osama bin Laden. Why are we not still focusing 
our attention on him? I remember so well the declaration made by the 
President: ``Wanted, dead or alive.'' We have painfully experienced his 
capacity to wreak havoc on thousands of our people from thousands of 
miles from his own perch. And now, he appears to be an afterthought.
  We have given Saddam Hussein the power to force the greatest country 
on Earth to abandon its domestic agenda, to potentially violate the 
U.N. charter, and possibly take unilateral and preemptive action before 
exhausting all diplomatic efforts. I am not convinced that Saddam 
Hussein warrants the daily headlines and the extraordinary amount of 
time and resources given to him. We are equating his power with ours 
and, in some ways, ascribing it to be beyond our ability to detect.
  While we are monitoring his every move, I have no doubt that if he 
were to plan an attack on the United States or on our allies, we would 
be able to stop him in his tracks. But what we cannot do is to provide 
the proof of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts or whether he is dead or 
alive, or who spread anthrax and, currently, right here in this 
country, who is killing innocent Americans in a close radius of the 
White House. But our focus remains thousands of miles away on a villain 
who cowardly goes after the weakest. It is beneath us to choose war 
over diplomacy, and not only carry a big stick, but beat our perceived 
enemy over the head with it.
  The United Nations is being diminished with our rhetoric of the last 
few weeks. As a charter member, we are not giving it credit for trying 
to uphold the principle of sovereign equality of

[[Page H7377]]

all its members. The U.N. charter states that in recognition of the 
sovereignty of all nations, all shall settle their international 
disputes by peaceful means. The U.N. charter also states that all 
members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat 
or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political 
independence of any State.
  Chapter VI of the charter empowers the Security Council to 
investigate any disputes and to recommend appropriate procedures for 
the settlement of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved, it is 
then referred to the Security Council for action. Under Chapter VII, 
the U.N. Security Council shall determine the existence of threats to 
peace. Article 46 provides that plans for the application of armed 
force shall be made by the Security Council. The U.N. charter does not 
provide for preemptive or first-strike options of member states against 
a perceived threat.
  Too little in this House has been made of peace. When will we mature 
to a point when we will find noncombative ways to settle our 
differences? When are we ready to use our higher selves to find ways to 
be nonviolent? To effect a regime change, we are threatening an 
invasion of a territorial foe to enhance our own security; but such an 
invasion will, in fact, degrade and diminish us.
  This resolution offers only the incessant drumbeat of war. During the 
Vietnam War, it was often said that ever every time we kill a Viet Cong 
guerrilla, we create two more. Our invasion of Iraq will be watched by 
millions of Muslim men and women. Many governments around the world 
will become less cooperative in helping us track down terrorist 
operatives in their countries. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American 
men and women may perish in the streets of Baghdad. Our invasion will 
engender a bottomless well of bitterness and resentment towards the 
United States that will haunt us for decades to come. We now have a 
choice to maintain the moral high ground or sink to the depths of our 
tormentors. History will record this moment.


Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 
                  3295, Help America Vote Act of 2002

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at 
any time to consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 3295; that 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered 
as read when called up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution 
before us.
  The most grave responsibility any Member of Congress ever undertakes 
or considers is the vote to give the President of the United States the 
authority to use force if necessary.
  On September 11, I drove past the Pentagon. I came in to my 
congressional office building, and I was informed that a plane had just 
struck the Pentagon. We left our offices, we went to a place, we tried 
to call our families, the communications systems were jammed. It took 3 
hours until I could finally talk to my wife and I have five sons, and I 
began talking to each of my boys. I got to my second son, Ross, and he 
was crying, and he asked me, Daddy, are we safe?
  In my lifetime, I never asked that question. I never asked that 
question, Are we safe, of my mother and daddy, of my father, because 
the generations that went before us gave us the blessings of liberty. 
They protected and defended our safety and security when a threat, a 
challenge emerged; when we were at risk, they answered the call. So 
many times in our Nation's history, we have had the strong voices that 
have given us warnings and called us to action, and so many times we 
did not listen. Winston Churchill called on the world to look and to 
act at the threat that Hitler posed, and the world did not listen; and 
because of that, more death and more destruction and world war came.
  Today, we have an opportunity, backed by a clear and convincing 
threat, and backed by a leader of character, to hear the warnings, to 
know that nuclear capability is around the corner in the hands of a 
dictator, in the hands of a tyrant; and he could use it, and the death 
and the destruction that it could cause would be devastating. It would 
be overwhelming. But if we act now, we can stop it. We can prevent it. 
We can preempt it.
  For those reasons, we have the moral obligation to act. I support the 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  (Mr. BOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 114.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving the President the 
authority to go to war with Iraq if it becomes necessary. I came to 
this difficult decision only after considering the threat to our 
national security that allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire long range 
missiles and nuclear weapons represents. While we should continue to 
seek a diplomatic solution, inaction is not an option. I feel that we 
must give the president the option of using force to remove this threat 
to our nation if diplomacy does not work.
  No one in the United States wants another war with Iraq if it can be 
avoided. However, we know that Iraq has chemical and biological 
weapons, and is frantically working to develop nuclear weapons and a 
way to deliver them to the United States. This presents a serious 
threat to our national security and has the potential to destroy any 
chance for peace in the Middle East.
  I believe our first step should be to develop a new, tougher weapons 
inspection resolution which would allow the U.N. inspectors unfettered 
access to all sights in Iraq, including the presidential palaces. If it 
is implemented successfully, the resolution would serve to disarm Iraq 
and would not require an armed confrontation. However, as President 
Bush has noted, the track record of Iraq's compliance with U.N. 
resolutions is abysmal, and this time we must give him the tools 
necessary to ensure that Iraq is truly disarmed.
  In addition, I believe that before we use military force against Iraq 
that the administration should work to reassemble the coalition that 
was so successful during the Gulf War or like the one we developed to 
combat terrorism. While we could defeat Iraq without a coalition, 
policing and rebuilding Iraq will take years, and we will need allies 
to undertake this long and difficult task.
  Those of us in this chamber who have worn the military uniform of 
this great country, understand the ravages and consequences of war, and 
do not take this vote lightly. All diplomatic options should be 
exhausted before the use of military force, but I believe the option of 
force must be available to the President as a last resort. Giving the 
authority to use force does not mean war, it only gives our commander-
in-chief the maximum flexibility to protect our nation.
  If it comes to war, many of our nation's sons and daughters will be 
put in harms way in order to protect our freedoms from Saddam Hussein's 
reign of terror and to keep him from acquiring nuclear weapons and the 
means of delivering them to the United States. I would never send our 
young men and women into combat unless it was absolutely necessary; and 
unless Iraq allows weapons inspectors into the country with unfettered 
access it will be necessary. Congress needs to give the President the 
authority he needs to protect America while encouraging the use of 
diplomacy and negotiations to try and arrive at a peaceful solution to 
this problem before turning to military force and this is why I will 
vote to give him the ability to eliminate this threat to American 
security.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has just arrived and is now available to 
convince the entire House of Representatives.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. We have before us today one of the most important issues that a 
democracy must decide, whether to potentially go to war against another 
nation. It is a vote of conscience, and I believe reasonable people can 
disagree while looking at the same set of facts.

                              {time}  1700

  September 11, however, has changed the psyche of our Nation forever. 
We witnessed in horror what a few suicidal terrorists can accomplish in 
a low-tech

[[Page H7378]]

operation, and now we shudder to imagine what suicidal terrorists can 
accomplish if they gain access to high-tech weapons of mass 
destruction.
  I believe Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons of mass 
destruction and that he is aggressively seeking to develop nuclear 
capability. But I also believe that he can be deterred because, as New 
York Times columnist Thomas Friedman puts it, Saddam loves his life 
more than he hates us.
  It is, however, irrefutable that Saddam is in blatant violation of 
numerous U.N. resolutions that call for his disarmament of these 
weapons. Now the question becomes: How do we enforce these resolutions 
and accomplish the universal goal of disarming his weapons of mass 
destruction?
  I have come to the conclusion that my two sons' futures and the 
future of all our children across the globe will be made a little safer 
if Saddam disarms, on his own or with our help; militarily, if 
necessary. I pray that it is done peacefully. I pray that he blinks.
  But I have also concluded that we are dealing with a person who will 
not do the right thing unless, literally, he has a gun pointing at his 
head. Therefore, I support the resolution before us today.
  But I also support the Spratt amendment, because how we accomplish 
our goals and with whom can make all the difference. We need to do this 
with the help and the support of the international community. I believe 
that it would be disastrous if we try to accomplish disarmament through 
unilateral military action.
  The process we take will determine whether the rest of the world 
views us as a beacon or as a bully. We could remain a beacon of hope 
and optimism as the leader of the free world, promoting economic 
progress for all, respecting human rights, and ensuring democratic 
values such as freedom, political pluralism, religious tolerance, free 
speech, and respect for the rule of law; or we could be viewed as the 
superpower bully, imposing our military power whenever we want and 
wherever we want.
  I give the President the benefit of the doubt when he now says that 
the use of military force will be a last resort, not a first option; 
that regime change can also mean attitude change of Saddam's; and that 
we will work hard to gather international support for disarming him 
before military action is taken.
  That is what the administration should have been saying from day one, 
and it is now reflected in the new resolution before us today.
  We need to do this the right way because U.N. engagement and 
international support is essential. I subscribe to the Thomas Friedman 
``crystal store'' theory of U.S. foreign policy: If you break it, you 
own it. If we break Iraq, we will have the responsibility to rebuild 
it, just as we need to rebuild Afghanistan today. This is another vital 
reason why international support is critical for our action in Iraq, 
for what happens the day after.
  We have never been good at nation building. We can accomplish 
military goals with little help, but our democracy does not have the 
experience or the sustainability for successful nation building. 
Therefore, we must approach the aftermath of any conflict in the region 
with the greatest degree of humility.
  In addition, I am concerned that the administration is developing a 
blind spot. They are becoming overly intoxicated with the use of our 
military power. I am glad that we have the world's most powerful 
military; but this is not just a battle of military might, it is also a 
battle of values and ideas in the region. Our message to the outside 
world needs to be better than: You are either for us or you are against 
us; and if you are against us, we are going to kill you.
  Instead, we need to send a message through words and deeds that we 
are interested in being good global citizens as well. Unfortunately, 
the unilateralist message this administration has sent from day one has 
now come back to haunt us in our attempt to secure support against 
Iraq: No to the global climate treaty, no to the biological treaty, no 
to the land mines treaty, no to the ABM treaty, no to an international 
crimes tribunal. If the rest of the world does not like it, that is 
just tough.
  Instead, the world needs to hear from us that we are concerned about 
our global environment; we are concerned about their economic progress; 
we are concerned that 2 billion people must survive on just $1 a day; 
that 1.5 billion people, most of them children, cannot even get a clean 
glass of water; and that we want to help eradicate the scourge of AIDS.
  Furthermore, the world needs to hear that we are truly interested in 
being honest brokers in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in 
the Middle East. We need to recognize that the real battleground for 
peace throughout the world ultimately lies in education. We cannot just 
keep looking at the Arab world as a great gas station, indifferent to 
what happens inside their countries, because the gas now is leaking, 
and there are people starting to throw matches around.
  If we have learned anything from September 11, it is that if we do 
not visit and help in a bad neighborhood, that bad neighborhood can 
come and visit us.
  So for the sake of our young military troops, for the sake of the 
Iraqi people, and for the sake of our Nation as it is perceived by the 
rest of the world in the 21st century, I pray that we can accomplish 
Saddam's disarmament peacefully and, if not, then with international 
support.
  But today we need to give the President this tool in his diplomatic 
arsenal, and also pray that he uses it wisely.
  May God continue to bless these United States of America.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 114.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today 
in support of the resolution before us. The decision to allow our 
military to use force against Iraq will be one of the most important 
votes we cast in this Congress, but the responsible choice to support 
the resolution is clear.
  Over the past few weeks, we have labored over the proper scope and 
limitations for this significant measure. The compromise language has 
been drafted by key House and Senate leaders, and the President.
  This resolution is in the best interest of America's national 
security. After a decade of deceit and deception, in which we have 
permitted a hostile dictator to repeatedly violate every agreement we 
have in good faith put before him, the use of force has become a 
necessary option. I think I speak for all members of this Congress when 
I say that I hope and pray that military force does not become 
required; however, we must prepare for all possible outcomes.
  This resolution protects the Congress' ability to remain fully 
involved in future decisions and actions in Iraq. It provides the 
resources for the United States to act ion the best interest of our 
national security, while remaining committed to generating support for 
a multilateral coalition.
  I support our President and commend his efforts to ensure that the 
citizen's of American do not live in fear of another tragic terrorist 
attack or of harm from rogue nations. With passage of this resolution, 
we will provide our Commander in Chief with the resources necessary to 
carry out his greatest task of all--providing for the continued safety 
of our citizens.
  This resolution to authorizer military action against Iraq is one 
that has been seriously deliberated by the President, his policy 
makers, and this Congress.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, ``does this body have the will and resolve 
to commit this Nation to a future of peace, or will we leave for our 
children an inheritance of uncertainty and world instability? I do not 
want to see our Nation at war, and I pray that this crisis will be 
resolved peacefully. But I cannot in good conscience deny to the 
President of the United States every power and tool that he is entitled 
to in his efforts to resolve this crisis.''
  Mr. Speaker, I spoke these words right here in this very spot on the 
floor of the House of Representatives during my first speech as a 
Member of this body. One day later, on January 12, 1991, I cast my 
first vote, one to give

[[Page H7379]]

the President the authority to use the Armed Forces in removing Saddam 
Hussein from Kuwait.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I could not ever have imagined that 
more than a decade later this body again would be faced with the 
challenge of dealing with Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime. But here we 
are in 2002, and Saddam is once again at the heart of our national 
security concerns.
  The September 11 terrorist attacks have changed this Nation forever. 
Those tragic events increased our appreciation of our vulnerability to 
terrorist attacks, particularly from weapons of mass destruction. 
Saddam Hussein has actively developed a deadly biological and chemical 
weapons program, and he is actively pursuing the development of nuclear 
weapons. We cannot ignore this reality.
  What has changed since the last time I voted to use our Armed Forces 
against Iraq has not been a new identification of our enemy, but the 
reassessment of our national security risk. The last 11 years have 
proven that attempting to contain Saddam through an ineffective weapons 
inspection regime does not alter his intentions nor force him to 
disarm. We must resolve to stand firm against Hussein's regime to 
guarantee security for Americans and the international community and 
justice for the Iraqi people.
  I commend President Bush for his consistent consultation with the 
international community and with the congressional leadership on both 
sides as he develops a strategy for confronting this grave threat. The 
resolution before us today is a result of those consultations, and its 
passage is the United States government's opportunity to speak with one 
voice in its efforts to protect American interests at home and abroad.
  We cannot expect the United Nations Security Council to take action 
to protect not only our interests but the interests of the 
international community without sending it a strong signal of our own 
resolve.
  Looking back on the vote that this House cast to authorize force back 
in 1991, I can recall how somber my colleagues and I were as we 
contemplated the consequences of our actions. Today, I sense a similar 
mood in the House. Whenever Congress votes to authorize the use of the 
greatest Armed Forces in the world, it is destined to be one of the 
most serious and difficult votes ever cast by our Members. It is not a 
decision we relish, but it is one that we must make.
  I pray and hope that the need to use military force to disarm 
Hussein's regime is not imminent. However, I stand ready to support 
such an action should the President deem it necessary.
  The famous legislator and philosopher, Sir Edmond Burke from England, 
once said, ``All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do 
nothing.'' I also recall the words of our great President Ronald Reagan 
when he said ``If not now, when? If not us, who?''
  It is time for us to act, it is time to support our President, and it 
is time to tell the rest of the world that the American people speak 
with just one voice.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight unanimously approved the report of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources titled ``Federal Law 
Enforcement at the Borders and Ports of Entry,'' the most comprehensive 
report ever on our Nation's border security.
  As chairman of this subcommittee, I would like to discuss some of the 
findings and how I feel they impact the debate on the resolution 
regarding Iraq that is before us.
  There are 130 official ports of entry on the northern border at which 
it is legal to cross, whether by vehicle or foot. There are an 
additional over 300 unofficial crossing areas along the northern 
border, roads which are unmonitored and allow for individuals or groups 
to cross undetected.
  Near Blaine, Washington, the only barrier is a narrow ditch easily 
stepped over and containing no water between two roads. In northwest 
North Dakota, it is even easier: It is flat for miles, and there is no 
ditch. As for the southern border, it is not exactly known as 
impenetrable. If we cannot stop tens of thousands of illegal 
immigrants, it does not breed a lot of confidence that we can stop all 
terrorists.
  Our subcommittee has also begun to study port security. The 
challenges in our largest harbors, Long Beach and Los Angeles, are 
overwhelming. But by the time a nuclear device has slipped into L.A., 
we are already in deep trouble. Preclearance at point of origin, or at 
a point prior to coming into the U.S., is a probable method to reduce 
risk; but shipments could have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons 
added en route at the receiving harbor or in transit to the next 
shipping point.
  I have not even discussed airport security.
  The point of my comments is this: If those opposed to this resolution 
somehow think we are going to stop terrorists from crossing our 
borders, that by itself is an incredibly high-risk strategy doomed to 
probable failure. As chemicals come across in different forms or 
nuclear weapons in parts, even with dramatically improved security we 
will not catch it all.
  We need a multifaceted approach. We need a vastly improved 
intelligence collection and information-sharing. That is obvious to 
everyone. We are working to improve border security, port security, and 
airport security. But when we can see the chemical and biological 
facilities that have manufactured, can manufacture, and probably are 
manufacturing weapons of mass destruction intended for us, we need to 
act to destroy those facilities. When we get solid intelligence that 
someone intends to kill Americans and that they have the weapons to do 
so, we need to eliminate their capacity to do so.
  If this leader and nation have already demonstrated, as Saddam 
Hussein has, a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorize, like Iraq, alone in the world in demonstrating such 
willingness, then the need to act becomes urgent.
  The American people do not want to burn while the politicians fiddle. 
We need to strengthen our borders. We need to monitor suspected 
terrorists and arrest those who become active. We need to take out the 
capacity of those bent on terrorizing our Nation.
  If we implement all of these strategies, we have a chance of success. 
Partial, timid strategies against people bent upon killing Americans 
will not save lives. They will cost lives.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  The preamble of this resolution sets out in detailed chronological 
order the obligations that were imposed upon and accepted by the regime 
of Saddam Hussein as the result of a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire 
in 1991. They were clear obligations for Saddam Hussein to end his 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to 
deliver them and to end his support for international terrorism. I have 
heard no one deny the existence of these obligations. I have heard no 
credible denial of their breach.
  Since our country has been attacked by terrorists and we continue to 
be threatened, at least in part, due to the breach of these 
obligations, it becomes the duty of the President and this Congress to 
chart a course of action that will protect our country and all its 
citizens. This resolution in my opinion charts such a course.

                              {time}  1715

  It provides that the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces 
as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend the national security 
of the United States, and, secondly, to enforce all relevant United 
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  In the final analysis, it boils down to a matter of judgment, whether 
we should vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' My judgment is unless I vote ``yes,'' 
I have failed to meet the obligation that I have to the more than 
630,000 men, women and children who constitute the First Congressional 
District of Tennessee who are at risk today because of the failures of 
Saddam Hussein.
  Is there any question in anybody's mind what the votes of any of 
those brave leaders who founded or helped perpetuate our Nation would 
be? Leaders like President Washington, President Lincoln, President 
Truman, or

[[Page H7380]]

President Eisenhower, all who demonstrated during their time in office 
the good judgment to chart and the courage to complete a difficult 
course.
  Can we not agree all of us in this Chamber that mankind would have 
been spared terrible agony and death if the judgment of Winston 
Churchill had been heard and heeded and adopted as a course of action 
in the 1930's?
  The eyes of all our great leaders of the past and the eyes of all who 
have laid down their lives for our freedom are upon us today to see if 
we are proper stewards of the freedom and the opportunities that they 
afforded us with their sacrifices. This decision is vital, not only to 
the future of Americans, but to the future of the world community and 
to all who would throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression and 
escape the horrors of chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear warfare.
  If we are forced to action following this resolution, and it is 
everybody's hope that we will not be, it will be easier in proportion 
to our accord for those who represent us on the battlefield.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 weeks, the President has changed long-
standing policy that prohibits a unilateral American first strike and 
has argued that his new policy should be imposed upon Iraq.
  President Bush, to his credit, has decided to include Congress in 
this process and to seek international support for his positions, 
although he will not wait for such support to enforce his new policy.
  The process is important, but it is not the most important aspect of 
his efforts. For me, the most important question in this entire matter 
is what happens after Saddam Hussein is dethroned. Forty years ago we 
amended our policies to state that America will no longer allow long-
range nuclear weapons to be installed in our hemisphere, a precise 
policy that applied only to Cuba at that time.
  Twenty years ago we amended our policy to state that America will not 
allow foreign leaders to enrich themselves by using their governmental 
structure to ship illegal drugs into America. Again, a precise policy 
which applied only to Panama at the time. Although the President has 
changed some of his arguments, there do seem to be three constant 
points that he uses.
  Number one, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Number two, Iraq 
has supported terrorists even if the link to al Qaeda cannot be proven. 
Number three, Iraq has a history of aggression and brutality against 
its own people and against its neighbors. We all agree on all of those 
points. They are not subject to debate. Based on constant repetition of 
these factors, we must conclude these are the criteria America will use 
to implement our new unilateral strike policy. But is this reaction to 
Iraq's threat comparable to previous reactions to such threats? Is it 
clear and precise? Who else violates this new policy and, therefore, 
who would be next to have our new policy implemented against them?
  Let us start with Iran. They have weapons of mass destruction. Iran 
has certainly supported terrorists and does so today. In fact, many 
people believe that this country, Iran, now is home to more al Qaeda 
members than any other country in the world. Finally, Iran has a 
history of aggression and brutality against its own people and its 
neighbors. When do we attack Iran?
  What about China? They certainly have very powerful weapons of mass 
destruction, including nuclear weapons. They are the leading sellers of 
both weapons of mass destruction and, more importantly, the industrial 
means to produce such weapons around the world. They have ignored all 
calls to withdraw from Tibet or to treat Tibetans fairly. They 
brutalize the Falun Gong. They brutalize Christians. They threaten 
Taiwan and the peace in of all of Asia. When do we attack China?
  When do we attack the Sudan? When do we attack North Korea? When do 
we attack Russia itself?
  Each of these countries meets all of the criteria the President is 
now using to say we should attack Iraq unilaterally.
  Most Americans want Saddam Hussein gone. So do I. Most Americans want 
the United States to remain the strongest Nation in the world. So do I. 
But most Americans also want the United States of America to continue 
to be the world's moral leader while we accomplish both of these goals.
  President Bush's unclear, imprecise new policy in support of a 
unilateral force first strike does not do it.
  Not long ago another American stated, ``Our purpose is peace. The 
United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war. We seek the 
full and effective restoration of international agreements.'' This 
House reacted by voting, ``The United States is prepared as the 
President determines to take all necessary steps including the use of 
armed forces.''
  I am sure some of you recognize these words from the 1963 Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution that led to the Vietnam debacle. We all know the 
results of that resolution. We all know that this House had to repeal 
this resolution 6 years later.
  This resolution before us tonight uses virtually the same language 
and grants the President comparable authority to the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution. But I think our actions here today may actually prove to be 
more dangerous because we base them on a new policy of unilateral first 
strike. At a minimum, the President needs to refine his new policy 
before we implement. Until we do so, America must adhere to the long-
standing policies in existence now. Those policies require 
international agreement on war and peace, and they require war to be 
the last alternative, not the first.
  As of today, the United States, and we know it, has not exhausted our 
peaceful options; and by tomorrow when we vote on this, we will have 
set America and the world on a new course that has not yet been fully 
thought out or debated. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to 
go slow.
  Others have cited history as well. Let me be clear, no one has 
forgotten September 11. Everyone wants to avoid another such incident. 
But no one has divine insight as how to best accomplish that goal. Let 
me ask those who have cited World War II and to remind them that when 
Iraq did try to expand its borders, the world did react. This Congress 
reacted, unlike Europe in the 1930's. The comparison is not valid.
  If necessary there will be plenty of time to wage war against Iraq, 
and I may support it. But if an unnecessary war is waged, we risk 
forfeiting America's well-deserved reputation as humanity's best hope 
for a long-lasting worldwide peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the resolution and want to focus on what this debate is all about.
  This debate is all about whether Saddam continued to build weapons of 
mass destruction after 1991 and would he use them. Well, I think 
everyone is in agreement in the second question, that he will use them 
because he has already done that. He has done it with the Kurds. He has 
done it with his own population a number of times.
  Let us talk about whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction 
and how he got them. Mr. Speaker, I have given no less than 12 speeches 
on the floor of this House about the proliferation that occurred to 
Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert two documents that I have inserted in the 
Congressional Record five times in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, these are chronologies of weapons-related transfers of 
technology to Saddam by Chinese interests and Russian interests.

              [Los Angeles Times Editorials, May 21, 1998]

                Indignation Rings Shallow on Nuke Tests

                            (By Curt Weldon)

       Escalating tensions between India and Pakistan should come 
     as no surprise to the Clinton administration. Since the 
     president took office, there have been dozens of reported 
     transfers of sensitive military technology by Russia and 
     China--in direct violation of numerous international arms 
     control agreements--to a host of nations, including Pakistan 
     and India.

[[Page H7381]]

       Yet the Clinton administration has repeatedly chosen to 
     turn a blind eye to this proliferation of missile, chemical-
     biological and nuclear technology, consistently refusing to 
     impose sanctions on violators. And in those handful of 
     instances where sanctions were imposed, they usually were 
     either quickly waived by the administration or allowed to 
     expire. Rather than condemn India for current tensions, the 
     blame for the political powder keg that has emerged in Asia 
     should be laid squarely at the feet of President Clinton. It 
     is his administration's inaction and refusal to enforce arms 
     control agreements that have allowed the fuse to grow so 
     short.
       In November 1992, the United States learned that China had 
     transferred M-11 missiles to Pakistan. The Bush 
     administration imposed sanctions for this violation but 
     Clinton waived them a little more than 14 months later. 
     Clearly, the sanctions did not have the desired effect: 
     Reports during the first half of 1995 indicated that M-11 
     missiles, additional M-11 missile parts, as well as 5,000 
     ring magnets for Pakistani nuclear enrichment programs were 
     transferred from China. Despite these clear violations, no 
     sanctions were imposed. And it gets worse.
       Not to be outdone by its sworn foe, India aggressively 
     pursued similar technologies and obtained them, illicitly, 
     from Russia. From 1991 to 1995, Russian entities transferred 
     cryogenic liquid oxygen-hydrogen rocket engines and 
     technology to India. While sanctions were imposed by 
     President Bush in May 1992, the Clinton administration 
     allowed them to expire after only two years. And in June 
     1993, evidence surfaced that additional Russian enterprises 
     were involved in missile technology transfers to India. The 
     administration imposed sanctions in June 1993, and then 
     promptly waived them for a month, never following up on this 
     issue.
       Meanwhile, Pakistan continued to aggressively pursue 
     technology transfers from China. In August 1996, the 
     capability to manufacture M-11 missile or missile components 
     was transferred from China to Pakistan. No sanctions. In 
     November 1996, a special industrial furnace and high-tech 
     diagnostic equipment were transferred from China to an 
     unprotected Pakistani nuclear facility. No sanctions. Also 
     during 1996, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency 
     issued a report stating that China had provided a 
     ``tremendous variety'' of technology and assistance for 
     Pakistan's ballistic missile program and was the principal 
     supplier of nuclear equipment for Pakistan's program. Again, 
     the Clinton administration refused to impose sanctions.
       Finally, in recent months we have learned that China may 
     have been responsible for the transfer of technology for 
     Pakistan's Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile. Flight 
     tested on April 6, 1998, the Ghauri missile has been widely 
     blamed as the impetus for India's decision to detonate five 
     nuclear weapons in tests earlier this month. Again, no 
     sanctions were imposed on China.
       Retracing the history of these instances of proliferation, 
     it is obvious that Pakistan and India have been locked in an 
     arms race since the beginning of the decade. And the race has 
     been given repeated jump-starts by China and Russia, a clear 
     violation of a number of arms control agreements. Yet rather 
     than enforce these arms control agreements, the Clinton 
     administration has repeatedly acquiesced, fearing that the 
     imposition of sanctions could either strain relations with 
     China and Russia or potentially hurt U.S. commercial 
     interests in those countries.
       Now the Clinton administration has announced a get-tough 
     policy, threatening to impose sanctions on India for testing 
     its nuclear weapons. But what about Russia and China, the two 
     nations that violated international arms agreements? 
     Shouldn't they also be subject to U.S. sanctions for their 
     role in this crisis? Sadly, the Clinton administration is 
     likely to ignore the proliferators and impose sanctions 
     solely on India. In the meantime, China and Russia will 
     continue their proliferation of missile and nuclear 
     technology to other nations, including rogue states such as 
     Iran, Iraq and Syria.
                                  ____


                                 CHRONOLOGY OF CHINESE WEAPONS-RELATED TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Reported transfer by                                Administration's
     Date of transfer or report                China              Possible violation            response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 1992...........................  M-11 missiles or         MTCR--Arms Export        Sanctions imposed on
                                       related equipment to     Control Act, Export      Aug. 24, 1993, for
                                       Pakistan (The            Administration Act.      transfers of M-11
                                       Administration did not                            related equipment (not
                                       officially confirm                                missiles); waived on
                                       reports that M-11                                 Nov. 1, 1994.
                                       missiles are in
                                       Pakistan.).
Mid-1994 to mid-1995................  Dozens or hundreds of    MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms     No sanctions.
                                       missile guidance         Nonproliferation Act,
                                       systems and              Arms Export Control
                                       computerized machine     Act, Export
                                       tools to Iran.           Administration Act.
2nd quarter of 1995.................  Parts for the M-11       MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       missile to Pakistan.     Control Act, Export
                                                                Administration Act.
Dec. 1994 to mid-1995...............  5,000 ring magnets for   NPT--Export-Import Bank  Considered sanctions
                                       an unsafeguarded         Act, Nuclear             under the Export-Import
                                       nuclear enrichment       Proliferation            Bank Act; but announced
                                       program in Pakistan.     Prevention Act, Arms     on May 10, 1996, that
                                                                Export Control Act.      no sanctions would be
                                                                                         imposed.
July 1995...........................  More than 30 M-11        MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       missiles stored in       Control Act, Export
                                       crates at Sargodha Air   Administration Act.
                                       Force Base in Pakistan.
Sept. 1995..........................  Calutron                 NPT--Nuclear             No sanctions.
                                       (electromagnetic         Proliferation
                                       isotope separation       Prevention Act, Export-
                                       system) for uranium      Import Bank Act, Arms
                                       enrichment to Iran.      Export Control Act.
1995-1997...........................  C-802 anti-ship cruise   Iran-Iraq Arms           No sanctions.
                                       missiles and C-801 air-  Nonproliferation Act.
                                       launched cruise
                                       missiles to Iran.
before Feb. 1996....................  Dual-use chemical        Arms Export Control      Sanctions imposed on May
                                       precursors and           Act, Export              21, 1997.
                                       equipment to Iran's      Administration Act.
                                       chemical weapon
                                       program.
summer 1996.........................  400 tons of chemicals    Iran-Iraq Arms           No sanctions.
                                       to Iran.                 Nonproliferation
                                                                Act,\1\ Arms Export
                                                                Control Act, Export
                                                                Administration Act.
Aug. 1996...........................  Plant to manufacture M-  MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       11 missiles or missile   Control Act, Export
                                       components in Pakistan.  Administration Act.
Aug. 1996...........................  Gyroscopes,              MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms     No sanctions.
                                       accelerometers, and      Nonproliferation Act,
                                       test equipment for       Arms Export Control
                                       missile guidance to      Act, Export
                                       Iran.                    Administration Act.
Sept. 1996..........................  Special industrial       NPT--Nuclear             No sanctions.
                                       furnace and high-tech    Proliferation
                                       diagnostic equipment     Prevention Act, Export-
                                       to unsafeguarded         Import Bank Act, Arms
                                       nuclear facilities in    Export Control Act.
                                       Pakistan.
July-Dec. 1996......................  Director of Central      MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       Intelligence (DCI)       Control Act, Export
                                       reported ``tremendous    Administration Act.
                                       variety'' of
                                       technology and
                                       assistance for
                                       Pakistan's ballistic
                                       missile program.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported             MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms     No sanctions.
                                       ``tremendous variety''   Nonproliferation Act,
                                       of assistance for        Arms Export Control
                                       Iran's ballistic         Act, Export
                                       missile program.         Administration Act.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported principal   NPT--Nuclear             No sanctions.
                                       supplies of nuclear      Proliferation
                                       equipment, material,     Prevention Act, Export-
                                       and technology for       Import Bank Act, Arms
                                       Pakistan's nuclear       Export Administration
                                       weapon program.          Act.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported key         NPT--Iran-Iraq Arms      No sanctions.
                                       supplies of technology   Nonproliferation Act,
                                       for large nuclear        Nuclear Proliferation
                                       projects in Iran.        Prevention Act, Export-
                                                                Import Bank Act, Arms
                                                                Export Administration
                                                                Act.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported             Iran-Iraq Arms           No sanctions.
                                       ``considerable''         Nonproliferation Act,
                                       chemical weapon-         Arms Export Control
                                       related transfers of     Act, Export
                                       production equipment     Administration Act.
                                       and technology to Iran.
Jan. 1997...........................  Dual-use biological      BWC--Iran-Iraq Arms      No sanctions.
                                       items to Iran.           Nonproliferation Act,
                                                                Arms Export Control
                                                                Act, Export
                                                                Administration Act.
1997................................  Chemical precursors,     Iran-Iraq Arms           No sanctions.
                                       production equipment,    Nonproliferation Act,
                                       and production           Arms Export Control
                                       technology for Iran's    Act, Export
                                       chemical weapon          Administration Act.
                                       program, including a
                                       plant for making glass-
                                       lined equipment.
Sept. to Dec. 1997..................  China Great Wall         MTCR--Iran-Iraq Arms     No sanctions.
                                       Industry Corp.           Nonproliferation Act,
                                       provided telemetry       Arms Export Control
                                       equipment used in        Act, Export
                                       flight-tests to Iran     Administration Act.
                                       for its development of
                                       the Shahab-3 and
                                       Shahab-4 medium range
                                       ballistic missiles.
Nov. 1997/April 1998................  May have transferred     MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       technology for           Control Act, Export
                                       Pakistan's Ghauri        Administration Act.
                                       medium-range ballistic
                                       missile that was
                                       flight-tested on April
                                       6, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional provisions on chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not enacted until February 10, 1996.
 
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime; and NPT: Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Treaty.


                            CHRONOLOGY OF SUSPECTED RUSSIAN WEAPONS-RELATED TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Reported Russian
                                      transfers that may have    Possibly applicable        Administration's
     Date of transfer or report         violated a regime or   treaties, regimes, and/          response
                                                law                  or U.S. laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
early 1990s.........................  Russians sold drawings   AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   No publicly known
                                       of a sarin plant,        11C.                     sanction.
                                       manufacturing
                                       procedures, and toxic
                                       agents to a Japanese
                                       terrorist group.
1991................................  Transferred to China     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       three RD-120 rocket      sec. 11B.                sanction.
                                       engines and electronic
                                       equipment to improve
                                       accuracy of ballistic
                                       missiles.
1991-1995...........................  Transferred Cryogenic    MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions against Russia
                                       liquid oxygen/hydrogen   sec. 11B.                and India under AECA
                                       rocket engines and                                and EAA imposed on May
                                       technology to India.                              6, 1992; expired after
                                                                                         2 years.
1992-1995...........................  Russian transfers to     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions reportedly
                                       Brazil of carbon-fiber   sec. 11B.                secretly imposed and
                                       technology for rocket                             waived.
                                       motor cases for space
                                       launch program.
1992-1996...........................  Russian armed forces     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       delivered 24 Scud-B      sec. 11B.                sanction.
                                       missiles and 8
                                       launchers to Armenia.

[[Page H7382]]

 
June 1993...........................  Additional Russian       MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions imposed on
                                       enterprises involved     sec. 11B.                June 16, 1993 and
                                       in missile technology                             waived until July 15,
                                       transfers to India.                               1993; no publicly known
                                                                                         follow-up sanction.
1995-present........................  Construction of 1,000    IIANPA sec. 1604 and     Refused to renew some
                                       megawatt nuclear         1605, FOAA, NPPA sec.    civilian nuclear
                                       reactor at Bushehr in    821, FAA sec. 620G.      cooperation agreements;
                                       Iran.                                             waived sanctions on
                                                                                         aid.
Aug. 1995...........................  Russian assistance to    BWC, AECA sec. 81, EAA   No publicly known
                                       Iran to develop          sec. 11C, IIANPA sec.    sanction.
                                       biological weapons.      1604 and 1605, FAA
                                                                sec. 620G and 620H.
Nov. 1995...........................  Russian citizen          AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   Sanctions imposed on
                                       transferred to unnamed   11C.                     Nov. 17, 1995.
                                       country technology for
                                       making chemical
                                       weapons.
Dec. 1995...........................  Russian gyroscopes from  United Nations           No publicly known
                                       submarine launched       Sanctions, MTCR, AECA    sanction.
                                       ballistic missiles       sec. 73, EAA sec. 11B,
                                       smuggled to Iraq         IIANPA sec. 1604 and
                                       through middlemen.       1605, FAA sec. 620G
                                                                and 620H.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported Russia      MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       transferred to Iran      sec. 11B, FAA sec.       sanction.
                                       ``a variety'' of items   620G and 620H, IIANPA
                                       related to ballistic     sec. 1604 and 1605,
                                       missiles.                FOAA.
Nov. 1996...........................  Israel reported Russian  AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   No publicly known
                                       assistance to Syria to   11C, FAA sec. 620G and   sanction.
                                       build a chemical         620H.
                                       weapon plant.
1996-1997...........................  Delivered 3 Kilo diesel- IIANPA sec. 1604 and     No publicly known
                                       electric submarines to   1605, FAA sec. 620G      sanction.
                                       Iran.                    and 620H.
Jan.-Feb. 1997......................  Russia transferred       MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       detailed instructions    sec. 11B, FAA sec.       sanction.
                                       to Iran on production    620G and 620H, IIANPA
                                       of the SS-4 medium-      sec. 1604 and 1605,
                                       range missile and        FOAA.
                                       related parts.
April 1997..........................  Sale of S-300 anti-      IIANPA sec. 1604 and     No publicly known
                                       aircraft/anti-missile    1605, FAA sec. 620G      sanction.
                                       missile system to Iran   and 620H.
                                       to protect nuclear
                                       reactors at Bushehr
                                       and other strategic
                                       sites.
Oct. 1997...........................  Israeli intelligence     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       reported Russian         sec. 11B, IIANPA sec.    sanction.
                                       technology transfers     1604 and 1605, FAA
                                       for Iranian missiles     sec. 620G and 620H,
                                       developed with ranges    FOAA.
                                       between 1,300 and
                                       10,000 km. Transfers
                                       include engines and
                                       guidance systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regimes:
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; and MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime.
U.S. Laws:
AECA: Arms Export Control Act; EAA: Export Administration Act; FAA: Foreign Assistance Act; FOAA: Foreign
  Operations Appropriations Act; IIANPA: Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act; and NPPA: Nuclear Proliferation
  Prevention Act.

  Mr. Speaker, during the 1990s, I would remind my colleagues, 37 times 
we had evidence of China and Russia transferring weapon technology to 
Hussein. Every one of those should have required a response, should 
have required sanctions. The previous administration imposed sanctions 
a total of four times out of 37. In nine of those cases, it was 
chemical and biological weapon technology, the very technology today 
that we are worried about. We saw it being transferred, and we did 
nothing about it. In fact, only in two of those nine cases did we 
impose the required sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, we have evidence which I will submit in the Record also 
of Iraq's policy on their defense system and offensive capabilities, 
both a 1984 document and a 1987 document. In the document Saddam's 
military talks about the use of chemical and biological weapons.
  In President Bush's speech this past week he said, ``All that might 
be required of Saddam are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi 
intelligence operative to deliver it.''
  Well, here it is. Mr. Speaker, this is a biological disbursing 
device. You can build it for less than $100. If I would not offend the 
Parliamentarian, I would turn it on and you would have a plume in this 
room. If you put that device in the Metro station subway in D.C. and 
activate it, based on a study by the Office of Technology Assessment, 
you would have 150,000 people in the D.C. commuter system killed by the 
dispersion of 4.5 kilograms of anthrax.
  Just like we saw back in the 1990s when we had evidence that Russian 
entities transferred these devices, a Soviet accelerometer and a Soviet 
gyroscope, which the previous administration did nothing about, never 
imposed the required sanctions. Now we have to pay the price.
  Does Saddam have chemical and biological weapons? Absolutely. Where 
did he get it from? He got it from those 37 transfers that we knew 
about that are now in the record that we did nothing about. Does he 
have a nuclear weapon like the one I have in front of me that General 
Alexander Lebed told my delegation in 1997 that they built? And the 
previous administration when it became public said, we deny the 
Russians ever built them.
  The previous administration sided with the Russian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and said we have no reason to doubt them, even though 
two top Russian leaders said there was reason to believe 80 of these 
devices were missing.
  The reason why we have to support the President is because the 
failures of our policies in the past decade have given Saddam Hussein 
biological and chemical weapon capability, nuclear weapon capability, 
missile capability, none of which should have occurred during the 1990s 
if we would have enforced the very arms control agreements that the 
other side now talks about. Thirty-seven times we had evidence, nine 
cases of chemical and biological weapons going from Russian and China 
to Iraq. And what did we do? We went like this and like that. And now 
we are faced with the consequence.
  So what President Bush has said is we must stand up and we must show 
the world that we will not tolerate what went on in the 1990s. We will 
not sit back and allow 37 violations to go unchecked. We will not 
pretend we do not see them because we want to keep Yeltsen in power. We 
will not pretend we do not want to see them because we want to protect 
the financial interests of the PLA for our fund-raising purposes.
  We should have done this during the 1990s, but we did not. I say to 
my colleagues, support this resolution. Give the President a unanimous 
voice that says to the U.N., we will act to finally do what we did not 
do in the 1990s, and that is enforce the requirements of the six 
resolutions that were passed back then.
  And if my colleagues want to see what a biological disbursement 
weapon looks like, come see me. I will activate it for them in the 
cloak room.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution. As I have listened to this thorough debate and thought 
about the resolution we are about to vote on, it seems to me the 
Persian Gulf War has never really ended. In 1991 Saddam Hussein agreed 
to a conditional surrender. He has not met the conditions of his 
surrender. Iraq is still fighting, and we need to respond.
  I have heard some of my colleagues say that use of force against Iraq 
would be a preemptive strike. I disagree. In 1991 Saddam Hussein said 
Iraq would comply with all United Nations resolutions. Iraq has not 
done so. Iraq agreed to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons programs. Today Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and 
the will to use them.
  Hussein agreed to allow unfettered weapons inspection in this 
country. However, Iraq has done everything possible to obstruct those 
inspections. Iraq pledged to keep planes out of the no-fly zone. In the 
past few years, his pilots have fired on U.S. and British troops 1,600 
times. They have shot at us 460 times this year alone.
  Iraq continues to be a threat to the area. In 1993 Iraqi troops moved 
toward the Kuwaiti border. Iraqi planes continued to fly in the no-fly 
zone. When Iraq banned U.N. inspections in 1998, President Clinton 
responded by launching missiles into the country.

                              {time}  1730

  Was that a preemptive strike? Along with the British, we dropped more 
than 600 bombs on Iraqi military targets. We have continued strikes 
against Iraq air defense installations and in response to Iraq shots at 
our planes in the no-fly zone.
  Iraq must be held to the conditions it agreed to. This Congress 
authorized action to bring Iraq into compliance in 1998. We must do so 
again. Until Iraq

[[Page H7383]]

complies with the terms of its conditional surrender, there has been no 
surrender. The Persian Gulf War is ongoing.
  Further, U.S. action against Iraq is not a preemptive strike, but is 
our responsibility to bring Saddam Hussein's continued plotting of his 
international obligations to an end. President Bush wants the 
commitment that Congress stands with him in dealing with Iraq.
  I urge that Congress stand with President Bush and support the 
resolution to finally end the Gulf War once and for all.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but we 
are engaged in debating the most difficult decision that Members of 
Congress are called upon to make.
  Notwithstanding that, Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler 
in power today, and the first one since Hitler, to commit chemical 
genocide. I believe there is reason for the long term to remove him 
from power. This resolution is the first step.
  My colleagues, remember that Israel absorbed the world's hatred and 
scorn for its attack on and destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear 
reactor in 1981. Today it is accepted by most arms control experts that 
had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Hussein's Iraq would have had nuclear 
power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way through Kuwait.
  We can see on this chart all the resolutions that were passed and 
that Saddam Hussein did not comply with. In fact, there were 12 
immediately after the war; 35 after those 12. All together, 47 
resolutions, of which he scarcely complied.
  Now, let us take the resolution on this chart, which is 687, 
governing the cease-fire in 1991. It required that Iraq unconditionally 
accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless its chemical and 
biological weapons. Within 15 days after the passage of the resolution, 
Iraq was to have provided the locations, the amounts, and types of 
those specified items. Over a decade later, we still have little 
information on that.
  That is why I applaud President Bush for taking his case to the 
United Nations and placing the burden of action upon the organization 
to enforce its own resolutions passed on Iraq. We owe diplomacy and 
peaceful opportunities the due diligence necessary to rid this despotic 
regime of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism sponsorship. 
However, if the U.S. is not credible in alternatives for noncompliance, 
we will again be at the crossroads asking the same question: If not 
now, when?
  Let us move forward with this resolution, develop a consensus, and 
work together with other nations to remove this evil dictator.
  Mr. Speaker, our vote this week will be whether or not to authorize 
the President of the United States to use necessary and appropriate 
force to defend the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq. I would like to emphatically state 
that no decision weighs heavier on the mind of a President, or a Member 
of Congress, than the decision to send our men and women of the Armed 
Forces into action.
  And I want to thank the President for working hard to make the case 
for possible--and I want my colleagues and the public to understand 
this--possible action against Iraq. The President stated last night 
that he hopes military action is not required. Iraq can avoid conflict 
by adhering to the security resolutions requiring ``declaring and 
destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, ending support for 
terrorism and ceasing the persecution of its civilian population. And, 
it must release or account for all gulf war personnel, including an 
American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.''
  To quote a recent article from the ``Weekly Standard'':

       There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the 
     world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam 
     Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular 
     danger. To review: There is no dictator in power anywhere in 
     the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two 
     neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the 
     civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have 
     assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored 
     al-Qaida fugitives . . .  attacked the soldiers of an enemy 
     country with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons 
     experiments on human subjects; committee genocide; and there 
     is, of course, the matter of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool 
     of mass murder and nothing else.

  And lastly, my colleagues, President Bush is not alone in calling for 
a regime change. Congress made the need for regime change clear in 1998 
with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. The congress specifically 
stated ``It should be the policy of the United States to support 
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in 
Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace 
that regime.'' In that legislation we also called upon the United 
Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal to prosecute 
Saddam Hussein and those in his regime for crimes against humanity and 
criminal violation of international law.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
comments made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who 
pointed out that our actions against Saddam during the 1990s were not 
as aggressive as they should have been.
  I would point out that we were also not aggressive until September 11 
of the prior year. Both administrations failed to grasp the importance 
of Saddam Hussein's weapons program until September 11 of last year.
  I would also point out that when the prior administration did take 
military action against Saddam Hussein, it did not receive the level of 
support and unified support that it should have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the extremely distinguished 
and thoughtful gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I join the gentleman from California and associate myself 
with his remarks. I would hope my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who I believe is right on this issue, would 
refrain from politicizing. If there is blame to go around, there is 
certainly enough blame to go around here in this town today, yesterday, 
and even a few days ago.
  After careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution. This vote is the most important and difficult one I have 
cast since coming to Congress some 6 years ago. I sincerely hope, as I 
imagine most of my colleagues do, that we will never have to cast 
another one like it.
  I have listened carefully to the concerns and objections of many of 
my colleagues and constituents; and having never served in the Armed 
Forces, I have sought the counsel of those who have. I have reviewed 
the available intelligence about the threat from Iraq and weighed the 
risk of a potential conflict with Iraq in the context of our ongoing 
war on terrorism; and I have reached the conclusion, as many have, that 
the risk of inaction and delay far outweigh the risk of action.
  Saddam Hussein has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, as all 
have mentioned today, and is seeking the means to deliver them, if he 
does not already have the capacity now. He is developing missile 
delivery systems that could threaten American citizens, service 
members, and our own allies in the region. But in today's world, a 
sworn enemy of America does not need a missile to deliver weapons of 
mass destruction. All he needs is a suitcase, a small plane, a cargo 
ship, or a single suicidal terrorist.
  The most compelling case for action, however, Mr. Speaker, is the 
nuclear threat. Let us be clear. We do not have the intelligence 
suggesting that an imminent nuclear threat is upon us. I would urge 
Secretary Rumsfeld to cease suggesting to Americans that there is some 
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda unless he has evidence 
to present to this Congress and to this public.
  What we do have evidence of is that Saddam Hussein continues to 
desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain 
the raw materials, which may be available to him in any number of ways, 
he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year. The Iraqi regime's 
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are coupled with the recklessness of 
the Iraqi dictator. We know that Saddam is capable of murder and untold 
cruelty. We know that Saddam is capable of aggression and also capable 
of miscalculating his adversary's response to his aggression.
  Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless, and 
misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I 
could not vote to authorize military action

[[Page H7384]]

abroad if I did not believe that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat 
to our security, one that will not recede just because we hope it goes 
away. That is why I support giving the President the authority to 
achieve our fundamental goal: disarming the Iraqi regime of all weapons 
of mass destruction.
  As we consider this resolution, every Member should read it carefully 
so we do not mischaracterize what we are voting on here today. So what 
is this resolution for? First, it is a resolution stating Congress' 
support for our diplomatic efforts. This resolution must not be taken 
as an endorsement of unilateralism. It explicitly affirms Congress' 
support for the President's efforts to work through the U.N. Security 
Council to address Iraq's ``delay, evasion and noncompliance.'' It 
calls for prompt and decisive action by the U.N. Security Council to 
enforce its own mandates on Iraq.
  Second, this resolution is not a declaration of war. The resolution 
forces the President to affirm that all diplomatic and peaceful means 
have proven inadequate to protect our Nation's security. This gives the 
President the flexibility to dangle a stick with that carrot.
  At the same time, it affirms that military action must be used only 
as a last resort. If it were up to some of us in this Congress, we 
would have done it another way, perhaps building international support 
before coming to Congress, but this President chose to do it another 
way.
  Third, the resolution more defines our purpose in authorizing the use 
of force. The use of force has two clearly defined purposes: one, to 
defend the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, two, to enforce all relevant 
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  Unlike the White House's draft language, the resolution carefully 
limits its authorization to Iraq and only Iraq. And it is clear that 
our purpose is to protect against the threat to the United States. This 
resolution authorizes military action to disarm Iraq but does not 
mention regime change. The goal is Iraq's disarmament and full 
compliance with U.N. mandates.
  I applaud Leader Gephardt and others, including Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate, for helping to negotiate such language.
  Although I strongly support the President in addressing the threat 
from Iraq, I believe the President must be more candid with us and the 
American people about the long-term commitment that is going to be 
needed in Iraq. It has been a year since we began the campaign in 
Afghanistan; and our efforts there politically, economically, and 
militarily are nowhere close to concluding. I visited Afghanistan in 
February and March and witnessed firsthand how fragile the peace is 
there. It will take years to forge stability in Afghanistan and years 
in Iraq.
  War is the last outcome that I want, and the last outcome I believe 
the President wants; but when America's national security is at stake, 
the world must know that we are prepared to defend our Nation from 
tyrants and from terrorists. With that, I ask every Member of Congress 
to support this resolution supporting our President and supporting our 
Nation.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I stand in support of Joint Resolution 114.
  Mr. Speaker, the way I see it is this way. Let us just say, 
hypothetically, if it was August 2001, and I stood before this House 
and said, listen, there is a guy out there named Osama bin Laden who is 
associated with a terrorist group named al Qaeda, and this terrorist 
group has found safe haven inside the corrupt Taliban government of 
Afghanistan. And, my colleagues, I think we should do something about 
it because our intelligence is not necessarily absolute, but this guy 
is up to no good and we need to strike before he strikes us.
  Now, if I had said that in August of 2001, people would have said, 
that war monger, that jingoistic guy from Georgia. What is he talking 
about? Yet before September 11, would it not have been nice if we could 
have had that speech and maybe prevented the tragedy of September 11?
  Well, here we are. We know Saddam Hussein has violated treaty after 
treaty which happened after Desert Storm, starting with U.N. Resolution 
660, U.N. Resolution 678, U.N. Resolution 686, 687, 688, 701, all of 
them. In fact, 16 total of very significant matters going back to 
Resolution 660. All of them violated, Mr. Speaker.
  And then here is the situation with the weapons. We know that they 
have VX. It is a sticky, colorless liquid that interferes with nerve 
impulses of the body, causes convulsions and paralysis. U.N. inspectors 
estimate that Iraq has the means to make 200 tons of VX. Sarin Gas. 
And, of course, we know that it causes convulsions and paralysis as 
well. It was used in a small quantity in a Tokyo subway in 1995. Again, 
inspectors estimate that they have maybe as high as 800 tons of sarin 
gas. It goes on. Mustard gas, anthrax, and other great worrisome 
chemical and biological weapons in their stockpile. We also know that 
he is trying to become nuclear capable.
  Finally comes the question of terrorism. We know that the State 
Department has designated Iraq as a state that sponsors international 
terrorism. We know that they shelter the Abu Nidal terrorist 
organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 different 
countries and killed over 900 people.
  We also know that Iraq shelters several prominent terrorist 
Palestinian organizations, including the Palestine Liberation Front, 
which is known for its attacks on Israel, including one on the Achille 
Lauro ship that killed the United States citizen, Leon Klinghoffer.
  My colleagues, the time to act is now. If we could just think for a 
minute what the price of action is versus inaction. Had Todd Beamer and 
the other passengers of Flight 93 elected a course of inaction on 
September 11, the price would have been significantly different for 
particularly those of us in this building. This is a time that calls 
for action. And in the great words of Todd Beamer, let me close with 
this: ``Let's roll.''
  It is time to do something. Let us pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114, 
Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.
  Here's how I view the situation: Suppose last August (2001), I gave a 
speech announcing, ``There's a guy named Osama Bin Laden who is 
involved in a terrorist group called Al Quida, which has found a safe 
haven and training opportunities inside the corrupt Taliban government 
of Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies probably were 
involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole in 
Yemen, and the bombing of our embassies in Africa. We know Bin Laden 
hates America and it is likely his group will attack our country in the 
future. Therefore we need to eliminate him. I suggest we start bombing 
his hideouts in Afghanistan immediately.''
  Had I given that speech, I would have been laughed at and called a 
warmonger, even though action against Al Quida in August 2001 could 
have saved thousands of lives in both America and Afghanistan. But 
this, in fact, is our situation today. Saddam Hussein hates us. He 
harbors terrorist groups, possesses chemical and biological weapons, 
and may become nuclear capable in a short period of time. America 
traditionally does not do preemptive strikes, but the events of 
September 11th change everything. Americans will not tolerate the 
threat of another horrific attack against the United States. Although 
no American desires a war, the best way to ensure Hassein's compliance 
with UN resolutions, and reduce the threat he poses to our national 
security, is for Congress to confirm the United State's willingness to 
use force if necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you an account of all the reasons why I 
support this resolution.
  The whole world knows that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated all 
16 of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) for more 
than a decade. These violations should not be taken lightly and are 
worthy of review. The list is substantial:


                 UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990--violated

  Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal 
invasion of Kuwait) ``and all subsequent relevant resolutions.''
  Authorizes U.N. Member States ``to use all necessary means to uphold 
and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions 
and to restore international peace and security in the area.''


                   UNSCR 686--March 2, 1991--Violated

  Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

[[Page H7385]]

  Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
  Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from 
its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


                   unscr 687--April 3, 1991--violated

  Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or 
rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all 
``chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all 
related subsystems and components and all research, development, 
support and manufacturing facilities.''
  Iraq must ``unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear 
weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material'' or any research, 
development or manufacturing facilities.
  Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or 
rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all 
``ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major 
parts and repair and production facilities.''
  Iraq must not ``use, develop, construct or acquire'' any weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
  Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the 
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and 
mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify 
elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
  Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
  Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist 
organizations to operate in Iraq.
  Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis 
and others.
  Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


                   UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991--Violated

  ``Condemns'' repression of Iraqi civilian population, ``the 
consequences of which threaten international peace and security.''
  Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
  Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian 
organizations to those in need of assistance.


                  unscr 707--august 15, 1991--violated

  ``Condemns'' Iraq's ``serious violation'' of UNSCR 687.
  ``Further condemns'' Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its 
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security 
Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
  Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects 
of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
  Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and 
unrestricted access.
  Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass 
destruction, and related materials and facilities.
  Iraq must allow U.N. and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection 
flights throughout Iraq.
  Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for 
U.N. and IAEA inspectors.


                 UNSCR 715--October 11, 1991--Violated

  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.


                 UNSCR 949--October 15, 1994--Violated

  ``Condemns'' Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
  Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile 
manner to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
  Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


                  UNSCR 1051--March 27 19961--Violated

  Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of 
mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors and allow 
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


                  UNSCR 1060--June 12, 1996--Violated

  ``Deplores'' Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and 
Iraq's ``clear violations'' of previous U.N. resolutions.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow 
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


                  UNSCR 1115--June 21, 1997--Violated

  ``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to 
U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``clear and flagrant violation'' 
of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow 
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to 
Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.


                 UNSCR 1134--October 23, 1997--Violated

  ``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access'' to 
U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a ``flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 
687, 707, 715, and 1060.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow 
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
  Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to 
Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.


                unscr 1137--november 12, 1997--violated

  ``Condemns the continued violations by Iraq'' of previous U.N. 
resolutions, including its ``implicit threat to the safety of'' 
aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and its tampering with U.N. 
inspector monitoring equipment.
  Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of U.N. 
inspectors.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow 
immediate, unconditional unrestricted access.


                  unscr 1154--march 2, 1998--violated

  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors and 
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that 
any violation would have the ``severest consequences for Iraq.''


                unscr 1194--September 9, 1998--violated

  ``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend 
cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes ``a 
totally unacceptable contravention'' of its obligations under UNSCR 
687, 7078, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
  Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors, and 
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


                 unscr 1205--November 5, 1998--violated

  ``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease 
cooperation'' with U.N. inspectors as ``a flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 
687 and other resolutions.
  Iraq must provide ``immediate, complete and unconditional 
cooperation'' with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.


                unscr 1284--December 17, 1998--violated

  Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections 
Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team 
(UNSCOM).
  Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted 
access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
  Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
  Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies 
to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without 
discrimination.
  While all these violations are extremely serious, there are 3 or 4 
items that stand out in my mind.
  His blatant refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to oversee the 
destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.
  His continued development of new biological and chemical weapons.
  His continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, and
  His support and harboring of terrorist organizations inside Iraq 
(including Al Quida).
  Mr. Speaker, some people have said, ``why are we doing this now?'' 
They say there is no ``clear and present danger.'' I don't know how 
much clearer it has to be. The facts of the matter are documented, and 
undoubtedly pose a clear and present danger to our national security.
  Documented U.N. weapons inspector reports show that Iraq continually 
deceived the inspectors and never provided definitive proof that they 
destroyed their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.
  Iraq has admitted producing the world's most dangerous biological and 
chemical weapons, but refuses to give proof that they destroyed them. 
Examples of Iraq's chemical weapons include VX, Sarin Gas and Mustard 
Gas.
  VX, the most toxic of chemical weapons, is a sticky, colorless liquid 
that interferes with the body's nerve impulses, causing convulsions and 
paralysis of the lungs and blood vessels. Victims essentially chock to 
death. A dose of 10 milligrams on the skin is enough to kill.
  Iraq acknowledged making nearly 4 tons of VX, and ``claimed'' they 
destroyed it, but they never provided any definitive proof. U.N. 
inspectors estimate that Iraq has the means to make more than 200 tons 
of VX, and Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use facilities 
that it could quickly adapt to chemical weapons production.
  Sarin gas, a nerve agent like VX, causes convulsions, paralysis and 
asphyxiation. Even a small scale Sarin Gas attack such as the one used 
in the Tokyo subway in 1995 can kill and injure vast numbers of people.
  Iraq acknowledged making approximately 800 tons of Sarin gas and 
thousands of rockets, artillery shells and bombs containing Sarin, but 
they have not accounted for hundreds of these weapons. Iraq willingly 
used these weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and it also 
used them against Kurdish Iraqi civilians.
  Mustard Gas, a colorless liquid that evaporates into a gas and begins 
dissolving upon

[[Page H7386]]

contact with the skin causes injuries similar to burns and damages the 
eyes and lungs.
  Iraq acknowledged making thousands of tons of mustard gas and using 
the chemical during it's war with Iran, but told U.N. inspectors they 
``misplaced'' 550 mustard filled artillery shells after the Gulf war.
  Examples of Iraq's biological weapons include Anthrax, Botulimun 
Toxin and Aflatoxin
  Anthrax, as we all know, is a potentially fatal bacterium that causes 
flu like symptoms before filling the lungs with fluid and causing 
death. Just a few tiny spores are enough to cause the deadly infection.
  Iraq has acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores--enough 
to kill millions, but U.N. inspectors determined that Iraq could have 
made three times as much. Inspectors say that at least 16 missile 
warheads filled with Anthrax are missing, and Iraq is working to 
produce the deadlier powdered form of Anthrax that could be sprayed 
from aircraft, put into missile warheads, or given to terrorists.
  Botulimun Toxin, is a poison that is one of the deadliest substances 
known to man. Even in small doses it causes gastrointestinal infection 
and can quickly advance to paralysis and death. A mere 70 billionths of 
a gram is enough to kill if inhaled.
  Iraq acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of Botulimun Toxin, most of 
which was put into missile warheads and other munitions. At least five 
missile warheads with Botulimun Toxin are missing according to U.N. 
inspectors.
  Aflatoxin, is a poison that can cause swelling of the abdomen, lungs 
and brain resulting in convulsion, coma and death.
  Iraq acknowledged making more than 520 gallons of Aflaxtoxin and 
putting it into missile warheads and bombs. At least four Aflatoxin--
filled missile warheads are missing according to U.N. inspectors.
  It is also a fact (and a clear and present danger) that Saddam 
Hussein continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon.
  We know he had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before 
the Gulf War, and the independent Institute for Strategic Studies 
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months 
if he were able to obtain fissile material.
  We now know that Iraq has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials 
to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy 
thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which are believed to 
be intended for use as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.
  As if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a ruthless dictator 
were not enough, we now know that Saddam Hussein harbors terrorist 
organizations within Iraq.
  Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the State 
Department as ``state sponsors of international terrorism.'' UNSUR 687 
prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or 
allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues 
to violate these UNSUR provisions.
  Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Terrorist Organization that has carried 
out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 
900 people. These terrorists have offices in Baghdad and received 
training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government 
of Iraq.
  Iraq also shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist 
organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front 
(PLF), which is known for attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu 
Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille 
Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leo Klinghoffer.
  Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money he offers to 
families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers who blow themselves up 
with belt explosives.
  Several former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret 
terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both 
Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and 
trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
  And in 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) attempted to 
assassinate former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. 
Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 17 
suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. The 
American people will not understand if we ignore these facts, sit back, 
and wait for the unacceptable possibility of Saddam Hussein providing a 
weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group for use against the 
United States.
  Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to fully condone the 
September 11 attacks on America. His media even promised the American 
people that if their government did not change its policies toward 
Iraq, it would suffer even more devastating blows. He has even endorsed 
and encouraged acts of terrorism against America.
  The case is clear. We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass 
destruction, we know he harbors terrorists including al-Qaida, and we 
know he hates America, so the case against Saddam really isn't the 
issue. The question is what are we going to do about it.
  Cearly, we must authorize the use of military force against Iraq in 
case it becomes necessary. The President has said that military action 
is a last resort, and our bipartisan resolution calls for the same 
tact, but Saddam Hussein must know that America is prepared to use 
force if he continues to defy UN Security Council resolutions and 
refuses to disarm.
  As the President said, approving this resolution does not mean that 
military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell 
the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice 
and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean 
something. Congress will be sending a message to Saddam Hussein that 
his only choice is full compliance--and the time remaining for that 
choice is limited.
  The Speaker, the price of taking action against this evil dictator 
may be high, but history has shown that the price of inaction is even 
higher. Had Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 elected a 
course of inaction on September 11th, the price may have been far 
higher for those of us in this building. There comes a time when we 
must take action. A time when we must risk lives in order to save 
lives. This resolution authorizes action, if necessary, to protect 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I speak for every member of this 
House when I say I hope we can avoid war & that Saddam Hussein will 
allow unfettered access to all sites and willingly disarm. But if he 
does not, then the Congress will have done its duty and given the 
President the authority he needs to defend our great nation. The 
authority to take action if Iraq continues to delay, deceive and deny. 
If Hussein complies, our resolution will have worked, but if he does 
not, then in the words of that brave American Todd Beamer, ``Let's 
Roll!''

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in this body our first and highest 
responsibility is protecting our homeland, and that responsibility may 
from time to time require us to embrace unpopular policies and justify 
them to our constituents when we recognize a transcendent danger to our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize my vote for this resolution authorizes a 
military action that may put at risk thousands of American lives in 
Iraq. However, the tragedies of September 11 have vividly highlighted 
the danger that inaction may risk tens, if not hundreds of thousands of 
innocent American lives here at home from terrorism.
  This bipartisan resolution was drafted in recognition of this fact 
and, therefore, presents our President with the initiative in 
continuing the global war against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that Saddam Hussein, like Osama bin Laden, hates 
America and has called for the murder of Americans everywhere. We know 
that Saddam Hussein even in the face of crippling economic sanctions 
has found the resources to reconstruct his chemical and biological 
weapons programs, even at great painful expense to his people.
  We know that Saddam Hussein is directing an aggressive program to 
procure components necessary for building nuclear devices and that he 
actively supports terror in other nations, including Israel. So the 
question before us is, do we wait for Saddam Hussein to become a 
greater threat, or do we address that threat now?
  CIA Director Tenet has told us in recent days that al Qaeda has 
sought cooperation from Iraq. I cannot stand here and trust that Saddam 
Hussein will not supply al Qaeda and other terrorist networks with 
weapons that could be used to massacre more Americans. On the contrary, 
we have every reason to believe that the Iraqi dictator would share his 
growing arsenal of terror with agents willing to strike at the United 
States.
  With this in mind, and given other revelations from captured members 
of al Qaeda, it is clear that time is not on our side. That is why I 
support this balanced and nuanced resolution providing our President 
with the powerful backing of Congress in an effort to disarm Iraq. It 
is my sincere hope that this resolution will stimulate intrusive and 
decisive action by the United Nations and at the same time lead to a 
full disarmament of Saddam Hussein. But if it does not, the United 
States of America must stand willing to act in

[[Page H7387]]

order to prevent more events like those of September 11.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and a combat veteran from Vietnam.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the vote we are debating 
today will be the most significant vote that we cast during this 
Congress and perhaps during our entire careers. I say that for two 
reasons.
  First, this vote may very well send our American soldiers into what 
has been called on this floor ``harm's way.'' Make no mistake about it, 
it is important to note that is a very nice and sanitary way of saying 
that our soldiers will be going to war. They will face combat 
conditions that our forces have not seen during most of our lifetimes. 
According to the military experts and the generals I have heard from, 
the casualty rates may be high.
  If, as some expect, Saddam Hussein uses chemical and biological 
weapons to defend Baghdad, the results will be horrifying.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in combat; and I am not willing to vote to 
send another soldier to war without clear and convincing evidence that 
America or our allies are in immediate danger and not without the 
backup and support of allied forces.
  The President delivered a good speech on Monday evening. I agree with 
him that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and that he is trying to 
build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. However, he showed us 
no link between Iraq and September 11, nor did he produce any evidence 
that even suggests that America or our allies are in immediate danger.
  This morning we learned from the CIA that Saddam Hussein is unlikely 
to use chemical or biological weapons if unprovoked by a U.S. military 
campaign. Most alarming about that news today is the report concludes 
by saying that, if we attack, the likelihood of him using weapons of 
mass destruction to respond would be ``pretty high.''
  Second, this vote is a radical departure from the foreign policy 
doctrine that has served us honorably for the past 200 years. This 
radical departure to an unprovoked, preemptive first-strike policy 
creates what I believe will be a grave new world. This new foreign 
policy doctrine will set an international precedent that tells the 
world, if they think their neighbor is a threat, attack them.
  This, I believe, is precisely the wrong message for the greatest 
Nation, the only true superpower Nation and the most wonderful 
democracy our planet has known, to send to Russia and Chechnya, to 
India and Pakistan, to China and Taiwan, and to whomever else is 
listening. And one thing we know, everyone is listening.
  For these two reasons, I cannot support a resolution that does not 
first require that all diplomatic options be exhausted, that we work 
with the United Nations Security Council, and that we proceed to disarm 
Iraq with a broad base of our allies.
  I appreciate the President's new position that war is the last option 
and that he will lead a coalition in our effort in Iraq. But, 
unfortunately, that is not what this resolution says. This resolution 
is weak at best on exhausting the diplomatic options and relinquishes 
to the executive branch Congress' constitutional charge to declare war. 
I believe that is wrong.
  We must address the potential danger presented by Saddam Hussein. The 
first step should be the return of the U.N. weapons inspectors; and 
they must have unrestricted and unfettered access to every square inch 
of Iraq, including the many presidential palaces. We must then work 
with the Security Council to ensure the strictest standards, protocols, 
and modalities are in place to make certain that Hussein cannot weasel 
out of any of these inspections.
  Finally, we need to amass the allied support necessary to carry out 
the inspections in a manner that will guarantee Iraq is completely 
stripped of all weapons of mass destruction and left unable to pursue 
new weapons of this type.
  We had great success in building a coalition to fight terrorism, and 
we should do no less when it comes to disarming Saddam Hussein. We must 
respect international order and international law in our efforts to 
make this world a safer place.
  With our military might, we can easily gain superiority over anyone 
in the world. However, it takes more than military might to prevail in 
a way that provides hope and prosperity, two ingredients that make it 
less likely for terrorism to breed and impossible for repressive 
dictators to rule.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is the decision of this Congress to go to war, I 
will support our troops 1,000 percent. However, I saw Baghdad and I 
know fighting a war there will be ugly and casualties may be extremely 
high. Let us exhaust the diplomatic options, return the weapons 
inspectors, continue to build an international coalition so Saddam 
Hussein sees the world, not just the U.S. at the end of the gun. By 
doing this, we can avoid sending our soldiers into combat in Baghdad 
unless it is absolutely the last option.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, voting to authorize sending young Americans to war is a 
serious decision. Members will make that decision in this Chamber 
tomorrow.
  Yesterday and today we have heard very impressive debate, most of 
which favors the resolution; some did not. We have heard over and over 
again the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime is not only to the 
United States and our interests but to many other parts of the world.
  I am not going to restate those issues that have already been stated 
yesterday and today, but as one of the many cosponsors of House Joint 
Resolution 114, I do rise in support of this resolution to authorize 
the use of United States military force against Saddam Hussein's 
regime.
  Much like the first hours and days after September 11, the world, our 
friends and our foes, wondered how would the United States respond to 
that attack on our Nation? They wanted to know if we as a Nation would 
follow through with a serious response to bring the terrorists to 
justice. They wanted to see if we would respond with a token strike, as 
we did following the attack on U.S. troops in Somalia, at Khobar Towers 
in Saudi Arabia, against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 
the attack on our sailors aboard the USS Cole. The world watched. Our 
credibility was at stake. Before joining us, many of our friends were 
waiting to see if we were serious this time. Our enemies were not 
concerned because they believed they could absorb another token 
response, as they had in past years.
  But the message became clear just 3 days after September 11. A 
response was certain when Congress, with a strong bipartisan vote, 
stood and unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to allow the President of the United States to lead 
not only a recovery effort in those parts of our country that were 
attacked in New York City and at the Pentagon but to pursue the war 
against the Taliban and against al Qaeda and against any terrorist, 
wherever they might be hiding. It was to fund the war against 
terrorism, wherever they were waiting to attack again.
  When Congress spoke, almost immediately, with unity and with force, 
our friends knew we were serious this time, and it was with confidence 
that they joined our cause. And our enemies knew right away that 
America was serious; and when President Bush said what it was we were 
going to do, they knew that we had the resolve to fight the battle, no 
matter how long it would take or where it would lead.
  Today, we are in a similar situation. There is no question about the 
threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's regime, to our allies, and 
to world peace. As has been pointed out here many times today, he has 
defied one United Nations resolution after another for more than a 
decade.
  Remember, he lost the war. He lost the war in Desert Storm, and he 
signed up to certain rules and regulations which go along with losing a 
war, and he has ignored all of them. He has developed and stockpiled 
chemical and biological weapons. We know that he is seeking nuclear 
weapons. We know

[[Page H7388]]

that he has aided and abetted terrorists who have struck international 
targets around the world. But now it is time for Congress to speak 
again with a firm and resolute voice, just as we did on September 14, 3 
days after the cowardly attacks on innocent Americans.
  Many of our friends are watching and they are waiting today, as they 
were last year. Are they going to join with us, or not? Is this a 
serious effort, or not? Is Congress speaking for the American people to 
support the President of the United States as he seeks to protect this 
Nation and our interests?
  President Bush needs Congress to act to convince our allies, our 
friends, and our enemies that we are serious. They need to know that 
our Nation is resolved to continue this battle against terrorism into 
Iraq if necessary.
  Many have said that Saddam Hussein is not a real threat to the United 
States because he is so far away, and he is far away. It is a long 
distance.

                              {time}  1800

  Many have said that the President's speech Monday night did not 
address a lot of new subjects. He compiled and organized very well, 
many of the existing arguments. But he did say something new for those 
who paid really close attention. The President discussed for the first 
time publicly information that many of our colleagues who work with 
intelligence issues have been aware of for quite some time. That 
involves Saddam Hussein's aggressive efforts to develop and use 
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, as a delivery method for his weapons of 
mass destruction. The SCUDs did not have a very long range. The SCUDs 
were not very accurate. I can attest to that because one night visiting 
with General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, a SCUD 
was launched near our site, and it landed not too far away; but it was 
far enough away that it did not hurt anybody. So we know that the SCUDs 
were not that accurate. UAVs are a different story. UAVs have a much 
longer range; UAVs are able to be piloted and trained specifically on a 
target. UAVs are dangerous. And if my colleagues do not think UAVs have 
a long range, we ourselves have flown a UAV from the United States to 
Australia and back. Saddam is aggressively seeking ability to use those 
long-range UAVs to put so many more targets in his sights. We cannot 
let that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, with this resolution Congress reaffirms our support for 
the international war against terrorism. It continues to be 
international in nature, as this resolution specifically expresses 
support for the President's efforts to strictly enforce, through the 
United Nations Security Council, and I will repeat that, through the 
United Nations Security Council, all relevant Security Council 
resolutions applicable to Iraq. It also expresses support for the 
President's efforts to obtain prompt decisive action by the Security 
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, 
and noncompliance with those resolutions.
  One of the lessons of September 11 is that terrorism knows no 
boundaries. Its victims are men and women, children and adults. It can 
occur here; it can occur abroad. It can occur anywhere. Terrorists 
strike without warning. If we are to fight and win the war on 
terrorism, we must remain united, united in the Congress, united with 
the President of the United States, and united with the American 
people. President Bush told the Nation last September that victory 
would not come quickly or easily. It would be a battle unlike any our 
Nation has ever waged. Now is not the time to send a mixed message to 
our friends and allies. Now is not the time to show our enemies any 
weakness in our resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to record our votes on this important 
resolution, we should remember the victims of terrorism, September 11 
and other examples, and our promise last year to seek out and destroy 
the roots of terrorism whether it be its sponsors, planners, or the 
perpetrators of these cowardly missions. We should remember the unity 
of our Nation and the world. The battle continues, the stakes remain 
high, and the cause remains just. America must again speak one more 
time with unity, with force, and with clarity. This resolution does 
that.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi regime has posed a threat to peace, to the 
United States, and to the world for too long. In order to protect 
America against this very real and growing threat, I support giving the 
President the authority to use force, to use military action if 
necessary against Iraq. Without a doubt this is one of the most 
difficult decisions I have had to make as a Member of Congress. But 
after briefings from the administration, testimony from congressional 
hearings, I am convinced the threat to our Nation's safety is real. 
After repeatedly failing to comply with U.N. inspections, Saddam 
Hussein's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction, biological, 
chemical and nuclear, have gone unchecked for far too long. The world 
cannot allow him to continue down this deadly path. Saddam Hussein must 
comply with U.N. inspections; but if not, America and our coalition 
must be prepared to meet this threat.
  After the Gulf War, in compliance with U.N. resolutions, a no-fly 
zone was implemented. The purpose was to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiite 
Muslims from Saddam Hussein's aggressions and to conduct aerial 
surveillance. But since its inception, pilots patrolling the zones have 
come under repeated attack from Iraqi missiles and artillery.
  The connection between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its 
longstanding ties to terrorist networks such as al Qaeda has 
significantly altered the U.S. security environment. The two linked 
together pose a clear and present danger to our country. Consider that 
Saddam Hussein could supply the terrorists who have sleeper cells in 
our land with weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S. while 
concealing his responsibility for the action. It is a very real and 
growing threat. The Iraqi regime has been building a case against 
itself for more than 10 years, and if we fail to heed the warning signs 
and allow them to continue down this path, the results could be 
devastating, but they would not be a surprise.
  After September 11, we are on notice. If Saddam Hussein refuses to 
comply with U.N. resolutions and diplomatic efforts, we have only one 
choice in order to ensure the security of our Nation and the safety our 
citizens.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was a world away fighting to 
contain the scourge of communism in Southeast Asia, a movement grew up 
here at home to protest what we were doing. Late in the war, one of the 
anthems of that movement was a song by John Lennon called ``Give Peace 
a Chance.'' We are not here to debate the Vietnam War, but we are 
discussing war and peace. Peace is a very precious thing, and we should 
defend it and even fight for it. And we have given peace a chance for 
11 long years.
  We gave peace a chance through diplomacy, but Saddam Hussein has 
broken every agreement that came out of that diplomacy. We gave peace a 
chance through weapons inspections, but Saddam Hussein orchestrated an 
elaborate shell game to thwart that effort. We gave peace a chance 
through sanctions, but Saddam Hussein used those sanctions as an excuse 
to starve his own people. We gave peace a chance by establishing no-fly 
zones to prevent Saddam Hussein from killing more of his own citizens, 
but he shoots at our planes every day. We gave peace a chance by 
allowing him to sell some oil to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi 
people, but instead he used the revenue to build more weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have given peace a chance for more than a decade, and 
it has not worked. Even now our President is actively working to 
achieve a diplomatic solution by getting the United Nations to pass a 
resolution with teeth; and while the United Nations has an important 
role to play in this, no American President and no American Congress 
can shirk our responsibility to protect the American people. If the 
U.N. will not act, we must.

[[Page H7389]]

  If we go down to the other end of the national Mall, we will see on 
the Korean War Memorial the words ``Freedom is not free.'' Peace is not 
free either. What some of those who are protesting the President's 
request for military authority do not understand is that our freedoms 
were not won with poster paint. Antiwar protestors do not win our 
freedoms or our peace. The freedom to live in peace was won by men and 
women who gave their lives on the battlefields of history.
  As the world's only remaining superpower, we now even have an even 
greater responsibility to stand up to prevent mass murder before it 
happens. No world organization can override the President's duty and 
our duty to protect the American people. If Mohammed Atta had had a 
nuclear weapon, he would have used that weapon in New York and not an 
airplane. By all accounts Saddam Hussein is perhaps a year away from 
having nuclear weapons. He already has chemical and biological weapons 
capable of killing millions.
  When police detectives investigate a crime, they look for three 
things: means, motive, and opportunity. Clearly Saddam Hussein has the 
means, he has the weapons, and he has the motive. He hates America, he 
hates the Kurds, he hates Kuwaitis, he hates Iran, he hates Israel, he 
hates anyone who gets in his way. And we know that when he hates 
people, he kills them, sometimes by the thousand. He has shown the 
propensity to use his weapons and so he has the means and the motive. 
But does he have the opportunity? Saddam Hussein could easily pass a 
suitcase with a nuclear weapon off to an al Qaeda terrorist with a one-
way ticket to New York. No fingerprints, no evidence, and several 
million dead Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very real danger. Before September 11 we might 
have thought this could never happen. Today we are too wise to doubt 
it, and it is a danger that grows every day. Every day Saddam Hussein 
grows stronger. Every day Saddam Hussein builds more chemical and 
biological weapons. Every day Saddam Hussein comes a little closer to 
achieving nuclear weapons capability. Every day that passes, America 
grows more vulnerable to a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack.
  In this case inaction is more costly than action. The price of delay 
is a greater risk. The price of inaction could be catastrophic, even 
worse than September 11. We must disarm Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not advocating war. We are calling for peace, but 
peace might only be possible if we are willing to fight for it, and the 
President needs that authority to do that. I urge support for the 
resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and that he be able to control 
and yield that time to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult vote for me. If there is ever 
one vote that should be made in the national interest, a vote that 
transcends politics and where Members must vote their conscience, it is 
the one that is before us tonight.
  I have received thousands of letters against the resolution, and just 
this past weekend over 15,000 gathered in Central Park in my district 
to protest. But what is at stake are not our political careers or an 
election, but the future of our country and our way of life. I believe 
there is a more compelling case now against Saddam than 12 years ago. 
Then the threat was of a geopolitical nature, a move to change the map 
of the Middle East. But I never saw it as a direct threat to our 
Nation.
  The main question before us today is whether Saddam is a threat to 
the United States and our allies. No one doubts that he has chemical 
and biological weapons. No one doubts that he is trying to stockpile 
weapons of mass destruction. No one doubts that he has thwarted 
inspections in the past and has developed UAVs. No one doubts that he 
has consistently worked to develop nuclear power. No one doubts that he 
has twice invaded his neighbors. The question is, Will he use these 
weapons against the United States and our allies, and can we deter him 
without using force?
  As Lincoln said in the beginning days of the Civil War: ``The dogmas 
of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is 
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our 
case is new, so must we think anew and act anew.''
  I would be for deterrence if I thought it would work. We are in a new 
era and no longer in the Cold War. Deterrence depends on the victim 
knowing from where the aggression will come and the aggressor knowing 
the victim will know who has attacked him. It has been a year since the 
anthrax attacks in our Nation, and we still do not know where the 
attacks came from. Saddam has likely taken notice that we were unable 
to tie evidence of attacks to their source, and if he believes he can 
give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against us 
without our knowing he has done so, our ability to deter him from such 
a course of action will be greatly diminished.

                              {time}  1615

  Opponents of our war talk about the unintended consequences of war. 
They do not talk about the unwanted consequences of not disarming 
Saddam. In today's environment, it is very possible he could supply 
weapons to terrorists who will attack the United States or our allies 
around the world.
  I am pleased the resolution has been improved with congressional 
input. We should proceed carefully, step by step, and use the United 
Nations and the international community to disarm Saddam so that we are 
safer in the United States and New York and in our respective States 
and clear around the world.
  Just today I spoke with British Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, on this issue. Ambassador 
Greenstock told me that the members of the Security Council, both 
permanent and otherwise, will approve a robust inspection resolution; 
and if this fails to disarm Iraq, he expects a second resolution that 
may authorize force.
  I come from a family of veterans. Most recently, my brother served in 
the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. It happens to be his birthday today. He 
told me that he parachuted many times behind enemy lines to acquire 
enemy intelligence. He saw many of his friends machine gunned down. 
This searing experience left deep wounds. So it is my deepest hope that 
we will not have to send our men and young women into harm's way.
  So it is with a very heavy heart, but a clear resolve, that I will be 
voting to support this resolution. The accumulation of weapons of mass 
destruction by Saddam and the willingness of terrorists to strike 
innocent people in the United States and our allies across the world 
have, unfortunately, ushered in a dangerous new era. It is a danger 
that we cannot afford to ignore.
  I will be voting yes. I will be supporting the President on this 
resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to 
authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I stand behind the 
Commander-in-Chief and our men and women in uniform who may be called 
upon to defend America's freedom again.
  The War Powers Resolution was passed to ensure that the collective 
judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply before the 
introduction of our Armed Forces into hostilities. I want to commend 
the President for working with Congress on crafting this critical 
resolution.
  Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime 
have refused to comply with the sanctions imposed by the United States 
and its international community. In 1990, Iraq committed an unprovoked 
act of aggression and occupation against its Arab neighbor Kuwait, a 
peace-loving nation.

[[Page H7390]]

  After the Gulf War, the Iraqi government continually violated the 
terms of the United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement. They 
refused to provide access to weapons inspectors to investigate 
suspected weapon production facilities.
  Americans and coalition force pilots have been fired upon thousands 
of times while lawfully enforcing the no-fly zone crafted by the United 
Nations Security Council. In 1993, they attempted to assassinate former 
President Bush. As we speak here today, members of al Qaeda are known 
to be within the borders of Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, history has proven that Saddam Hussein and his 
government cannot be dealt with through diplomatic channels or peaceful 
means. He only understands death, destruction and trampling on the 
human rights of others, as evidenced by his treatment of the Kurdish 
people in Northern Iraq and anyone in his government who questions his 
power.
  Some may argue that America is acting as the aggressor and planning a 
preemptive strike without justification. To the contrary, this is 
anticipatory self-defense against evil forces and weapons that threaten 
our national security and peace and stability throughout the Persian 
Gulf and the world.
  We do not want to see another day like September 11 ever again in 
America, or anywhere else on God's great Earth. If we do not put an end 
to Iraq's development of its weapons of mass destruction program, the 
future could be worse.
  America must act forcefully and with great resolve because the costs 
are too high. The time has come for America once again to set the 
example for the rest of the free world. Our children and our 
grandchildren should not have to face this threat again.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this joint resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
President in his policy regarding Iraq. Resolutions regarding war are 
not something we consider without much thought, and this should be very 
serious business for this House and each Member of it.
  The last few months, there has been much talk about Iraq being given 
the opportunity to respond to weapons inspections. Sometimes this is 
said as if it were a new idea. However, when a defiant Saddam Hussein 
has repeatedly rejected inspections and threatened inspectors, there is 
little reason to believe that he will cooperate.
  You may have seen the movies in which a prison is going to be 
inspected. The warden replaces the spoiled food with fresh vegetables 
and maybe even a meat entree. If Saddam Hussein allows inspectors in, 
it will only be at specific locations and not the unlimited, surprise 
inspections that we need in order to have our questions answered.
  The fact that our President would consider any additional form of 
inspection is a testimony of his desire to avoid conflict. Saddam 
Hussein's actions in the past show a lack of regard, both for his own 
people and for his neighboring nations.
  I remember back about 10 years ago as a young man preparing to 
practice law. It was about that time that the U.S. and our allies spent 
an enormous time and effort freeing the Kuwaiti people and hoped that 
the Iraqi people would also be able to free themselves from the 
dictator.
  In World War II, Hitler introduced a concept of blitzkrieg, a high-
speed attack by land and air. Today's increasingly long-range and 
accurate rockets, armed with warheads of mass destruction, makes 
blitzkrieg look like slow motion.
  The President's top advisers and the Secretary of Defense, along with 
other members of the President's Cabinet, have briefed Members of 
Congress repeatedly and in a timely manner. I went down to Pennsylvania 
Avenue to the White House just last week, and back on September 19 met 
with the Secretary of Defense along with several other Members of 
Congress at the Pentagon to discuss and be briefed on the situation in 
Iraq.
  Now, the President needs our support so that he can act quickly and 
decisively against the threat of Iraq should he deem that action 
necessary.
  Again, let me stress, the action that we take this week is not just 
another vote for the United States Congress. It is, indeed, one of 
those landmark votes that will be long remembered and recorded in the 
history books. The action that we take this week might just, and 
certainly we pray, negate the need to send our troops into harm's way.
  I would urge all the Members to support our President and vote yes on 
this resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we fully discuss here the most 
serious responsibility that is entrusted to Congress, and that is 
authorizing the President to use force in the defense of our Nation. 
The decision by Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S. 
military requires somber analysis and sober consideration, but it is 
not a discussion that we should delay.
  The President has presented to the American people a compelling case 
for intervening in Iraq, and this body has acted deliberately in 
bringing to the House floor a resolution that unequivocally expresses 
our support for our Commander-in-Chief.
  The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more 
apparent. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Special 
Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying thousands of chemical 
munitions, chemical agents and precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to 
developing offensive biological weapons, including botulinum, anthrax, 
aflatoxin, clostridium and others.
  Yet this list of poisons describes only what the U.N. inspectors were 
able to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and 
denial. They could not account for thousands of chemical munitions, 500 
mustard gas bombs and 4,000 tons of chemical weapons precursors. In the 
intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, and 
accelerated following the withdrawals of U.N. inspectors.
  Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve not only to develop deadly 
weapons of mass destruction but to use them on their own people: 5,000 
killed, 20,000 Iranians killed through mustard gas clouds and the most 
deadly agents that were inflicted on human beings. Perhaps in different 
hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be 
less of an imminent threat.
  This authorization of force that we will vote on soon is at some 
level also a recognition of the ongoing state of war with Iraq. In the 
last 3 weeks, 67 attempts have been made to down collision aircraft. 
Four hundred and six attempts have been made this year.
  The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and general 
inactivity of the international community for a decade. Regime change 
cannot happen through domestic posturing. Disarmament requires more 
than fervent hopes and good wishes.
  On December 9, 1941, President Roosevelt said, ``There is no such 
thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up 
in the dark and strike without warning. We cannot measure our safety in 
terms of miles on any map.''
  In 1941, Congress stood with the President and promised full support 
to protect and defend our Nation. I urge our colleagues today to do the 
same.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown), who serves with distinction on the Committee on 
International Relations and is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee 
on Health Care of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for years our policy in this country has been one of 
containment, of deterrence, of collective security, of diplomacy. We 
contained and we deterred Joseph Stalin and the Soviets for decades. We 
have contained and deterred Fidel Castro and the Cubans for 40 years. 
We have contained and deterred Communist China in its expansionist 
tendencies for 5 decades.

[[Page H7391]]

  Now this President wants to radically change our decades-old foreign 
policy of containment and deterrence to a policy of first strike. What 
does that tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to attack Georgia to 
better deal with Chechnya? Does it set an international precedent for 
China to go into Taiwan or deal even more harshly with Tibet? Does it 
embolden India or Pakistan, or both, each with nuclear weapons, from 
going to war in Kashmir?
  The whole point of the Security Council is to prevent member states, 
including veto-wielding permanent members, perhaps especially veto-
wielding permanent members, to prevent those member states from 
launching first strike, unilateral, unprovoked war.
  Resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, called explicitly for 
countries cooperating with the exiled Kuwaiti loyals to create a 
coalition to use force. No country, no country in international law, 
has the unilateral right to decide Iraq has not complied with U.N. 
requirements, let alone what the U.N. response should be.
  A couple of weeks ago, three retired four-star generals testified in 
the other body, stating that attacking Iraq without a United Nations' 
resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, 
would supercharge, in the general's words, supercharge recruiting for 
al Qaeda and undermine our war on terrorism.

                              {time}  1830

  There are too many questions the administration has yet to answer. If 
we strike Iraq on our own, what happens to our campaign against 
terrorism? Most of our allies in the war on terror oppose U.N. 
unilateral action against Iraq. Will our coalition against terrorism 
fracture? And if we win a unilateral war, will we be responsible for 
unilaterally rebuilding Iraq?
  I am not convinced this administration possesses the political 
commitment to reconstruct the damage after we defeat Saddam Hussein to 
bring democracy to that country. It will entail appropriations of 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, year after year after year. Do 
we have the political will and the financial commitment to do that in 
that country, in that region? Should a new enemy arise while we are 
paying for the campaign against al Qaeda and the reconstruction of 
Iraq, will our resources be so overextended that we will not be able to 
address this new threat?
  This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the 
administration details what it plans to do and how we will deal with 
the consequences of our actions, namely, what will the U.S. role be 
after military action is completed? We should set stronger conditions 
before any military action is permitted.
  The President should present to Congress a comprehensive plan that 
addresses the full range of issues associated with action against Iraq: 
a cost estimate for military action, a cost estimate for reconstruction 
of Iraq, along with a proposal for how the U.S. is going to pay for 
these costs. We are going more into debt. Will there ever be a 
prescription drug benefit? Will we continue to underfund education? 
Will the economy continue to falter if we do this war?
  We should do an analysis of the impact on the U.S. domestic economy 
of the use of resources for military action and the use of resources 
for reconstruction of Iraq. We should answer the questions.
  We should have a comprehensive plan for U.S. financial and political 
commitment to long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization 
in a free Iraq if the President is going to talk about Iraq being a 
model of democracy in the Middle East.
  We should have a comprehensive statement that details the extent of 
the international support for military operations in Iraq and what 
effect a military action against Iraq will mean for the broader war on 
terrorism.
  We should have a comprehensive analysis of the effect on the 
stability of Iraq, and the region, of any regime change in Iraq that 
may occur as a result of U.S. military action.
  And, finally, we should have a commitment that the U.S. will take 
necessary efforts to protect the health, safety, and security of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi civilians.
  Mr. Speaker, before we send our young men and women to war, before we 
put our young men and women in harm's way, we must make certain in 
every way that this is the best course of action.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) has 2 hours and 26 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has 39 minutes remaining; and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has 20 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle if we could agree to a 2- or 3-to-1 split in order to 
normalize the time, since there is such a disparity in the amount 
consumed.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would agree to a 2-to-1 split, I would 
say to my friend from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will proceed with 
two in a row and then yield.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that 9-11 and the events of that 
day taught us, it is that our policy of containment and deterrence does 
not work against terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up and, 
at the same time, innocent civilians.
  I rise in support of this historic resolution, fully aware that this 
may be one of the most important votes this body casts.
  We all hope that we can disarm Iraq without bloodshed. That is our 
goal. We all hope and pray that risking the lives of the women and men 
of our Armed Forces will prove unnecessary. We hold out hope that this 
time, against the recent tide of history, Saddam will allow U.N. 
inspectors full access, free of deception and delay. But if the events 
of 9-11 and ongoing intelligence-gathering have shown us anything, Mr. 
Speaker, it is that we must remain ever vigilant against the new and 
growing threat to the American way of life. Terrorists who are willing 
to commit suicide to murder thousands of innocents will not be halted 
by the conventional means and policies of deterrence we have deployed.
  The greatest danger we face is in not acting, in assuming the 
terrorists who are committed to destroying our Nation will remain 
unarmed by Saddam. The first strike could be the last strike for too 
many Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we know enough at this point about the specific dangers 
posed by Iraq to make this resolution unavoidable: large stockpiles of 
chemical and biological weapons, an advanced and still-evolving nuclear 
weapons production program, support for and the harboring of terrorist 
organizations, the brutal repression and murder of its own civilian 
population, and the utter disregard for U.N. resolutions and dictates.
  Mr. Speaker, we know enough.
  We all applaud and support the President's commitment to working with 
the U.N. Security Council to deal with the threat that Iraq poses to 
the United States and our allies. I continue to hope and pray for a 
peaceful, internationally driven resolution to this crisis, but I 
believe that passing this resolution strengthens the President's hand 
to bring this about.
  But with the events of September 11 still fresh in our minds and in 
our hearts, we cannot rest our hopes on the possibility that Iraq will 
comply with U.N. resolutions. Iraq has defied the United Nations openly 
for over a decade.
  Today we are being asked to fulfill our responsibilities to our 
families, our constituents, and our Constitution; and I think we have 
to give the President the appropriate tools to proceed if Saddam does 
not cooperate with the arms inspectors and comply with existing U.N. 
resolutions.
  While we should seek the active support of other nations, we must 
first and foremost protect our homeland, our people, and our way of 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray for the best as we prepare for the worst. Today, 
we recognize that there may come a time in a

[[Page H7392]]

moment when we realize that we are involved in a profound global 
struggle in which Saddam's regime is clearly at the epicenter on the 
side of evil; when it becomes clear there are times when evil cannot be 
appeased, ignored, or simply forgotten; when confrontation remains the 
only option.
  There are moments in history when conscience matters, in fact, when 
conscience is the only thing that matters. I urge my colleagues to vote 
their conscience and acknowledge the danger confronting us, by not 
entrusting our fate to others, by demonstrating our resolve to rid the 
world of this menace. I urge this with a heavy heart, but a heart 
convinced that if confrontation should be required, we are ready for 
the task.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Defending America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is the 
first and fundamental purpose of the Federal Government. Once, it took 
countries of great economic wealth to field a powerful military, to 
threaten the United States, and to place our people in fear. The threat 
of this new century has now changed, because we have individuals that 
truly hate us and can use something as simple as box cutters to place 
our people in fear and terror.
  With regard to the threat of Saddam Hussein, it must be recognized 
for what it is: a deliberate and patient campaign by Saddam to 
terrorize free people and undermine the very foundations of liberty.
  I am sufficiently convinced without hesitation that Saddam represents 
a clear and present danger. As a Gulf War veteran, I am filled with 
emotion to contemplate that my comrades will once again be upon the 
desert floor. I submit that it is easier to be ordered to war than to 
vote that someone else may go in my place. However, now is the time for 
our Nation to in fact be vigilant and to authorize the President to 
preserve freedom through military action, if necessary, and to take our 
foreign policy as defense in depth.
  In many respects, this resolution represents a continuation of the 
Gulf War. Saddam Hussein agreed to provisions of the cease-fire. He has 
violated his cease-fire, he has been flagrant in his violations, and 
the hostility is now open and notorious. After a decade of denial, 
deception, and hostility toward the world, it is time to seek Iraq's 
compliance and, if necessary, remove this despotic dictator, his 
weapons of mass destruction, and the terrorists he supports and 
harbors.
  Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party rule Iraq through terror and 
fear. I will share some personalized stories.
  Through interrogations at the enemy prisoner of war camp during the 
Gulf War, having done these interviews with Iraqi high command 
conscripts, I learned several things: number one, the Iraqi people do 
not like Saddam because he, in fact, keeps the great wealth to himself, 
keeps different tribes in ignorance, to the pleasure of his own tribe. 
In fact, one of the conscripts that I interrogated was scared to death 
of an American soldier. Why? Because they had been told that if you are 
captured by Americans, that you, in fact, would be quartered, your body 
would be quartered. Over 90,000 Iraqis that were held in two prisoner 
of war camps, I say to my colleagues, have had the opportunity to tell 
the stories of how well they were treated by Americans and, in fact, 
they called the prisoner of war camps ``the hotel.''
  Let me tell about their leadership. Before the interrogation of a 
two-star Iraqi general, he was sitting with his legs crossed on the 
desert floor with his hands in his face weeping like a child. I had an 
interpreter with me. When I walked up, I kicked the bottom of his boot 
and, through the interpreter, I asked him to stand at attention. He 
stood up and I asked him if he was an Iraqi general. He responded and 
said yes, he was. Here I am, an American captain in the Army, and I 
told him, then if you are an Iraqi general, then act like one.
  Mr. Speaker, why would an Iraqi general be weeping upon the desert 
floor? Because Saddam hand-selects his general officers. They do not 
earn it. The men who serve in their military have not earned the trust 
and confidence.
  Also, what will be told is the lethality of American combat troops. 
They know exactly what happened in the short war of the gulf. The 
operations with regard to any military action that may occur in the 
Gulf War, I say to my colleagues, is so completely different than the 
operations of 10 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the Iraqi people because I also remember 
them. Do my colleagues know what their request was at the prisoner of 
war camp to bring calm? They just wanted to listen to Madonna. So that 
is what we did. We piped in Madonna. They wanted to listen to ``The 
Material Girl.'' Their culture is far more Westernized than we could 
ever imagine, and they like Americans.
  This is not against the Iraqi people. This is any action to get 
Saddam Hussein to comply with the cease-fire to disarm; and if, in 
fact, he does not, then force is the means of last resort. And the 
soldiers, while they prepare to fight and win the Nation's wars, they 
are the ones who have taken the oath to lay down their life for the 
Constitution, and they do not want to fight. In fact, they want peace. 
But if called upon, they, in fact, will serve.
  So I will vote for this resolution, and I will think about my 
comrades who may be placed in harm's way, and I also will think of the 
children that are left behind and the spouses who will keep the watch 
fires burning for their loved ones. Support the resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, American 
foreign policy has struggled to define its role in the post-Cold War 
world. Unsure of when to use military force, how to use it, and with 
which allies, we have stumbled from engagement to ad hoc engagement 
from Somalia to Kosovo. We have at times acted hastily in the world; 
more often, far too late.
  Our recent fecklessness points up the foreign policy confusion that 
the welcome end of the long war with totalitarianism has left with us. 
Confronted with the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans were united 
in the goals of containment and deterrence, this latter purpose backed 
up by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Such strategies are, of 
course, still not outdated, as we face an unstable Russia and a growing 
China, both armed with significant nuclear arsenals. But the primacy of 
these doctrines has no doubt receded with the Peace of Paris and with 
the difficult challenges that have arisen since.
  As our Nation enters the 21st century, we are confronted by some of 
these challenges, like humanitarian crises in Somalia which are brought 
into our homes through the global reach of communications technology, 
and world opinion demands action to bring relief. Ethnic cleansing, 
with its echoes of the Holocaust, insist that the United States and its 
Western allies make good on the promise of ``never again.'' And the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction, which means that, for the first 
time in history, a nonstate actor can inflict lethal harm on a State, 
compels us to develop new doctrines of defense.

                              {time}  1845

  It is amidst this intellectual muddle that the current crisis with 
Iraq arises. There are certain undeniable facts about Saddam Hussein, 
who has so ruthlessly ruled Iraq for more than 20 years. He alone in 
the world has used chemical weapons, against his own people. He has a 
sophisticated biological weapons program. Most importantly, he has an 
insatiable appetite for nuclear weapons, which, but for the foresight 
of Israel and the success of the Gulf War, he would already possess. 
With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly tried to 
dominate the Middle East, a region of critical importance to the United 
States.
  These facts alone dictate immediate action to disarm Iraq. If Saddam 
Hussein were to acquire a nuclear weapon, he would be able to muscle 
surrounding states, as he attempted to do with Kuwait in 1990, with 
relative impunity, for the threat of nuclear reprisal would deter all 
but the most determined vindicators of international law and Middle 
East stability.
  Were Saddam Hussein to control not only his own mighty oil fields but 
also

[[Page H7393]]

those of his neighbors, the havoc to the world economy could not be 
overestimated, as would the danger to our long-standing ally, Israel.
  Many people over the last 2 days have spoken eloquently of the need 
for United Nations approval before any American action against Iraq. 
President Bush was wise to recently address the U.N., and I am 
confident that the United Nations will acknowledge the need to enforce 
its own resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq; and recognize, 
too, that only the threat of military force can make those demands 
understood.
  But if the United Nations itself has so little self-regard as to not 
demand compliance by Iraq, then that body's impotence should not 
forestall the United States from making the world's demands on its own.
  While consistency is not always valued highly in Congress, my own 
party would well remember that President Bill Clinton chose to take 
action in Kosovo without any approval from the Security Council; 
indeed, against the opposition of at least one permanent Security 
Council member, but with the approval of most Democrats in the House of 
Representatives.
  Still others of my colleagues have suggested that we must wait for 
further provocation by Iraq. Somehow, they argue, it is against the 
American tradition to take preventative military action; or they argue 
that Iraq can be deterred in the same manner as was the Soviet Union. 
Grenada, Panama, and Haiti rebut the notion that the United States is a 
stranger to unilateral preventative action, as does the commonsense 
realization that times have changed, and it is not so much the 
detonation of a nuclear bomb that threatens the United States but 
Iraq's mere possession of such a weapon.
  Deterrence works well when it must, but the assumption that all are 
deterrable is, in the wake of September 11, on very shaky footing, 
indeed.
  There is, in the end, no choice about disarmament. The only 
alternatives are between forced agreement or nonconsensual military 
force. Paradoxically, it is the threat of force which we authorize in 
this resolution that offers the best chance for a peaceful disarmament.
  The authorization of force, which has in recent years taken the place 
of formal declarations of war, is the most grave and momentous decision 
anyone in Congress can make, but we will authorize force against Iraq 
tomorrow, and we will be right to do so. We will be right not because 
we desire war with Iraq, but because we desire to prevent it; right not 
because we lead this cause, but because no one else will; and right not 
because war is our first resort, but, unlike Iraq, it is always our 
last.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, if given a simple choice, no 
rational human being would advocate war over peace. No father and no 
mother would ever want to send their daughter or son into harm's way. 
No truly civilized people would ever want to sit idly by and let their 
friends and allies be annihilated.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these are principled beliefs, all of 
which confront us at this difficult time. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 
today we do not live in a perfect world. Tonight, however, as we debate 
the question of giving our President and Commander-in-Chief Congress' 
authorization to conduct war, we must remember the lessons of history. 
More than 60 years ago, many closed their eyes, many covered their 
ears, or chanted the same chorus for peace that we now hear. Mr. 
Speaker, when will we learn that we cannot trust, we cannot pacify, and 
we cannot negotiate with a mass murderer?
  Mr. Speaker, humanity cannot afford ever to experience another 
Holocaust as a cruel reminder. Israel is not an expendable commodity.
  Tonight, just a few miles from here near our Nation's Capitol, a mad 
killer lurks. Think of the terror tonight of those in range of that 
single madman. Think also of the terror in Israel, never knowing true 
security. I ask the Members, is that the kind of world we want our 
children and grandchildren to live in? I say no, a thousand times no.
  That is why tonight I will support this resolution. I rise in support 
of the resolution and our President to ensure that we do not repeat 
history, or that we do not have our children live in that kind of 
world.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114 
to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. 
While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops 
to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to 
protect U.S. national security interests.
  The events of September 11 showed that we are not protected from an 
attack on our homeland. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein 
possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction. The 
U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq 4 years ago for a 
reason. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result 
in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively.
  Some ask why we must act against this threat in particular. The 
answer is that this threat is unique. I need not remind anyone that 
Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction already against his own 
people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East and has 
struck other nations in the region, including our ally, Israel, without 
warning.
  Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of 
freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam 
Hussein cannot carry out a first strike against the United States or 
our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, while there is no doubt that unqualified support for 
military intervention from the U.N. is preferable, we must be prepared 
to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of 
our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have 
U.S. interests at heart.
  The resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in 
Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade 
Iraq should he determine that Hussein is not complying with the 
conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these is full and 
unfettered weapons inspections. If he fails to comply, we will have no 
choice but to take action. Our security demands it.
  Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not 
conclude that respectful disagreements on the floor of this House 
divide us. On the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of 
all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look 
no further than to Iraq to understand why.
  At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I find 
comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we 
will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our 
homeland from those who wish to destroy us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who serves on the Committee on Financial Services 
and whose career has been earmarked by respect for the rule of law.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
that kind yielding of time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a quote: ``I'm concerned about living with my 
conscience, and searching for that which is right and that which is 
true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist 
following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to 
us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 
`Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' we tend to determine what 
is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority 
opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.
  ``Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more 
and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will 
take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though 
it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse.''
  That is excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a part of a creative minority in 
Congress

[[Page H7394]]

who oppose this apparently inevitable resolution granting the President 
the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But I 
will not be a silent minority.
  I know who Saddam Hussein is. I know he has viciously killed hundreds 
of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical and biological 
weapons. I know he has murdered members of his own cabinet; in fact, 
his own family. I remember vividly his aggressions in Iran and Kuwait 
and the SCUD missiles he launched into Israel in the Gulf War. I know 
the contempt he has shown toward the U.N. and its weapons inspectors as 
they attempted to enforce post-Gulf War resolutions; and I know that 
the world, and particularly the Gulf region, would be a better and 
safer place without Saddam Hussein in power and those of his ilk in 
power.
  But I also know that the resolution before us is a product of haste 
and hubris, rather than introspection and humility. I have seen 
President Bush confront the Iraq question with arrogance and 
condescension, initially bullying this Congress, our international 
allies, and the American people with accusations and threats and tales 
of terror eliciting fear in their hearts and minds.
  President Bush has told us that war is not inevitable, but does 
anyone really believe that? For months, this administration has marched 
inexorably towards an attack on Iraq, changing its rationale to suit 
the circumstances. I have no doubt that, regardless of what we do here 
or what Saddam does there, we will go to war. I pray I am wrong.
  The CIA today said Saddam is unlikely to initiate a chemical or 
biological attack against the United States and presented the alarming 
possibility that an attack on Iraq could provoke him into taking the 
very actions this administration claims an invasion would prevent.
  I know, too, who we are. America has never backed down from a just 
war. From the Revolutionary era to the Civil War, across Europe, Asia, 
and Africa, in two world wars, just a dozen years ago in the Persian 
Gulf, and countless missions to faraway places like Bosnia, Kosovo, 
Liberia, and Afghanistan, America fought. We fought with righteousness, 
determination, and vision. We fought because principles and freedoms 
were threatened. We fought because fighting was our last choice.
  America has always fought with a vision to the future and has been 
merciful and generous in our victories.
  But the White House has not offered any vision for post-Saddam Iraq. 
As a Nation founded on moral principles, we have a moral obligation to 
prepare a plan for rebuilding Iraq before we declare war. Iraq, like 
Afghanistan and many of the other nations in the Gulf region, is made 
up of many ethnic groups that will compete for power in the vacuum that 
is created by Saddam Hussein's ouster. But as important as the tactical 
plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein are, we must address how we intend to 
help the Iraqi people institute a democratic government.
  I ask the President, can he not answer a few simple questions: Have 
we completed the war on terrorism? What happened to Osama bin Laden? Do 
we know how long a war in Iraq would last? Has there been any 
assessment for the American people of how much a war in Iraq will cost 
our economy? Does he have any idea of the human loss we should expect 
in a war with Iraq?
  Instead of answers, he gives us bombast. Yes, we have all heard the 
rhetoric: Saddam is evil, Saddam hates America, Saddam must be stopped, 
and you are either with us or against us. If you are not with us, we 
don't need you.

                              {time}  1900

  But when the rhetoric is peeled away, truth emerges.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot go on but I say to all of my colleagues, let us 
be the creative minority. Vote against allowing force against Iraq.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this resolution be extended for 2 hours to be equally divided 
between the majority and minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair grants an additional hour to be 
controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. 
Issa) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we face no more important issues 
than those of war and peace, and for that reason I agree wholeheartedly 
with my colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who just spoke that this must 
be a vote of Congress. For that reason this extended debate on the 
House floor is very appropriate and the views expressed by Members of 
Congress are deserving of respect. Having read it closely, my view is 
that the carefully crafted resolution before us is the right approach.
  On Monday in my hometown of Cincinnati, the President of the United 
States clearly explained to the country what is at stake. He not only 
made the case that inaction is not an option, but that given the 
dangers and defiance of the Iraqi regime, the threat of military action 
must be an available option. Time and time again, Saddam Hussein has 
proven to be a threat to the peace and security of the region. That is 
why the international community through the United Nations has 
repeatedly called on the Iraqi regime to keep its word and open all 
facilities to weapons inspections. Yet repeatedly Iraq has refused, 
defying the United Nations. There is no reason to believe that without 
the threat of force, the disarmament the Iraqi regime agreed to as part 
of the disarmament after the Gulf War more than 10 years ago will ever 
occur.
  And there is other gathering danger and risk to America and all 
freedom-loving people. The horror of September 11, Mr. Speaker, 
awakened us to that reality. We know that the Iraqi regime is producing 
and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons. We know they are in 
the process of obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know that this regime has 
a consistent record of aggression of supporting terrorist activities. 
Once the Iraqi regime possesses a nuclear weapon, it, or the technology 
that creates it, could easily be passed along to a terrorist 
organization. Already chemical and biological weapons could be 
provided. We must not permit this to happen.
  The resolution will authorize military action but only if it is 
necessary. I would hope that every Member in this Chamber would pray 
that it would not be necessary. But the choice is clear, and it is a 
choice for the Iraqi regime to make. If the regime refuses to disarm, 
our military and our coalition partners will be compelled to make a 
stand for freedom and security against tyranny and terrorism. And if we 
take this course, it will not be unilateral as others on this floor 
have said. The United States will not be alone.
  I commend the President for his diplomatic initiatives, for 
continuing to try to work through the United Nations, and for an 
impressive array of coalition partners already assembled. I do not take 
lightly the fact that the course laid out by this resolution may put at 
risk the lives of young men and women in uniform. But I believe not 
authorizing the possible use of force would put even more innocent 
Americans at risk.
  This is a solemn debate and a tough vote of conscience. Mine will be 
a vote for an approach that I believe faces up to the very real dangers 
we face and maximizes the chance that these dangers can be addressed 
with a minimum loss of life. I will strongly support our President, Mr. 
Speaker, and I support the resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and that he be able 
to control and yield that time to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

[[Page H7395]]

  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  September 11, 2001, is a day that will rank with December 7, 1941, as 
a day of infamy in the history of the United States. That one event, 9-
11, changed the world we live in forever. I serve as a delegate to the 
NATO Parliamentary Assembly from the Congress and never have I seen the 
outpouring of good will and support from our NATO allies as we 
experienced in the aftermath of 9-11.
  For the first time in the 50-plus-year history of the mightiest 
military alliance in modern times, article 5 of the NATO charter was 
invoked stating in essence that when one member nation comes under 
attack, all consider themselves under attack and each pledges to the 
other member nations all military, diplomatic, and territorial assets 
they individually and collectively possess.
  This past summer, less than a year from 9-11, the President and Vice 
President began to talk about a regime change in Iraq. The philosophy 
was this: Saddam Hussein is a despot and a threat to develop and 
perfect weapons of mass destruction including nuclear capabilities; 
and, therefore, he must be removed. Further, we, the United States, 
were going to effectuate that change with or without our allies, save 
the British. Suddenly the good will and support for America began to 
erode, particularly among our European allies and even here at home.
  In fact, some with good reason, in my view, think an election in 
Germany turned on this one issue. The United States, led by President 
Bush and Vice President Cheney's rhetoric, was boxing herself into a 
very dangerous and potentially disastrous position. Should that policy 
have continued, I would have voted ``no'' on this resolution.
  Why do I say that? The best offense we have available to us to 
protect our country and our citizens is accurate, timely intelligence 
information so that we know what al Qaeda or others are planning, how 
they are planning it, when they are planning to attack us again so that 
we can stop it. In this war of terrorism, all of the United States 
military might and every weapon our country possesses is of little or 
no value in the defense of our homeland without these intelligence 
resources.
  This unilateral approach by the administration threatened to 
jeopardize cooperation from those around the world who may be in a 
position to give us such intelligence information. World support, world 
opinion and the good will of every nation, no matter how small or 
militarily insignificant, has never been more important to us. A 
whisper in one ear from Kabul to Bagdad to the Philippines to Germany 
or even to Oregon can be more important in this war than all of the 
military might on Earth, for it may give us the warning we need to stop 
another event in this country as occurred on 9-11.
  Thankfully, the President's appearance at the United Nations last 
month and his speech in Cincinnati Monday night sent a signal to our 
allies and to many of our own citizens who do not and did not support 
the ``lone cowboy'' approach, that the administration finally 
recognized the importance of international cooperation and the role of 
all civilized people as expressed by the United Nations in this war 
against humanity. Again, I refer not to the military resources offered 
by our global allies, but to the intelligence information which is 
vital or perhaps more vital to our national defense.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has an amendment which 
I believe does no harm to the substance of the resolution and in my 
view is much preferable and more compatible with our constitutional 
powers as Congress. I hope every Member will seriously consider its 
adoption. But should that fail, I believe that passage of this 
resolution is in the best interest of our country at this time. Such 
action on our part will hopefully spur movement in the international 
arena to enforce the United Nations resolutions when violated, with 
civilization as the prosecutor and humanity as the victor.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my many esteemed colleagues today in support of 
the resolution authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. 
This is a historic moment in our country, and it should not be taken 
lightly. But it is not the first historic moment when it comes to 
Saddam Hussein's regime. This is hopefully the last chapter in a long 
saga of our dealings with Saddam Hussein.
  More than 20 years ago he began to endanger his neighbors. More than 
12 years ago he invaded Kuwait. His cruel regime has had a long history 
of the kind of practices that are not tolerated anywhere on this globe, 
and yet they persist.
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is in fact writing the last chapter as we 
speak in a 12-year war. We are not considering action which would be 
preemptive or a strike to begin a war. We are, in fact, dealing with an 
absence of peace which has cost America lives and time and effort for 
more than a decade. Over the past 10 years he has made a mockery of the 
United Nations and the multi-national diplomacy that we have in fact 
participated in. He has systematically undermined the United Nations 
resolutions that were designed to disarm and reform his regime. He 
threw out weapons inspectors in 1998 and has rebuilt his weapons of 
mass destruction; and there is no question he intends to target 
America. In fact, in 1993 he targeted President George Herbert Bush for 
assassination.
  Each of those events was more than sufficient for us to do what we 
now must do. But the United States was patient. The United Nations was 
patient. We have all been patient for more than a decade. I believe 
that we need not look for the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's 
back; but in fact we need to simply ask, Why did we wait so long? Why 
did we tolerate this dictator so long? Even why in 1998 when the last 
administration rightfully so called for a regime change did we not act?
  I hope that this body in its consideration of this resolution does 
not ask why should we act today, but in fact should ask why should we 
not act and why did we take so long?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, who recently returned from 
Afghanistan where she conducted a fact-finding mission.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Committee on International Relations for his kindness in 
yielding me time.
  As many of us who have come to this floor, I come with a heavy heart 
but a respect for my colleagues and the words that they have offered 
today.

                              {time}  1915

  As I stand here, I sometimes feel the world is on our shoulders, but 
I also think that my vote is a vote for life or death--I have chosen 
life and so I take the path of opposition to this resolution in order 
to avoid the tragic path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert 
MacNamara to admit, in his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam War, 
we were wrong, terribly wrong.
  He saw the lost lives of our young men and women, some 58,000 who 
came home in body bags; and after years of guilt stemming from his role 
in prosecuting the war in Vietnam, MacNamara was moved to expose his 
soul on paper with his book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons 
of Vietnam.'' He noted the words of an ancient Greek philosopher that 
``the reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded solemnly, let 
this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam; that we never send our young men 
and women into war without thoughtful, provocative analysis and an 
offer of diplomacy.
  I stand in opposition for another reason, and that is because I hold 
the Constitution very dear. I might suggest to my colleagues that when 
our Founding Fathers decided to write the Constitution over 4 months of 
the hot summer of 1787, they talked about the distribution of authority 
between legislative,

[[Page H7396]]

executive and judicial branches, and they said it was a bold attempt to 
create an energetic central government at the same time that the 
sovereignty of the people would be preserved.
  Frankly, the people of the United States should make the 
determination through this House of a declaration of war. And as the 
Constitution was written, it said, ``We the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
provide for the common defense, establish the Constitution of the 
United States of America.'' For that reason, I believe that this 
Nation, that suffered a war in Vietnam, should understand the 
importance of having the Congress of the United States declare war.
  The reason I say that is we continue to suffer today as countless 
veterans of that generation from Vietnam have never recovered from the 
physical and mental horrors of their experiences, many reliving the 
nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless on our streets at 
night. What a price we continue to pay for that mistake. Can we afford 
to make it again?
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly 
steers us towards a treacherous path of war while yielding sparse 
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. As Benjamin 
Franklin said in 1883, ``There never was a good war or a bad peace.'' 
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to give the power of diplomacy a chance and 
the power of the moral rightness of the high ground the chance that 
civilization deserves. Do we not deserve as well as the right to die 
the right to live? We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the 
alternatives. So if the unacceptable costs of war come upon us, why not 
use diplomacy? It is time to use diplomacy now.
  The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the 
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion 
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks 
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a 
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy 
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said 
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of self-
defense is an acceptable way to go. The justification would sow the 
seeds of peace if we decided to follow peace.
  It is important to note that rather than the President's proposed 
doctrine of first strike, we would do well to look to diplomacy first. 
The first strike presumption of the President would represent an 
unprecedented departure from a long-held United States policy of being 
a nonaggressor. We would say to the world that it is acceptable to do a 
first strike in fear instead of pursuing all possible avenues to a 
diplomatic solution.
  Imagine the world in chaos with India going after Pakistan, China 
opting to fight Taiwan instead of negotiating, and North Korea going 
after South Korea and erupting into an all-out war. Because actions 
always speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous 
admonitions to show restraint to the world would go to the winds, and 
then, of course, would fall on deaf ears.
  There is another equally important reason I must oppose this 
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively 
abdicate our constitutional responsibility as a Member of Congress to 
declare war when conditions call for such action. The resolution before 
us declares war singly by the President by allowing a first strike 
without the knowledge of imminent danger and without the input of 
Congress. It is by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States that calls for us to declare war.
  Saddam Hussein is evil. He is a despot. We know that. And I support 
the undermining of his government by giving resistance to the United 
States, to be able to address these by humanitarian aid, by military 
support in terms of training, and also by providing support to the 
resistance. Yet I think we can do other things. Diplomacy first, 
unfettered robust United States weapons inspections, monitored review 
by United Nations Security Council, Soviet Union model of ally-
supported isolation, support of democratization, and developing a more 
stringent United States containment policy.
  This resolution is wrong. We must not abdicate our responsibility. 
And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as I go to my seat, I stand here on 
the side of saving the lives of the young men and women of this Nation.
  As I stand on the House floor today with great respect for the 
heartfelt positions of my colleagues, I must take the path of 
opposition to this resolution in order to avoid following the tragic 
path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to admit in 
his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam war, ``We were wrong, 
terribly wrong.'' After years of guilt stemming from his role in 
prosecuting the war in Vietnam, McNamara was moved to expose his soul 
on paper with his book: ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of 
Vietnam''. He noted the words of the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus 
who said ``The reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded 
solemnly, ``Let this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam.'' Therefore this 
legacy should remind us that war is deadly and the Congress must not 
abdicate its responsibility.
  This Nation did suffer as result of that war, and we continue to 
suffer today as countless veterans of that generation have never 
recovered from the physical and mental horrors of their experiences, 
many reliving the nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless 
on our streets at night. What a price we continue to pay for that 
mistake. Can we afford to make it again? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly 
steers us toward a treacherous path of war, while yielding sparse 
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. And as 
Benjamin Franklin said in 1883, ``there never was a good war or a bad 
peace''--but we have yet to give the power of diplomacy and the power 
of the moral high ground the chance that civilization itself deserves. 
We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the alternatives, so if 
there were ever a time for diplomacy, it has got to be now.
  The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the 
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion 
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks 
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a 
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy 
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said 
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of a self 
defense justification would sow the seeds of peace around the world. 
Rather, the President's proposed doctrine of first strike, which would 
represent an unprecedented departure from a long-held United States' 
policy of being a non-aggressor, would say to the world that it is 
acceptable to do a first strike in fear, instead of pursuing all 
possible avenues to a diplomatic solution. Imagine the chaos in the 
world if India and Pakistan abandoned all notions of restraint, if 
China and Taiwan opted to fight instead of negotiate, and if North 
Korea and South Korea erupted into all-out war. Because actions always 
speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous admonitions 
to show restraint in the aforementioned conflicts would fall upon deaf 
ears as the nations would instead follow our dangerous lead.

  There is another equally important reason that I must oppose this 
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively 
abdicate my Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to delcare war 
when conditions call for such action. The resolution before us does 
authorize the President to declare war without the basis of imminent 
threat. Congress may not choose to transfer its duties under the 
Constitution to the President. The Constitution was not created for us 
to be silent. It is a body of law that provides the roadmap of 
democracy and national security in this country, and like any roadmap, 
it is designed to be followed. Only Congress is authorized to declare 
war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make 
the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear 
about the language in Article I, section 8, clauses 11-16 of our 
Constitution. In it, we are told that Congress has the power:
  To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules 
concerning captures on land and water;
  To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that 
use shall be for a longer term than two years;
  To provide and maintain a navy;
  To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 
forces; and
  To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
  This system of checks and balances, which is essential to ensuring 
that no individual or branch of government can wield absolute power, 
cannot be effective if one individual is impermissibly vested with the 
sole discretionary authority to carry out what 535 Members of Congress 
have been duly elected by the people to do. It is through the process 
of

[[Page H7397]]

deliberation and debate that the views and concerns of the 
American people must be addressed within Congress before a decision to 
launch our country into war is made. The reason that we are a 
government of the people, for the people and by the people is because 
there is a plurality of perspectives that are taken into account before 
the most important decisions facing the country are made. Granting any 
one individual, even the President of the United States, the unbridled 
authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines 
to be necessary and appropriate is not only unconstitutional, but is 
also the height of irresponsibility.

  Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed his own people in 
the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with 
his neighbors in the region. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq 
pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the gulf war, 
and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be 
needed in the future to see that those efforts come to fruition. I 
voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and still stand behind my 
decision to support the objective of helping the people of Iraq change 
their government. But that legislation contained an important caveat 
that precluded the use of United States armed forces to remove the 
government from power, and instead provided for various forms of 
humanitarian assistance. That Act, now has the effect of law, and 
unlike Iraq, we are a nation that respects the rule of law. And our 
Constitution, the supreme law of the land, sets forth the duties and 
responsibilities of Congress in clear, unambiguous language.
  The indictment against Saddam Hussein is nothing new. He is a despot 
of the worst kind, and I believe that when the United Nations Security 
Council passes a resolution determining his present status and 
outlining a plan for the future, that will provide further 
documentation for Congress to act on a military option in Iraq. Right 
now, however, we are moving too far too quickly with many alarmist 
representations yet undocumented.
  Some of us have begun to speculate about the cost that a war in Iraq 
might be. And while our economy now suffers because of corporate abuse 
and 2 years of a declining economy with high unemployment, I cannot 
help but to shudder when I think of what the cost might be--not only in 
dollars--but in human lives as well. My constituents, in flooding my 
offices with calls and e-mails all vehemently opposed to going to war, 
have expressed their concerns about the unacceptable costs of war. One 
Houston resident wrote, ``This is a war that would cost more in money 
and lives that I am willing to support committing, and than I believe 
the threat warrants. Attacking Iraq is a distraction from, not a 
continuation of the `war on terrorism'.'' I truly share this woman's 
concerns. In World War II, we lost 250,000 brave Americans who 
responded to the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing battles 
across Europe and Asia. In the Korean war, nearly 34,000 Americans were 
killed, and we suffered more than 58,000 casualties in Vietnam. The 
possible conflict in Iraq that the President has been contemplating 
for months now risks incalculable deaths because there is no way of 
knowing what the international implications may be. Consistent talk of 
regime change by force, a goal not shared by any of the allies in the 
United Nations, only pours fuel on the fire when you consider the 
tactics that a tyrant like Saddam Hussein might resort to if he 
realized that had nothing to lose. If he does possess chemical, 
biological or nuclear weapons, we can be assured that he would not 
hesitate to use them if the ultimate goal is to destroy his regime, 
instead of to disarm it. With that being the case, there can be little 
doubt that neighboring countries would be dragged into the fray--
willingly or otherwise--creating an upheaval that would dwarf previous 
altercations in the region or possibly in the world. The resolution, as 
presently worded, opens the door to all of these possibilities and that 
is why I cannot support it.

  Because I do not support the resolution does not mean that I favor 
inaction. To the contrary, I believe that immediate action is of the 
highest order. To that end, I would propose a five-point plan of 
action:
  1. Diplomacy first;
  2. Unfettered, robust United Nations weapons inspections to provide 
full disarmament;
  3. Monitoring and review by United Nations Security Council;
  4. Soviet Union model of allied supported isolation--support of 
democratization through governance training and support of resistance 
elements; and
  5. Developing a more stringent United States containment policy.
  What I can and will support is an effort for diplomacy first, and 
unfettered U.N. inspections. As the most powerful nation in the world, 
we should be a powerful voice for diplomacy--and not just military 
might. Since we are a just nation, we should wield our power 
judiciously--restraining where possible for the greater good. Pursuing 
peace means insisting upon the disarmament of Iraq. Pursuing peace 
means insisting upon the immediate return of the U.N. weapons 
inspectors. Pursuing peace and diplomacy means that the best answer to 
every conflict and crisis is not always violence.
  Passing this resolution, and the possible repercussions that it may 
engender, will not enhance the moral authority of the United States in 
the world today and it will not set the stage for peace nor ensure that 
are providing for a more peaceful or stable world community.
  Instead, as we ensure that Iraq does not possess illegal weapons, we 
should make good on the promise to the people that we made in the 
passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. We should do all that we can 
to assist the people of Iraq because as President Dwight Eisenhower 
said, ``I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do 
more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people 
want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get 
out of the way and let them have it.'' I oppose this resolution--H.J. 
Res. 114.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am pleased and privileged to join this serious debate.
  I want to talk on a number of issues that I think are very, very 
important to us as we confront the decision we must make and the vote 
we must take tomorrow. I want to talk about the seriousness of this 
issue. I want to talk about the question of preemption and why America 
might even contemplate striking under these circumstances. I want to 
address the concerns of those who say they simply do not want to go to 
war and talk about why I do not want to go to war either, but sometimes 
war is necessary. I want to talk about the issue of why now, because I 
think that is a very pressing issue. And I want to talk, most 
importantly, about how I believe this resolution is the most certain 
way, indeed perhaps the only way, we have to avoid war.
  Let me begin with the seriousness of this issue. Beyond a shadow of a 
doubt, this will be the most solemn, most serious vote I believe I will 
cast in my tenure in the United States Congress. I have been here for 
some pretty serious votes. I have seen us balance a budget, I have seen 
us impeach a President, but nothing comes close to the vote on a 
resolution of force such as the one we will consider tomorrow. I 
approach that vote with the grave appreciation of the fact that lives 
are in the balance: lives of American soldiers, lives of innocent 
Iraqis, lives of people throughout the world.
  I also approach that vote with the grave knowledge that while my son 
is 16 years old and would not likely serve in this war, I have many 
constituents and many friends with sons and daughters who are 18 years 
old or 19 or 20, and who may be called upon to go to war. This is, 
indeed, I believe, the most serious issue this Congress can 
contemplate, and it is one that has weighed on me for weeks.
  Some of those amongst my constituents who are deeply worried about 
this issue say why should we act and why should we act under these 
circumstances? They argue that we should pursue deterrence. They argue 
that we should pursue containment; and then they argue that if neither 
deterrence nor containment work, we should wait until a first strike is 
launched and then we should respond.
  Well, I would respond by saying history has proven sadly over the 
history of the Saddam Hussein regime that deterrence does not work. 
This is a man who has proven by his conduct over and over again that he 
cannot be deterred. This is a man who will not respond to the kind of 
signals that the rest of the world sends in hopes that a world leader 
would respond. Although we have attempted containment, this is a man 
who has proven he will not respond to containment.
  At the end of the Gulf War, he agreed to a number of things that we 
are all now painfully aware of and that have been covered in this 
debate. He agreed to end his efforts to procure chemical and biological 
weapons. He agreed to end his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. He 
agreed to end his efforts to have and to develop long-term missiles and 
other delivery systems. And yet none of those have worked.
  At the end of the day, deterrence and containment simply have proven, 
over a pattern of 11 years, not to work. His

[[Page H7398]]

deceit, his deception, his continued pattern of forging ahead show us 
beyond a question of a doubt that he will not be deterred and he will 
not be contained.
  We know some things. We know that because of the nature of the 
weapons that he has, and because of his willingness to use those 
weapons and to use them perhaps secretly, we cannot wait. I listened to 
the debate last night, and I was very impressed with it. One of my 
colleagues in this institution came to the floor and made an 
impassioned speech against this resolution and said, we absolutely 
should wait, and he cited the Revolutionary War and the command to our 
troops to wait until fired upon. I would suggest to my colleagues that 
when we have an enemy who has chemical and biological weapons of the 
nature of those that this enemy has, we simply cannot wait.
  VX nerve gas kills by paralyzing the central nervous system and can 
result in death in 10 minutes. Sarin nerve gas, cyclosarin nerve gas, 
mustard gas. I am afraid the words ``chemical weapons'' have lost their 
meaning; but they should not, because they are abhorrent weapons, and 
he has them. There is no doubt.
  Biological weapons. He has anthrax. He has botulism toxin. He has 
aflatoxin and he has resin toxin. It would be bad enough if he simply 
had those, but we know more. He has them and he has tried to develop 
strains of them that are resistent to the best drugs we have, resistent 
to our antibiotics. That is to say he has them, he could use them, and 
not until they had been used could we discover that the best our 
science has cannot match them.
  Now, why can we not wait, given that type of history and that type of 
chemical? Because the reality is we do not know when he will strike. He 
could indeed strike and we would not know it for days or weeks, until 
it began to manifest itself.
  But let us talk also about the whole possibility of him using 
terrorists. We talk a lot about him, and we get deceived by this 
discussion of he does not have a long-range missile that can reach the 
United States, because he does not have aircraft that can reach the 
United States, we ought not to worry about those. We talk about the 
issue that it could be months or a year before he could develop a 
nuclear weapon. All of those are false pretexts. All of those are 
serious mistakes.
  The reality is that if he chooses to deliver those weapons through 
any of the means that we know he possibly could. By handing them in a 
backpack to a terrorist, we might never know that it was Saddam Hussein 
that delivered the weapon. And if he chooses to use chemical or 
biological weapons for such an attack, we might not know until 
hundreds, indeed until thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps 
millions of Americans were infected and fatally wounded and would die, 
and we would not know until afterwards.
  I would suggest that the old doctrine of wait until they fire is 
simply no longer applicable under these circumstances.
  Now, I have conscientious colleagues and I have constituents who come 
to me and say, I am not ready for war; I do not want war. I want to 
make it clear that no one wants war. Not a single Member of this body 
would choose war. And this resolution, as the President said the other 
night, does not mean that war is either imminent or unavoidable. The 
President made it clear he does not want war. But I would urge my 
colleagues that there are some certainties. One of those is that the 
best way to prevent war is to be prepared for war.

                              {time}  1930

  The best way to prevent such a war is to send clear and unmistakable 
signals. He has unarmed aerial vehicles. That is to say, he has model 
airplanes, and he has larger airplanes which can be operated by remote 
control.
  It has been pointed out that, given his lack of trust, an unmanned 
aerial vehicle, an unmanned airplane, is the perfect weapon for this 
leader, this insane leader, to use, because he does not have to trust a 
pilot who might not follow orders. He has the operator of a remote-
controlled vehicle standing next to him. If, in fact, the pilot were to 
choose to not drop his load, there would be little he could do in a 
manned aircraft to that pilot. But in an unmanned aerial vehicle, 
equipped with a chemical or biological weapon, he remains in control; 
and it could easily be done.
  He could bring that kind of weapon to our shores in a commercial ship 
like the hundreds lined up right now off the coast of California and 
launch them from there, and we would not know about the attack until 
after it was done.
  It seems to me that we cannot wait under these circumstances; and it 
seems to me that he has proven beyond a doubt that deterrence and 
containment, although we have tried them, simply will not work.
  One colleague pointed out he has chemical and biological weapons; and 
in time, because he is seeking them, he will have nuclear weapons. It 
was also pointed out that if we want to rely upon a scheme of 
inspections, and my constituents back home would hope that we could 
rely on inspections. I would hope that also. But make no mistake about 
it, there are two serious flaws.
  An inspection regime that relies on inspecting a country where 
hundreds of acres are off limits, cannot be gone into, the presidential 
palaces that are there, an inspection regime that relies on that is not 
an inspection regime at all. But an inspection regime where we know to 
a moral certainty that he has mobile production facilities is an 
inspection regime that will give us false hope.
  I was in the Middle East when the first weapons inspectors were 
kicked out of Iraq. I was on a CODEL with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) and four or five other Members of Congress. They left 
Baghdad and went by ground to Jordan and flew to Bahrain. We had an 
opportunity to meet with them in Bahrain the first night they reached 
there. One of my colleagues who was there is here tonight on the other 
side of the aisle. We spent 2 to 2\1/2\ hours talking with weapons 
inspectors who had just been kicked out of Baghdad.
  They made some serious impressions upon me which I will never forget. 
One was echoed in the President's speech last night, and that is the 
Iraq people are not our enemy. In fact, weapons inspectors explained to 
us that when individual Iraqis would learn that a given weapons 
inspector was an American, they would say, America, great place. I have 
a sister in San Francisco. I have a brother in Philadelphia.
  The President said it right the other night. The Iraqi people are not 
our enemies, but they delivered another message to us and made another 
impression. That is, they explained to us carefully, six congressmen in 
a hotel room in Bahrain, now 7 years ago, they said, make no mistake 
about it, every time they got close to making a real discovery, every 
time they were at the door of a facility that they were convinced was 
producing chemical and biological weapons, there would be a stall, 
there would be a delay. They would be forced to stand outside the gates 
of that building for hours and hours while the inside was obviously 
being cleaned up.
  Indeed, they would sometimes, when they got savvy to this, the 
inspectors would send somebody around to the back gate and watch the 
equipment, watch the trucks roll out the back door.

  There is no question but that an inspection regime where they are 
determined to deceive you, where they are determined to deny you access 
to some locations, and where they have mobile facilities is no 
inspection regime at all.
  I do not want war. No one wants war. But I am convinced that the risk 
of waiting is indeed too high.
  I do not believe, and I agree with one of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who said, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein will 
ever submit to a legitimate inspection regime. But I know this much, he 
will never submit to such an inspection regime until and unless it is 
backed by credible threat of force. That is what we are talking about 
here tonight.
  We also on that trip went and visited our American troops enforcing 
the no-fly zone, both the southern and the northern no-fly zone. The 
American people deserve to know that we have been at a state of war 
with this regime for 11 years. He has fired on our pilots over and over 
and over again. He probably fired on them today. He has certainly fired 
on them within the last

[[Page H7399]]

month. He has fired hundreds of times, and he has declared war against 
us. He has declared a holy war against us.
  We know some other facts. We know over time Saddam Hussein's weapons 
regime will grow, and the threat will become worse. We do not want war, 
but it would appear doing nothing is the one way to ensure war.
  I believe to the depth of my soul that this resolution is a measured 
and thoughtful proposal to achieve one thing, and that is the 
disarmament of Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime, hopefully by peace, 
but if necessary by force.
  I think we know that it has the potential of creating the coalition 
we all want. If America sends a weak signal and says we are not sure of 
our course, we are not sure of our path, how can we even hope to bring 
into our ranks and to our side allies in a battle against an insane 
leader such as Saddam Hussein?
  I think we also know, those of us who intend to vote for this 
resolution, it holds a second potential and that is it could lead the 
United Nations, indeed, I am prayerful, as is the President, that it 
will lead the United Nations to rise to its obligations, to make its 
resolutions meaningful, to remove itself from the irrelevancy that it 
currently has by not enforcing its resolutions, and to stand with 
strength and to say once and for all to this vicious dictator, we will 
not let you flaunt the rule of law and the requirements imposed by the 
U.N.
  It could indeed cause Saddam Hussein to come to his senses. I hope it 
will.
  I know failing to act involves too great a risk. Failing to act 
exposes not just the people of his nation, whom he has terrorized and 
butchered and tortured, to suffer longer.
  We know the dimensions to which he will go. We know the threat. We 
know he will in fact and has used violence of every dimension against 
his own people, and we know for a moral certainty he will bring that 
aggression against the rest of the world if not stopped.
  No one is happy about this moment, but I believe it is the right 
course and, for those who truly want peace, the only course.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a column from the New Yorker 
written by Jeffrey Goldberg. It is called ``The Great Terror.'' It is 
an interview of the people who were the victims of Saddam Hussein's 
attack on his own people. It documents his murder of some 50,000 to 
200,000 Kurds.

                  [From the New Yorker, Mar. 25, 2002]

                            The Great Terror

                         (By Jeffrey Goldberg)

       In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's 
     genocidal war on the Kurds--and of his possible ties to Al 
     Qaeda.
       In the late morning of March 16, 1988, an Iraqi Air Force 
     helicopter appeared over the city of Halabja, which is about 
     fifteen miles from the border with Iran. The Iran-Iraq War 
     was then in its eighth year, and Halabja was near the front 
     lines. At the time, the city was home to roughly eighty 
     thousand Kurds, who were well accustomed to the proximity of 
     violence to ordinary life. Like most of Iraqi Kurdistan, 
     Halabja was in perpetual revolt against the regime of Saddam 
     Hussein, and its inhabitants were supporters of the 
     peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters whose name means ``those who 
     face death.''
       A young woman named Nasreen Abdel Qadir Muhammad was 
     outside her family's house, preparing food, when she saw the 
     helicopter. The Iranians and the peshmerga had just attacked 
     Iraqi military outposts around Halabja, forcing Saddam's 
     soldiers to retreat. Iranian Revolutionary Guards then 
     infiltrated the city, and the residents assumed that an Iraqi 
     counterattack was imminent. Nasreen and her family expected 
     to spend yet another day in their cellar, which was crude and 
     dark but solid enough to withstand artillery shelling, and 
     even napalm.
       ``At about ten o'clock, maybe closer to ten-thirty, I saw 
     the helicopter,'' Nasreen told me. ``It was not attacking, 
     though. There were men inside it, taking pictures. One had a 
     regular camera, and the other held what looked like a video 
     camera. They were coming very close. Then they went away.''
       Nasreen thought that the sight was strange, but she was 
     preoccupied with lunch; she and her sister Rangeen were 
     preparing rice, bread, and beans for the thirty or forty 
     relatives who were taking shelter in the cellar. Rangeen was 
     fifteen at the time. Nasreen was just sixteen, but her father 
     had married her off several months earlier, to a cousin, a 
     thirty-year-old physician's assistant named Bakhtiar Abdul 
     Aziz. Halabja is a conservative place, and many more women 
     wear the veil than in the more cosmopolitan Kurdish cities to 
     the northwest and the Arab cities to the south.
       The bombardment began shortly before eleven. The Iraqi 
     Army, positioned on the main road from the nearby town of 
     Sayid Sadiq, fired artillery shells into Halabja, and the Air 
     Force began dropping what is thought to have been napalm on 
     the town, especially the northern area. Nasreen and Rangeen 
     rushed to the cellar. Nasreen prayed that Bakhtiar, who was 
     then outside the city, would find shelter.
       The attack had ebbed by about two o'clock, and Nasreen made 
     her way carefully upstairs to the kitchen, to get the food 
     for the family. ``At the end of the bombing, the sound 
     changed,'' she said. ``It wasn't so loud. It was like pieces 
     of metal just dropping without exploding. We didn't know why 
     it was so quiet.''
       A short distance away, in a neighborhood still called the 
     Julakan, or Jewish quarter, even though Halabja's Jews left 
     for Israel in the nineteen-fifties, a middle-aged man 
     named Muhammad came up from his own cellar and saw an 
     unusual sight: ``A helicopter had come back to the town, 
     and the soldiers were throwing white pieces of paper out 
     the side.'' In retrospect, he understood that they were 
     measuring wind speed and direction. Nearby, a man named 
     Awat Omer, who was twenty at the time, was overwhelmed by 
     a smell of garlic and apples.
       Nasreen gathered the food quickly, but she, too, noticed a 
     series of odd smells carried into the house by the wind. ``At 
     first, it smelled bad, like garbage,'' she said. ``And then 
     it was a good smell, like sweet apples. Then like eggs.'' 
     Before she went downstairs, she happened to check on a caged 
     partridge that her father kept in the house. ``The bird was 
     dying,'' she said. ``It was on its side.'' She looked out the 
     window. ``It was very quiet, but the animals were dying. The 
     sheep and goats were dying.'' Nasreen ran to the cellar. ``I 
     told everybody there was something wrong. There was something 
     wrong with the air.''
       The people in the cellar were panicked. They had fled 
     downstairs to escape the bombardment, and it was difficult to 
     abandon their shelter. Only splinters of light penetrated the 
     basement, but the dark provided a strange comfort. ``We 
     wanted to stay in hiding, even though we were getting sick,'' 
     Nasreen said. She felt a sharp pain in her eyes, like 
     stabbing needles. ``My sister came close to my face and said, 
     `Your eyes are very red.' Then the children started throwing 
     up. They kept throwing up. They were in so much pain, and 
     crying so much. They were crying all the time. My mother was 
     crying. Then the old people started throwing up.''
       Chemical weapons had been dropped on Halabja by the Iraqi 
     Air Force, which understood that any underground shelter 
     would become a gas chamber. ``My uncle said we should go 
     outside,'' Nasreen said. ``We knew there were chemicals in 
     the air. We were getting red eyes, and some of us had liquid 
     coming out of them. We decided to run.'' Nasreen and her 
     relatives stepped outside gingerly. ``Our cow was lying on 
     its side,'' she recalled. ``It was breathing very fast, as if 
     it had been running. The leaves were falling off the trees, 
     even though it was spring. The partridge was dead. There were 
     smoke clouds around, clinging to the ground. The gas was 
     heavier than the air, and it was finding the wells and going 
     down the wells.''
       The family judged the direction of the wind, and decided to 
     run the opposite way. Running proved difficult. ``The 
     children couldn't walk, they were so sick,'' Nasreen said. 
     ``They were exhausted from throwing up. We carried them in 
     our arms.''
       Across the city, other families were making similar 
     decisions. Nouri Hama Ali, who lived in the northern part of 
     town, decided to lead his family in the direction of Anab, a 
     collective settlement on the outskirts of Halabja that housed 
     Kurds displaced when the Iraqi Army destroyed their villages. 
     ``On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began 
     to die,'' Nouri told me. ``The chemical clouds were on the 
     ground. They were heavy. We could see them.'' People were 
     dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the 
     parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him. ``Many 
     children were left on the ground, by the side of the road. 
     Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop 
     breathing and die.''
       Nasreen's family did not move quickly. ``We wanted to wash 
     ourselves off and find water to drink,'' she said. ``We 
     wanted to wash the faces of the children who were vomiting. 
     The children were crying for water. There was powder on the 
     ground, white. We couldn't decide whether to drink the water 
     or not, but some people drank the water from the well they 
     were so thirsty.''
       They ran in a panic through the city, Nasreen recalled, in 
     the direction of Anab. The bombardment continued 
     intermittently, Air Force planes circling overhead. ``People 
     were showing different symptoms. One person touched some of 
     the powder, and her skin started bubbling.''
       A truck came by, driven by a neighbor. People threw 
     themselves aboard. ``We saw people lying frozen on the 
     ground,'' Nasreen told me. ``There was a small baby on the 
     ground, away from her mother. I thought they were both 
     sleeping. But she had dropped the baby and then died. And I 
     think the baby tried to crawl away, but it died, too. It 
     looked like everyone was sleeping.''
       At that moment, Nasreen believed that she and her family 
     would make it to high ground and live. Then the truck 
     stopped. ``The driver said he couldn't go on, and he wandered 
     away. He left his wife in the back of the truck. He told us 
     to flee if we could. The chemicals affected his brain, 
     because why else would someone abandon his family?''

[[Page H7400]]

       As heavy clouds of gas smothered the city, people became 
     sick and confused. Awat Omer was trapped in his cellar with 
     his family; he said that his brother began laughing 
     uncontrollably and then stripped off his clothes, and soon 
     afterward he died. As night fell, the family's children grew 
     sicker--too sick to move.
       Nasreen's husband could not be found, and she began to 
     think that all was lost. She led the children who were able 
     to walk up the road.
       In another neichborhood, Muhammad Ahmed Fattah, who was 
     twenty, was overwhelmed by an oddly sweet odor of sulfur, and 
     he, too, realized that he must evacuate his family; there 
     were about a hundred and sixty people wedged into the cellar. 
     ``I saw the bomb drop,'' Muhammad told me. ``It was about 
     thirty metres from the house. I shut the door to the cellar. 
     There was shouting and crying in the cellar, and then people 
     became short of breath.'' One of the first to be stricken by 
     the gas was Muhammad's brother Salah. ``His eyes were pink,'' 
     Muhammad recalled. ``There was something coming out of his 
     eyes. He was so thirsty he was demanding water.'' Others in 
     the basement began suffering tremors.
       March 16th was supposed to be Muhammad's wedding day. 
     ``Every preparation was done,'' he said. His fiancee, a woman 
     named Bahar Jamal, was among the first in the cellar to die. 
     ``She was crying very hard,'' Muhammad recalled. ``I tried to 
     calm her down. I told her it was just the usual artillery 
     shells, but it didn't smell the usual way weapons smelled. 
     She was smart, she knew what was happening. She died on the 
     stairs. Her father tried to help her, but it was too late.''
       Death came quickly to others as well. A woman named Hamida 
     Mahmoud tried to save her two-year-old daughter by allowing 
     her to nurse from her breast. Hamida thought that the baby 
     wouldn't breathe in the gas if she was nursing, Muhammad 
     said, adding, ``The baby's name was Dashneh. She nursed for a 
     long time. Her mother died while she was nursing. But she 
     kept nursing.'' By the time Muhammad decided to go outside, 
     most of the people in the basement were unconscious; many 
     were dead, including his parents and three of his siblings.
       Nasreen said that on the road to Anab all was confusion. 
     She and the children were running toward the hills, but they 
     were going blind. ``The children were crying, 'We can't see! 
     My eyes are bleeding!' `` In the chaos, the family got 
     separated. Nasreen's mother and father were both lost. 
     Nasreen and several of her cousins and siblings inadvertently 
     led the younger children in a circle, back into the city. 
     Someone--she doesn't know who--led them away from the city 
     again and up a hill, to a small mosque, where they sought 
     shelter. ``But we didn't stay in the mosque, because we 
     thought it would be a target,'' Nasreen said. They went to a 
     small house nearby, and Nasreen scrambled to find food and 
     water for the children. By then, it was night, and she was 
     exhausted.
       Bakhtiar, Nasreen's husband, was frantic. Outside the city 
     when the attacks started, he had spent much of the day 
     searching for his wife and the rest of his family. He had 
     acquired from a clinic two syringes of atropine, a drug that 
     helps to counter the effects of nerve agents. He 
     injected himself with one of the syringes, and set out to 
     find Nasreen. He had no hope. ``My plan was to bury her,'' 
     he said. ``At least I should bury my new wife.''
       After hours of searching, Bakhtiar met some neighbors, who 
     remembered seeing Nasreen and the children moving toward the 
     mosque on the hill. ``I called out the name Nasreen,'' he 
     said. ``I heard crying, and I went inside the house. When I 
     got there, I found that Nasreen was alive but blind. 
     Everybody was blind.''
       Nasreen had lost her sight about an hour or two before 
     Bakhtiar found her. She had been searching the house for 
     food, so that she could feed the children, when her eyesight 
     failed. ``I found some milk and I felt my way to them and 
     then I found their mouths and gave them milk,'' she said.
       Bakhtiar organized the children. ``I wanted to bring them 
     to the well. I washed their heads. I took them two by two and 
     washed their heads. Some of them couldn't come. They couldn't 
     control their muscles. ``
       Bakhtiar still had one syringe of atropine, but he did not 
     inject his wife; she was not the worst off in the group. 
     ``There was a woman named Asme, who was my neighbor,'' 
     Bakhtiar recalled. ``She was not able to breathe. She was 
     yelling and she was running into a wall, crashing her head 
     into a wall. I gave the atropine to this woman.'' Asme died 
     soon afterward. ``I could have used it for Nasreen,'' 
     Bakhtiar said. ``I could have.''
       After the Iraqi bombardment subsided, the Iranians managed 
     to retake Halabja, and they evacuated many of the sick, 
     including Nasreen and the others in her family, to hospitals 
     in Tehran.
       Nasreen was blind for twenty days. ``I was thinking the 
     whole time, Where is my family? But I was blind. I couldn't 
     do anything. I asked my husband about my mother, but he said 
     he didn't know anything. He was looking in hospitals, he 
     said. He was avoiding the question.''
       The Iranian Red Crescent Society, the equivalent of the Red 
     Cross, began compiling books of photographs, pictures of the 
     dead in Halabja. ``The Red Crescent has an album of the 
     people who were buried in Iran,'' Nasreen said. ``And we 
     found my mother in one of the albums.'' Her father, she 
     discovered, was alive but permanently blinded. Five of her 
     siblings, including Rangeen, had died.
       Nasreen would live, the doctors said, but she kept a secret 
     from Bakhtiar: ``When I was in the hospital, I started 
     menstruating. It wouldn't stop. I kept bleeding. We don't 
     talk about this in our society, but eventually a lot of women 
     in the hospital confessed they were also menstruating and 
     couldn't stop.'' Doctors gave her drugs that stopped the 
     bleeding, but they told her that she would be unable to bear 
     children.
       Nasreen stayed in Iran for several months, but eventually 
     she and Bakhtiar returned to Kurdistan. She didn't believe 
     the doctors who told her that she would be infertile, and in 
     1991 she gave birth to a boy. ``We named him Arazoo,'' she 
     said. Arazoo means hope in Kurdish. ``He was healthy at 
     first, but he had a hole in his heart. He died at the age of 
     three months.''
       I met Nasreen last month in Erbil, the largest city in 
     Iraqi Kurdistan. She is thirty now, a pretty woman with brown 
     eyes and high cheekbones, but her face is expressionless. She 
     doesn't seek pity; she would, however, like a doctor to help 
     her with a cough that she's had ever since the attack, 
     fourteen years ago. Like many of Saddam Hussein's victims, 
     she tells her story without emotion.
       During my visit to Kurdistan, I talked with more than a 
     hundred victims of Saddam's campaign against the Kurds. 
     Saddam has been persecuting the Kurds ever since he took 
     power, more than twenty years ago. Several old women whose 
     husbands were killed by Saddam's security services expressed 
     a kind of animal hatred toward him, but most people, like 
     Nasreen, told stories of horrific cruelty with a dispassion 
     and a precision that underscored their credibility. 
     Credibility is important to the Kurds; after all this time, 
     they still feel that the world does not believe their story.
       A week after I met Nasreen, I visited a small village 
     called Goktapa, situated in a green valley that is ringed by 
     snow-covered mountains. Goktapa came under poison-gas attack 
     six weeks after Halabja. The village consists of low mud-
     brick houses along dirt paths. In Goktapa, an old man named 
     Ahmed Raza Sharif told me that on the day of the attack on 
     Goktapa, May 3, 1988, he was in the fields outside the 
     village. He saw the shells explode and smelled the sweet-
     apple odor as poison filled the air. His son, Osman Ahmed, 
     who was sixteen at the time, was near the village mosque when 
     he was felled by the gas. He crawled down a hill and died 
     among the reeds on the banks of the Lesser Zab, the river 
     that flows by the village. His father knew that he was dead, 
     but he couldn't reach the body. As many as a hundred and 
     fifty people died in the attack; the survivors fled before 
     the advancing Iraqi Army, which levelled the village. Ahmed 
     Raza Sharif did not return for three years. When he did, he 
     said, he immediately began searching for his son's body. He 
     found it still lying in the reeds. ``I recognized his body 
     right away,'' he said.
       The summer sun in Iraq is blisteringly hot, and a corpse 
     would be unidentifiable three years after death. I tried to 
     find a gentle way to express my doubts, but my translator 
     made it clear to Sharif that I didn't believe him.
       We were standing in the mud yard of another old man, 
     Ibrahim Abdul Rahman. Twenty or thirty people, a dozen boys 
     among them, had gathered. Some of them seemed upset that I 
     appeared to doubt the story, but Ahmed hushed them. ``It's 
     true, he lost all the flesh on his body,'' he said. ``He was 
     just a skeleton. But the clothes were his, and they were 
     still on the skeleton, a belt and a shirt. In the pocket of 
     his shirt I found the key to our tractor. That's where he 
     always kept the key.''
       Some of the men still seemed concerned that I would leave 
     Goktapa doubting their truthfulness. Ibrahim, the man in 
     whose yard we were standing, called out a series of orders to 
     the boys gathered around us. They dispersed, to houses and 
     storerooms, returning moments later holding jagged pieces of 
     metal, the remnants of the bombs that poisoned Goktapa. 
     Ceremoniously, the boys dropped the pieces of metal at my 
     feet. ``Here are the mercies of Uncle Saddam,'' Ibrahim said.


                            2. THE AFTERMATH

       The story of Halabja did not end the night the Iraqi Air 
     Force planes returned to their bases. The Iranians invited 
     the foreign press to record the devastation. Photographs of 
     the victims, supine, bleached of color, littering the gutters 
     and alleys of the town, horrified the world. Saddam Hussein's 
     attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the 
     Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women 
     and children.
       Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led the campaigns 
     against the Kurds in the late eighties, was heard on a tape 
     captured by rebels, and later obtained by Human Rights Watch, 
     addressing members of Iraq's ruling Baath Party on the 
     subject of the Kurds. ``I will kill them all with chemical 
     weapons!'' he said. ``Who is going to say anything? The 
     international community? Fuck them! The international 
     community and those who listen to them.''
       Attempts by Congress in 1988 to impose sanctions on Iraq 
     were stifled by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the 
     story of Saddam's surviving victims might have vanished 
     completely had it not been for the reporting of people 
     like Randal and the work of a British documentary 
     filmmaker named Gwynne Roberts, who, after hearing stories

[[Page H7401]]

     about a sudden spike in the incidence of birth defects and 
     cancers, not only in Halabja but also in other parts of 
     Kurdistan, had made some disturbing films on the subject. 
     However, no Western government or United Nations agency 
     took up the cause.
       In 1998, Roberts brought an Englishwoman named Christine 
     Gosden to Kurdistan. Gosden is a medical geneticist and a 
     professor at the medical school of the University of 
     Liverpool. She spent three weeks in the hospitals in 
     Kurdistan, and came away determined to help the Kurds. To the 
     best of my knowledge, Gosden is the only Western scientist 
     who has even begun making a systematic study of what took 
     place in northern Iraq.
       Gosden told me that her father was a high-ranking officer 
     in the Royal Air Force, and that as a child she lived in 
     Germany, near Bergen-Belsen. ``It's tremendously influential 
     in your early years to live near a concentration camp,'' she 
     said. In Kurdistan, she heard echoes of the German campaign 
     to destroy the Jews. ``The Iraqi government was using 
     chemistry to reduce the population of Kurds,'' she said. 
     ``The Holocaust is still having its effect. The Jews are 
     fewer in number now than they were in 1939. That's not 
     natural. Now, if you take out two hundred thousand men and 
     boys from Kurdistan''--an estimate of the number of Kurds who 
     were gassed or otherwise murdered in the campaign, most of 
     whom were men and boys--``you've affected the population 
     structure. There are a lot of widows who are not having 
     children.''
       Richard Butler, an Australian diplomat who chaired the 
     United Nations weapons-inspection team in Iraq, describes 
     Gosden as ``a classic English, old-school-tie kind of 
     person.'' Butler has tracked her research since she began 
     studying the attacks, four years ago, and finds it credible. 
     ``Occasionally, people say that this is Christine's 
     obsession, but obsession is not a bad thing,'' he added.
       Before I went to Kurdistan, in January, I spent a day in 
     London with Gosden. We gossiped a bit, and she scolded me for 
     having visited a Washington shopping mall without appropriate 
     protective equipment. Whenever she goes to a mall, she brings 
     along a polyurethane bag, ``big enough to step into'' and a 
     bottle of bleach. ``I can detoxify myself immediately,'' she 
     said.
       Gosden believes it is quite possible that the countries of 
     the West will soon experience chemical and biological-weapons 
     attacks far more serious and of greater lasting effect than 
     the anthrax incidents of last autumn and the nerve-agent 
     attack on the Tokyo subway system several years ago--that 
     what happened in Kurdistan was only the beginning. ``For 
     Saddam's scientists, the Kurds were a test population,'' she 
     said. ``They were the human guinea pigs. It was a way of 
     identifying the most effective chemical agents for use on 
     civilian populations, and the most effective means of 
     delivery.''
       The charge is supported by others. An Iraqi defector, 
     Khidhir Hamza, who is the former director of Saddam's 
     nuclear-weapons program, told me earlier this year that 
     before the attack on Balabja military doctors had mapped the 
     city, and that afterward they entered it wearing protective 
     clothing, in order to study the dispersal of the dead. 
     ``These were field tests, an experiment on a town,'' Hamza 
     told me. He said that he had direct knowledge of the Army's 
     procedures that day in Halabja. ``The doctors were given 
     sheets with grids on them, and they had to answer questions 
     such as `How far are the dead from the cannisters?' ''
       Gosden said that she cannot understand why the West has not 
     been more eager to investigate the chemical attacks in 
     Kurdistan. ``It seems a matter of enlightened self-interest 
     that the West would want to study the long-term effects of 
     chemical weapons on civilians, on the DNA,'' she told 
     me. ``I've seen Europe's worst cancers, but, believe me, I 
     have never seen cancers like the ones I saw in 
     Kurdistan.''
       According to an ongoing survey conducted by a team of 
     Kurdish physicians and organized by Gosden and a small 
     advocacy group called the Washington Kurdish Institute, more 
     than two hundred towns and villages across Kurdistan were 
     attacked by poison gas--far more than was previously 
     thought--in the course of seventeen months. The number of 
     victims is unknown, but doctors I met in Kurdistan believe 
     that up to ten per cent of the population of northern Iraq--
     nearly four million people--has been exposed to chemical 
     weapons. ``Saddam Hussein poisoned northern Iraq,'' Gosden 
     said when I left for Halabja. ``The questions, then, are what 
     to do? And what comes next?''


                          3. Halabja's Doctors

       The Kurdish people, it is often said, make up the largest 
     stateless nation in the world. They have been widely despised 
     by their neighbors for centuries. There are roughly twenty-
     five million Kurds, most of them spread across four countries 
     in southwestern Asia: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The 
     Kurds are neither Arab, Persian, nor Turkish; they are a 
     distinct ethnic group, with their own culture and language. 
     Most Kurds are Muslim (the most famous Muslim hero of all, 
     Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders, was of Kurdish origin), 
     but there are Jewish and Christian Kurds, and also followers 
     of the Yezidi religion, which has its roots in Sufism and 
     Zoroastrianism. The Kurds are experienced mountain fighters, 
     who tend toward stubbornness and have frequent bouts of 
     destructive infighting
       After centuries of domination by foreign powers, the Kurds 
     had their best chance at independence after the First World 
     War, when President Woodrow Wilson promised the Kurds, along 
     with other groups left drifting, and exposed by the collapse 
     of the Ottoman Empire, a large measure of autonomy. But the 
     machinations of the great powers, who were becoming 
     interested in Kurdistan's vast oil deposits, in Mosul and 
     Kirkuk, quickly did the Kurds out of a state.
       In the nineteen-seventies, the Iraqi Kurds allied 
     themselves with the Shah of Iran in a territorial dispute 
     with Iraq. America, the Shah's patron, once again became the 
     Kurds' patron, too, supplying them with arms for a revolt 
     against Baghdad. But a secret deal between the Iraqis and the 
     Shah, arranged in 1975 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 
     cut off the Kurds and brought about their instant collapse; 
     for the Kurds, it was an ugly betrayal.
       The Kurdish safe haven, in northern Iraq, was born of 
     another American betrayal. In 1991, after the United States 
     helped drive Iraq out of Kuwait, President George Bush 
     ignored an uprising that he himself had stoked, and Kurds and 
     Shiites in Iraq were slaughtered by the thousands. Thousands 
     more fled the country, the Kurds going to Turkey, and almost 
     immediately creating a humanitarian disaster. The Bush 
     Administration, faced with a televised catastrophe, declared 
     northern Iraq a no-fly zone and thus a safe haven, a tactic 
     that allowed the refugees to return home. And so, under the 
     protective shield of the United States and British Air 
     Forces, the unplanned Kurdish experiment in self-government 
     began. Although the Kurdish safe haven is only a virtual 
     state, it is an incipient democracy, a home of progressive 
     Islamic thought and pro-American feeling.
       Today, Iraqi Kurdistan is split between two dominant 
     parties: the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by Massoud 
     Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, whose General 
     Secretary is Jalal Talabani. The two parties have had an 
     often angry relationship, and in the mid-nineties they fought 
     a war that left about a thousand soldiers dead. The parties, 
     realizing that they could not rule together, decided to rule 
     apart, dividing Kurdistan into two zones. The internal 
     political divisions have not aided the Kurds' cause, but 
     neighboring states also have fomented disunity, fearing 
     that a unified Kurdish population would agitate for 
     independence.
       Turkey, with a Kurdish population of between fifteen and 
     twenty million, has repressed the Kurds in the eastern part 
     of the country, politically and militarily, on and off since 
     the founding of the modern Turkish state. In 1924, the 
     government of Ataturk restricted the use of the Kurdish 
     language (a law not lifted until 1991) and expressions of 
     Kurdish culture; to this day, the Kurds are referred to in 
     nationalist circles as ``mountain Turks.''
       Turkey is not eager to see Kurds anywhere draw attention to 
     themselves, which is why the authorities in Ankara refused to 
     let me cross the border into Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran, whose 
     Kurdish population numbers between six and eight million, was 
     not helpful, either, and my only option for gaining entrance 
     to Kurdistan was through its third neighbor, Syria. The 
     Kurdistan Democratic Party arranged for me to be met in 
     Damascus and taken to the eastern desert city of El Qamishli. 
     From there, I was driven in a Land Cruiser to the banks of 
     the Tigris River, where a small wooden boat, with a crew of 
     one and an outboard motor, was waiting. The engine sputtered; 
     when I learned that the forward lines of the Iraqi Army were 
     two miles downstream, I began to paddle, too. On the other 
     side of the river were representatives of the Kurdish 
     Democratic Party and the peshmerga, the Kurdish guerrillas, 
     who wore pantaloons and turbans and were armed with AK-47s.
       ``Welcome to Kurdistan'' read a sign at the water's edge 
     greeting visitors to a country that does not exist.
       Halabja is a couple of hundred miles from the Syrian 
     border, and I spent a week crossing northern Iraq, making 
     stops in the cities of Dahuk and Erbil on the way. I was 
     handed over to representatives of the Patriotic Union, which 
     controls Halabja, at a demilitarized zone west of the town of 
     Koysinjaq. From there, it was a two-hour drive over steep 
     mountains to Sulaimaniya, a city of six hundred and fifty 
     thousand, which is the cultural capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. 
     In Sulaimaniya, I met Fouad Baban, one of Kurdistan's leading 
     physicians, who promised to guide me through the scientific 
     and political thickets of Halabja.
       Baban, a pulmonary and cardiac specialist who has survived 
     three terms in Iraqi prisons, is sixty years old, and a man 
     of impish good humor. He is the Kurdistan coordinator of the 
     Halabja Medical Institute, which was founded by Gosden, 
     Michael Amitay, the executive director of the Washington 
     Kurdish Institute, and a coalition of Kurdish doctors; for 
     the doctors, it is an act of bravery to be publicly 
     associated with a project whose scientific findings could be 
     used as evidence if Saddam Hussein faced a war-crimes 
     tribunal. Saddam's agents are everywhere in the Kurdish zone, 
     and his tanks sit forty miles from Baban's office.
       Soon after I arrived in Sulaimanya, Baban and I headed out 
     in his Toyota Camry for Halabja. On a rough road, we crossed 
     the plains of Sharazoor, a region of black earth and honey-
     colored wheat ringed by jagged, snow-topped mountains. We 
     were not travelling alone. The Mukhabarat, the Iraqi 
     intelligence service, is widely reported to have

[[Page H7402]]

     placed a bounty on the heads of Western journalists caught in 
     Kurdistan (either ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand 
     dollars, depending on the source of the information). The 
     areas around the border with Iran are filled with Tehran's 
     spies, and members of Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist terror 
     group, were said to be decapitating people in the Halabja 
     area. So the Kurds had laid on a rather elaborate security 
     detail. A Land Cruiser carrying peshmerga guerrillas led the 
     way, and we were followed by another Land Cruiser, on whose 
     bed was mounted an anti-aircraft weapon manned by six 
     peshmerga, some of whom wore black balaclavas. We were just 
     south of the American-and British-enforced no-fly zone. I had 
     been told that, at the beginning of the safe-haven 
     experiment, the Americans had warned Saddam's forces to 
     stay away; a threat from the air, though unlikely, was, I 
     deduced, not out of the question.
       ``It seems very important to know the immediate and long-
     term effects of chemical and biological weapons,'' Baban 
     said, beginning, my tutorial. ``Here is a civilian population 
     exposed to chemical and possibly biological weapons, and 
     people are developing many varieties of cancers and 
     congenital abnormalities. The Americans are vulnerable to 
     these weapons--they are cheap, and terrorists possess them. 
     So, after the anthrax attacks in the States, I think it is 
     urgent for scientific research to be done here.''
       Experts now believe that Halabja and other places in 
     Kurdistan were struck by a combination of mustard gas and 
     nerve agents, including sarin (the agent used in the Tokyo 
     subway attack) and VX, a potent nerve agent. Baban's 
     suggestion that biological weapons may also have been used 
     surprised me. One possible biological weapon that Baban 
     mentioned was aflatoxin, which causes long-term liver damage.
       A colleague of Baban's, a surgeon who practices in Dahuk, 
     in northwestern Kurdistan, and who is a member of the Halabja 
     Medical Institute team, told me more about the institute's 
     survey, which was conducted in the Dahuk region in 1999. The 
     surveyors began, he said, by asking elementary questions; 
     eleven years after the attacks, they did not even know which 
     villages had been attacked.
       ``The team went to almost every village,'' the surgeon 
     said. ``At first, we thought that the Dahuk governorate was 
     the least affected. We knew of only two villages that were 
     hit by the attacks. But we came up with twenty-nine in total. 
     This is eleven years after the fact.''
       The surgeon is professorial in appearance, but he is deeply 
     angry. He doubles as a pediatric surgeon, because there are 
     no pediatric surgeons in Kurdistan. He has performed more 
     than a hundred operations for cleft palate on children born 
     since 1988. Most of the agents believed to have been dropped 
     on Halabja have short half-lives, but, as Baban told me, 
     ``physicians are unsure how long these toxins will affect the 
     population. How can we know agent half-life if we don't know 
     the agent?'' He added, ``If we knew the toxins that were 
     used, we could follow them and see actions on spermatogenesis 
     and ovogenesis.''
       Increased rates of infertility, he said, are having a 
     profound effect on Kurdish society, which places great 
     importance on large families. ``You have men divorcing their 
     wives because they could not give birth, and then marrying 
     again, and then their second wives can't give birth, 
     either,'' he said. ``Still, they don't blame their own 
     problem with spermatogenesis.''
       Baban told me that the initial results of the Halabja 
     Medical Institute-sponsored survey show abnormally high rates 
     of many diseases. He said that he compared rates of colon 
     cancer in Halabja with those in the city of Chamchamal, which 
     was not attacked with chemical weapons. ``We are seeing rates 
     of colon cancer five times higher in Halabja than in 
     Chamchamal,'' he said.
       There are other anomalies as well, Baban said. The rate of 
     miscarriage in Halabja, according to initial survey results, 
     is fourteen times the rate of miscarriage in Chamchamal; 
     rates of infertility among men and women in the affected 
     population are many times higher than normal. ``We're finding 
     Hiroshima levels of sterility,'' he said.
       Then, there is the suspicion about snakes. ``Have you heard 
     about the snakes?'' he asked as we drove. I told him that I 
     had heard rumors. ``We don't know if a genetic mutation in 
     the snakes has made them more toxic,'' Baban went on, ``or if 
     the birds that eat the snakes were killed off in the attacks, 
     but there seem to be more snakebites, of greater toxicity, in 
     Halabja now than before.'' (I asked Richard Spertzel, a 
     scientist and a former member of the United Nations 
     Special Commission inspections team, if this was possible. 
     Yes, he said, but such a rise in snakebites was more 
     likely due to ``environmental imbalances'' than to 
     mutations.)
       My conversation with Baban was suddenly interrupted by our 
     guerrilla escorts, who stopped the car and asked me to join 
     them in one of the Land Cruisers; we veered off across a 
     wheat field, without explanation. I was later told that we 
     had been passing a mountain area that had recently had 
     problems with Islamic terrorists.
       We arrived in Halabja half an hour later. As you enter the 
     city, you see a small statue modelled on the most famous 
     photographic image of the Halabj massacre: an old man, prone 
     and lifeless, shielding his dead grandson with his body.
       A torpor seems to afflict Halabja; even its bazaar is 
     listless and somewhat empty, in marked contrast to those of 
     other Kurdish cities, which are well stocked with imported 
     goods (history and circumstance have made the Kurds 
     enthusiastic smugglers) and are full of noise and activity. 
     ``Everyone here is sick,'' a Halabja doctor told me. ``The 
     people who aren't sick are depressed.'' He practices at the 
     Martyrs'' Hospital, which is situated on the outskirts of the 
     city. The hospital has no heat and little advanced equipment; 
     like the city itself, it is in a dilapidated state.
       The doctor is a thin, jumpy man in a tweed jacket, and he 
     smokes without pause. He and Baban took me on a tour of the 
     hospital. Afterward, we sat in a bare office, and a woman was 
     wheeled in. She looked seventy but said that she was fifty; 
     doctors told me she suffers from lung scarring so serious 
     that only a lung transplant could help, but there are no 
     transplant centers in Kurdistan. The woman, whose name is 
     Jayran Muhammad, lost eight relatives during the attack. Her 
     voice was almost inaudible. ``I was disturbed psychologically 
     for a long time,'' she told me as Baban translated. ``I 
     believed my children were alive.'' Baban told me that her 
     lungs would fail soon, that she could barely breathe. ``She 
     is waiting to die,'' he said. I met another woman, Chia 
     Hammassat, who was eight at the time of the attacks and has 
     been blind ever since. Her mother, she said, died of colon 
     cancer several years ago, and her brother suffers from 
     chronic shortness of breath. ``There is no hope to correct my 
     vision,'' she said, her voice flat. ``I was married, but I 
     couldn't fulfill the responsibilities of a wife because I'm 
     blind. My husband left me.''
       Baban said that in Halabja ``there are more abnormal births 
     than normal ones,'' and other Kurdish doctors told me that 
     they regularly see children born with neural-tube defects and 
     undescended testes and without anal openings. They are 
     seeing--and they showed me--children born with six or seven 
     toes on each foot, children whose fingers and toes are fused, 
     and children who suffer from leukemia and liver cancer.
       I met Sarkar, a shy and intelligent boy with a harelip, a 
     cleft palate, and a growth on his spine. Sarkar had a brother 
     born with the same set of malformations, the doctor told me, 
     but the brother choked to death, while still a baby, on a 
     grain of rice.
       Meanwhile, more victims had gathered in the hallway; the 
     people of Halabja do not often have a chance to tell their 
     stories to foreigners. Some of them wanted to know if I was a 
     surgeon, who had come to repair their children's deformities, 
     and they were disappointed to learn that I was a journalist. 
     The doctor and I soon left the hospital for a walk through 
     the northern neighborhoods of Halabja, which were hardest hit 
     in the attack. We were trailed by peshmerga carrying AK-47s. 
     The doctor smoked as we talked, and I teased him about his 
     habit. ``Smoking has some good effect on the lungs,'' he 
     said, without irony. ``In the attacks, there was less effect 
     on smokers. Their lungs were better equipped for the mustard 
     gas, maybe.''
       We walked through the alleyways of the Jewish quarter, past 
     a former synagogue in which eighty or so Halabjans died 
     during the attack. Underfed cows wandered the paths. The 
     doctor showed me several cellars where clusters of people 
     had died. We knocked on the gate of one house, and were 
     let in by an old woman with a wide smile and few teeth. In 
     the Kurdish tradition, she immediately invited us for 
     lunch.
       She told us the recent history of the house. ``Everyone who 
     was in this house died,'' she said. ``The whole family. We 
     heard there were one hundred people.'' She led us to the 
     cellar, which was damp and close. Rusted yellow cans of 
     vegetable ghee littered the floor. The room seemed too small 
     to hold a hundred people, but the doctor said that the 
     estimate sounded accurate. I asked him if cellars like this 
     one had ever been decontaminated. He smiled. ``Nothing in 
     Kurdistan has been decontaminated,'' he said.


                              4. AL-ANFAL

       The chemical attacks on Halabja and Goktapa and perhaps two 
     hundred other villages and towns were only a small part of 
     the cataclysm that Saddam's cousin, the man known as Ali 
     Chemical, arranged for the Kurds. The Kurds say that about 
     two hundred thousand were killed. (Human Rights Watch, which 
     in the early nineties published ``Iraq's Crime of Genocide,'' 
     a definitive study of the attacks, gives a figure of between 
     fifty thousand and a hundred thousand.)
       The campaign against the Kurds was dubbed al-Anfal by 
     Saddam, after a chapter in the Koran that allows conquering 
     Muslim armies to seize the spoils of their foes. It reads, in 
     part, ``Against them''--your enemies--``make ready your 
     strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of 
     war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah 
     and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, 
     but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the 
     cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be 
     treated unjustly.''
       The Anfal campaign was not an end in itself, like the 
     Holocaust, but a means to an end--an instance of a policy 
     that Samantha Power, who runs the Carr Center for Human 
     Rights, at Harvard, calls ``Instrumental genocide.'' Power 
     has just published ``A Problem from Hell,'' a study of 
     American responses to genocide. ``There are regimes that set 
     out to murder every citizen of a race,'' she said. ``Saddam 
     achieved what he had to do without exterminating every last 
     Kurd.'' What he had to do, Power and others say,

[[Page H7403]]

     was to break the Kurds' morale and convince them that a 
     desire for independence was foolish.
       Most of the Kurds who were murdered in the Anfal were not 
     killed by poison gas; rather, the genocide was carried out, 
     in large part, in the traditional manner, with roundups at 
     night, mass executions, and anonymous burials. The bodies of 
     most of the victims of the Anfal--mainly men and boys--have 
     never been found.
       One day, I met one of the thousands of Kurdish women known 
     as Anfal widows: Salma Aziz Baban. She lives outside 
     Chamchamal, in a settlement made up almost entirely of 
     displaced families, in cinder-block houses. Her house was 
     nearly empty--no furniture, no heat, just a ragged carpet. We 
     sat on the carpet as she told me about her family. She comes 
     from the Kirkuk region, and in 1987 her village was uprooted 
     by the Army, and the inhabitants, with thousands of other 
     Kurds, were forced into a collective town. Then, one night in 
     April of 1988, soldiers went into the village and seized the 
     men and older boys. Baban's husband and her three oldest sons 
     were put on trucks. The mothers of the village began to plead 
     with the soldiers. ``We were screaming, `Do what you want to 
     us, do what you want!' '' Baban told me. ``They were so 
     scared, my sons. My sons were crying.'' She tried to bring 
     them coats for the journey. ``It was raining. I wanted them 
     to have coats. I begged the soldiers to let me give them 
     bread. They took them without coats.'' Baban remembered that 
     a high-ranking Iraqi officer named Bareq orchestrated the 
     separation; according to ``Iraq's Crime of Genocide,'' the 
     Human Rights Watch report, the man in charge of this phase 
     was a brigadier general named Bareq Abdullah al-Haj Hunta.
       After the men were taken away, the women and children were 
     herded onto trucks. They were given little water or food, and 
     were crammed so tightly into the vehicles that they had to 
     defecate where they stood. Baban, her three daughters, and 
     her six-year-old son were taken to the Topzawa Army base and 
     then to the prison of Nugra Salman, the Pit of Salman, which 
     Human Rights Watch in 1995 described this way: ``It was an 
     old building, dating back to the days of the Iraqi monarchy 
     and perhaps earlier. It had been abandoned for years, used by 
     Arab nomads to shelter their herds. The bare walls were 
     scrawled with the diaries of political prisoners. On the door 
     of one cell, a guard had daubed `Khomeini eats shit.' Over 
     the main gate, someone else had written, 'Welcome to Hell.' 
     ''
       ``We arrived at midnight,'' Baban told me. ``They put us in 
     a very big room, with more than two thousand people, women 
     and children, and they closed the door. Then the starvation 
     started.''
       The prisoners were given almost nothing to eat, and a 
     single standpipe spat out brackish water for drinking. People 
     began to die from hunger and illness. When someone died, the 
     Iraqi guards would demand that the body be passed through a 
     window in the main door. ``The bodies couldn't stay in the 
     hall,'' Baban told me. In the first days at Nugra Salman, 
     ``thirty people died, maybe more.'' Her six-year-old son, 
     Rebwar, fell ill. ``He had diarrhea,'' she said. ``He was 
     very sick. He knew he was dying. There was no medicine or 
     doctor. He started to cry so much.'' Baban's son died on her 
     lap. ``I was screaming and crying,'' she said. ``My daughters 
     were crying. We gave them the body. It was passed outside, 
     and the soldiers took it.''
       Soon after Baban's son died, she pulled herself up and went 
     to the window, to see if the soldiers had taken her son to be 
     buried. ``There were twenty dogs outside the prison. A big 
     black dog was the leader,'' she said. The soldiers had dumped 
     the bodies of the dead outside the prison, in a field. ``I 
     looked outside and saw the legs and hands of my son in the 
     mouths of the dogs. The dogs were eating my son.'' She 
     stopped talking for a moment. ``Then I lost my mind.''
       She described herself as catatonic; her daughters scraped 
     around for food and water. They kept her alive, she said, 
     until she could function again. ``This was during Ramadan. We 
     were kept in Nugra Salman for a few more months.''
       In September, when the war with Iran was over, Saddam 
     issued a general amnesty to the Kurds, the people he believed 
     had betrayed him by siding with Tehran. The women, children, 
     and elderly in Nugra Salman were freed. But, in most cases, 
     they could not go home; the Iraqi Army had bulldozed some 
     four thousand villages, Baban's among them. She was finally 
     resettled in the Chamchamal district.
       In the days after her release, she tried to learn the fate 
     of her husband and three older sons. But the men who 
     disappeared in the Anfal roundups have never been found. It 
     is said that they were killed and then buried in mass graves 
     in the desert along the Kuwaiti border, but little is 
     actually known. A great number of Anfal widows, I was told, 
     still believe that their sons and husbands and brothers are 
     locked away in Saddam's jails. ``We are thinking they are 
     alive,'' Baban said, referring to her husband and sons. 
     ``Twenty-four hours a day, we are thinking maybe they are 
     alive. If they are alive, they are being tortured, I know 
     it.''
       Baban said that she has not slept well since her sons were 
     taken from her. ``We are thinking, Please let us know they 
     are dead, I will sleep in peace,'' she said. ``My head is 
     filled with terrible thoughts. The day I die is the day I 
     will not remember that the dogs ate my son.''
       Before I left, Baban asked me to write down the names of 
     her three older sons. They are Sherzad, who would be forty 
     now; Rizgar, who would be thirty-one; and Muhammad, who 
     would be thirty. She asked me to find her sons, or to ask 
     President Bush to find them. ``One would be sufficient,'' 
     she said. ``If just one comes back, that would be 
     enough.''


                         5. WHAT THE KURDS FEAR

       In a conversation not long ago with Richard Butler, the 
     former weapons inspector, I suggested a possible explanation 
     for the world's indifference to Saddam Hussein's use of 
     chemical weapons to commit genocide--that the people he had 
     killed were his own citizens, not those of another sovereign 
     state. (The main chemical-weapons treaty does not ban a 
     country's use of such weapons against its own people, perhaps 
     because at the time the convention was drafted no one could 
     imagine such a thing.) Butler reminded me, however, that Iraq 
     had used chemical weapons against another country--Iran--
     during, the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. He offered a simpler 
     rationale. ``The problems are just too awful and too hard,'' 
     he said. ``History is replete with such things. Go back to 
     the grand example of the Holocaust. It sounded too hard to do 
     anything about it.''
       The Kurds have grown sanguine about the world's lack of 
     interest. ``I've learned not to be surprised by the 
     indifference of the civilized world,'' Barham Salih told me 
     one evening in Sulaimaniya. Salih is the Prime Minister of 
     the area of Kurdistan administered by the Patriotic Union, 
     and he spoke in such a way as to suggest that it would be 
     best if I, too, stopped acting surprised. ``Given the scale 
     of the tragedy--we're talking about large numbers of 
     victims--I suppose I'm surprised that the international 
     community has not come in to help the survivors,'' he 
     continued. ``It's politically indecent not to help. But, as a 
     Kurd, I live with the terrible hand history and geography 
     have dealt my people.''
       Salih's home is not prime ministerial, but it has many 
     Western comforts. He had a satellite television and a 
     satellite telephone, yet the house was frigid; in a land of 
     cheap oil, the Kurds, who are cut off the Iraqi electric grid 
     by Saddam on a regular basis, survive on generator power and 
     kerosene heat.
       Over dinner one night, Salih argued that the Kurds should 
     not be regarded with pity. ``I don't think one has to tap 
     into the Wilsonian streak in American foreign policy in order 
     to find a rationale for helping the Kurds,'' he said. 
     ``Helping the Kurds would mean an opportunity to study the 
     problems caused by weapons of mass destruction.''
       Salih, who is forty-one, often speaks bluntly, and is savvy 
     about Washington's enduring interest in ending the reign of 
     Saddam Hussein. Unwilling publicly to exhort the United 
     States to take military action, Salih is aware that the 
     peshmerga would be obvious allies of an American military 
     strike against Iraq; other Kurds have been making that 
     argument for years. It is not often noted in Washington 
     policy circles, but the Kurds already hold a vast swath of 
     territory inside the country--including two important dams 
     whose destruction could flood Baghdad--and have at least 
     seventy thousand men under arms. In addition, the two main 
     Kurdish parties are members of the Iraqi opposition group, 
     the Iraqi National Congress, which is headed by Ahmad 
     Chalabi, a London-based Shiite businessman; at the moment, 
     though, relations between Chalabi and the Kurdish leaders are 
     contentious.
       Kurds I talked to throughout Kurdistan were enthusiastic 
     about the idea of joining, an American-led alliance against 
     Saddam Hussein, and serving as the northen-Iraqi equivalent 
     of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. President Bush's State of 
     the Union Message, in which he denounced Iraq as the linchpin 
     of an ``axis of evil,'' had had an electric effect on every 
     Kurd I met who heard the speech. In the same speech, 
     President Bush made reference to Iraq's murder of ``thousands 
     of its own citizens--leaving the bodies of mothers huddled 
     over their dead children.'' General Simko Dizayee, the chief 
     of staff of the peshmerga, told me, ``Bush's speech filled 
     our hearts with hope.''
       Prime Minister Salih expressed his views diplomatically. 
     ``We support democratic transformation in Iraq,'' he said--
     half smiling, because he knows that there is no chance of 
     that occurring unless Saddam is removed. But until America 
     commits itself to removing Saddam, he said, ``we're living on 
     the razor's edge. Before Washington even wakes up in the 
     morning, we could have ten thousand dead.'' This is the 
     Kurdish conundrum: the Iraqi military is weaker than the 
     American military, but the Iraqis are stronger than the 
     Kurds. Seven hundred Iraqi tanks face the Kurdish safe haven, 
     according to peshmerga commanders.
       General Mustafa Said Qadir, the peshmerga leader, put it 
     this way: ``We have a problem. If the Americans attack Saddam 
     and don't get him, we're going to get gassed. If the 
     Americans decided to do it, we would be thankful. This is the 
     Kurdish dream. But it has to be done carefully.''
       The Kurdish leadership worries, in short, that an American 
     mistake could cost the Kurds what they have created, however 
     inadvertently: a nearly independent state for themselves in 
     northern Iraq. ``We would like to be our own nation,'' Salih 
     told me. ``But we are realists. All we want is to be partners 
     of the Arabs of Iraq in building a secular, democratic, 
     federal country.'' Later, he added, ``We are proud of 
     ourselves. We have

[[Page H7404]]

     inherited a devastated country. It's not easy what we are 
     trying to achieve. We had no democratic institutions, we 
     didn't have a legal culture, we did not have a strong 
     military. From that situation, this is a remarkable success 
     story.''
       The Kurdish regional government, to be sure, is not a 
     Vermont town meeting. The leaders of the two parties, Massoud 
     Barzani and Jalal Talabani, are safe in their jobs. But there 
     is a free press here, and separation of mosque and state, and 
     schools are being built and pensions are being paid. In Erbil 
     and in Sulaimaniya, the Kurds have built playgrounds on the 
     ruins of Iraqi Army torture centers. ``If America is indeed 
     looking for Muslims who are eager to become democratic and 
     are eager to counter the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, 
     then it should be looking here,'' Salih said.
       Massoud Barzani is the son of the late Mustafa Barzani, a 
     legendary guerrilla, who built the Democratic Party, and who 
     entered into the ill-fated alliance with Iran and America. I 
     met Barzani in his headquarters, above the town of 
     Salahuddin. He is a short man, pale and quiet; he wore the 
     red turban of the Barzani clan and a wide cummerbund across 
     his baggy trousers--the outfit of a peshmerga.
       Like Salih, he chooses his words carefully when talking 
     about the possibility of helping America bring down Saddam. 
     ``It is not enough to tell us the U.S. will respond at a 
     certain time and place of its choosing,'' Barzani said. 
     ``We're in artillery range. Iraq's Army is weak, but it is 
     still strong enough to crush us. We don't make assumptions 
     about the American response.''
       One day, I drove to the Kurdish front lines near Erbil, to 
     see the forward positions of the Iraqi Army. The border 
     between the Army-controlled territory and the Kurdish region 
     is porous; Baghdad allows some Kurds--nonpolitical Kurds--to 
     travel back and forth between zones.
       My peshmerga escort took me to the roof of a building 
     overlooking the Kalak Bridge and, beyond it, the Iraqi lines. 
     Without binoculars, we could see Iraqi tanks on the hills in 
     front of us. A local official named Muhammad Najar joined us; 
     he told me that the Iraqi forces arrayed there were elements 
     of the Army's Jerusalem brigade, a reserve unit established 
     by Saddam with the stated purpose of liberating Jerusalem 
     from the Israelis. Other peshmerga joined us. It was a 
     brilliantly sunny day, and we were enjoying the weather. A 
     man named Azlz Khader, gazing at the plain before us, said, 
     ``When I look across here, I imagine American tanks coming 
     down across this plain going to Baghdad.'' His friends smiled 
     and said, ``Inshallah''--God willing. Another man said, ``The 
     U.S. is the lord of the world.''


                            6. THE PRISONERS

       A week later, I was at Shinwe, a mountain range outside 
     Halabja, with another group of peshmerga. My escorts and I 
     had driven most of the way up, and then slogged through fresh 
     snow. From one peak, we could see the village of Biyara, 
     which sits in a valley between Halabja and a wall of 
     mountains that mark the Iranian border. Saddam's tanks were 
     an hour's drive away to the south, and Iran filled the vista 
     before us. Biyara and nine other villages near it are 
     occupied by the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, or Supporters 
     of Islam. Shinwe, in fact, might be called the axis of the 
     axis of evil.
       We were close enough to see trucks belonging to Ansar al-
     Islam making their way from village to village. The commander 
     of the peshmerga forces surrounding Biyara, a veteran 
     guerrilla named Ramadan Dekone, said that Ansar al-Islam is 
     made up of Kurdish Islamists and an unknown number of so-
     called Arab Afghans--Arabs, from southern Iraq and elsewhere, 
     who trained in the camps of Al Qaeda.
       ``They believe that people must be terrorized,'' Dekone 
     said, shaking his head. ``They believe that the Koran says 
     this is permissible.'' He pointed to an abandoned village in 
     the middle distance, a place called Kheli Hama. ``That is 
     where the massacre took place,'' he said. In late September, 
     forty-two of his men were killed by Ansar al-Islam, and now 
     Dekone and his forces seemed ready for revenge. I asked him 
     what he would do if he captured the men responsible for the 
     killing. ``I would take them to court,'' he said.
       When I got to Sulaimaniya, I visited a prison run by the 
     intelligence service of the Patriotic Union. The prison is 
     attached to the intelligence-service headquarters. It appears 
     to be well kept and humane; the communal cells hold twenty or 
     so men each, and they have kerosene heat, and even satellite 
     television. For two days, the intelligence agency permitted 
     me to speak with any prisoner who agreed to be interviewed. I 
     was wary; the Kurds have an obvious interest in lining up on 
     the American side in the war against terror. But the 
     officials did not, as far as I know, compel anyone to speak 
     to me, and I did not get the sense that allegations made by 
     prisoners were shaped by their captors. The stories, which I 
     later checked with experts on the region, seemed at least 
     worth the attention of America and other countries in the 
     West.
       The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has 
     received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence 
     service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda 
     operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a 
     senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number 
     of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly 
     brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that 
     Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and 
     possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into 
     Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that 
     the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far 
     closer than previously thought.
       When I asked the director of the twenty-four-hundred-man 
     Patriotic Union intelligence service why he was allowing me 
     to interview his prisoners, he told me that he hoped I would 
     carry this information to American intelligence officials. 
     ``The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. haven't come out yet,'' he told 
     me. His deputy added, ``Americans are going to Somalia, the 
     Philippines, I don't know where else, to look for terrorists. 
     But this is the field, here.'' Anya Guilsher, a spokeswoman 
     for the C.I.A., told me last week that as a matter of policy 
     the agency would not comment on the activities of its 
     officers. James Woolsey, a former C.I.A. director and an 
     advocate of overthrowing the Iraqi regime, said, ``It would 
     be a real shame if the C.I.A.'s substantial institutional 
     hostility to Iraqi democratic resistance groups was 
     keeping it from learning about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda 
     in northern Iraq.''
       The possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass 
     destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful 
     argument among advocates of ``regime change,'' as the removal 
     of Saddam is known in Washington. These critics of Saddam 
     argue that his chemical and biological capabilities, his 
     record of support for terrorist organizations, and the 
     cruelty of his regime make him a threat that reaches far 
     beyond the citizens of Iraq.
       ``He's the home address for anyone wanting to make or use 
     chemical or biological weapons,'' Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi 
     dissident, said. Makiya is the author of ``Republic of 
     Fear,'' a study of Saddam's regime. ``He's going to be the 
     person to worry about. He's got the labs and the knowhow. 
     He's hellbent on trying to find a way into the fight, without 
     announcing it.''
       On the surface, a marriage of Saddam's secular Baath Party 
     regime with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda seems unlikely. His 
     relationship with secular Palestinian groups is well known; 
     both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, two prominent Palestinian 
     terrorists, are currently believed to be in Baghdad. But 
     about ten years ago Saddam underwent something of a 
     battlefield conversion to a fundamentalist brand of Islam.
       ``It was gradual, starting the moment he decided on the 
     invasion of Kuwait,'' in June of 1990, according to Amatzia 
     Baram, an Iraq expert at the University of Haifa. ``His 
     calculation was that he needed people in Iraq and the Arab 
     world--as well as God--to be on his side when he invaded. 
     After he invaded, the Islamic rhetorical style became 
     overwhelming,''--so overwhelming, Baram continued, that a 
     radical group in Jordan began calling Saddam ``the New Caliph 
     Marching from the East.'' This conversion, cynical though it 
     may be, has opened doors to Saddam in the fundamentalist 
     world. He is now a prime supporter of the Palestinian Islamic 
     Jihad and of Hamas, paying families of suicide bombers ten 
     thousand dollars in exchange for their sons' martyrdom. This 
     is part of Saddam's attempt to harness the power of Islamic 
     extremism and direct it against his enemies.
       Kurdish culture, on the other hand, has traditionally been 
     immune to religious extremism. According to Kurdish 
     officials, Ansar al-Islam grew out of an idea spread by Ayman 
     al-Zawahiri, the former chief of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad 
     and now Osama bin Laden's deputy in Al Qaeda. ``There are two 
     schools of thought'' in Al Qaeda, Karim Sinjari, the Interior 
     Minister of Kurdistan's Democratic Party-controlled region, 
     told me. ``Osama bin Laden believes that the infidels should 
     be beaten in the head, meaning the United States. Zawahiri's 
     philosophy is that you should fight the infidel even in the 
     smallest village, that you should try to form Islamic armies 
     everywhere. The Kurdish fundamentalists were influenced by 
     Zawahiri'.''
       Kurds were among those who travelled to Afghanistan from 
     all over the Muslim world, first to fight the Soviets, in the 
     early nineteen-eighties, then to join Al Qaeda. The members 
     of the groups that eventually became Ansar al-Islam spent a 
     great deal of time in Afghanistan, according to Kurdish 
     intelligence officials. One Kurd who went to Afghanistan was 
     Mala Krekar, an early leader of the Islamist movement in 
     Kurdistan; according to Sinjari, he now holds the title of 
     ``emir'' of Ansar al-Islam.
       In 1998, the first force of Islamist terrorists crossed the 
     Iranian border into Kurdistan, and immediately tried to seize 
     the town of Haj Omran. Kurdish officials said that the 
     terrorists were helped by Iran, which also has an interest in 
     undermining a secular Muslim government. ``The terrorists 
     blocked the road, they killed Kurdish Democratic Party 
     cadres, they threatened the villagers,'' Sinjari said. ``We 
     fought them and they fled.''
       The terrorist groups splintered repeatedly. According to a 
     report in the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, which is 
     published in London, Ansar al-Islam came into being, on 
     September 1st of last year, with the merger of two factions: 
     Al Tawhid, which helped to arrange the assassination of 
     Kurdistan's most prominent Christian politician, and whose 
     operatives initiated an acid-tbrowing campaign against 
     unveiled women; and a faction called the Second Soran Unit, 
     which had been affiliated with one of the Kurdish Islamic 
     parties. In a statement

[[Page H7405]]

     issued to mark the merger, the group, which originally called 
     itself Jund al-Islam, or Soldiers of Islam, declared its 
     intention to ``undertake Jiihad in this region'' in order to 
     carry out ``God's will.'' According to Kurdish officials, the 
     group had between five hundred and six hundred members, 
     including Arab Afghans and at least thirty Iraqi Kurds who 
     were trained in Afghanistan.
       Kurdish officials say that the merger took place in a 
     ceremony overseen by three Arabs trained in bin Laden's camps 
     in Afghanistan, and that these men supplied Ansar al-Islam 
     with three hundred thousand dollars in seed money. Soon after 
     the merger, a unit of Ansar al-Islam called the Victory Squad 
     attacked and killed the peshmerga in Kheli Hama.
       Among the Islamic fighters who were there that day was 
     Rekut Hiwa Hussein, a slender, boyish twenty-year-old who was 
     captured by the peshmerga after the massacre, and whom I met 
     in the prison in Sulaimaniya. He was exceedingly shy, never 
     looking up from his hands as he spoke. He was not handcuffed, 
     and had no marks on the visible parts of his body. We were 
     seated in an investigator's office inside the intelligence 
     complex. Like most buildings in Sulaimaniya, this one was 
     warmed by a single kerosene heater, and the room temperature 
     seemed barely above freezing. Rekut told me how he and his 
     comrades in Ansar al-Islam overcame the peshmerga.
       ``They thought there was a ceasefire, so we came into the 
     village and fired on them by surprise,'' he said. ``They 
     didn't know what happened. We used grenades and machine guns. 
     We killed a lot of them and then the others surrendered.'' 
     The terrorists trussed their prisoners, ignoring pleas from 
     the few civilians remaining in the town to leave them alone. 
     ``The villagers asked us not to slaughter them,'' Rekut said. 
     One of the leaders of Ansar al-Islam, a man named Abdullah 
     a`Shafi, became incensed. ``He said, `Who is saying this? Let 
     me kill them.' ''
       Rekut said that the peshmerga were killed in ritual 
     fashion: ``We put cloths in their mouths. We then laid them 
     down like sheep, in a line. Then we cut their throats.'' 
     After the men were killed, peshmerga commanders say, the 
     corpses were beheaded. Rekut denied this. ``Some of their 
     heads had been blown off by grenades, but we didn't behead 
     them,'' he said.
       I asked Rekut why he had joined Ansar al-Islam. ``A friend 
     of mine Joined,'' he said quietly. ``I don't have a good 
     reason why I joined. ``A guard then took him by the elbow and 
     returned him to his cell.
       The Kurdish intelligence officials I spoke to were careful 
     not to oversell their case; they said that they have no proof 
     that Ansar al-Islam was ever involved in international 
     terrorism or that Saddam's agents were involved in the 
     attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they 
     do have proof, they said, that Ansar al-Islam is shielding Al 
     Qaeda members, and that it is doing so with the approval of 
     Saddam's agents.
       Kurdish officials said that, according, to their 
     intelligence, several men associated with Al Qaeda have been 
     smuggled over the Iranian border into an Ansar al-Islam 
     stronghold near Halabja. The Kurds believe that two of them, 
     who go by the names Abu Yasir and Abu Muzaham, are 
     highranking Al Qaeda members. ``We don't have any information 
     about them,'' one official told me. ``We know that they don't 
     want anybody to see them. They are sleeping in the same 
     room as Mala Krekar and Abdullah al-Shafi''--the nominal 
     leaders of Ansar al-Islam.
       The real leader, these officials say, is an Iraqi who goes 
     by the name Abu Wa'el, and who, like the others, spent a 
     great deal of time in bin Laden's training camps. But he is 
     also, they say, a highranking officer of the Mukhabarat. One 
     senior official added, ``A man named Abu Agab is in charge of 
     the northern bureau of the Mukhabarat. And he is Abu Wa'el's 
     control officer.''
       Abu Agab, the official said, is based in the city of 
     Kirkuk, which is predominantly Kurdish but is under the 
     control of Baghdad. According to intelligence officials, Abu 
     Agab and Abu Wa'el met last July 7th, in Germany. From there, 
     they say, Abu Wa'el travelled to Afghanistan and then, in 
     August, to Kurdistan, sneaking across the Iranian border.
       The Kurdish officials told me that they learned a lot about 
     Abu Wa'el's movements from one of their prisoners, an Iraqi 
     intelligence officer named Qassem Hussein Muhammad, and they 
     invited me to speak with him. Qassem, the Kurds said, is a 
     Shiite from Basra, in southern Iraq, and a twenty-year 
     veteran of Iraqi intelligence.
       Qassem, shamblinog, and bearded, was brought into the room, 
     and he genially agreed to be interviewed. One guard stayed in 
     the room, along with my translator. Qassem lit a cigarette, 
     and leaned back in his chair. I started by asking him if he 
     had been tortured by his captors. His eyes widened. ``By God, 
     no,'' he said. ``There is nothing like torture here.'' Then 
     he told me that his involvement in Islamic radicalism began 
     in 1992 in Baghdad, when he met Ayman al-Zawahiri.
       Qassem said that he was one of seventeen bodyguards 
     assigned to protect Zawahiri, who stayed at Baghdad's Al 
     Rashid Hotel, but who, he said, moved around surreptitiously. 
     The guards had no idea why Zawahiri was in Baghdad, but one 
     day Qassem escorted him to one of Saddam's palaces for what 
     he later learned was a meeting with Saddam himself
       Qassem's capture by the Kurds grew out of his last 
     assignment from the Mukhabarat. The Iraqi intelligence 
     service received word that Abu Wa'el had been captured by 
     American agents. ``I was sent by the Mukhabarat to Kurdistan 
     to find Abu Wa'el or, at least, information about him,'' 
     Qassem told me. ``That's when I was captured, before I 
     reached Biyara.''
       I asked him if he was sure that Abu Wa'el was on Saddam's 
     side. ``He's an employee of the Mukhabarat,'' Qassem said. 
     ``He's the actual decision-maker in the group''--Ansar al-
     Islam--``but he's an employee of the Mukhabarat.'' According 
     to the Kurdish intelligence officials, Abu Wa'el is not in 
     American hands; rather, he is still with Ansar al-Islam. 
     American officials declined to comment.
       The Kurdish intelligence officials told me that they have 
     Al Qaeda members in custody, and they introduced me to 
     another prisoner, a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom 
     they described as a middle- to high-ranking member of Al 
     Qaeda. He was, they said, captured by the peshmerga as he 
     tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of 
     the American attack on Afghanistan. Ismail, they said, comes 
     from a Mosul family with deep connections to the Mukhabarat; 
     his uncle is the top Mukhabarat official in the south of 
     Iraq. They said they believe that Haqi Ismail is a liaison 
     between Saddam's intelligence service and Al Qaeda.
       Ismail wore slippers and a blanket around his shoulders. He 
     was ascetic in appearance and, at the same time, 
     ostentatiously smug. He appeared to be amused by the presence 
     of an American. He told the investigators that he would not 
     talk to the C.I.A. The Kurdish investigators laughed and said 
     they wished that I were from the C.I.A.
       Ismail said that he was once a student at the University of 
     Mosul but grew tired of life in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. 
     Luckily, he said, in 1999 he met an Afghan man who 
     persuaded him to seek work in Afghanistan. The Kurdish 
     investigators smiled as Ismail went on to say that he 
     found himself in Kandahar, then in Kabul, and then 
     somehow--here he was exceedingly vague--in an Al Qaeda 
     camp. When I asked him how enrollment in an Al Qaeda camp 
     squared with his wish to seek work in Afghanistan, he 
     replied, ``Being a soldier is a job.'' After his training, 
     he said, he took a post in the Taliban Foreign Ministry. I 
     asked him if he was an employee of Saddam's intelligence 
     service. ``I prefer not to talk about that,'' he replied.
       Later, I asked, the Kurdish officials if they believed that 
     Saddam provides aid to Al Qaeda affiliated terror groups or 
     simply maintains channels of communication with them. It was 
     getting late, and the room was growing even colder. ``Come 
     back tomorrow,'' the senior official in the room said, ``and 
     we'll introduce you to someone who will answer that 
     question.''


                          7. THE AL QAEDA LINK

       The man they introduced me to the next afternoon was a 
     twenty-nine-year-old Iranian Arab, a smuggler and bandit from 
     the city of Ahvaz. The intelligence officials told me that 
     his most recent employer was bin Laden. When they arrested 
     him, last year, they said, they found a roll of film in his 
     possession. They had the film developed, and the photographs, 
     which they showed me, depleted their prisoner murdering a man 
     with a knife, slicing his ear off and then plunging the knife 
     into the top of the man's head.
       The Iranian had a thin face, thick black hair, and a 
     mustache; he wore an army jacket, sandals, and Western-style 
     sweatpants. Speaking in an almost casual tone, he told me 
     that he was born in 1973, that his real name was Muhammad 
     Mansour Shahab, and that he had been a smuggler most of his 
     adult life.
       ``I met a group of drug traffickers,'' he said. ``They gave 
     us drugs and we got them weapons,'' which they took from Iran 
     into Afghanistan. In 1996, he met an Arab Afghan. ``His name 
     was Othman,'' the man went on. ``He gave me drugs, and I got 
     him a hundred and fifty Kalashnikovs. Then he said to me, 
     `You should come visit Afghanistan.' So we went to 
     Afghanistan in 1996. We stayed for a while, I came back, did 
     a lot of smuggling jobs. My brother-in-law tried to send 
     weapons to Afghanistan, but the Iranians ambushed us. I 
     killed some of the Iranians.''
       He soon returned with Othman to Afghanistan, where, he 
     said, Othman gave him the name Muhammad Jawad to use while he 
     was there. ``Othman said to me, `You will meet Sheikh Osama 
     soon.' We were in Kandahar. One night, they gave me a 
     sleeping pill. We got into a car and we drove for an hour and 
     a half into the mountains. We went to a tent they said was 
     Osama's tent.'' The man now called Jawad did not meet Osama 
     bin Laden that night. ``They said to me, `You're the guy who 
     killed the Iranian officer.' Then they said they needed 
     information about me, my real name. They told Othman to take 
     me back to Kandahar and hold me in jail for twenty-one days 
     while they investigated me.''
       The Al Qaeda men completed their investigation and called 
     him back to the mountains. ``They told me that Osama said I 
     should work with them,'' Jawad said. ``They told me to bring 
     my wife to Afghanistan.'' They made him swear on a Koran that 
     he would never betray them. Jawad said that he became one of 
     Al Qaeda's principal weapons smugglers. Iraqi opposition 
     sources told me that the Baghdad regime frequently smuggled 
     weapons to Al Qaeda by air through

[[Page H7406]]

     Dubai to Pakistan and then overland into Afghanistan. But 
     Jawad told me that the Iraqis often used land routes through 
     Iran as well. Othman ordered him to establish a smuggling 
     route across the Iraq-Iran border. The smugglers would pose 
     as shepherds to find the best routes. ``We started to go into 
     Iraq with the sheep and cows,'' Jawad told me, and added that 
     they initiated this route by smuggling tape recorders from 
     Iraq to Iran. They opened a store, a front, in Ahvaz, to 
     sell electronics, ``just to establish relationships with 
     smugglers.''
       One day in 1999, Othman got a message to Jawad, who was 
     then in Iran. He was to smuggle himself across the Iraqi 
     border at Fao, where a car would meet him and take him to a 
     village near Tikrit, the headquarters of Saddam Hussein's 
     clan. Jawad was then taken to a meeting at the house of a man 
     called Luay, whom he described as the son of Saddam's father-
     in-law, Khayr Allah Talfah. (Professor Baram, who has long 
     followed Saddam's family, later told me he believes that 
     Luay, who is about forty years old, is close to Saddam's 
     inner circle.) At the meeting, with Othman present, 
     Mukhabarat officials instructed Jawad to go to Baghdad, where 
     he was to retrieve several cannisters filled with explosives. 
     Then, he said, he was to arrange to smuggle the explosives 
     into Iran, where they would be used to kill anti-Iraqi 
     activists. After this assignment was completed, Jawad said, 
     he was given a thousand Kalashnikov rifles by Iraqi 
     intelligence and told to smuggle them into Afghanistan.
       A year later, there was a new development: Othman told 
     Jawad to smuggle several dozen refrigerator motors into 
     Afghanistan for the Iraqi Mukhabarat; a cannister filled with 
     liquid was attached to each motor. Jawad said that he asked 
     Othman for more information. ``I said, `Othman, what does 
     this contain?' He said, `My life and your life.' He said 
     they''--the Iraqi agents--''were going to kill us if we 
     didn't do this. That's all I'll say.
       ``I was given a book of dollars,'' Jawad went on, meaning 
     ten thousand dollars--a hundred American hundred-dollar 
     bills. ``I was told to arrange to smuggle the motors. Othman 
     told me to kill any of the smugglers who helped us once we 
     got there.'' Vehicles belonging to the Taliban were waiting 
     at the border, and Jawad said that he turned over the liquid-
     filled refrigerator motors to the Taliban, and then killed 
     the smugglers who had helped him.
       Jawad said that he had no idea what liquid was inside the 
     motors, but he assumed that it was some type of chemical or 
     biological weapon. I asked the Kurdish officials who remained 
     in the room if they believed that, as late as 2000, the 
     Mukhabarat was transferring chemical or biological weapons to 
     Al Qaeda. They spoke carefully. ``We have no idea what was in 
     the cannisters,'' the senior official said. ``This is 
     something that is worth an American investigation.''
       When I asked Jawad to tell me why he worked for Al Qaeda, 
     he replied, ``Money.'' He would not say how much money he had 
     been paid, but he suggested that it was quite a bit. I had 
     one more question: How many years has Al Qaeda maintained a 
     relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime? ``There's been a 
     relationship between the Mukhabarat and the people of Al 
     Qaeda since 1992,'' he replied.
       Carole O'Leary, a Middle Eastern expert at American 
     University, in Washington, and a specialist on the Kurds, 
     said it is likely that Saddam would seek an alliance with 
     Islamic terrorists to serve his own interests. ``I know that 
     there are Mukhabarat agents throughout Kurdistan,'' O'Leary 
     said, and went on, ``One way the Mukhabarat could destabilize 
     the Kurdish experiment in democracy is to link up with 
     Islamic radical groups. Their interests dovetail completely. 
     They both have much to fear from the democratic, secular 
     experiment of the Kurds in the safe haven, and they both 
     obviously share a hatred for America.''


                         8. THE PRESENT DANGER

       A paradox of life in northern Iraq is that, while hundreds, 
     perhaps thousands, of children suffer from the effects of 
     chemical attacks, the child-mortality rate in the Kurdish 
     zone has improved over the past ten years. Prime Minister 
     Salih credits this to, of all things, sanctions placed on 
     the Iraqi regime by the United Nations after the Gulf War 
     because of Iraq's refusal to dismantle its 
     nonconventional-weapons program. He credits in particular 
     the program begun in 1997, known as oil-for-food, which 
     was meant to mitigate the effects of sanctions on 
     civilians by allowing the profits from Iraq oil sales to 
     buy food and medicine. Calling this program a ``fantastic 
     concept,'' Salih said, ``For the first time in our 
     history, Iraqi citizens--all citizens--are insured a 
     portion of the country's oil wealth. The north is a 
     testament to the success of the program. Oil is sold and 
     food is bought.''
       I asked Salih to respond to the criticism, widely aired in 
     the West, that the sanctions have led to the death of 
     thousands of children. ``Sanctions don't kill Iraqi 
     children,'' he said. ``The regime kills children.''
       This puzzled me. If it was true, then why were the victims 
     of the gas attacks still suffering from a lack of health 
     care? Across Kurdistan, in every hospital I visited, the 
     complaints were the same: no CT scans, no MRIS, no pediatric 
     surgery, no advanced diagnostic equipment, not even surgical 
     gloves. I asked Salih why the money designated by the U.N. 
     for the Kurds wasn't being used for advanced medical 
     treatment. The oil-for-food program has one enormous flaw, he 
     replied. When the program was introduced, the Kurds were 
     promised thirteen per cent of the country's oil revenue, but 
     because of the terms of the agreement between Baghdad and the 
     U.N.--a ``defect,'' Salih said--the government controls the 
     flow of food, medicine, and medical equipment to the very 
     people it slaughtered. Food does arrive, he conceded, and 
     basic medicines as well, but at Saddam's pace.
       On this question of the work of the United Nations and its 
     agencies, the rival Kurdish parties agree. ``We've been 
     asking for a four-hundred-bed hospital for Sulaimaniya for 
     three years,'' said Nerchivan Barzani, the Prime Minister of 
     the region controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Party, and 
     Salih's counterpart. Sulaimanlya is in Salih's territory, but 
     in this case geography doesn't matter. ``It's our money,'' 
     Barzani said. ``But we need the approval of the Iraqis. They 
     get to decide. The World Health Organization is taking its 
     orders from the Iraqis. It's crazy.''
       Barzani and Salih accused the World Health Organization, in 
     particular, of rewarding with lucrative contracts only 
     companies favored by Saddam. ``Every time I interact with the 
     U.N.,'' Salih said, ``I think, My God, Jesse Helms is right. 
     If the U.N. can't help us, this poor, dispossessed Muslim 
     nation, then who is it for?''
       Many Kurds believe that Iraq's friends in the U.N. system, 
     particularly members of the Arab bloc, have worked to keep 
     the Kurds' cause from being addressed. The Kurds face an 
     institutional disadvantage at the U.N., where, unlike the 
     Palestinians, they have not even been granted official 
     observer status. Salih grew acerbic: ``Compare us to other 
     liberation movements around the world. We are very mature. We 
     don't engage in terror. We don't condone extremist 
     nationalist notions that can only burden our people. Please 
     compare what we have achieved in the Kurdistan national-
     authority areas to the Palestinian national authority of Mr. 
     Arafat. We have spent the last ten years building a secular, 
     democratic society, a civil society. What has he built?''
       Last week, in New York, I met with Benon Sevan, the United 
     Nations undersecretary-general who oversees the oil-for-food 
     program. He quickly let me know that he was unmoved by the 
     demands of the Kurds. ``If they had a theme song, it would be 
     `Give Me, Give Me, Give Me,' '' Sevan said. ``I'm getting fed 
     up with their complaints. You can tell them that.'' He said 
     that under the oil-for-food program the ``three northern 
     govemorates''--U.N. officials avoid the word ``Kurdistan''--
     have been allocated billions of dollars in goods and 
     services. ``I don't know if they've ever had it so good,'' he 
     said.
       I mentioned the Kurds' complaint that they have been denied 
     access to advanced medical equipment, and he said, ``Nobody 
     prevents them from asking. They should go ask the World 
     Health Organization''--which reports to Sevan on matters 
     related to Iraq. When I told Sevan that the Kurds have 
     repeatedly asked the W.H.O., he said, ``I'm not going to pass 
     judgment on the W.H.O.'' As the interview ended, I asked 
     Sevan about the morality of allowing the Iraqi regime to 
     control the flow of food and medicine into Kurdistan. 
     ``Nobody's innocent,'' he said. ``Please don't talk about 
     morals with me.''
       When I went to Kurdistan in January to report on the 1988 
     genocide of the Kurds, I did not expect to be sidetracked by 
     a debate over U.N. sanctions. And I certainly didn't expect 
     to be sidetracked by crimes that Saddam is committing against 
     the Kurds now--in particular--``nationality correction,'' the 
     law that Saddam's security services are using to implement a 
     campaign of ethnic cleansing. Large-scale operations against 
     the Kurds in Kirkuk, a city southeast of Erbil, and in other 
     parts of Iraqi Kurdistan under Saddam's control, have 
     received scant press attention in the West; there have been 
     few news accounts and no Security Council condemnations 
     drafted in righteous anger.
       Saddam's security services have been demanding that Kurds 
     ``correct'' their nationality by signing papers to indicate 
     that their birth records are false--that they are in fact 
     Arab. Those who don't sign have their property seized. Many 
     have been evicted, often to Kurdish-controlled regions, to 
     make room for Arab families. According to both the Kurdistan 
     Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, more 
     than a hundred thousand Kurds have been expelled from the 
     Kirkuk area over the past two years.
       Nationality correction is one technique that the Baghdad 
     regime is using in an over-all ``Arabization'' campaign, 
     whose aim is to replace the inhabitants of Kurdish cities, 
     especially the oil-rich Kirkuk, with Arabs from central and 
     southern Iraq, and even, according to persistent reports, 
     with Palestinians. Arabization is not new, Peter Galbraith, a 
     professor at the National Defense University and a former 
     senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
     says. Galbraith has monitored Saddam's anti-Kurdish 
     activities since before the Gulf War. ``It's been going on 
     for twenty years,'' he told me. ``Maybe it's picked up speed, 
     but it is certainly nothing new. To my mind, it's part of a 
     larger process that has been under way for many years, and is 
     aimed at reducing the territory occupied by the Kurds and at 
     destroying rural Kurdistan.''
       ``This is the apotheosis of cultural genocide,'' said Saedi 
     Barzinji, the president of Salahaddin University, in Erbil, 
     who is a human-rights lawyer and Massoud Barzani's legal 
     adviser. Barzinji and other Kurdish leaders believe that 
     Saddam is trying to set up a buffer zone between Arab Iraq 
     and

[[Page H7407]]

     Kurdistan, just in case the Kurds win their independence. To 
     help with this, Barzinji told me last month, Saddam is trying 
     to rewrite Kirkuk's history, to give it an ``Arab'' past. If 
     Kurds, Barzinji went on, ``don't change their ethnic origin, 
     they are given no food rations, no positions in government, 
     no right to register the names of their new babies. In the 
     last three to four weeks, hospitals have been ordered, the 
     maternity wards ordered, not to register any Kurdish name.'' 
     New parents are ``obliged to choose an Arab name.'' Barzinji 
     said that the nationality-correction campaign extends even to 
     the dead. ``Saddam is razing the gravestones, erasing the 
     past, putting in new ones with Arab names,'' he said. ``He 
     wants to show that Kirkuk has always been Arab.''
       Some of the Kurds crossing the demarcation line between 
     Saddam's forces and the Kurdish zone, it is said, are not 
     being expelled but are fleeing for economic reasons. But in 
     camps across Kurdistan I met refugees who told me stories of 
     visits from the secret police in the middle of the night.
       Many of the refugees from Kirkuk live in tent camps built 
     on boggy fields. I visited one such camp at Beneslawa, not 
     far from Erbil, where the mud was so thick that it nearly 
     pulled off my shoes. The people at the camp--several hundred, 
     according to two estimates I heard--are ragged and sick. A 
     man named Howar told me that his suffering could not have 
     been avoided even if he had agreed to change his ethnic 
     identity.
       ``When you agree to change your nationality, the police 
     write on your identity documents `second-degree Arab,' which 
     they know means Kurd,'' he told me. ``So they always know 
     you're a Kurd.'' (In a twist characteristic of Saddam's 
     regime, Kurdish leaders told me, Kurds who agree to 
     ``change'' their nationality are fined for having once 
     claimed falsely to be Kurdish.)
       Another refugee, Shawqat Hamid Muhammad, said that her son 
     had gone to jail for two months for having a photograph of 
     Mustafa Barzani in his possession. She said that she and her 
     family had been in the Beneslawa camp for two months. ``The 
     police came and knocked on our door and told us we have to 
     leave Kirkuk,'' she said. ``We had to rent a truck to take 
     our things out. We were given one day to leave. We have no 
     idea who is in our house.'' Another refugee, a man named 
     Ibrahim Jamil, wandered over to listen to the conversation. 
     ``The Arabs are winning Kirkuk,'' he said. ``Soon the only 
     people there will be Arabs, and Kurds who call themselves 
     Arabs. They say we should be Arab. But I'm a Kurd. It would 
     be easier for me to die than be an Arab. How can I not be a 
     Kurd?''
       Peter Galbraith told me that in 1987 he witnessed the 
     destruction of Kurdish villages and cemeteries--``anything, 
     that was related to Kurdish identity,'' he said. ``This was 
     one of the factors that led me to conclude that it is a 
     policy of genocide, a crime of intent, destroying a group 
     whole or in part.''


                          9. IRAQ'S ARMS RACE

       In a series of meetings in the summer and fall of 1995, 
     Charles Duelfer, the deputy executive chairman of the United 
     Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM--the now defunct arms-
     inspection team--met in Baghdad with Iraqi government 
     delegations. The subject was the status of Iraq's 
     nonconventional-weapons programs, and Duelfer, an American 
     diplomat on loan to the United Nations, was close to a 
     breakthrough.
       In early August, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had 
     defected to Jordan, and had then spoken publicly about Iraq's 
     offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities. 
     (Kamel later returned to Iraq and was killed almost 
     immediately, on his father-in-law's orders.) The regime's 
     credibility was badly damaged by Kamel's revelations, and 
     during these meetings the Iraqi representatives decided to 
     tell Duelfer and his team more than they had ever revealed 
     before. ``This was the first time Iraq actually agreed to 
     discuss the Presidential origins of these programs,'' Duelfer 
     recalled. Among the most startling admissions made by the 
     Iraqi scientists was that they had weaponized the biological 
     agent aflatoxin.
       Aflatoxin, which is produced from types of fungi that occur 
     in moldy grains, is the biological agent that some Kurdish 
     physicians suspect was mixed with chemical weapons and 
     dropped on Kurdistan. Christine Gosden, the English 
     geneticist, told me, ``There is absolutely no forensic 
     evidence whatsoever that aflatoxins have ever been used in 
     northern Iraq, but this may be because no systematic testing 
     has been carried out in the region, to my knowledge.''
       Duelfer told me, ``We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss 
     the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin 
     of the biological-weapons program is in the security 
     services, not in the military--meaning that it really came 
     out of the assassinations program.'' The Iraqis, Duelfer 
     said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into 
     two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with 
     tear gas. They wouldn't say why.
       In an op-ed article that Duelfer wrote for the Los Angeles 
     Times last year about Iraqi programs to develop weapons of 
     mass destruction, he offered this hypothesis: ``If a regime 
     wished to conceal a biological attack, what better way than 
     this? Victims would suffer the short-term effects of inhaling 
     tear gas and would assume that this was the totality of the 
     attack: Subsequent cancers would not be linked to the prior 
     event.''
       United Nations inspectors were alarmed to learn about the 
     aflatoxin program. Richard Spertzel, the chief biological-
     weapons inspector for UNSCOM, put it this way: ``It is a 
     devilish weapon. Iraq was quite clearly aware of the long-
     term carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin. Aflatoxin can only do 
     one thing--destroy people's livers. And I suspect that 
     children are more susceptible. From a moral standpoint, 
     aflatoxin is the cruellest weapon--it means watching children 
     die slowly of liver cancer.''
       Spertzel believes that if aflatoxin were to be used as a 
     weapon it would not be delivered by a missile. ``Aflatoxin is 
     a little tricky,'' he said. ``I don't know if a single dose 
     at one point in time is going to give you the long-term 
     effects. Continuous, repeated exposure--through food--would 
     be more effective.'' When I asked Spertzel if other countries 
     have weaponized aflatoxin, he replied, ``I don't know any 
     other country that did it. I don't know any country that 
     would.''
       It is unclear what biological and chemical weapons Saddam 
     possesses today. When he maneuvered UNSCOM out of his country 
     in 1998, weapons inspectors had found a sizable portion of 
     his arsenal but were vexed by what they couldn't find. His 
     scientists certainly have produced and weaponized anthrax, 
     and they have manufactured botulinum toxin, which causes 
     muscular paralysis and death. They've made Clostridium 
     perfringens, a bacterium that causes gas gangrene, a 
     condition in which the flesh rots. They have also made wheat-
     cover smut, which can be used to poison crops, and ricin, 
     which, when absorbed into the lungs, causes hemorrhagic 
     pneumonia.
       According to Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin 
     Project on Nuclear Arms Control, whose Iraq Watch project 
     monitors Saddam's weapons capabilities, inspectors could not 
     account for a great deal of weaponry believed to be in Iraq's 
     possession, including almost four tons of the nerve agent VX; 
     six hundred tons of ingredients for VX; as much as three 
     thousand tons of other poison-gas agents; and at least five 
     hundred and fifty artillery shells filled with mustard gas. 
     Nor did the inspectors find any stores of aflatoxin.
       Saddam's motives are unclear, too. For the past decade, the 
     development of these weapons has caused nothing but trouble 
     for him; his international isolation grows not from his past 
     crimes but from his refusal to let weapons inspectors 
     dismantle his nonconventional-weapons programs. When I asked 
     the Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya why Saddam is so committed 
     to these programs, he said, ``I think this regime developed a 
     very specific ideology associated with power, and how to 
     extend that power, and these weapons play a very important 
     psychological and political part.'' Makiya added, ``They are 
     seen as essential to the security and longevity of the 
     regime.''
       Certainly, the threat of another Halabja has kept Iraq's 
     citizens terrorized and compliant. Amatzia Baram, the Iraq 
     expert at the University of Haifa, told me that in 1999 Iraqi 
     troops in white biohazard suits suddenly surrounded the 
     Shiite holy city of Karbala, in southern Iraq, which has been 
     the scene of frequent uprisings against Saddam. (The Shiites 
     make up about sixty percent of Iraq's population, and the 
     regime is preoccupied with the threat of another rebellion.) 
     The men in the white suits did nothing; they just stood 
     there. ``But the message was clear,'' Baram said. ``What we 
     did to the Kurds in Halabja we can do to you.'' It's a very 
     effective psychological weapon. From the information I saw, 
     people were really panicky. They ran into their homes and 
     shut their windows. It worked extremely well.''
       Saddam's weapons of mass destruction clearly are not meant 
     solely for domestic use. Several years ago in Baghdad, 
     Richard Butler, who was then the chairman of UNSCOM, fell 
     into conversation with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's confidant and 
     Iraq's deputy Prime Minister. Butler asked Aziz to explain 
     the rationale for Iraq's biological-weapons project, and he 
     recalled Aziz's answer: ``He said, `We made bioweapons in 
     order to deal with the Persians and the Jews.' ''
       Iraqi dissidents agree that Iraq's programs to build 
     weapons of mass destruction are focussed on Israel. ``Israel 
     is the whole game,'' Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi 
     National Congress, told me. ``Saddam is always saying 
     publicly, `Who is going to fire the fortieth missile?' ''--a 
     reference to the thirty-nine Scud missiles he fired at Israel 
     during the Gulf War. ``He thinks he can kill one hundred 
     thousand Israelis in a day with biological weapons.'' Chalabi 
     added, ``This is the only way he can be Saladin''--the Muslim 
     hero who defeated the Crusaders. Students of Iraq and its 
     government generally agree that Saddam would like to project 
     himself as a leader of all the Arabs, and that the one sure 
     way to do that is by confronting Israel.
       In the Gulf War, when Saddam attacked Israel, he was hoping 
     to provoke an Israeli response, which would drive America's 
     Arab friends out of the allied coalition. Today, the experts 
     say, Saddam's desire is to expel the Jews from history. In 
     October of 2000, at an Arab summit in Cairo, I heard the 
     vice-chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, a man 
     named Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, deliver a speech on Saddam's 
     behalf, saying, ``Jihad alone is capable of liberating 
     Palestine and the rest of the Arab territories occupied by 
     dirty Jews in their distorted Zionist entity.''
       Amatzia Baram said, ``Saddam can absolve himself of all 
     sins in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim worlds by bringing 
     Israel to its knees. He not only wants to be a hero in his

[[Page H7408]]

     own press, which already recognizes him as a Saladin, but 
     wants to make sure that a thousand years from now children in 
     the fourth grade will know that he is the one who destroyed 
     Israel.''
       It is no comfort to the Kurds that the Jews are now 
     Saddam's main preoccupation. The Kurds I spoke with, even 
     those who agree that Saddam is aiming, his remaining Scuds at 
     Israel, believe that he is saving some of his ``special 
     weapons''--a popular euphemism inside the Iraqi regime for a 
     return visit to Halabja. The day I visited the Kalak Bridge, 
     which divides the Kurds from the Iraqi Army's Jerusalem 
     brigade, I asked Muhammad Najar, the local official, why the 
     brigade was not facing west, toward its target. ``The road to 
     Jerusalem,'' he replied, ``goes through Kurdistan.''
       A few weeks ago, after my return from Iraq, I stopped by 
     the Israeli Embassy in Washington to see the Ambassador, 
     David Ivry. In 1981, Ivry, who then led Israel's Air Force, 
     commanded Operation Opera, the strike against the Osirak 
     nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The action was ordered by Prime 
     Minister Menachem Begin, who believed that by hitting the 
     reactor shortly before it went online he could stop Iraq from 
     building an atomic bomb. After the attack, Israel was 
     condemned for what the Times called ``inexcusable and short-
     sighted aggression.'' Today, though, Israel's action is 
     widely regarded as an act of muscular arms control. ``In 
     retrospect, the Israeli strike bought us a decade,'' Gary 
     Milhollin, of the Wisconsin Project, said. ``I think if the 
     Israelis had not hit the reactor the Iraqis would have had 
     bombs by 1990''--the year Iraq invaded Kuwait.
       Today, a satellite photograph of the Osirak site hangs on a 
     wall in Ivry's office. The inscription reads, ``For General 
     David Ivry--With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding 
     job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made 
     our job much easier in Desert Storm.'' It is signed ``Dick 
     Cheney.''
       ``Preemption is always a positive,'' Ivry said.
       Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into 
     a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, 
     redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. Those 
     who have followed Saddam's progress believe that no single 
     strike today would eradicate his nuclear program. I talked 
     about this prospect last fall with August Hanning, the chief 
     of the B.N.D., the German intelligence agency, in Berlin. We 
     met in the new glass-and-steel Chancellery, overlookincg the 
     renovated Reichstag.
       The Germans have a special interest in Saddam's intentions. 
     German industry is well represented in the ranks of foreign 
     companies that have aided Saddam's nonconventional-weapons 
     programs, and the German government has been publicly 
     regretful. Hanning told me that his agency had taken the lead 
     in exposing the companies that helped Iraq build a poison-gas 
     factory at Samarra. The Germans also feel, for the most 
     obvious reasons, a special responsibility to Israel's 
     security, and this, too, motivates their desire to expose 
     Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Hanning is tall, 
     thin, and almost translucently white. He is sparing with 
     words, but he does not equivocate. ``It is our estimate that 
     Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,'' he said.
       There is some debate among arms-control experts about 
     exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there 
     is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them 
     soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the 
     balance of power in the Middle East. ``The first thing that 
     occurs to any military planner is force protection,'' Charles 
     Duelfer told me. ``If your assessment of the threat is 
     chemical or biological, you can get individual protective 
     equipment and warning systems. If you think he's going to use 
     a nuclear weapon, where are you going to concentrate your 
     forces?''
       There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic 
     bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons. 
     When I talked about Saddam's past with the medical geneticist 
     Christine Gosden, she said, ``Please understand, the Kurds 
     were for practice.''

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  We in Congress must stand behind the President in granting him the 
authority to use military force against Iraq. The only chance to 
prevent war is to be prepared to go to war. We will not rush to war, 
but we cannot stand by while Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program 
poses a growing threat to our national security. Over the past few 
weeks, many have voiced a number of questions, including why we must 
take action at this moment, how long our armed forces may be in Iraq, 
and what the humanitarian, economic, and political costs of a military 
response may be. These are all valid concerns and questions I have 
considered. Ultimately, we must decide whether the threats we face 
merit the risk of American lives. The consequences of this vote are 
serious, and I have not had to make a more difficult decision in my 20 
years in Congress. I believe that support for this resolution will send 
a strong, decisive signal to Saddam Hussein that his continued 
violation of U.N. Security Resolutions will not be tolerated.
  This vote is evidence that the challenges we face today are unique in 
the context of our history. We as a nation, could not have prevented 
the horrific acts of September 11th and I witnessed the destruction 
firsthand, at both the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Because 
of the events of September 11th, we cannot wait to act on a threat to 
our nation and to the American people, lest we allow ourselves to be 
victims once again. We are faced with a situation in which the lessons 
of history speak clearly of danger, and we face a threat unlike any 
other in history. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has proven himself to 
be a ruthless and unpredictable enemy, and even the slightest threat 
posed by his regime is one that we are unable to ignore without great 
risk to our national security. The world has come to know a long and 
terrible list of grievances against Saddam Hussein, including the 
brutal repression and torture of his political opponents, the use of 
chemical weapons against his own people, and his tireless pursuit of 
weapons of mass destruction. It is this record of brutality and 
tendency toward violence that should focus our attention on Iraq. 
Intelligence reports from both the United States and Great Britain 
highlight Iraq's relentless drive to produce chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons, and there is mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein is 
only 1-5 years away from nuclear weapons capability. Knowing that 
containment and deterrence are ineffective against the Iraqi regime, we 
have no choice. Knowing that Saddam Hussein has consistently violated 
United Nations resolutions we must act. We must act in a timely fashion 
to avoid the possibility that Saddam Hussein will use these weapons or 
that he would transfer these weapons to a terrorist organization such 
as Al Qaeda, which would not hesitate to use them against us. We cannot 
wait to protect ourselves until it is too late to do so. Now more than 
ever we must be proactive to protect Americans, our country, and our 
way of life.

  In 1991, after the United States and United Nations had demonstrated 
a willingness to peacefully resolve the crisis that followed the Iraqi 
invasion of Kuwait, and after Saddam Hussein refused to comply with 
several U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I cast my vote in favor of 
military action against Iraq. I voted for the resolution then because I 
believed that my support would help demonstrate that Congress, the 
President, and the American people stand together against Saddam 
Hussein's defiance.
  Since the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly 
demonstrated his disdain for the authority of international law by 
defying U.N. Security Council Resolutions that were designed to ensure 
that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. 
Inspections and sanctions have both failed in the past to address the 
threat posed by Iraq. We should work toward a viable U.N. Security 
Council Resolution and build an international coalition to support 
action to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. If we do take 
military action with such broad support, it will not set a precedent 
for preemption, but will boldly state the necessity for any future 
disputes to be resolved first through diplomatic channels.
  I firmly believe that diplomatic efforts should precede any military 
action before we commit our men and women to fight for peace and 
justice. At a recent briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell assured 
me that every effort is being made to reach an agreement on a U.N. 
Security Council Resolution, so that if we act, we will not act alone. 
Military power must not be the basis of our strategy, but should be one 
of many options we have at our disposal. It is my hope that we will do 
all that we can to avoid armed conflict, but should we engage, we will 
do so to promote peace and protect our national security.

  Our unity in this vote will deliver a message to the international 
community that we as Americans share the belief that the threat we face 
is real, and that our cause is just. It is my hope that this vote is 
the first step toward increased peace and stability in the Middle East 
and a more secure future for the United States and for the world.
  I believe that a strong vote in favor of this resolution will prompt 
the American people, the United Nations, and the international 
community to join in support of action to neutralize the threat that is 
posed by Saddam Hussein and the proliferation of his program of weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, when my youngest daughter, Maggie, was 
only 5 years old, she was here with my family for the swearing-in 
ceremony for Members of the

[[Page H7409]]

House. Members were then casting their votes for our party leadership, 
and I tried to test her by asking her if we were Republicans or 
Democrats. ``We're Americans, aren't we Dad?'' was her reply. This is 
how I believe we, as Members of Congress, should view this vote. All of 
us want the best for the American people and I hope that partisanship 
can be put aside for the moment, as each of us vote our conscience. We 
have come together as a nation since September 11th, and we still must 
remain unified in the face of any threat to our nation. I urge a vote 
in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the most important and difficult decision a Member of 
Congress must make is the decision to send our troops--our sons, 
daughters, husbands and wives--in harm's way.
  Each member must do as I have done--listen to the arguments on both 
sides of the issue, assemble and review all available information and 
then do what they believe is in the best interest of our nation.
  Some people have questioned the President's motives and the timing of 
this resolution. A few members of this body traveled to Baghdad to meet 
with officials of the government of Iraq.
  Frankly, I was appalled to see a Member of the Congress from my party 
in Baghdad questioning the motives of President Bush. I do not question 
the President's motives. I believe the President is doing what he 
believes is in the best interest of our nation.
  After much though and deliberation, I have decided to vote against 
the resolution before us giving the President the discretion to send 
our troops to war in Iraq. I do so for the following reasons:
  First, I believe we have a moral obligation and a responsibility to 
exhaust every possible resolution before sending our troops into harm's 
way. I do not believe that we have attempted to assemble an 
international coalition similar to the coalition that President George 
Herbert Walker Bush brought together to undertake the mission of Desert 
Shield and Desert Storm in 1990-1991.
  Second, Iraq does not present a direct immediate threat to the United 
States. I have attended numerous briefings from the Bush administration 
on this topic, and I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why 
Saddam Hussein is a greater threat to us today than he was six months 
or a year ago. In fact, our intelligence agencies have concluded that 
Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack the United States unprovoked, but 
there is a real change that Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass 
destruction in response to an invasion.
  Last and more importantly, the President's decision to change our 
military doctrine from containment to preemptive action could have 
major ramifications to the United States and may lead to war between 
other countries.
  For the past 50 years, the United States has used our military troops 
to contain aggression against the U.S. and our allies. We have been 
able to persuade our allies to use restraint instead of their military 
under the most difficult circumstances and times. During the Persian 
Gulf war, the U.S. was able to persuade Israel to show great restraint 
while Saddam Hussein was deploying scud missiles toward Israel. Since 
the Persian Gulf war, the Israelis at the request of the United States 
have shown restraint in dealing with Arafat and the PLO.
  If the U.S military attacks a country in order to counter a perceived 
future security risk, other countries may very well adopt the same 
preemptive policy. Those countries are more likely to follow the U.S. 
and less likely to show restraint, with serious potential consequences 
for Israel and the Palestinians, India and Pakistan, Russia and 
Chechnya, China and Taiwan, and the list goes on.
  Secretary Colin Powell recently reminded us that other countries look 
to the United States for our leadership and example. I agree! I only 
hope that when looking to the United States that they do not adopt the 
new preemptive military policy and use that same policy against their 
enemies.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration should follow the example of the 
President's father prior to Desert Shield and during Desert Storm. We 
should be putting together an international coalition to send in weapon 
inspectors and if necessary take military action to disarm Saddam 
Hussein. A ``go it alone'' attitude or policy could have devastating 
consequences on our troops, the people of Israel and other parts of the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, therefore, I will vote against this resolution and in 
favor of the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to commit our young 
servicemen and women to a possible war in Iraq. It is important for 
everyone to understand the gravity of this vote and the legal, ethical 
and moral grounds for such a grave commitment of U.S. lives and 
resources.
  To date, I have received nearly 900 communications opposed to the 
United States acting unilaterally against Iraq and approximately 16 
communications in support of the President's position. No matter what 
the result of the vote on each proposed resolution, I am confident that 
every Member will rally around our brave young servicemen and women if 
or when they are committed to hostile action in Iraq or anywhere else 
in the world.
  Over the past few weeks, I have attended classified briefings on 
Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon, and with the President. In reflecting 
upon the views, opinions, and concerns expressed by my constituents, 
and after a thorough review of international law, it is clear that war 
with another country should only be declared if your country is 
directly attacked; if another nation is an accomplice in the attack on 
your country; if there is an immediate pending attack on your country; 
and, finally, if there is defiance of international law in the 
community.
  To rush headlong into war without world support under any one of 
these four conditions violates every principle and every ideal on which 
this great Nation is founded and on which a free and democratic world 
exists.
  In review of these four principles, there is no question that Iraq 
did not directly attack America. The evidence is also clear that Iraq 
was not an accomplice with the al Qaeda attacks on America. If there 
was any complicity by Iraq and Saddam Hussein, I am confident the 
President would have addressed this complicity in his U.N. address or 
in Monday's speech to the American people. In the classified briefings, 
no one could document with any certainty Iraq's complicity in the 
attacks on America.
  There is no dispute that Iraq is not an immediate imminent military 
threat to the United States at this time. Some people would argue 
Saddam Hussein will give biological, chemical or nuclear weapons when 
obtained to terrorist groups, but there has been no credible evidence 
provided to House Members of these weapons being supplied to 
terrorists.
  Individuals may still argue that we must assume that Iraq must have 
an accomplice with the al Qaeda attacks of September 11. If we wish to 
make this assumption, and it is only an assumption, not fact, then the 
President already has the authority to use ``all necessary and 
appropriate force against Iraq.'' If Saddam Hussein and Iraq are 
directly or indirectly responsible in any way with the attacks of 
September 11, the President has the authorization to take whatever 
means necessary to bring them to justice. The authority was given to 
the President just 3 days after the cowardly attacks on our country.
  The link between the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein is so 
tangential even the President cannot justify military action against 
Saddam Hussein and Iraq based on complicity.
  The strongest claim for military action against Iraq is its continued 
defiance of international law since the 1991

[[Page H7410]]

Gulf War cease-fire. It is on this principle that President Bush went 
to the U.N. to seek their approval to use the U.S. military to enforce 
U.N. resolutions against Iraq. The legal, ethical and moral 
justification to get rid of Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq is 
enforcement of international law, the U.N. resolutions.
  The United States has never invoked a first strike invasion of 
another nation based on a fear of what might happen tomorrow. Now is 
not the time for a first strike policy based on fear, but let us strike 
with the support of the U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a 
multinational force to once and for all rid the world of Saddam 
Hussein.
  If we now allow the U.S. military to invade a nation or change a 
regime because of fear, then the goals of terrorism have been 
accomplished. If we allow the U.S. to become a first-strike nation in 
the name of defeating terrorism because of the possibility of future 
terrorist attacks, this opens the world to a Pandora's box of selected 
conflicts around the world. The U.S. would lose its moral, ethical and 
legal grounds and its stature to protest or to prevent, for example, 
Russia from invading Georgia to hunt down Chechnya rebels, Pakistan 
from invading India, or China from invading Taiwan.
  In our world, terrorism would now be defined and determined by the 
aggressor nation. The United States would lose its legal and moral 
ability to protest, as it did in 1979, the Soviet army's invasion of 
Afghanistan.
  The situation in Iraq must be addressed, but we must not be seen as 
moving forward unilaterally, and we must not alienate our allies who 
support it and fought with us in the Persian Gulf War.



                          ____________________