[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7413-H7442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H7413]]

House of Representatives

                              {time}  1945
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
            FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002--Continued

  Therefore, firm in my beliefs, buoyed by the input from my 
constituents, and strong in my faith in the principles and ideals of 
America, I will vote for the Spratt-Moran substitute resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker this is the most important vote I will have cast in my 20 
years in Congress. I was here to cast my vote to go to war against Iraq 
in 1991. That was a definable conflict involving an aggressor who had 
to be stopped by the international community. America provided the 
leadership both to develop the coalition effort and provided the 
military power needed to win the war decisively.
  Now we face a far greater threat: the threat of a government 
dedicated to methodical, committed development, production, and 
stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons, and ultimately to the 
development of a small transportable nuclear weapon. This threat is 
spearheaded by Iraq, but not posed by Iraq alone. I firmly believe that 
if we fail to develop an international response to turn back this new 
threat of far more mobile and potent weapons, the cost will be 
extraordinary in the sacrifice of innocent lives and the crippling 
effect on the world's economy and on the stability of governments 
throughout the world.
  We cannot allow nations, as a matter of their public policy, to 
develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that can be delivered 
in lethal amounts all around the world. Whether it be delivery through 
terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda or hard-to-detect drones with 
sprayer nozzles, there are now the means to deliver these weapons of 
mass destruction into the very hearts of our cities and towns. The 
attack of September 11 was only the most vivid and terrible 
demonstration of the power of hate to deliver death and destruction of 
incredible dimensions by stealth means.
  Make no mistake, for 4 years, ever since the arms inspectors left 
Iraq when they were prevented from doing their job, Iraq has been 
increasing its research, development, and production of chemical and 
biological weapons despite their international agreements not to do so. 
I believe the evidence on this matter is clear and convincing and that 
there is sufficient evidence of an accelerated effort to develop 
nuclear weapons to make action the only realistic course.
  We and the international community must act, not only to stop Iraq, 
but to demonstrate to other nations that are starting down the same 
path as Iraq that are developing chemical and biological arsenals that 
the international community will not tolerate such a development 
because it poses such an extraordinary threat to all nations' 
economies, governments, and the very fabric of human communities.
  I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and commend the President, 
Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld for working to unify the 
international community in the face of this new and unprecedented 
threat. I firmly believe, as the President has said, that war is 
neither imminent nor unavoidable. But I believe that the passage of 
this resolution will make an effective peaceful multilateral response 
more likely because it represents the depth of our commitment to the 
goal of Iraqi disarmament and the elimination of the threat of chemical 
and biological weapons in tandem with the power of terrorist 
organizations and the stealthy delivery systems so clearly under 
development in Iraq.
  Failure to act as we have for 4 years is no longer an option. We must 
prevent the accumulation of chemical and biological weapons and the 
development of increasingly stealthy means of delivery before these 
weapons are used against us and others.
  I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to be heard on this historic 
occasion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), my friend and colleague who serves on the 
Committee on Ways and Means and is a leader in the Massachusetts 
delegation.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House to carry out one of the 
most important responsibilities that an elected Member of this 
institution has, to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of 
military force. It is a profound responsibility and one that I take 
most seriously.
  Even Mr. Lincoln, as a Member of this House, wrestled with the issue 
of war-making powers when in 1848, in a letter to his law partner, 
William Herndon, voiced concern that Congress should not give unlimited 
powers to the executive. I share Mr. Lincoln's views on this important 
subject.
  Everyone in this Chamber agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat to 
his own people, his neighbors, and the entire civilized world. He is a 
tyrant intent on developing weapons of mass destruction and the means 
to deliver them. His many atrocities have been catalogued in this House 
and the Senate during this important debate, and his dictatorial regime 
is held in contempt around the globe. That is why

[[Page H7414]]

any attempt to disarm or to replace him, and I support both, should be 
done with the support of our friends and allies in the international 
community.
  Unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption are dangerous precedents 
that the United States may be setting. Such action is contrary to our 
country's core values and principles. Efforts to neutralize Iraq's 
chemical, biological, and nuclear threat should be done with the 
support of an international coalition and in accordance with 
international law. In my opinion and the opinion of many allies around 
the world, there are many compelling alternatives to acting alone and 
the immediate use of force as the first option. Here is one.
  It is my belief that we need a new unambiguous resolution from the 
United Nations Security Council calling for the immediate and 
unfettered weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iraq. This new 
resolution should be unconditional, have clear time tables, and must 
exclude the unreasonable 1998 language that restricts inspectors from 
visiting Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Nothing should be off 
limits. It will hold Iraq permanently accountable to the international 
community. Saddam Hussein will have only two stark choices. He can 
accept robust inspections and begin to disarm or pay serious 
consequences, and I urge the United Nations to act immediately.
  In preparation for this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have had an 
opportunity to talk and listen to many people about the merits of this 
resolution. I went to my constituents in Massachusetts, colleagues in 
Washington, and officials of administrations past and present. And each 
time I came away with more questions than answers. Important and timely 
questions about the wider implications of a unilateral war with Iraq 
should be answered.
  The administration must tell the American people in clear and concise 
terms what impact a unilateral strike against Iraq would have on the 
already tenuous situation in the Middle East. In 1990 Saddam Hussein 
launched 39 SCUD missiles into the heart of Israel. Does anyone doubt 
that he would do it again? Twelve years ago the State of Israel showed 
restraint in the face of such attacks; but as we debate this resolution 
this evening, the Israeli Government has indicated it will defend 
itself against any Iraqi initiative.
  What does this mean for the security of the region? Any attempt to 
restore the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians 
would be lost in the short term. What about Iran, Syria, and Libya, who 
are all engaged in active programs to develop weapons of mass 
destruction and the means to deliver them? How do we respond to a 
unilateral, preemptive American strike against Iraq?
  We should not minimize the far-reaching implications of a first 
strike and a new doctrine of preemption. Indeed, it may have unintended 
consequences in other parts of the world, in conflicts between India 
and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia. On the verge of 
this historic vote, these questions need to be answered before we reach 
a decision to send our young Americans into harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, if we suddenly turn our attention to a unilateral war 
with Iraq, what are the implications for the ongoing war on terrorism? 
Since the attacks of September 11, we have waged a war on terrorism 
with the support of friends and allies around the globe. I have 
supported President Bush and commended his leadership time and again 
for his war on terrorism. But will the United States continue to 
receive the same level of support and cooperation from countries that 
do not support a unilateral preemptive strike on Iraq?
  Ironically, there is one aspect of this debate where there are 
definitive answers, and I ask this tonight: How much is this war going 
to cost the American people? The Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that the incremental cost of deploying a force to the Persian 
Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war 
would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. After hostilities 
end, and we do not know how long they are going to last, the cost to 
return our troops home would range between $5 billion and $7 billion. 
If, as President Bush insisted, we intend to rebuild Iraq, the costs to 
the American taxpayer will rise exponentially.
  In the Gulf War with the support of an international coalition, the 
costs of the war was shared by our friends and allies. This will not be 
the case with unilateral action. The burden conceivably will rise to 
$200 billion, and it will not be ours alone if we do this with the 
support of the Security Council.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not been persuaded that unilateralism and the 
doctrine of preemption is the best course of action against Iraq. From 
my perspective, a preferable course of action is to enlist the support 
of the international community and demand a strict review by U.N. 
inspectors. We should take the diplomatic and political route before 
bringing this Nation to war, and I plan to vote against this 
resolution.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most important vote that I ever will cast in 
this House. Deciding when to send our troops into harm's way is never 
easy and must not be made without serious consideration.
  My father was a career Air Force sergeant and B-52 tail gunner, and I 
remember worrying every time he left for a flight that he would not 
return. So I have some idea of what is going through the hearts and the 
minds of the families of our troops. And growing up on military bases, 
I personally knew the people willing to put their lives on the line to 
protect our great Nation. I see my late father in all of them, and I 
remain committed to making sure if we have to send our troops into 
battle that they will have all the support and resources they need.
  Threat from international terrorism is real. The threat from weapons 
of mass destruction is real. That is why it was so important to stress 
that we have moved away from unilateral action. My colleagues and I 
stood strong on our principles and got the administration to agree to 
the changes in the Iraq resolution. We felt that these changes were 
necessary to protect our Nation and the world from Saddam Hussein and 
ensure that military force would be used as a last resort.
  On Monday President Bush told the Nation and the world that approving 
this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or 
unavoidable. He has asked Congress to authorize the use of America's 
military, if it proves necessary. The American people are taking him at 
his word. We in Congress are taking him at his word. I hope that 
military action will not be necessary, but I am prepared to support our 
troops if all other efforts fail.
  This resolution does not indicate abandonment but rather, I believe, 
an extension of the fight against terrorists. We will continue to 
improve homeland security and to find terrorist organizations wherever 
they may hide. This resolution retains the constitutional power of 
Congress in defense and foreign affairs. It does not justify unilateral 
military action by any country anywhere.

                              {time}  2000

  It is limited to Iraq, a nation that has made promises and then 
deliberately refused to live up to them.
  This resolution retains the constitutional power in defense and 
foreign affairs. This is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. We will be 
kept informed and can, if necessary, restrain any abuse of power.
  It also seeks to compel the entire international community to back 
efforts to compel Iraq to comply with the world's will as expressed in 
various U.N. resolutions. International support is vital. It will show 
the world that this is not a dispute between the United States and 
Iraq. It is not a dispute between American and Arab. It is not a 
dispute between cultures. If conflict occurs, the blame rests solely 
with Saddam Hussein, who first invaded Kuwait and then refused to 
accept the consequences of his actions.
  We have the best-trained and best-equipped Armed Forces in the world. 
I have no doubt that they will do whatever is asked of them and that 
they will succeed.

[[Page H7415]]

  But war is not cheap, in blood or treasure. Sacrifices will be made 
by our troops and their families. But the rest of us will have to 
shoulder our fair share of the burden. We will have to pay for this 
action, just as my parents paid for World War II and my grandparents 
paid for World War I, because we must not pass the cost of this war on 
to our children and our grandchildren. Our country needs to be prepared 
for the cost of the war, in both human life and limited government 
resources.
  I have promised our troops that they will not go wanting. I now 
promise the rest of America that I will not forget your needs. Each of 
us knows what needs those are, because we hear about them from people 
every day.
  We must provide for our common defense abroad or else we will never 
be secure at home. But we will not lose sight of our priorities at 
home. We will prevail. We will execute our constitutional duty to 
provide for the common defense, and we will provide for the general 
welfare at home.
  I, therefore, will support the resolution on final passage.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a voice for justice that we have 
heard for many, many years, a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks before election seems to be an odd time to be 
authorizing war. It is especially odd when President Bush himself said 
at the United Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering 
threat,'' not an imminent threat. For a month, this debate has frozen 
off the front pages Social Security, prescription drugs, rising 
unemployment, growing deficits, robbery of pension accounts, corporate 
abuses and the inaction of this Congress itself.
  The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman 
Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on 
President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark, 
who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to 
go it alone.'' Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said an 
attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron, and 
thus destroy the war on terrorism.''
  Last weekend, Israel's Chief of Military Intelligence, speaking on 
television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from 
nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like 4 
years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's.
  Yes, Congress, on behalf of the American people must decide whether 
the United States incursion now into Iraq will make our country more 
secure and whether it will make that region more stable. On both 
counts, my conclusion is no.
  It will not make America safer, because unilateral military action 
without broad international support will isolate America further. It 
will thrust us into the position of becoming a common enemy in a 
volatile region where anti-western terrorism grows with each passing 
year.
  It will not make the region more stable either. The Bush approach 
will yield more terrorism and instability, not less.
  We should insist on rigorous inspections in concert with our allies 
and enforce all U.N. resolutions relating to the Middle East.
  Indeed, if the politics of the oil regimes and lethal force had been 
successful over the past 25 years, America's citizens would not be the 
victims of escalating terrorist violence at home and abroad.
  Since 1975, more American diplomats and military personnel have been 
killed or taken hostage as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in 
the first 187 years of our Nation's history, and it worsens with each 
decade. After 9/1l, 13,025 additional names of civilians here at home 
were added to that growing list.
  Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and 
terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an 
instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism will not 
disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. The enemy has many fresh 
faces. They spring daily from the growing resentment of western 
influence over an Islamic world that is awakening to its own political 
destiny. America must not wed itself to the past but to the rising 
aspirations of subjugated people; and we must do it in concert with our 
friends, both inside the Arab world and outside it.
  What propels the violence? A deep and powerful undercurrent moving 
people to violence in that region. It is the unresolved Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
  The other major destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous 
dependence on imported oil, whose purchases undergird repressive 
regimes. We must address both.
  Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June, 
1968, with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His 
disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in his diary that loss 
of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his discontent. 
Sirhan Sirhan is one such face.
  The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the 
lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution until 
today, and its irresolution instructs the street and produces sacred 
rage.
  Now, let us look at oil, the one word the President left out of his 
address in Cincinnati. As the 1970s proceeded, America's economic 
security became to be shaped more and more by events abroad. Thrust 
into two deep recessions due to the Arab oil embargoes as petroleum 
prices shot through the roof, our economy faltered. And the current 
recession, too, has been triggered by rising oil prices.
  Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home, 
sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence, from the undemocratic regimes 
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, to also include the state-owned 
monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military 
enforces the no-fly zones over Iraq, we import 8 percent of our oil 
from her. America has become more and more hostage to the oil regimes, 
with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic 
fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world.
  Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest 
face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of 
western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified 
Islamic caliphate.
  Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia 
where 17 of the 19 hijackers originated.
  By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been 
control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne 
shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable 
foe. In the 1990s, he conventionally invaded Kuwait; and the raw truth 
is he never got what he expected, which was access through Kuwait to 
the Gulf.
  When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved 
Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory, but 
essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that 
oil. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more American life?
  Before launching another war, Congress must vote to place our 
priorities where they belong, security here at home and a valued 
partner in the global community of nations.
  Please vote for the Spratt-Skelton resolution and no on the Hastert-
Gephardt resolution.
  Three weeks before election seems an odd time to be authorizing war.
  It is especially odd when President Bush himself said at the United 
Nations that Iraq represents a ``grave and gathering threat,'' not an 
``imminent threat.'' For a month, this debate has frozen off the front 
pages Social Security, prescription drugs, rising unemployment, growing 
deficits, robbery of pension accounts, corporate abuses and the 
inaction of this Congress.
  The generals have not weighed in either. Retired General Norman 
Schwartzkopf, who headed the Persian Gulf War campaign, called on 
President Bush ``not to go it alone.'' Retired General Wesley Clark, 
who headed up the Balkans campaign, called on President Bush ``not to 
go it alone.'' Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said an 
attack on Iraq without addressing the problems of the Israeli-

[[Page H7416]]

Palestinian conflict ``could turn the whole region into a cauldron and 
thus destroy the war on terrorism.''
  In Cincinnati, President Bush said Iraq is seeking nuclear 
capability. He did not say Iraq had such a capability. And never has 
Saddam Hussein risked his regime's annihilation, which would be a 
certainty if he exhibits any adventurism.
  The Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday (Tuesday) that a Central 
Intelligence Agency report, which was released last Friday, concluded 
that it could take Iraq until the last half of this decade to produce a 
nuclear weapon, unless it could acquire bomb grade uranium or plutonium 
on the black market.
  Intelligence sources confirm chemical capabilities have been 
substantially reduced as a result of inspectors and Iraq's armed forces 
are 40% of their strength prior to the Gulf War.
  The President claimed Iraq had acquired smooth aluminum tubes for its 
secret nuclear weapons program. But analysts at the Energy and State 
Departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make 
conventional artillery pieces. On chemical and biological weapons, all 
the evidence indicates the inspection regime of the 1980s worked and 
that civilized nations are effective in dismantling rogue states' 
arsenals when they join in common cause.
  Last weekend, Israel's chief of military intelligence, speaking on 
television, disputed contentions that Iraq is 18 months away from 
nuclear capability. He concluded Iraq's time frame was more like four 
years, and he said Iran's nuclear threat was as great as Iraq's. I 
daresay Israel's chief of military intelligence is not the type of 
person who would engage in self-delusion.
  Yet, Congress, on behalf of the American people, must decide: whether 
U.S. military incursion now into Iraq will make our country more 
secure, whether it will make that region more stable.
  On both counts, my conclusion is ``No.''
  It won't make America safer because unilaterial military action, 
without broad international support, will isolate America further. It 
will thrust us into the position of becoming a ``common enemy'' in a 
volatile region where anti-Western terrorism grows with each passing 
year.
  It won't make the region more stable, either. The Bush approach will 
yield more terrorism and instability, not less. We should insist on 
rigorous inspections in concert with our allies and enforce all U.N. 
resolutions relating to the Middle East. Indeed, if the politics of the 
oil regimes and lethal force had been successful over the past 25 
years, America's citizens would not be the victims of escalating 
terrorist violence at home and abroad. Since 1975, more American 
diplomats and military personnel have been killed or taken hostage 
abroad as a result of Middle Eastern tumult than in the first 187 years 
of our nation's history. And it worsens with each decade. After 9/11, 
3025 additional names of civilians here at home were added to that 
growing list.
  Look more deeply at the roots of the rising levels of hatred and 
terrorism toward our people. Even if Iraq were able to serve as an 
instrument of global terrorism, the causes of that terrorism would not 
disappear with the demise of Saddam Hussein. Terrorists are being 
molded every day.
  Look at the enemy. It is not conventional. It is not faceless. The 
enemy has many fresh faces. They spring daily from the growing 
resentment of Western influence over an Islamic world that is awakening 
to its own political destiny. America must not wed itself to the past 
but to the rising aspirations of subjugated people, and we must do so 
in concert with our friends both inside the Arab world and outside it.
  What propels the violence?
  A deep and powerful undercurrent moving people to violence in that 
region is the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The other major 
destabilizing force is America's utter and dangerous dependence on 
imported oil whose purchases undergird repressive regimes. We must 
address both.
  Think about it. Modern terrorism dawned in our homeland in June 1968. 
with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The unresolved Israel-
Palestinian conflict lay at the basis of that tragic loss. His 
disgruntled assassin, a Jordanian Arab, revealed in this diary that 
loss of his homeland in East Jerusalem lay at the root of his 
discontent. Sirhan Sirhan is one such face.
  The intifada now proceeding in the West Bank and Gaza proves the 
lingering tragedy of the Holy Land resists peaceful resolution event 
until today and its irresolution instructs the street and produces 
sacred rage.
  Now, let's look at oil . . . the one word the President left out of 
his address in Cincinnati. As the 1970's proceeded, America's economic 
security came to be shaped by events abroad. Thrust into two deep 
recessions due to Arab oil embargoes as petroleum prices shot through 
the roof, our economy faltered. The current recession too has been 
triggered by rising oil prices.
  In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election because economic 
conditions at home so deteriorated. Carter had dubbed Arab oil price 
manipulation as the ``moral equivalent of war.'' He had launched a 
major effort to restore America's energy independence.
  Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected in a campaign that 
highlighted the ``misery index,'' the combination of unemployment and 
interest rates exploding over 20 percent.
  By the 1980's, OPEC's cartel had realized that it lost revenue when 
America caught economic pneumonia. So OPEC learned something it 
practices to this very day: how to dance a clever pirouette of price 
manipulation rather than outright price gouging.
  Meanwhile, America, rather than becoming energy independent at home, 
sinks deeper into foreign oil dependence--from the undemocratic regimes 
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq to also include the state-owned 
monopolies of Nigeria and Venezuela and Mexico. While our military 
enforces the no-fly zone over Iraq, we import 8% of our oil from her.
  America has become more and more an economic hostage to the oil 
regimes, with our future intertwined with the politics that Islamic 
fundamentalism breeds in the Muslim world.
  America's ill-fraught alliances with unpopular Middle East regimes 
was vividly revealed in 1979 when Iran, though not an oil state, fell 
despite the fact the U.S. and our CIA had supported its Shah and his 
secret police, purportedly to assure regional stability. It produced 
exactly the opposite--a revolution.
  Recall 1983, in the thick of Lebanon's civil war, when suicide 
bombers attacked the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241 
Americans. They were caught in the crossfire of that civil war. From 
that point forward, U.S. casualties escalated every year, as more and 
more U.S. citizens were killed abroad and at home. If you travel to 
Lebanon today, our U.S. embassy is built like a bunker, underground. 
This is happening to U.S. facilities around the world.
  Here is our nation's capital--barricades, concrete barriers, truck-
bomb checks have become commonplace. A citizen can no longer drive down 
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. It is blocked off. We 
now have red, orange, yellow warning lights across the land. It is 
harder for our people to access their institutions of government. Block 
by block, our freedom is being circumscribed. In 1993, at the World 
Trade Center, six people died and one thousand were injured here at 
home in a bombing masterminded by a Pakistani trained in Afghanistan. 
In 1996, a truck bomb killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia at Khobar 
Towers, a residence for American military personnel. Last week a Green 
Beret was killed in Manila by a terrorist bomb, and yesterday in Kuwait 
two U.S. military personnel were fired upon--one died. Dozens of such 
tragedies now happen each year, and the body count mounts.
  Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, is but the latest 
face of international terrorism. Al Qaeda's goal is expulsion of 
Western influence in the Gulf and the creation of a religious, unified 
Islamic caliphate. But Al Qaeda and Osama are not Iraqi.
  Mohammed Atta grew up in the undemocratic oil regimes of Saudi Arabia 
where 17 of 19 hijackers originated. They believed in the religious 
fundamentalism of the Wahhabi sect, but not its economic imperative 
that holds power through billions earned from vast oil reserves. 
Despite oil wealth, the king has become less and less able to control 
the disgruntled in that society, who resent the secular nature of the 
religious kingdom.
  By contrast, the goal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party has been 
control of the vast oil deposits in Iraq and access to waterborne 
shipping in the Persian Gulf. Hussein has been a fairly predictable 
foe. In 1990, he conventionally invaded Kuwait. The raw truth is he 
received his early encouragement and support from the first Reagan-Bush 
Administration, in the early 1980s. That administration engaged Saddam 
Hussein and provided him with resources, and credits to depose Iran's 
Ayatollah Khomeini, who had just deposed the CIA-supported Shah in 
1979. Through his U.S. contacts, Hussein assumed Iraq's quid pro quo 
would be access to the Persian Gulf on Bubiyan Island. Kuwait, however, 
never agreed.
  When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved 
Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory. Iraq also 
surmised that Kuwait was asking too low a price for oil sold to the 
West. Yes, America went to war to defend Kuwait's border. But 
essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that 
oil. Subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, America began stationing more 
and more troops in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to guard the oil flow out 
of the Persian Gulf. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more life?
  Of course, these forces also conveniently offered some threat to 
unwelcome enemies of the Saudi regime, at home and abroad. Anti-

[[Page H7417]]

western resentment in the region continues to rise. In 2000, our 
destroyer USS Cole was suicide bombed in Yemen harbor guarding the oil 
flows. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed and 39 wounded.
  Over the last quarter century, it is interesting to reflect upon the 
intimate connection between the George Bush family, oil, and the 
shaping of foreign policy towards the Middle East. During the 1950s and 
1960s, George Herbert Walker Bush, an oilman from Midland, Texas sought 
international exploration and investments as Texas oil wells were 
depleted prior to seeking office. In the 1960s and early 1970s, George 
Herbert Walker Bush served in the U.S. House, Senate, U.S. Ambassador 
to China, and was appointed head of the CIA in 1976 and served until 
March 1977.

  Simultaneous with George Herbert Walker Bush's service in the CIA, 
Syria sent troops to Lebanon to stem the civil war, the Iranian 
Revolution gained steam, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to 
Jerusalem and became the first Arab leader to recognize Israel.
  George Herbert Walker Bush served as Vice President from 1981 to 1989 
and as President from 1989 until 1993. During this period, the U.S. was 
drawn more directly into a central role in Middle East security.
  In 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, President George 
Herbert Walker Bush fashioned a U.S.-led coalition of nations to push 
Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. More than 400,000 U.S. troops were 
involved in that war. One hundred forty Americans died in that war, 
thousands have sustained war injuries and tens of thousands of Iraqis 
died.
  With each succeeding decade, wars involving terrorism and America 
escalated. Now George Bush's son is serving as President and a second 
war resolution is being contemplated. It is fair to say that the Bush 
view of the Middle East literally has dominated U.S. policy for 75 
percent of the past two decades.
  9/11 was but the latest chapter in the expanding violence.
  It is also important to inquire as to what private oil interests in 
the Middle East are held, or were held, by key officials in the current 
Bush Administration and how that might influence their views of U.S. 
``vital interests.''
  In the past, according to the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Studies 
Project (supported by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of 
Sciences). George W. Bush sat on the board of Harken Oil of Grand 
Prairie, Texas, as a private citizen, and held major oil company 
involvement in Bahrain both professionally and personally.
  Halliburton, the firm that hired Vice-President Dick Cheney as its 
CEO subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, had previously operated in 
Iraq. During the early 1980's, Vice-President Chaney served as U.S. 
Secretary of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld as one of his Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense.
  Newspaper reports now indicate that during that same period, 
biological and chemical germ samples were transferred to Iraq from the 
government of the United States through the Center for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons 
inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons 
program. Indeed, the U.S. government provided agricultural credits to 
Iraq to finance these transactions and the purchase of large amounts of 
fertilizer and chemicals to be used in Iraq's protracted war with Iran.
  Congressional records and CDC documents for that period show Iraq 
ordered the samples, and claimed them for legitimate medical research. 
The CDC and a biological sample company called the American Type 
Culture Collection sent strains of several germs. The transfers were 
made in the 1980's.
  Included among these strains: anthrax, the bacteria that make 
botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene. Iraq also got 
samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus. 
Senator Robert Byrd has questioned Secretary Rumsfeld, as President 
Reagan's envoy to the Middle East at that time, inquiring about how 
contacts were made with Iraq to transfer chemical and biological agents 
from the U.S. to Iraq as its launched its attacks on Iran.

  Before launching another war, this one unilaterally, Congress must 
vote to place U.S. priorities where they belong--security here at home 
and a valued partner in the global community of nations.
  Three policy prescriptions deserve greater weight.
  First, inspection now, rigorous and full, in legion with the world 
community.
  Second, America must restore energy independence here at home. If we 
could land a man on the moon in 10 years, surely we can gather 
ourselves to master this scientific imperative. No longer should oil 
become a proxy for America's foreign policy. Our economic relations 
should not reward dictatorships.
  Third, the U.S. must regain momentum to find a solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should dispatch former 
U.S. Senators George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to the Middle East as 
ambassadors without portfolio to exercise their considerable talents.
  In closing, let me re-emphasize:
  What is the ``imminent threat'' to the United States that justifies 
going to war now?
  Where is the hard evidence of the new threat?
  With unilateral action, how will the United States avoid being viewed 
in the Islamic world as a ``common enemy?''
  What specific threat justifies abandoning 50 years of strategic 
policy in favor of a unilateral policy of pre-emption?
  Who would succeed Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq? How would a 
partitioned Iraq be a stabilizing force?
  Does the United States want to engage in nation building in 
Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously?
  Who will pay for this nation building?
  When will the United States wean itself from its dangerous dependence 
on foreign oil, which takes money from our people and distorts our 
foreign policy?
  Why should the U.S. military be asked to serve as an occupying force 
in Afghanistan and Iraq?
  What makes Iraq's threat to the United States so much more serious 
today that it was four months ago or even two years ago?
  In closing, let not America be perceived as the ``bully on the 
block'' in the most oil-rich region of the world, where not one 
democratic state exists. Vote for security. Vote for stability. Vote 
for energy independence. Vote for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. Vote for Spratt-Skelton. Vote ``no'' on the Hastert-Gephardt 
resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman for his 
leadership on human rights and on safety throughout the world.
  You have to ask yourself at a serious time like this, was not 9/11 
enough? Was not 9/11 enough to spur America's resolve to defend our own 
country?
  I support this resolution because the first responsibility of our 
government is to defend American citizens. The government of Iraq, like 
our terrorist nations, presents a grave threat to the safety, to the 
security, to the well-being of every American that hears this debate 
tonight.
  We are in the early stages of what is likely to be a very long war 
against terrorism. In his September 20th, 2001, address to a Joint 
Session of Congress here in this Chamber, President Bush vowed that 
America would not rest until we had rooted out terrorism around the 
world. He said the countries harboring terrorists would be treated as 
terrorist nations themselves; that the coming war would be a long one, 
to be measured in years, rather than months.
  The Afghanistan campaign is the first step in putting that pledge 
into action, and much remains to be done. Does anyone seriously believe 
that terrorism began and ended in Afghanistan?
  Disarming Iraq and its support for state-sponsored terrorism is the 
next logical step to secure peace for our families and for this world. 
As we were reminded again this afternoon with the released audiotape of 
bin Laden's second in command predicting yet more terrorist attacks on 
America, the question is not if America will be attacked again here at 
home, but when and by whom.
  Instead of crashing airplanes into our downtown office buildings or 
into our Pentagon, the terrorists of the future will turn to dangerous 
chemical and biological weapons, attempts to poison our air and water, 
disrupt our energy supply, our economy, our electronic commerce, 
destroy the jobs we rely upon each day.
  Yes, they will direct these weapons of terrible destruction toward 
America, because standing as the world's lone superpower means standing 
as the world's biggest target. Our homeland,

[[Page H7418]]

our communities, our schools, our neighborhoods and millions of 
American lives are at risk as we speak tonight.
  It is clear to me we are going to fight this war on terrorism in one 
of two ways: either overseas at its source, or here at home when it 
lands in our neighborhoods. I choose overseas at its source.
  America's security at home depends upon largely our strength in the 
world. Terrorism expands according to our willingness to tolerate it. 
For too long the world has turned a blind eye to terrorism, afraid to 
confront it; and terrorism has flourished because the actions of our 
world leaders never matched their harsh words.
  Well, that is all over now. That all changed September 11. That all 
changed with President Bush.
  For the sake of our homeland, we must mean what we say. For the sake 
of our children, we must follow through on our vow to end terrorism. If 
the United Nations efforts should fail, if Saddam Hussein chooses to 
continue to arm himself and harbor terrorists, then America must act. 
Words alone are not enough. And when we send U.S. troops overseas, it 
must be to win and to return home as planned.
  Our first President said there is nothing so likely to produce peace 
as to be well-prepared to meet an enemy. We know the enemy, we know the 
difficulty, we know the duty, and we know the strength of America's 
military men and women.
  The resolution before the House tonight is not a question of the 
President's persuasiveness. It is a question of Congress' resolve to 
whip this terrible war on terrorism.
  We know where the President stands. The question is, where does 
Congress stand, and do we stand with him? I do, and I am proud to do 
so. Make it clear, our resolve is not for war today; it is for peace 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  2015

  Our resolve is not for security for America alone, but for security 
for the world, a world free of fear from horror, from the incredible 
weapons of mass destruction, from all of that terrorism spawns.
  All I seek and all Americans seek is a simple request: when our 
families leave our homes each morning, that they return home safely 
each night. Was not 9-11 enough for America to act to protect our 
citizens? It is.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the 
House Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America's view of 
the world changed. On that day, many Americans learned, for the first 
time, that there were people in the world who hated America so much 
that they would cross the oceans to come here to kill thousands of 
American men, women, and children, even if it meant they would die 
themselves.
  In considering the resolution before us, I have weighed all of the 
pros and cons, all the risks of action and the risks of inaction, with 
September 11 very much in my mind. I believe that any close question on 
matters of national security must now be resolved in favor of erring on 
the side of being proactive and not reactive in protecting our people 
and our homeland.
  I have spent a tremendous amount of time and study over the past 
several months on what to do about Saddam Hussein. I have engaged in 
dialogue with many of my constituents, spoken with experts on every 
side of this issue, and read literally thousands of pages of analysis. 
I can delineate as well as any opponent of this resolution all of the 
possible and considerable risks associated with military action against 
Saddam Hussein. However, in the end, I conclude, beyond any reasonable 
doubt, that America must join forces with our allies, hopefully under 
the express authorization of the United Nations, but that we must take 
action to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his weapons of mass 
destruction against us.
  Now, especially in the light and shadow of September 11, there is a 
new immediacy and power to Saddam Hussein's long-standing and often-
stated threats against America.
  For years, Saddam Hussein has been a well-known patron and financier 
of some of the world's most lethal anti-American terrorists and 
terrorist organizations. Now, al Qaeda has joined them. After being 
driven from Afghanistan, al Qaeda has now sought and received safe 
haven from Saddam Hussein. Saddam is now training al Qaeda in bomb-
making and the manufacture and delivery of poisonous and deadly gases.
  We know that for years al Qaeda has been trying to get their hands on 
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to use against America and 
Americans. The thought of Saddam Hussein now infecting willing al Qaeda 
``martyrs'' with his smallpox virus and sending them into America's 
major cities, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to die of 
smallpox, is truly terrifying. The thought of Saddam Hussein sending 
these same al Qaeda martyrs to America to spray chemical or biological 
poisons over America's reservoirs or in our most populated cities is a 
thought so horrifying, yet so real a possibility, that I cannot, in 
good conscience, especially after the surprise attack of September 11, 
permit this to happen.
  I, therefore, endorse this resolution. I do so, however, with a heavy 
heart. I do so yet with no reasonable doubt that preventing Saddam 
Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction against us is 
necessary now if we are to avoid another 9-11 or worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray that military action is not necessary and that 
alone, passage of this resolution will result in Saddam Hussein's 
compliance with all existing U.N. resolutions to disarm and to permit 
unconditional inspections. But in the end, that is Saddam Hussein's 
choice.
  Mr. Speaker, as we pass this resolution, let us pray for the safety 
of all Americans, including the brave men and women in our military, 
law enforcement, and all other branches of our government who are today 
protecting us here at home and in countries around the world and who 
will be called upon to do so tomorrow or in the days ahead. God bless 
them and God bless America.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, tonight we discuss giving the President 
the authority to use military force against Iraq. As the Congressman 
from the first district of Kentucky, I have the privilege of 
representing the fine men and women of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, home of 
the 101st Airborne, Air Assault Division, the 5th Special Forces Group, 
and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, better known as the 
Night Stalkers.
  These soldiers were among the first to engage the Taliban in 
Afghanistan and, unfortunately, the first to suffer casualties.
  If we go to war with Iraq, they will again be the tip of the spear 
thrusting at our enemies, and they will again, sadly, be among the 
first to suffer casualties. Hopefully, that will not occur.
  When I vote later this week, I may be putting my friends and 
neighbors on the frontline of combat. It is not a decision that any of 
us takes lightly. Therefore, after much deliberation, I have 
reluctantly concluded that Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a 
threat that we cannot ignore.
  For 11 years Saddam Hussein has defied U.N. resolution after 
resolution, while continuing his drive to acquire weapons of mass 
destruction. For years, he hindered and toyed with U.N. weapons 
inspectors in defiance of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. He 
has consorted with terrorists who are willing and eager to target 
innocent civilians in their war of hatred against the civilized world. 
He controls biological and chemical weapons, and we know he is trying 
to develop nuclear capability as well.
  We are the world's only remaining superpower; yet a small band of 
terrorists were able to cause unprecedented death and destruction here 
in America. We cannot wait for another attack to take more American 
lives before finally deciding to act.
  Another dead American man, woman, or child, struck down in their home 
or workplace by terrorist violence, would be an indictment of this 
Congress's failure to act while we had the chance.

[[Page H7419]]

I firmly believe that granting the President the authority he needs to 
continue to combat the menace of Saddam's regime is the best way to 
preserve peace, and I firmly believe that granting the President the 
authority he needs to combat the menace of Saddam's regime is the best 
way to help the Iraqi people.
  Our allies in the U.N., many of whom have explored reestablishing 
beneficial economic ties with Saddam Hussein's regime, are unlikely to 
take the necessary steps or approve our taking those steps to end 
Saddam's threat unless the U.S. leads the way.
  Since the President's speech to the United Nations, we have witnessed 
the rest of the civilized world awakening from its slumber and stealing 
itself for this necessary confrontation with Saddam Hussein. By uniting 
behind our President, we can send the world an indication of our 
resolve. If we show our allies that we consider the threat worth 
risking the lives of our soldiers, I believe our allies will support us 
in our endeavor.
  Mr. Speaker, my hometown newspaper recently noted that 60 million 
people died in World War II to teach the world that allowing tyranny to 
go unchecked was wrong. Let us not make that same mistake with Saddam 
Hussein.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a person who is a senior member of 
the Committee on Armed Services and has worked for persons in uniform 
for many years.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  I believe that taking action against Iraq at this time will take 
vital resources away from an even more pressing and dangerous threat: 
the war on al Qaeda. And this action, including the occupation and 
stabilization of the nation after the invasion, could drain our 
military resources for over a decade.
  I do believe that Saddam Hussein and his possession and development 
of weapons of mass destruction does pose a threat to our Nation. But we 
already have a policy that is containing the threat and positions us 
well if we have to move forcefully.
  I think our greater responsibility is to assess threats to our 
national security and then decide how to deal with them. I believe we 
have an even greater challenge that we must not divert precious 
resources from the global war on terrorism.
  The greatest danger facing our Nation comes from al Qaeda, the 
terrorist network that perpetrated the acts of September 11. And while 
a year has passed and we have prosecuted a successful war against al 
Qaeda in Afghanistan, the infrastructure of terror, however, remains in 
place. Our forces are still searching for bin Laden and his followers, 
and while these people remain at large, our Nation still focuses on the 
possibility of attacks from this group on an even larger scale than 
September 11.
  I am deeply concerned that prosecuting a war on Iraq will divert 
precious resources from this war. A campaign against Saddam Hussein 
could tie up 200,000 military personnel. Diverting these forces and the 
assets that will be needed to support them will stretch our military 
perilously thin. To do this while we are conducting an intense 
worldwide anti-terror operations is unwise. I believe it puts the lives 
of American citizens at risk. It will keep us from exerting the full 
range of military options we need to neutralize terrorist cells and to 
interrupt planned terrorist operations. And it could continue to weigh 
down our military for a number of years.
  It has been estimated that we will need up to 50,000 to remain behind 
for a period of years to help guarantee as much as can be possibly done 
for the civility of Iraq.

                              {time}  2030

  No one knows how long this will take or what type of resources we 
will need. Add to this the potential for conflict between ethnic and 
political rivals in Iraq, and we could be entering a quagmire that we 
may not be able to get out of. The administration has not clearly 
outlined our exit strategy, and this is another thing that bothers my 
constituents.
  The war that the administration is entering into is a war on terror. 
Yet the case has not been made that links Iraq to support to al-Qaeda. 
The evidence to this point is sketchy, at best. In fact, the evidence 
really suggests that Iraq is a greatly weakened nation and that the 
threat posed by it has been deterred or reduced by the U.S. presence in 
the Gulf and the enforcement of the no-fly zones.
  The strategy of containment has kept Iraq at bay. It has worked and 
continues to work. We can continue this policy as well as allow the 
U.N. weapons inspectors to go in to do their jobs. If all of this ends 
in the conclusion that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions and is 
near a real nuclear weapons capability, we can reevaluate our options. 
Until then, we should continue with the present policy.
  I think we have a great responsibility to our men and women who are 
going to fight this war and to the people who have, time and time 
again, come before this body and talked about how their sons or 
daughters and relatives have served in the Persian Gulf War and 
suffered from, let us say, Agent Orange disability. Because those that 
saw combat went over to the Persian Gulf healthy and came back ill. 
Many of them still suffer from the illnesses, the causes of which we 
still do not know.
  Before we send these young men and women off to war and expose them 
not only to the hazards of conflict but to a lifetime of dealing with 
the physical and emotional costs of combat, we must do everything to 
achieve our goals without resorting to force.
  In the case of Iraq, we can do this. If not, we face losing the war 
we must win, the fight against al Qaeda.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important thing that this 
Congress does, and, in fact, this country does, than protect our 
national security.
  For many years, the most significant threat to us as a Nation was 
ballistic missiles from the former Soviet Union. That threat does not 
exist today; and, in fact, we are living in a new world.
  I think what the President has acknowledged, and is trying to lead 
the American people and this Congress to an understanding of, is that 
the greatest threat to this country today is the threat of weapons of 
mass destruction by both terrorist states and terrorists.
  That is the unthinkable, weapons of mass destruction against our 
homeland. What could that mean? It is the unthinkable. We do not want 
to think about it, but it is a potential reality. Had a nuclear weapon 
been on one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, it would not 
have been 4,000 people who died. I think it is impossible for any of us 
to really feel or really understand what it means for 4,000 people to 
die in an instant. It literally would have meant at least 4 million 
people dying in an instant, and many more dying subsequent to that.
  This is not an unthinkable possibility. The reality is we live in a 
world where to build a nuclear weapon takes about 7 pounds of enriched 
uranium, not much larger than a softball. In fact, it can be carried 
without detriment to a carrier of it. The technology to build the 
weapon, unfortunately, is not that sophisticated today.
  One of the issues in terms of Iraq that is worth pointing out, in 
1981, when the Israelis blew up the Iraqi military nuclear reactor, in 
1981, they were 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon. That was 
over 20 years ago. If we think about a sense of how much the world and 
technology has changed in 20 years, personal computers did not exist 20 
years ago when that nuclear reactor was blown up. Obviously, technology 
has gone a long way from that point; as well, the effort of the Iraqis 
to acquire those weapons since that period of time and in the 
approximately 4 years that there have been no weapons inspectors at all 
in Iraq.
  When the weapons inspectors left 4 years ago, about 4 years ago, 4 
years and a short period of time, in the public domain we have the 
information that the Iraqis had smallpox and anthrax at that time, and 
we know they have used it against their own citizens and other 
countries.
  What does it mean? What is the issue? Iraq is not the only country in 
the world that has weapons of mass destruction. Why are we addressing 
this

[[Page H7420]]

issue? Why am I supporting the resolution of use of force against Iraq? 
I think there is a policy that the President has articulated that it is 
just not enough that they have the weapons, but, really, the intent to 
use them.
  Clearly, Iraq does not have the ability to send ballistic missiles to 
the United States. We understand that. But they do have the ability 
today to attack us with biological and chemical weapons, today. We do 
not know how far off they are from nuclear weapons, but 20 years ago 
they were 6 months away. We know they are aggressively trying to seek 
those weapons today.
  I think we need to acknowledge this is really a change in policy, but 
a change in policy for this country that is needed in terms of weapons 
of mass destruction in the 21st century. The downside of not stopping 
these weapons is, in fact, the unthinkable.
  One of the things we do not talk about often is, once the sort of 
code of both equipment and delivery of these weapons is broken, why 
would a country, why would Iraq, have one nuclear weapon? Would they 
not have five, 10, or for that matter, 15, to be able to use in 
terrorist ways?
  We talk about the fact they have the ability today to build a weapon. 
The only restriction potentially is their lack of material, of enriched 
uranium, 7 pounds of enriched uranium. Effectively, we have no way of 
stopping that from entering the United States today. We acknowledge 
that, effectively, we cannot.
  We have thousands of pounds of cocaine, and our war on drugs, as 
effective as it is, it literally lets in thousands of pounds of cocaine 
a year into the United States.
  I urge my colleagues, I urge the country to support this effort. We 
have a country that literally wants to kill us. They do not want to 
kill the French. They do not want to kill the Swedish. The action is 
directed at us.
  This is an issue, as I started this evening, of national security, 
national defense, national survival for the United States of America. I 
urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to all the Members on this side who will be 
coming up, because of the large number of Members who would like to 
speak, we are asking if their remarks can be contained in the 5 
minutes, because from this point on we will be unable to yield extra 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca), who is a new Member, but his mark has been made in agriculture 
and science.
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I come before this Chamber with a heavy heart, 
because I know that I am making one of the most difficult decisions in 
my life.
  Like my colleagues in Congress and every American, I have debated 
whether unilateral military action in Iraq is the best thing to do. I 
have carefully weighed and considered all options. I pray to God that I 
am making the right decision.
  I have not been able to sleep. I think about the mothers and fathers 
I have met who have asked me, how long will this war last? How many 
lives will be lost? Could our children be drafted? How many of those 
children will come back with deformities, with cancer or mental 
illness?
  I think about our many sons and daughters that will be affected by 
our decision. I wonder how many will not make it home to their parents.
  I think about the many veterans that already have served our Nation 
but still have not received access to the benefits of our country that 
has promised them that.
  I think about the innocent Iraqi children who will be caught in the 
crossfire.
  I think about how this war could make us more suspicious of others 
based on the color of their skin.
  I have talked to bishops, clergy, community leaders. All of my 
constituents have written and voiced their concern about the war. Is 
the price we will pay in lives worth the security we might gain by 
eliminating only one of countless threats? In our Nation's history, we 
have never fired the first shot, so why now?
  One thing is clear: We must exhaust every alternative before we send 
our sons and daughters into harm's way. We all want to keep our 
families and our Nation safe from terrorists and weapons of mass 
destruction, but I also want to make sure that I can look into my 
children's eyes and tell them that we have done everything we can to 
avoid a war.
  War should also be the last resort, not the first option. I do not 
believe the President has made the case clear to the American people 
that now is the best time, or that unilateral action is the best 
option.
  That is why I will vote in favor of the Spratt substitute. The Spratt 
substitute supports the President's proposal for intrusive weapons 
inspections and still gives the President the power to use our military 
if Iraq refuses to comply.
  Let me be clear: I support the President in his efforts to protect 
and defend this Nation, but we must do so with the support of the 
United Nations and the international community.
  The Spratt amendment says that the President has to get congressional 
approval before he unilaterally invades Iraq. Does that not make sense? 
Should the President come to Congress before he leads this Nation into 
war? That is what our Constitution demands.
  Like the rest of the Nation, I am concerned that Saddam Hussein could 
transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations, but we 
must not act in haste and not without the support of the United Nations 
and the world community. That is why I reluctantly will vote against 
H.R. 114.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear: Do not confuse my vote 
against the resolution as a vote against our troops. As a veteran, as a 
Congressman, as a patriotic American, I stand 100 percent for our 
troops. I remember how our brave men and women were treated when they 
returned home from Vietnam. They were treated with scorn and hate. We 
must not repeat our mistakes of the past. Regardless of what we think 
of the war, we must all support our soldiers, and we should protect 
their lives by winning support of our allies.
  Acting alone will increase our economic burden and leave us with few 
resources to rebuild Iraq. It would raise the question about the 
legitimacy of our action in the eyes of the world. It would create more 
instability in the region and turn a mere threat into our worst 
nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, has the Bush administration answered all of our 
questions? What will happen if we go to war and Saddam Hussein uses 
chemical or biological weapons against our troops?
  Our troops must have the equipment and resources they need to fight 
the war. Do we know what Saddam will throw at us? That is why we must 
provide them with all possible protection and treatment and benefits 
they need.
  When our children come back to us sick with cancer, horribly 
disfigured, we must not turn our backs on them or their families.
  What will happen with this regime? We must make sure that a new Iraq 
is democratic and respects human rights. A post-Saddam Iraq must be a 
beacon of hope to the Arab world and not a tool of American foreign 
policy.
  What effect will this have on our war on terrorism? Would going to 
war with Iraq add fuel to the fire of the war on terrorism?
  What effects would this have on our economy? The Bush administration 
tries to paint a rosy picture of the state of our economy, but we have 
gone from a record surplus to crippling deficits. My constituents are 
concerned about their savings, their jobs, prescription drugs, Social 
Security, the schools. How will this war affect them?
  The President must not forget the economic problems of the American 
people. I am placing my trust, and our country is placing its trust, in 
this President to heed these concerns.
  I know the President's resolution will likely pass this body with 
little effort. I oppose it because more of our men and women will die 
if we go to war. I pray to God that I have made the right decision.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

[[Page H7421]]

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks my constituents in St. Louis 
have made their opinions clear to me regarding the President's 
positions regarding Iraq, and I hear great opposition to war against 
Iraq. I hear mothers, fathers, seniors, college students and veterans 
opposing any action in the region. Their voices are black, white, Asian 
and Hispanic. And while the reasons for their opposition vary, the one 
common question they all seem to have is this: How does this conflict 
serve America's best interest?
  I, along with many Americans, believe that the state of our sagging 
domestic economy has to be considered our Nation's greatest concern at 
this time. In the past year and a half this country has experienced 
increasing unemployment, growing national debt, tumbling economic 
growth, and a floundering stock market which has lost all consumer 
confidence.
  Despite all this, our domestic issues have been pushed aside as we 
debate a possible preemptive attack against Iraq. Important issues like 
education, Social Security, unemployment, and affordable health care 
have been almost completely ignored by this diversion. Another question 
my constituents frequently ask is this: How will this war affect our 
young men and women serving in the Armed Forces?
  When one looks at the make-up of our Armed Forces, African Americans 
make up more than 25 percent of the U.S. Army and over 38 percent of 
our Marine Corps. And since African Americans comprise more than 50 
percent of my district, my constituents are justifiably concerned that 
instead of making their lives more secure, this war will likely expose 
them to even greater dangers.
  Mr. Speaker, if my constituents are any gauge of the American 
public's concern regarding possible military action against Iraq, then 
I hope all Americans will contact their elected officials here in 
Congress at 202-225-3121 and voice their opposition to this resolution.
  Neither my constituents nor I have forgotten September 11. We are 
still asking questions about the magnitude of this country's loss, but 
debating unprovoked unilateral action against a country whose ties to 
terrorism are suspect at best is not providing any answers. I for one 
believe that our military's top priority should be fighting al Qaeda 
and finishing the war against terrorism that we started in Afghanistan. 
Those who support this resolution have not yet come close to proving to 
me that Iraq represents a big enough military threat to take our focus 
off of bin Laden.
  In addition, the stability of the Middle East is in danger. Jordan, 
Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would be subject to extreme internal pressure 
and unrest that would disrupt and threaten American interests in the 
region.
  The concerns of my constituents echos voices heard more than 200 
years ago. The men and women who founded our country imagined a Nation 
based on liberty and republican principals. One of these principals was 
that no country had the unilateral right to attack another without just 
cause. And President George Washington went so far as to suggest that 
America should keep its hands out of most foreign affairs. Washington 
stated, ``The great rule of conduct for us in regards to foreign 
nations is in extending our commercial relation to have as little 
political connection as possible.''
  It appears that now, 200 years later, we have strayed quite far from 
our Founding Fathers' vision. And I cannot in good faith subject my 
constituents to this military conflict. I urge my fellow Members of 
Congress to also vote against this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution, and I am opposed not because I do not believe that we need 
to protect our national security. I am not in opposition because Saddam 
Hussein does not need to be checkmated and stopped. And I am not 
opposed because I do not recognize the need for a strong military, and 
I am not in opposition because this resolution has been put forth by 
President Bush.
  However, I am opposed because after all of the information I have 
seen and after all I have heard, neither am I or a majority of 
residents of my district, the Seventh Congressional District of 
Illinois, convinced that the war is our only and most immediate option. 
We are not convinced that every diplomatic action has been exhausted. 
Therefore, I am not convinced that this resolution would prevent us, 
the United States of America, from acting without agreement and 
involvement of the international community.
  I oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States 
without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack against 
the United States. We are now asked to vote on a resolution which will 
likely culminate in a war with Iraq, a war which may involve the entire 
Mid East region.
  As the American people are attempting to make sense of this complex 
situation, no one doubts the evil of the current Iraqi regime. No one 
doubts the eventuality that the United States would prevail in armed 
conflict with Iraq.
  What then are the central issues which confront us? One, is there an 
immediate threat to the United States? In my judgment the answer is no. 
We have not received evidence of immediate danger. We have not received 
evidence that Iraq has the means to attack the United States, and we 
have not received evidence that the danger is greater today than it was 
last year or the year before.
  Two, will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent 
the spread or use of weapons of mass destruction? In my judgment, the 
answer is no. All evidence is that Iraq does not possess nuclear 
weapons today. The use of chemical or biological weapons or the passage 
of such weapons to terrorist groups would be nothing less than suicide 
for the current Iraqi leadership. However, as the CIA reports have 
indicated, faced with invasion and certain destruction, there would be 
nothing for the Iraqi regime to lose by using or transferring any such 
weapons they may still possess. Other states in the region which fear 
they could be attacked next could be moved to rash action.
  Finally, three, have we exhausted all nonmilitary options to secure 
the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 
accordance with United Nations resolutions? In my judgment, the answer 
is no. We have not exhausted the potential for a collective action with 
our allies. We have not yet exhausted the potential for inspections and 
for a strict embargo on technologies which could be used for weapons of 
mass destruction. The use of armed force should be a last resort to be 
used only when all other options have failed.
  In my judgment that commitment to the peaceful solution of problems 
and conflict is an important part of what our democracy should stand 
for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or an attack on 
Iraq at this time.
  I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he 
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as 
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict, at one 
point he wrote to the Philippians, ``Brethren, I count myself not to 
have apprehended, but this one thing I do, forgetting those things 
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are 
before. I press forth towards the mark for the prize of the high 
calling of Jesus Christ.''
  I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will 
press forward towards the mark of a high calling, that we will take the 
high road, that we will take the road that leads to peace and not to 
war, the road that lets us walk by faith and not alone by sight or 
might. Let us, Mr. Speaker, walk by the Golden Rule. Let us do unto 
others as we would have them do unto us. Let us walk the road that 
leads to life and not to death and destruction. Let us walk the road to 
peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which 
authorizes the President of the United States to use armed forces of 
the United States against Iraq, and I am opposed to H.J. Res. 114, not 
because I don't believe we need to protect our national security, I am

[[Page H7422]]

not in opposition because Saddam Hussein does not need to be checkmated 
and stopped, I am not opposed because I don't recognize the need for a 
strong military, and I am not in opposition because this resolution has 
been put forth by President Bush.
  However, I am opposed because after all the information that I have 
seen and after all that I have heard, neither am I, or a majority of 
the residents of my district, the 7th Congressional District of 
Illinois, convinced that war is our only and most immediate option. We 
are not convinced that every diplomatic action has been exhausted. 
Therefore, I am not convinced that this resolution will prevent us, the 
United States of America from acting without agreement and involvement 
of the international community. I oppose a unilateral first strike 
action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent 
threat of attack against the United States.
  We are now being asked to vote on a resolution which will likely 
culminate in war with Iraq--a war which may involve the entire Mideast 
region.
  The American people are attempting to make sense of this complex 
situation. No one doubts the evil of the current Iraqi regime. No one 
doubts that eventually the United States would prevail in armed 
conflict with Iraq. What then are the central issues which confront.
  (1) Is there an immediate threat to the United States?
  In my judgment the answer is NO. We have not received evidence of 
immediate danger. We have not received evidence that Iraq has the means 
to attack the United States. We have not received evidence that the 
danger is greater today than it was last year or the year before.
  (2) Will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent the 
spread or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
  In my judgment the answer is NO. All evidence is that Iraq does not 
possess nuclear weapons today. The use of chemical or biological 
weapons, or the passing of such weapons to terrorist groups would be 
nothing less than suicide for the current Iraqi leadership. As the CIA 
report has indicated we know that when backed up against the wall 
people sometimes lash out blindly and without careful thought.
  (3) Have we exhausted all non-military options to secure the 
elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in accordance with 
United Nations resolutions?
  In my judgment, the answer is no. We have not exhausted the potential 
for collective action with our allies. We have not yet exhausted the 
potential for inspections and for a strict embargo on technologies 
which could be used for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use of armed 
force should be a last resort, to be used only when all other options 
have failed. In my judgment, that commitment to the peaceful solution 
of problems and conflicts is an important part of what our Democracy 
should stand for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or 
an attack on Iraq at this time.
  I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he 
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as 
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict--
  Phillipians 3-13-14
  Paul wrote to the Phillipians--
  ``Brethren, I count myself not to have apprehended, but this one 
thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching 
forth unto those things which are before.
  I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in 
Jesus Christ.''
  I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will 
press forward toward the mark of the high calling toward the high road, 
the road which leads to peace and not to war, the road that lets us 
walk by faith and not alone by sight or might. Let us, walk by the 
Golden Rule--let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us. 
Let us walk the road that leads to life and not to death and 
destruction. Let us walk the road that leads to peace. I urge a no vote 
on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Health.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that Saddam Hussein is a 
bloodthirsty dictator and must be contained. But before we send young 
Americans into the deserts of Iraq, all diplomatic possibilities to 
avert war must be exhausted, and they have not been.
  In times like these amid all of the swirling difference of opinion, 
what we need more than anything else is a good dose of common sense. 
Just today the Columbus Dispatch offered an editorial opinion which 
presents a commonsense approach to the challenge we face. I would like 
to share that editorial as a commonsense message from Ohio, the 
Heartland of America.
  The editorial begins, ``In his speech on Monday, President Bush made 
an excellent case for renewed United Nations weapons inspections in 
Iraq. He did not, however, make a case for war. Though the President 
continues to paint Iraq as an imminent threat to peace, he offered no 
new evidence to back that assessment. Iraq appears to be neither more 
nor less a threat than it was in 1998 when the last U.N. weapons 
inspectors left the country; nor does it appear to be a bigger threat 
than Iran, Libya or North Korea, all of whom are developing long-range 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction and are hostile to the United 
States.
  The speech was a hodgepodge of half-plausible justifications for war 
with the President hoping that if he strings together enough weak 
arguments, they will somehow add up to a strong one. For example, the 
President failed to demonstrate any significant link between Iraqi 
dictator Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorism network. The truth 
is it would be far easier to demonstrate links between Iran and al 
Qaeda or Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. But President Bush is not proposing 
military action against those states whose support for terrorism and 
terrorist organizations is practically overt. In fact, less than a day 
after the President's speech, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress 
that Saddam apparently has a policy of not supporting terrorism against 
the United States.
  The backhanded admission came as Tenet warned that Saddam might 
change his mind if he believes the United States is serious about 
attacking Iraq.
  Next, the President cited the 11-year history of Iraqi attempts to 
deceive U.N. weapons inspectors as proof that inspectors have failed. 
But have they? For 11 years Saddam has not fielded a nuclear weapon, 
nor has he deployed any chemical or biological weapons. This suggests 
that in spite of Iraqi attempts to thwart inspectors, inspections have 
thwarted Saddam's ability to build the weapons he seeks.
  The President also points out that removing Saddam from power would 
be a blessing to the people from Iraq who have endured his totalitarian 
boot on their necks for decades. This is true. Saddam idolizes Soviet 
dictator Josef Stalin and certainly will be skewered on an adjacent 
spit in hell. But if removing oppressive regimes justifies war, the 
United States is in for a long, long battle against half of the world 
that is ruled by bloodthirsty dictators.
  The weaknesses of the President's arguments only heighten suspicions 
that the proposed attack on Iraq is intended to divert attention from 
the so-so progress of the genuine war on terrorism and the sputtering 
economy. Still, President Bush is correct to demand that the inspectors 
resume and that inspectors have unimpeded access to all Iraqi sites 
including the so-called presidential palaces. All diplomatic means now 
should be deployed to achieve that end.

                              {time}  2100

  As it stands, Iraq has agreed to readmitting the inspectors, and the 
United Nations is preparing to send them in.
  Sure, the United States and the United Nations have been down this 
road with Saddam before. But, last time, neither Washington nor the 
world community chose to do anything significant about it. There is 
time to give peaceful processes one more try. If, as many expect, 
Saddam intends to block the new inspections, the United States and the 
United Nations will have all the justifications they need for stronger 
measures; and at that point the President would have little problem in 
enlisting the support of the American people and the aid of the 
international community.
  This concludes the editorial. And, Mr. Speaker, I stand today in 
support of the Spratt amendment because I cannot support H.J. Res. 114. 
We may have to eventually use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein, 
but this resolution is too open, too far-reaching. It is wrong. It 
should be rejected.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)

[[Page H7423]]

be granted an additional 60 minutes, and that he be permitted to 
control the time and yield to other Members of our body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the second longest serving Democrat in the 
House and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me this time, and I am proud to be 
a part of this discussion tonight.
  Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at 
a time and place of his choosing would set a dangerous precedent and 
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already 
been called a grand diversion of America's political focus as elections 
approach. Worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already 
depleted resources, those that are so desperately needed for the 
pressing problems at home.
  The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war 
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is 
as true of Americans whether in Maine or West Virginia or Texas or 
Michigan, whether they are black, brown or white, young or old, rich or 
poor. The mail and phone calls I have received have been overwhelmingly 
opposed to a preemptive attack against Iraq.
  Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable 
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The 
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged 
from countless briefings with the same question: Where is the beef? 
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions 
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now, nor has 
any member of the Bush administration, the Congress, the intelligence 
community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New 
York and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists. 
Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's complicity, he would 
need no further authorization to retaliate. That is the law. He could 
do so under the resolution we passed only 3 days after al Qaeda's 
infamous attacks.
  What is it we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless ruler 
who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to expand his 
weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We do know 
that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none with a 
range to reach the United States.
  Therefore, the President paints two scenarios:
  The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons 
against Israel, Arab allies, or our deployed forces. But during the 
Gulf War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be 
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his 
destruction as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will 
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's 
launching whatever weapons he may have.
  Now, under the administration's second scenario, Iraq would give 
weapons of destruction to al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. 
But that scenario, too, is not credible.
  Perhaps the most significant intelligence assessment we have was 
revealed publicly only last night and has been raised repeatedly on the 
floor during this debate. The Central Intelligence Agency states that 
Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or biological attacks against the 
United States, and goes on to warn that ``Should Saddam conclude that a 
U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might decide the 
extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons 
of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last 
chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of victims with him.''
  Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at 
a time and place of his choosing would set dangerous precedents and 
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already 
created a ``grand diversion'' of America's political focus as elections 
approach, and worse, it would create a ``grand diversion'' of our 
already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems 
at home.
  The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war, 
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is 
as true of Americans whether in Maine, West Virginia, Texas or 
Michigan--whether they are black, brown or white; young or old, rich or 
poor. The mail and phone calls I receive have been overwhelmingly 
opposed to a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
  Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable 
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The 
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged 
from countless briefing with the same question: ``Where's the beef?'' 
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions 
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now. Nor has 
any member of the Bush Administration, the Congress or the intelligence 
community shown evidence linking the Al Qaeda attacks last year on New 
York City, and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi 
terrorists. Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's 
complicity, he would need no further authorization to retaliate. He 
could do so under the resolution we passed only three days after Al 
Qaeda's infamous attacks.
  What is it that we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless 
ruler who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to 
expand his weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We 
do know that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none 
with range to reach the U.S. Therefore, President Bush paints two 
scenarios:
  The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons 
against Israel, Arab allies or our deployed forces. But during the Gulf 
War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be 
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his 
destruction, as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will 
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's 
launching whatever weapons he does have.
  Under the Administration's second scenario, Iraq would give weapons 
of destruction to Al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. But 
that scenario, too, is not credible. Perhaps the most significant 
intelligence assessment we have is one revealed publicly only last 
night. The CIA states that Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or 
biological attack against the U.S., and goes on to warn that, and I 
quote:

       Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no 
     longer be deterred, [Hussein might] decide that the extreme 
     step of assisting Islamist terrorist in conducting a [weapons 
     of mass destruction] attack against the United States would 
     be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of 
     victims with him.

  In other words, the CIA warns that an attack on Iraq could well 
provoke the very tragedy the President claims he is trying to 
forestall--Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons.
  President Bush and his supporters now cite some ``evidence of 
contacts between Al Qaeda representatives and Baghdad.'' So what? We 
have had high level contracts with North Korea, Afghanistan when the 
Taliban ruled it, and other ruthless despots. That did not mean we were 
allies. The intelligence community has confirmed that Al Qaeda and 
Saddam's secular Baathist regime are enemies. As a religious fanatic, 
Bin Laden has been waging underground war against the secular 
governments of Iraq, Egypt, Syria and the military rulers of other 
Arabic countries. Saddam would be very unlikely to give such dangerous 
weapons to a group of radical terrorists who might see fit to turn them 
against Iraq.
  We are fairly certain that Iraq currently has no nuclear weapons. 
Even with the best luck in obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium, the 
official intelligence estimate is that Iraq will not have them for some 
time. If Iraq must produce its own fissile material, it would take 
three to five years, according to those estimates. In a futile effort 
to mirror the prudent approach of President Kennedy during the Cuban 
Missile Crisis, President Bush recently released satellite photographs 
of buildings, as evidence that Saddam has resumed a nuclear weapons 
development. This is hardly headline news. We knew that he had resumed 
them.
  Another thing we know is that:

[[Page H7424]]

  Iraq's vast oil reserves have been a major tool in the 
Administration's pressuring other countries to support our rush to war 
against their better judgment; and
  Those oil reserves will be controlled and allocated by the U.S. if we 
install or bless a new regime in Baghdad.
  These implications are explored in an excellent Washington Post 
article, which I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
immediately following remarks. Let me read just two paragraphs here:

       A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could 
     open up a bonanza for American oil companies long banished 
     from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, 
     France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum 
     markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the 
     Iraqi opposition.
       Although senior Bush administration officials say that they 
     have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, 
     American and foreign oil companies have already begun 
     maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves 
     of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world 
     outside Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Speaker, there has been a discernible and disconcerting rhythm to 
the Administration's arguments. Every time one of their claims has been 
rebutted, they have reverted to the mantra that, after September 11, 
2001, the whole world has changed. Indeed it has. But they cannot wave 
that new international landscape like a magic wand in order to 
transform Iraq into an imminent threat to the United States when it is 
not.
  Moreover, discussing whether Iraq presents such a threat only deals 
with half of the equation before us. What are all the costs of war? 
While Iraq poses no imminent threat to us, unleashing war against Iraq 
would pose many terrible threats to America.
  It would dilute our fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. That is why 
families of the victims of ``9/11'' have angrily told me and some of 
you that they oppose a pre-emptive war precisely because it would 
undermine our war on terrorism. Administration assurances that war 
against Iraq would not dilute our war on terrorism are pleasing, but 
cannot change the facts. Space satellites, aircraft, ships and special 
forces simply cannot be in two places at the same time.
  America's attacking Iraq alone would ignite a firestorm of anti-
American fervor in the Middle East and Muslim world and breed thousands 
of new potential terrorists.
  As we see in Afghanistan, there would be chaos and inter-ethnic 
conflict following Saddam's departure. A post-war agreement among them 
to cooperate peacefully in a new political structure would not be self-
executing. Iraq would hardly become overnight a shining ``model 
democracy'' for the Middle East. We would need a U.S. peacekeeping 
force and nation-building efforts there for years. Our soldiers and aid 
workers could be targets for retribution and terrorism.
  American has never been an aggressor nation. If we violate the U.N. 
Charter and unilaterally assault another country when it is not yet a 
matter of necessary self-defense, then we will set a dangerous 
precedent, paving the way for any other nation that chooses to do so, 
too, including those with nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan 
and China.
  We will trigger an arms-race of nations accelerating and expanding 
their efforts to develop weapons of destruction, so that they can deter 
``pre-emptive'' hostile action by the U.S. Do we really want to open 
this Pandora's box?
  Mr. Speaker, of all the consequences I fear, perhaps the most tragic 
is that war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq, would cost billions of 
dollars badly needed at home. For millions of Americans, the biggest 
threat to their security is the lack of decent wage jobs, health 
insurance or affordable housing for their families. Senior citizens 
having to choose between buying enough food and buying prescription 
drugs is an imminent threat. Unemployment reaching 6 million people is 
an imminent threat to America's well-being. Forty-one million American 
without health insurance is an imminent threat.
  The huge cost of war and nation building, which will increase our 
deficit, along with the impact of the likely sharp rise in oil prices, 
will deal a double-barreled blow to our currently fragile economy.
  What then should we do at this time? We should face the many clear 
and present dangers that threaten us here at home; we should seek 
peaceful resolution of our differences with Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Washington 
Post from Sunday, September 15, 2002.

               [From The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002]

                In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue

                  (By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway)

       A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could 
     open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from 
     Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France 
     and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, 
     according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition.
       Although senior Bush administration officials say they have 
     not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, 
     American and foreign oil companies have already begun 
     maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves 
     of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world 
     outside Saudi Arabia.
       The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of 
     the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations 
     to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western 
     allies for President Bush's call for tough international 
     action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the 
     Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia 
     and China--have international oil companies with major stakes 
     in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
       ``It's pretty straighforward,'' said former CIA director R. 
     James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of 
     forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil 
     companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if 
     they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent 
     government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new 
     government and American companies work closely with them.
       But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it 
     will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
     new Iraqi government to work with them.''
       Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has 
     fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will 
     be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly 
     would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath 
     of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil 
     concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound 
     them out about their intentions.
       Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more 
     than dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, 
     Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to 
     reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, 
     refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. 
     Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. 
     sanctions.
       But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews 
     last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
       ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said 
     Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London 
     office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella 
     organization of opposition groups that is backed by the 
     United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a 
     government in Iraq elected by the people.''
       Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he 
     favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop 
     Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a 
     decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big 
     shot at Iraqi,'' Chalabi said.
       The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position 
     on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change 
     of leadership.
       While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is 
     presenting vast possibilities for multi-national oil giants, 
     it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil 
     market, according to industry analysts.
       Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature 
     and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a 
     member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 
     for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC 
     cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the 
     flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela 
     and Angola.
       While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major 
     financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices 
     that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world 
     markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract 
     foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is 
     because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to 
     unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
       Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil 
     business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But 
     despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil 
     companies, the administration, preoccupied with military 
     planning and making the case about Hussein's potential 
     threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, 
     according to U.S. officials.
       The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State 
     Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a 
     department spokesman said last week. An official with the 
     National Security Council declined to say whether oil had 
     been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had 
     over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir 
     Putin and Western leaders.
       On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-
     day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early 
     October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy 
     summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and 
     American energy companies are expected.
       Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of 
     Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 
     billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow 
     before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to 
     Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the 
     Russian

[[Page H7425]]

     leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private 
     assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made whole'' 
     financially.
       Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week 
     that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met 
     with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged 
     Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's 
     government.
       But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy 
     transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival 
     ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the 
     giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority 
     Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
       Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the 
     United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi 
     oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil 
     companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq 
     since the late 1980s, when relations soured between 
     Washington and Baghdad.
       Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to 
     repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war 
     against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. 
     government studies say the results have been disappointing.
       While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 
     to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern 
     Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. 
     sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless 
     work began immediately.
       Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft 
     reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at 
     the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion 
     Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes 
     opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in 
     Iraq's western desert.
       The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights 
     to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, 
     which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in 
     July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French 
     firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its 
     decision to abide by the sanctions.
       Officials of several major firms said they were taking care 
     to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over 
     how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American 
     oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. 
     There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James 
     Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
       But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with 
     Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and 
     ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry 
     officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that 
     wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and a strong fighter for the environment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to 
grant unilateral authority to the President of the United States for a 
preemptive strike on Iraq. I cannot believe that the Members of this 
body are ceding our constitutional authority to this President. And 
they can give me all the fancy whereases and phrases, and put on the 
fig leafs, and write all the report language they want, but this is a 
blank check. This is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This is a violation 
not only of our Constitution but will lead to a violation of the United 
Nations Charter.
  Wake up, my colleagues. Why would anyone vote to do that? That is not 
our constitutional responsibility. And when we vote on this resolution, 
will America be more safe? No, I think America will be less safe. We 
will dilute the war against terrorism. The destabilization of the area 
will lead to the increased probability of terrorists getting nuclear 
weapons, say, in Pakistan. The al Qaeda are probably cheering the 
passage of this resolution. Now is their chance to get more weapons.
  We should not risk American lives. We should be working with the 
United Nations. We should get the inspectors in there. We should disarm 
Saddam Hussein. And if they cannot do their work, if the U.N. 
authorizes force, we will be a much stronger and efficient force 
working with the United Nations.
  Imminent threat. There is an imminent threat. I will tell my 
colleagues what the imminent threat is, it is our failing economy and 
the rising unemployment. It is kids not getting a quality education. It 
is 401(k)s that are down to zero. It is corporate theft. It is the 
obscene cost of prescription drugs. That is the imminent threat to 
America, Mr. Speaker. That is what we ought to be working on here.
  I have heard all my colleagues on the other side of this issue 
calling us appeasers, those who are going to vote against this 
resolution. We are wishful thinkers. We have our eyes closed. We sit on 
our hands. And, of course, that phrase, the risk of inaction is greater 
than the risk of action.
  No one on this side, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting inaction. Making 
peace is hard work. Just ask Martin Luther King, Jr. Ask Ghandi. Ask 
Norman Mandela. They were not appeasers. They were not inactive. They 
were peacemakers. And they changed the history of this world.
  So let us not hear talk of appeasement. Let us not hear talk that we 
favor inaction. We want action for peace in this world, and we want the 
United States to be part of that action.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a whiff of Vietnam in the air. I had a 
constituent call me and say, ``You know, if you enjoyed Vietnam, you 
are really going to love Iraq.'' The mail is running 10 to 1 against 
this war. Protests have already begun around the Nation and around the 
world.
  I say to the President, of course through the Speaker, that you came 
to office as a uniter, not a divider. Yet we are going round the road 
of division in this Nation. You can see it, you can smell it, you can 
hear it, and we are going to hear more.
  Let us not go down this road, Mr. President. Rethink this policy. A 
country divided over war is not a country that is going to make any 
progress. Let us have a rethinking of this resolution. Let us not vote 
for a preemptive unilateral strike. Let us work through the United 
Nations. Let us become a peacemaking Nation. Let us vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues of both parties 
and in both Chambers and as the wife of a Vietnam veteran, the national 
debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq and under what 
circumstances has weighed heavily on my mind and my heart. For, 
clearly, sending the young men and women of our Armed Forces into 
harm's way is one of the most serious and far-reaching decisions a 
Member of Congress will ever have to make.
  Like all Americans, I take pride in the fact that we are a peaceful 
Nation but one that will defend itself if needed against real and 
imminent dangers. Like all Americans, I take very seriously our 
responsibilities as the world's global superpower and realize how our 
words and actions can have huge repercussions throughout the world.
  For that reason, I attended meetings and studied the materials 
provided us. I have listened to the administration, my constituents, my 
colleagues on both sides of the issue, both sides of the aisle, and 
both sides of the Congress; and I remain deeply concerned about our 
march to war without a supportive coalition or a clear and moral 
justification.
  Before making a final decision on my vote, I also asked myself, as a 
wife and mother, what would I want our Nation's leaders to do before 
sending my son, my daughter, any loved one to war? While I support our 
President's efforts to keep our Nation and our world safe, I firmly 
believe the President has not made the case for granting him far-
reaching power to declare preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq.
  There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and 
unconscionable dictator with little regard for human life, and there is 
no question that he must be disarmed and removed from power. The facts 
presented thus far, however, do not support the premise that Saddam 
Hussein is an immediate danger to our country.
  It is for that reason that I believe it is in the best interest of 
our Nation and our American troops to make every possible effort now to 
prevent war by exhausting diplomatic efforts, by giving the U.N. 
weapons inspectors the resources and opportunity to perform their work, 
and by establishing a U.N. Security Council multilateral coalition to 
use force, if necessary.

                              {time}  2115

  If that fails, the President can then bring his case to Congress on 
the need for a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. At this time, 
however, a blank check authorization for military force is not 
acceptable.

[[Page H7426]]

  I cannot, therefore, in good conscience support the administration's 
request for a near carte blanche authority to wage war when the case to 
do so has not been justified.
  I will, however, support the resolutions of my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The Lee resolution urges Congress to work with the United Nations 
using all peaceful means possible to resolve the issue of Iraqi weapons 
of mass destruction.
  The Spratt resolution includes similar requirements with regards to 
the United Nations but also authorizes the use of force if the U.N. 
efforts fail. The Spratt resolution brings responsibility and 
accountability to our effort to protect our country from Saddam 
Hussein, and it makes the administration and the Congress partners in 
any military action against Iraq.
  The Spratt proposal honors our Nation's fundamental system of checks 
and balances. It makes it possible for me to say to my constituents and 
our Nation's sons and daughters, including my stepson who proudly 
serves in the U.S. Army, I did everything in my power to keep you from 
harm's way.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a 
constitutional expert.
  (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Article I of the United 
States Constitution states that the Congress shall have power to 
declare war. Article II of the Constitution provides that the President 
shall be the Commander-in-Chief. Over the years, these provisions of 
the Constitution have been the subject of a virtually endless tug of 
war between the legislative branch and the executive branch, as well as 
the subject of virtually endless debate among constitutional scholars.
  In general I believe, and many constitutional scholars agree, that 
these two provisions reserve to Congress the sole authority to declare 
war when there is time for Congress to make a deliberative 
determination to invade another country and allow the President, as 
Commander-in-Chief to engage the United States in war only in response 
to an attack upon the United States or its citizens or in the event of 
direct and imminent threat of such an attack.
  I believe the resolution before us today crosses the line, delegating 
to the President the authority our Constitution gives solely to 
Congress. While we most certainly may delegate our authority, to do so 
would, in my opinion, be an abdication of our responsibility as Members 
of Congress.
  If, as the President asserted in his speech to the American people, 
an imminent threat exists, it seems to me that this resolution is 
unnecessary. There is ample precedent for the President to act under 
those circumstances without a declaration of war or of authorization 
from Congress. No such imminent threat has been shown to exist.
  Of course, Saddam Hussein is a thug and probably all the other things 
he has been called in the course of this debate. That, however, does 
not mean that Iraq poses any imminent threat that would justify the 
President proceeding to war without authorization from Congress.
  Further, nothing the President said in his speech and nothing I have 
seen apart from his speech has led me to conclude that we should be 
delegating to the President the authority the Constitution gives to 
Congress, certainly not in the one-step manner in which the resolution 
we are considering would do. Nor do I believe that refusing to give 
that authority over to the President places the United States in any 
imminent danger.
  If the President and the United States fail in their efforts to have 
Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions and if the President fails in his 
efforts to mobilize a coalition of nations in support of the United 
States, I believe that would be the appropriate time for the Congress 
to consider the advisability of declaring war.
  This resolution, instead, requires us to make that decision today by 
delegating the decision to the President without the authority to bring 
it back to us. To do so now, in fact, would put us ahead of the 
President since he insisted in his speech that he had not yet decided 
whether war is necessary.
  Unfortunately, despite the President's assurance, the contents of the 
President's speech left me with the sinking feeling that giving him a 
blank check to invade Iraq without seeking further authorization from 
Congress will virtually assure war. In my opinion, war should always be 
the last resort and in this case will almost certainly increase, not 
decrease, the risk of biological, chemical, or other terrorist 
retaliations. In fact, that is exactly what the CIA told Senator Levin 
in testimony in the Senate.
  We are called upon, as Members of Congress and as citizens of the 
world, to ask ourselves today, where and when would it end? The risks 
are too great to proceed to war without a satisfactory answer to that 
question and without pursuing every conceivable peaceful option short 
of war.
  For these reasons, I will vote against the resolution; and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against it, too.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who attended the 
same alma mater I attended in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to a great deal of confusion tonight. A 
number of my colleagues are convinced that war is the only action; some 
believe it should never be an option; and most, I think, join with me 
and think that it should be an issue of last resort.
  Like most of my colleagues, I have received volumes of mail from my 
constituents, and their opinions mirror the confusion which exists in 
this body tonight.
  What troubles me is I have heard members of my party indicate in the 
press that the issue of war with Iraq has sucked the air out of 
Democratic message; and, sadly, I have heard Members on the other side 
of the aisle complain of the same thing.
  The thought that this issue where we are talking about certain 
casualties, Iraqi, American, and those of our coalition partners, that 
those would be used for an advantage by either side in mid-term 
elections is repugnant to me and the people I represent in Ohio.
  When I have an 84-year-old Republican grandmother in Ashtabula, Ohio, 
grab my arm and say, Congressman, we have never attacked another 
sovereign country in our history without first being attacked, I am 
moved.
  When I hear former Prime Minister Netanyahu tell our Committee on 
Government Reform that Israel has dealt with terrorists like Saddam 
Hussein since 1948, and if you do not get him, he will get you, I am 
moved as well.
  At the end of it all, I will say that I have concluded if we were on 
the floor of this House on September 10, 2001, and we knew what we know 
today, every Member in this body, Republican and Democrat, would do 
whatever it took to protect the people of this Republic, and we should 
do that tonight.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and 
an environmentalist.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the issue of war with Iraq. I rise not 
only as a House Member from California, but as a father and about-to-be 
grandfather, and as a person who in his youth responded to a call for 
action by serving in the United States Peace Corps.
  I have to ask myself in casting the votes before us, what is the best 
way to achieve peace in Iraq, not only for its own diverse ethnic 
people living in Iraq, but also for the people in the rest of the 
world?
  The House leadership has adopted a closed rule on the debate so only 
three resolutions can be voted on. I think the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) has the preferred alternative because it speaks to 
the issue of putting all our efforts into working with the world 
community through the United Nations Security Council to get inspectors 
into Iraq. We should let that process run its course before determining 
that it will fail.

[[Page H7427]]

  The Lee resolution calls upon the United States to ``work through the 
United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of insuring that Iraq is 
not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as 
resumption of weapons inspectors, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, 
regional arrangements and other peaceful means.''
  The President has done a good job in making the point that the U.N. 
Security Council must resolve the Iraq violation of U.N. resolutions. 
He should have stopped there, using all of the power of the President 
of the United States, the State Department, the Commerce Department, 
and the Department of Defense to help the U.N. inspectors into Iraq but 
not to threaten war. Why? Because, first, according to the U.N. 
Charter, only the U.N. Security Council has the power to enforce U.N. 
resolutions.
  I find it ironic that the President who seems to be committed to 
holding Iraq accountable to the U.N. is requesting an authorization 
that circumvents the Security Council and runs counter to the authority 
of the U.N. Charter.
  Second, the people's House should not give a blank check to declare 
war to the President of the United States. According to Article I 
Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to declare 
war. The President is asking Congress to abrogate its constitutional 
responsibility. The President's resolution authorizes him to use force 
as he determines to be necessary. This is not the responsibility of the 
President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He shall execute as 
determined by Congress.
  The Constitution clearly makes a separation of powers to stop the 
President from going on foreign adventures without the express consent 
of the American people.
  Third, I think leaping into war before we get all of the facts could 
threaten world security, especially our own. Think about it. Striking 
preemptively without gathering sufficient intelligence will put U.S. 
troops in harm's way. We need U.N. inspectors in Iraq to gather 
information.
  How will the U.S. military carry out surgical strikes of Iraq weapons 
depots and laboratories if it does not know where these facilities are? 
We need to know how many weapons Iraq has and what types of weapons. 
Striking before knowing creates an unintended consequence which could 
further threaten the world.

                              {time}  2130

  A preemptive strike will set an extremely damaging precedent to the 
future of international affairs. The U.S. will entirely lose its moral 
authority on preventing conflict. What will we say if Russia moves to 
attack Georgia, if China invades Taiwan, if India or Pakistan makes a 
decisive move into Kashmir? Lastly, a unilateral attack could alienate 
the U.S. from the rest of the world community including our traditional 
allies, our allies in the region, and our new allies in the war against 
terrorism. Far from strengthening the U.N., a unilateral strike before 
the U.N. acts will undermine the international body and lead the world 
to believe that the U.S. views the U.N. as a rubber stamp at best.
  A unilateral attack makes it less likely that the rest of the 
international community will support the U.S. in postconflict 
reconstruction of Iraq. The U.S. will bear most of the costs if not all 
the costs of the war and postwar, and remember the Persian Gulf War 
cost approximately $70 billion. Our allies paid all but $7 billion, 
which the U.S. took responsibility for. This new war against Iraq is 
estimated to cost between 100 and $200 billion. If we go it alone, the 
U.S. will have to pay it all. What will happen to other priorities? 
What will happen to Social Security, to Medicare, to education? Will we 
have enough resources to spend on our domestic priorities?
  Last, let us not forget that the power we have as Members of Congress 
is to cast these important votes from the consent of the people. My 
constituents have responded 5,000 to 24, approximately two to one.
  If one has to vote, let us vote on the side of peace before we vote 
on the side of war.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and a spokesperson for women.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution 
before us. There is a saying in the practice of law that tough cases 
make bad law. I believe that that is also true in the creation of laws 
and history tells us that when we are frightened and angry we are also 
more likely to make bad law.
  I believe we are poised today to approve some very bad law and tread 
on some very important principles as we do it. While I share the 
concerns raised by many of my colleagues regarding the lack of 
substance in the administration's arguments, I am most concerned about 
the damage this proposal would do to our Constitution. James Madison 
wrote: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than 
in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the 
legislature and not to the executive department . . . The trust and the 
temptation would be too great for any one man.''
  The Founding Fathers were explicit that the awesome power to commit 
the United States people and resources to waging of war should lie not 
with a single individual but rather in the collective judgment of the 
Congress. It was the hope of the Founders that reserving this decision 
to Congress would in fact make it harder to move the country to war. I 
applaud that sentiment. Historians note that Congress exclusively 
possesses the constitutional power to initiate war, whether declared or 
undeclared, public or private, perfect or imperfect, de jure or 
defacto, with the only exception being the President's power to respond 
self-defensively to sudden direct attack upon the United States. There 
is no constitutionally recognized authorized use of force.
  In the book ``War, Foreign Affairs and Constitutional Power,'' 
Abraham Sofaer points out that the Constitution says Congress shall 
declare war, and it seems unreasonable to contend that the President 
was given the power to make undeclared war. He concludes that nothing 
in the framing or ratification debates gives the President as Commander 
in Chief an undefined reservoir of power to use the military in 
situations unauthorized by Congress.
  The U.S. Constitution requires the expressed declaration of war by 
Congress to execute any military operations in Iraq. Authorizing 
military action is our job, not the President's. We, not he, must 
determine when and if the fearsome power of our country should be 
turned to war. I understand the political and military risks associated 
with sending Americans into harm's way, but fear of public reaction 
does not justify the dereliction of Congress's constitutional duty. 
Similarly, the fact that many Presidents and Congresses over the years 
have engaged in the unconstitutional transfer of war powers does not 
make our obligation any less binding. Congress is not free to amend the 
Constitution through avoidance of its duties, and a President is not 
free to take constitutional power through adverse possession.
  The Congressional Research Service points out that the power to 
commence even limited acts of war against another nation belongs 
exclusively to Congress. We may not shirk this responsibility. We may 
not abdicate it, and we may not pretend it does not exist. We must meet 
our constitutional obligation to decide if or when America will go to 
war, whether our sons and daughters should be put in harm's way, and 
whether the country's purse should be opened to pay a bill as high as 
$200 billion. This decision cannot be handed over to the President. If 
the Founding Fathers had wanted that, they would have explicitly 
provided so in the Constitution. They did not.
  Should the United States go to war with Iraq? I do not believe the 
case has been made to do so. Can the Congress leave it to the President 
to decide whether or not we should attack Iraq? Any such transfer of 
congressional authority to the President is forbidden by the 
Constitution and would move us toward an upset of the delicate balance 
of powers between the Congress and the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to exercise great care as we consider these 
questions. Tough cases can make for very bad law. Let us not let them 
make us trample very good laws that have existed since the dawn of the 
Republic. Vote ``no.''

[[Page H7428]]

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a senior member of the House 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are poised today on the brink of armed conflict, not 
knowing what the future may hold but confident in our position and in 
our resolve. We sincerely pray that war is not necessary. We realize 
that it may be. These closing hours and minutes of the 107th Congress 
may be our last chance for true and meaningful debate and deliberation. 
Can we as a reasonable people, supported by the international 
community, avoid the horrors of war, the stench of death, or rather 
does the protection of our country and the belief of the unalienable 
rights of all people, does common human decency require us to press 
forward in the face of certain American casualties?
  Two questions face the American people: Is Iraq's threat imminent? Is 
an unprecedented first strike the proper course to take? On a positive 
note, the President has indicated that approval of the resolution does 
not mean war is imminent or unavoidable. Additionally the U.S. has 
indicated support for a three-pronged resolution: number one, Iraq must 
reveal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction under U.N. 
supervision; two, witnesses must be allowed to be interviewed outside 
of Iraq; and, thirdly, any site the U.N. wants to inspect must be open 
without delay, without preclearance, without restriction, without 
exception. These are reasonable and rational rules that are required to 
maintain international peace. Absent Iraqi compliance, it appears 
necessary to vest in the President the flexibility and authority to 
protect the American public and international community by military 
action if necessary.
  But there is also a responsibility to exhaust all other options prior 
to risking the lives of young American sons and daughters. That is why 
we must use the most powerful military weapon that we have, diplomacy. 
That is why we must use all resources at our disposal to encourage the 
international community to pressure Hussein into compliance. But if all 
reasonable efforts fail, we must answer our duty to ensure the security 
of our country and those that we represent.
  Certainly questions remain. It is particularly important to have a 
clear goal, a clear plan, and a clear exit strategy when American lives 
are at risk. Additionally, the President must address the issue of 
sacrifice. There is no short-term solution to the long-term problem, 
and there will be a cost to be paid in dollars and in American lives 
lost.
  Presently, another cost is being assessed, the cost of waiting, the 
cost of allowing Saddam Hussein to build an international killing 
force, the cost of world instability. As the President has indicated, 
the riskiest of all options is to wait.
  So let us exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Let us make every 
reasonable effort to avoid conflict. But at the end of the day we may 
be called on to make a tremendous sacrifice by using our might to 
preserve what is right. Our cause is clearly just. Our responsibility 
is clear. We will have to walk by faith and not by sight, trusting that 
in the end we will choose the right course.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, there is no matter that comes before this 
Congress that is more serious than whether or not our Nation should 
enter into war. The implications of such a decision are so profound and 
will have worldwide impact. It could jeopardize U.S. relations with 
countries around the world. It would escalate the vulnerability of our 
Nation to a biological and chemical attack. And, of course, its most 
painful and lasting impact would be on the many American families who 
watch their sons and daughters go to war only to never see them again 
and maybe even return with lifetime illnesses.
  This is not a decision that I take lightly. I recognize the gravity 
of it. And this is why I remain concerned about the timing of this 
resolution of the President's effort to send troops into Iraq. I do not 
doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the United States and to the 
world and even to his own people. I echo concerns that we must ensure 
greater security for our people here at home and abroad. But I cannot 
support authorizing our President to send troops in harm's way without 
the support of our allies and concrete compelling evidence of imminent 
or nuclear threats that demand military action. We must eliminate 
weapons of mass destruction and the threat they pose to our Nation and 
others around the world. But unilateral military action against Iraq or 
any other foreign nation is not the most effective short-term strategy 
to accomplish this goal.
  Over 90 percent of the calls that I received in my own district tell 
me that they are opposed to this war. They ask, What is the rush, 
Congresswoman? Why is it that we have to take action so immediate? They 
want to know why we cannot wait for the support of the U.N. and our 
allies. Some of these calls have come from my very own veterans in my 
district, many who have already made the ultimate sacrifices through 
their families, many of them who look like me and speak Spanish and are 
of Hispanic decent. They understand the extreme price of war and 
caution against using force without first gathering ally support and 
using diplomatic means to find peace. They also recognize the 
implications that a war would have on our community, and I represent a 
largely Hispanic community.
  Our military is a volunteer force. Most often it is the people of 
low-income families that answer that call to duty to serve our Nation. 
The young men and women on the frontlines would disproportionately be 
Latino, African American, and people of color. These communities will 
lose so much if the U.S. attacks Iraq.
  I am concerned about the price of the war. It has been estimated that 
the cost of this war against Iraq would be between 100 and $200 
billion. How is the U.S. going to pay for this war? We are always told 
that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit plan, that we cannot 
extend unemployment insurance to workers laid off after the wake of 
September 11. We need to think about these costs before we rush into a 
war, and we should exhaust tough, rigorous U.N. inspections before 
going into war. We should seek support from the U.N. Security Council. 
As the first President Bush's advisers of Operation Desert Storm have 
warned, by attacking Iraq we give Saddam Hussein both the excuse and 
the incentive to use the biological and chemical weapons that he 
already has.
  I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to give serious 
consideration on this crucial matter.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for 2 days Members have marched to the 
floor to offer their support for or opposition to this resolution, good 
Americans every one. Soon the hours of debate will come to an end. The 
House Chamber has echoed with the sentiments of almost every Member. 
Yet, many questions remain unanswered.
  To be sure, there is one thing we all agree upon: Saddam Hussein is a 
tyrant, is a threat. He is the epitome of malevolence. Plato must have 
had visions of Hussein, a Hussein character, when he described evil in 
The Allegory of the Cave.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record The Allegory of the Cave from 
Plato's Republic.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                        [From Plato's Republic]

                        The Allegory of the Cave

       And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature 
     is enlightened or unenlightened:, Behold! human beings living 
     in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the 
     light and reaching all along the den; here they have been 
     from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained 
     so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being 
     prevented by the chains from turning round their heads.

[[Page H7429]]

     Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and 
     between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and 
     you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, 
     like the screen which marionette players have in front of 
     them, over which they show the puppets.
       I see, he said.
       And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying 
     all sorts of vessels, and statutes and figures of animals 
     made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear 
     over the wall? Some of them are talking, other silent.
       You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange 
     prisoners.
       Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own 
     shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws 
     on the opposite wall of the cave?
       True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows 
     if they were never allowed to move their heads?
       And of the objects which are being carried in like manner 
     they would only see the shadows?
       Yes, he said.
       And if they were able to converse with one another, would 
     they not suppose that they were naming what was actually 
     before them? And suppose further that the prison had an echo 
     which came from the other side, would they not be sure to 
     fancy, when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which 
     they heard came from the passing shadow?
       No question, he replied.
       To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but 
     the shadows of the images.
       That is certain.
       And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if 
     the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At 
     first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly 
     to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards 
     the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will 
     distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of 
     which is his former state he had seen the shadows; and then 
     conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was 
     an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to 
     being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he 
     has a clearer vision, what will be his reply?
       And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing 
     and when to the objects as they pass and requiring him to 
     name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that 
     the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects 
     which are now shown to him? Far truer. And if he is compelled 
     to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his 
     eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the 
     objects of vision which he can see, and which he will 
     conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are 
     now being shown to him?
       True, he said.
       And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a 
     steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced 
     into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be 
     pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes 
     will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at 
     all of what are now called realities?
       Not all in a moment, he said.
       He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the 
     upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the 
     reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then 
     the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of 
     the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will 
     see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the 
     light of the sun by day?
       Certainly.
       Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere 
     reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his 
     own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate 
     him as he is.
       Certainly.
       He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the 
     season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in 
     the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all 
     things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to 
     behold?
       Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then 
     reason about it.
       And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom 
     of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that 
     he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
       Certainly, he would.
       And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among 
     themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing 
     shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which 
     followed after, and which were together; and who were 
     therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do 
     you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or 
     envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, 
     Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure 
     anything, rather than think as they do and live after their 
     manner?
       Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything 
     than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable 
     manner.
       Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out 
     of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not 
     be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
       To be sure, he said.
       And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in 
     measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved 
     out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before 
     his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be 
     needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very 
     considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of 
     him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and 
     that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any 
     one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let 
     them only catch the offender, and they would put him to 
     death.
       No question, he said.
       This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear 
     Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the 
     world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you 
     will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards 
     to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world 
     according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have 
     expressed, whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether 
     true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge 
     the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with 
     an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the 
     universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of 
     light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the 
     immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and 
     that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally 
     either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
       I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
       Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain 
     to this beautific vision are unwilling to descend to human 
     affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper 
     world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is 
     very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
       Yes, very natural.
       And is there anything surprising in one who passes from 
     divine contemplations to the evil state of man, when they 
     returned to the den they would see much worse than those who 
     had never left it himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while 
     his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to 
     the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts 
     of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows 
     of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the 
     conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute 
     justice?
       Anything but surprising, he replied.
       Any one who has common sense will remember that the 
     bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from 
     two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going 
     into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as 
     much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he 
     sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be 
     too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of 
     man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see 
     because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from 
     darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he 
     will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, 
     and he will pity the other; or, if he has a mind to laugh 
     at the soul which comes from below into the light, there 
     will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets 
     him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
       That, he said, is a very just distinction.
       But then, if I am right, certain professors of education 
     must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge 
     into the soul which was not there before, like sight into 
     blind eyes?
       They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
       Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of 
     learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye 
     was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole 
     body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the 
     movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of 
     becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure 
     the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, 
     or in other words, of the good.
       Very true.
       And must there not be some art which will effect conversion 
     in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the 
     faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been 
     turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the 
     truth?
       Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
       And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to 
     be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not 
     originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and 
     exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else 
     contains a divine element which always remains, and by this 
     conversation is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the 
     other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the 
     narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever 
     rogue, how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the 
     way to this end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen 
     eye-sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is 
     mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?
       Very true, he said.
       But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures 
     in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from 
     those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, 
     like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, 
     and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls 
     upon the things that are below, if, I say, they had been 
     released from these impediments and turned in the opposite 
     direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the 
     truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to 
     now.

[[Page H7430]]

       Very likely.
       Yes I said; and there is another thing which is likely, or 
     Neither rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, 
     that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor 
     yet those who never make an end of their education, will be 
     able educated ministers of State; nor the former, because 
     they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all 
     their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, 
     because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, 
     fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands 
     of the blest.
       Very true, he replied.
       Them, I said, the business of us who are the founders of 
     the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that 
     knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of 
     all, they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the 
     good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not 
     allow them to do as they do now.
       What do you mean?
       I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must 
     not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the 
     prisoners in the den, and partake of their labors and honors, 
     whether they are worth having or not.
       But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a 
     worse life, when they might have a better?
       You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention 
     of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in 
     the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in 
     the whole State, and he held the citizens together by 
     persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the 
     State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end 
     he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his 
     instruments in binding up the State.
       True, he said, I had forgotten.
       Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in 
     compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of 
     others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of 
     their class are not obliged to share in the toils of 
     politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their 
     own sweet will, and the government would rather not have 
     them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any 
     gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But 
     we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, 
     kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have 
     educated you far better and more perfectly than they have 
     been educated, and you are better able to share in the double 
     duty. That is why each of you, when his turn comes, must go 
     down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of 
     seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you 
     will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of 
     the den, and you will know what the several images are, and 
     what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and 
     just and good in their truth. And thus our State, which is 
     also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will 
     be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in 
     which men fight with one another about shadows only and are 
     distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is 
     a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which 
     the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best 
     and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are 
     most eager, the worst.
       Quite true, he replied.
       And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take 
     their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to 
     spend the greater part of their time with one another in the 
     heavenly light?
       Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the 
     commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no 
     doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern 
     necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of 
     State.
       Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must 
     contrive for your future rulers another and a better life 
     than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered 
     State; for only in the State which offers this, will they 
     rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in 
     virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. 
     Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, 
     poor and hungering after their own private advantage, 
     thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order 
     there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, 
     and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be 
     the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
       Most true, he replied.
       And the only life which looks down upon the life of 
     political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of 
     any other?
       Indeed, I do not, he said.
       And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? 
     For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will 
     fight.
       No question.
       Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? 
     Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of 
     the state.


                                endNOTES

       If you understand this first distinction, the much more 
     difficult division of the intelligible world will make more 
     sense. Think over this carefully: the visible world, that is, 
     the world you see, has two kinds of visible objects in it. 
     The first kind are shadows and reflections, that is, objects 
     you see but aren't really there but derive from the second 
     type of visible objects, that is, those that you see and are 
     really there. The relation of the visible world to the 
     intelligible world is identical to the relation of the world 
     of reflections to the world of visible things that are real.
       The lower region of the intelligible world corresponds to 
     the upper region in the same way the lower region of the 
     visible world corresponds to the upper region. Think of it 
     this way: the lower region deals only with objects of thought 
     (that are, in part, derived from visible objects), which is 
     why it is part of the intelligible world. There have to be 
     certain first principles (such as the existence of numbers or 
     other mathematical postulates) that are just simply taken 
     without question: these are hypotheses. These first 
     principles, however, derive from other first principles; the 
     higher region of the intelligible world encompasses these 
     first principles.
       So you can see that the lower region derives from the 
     higher region in that the thinking in the lower region 
     derives from the first principles that make up the higher 
     region, just as the mirror reflects a solid object. When one 
     begins to think about first principles (such as, how can you 
     prove that numbers exist at all?) and derives more first 
     principles from them until you reach the one master, first 
     principle upon which all thought is based, you are operating 
     in this higher sphere in intellection. Plato's line is also a 
     hierarchy: the things at the top (first principles) have more 
     truth and more existence; the things at the bottom (the 
     reflections) have almost no truth and barely exist at all.

  He wrote: ``Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing 
from the keen eye of a clever rogue? How eager he is. How clearly his 
paltry soul sees the way to his end. He is the reverse of blind, but 
his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is 
mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.''
  What a perfect description of Saddam Hussein in that allegory for all 
of us, distinguishing from falsehoods and reality of the cave, the 
shadows against the wall, the light behind us, like a puppeteer.
  The record of this murderous regime has been outlined forcefully in 
this body and by our Commander-in-Chief. Saddam has used weapons of 
mass destruction against his own people, he waged war with Iran, he 
invaded Kuwait, and he even murdered his own people in the northern 
part of Iraq.
  Two cities stand out in the northern part of Iraq in 1988, Halabja 
and Goktapa. We all, each and every one of us, need to read the stories 
from both of those towns of innocent people who were massacred, 
massacred.
  The helicopters came over the day before in May, Mr. Speaker, taking 
pictures of the villages. People did not know what they were doing. 
Then, 2 days later, the same helicopters showed up and they dropped out 
of the sky mustard gases, lethal, lethal gases which left animals and 
plants and human beings dead. They did not need sophisticated state-of-
the-art technology to deliver these gases.
  Nothing like it was seen since the Holocaust, nothing came close. We 
need to think about this and who perpetuated these deaths.
  For the last 11 years, he has defied the will of the entire planet, 
as expressed in the resolutions which we have heard over and over the 
last 2 days. Indeed, I know of no thinking person who argues against 
the profound necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology.
  But while we can all agree on the menace he poses and unite in the 
desire to live in a world where he is not a factor, there are still 
critically important lingering questions, questions about the process, 
about the timing and, ultimately, the unilateral nature of preemptive 
war that we seem to be accepting for the first time in the history of 
this great country.
  Is the relative sudden frenzy to eliminate Saddam clouding the 
strategic vision of those who are most vociferous in the support of his 
ouster? My inquiry stems not from any kind of partisan agenda but out 
of a genuine confusion as to why key issues have not fully been 
discussed and debated.
  We spend millions of dollars every day for 10 years protecting the 
no-fly zones in the north and south. The American people have a right 
to know what these actions will cost us. They have every right to know.
  If we endorse this historic shift in our strategy that abandons our 
reliance on deterrence and arms control as the pillars of national 
security, will we open a Pandora's box of preemptive action throughout 
the world? What is our response when it comes?

[[Page H7431]]

  If this is our Nation's new policy, then what is to prevent India 
from attacking Pakistan, or Russia from attacking the state of Georgia? 
If they do, what will we say? After war, then what? What happens on day 
three, as Thomas Friedman wrote?
  After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve? We have 
yet to hear any discussion on this. Surely in this great deliberative 
body we should give pause to this critical issue. Surely the 
administration must address this most comprehensively.
  Let us remember, this is not a game of chess. These are our sons, 
these are our daughters who will execute this mission, many of whom may 
not return. Full debate is essential. Anything less is an abdication of 
the oath we all took together.
  We also need to make absolutely certain that whatever is done in Iraq 
does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12 months 
ago, the war on terrorism.
  That said, a great many people predict that the Congress will pass 
the resolution, the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 114, with 
an overwhelming majority. I do not dispute this, nor do I declare my 
opposition, but Congress must ensure that, through this process, no 
matter the duration, we are involved as explicitly as possible under 
article 1, Section 8. We must ensure that we constantly ask the 
appropriate questions and demand the pertinent answers.
  I do believe that it is imperative that the United States speaks with 
one voice to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve 
to protect and defend this greatest of all democracies and the families 
that make it great.
  We all love America, not some more than others. When we leave this 
week, we must remember this: None of us love America more than anyone 
else in this room.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a Vietnam veteran. I served 18 months in uniform in 
that country. As someone who has seen the ugly face of war, I do not 
embrace it as a policy choice, nor is it my first choice, but as a 
choice we sometimes have to make.
  I believe that preparation for war and a demonstration of national 
will to engage in war can be a way to avoid war, and I also believe 
that diplomacy without the threat of military action can be a hollow 
exercise in extreme cases. Right now, we are faced with an extreme 
case.
  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace. Our intelligence 
tells the story of brutality, savagery, patterns of aggression, 
deception, and defiance. It shows the danger that Saddam Hussein poses 
to our country, to his region, and to the world. His ouster could bring 
peace and stability, and it could also inflame further violence and 
instability. How we do what we do in this case is as important as what 
we do.
  In dealing with the issue, I have asked myself a question: Does 
Iraq's intent and capability to use weapons of mass destruction pose a 
clear and present danger to the United States, to our allies, or to 
Israel? And based on a reading and hearing of information available to 
me, I believe that the danger to the United States is clear. Whether or 
not it is present is less certain.
  For the continental United States, the danger may be 6 months away or 
it may be 6 years away, depending on a number of variables. For Israel, 
for some of our troops abroad, for our NATO ally Turkey, the danger is 
certainly clear and present.
  Given this assessment, diplomacy and multilateral action are still 
reasonable options to use against Hussein, and they should be 
encouraged. That is why I intend to vote for the Spratt amendment, 
which maintains substantial focus on diplomacy and multilateral action.
  My decision to support this amendment is not an easy one, but the 
stakes in this situation are very high. Over the past year, the 
intelligence community and committees of this Congress have tried to 
connect the dots on the vicious attack that took place on September 11, 
and the challenge for us today is to connect the dots once again but 
before another and potentially more lethal attack.
  There are risks and consequences if we act; there are risks and 
consequences if we do not act. I lost friends in the Vietnam War, and I 
am reminded of that every time I go down to the Wall. But I lost 
neighbors on September 11, and I am reminded of that every time I see 
the World Trade Center.
  On balance, I feel the greatest risk is through inaction, which is 
why, if the Spratt amendment fails on the floor tomorrow, I intend to 
vote for the bipartisan resolution.
  A vote for the bipartisan resolution is not a vote for war, it is a 
vote for will. It is a statement of national unity that says to Saddam 
Hussein, you are a menace and a bully to your own people and to your 
neighbors. You must disarm. You have exhausted our patience. We will 
join the United Nations and the world community and work with them 
against you in this cause, but, at the 11th hour, we will be prepared 
to act.
  We cannot wait for the smoking gun. A gun smokes only after it has 
been fired, and that may be too late for another American city, our 
troops abroad, a NATO ally, or Israel. When it comes to weapons of mass 
destruction, we must connect the dots before the next attack, not after 
it has occurred.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. 
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a villain and a menace to 
his own people and to the rest of the world. He is a terrible dictator 
who has used chemical weapons in his own country and on other nations. 
He has likely biological weapons and is certainly seeking nuclear 
weapons. He has invaded his neighbors and defied the international 
community. He has worked to destabilize the Middle East in support of 
terrorism. We can all agree he is a threat to international peace and 
security. His own people and the rest of the world would be better off 
if he were not in power.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that the United States is going to use 
military force to reduce or eliminate this threat. It seems likely that 
the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will be sent to the region 
to disarm his regime and possibly remove Hussein from power. If that 
happens, I will support our country men as they do their duty and obey 
the orders of the Commander in Chief. But tomorrow, I will vote against 
the resolution authorizing the use of force now.
  This is a hard decision. It is one of the most important votes that I 
cast. It is a vote of conscience for me, as I trust it is for all 
Members. And my conscience leads me to vote ``no.'' After careful 
consideration, I have determined that the resolution before us does not 
advance our national security. The bottom line is that it authorizes 
the President to launch a unilateral preemptive attack if he so 
chooses. Our national security is not served by such an attack.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the use of force in all circumstances. I 
voted to support military operations in Kosovo, and I stood on this 
floor and supported the President in the operations in Afghanistan. But 
I think an authorization to use force against Iraq before we have 
explored all of our options is premature and potentially dangerous.
  First of all, international support, especially from the U.N., is 
critical. It allows us to share the risks and costs of our operations. 
It lends our efforts legitimacy. Recently, the United Nations has 
regained its focus on Iraq. It is on the verge of restarting 
inspections and international support for a stricter inspection regime 
is growing. The return of the inspectors should be our top priority. 
They can determine the extent of the threat Iraq represents, and their 
findings can help us build international support to check the Iraqi 
regime.
  I will be supporting an alternative that continues those efforts. 
This alternative will only authorize force as a part of U.N. efforts to 
disarm Iraq. A unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq without U.N. 
support may undermine

[[Page H7432]]

the multilateral war against global terror. It could drive a wedge 
between us and those allies whose support we need.
  In addition, with or without international support, we will have to 
be committed to rebuilding Iraq or we may be left with a state that is 
just as dangerous as the current one or worse we could be dealing with 
a chaotic civil war where we are not sure who has what kind of weapons. 
Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in 
addressing this important issue. This is consistent with its lack of 
attention to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Both are troubling.
  And a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iraq may lead to uprisings in 
the Middle East. Friendly regimes could be threatened by extremists who 
will openly support terrorism. And key moderate Islamic nations, like 
Egypt, Jordan, and the nuclear-armed Pakistan, could be destabilized.
  A U.S. attack would certainly further inflame the cycle of violence 
between Israel and the Palestinians. And I cannot imagine the 
consequences if Iraq were to attack Israel and Israel were to respond 
as Prime Minister Sharon has declared it would.
  An attack on Iraq could lead to the use of the very weapons we want 
to destroy. In an attempt to survive, Saddam Hussein may use all the 
weapons at his disposal against our servicemen and women.
  Finally, a preemptive attack on Iraq turns 50 years of national 
security policy on its head. We have struggled for 5 decades to help 
build a world in which nations do not attack one another without 
specific provocation. In the face of an imminent threat to the U.S., 
with an obvious provocation, a preemptive attack might be justified. 
But I have not seen convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an 
immediate threat.
  There is still time to try to resolve the situation using other tools 
of statecraft, such as diplomacy. The United States would win a war 
against Iraq. But that does not necessarily mean it is a war that 
should be waged at this time. At some point it may be necessary to use 
force. We may have to place our men and women in our Armed Forces in 
harm's way, but that should be the last resort, only after we have 
explored all other means and after other measures have failed.
  For now I do not think the case has been made that force is the only 
option left to us. It is premature to launch a unilateral preemptive 
attack, and it would be premature for us to authorize one. I oppose 
this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to remain silent and our side has held 
their debate because we want to allow full time for those opposed to 
have their word; but sometimes as you listen to a series of words you 
begin to see a pattern. And I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
need to also hear maybe some of the realities that are not being 
mentioned.
  This is not the beginning of a new war. In fact, President Herbert 
Bush, President Clinton, and now President George W. Bush have all, in 
fact, had to make strikes in Iraq to contain this evil dictator. In 
fact, President Clinton has made probably the largest strikes since the 
Gulf War during his administration. And at that time I do not believe 
that we heard in this body something about new preemptive acts of war. 
In fact, what we understood was we had a dictator who continued to use 
his remaining force and the ill-gotten revenues that he is getting from 
his clandestine selling of oil from outside the food program to, in 
fact, intimidate his neighbors and rebuild his weapons of mass 
destruction.
  So as much as I certainly want to yield as much time to my colleagues 
who oppose this, I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, must 
understand that this is by no means a new war. The President is not 
asking for a new war. In fact, what he is asking for is a recognition 
that after 11-plus years of a war which has not ended because this 
dictator has not met his responsibilities, responsibilities he agreed 
with the United Nations to keep, that in fact the President has said, 
our President now has said, I must in fact have the tools to be able to 
go further to get the compliance. And I would hope that all of us in 
this body would very much understand the historic context in which I 
say the war has never ended.
  We are only asking to continue a direction that President Herbert 
Bush started, President Clinton continued, and now President George W. 
Bush has on his desk; and we hold him responsible for our safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether and under 
what considerations we will consider sending our young men and women 
into battle. That is an awesome responsibility, and I have given it 
much thought. I rise to offer my support of the Spratt substitute. It 
is a balanced, very careful approach to a serious problem.
  I stand before you as a father, as a husband, as an American, and as 
an elected representative of the people who live in the 20th 
Congressional District of Texas. Since the terrible attacks of 
September 11, we, as a Nation, have felt a new vulnerability; and we 
set out on a war against terrorism to safeguard our future.
  During this past year, I have listened to my constituents' concerns, 
sharing their fears and consoling those shaken by disruptions and the 
issue of security in our Nation. I offered my full support to the fight 
against terrorism, and I will continue to do so. We must not lose sense 
of the purpose, but we also must not lose our perspective. In recent 
months as the administration has begun to call for a war against Iraq, 
I have spoken with parents, brothers and sisters; and I have read 
heartfelt letters of young and old, and I have met with American men 
and women in uniform who proudly serve this Nation.
  As I visited churches and restaurants, shops and homes throughout the 
San Antonio, South Texas region, I have heard patriotic voices, yet 
voices filled with concern about the war we are today asked to 
authorize. As the administration has tried to make its case for the 
unilateral war against Iraq, I have had many questions. I am troubled 
because many of these questions remain unanswered, even as we debate 
whether or how to put American troops in harm's way.
  We have also heard mixed messages when we heard the Secretary call 
for a cut of 23,000 in the Army while at the same time we have heard 
our generals indicate that we need 40,000 in the Army, 20,000 in the 
Air Force and 8,000 Marines. Those mixed messages have not been 
helpful. But we also do not get the answers to our questions, questions 
such as, Who will pay for this war? We should have a tax bill on this 
House floor to pay for this war. What are our mission goals and our 
exit strategy?
  The other reality is that there has been no dialogue and no real 
thrust in that with terrorism, also, it is a fight of ideology and 
ideas. One thing we are clear about is we know that Saddam Hussein and 
the government he controls brutally, Iraq, are without question a 
danger not only to the United States but also to the world community. 
We know that Saddam Hussein has gone to great lengths to seek, develop, 
and then conceal weapons of mass destruction. I believe I join my 
colleagues here today in stating that we must end Saddam Hussein's 
quest for these terrible weapons.
  The issue before us is how we do so. It is crucial that we as 
representatives of the people translate the concerns about the 
execution of war against Iraq into a concrete plan to ensure the 
congressional representatives have a role in the decision to send our 
troops into harm's way.
  The administration seeks a blank check from the Congress to authorize 
the use of force broadly. But the administration's proposal does not 
encourage multilateral cooperation and also does not anticipate further 
congressional input. The approach offered by the Spratt substitute 
offers a better option. We are today the world's greatest superpower; 
our military might and economic power reach around the globe. Our 
democracy is an example to which other nations aspire. We are a diverse 
Nation united by our love of liberty, our thirst for freedom, and our 
belief in justice and the rule of law.

[[Page H7433]]

  That status as a world superpower brings with it great 
responsibilities. Yes, we have the power to go it alone, but I feel 
very strongly that the power to do exactly that would be the wrong 
thing to do. In the case of Iraq, I believe going it alone under the 
circumstances we now face is not the best approach. First, by working 
with the United Nations, we will act not only on our own behalf, but on 
behalf of the world community.
  Let me ask that you support the substitute, the Spratt substitute, 
because it is also the best military option, because that would allow 
us an opportunity to seek out those biological and chemical weapons 
before our soldiers go in. And if they have to go in, at least we will 
identify those areas where they might be able to be hiding, and there 
is no doubt that that would be the best way to go at it.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, our decision to authorize the President to 
commit American men and women to overseas military action is the most 
difficult decision a Member of Congress will ever face.
  Since September 11, 2001, when more than 100 of my constituents were 
killed in the terror attacks on our country, I have felt a new urgency 
to address the dangers to our national security that exist both here in 
the United States and abroad. Our government must act to secure our 
boarders and airways, protect nuclear power plants, safeguard our food 
and water supplies and more.

                              {time}  2215

  We must face up to the very real possibility of a biological, 
chemical or even nuclear attack upon our country and take whatever 
action is necessary to prevent it.
  I have spent a great deal of time, as have my colleagues, in recent 
weeks in classified briefings, with military and intelligence experts; 
and I have also paid close attention to the very real concerns of my 
constituents and even my family. We are living in a world far more 
dangerous today than we have ever known, and I have concluded that we 
must not wait for another terrorist attack before giving the President 
the authority to take the necessary action to protect our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Throughout world history, inaction against tyrants has proven to be 
an ineffective strategy for averting catastrophe. We have every reason 
to believe that Saddam Hussein is continuing to build up his arsenal of 
weapons of mass destruction. He continues to defy the civilized world 
and United Nations Security Council resolutions ordering him to disarm. 
He has shown through brutality toward his own people his willingness to 
use these terrible weapons against innocent people.
  Therefore, I have concluded that Saddam Hussein poses a serious 
danger to United States national security. We must stand up to this 
threat first by pursuing to the fullest all possible diplomatic means 
and then, only if we must, by the use of force.
  As a strong believer in the United Nations, I have a long record of 
support for a robust United States role in the United Nations, and I 
believe that strong United States leadership in the United Nations is 
critical to achieve peace in the world.
  But the United Nations must act. The crisis before us provides an 
important opportunity for the U.N. Security Council to show that there 
are consequences to ignoring the will of the international community. 
Failure to enforce the relevant resolutions will hurt the U.N.'s 
effectiveness as an organization, diminishing a potent force for 
stability around the world. And if all else fails, if we must pursue 
military action, I hope and I pray that the mission is successful and 
short and that it will pave the way to a better day for Iraq and the 
region and result in greater security for Americans here at home.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as I take the floor this evening I am 
humbled by the task at hand and the paths that have led us to this 
point.
  When I arrived in Congress last year, I never imagined that we would 
witness cruel attacks on our own soil, that we would lead a war against 
terrorism across the globe or that we would contemplate returning to 
Iraq to address the ongoing threat of Saddam Hussein, all in less than 
2 years. Yet, we did not choose these circumstances. Instead, they 
found us; and it is our responsibility to act in a careful and 
appropriate manner to protect the United States, its people, its allies 
and our ideals.
  Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important 
decisions Congress can make; and as a member of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, I do not take it lightly.
  Last month, I held a listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my 
constituents' concerns about military action in Iraq. I spent many 
hours being briefed in the Committee on Armed Services and in the White 
House by senior administration officials and other experts. From these 
conversations, I have grown increasingly alarmed by the widening body 
of evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to 
the security of the United States.
  His development of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his 
pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations resolutions and 
threatens the stability of the region. His oppression of the Iraqi 
people, including his use of chemical weapons against civilians, 
strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human rights. He 
has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us and our 
allies, even firing on aircraft and enforcing the Iraqi's no-fly zone 
2,500 times since 1991.
  While it may be difficult to imagine what horrors this tyrant is 
planning over 6,000 miles away, I am convinced that the threat is very 
real.
  The question, therefore, becomes how best to deal with this danger. I 
have heard overwhelming concerns from constituents that the United 
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we 
act against Iraq, if we act particularly unilaterally. Equally 
important, I share the concern that we will damage our moral authority 
as the world's sole remaining superpower if we do not proceed 
responsibly.
  For this reason, we must engage the global community in our efforts 
to neutralize the threat of Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United 
Nations and our allies is critical, and I hope that we are collectively 
able to develop a strong mandate for the disarmament of Iraq.
  In his speech Monday night, President Bush pledged to engage the U.N. 
Security Council in drafting a new resolution; and I fully expect him 
to pursue this strategy, not only to establish broader support and 
deeper confidence for our mission but also to protect the integrity of 
the United States. If new weapons inspections do not achieve total 
disarmament, we must not rule out using military action to force 
compliance with U.N. resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive 
capabilities and protect the American people.
  Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with other Nations. 
President Bush stated that we would act with our allies at our side, 
and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that unilateral 
action against Iraq could have dangerous ramifications on the region 
and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. Furthermore, the 
international coalition would also be essential in promoting a new 
government in Iraq, an effort that should be undertaken as seriously as 
the Marshall Plan.
  Tomorrow, I will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require 
cooperation with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible. In 
contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our 
responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to 
our cause. If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support 
the underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security 
Council and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though 
that vote may ultimately fail,

[[Page H7434]]

the United States has been instrumental in shaping the guidelines and 
agreements that have fostered peace and cooperation throughout the 
world, and we must demonstrate our continued commitment to these goals.
  The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain 
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September 
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for 
the promises from a madman.
  We now have the opportunity to improve the safety of our citizens and 
the stability of the Middle East. However, there is a right way and a 
wrong way of approaching this complicated issue. Just as a prosecutor 
must lay out the facts to establish guilt, we must make our case before 
the world community.
  I urge support for the Spratt amendment.
  As I take the floor this afternoon, I am humbled by the task at hand 
and the path that has led us to this point. When I arrived in Congress 
last year, I never imagined that we would witness cruel attacks on our 
soil, that we would lead a war against terrorism across the globe, or 
that we would contemplate returning to Iraq to address the ongoing 
threat of Saddam Hussein--all in less than two years. Yet we did not 
choose these circumstances; instead, they found us, and it is our 
responsibility to act in a careful and appropriate manner to protect 
the United States, its people, its allies, and its ideals.
  Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important 
decisions Congress can make, and, as a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, I do not take it lightly. Last month, I held a 
listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my constituents' concerns 
about military action in Iraq. I have spent many hours being briefed in 
the Armed Services Committee and at the White House by Administration 
officials and other experts. From these conversations, I have grown 
increasingly alarmed by the widening body of evidence that Saddam 
Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to the security of the 
United States. His development of biological and chemical weapons, as 
well as his pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations 
resolutions and threatens the stability of the region. His oppression 
of the Iraqi people, including his use of chemical weapons against 
civilians, strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human 
rights. He has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us 
and our allies, firing on aircraft enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones 
2,500 times since 1991. And while it may be difficult for some to 
imagine what horrors this tyrant is planning over 6,000 miles away, I 
am convinced that the threat is real.
  The question therefore becomes how best to deal with this danger. I 
have heard overwhelming concern from my constituents that the United 
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we 
act unilaterally against Iraq. Equally important, I share their concern 
that we will damage our moral authority as the world's sole remaining 
superpower if we do not proceed responsibly. For this reason, we must 
engage the global community in our efforts to neutralize the threat of 
Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United Nations and our allies is 
critical, and I hope that we are collectively able to develop a strong 
mandate for the disarmament of Iraq. In his speech on Monday night, 
President Bush pledged to engage the U.N. Security Council in drafting 
a new resolution, and I fully expect him to pursue this strategy, not 
only to establish broader support and deeper confidence for our 
mission, but also to protect the integrity of the United States.
  If new weapons inspections do not achieve total disarmament, we must 
not rule out using military action to force compliance with U.N. 
resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive capabilities, and protect the 
American people. Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with 
other nations. President Bush stated we would act ``with allies at our 
side,'' and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that 
unilateral action against Iraq could have dangerous ramifications on 
the region and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. 
Furthermore, an international coalition would also be essential in 
promoting a new government in Iraq--an effort that should be undertaken 
as seriously as the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow, I will vote for the Spratt 
amendment, which would require cooperation with the United Nations to 
the greatest extent possible. When contemplating a preemptive attack 
against another nation, it is our responsibility to work with our 
friends and allies and rally them to our cause.
  If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support the 
underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security Council 
and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though that 
vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental in 
shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and 
cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued 
commitment to these goals.
  The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain 
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September 
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for 
promises from a madman. We now have the opportunity to improve the 
safety of our citizens and the stability of the Middle East. However, 
there is a right way and a wrong way of approaching this complicated 
issue. Just as a prosecutor must lay out facts to establish guilt, we 
must make our case before the world community. This is the only 
approach to guarantee that our efforts to disarm Iraq will have the 
full force of international support and not undermine our greater war 
against terrorism.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share in this debate and urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I must once again reiterate, although it 
seems rude and people do want to extend and it is difficult to end 
before my colleagues complete their statements, I must insist that we 
take no more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Towns), a leading member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this resolution ignores 
the political realities that are present in a tinderbox like the Middle 
East. It is naive to think that unilateral American action in the 
Middle East will achieve lasting security, but it is downright foolish 
to ignore the United Nations' potential as a partner in eliminating 
Saddam's chokehold on world security.
  This resolution merely pays lip service to any meaningful coalition 
building or endorsement of U.N. findings without establishing an 
international coalition. We leave the fate of the Iraqi people to 
uncertainty and without the hope of meaningful nation building or 
distribution of aid. America cannot achieve this alone or on its own.
  The world is watching us to see how a superpower acts which has 
defeated its dragons and is now confronted by malignant dictators of 
developing powers. Make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussein is a 
dictator who resorts to the most heinous of atrocities to silence his 
opponents.
  As the world's sole superpower, we must be careful that our allies do 
not grow resentful of us. We need to make certain that they are 
included in any sort of action that we as a Nation might decide to 
take. That has not happened, and I must vote no on the resolution.
  Let me close by saying I am concerned as anyone in this Chamber about 
national and international security. I served in the United States 
Army, but I am not convinced that we should put our young people in 
harm's way. We should not do that; and, therefore, I will vote no on 
this resolution and hope that many of my colleagues would join us. This 
is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have struggled with the question of 
whether to give the President the broad authority to take our Nation 
into a full-scale war with Iraq. I have also struggled with the 
question of how to support the President's objectives and also keep 
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution.
  I continue to have grave reservations about acting unilaterally, 
acting without evidence of an imminent threat and acting without 
considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or without a 
commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution 
we are considering today would give the President authority to act 
without adequately addressing these crucial questions.
  Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the President in 
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be 
on that path

[[Page H7435]]

with us and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage. This 
resolution does not allow Congress to answer these important questions. 
Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the President, and 
represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power and 
responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is amended.
  Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to 
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq 
as a part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United 
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the 
costly and difficult nation building that must follow but also to avoid 
compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly in 
the Islamic world.

                              {time}  2230

  As a last resort, it may be necessary for American military forces to 
act without the support of the United Nations Security Council. But 
before we do so, I believe the President should come to Congress for a 
separate authorization. That is what the amendment I offered to the 
Committee on Rules called for.
  My amendment was based on a resolution I introduced, House Joint 
Resolution 118, which would ensure that Congress, not the President, 
makes this awesome decision. Regrettably, my amendment was not made in 
order; so I am glad that tomorrow I will have the opportunity to vote 
for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more consistent with the 
Constitution than the underlying resolution we are being asked to 
support.
  Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on 
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. 
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it 
poses for our global war on terrorism, and the consequences for our 
security in this region, is simply irresponsible, in my view.
  Do not misunderstand. I have no illusions about the duplicity of 
Saddam Hussein or the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Hussein is a 
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of 
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of appeasement towards 
Saddam Hussein. But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein 
is only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's 
threat in the context of broader security goals, including crippling al 
Qaeda and sustaining and building the important global relationships we 
need for the war against terrorism and for solving other critical 
global problems.
  My father, Morris Udall, who was serving in Congress in 1964, came to 
regret his support for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when it became 
clear that it was being used as a substitute for the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress to declare war. I fear that this Congress, a 
generation later, is poised to make a similar mistake. To avoid that, 
we need to reject this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have struggled with the question of 
whether to give the president the broad authority to take our nation 
into a full-scale war against Iraq. I have also struggled with the 
question of how to support the president's objectives and also keep 
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution. I continue to have grave 
reservations about acting unilaterally, acting without evidence of an 
imminent threat, and acting without considering the consequences for 
the war on terrorism or without a commitment to rebuilding a post-war 
Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution we are considering today would give 
the president authority to act without adequately addressing these 
crucial questions.
  Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the president in 
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be 
on that path with us, and ultimately what kind of war we intend to 
wage. This resolution doesn't allow Congress to answer these important 
questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the 
president, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power 
and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the president told us that voting for 
this resolution would not mean that war was imminent or unavoidable. 
Many of my colleagues draw comfort from the vies that this resolution 
is not necessarily a call to arms. With respect, I find no such 
comfort. This resolution very clearly gives the president authority to 
take us to war.
  I introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 118, which would ensure that 
Congress makes this awesome decision. I also submitted to the Rules 
Committee an amendment based on my resolution. Regrettably, my 
amendment was not made in order. So I am glad that I will have the 
opportunity to vote for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more 
consistent with the Constitution than the underlying resolution we are 
being asked to support.
  Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to 
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq 
as part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United 
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the 
costly and difficult nation-building that must follow, but also to 
avoid compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly 
in the Islamic world. As a last resort, it may be necessary for 
American military forces to act without the support of the United 
Nations Security Council, but before we do so, I believe the president 
should come to Congress to ask for a separate authorization.
  Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on 
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. 
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it 
poses for our global war on terror and the consequences for our 
security in the region, is simply irresponsible in my view.
  Don't misunderstand, I have no illusions about the duplicity of 
Saddam Hussein or about the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Huessin is a 
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of 
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of international amnesia 
toward Saddam Hussein. That's why I can't support the Lee amendment, 
which I believe does not adequately respond to the urgency of ending 
Saddam Hussein's decade of defiance and eliminating Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction. The Lee amendment seems to rule out military action 
as a last resort, and I don't believe we can or should do that.
  But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is only part 
of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat to the 
context of broader security goals, including crippling Al Qaeda and 
sustaining and building important global relationships we need for the 
war against terrorism and for solving other critical global problems.
  My father was serving in Congress in 1964 when it passed the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution, which led to the eventual deployment of 500,000 
American soldiers in Vietnam and the deaths of 55,000 American 
servicemen and women. My father came to regret his support for that 
resolution when it became clear that it was being used as a substitute 
for the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. I 
fear that this Congress, a generation later, is posed to make a similar 
mistake.
  To avoid that, we need to reject this resolution.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating to our Nation and to the world what 
American democracy is all about, where the duly elected representatives 
of this body have been given an opportunity to share with each 
colleague their best judgment on whether the Congress supports the 
President's request to place the men and women of our armed services in 
harm's way.
  I have no doubt that our President has spent countless hours, perhaps 
even sleepless hours, and probably even thought a thousand times over 
as to whether or not this was the best course of action that our 
country should take at this time and for him to make such an important 
decision that will determine whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen 
are going to be sent into harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad our President does not have the constitutional 
authority to declare war against enemy nations. I am also glad that our 
President does not have the authority under the provisions of our 
Constitution to establish our Nation's armies and navies. That is the 
exclusive authority that has been given specifically to the Congress of 
the United States. Mr. Speaker, I respect our President; but I do not 
worship him, nor is he a king or an emperor. He is our President and is 
subject to the will of the American people.
  My reason for supporting this resolution is that our President is 
properly authorized under the terms of this proposed resolution to seek 
out all diplomatic options, to make sure that there is substantive 
participation from our allies and from other nations in the

[[Page H7436]]

world to confront the serious danger that is now before us and the 
world with the regime currently governed by the dictator Saddam 
Hussein.
  Another critical factor in this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we 
have not questioned the loyalty and patriotism of each of us or the 
integrity of each of us, of any Member of this body, especially under 
the climate we are now under to make a firm decision whether our Nation 
should commit her military forces against her enemies. I am convinced, 
Mr. Speaker, that sometime tomorrow, if as a result of a final vote by 
this body that vote is not overwhelming in support of the President's 
proposed resolution, that common sense would dictate that our President 
would seriously have to reconsider his position on this matter, go back 
to the drawing board and try again. I would rather deal with some 
bruised egoes in the White House and in the Congress than to end up 
fighting another war like Vietnam.
  Again, in good faith and as a consequence of the deliberative efforts 
of the leadership of both sides of the aisle in this body, a proposed 
resolution has been offered for our consideration. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
make reference to my friend, the Chinese General Sun Tzu, who some 
2,500 years ago made some very astute observations concerning the art 
of warfare, and I hope our Vice President and our leaders in the 
Department of Defense will take heed to General Tzu's advice.
  General Tzu said, ``If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need 
not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the 
enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. But if 
you do not know your enemy nor yourself, you will absolutely lose in 
every battle.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and ask that he be 
permitted to control the rest of that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the time remaining now on the 
two sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) has 
2 hours and 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) now has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I have with me a carefully prepared floor 
statement. It lays out my opposition to the Hastert-Gephardt-Bush 
resolution, although it is a meaningful improvement over the original 
proposal, and my support for the Spratt alternative. I commend it to my 
colleagues, and will place that statement in the Record for reference.
  In truth, it covers ground already well covered, more eloquently and 
with deepest conviction, by both supporters and opponents many times in 
this important and serious debate. Instead, because these votes may 
well be my last of real import as a Member of Congress, I would like to 
share with colleagues a very specific thought. It is simple. We all 
remember the warning common from childhood: ``Don't start something you 
cannot finish.''
  I do not mean to suggest that what we are doing here today is 
something we cannot finish. But my father said it a little bit 
differently, more as a matter of advice than childish threat. ``Don't 
start anything you don't know how to finish.'' It is good advice about 
many things. And even though I will not be here to help at the finish 
of what we begin here today, it is good advice here nonetheless.
  Now, I am not talking about war plans. I am confident that they will 
be well and professionally crafted; and, clearly, we should not share 
them with our adversaries. But I am talking about peace plans. We seem 
to have more trouble with them. And we need to make them very clear to 
adversaries and allies alike. It is a powerful tool.
  For the second time in a year, we are talking about making war in 
order to rebuild a nation and its culture. The echo which that recalls 
from 40 years ago is a concern.
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  It reminds me of 1991. And the events of the last year in Afghanistan 
are even more troubling, as rebuilding there hardly proceeds at all. 
And the message that sends to the oppressed people of Iraq and others 
whom we would make our friends throughout the Middle East, that message 
is a real problem.
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  Because this will not be over when the bombs stop falling and the 
ground combat is over and the wounded are cared for and the dead are 
put to rest. It will not begin to be over until we have carried out a 
coherent and clearly stated plan for postwar Iraq. It is the single 
most important message we can send to the people of the region as they 
debate and choose a better future for themselves.
  Middle East analyst Stephen Cohen has remarked, ``We in the West 
cannot have that debate for them, but we can help create the conditions 
for it to happen. America's role is to show the way to incremental 
change, something that is not, presto, instant democracy, or fantasies 
that enlightened despotism will serve our interests. We cannot just go 
on looking at the Arab world as a giant gas station, indifferent to 
what happens inside. Because gas is now leaking and all around people 
are throwing matches.''
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  It is an important lesson. It is one that we might have thought the 
President's own father might have said to him. Or maybe not. And that 
is why I say it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress would achieve near unanimity if we 
were voting only on the overall purpose of this resolution, which is to 
eliminate Saddam Hussein's control over weapons of mass destruction. On 
that issue we are as unified as we are in the war against terrorism 
that we launched with the President a year ago. I, and many others, 
believe that the current Iraqi regime poses a long-term threat to the 
community of nations through its ongoing defiance of United Nations 
resolutions prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass 
destruction. But I will not support the resolution before us because it 
provides the President with an open-ended authority that is far too 
broad for the task before us.
  The President is asking for authorization of force even before he 
determines that force is necessary and before we have exhausted our 
other options short of force. Instead, Congress should pass a 
resolution that calls on the President to obtain the support of the 
United Nations and our allies and authorizes him to use force if it is 
so sanctioned by the United Nations. This approach is embodied in the 
Spratt substitute amendment to be offered tomorrow, which I will 
support. If the United Nations fails to take sufficient action, then we 
can pass another resolution of force at that time. But action by the 
United Nations Security Council offers the best chance to reintroduce 
meaningful inspections into Iraq. This would be the best way to resolve 
the threat from Iraq peacefully and without reducing our focus on 
eliminating al Qaeda, which remains the foremost immediate threat to 
America.
  Given Saddam Hussein's record of obstruction over the past eleven 
years, the United Nations should authorize force against Iraq if Iraq 
interferes with the unconditional inspection and dismantling of its 
weapons of mass destruction. However, I cannot support a resolution 
that authorizes unilateral military force in the present circumstances.
  I am concerned that if the U.S. were to act alone it would damage our 
wide international support in the war against terrorism and al Qaeda. 
This war depends on the cooperation of other governments to arrest 
terrorist suspects, monitor terrorist financial transactions, and share 
intelligence. We should not risk the goodwill of the international 
community by acting unilaterally while multilateral options still 
exist.
  I am also concerned that if the U.S. were to act against Iraq without 
the support of the United Nations Security Council, it would set a 
dangerous precedent for other countries who might be tempted to use 
military intervention against the wishes of the international community 
in order to end long-simmering disputes. It is important that our 
policy toward Iraq be guided by our long-standing commitment to the 
principle of collective security, which the United States helped place 
in the Charter of the United Nations.
  Let me close by saying that I believe that Congress and the 
Administration should make

[[Page H7437]]

it crystal clear before any military action is taken that the U.S. will 
be committed to helping Iraq rebuild after a war. The U.S. cannot 
expect to make a quick exit from Iraq after a war. We would have to be 
committed to a substantial expenditure of time and money to revitalize 
Iraq, and we will need the support of our allies to succeed. Doing 
otherwise would risk leaving behind a dangerously unstable country in 
the Middle East that could be an even greater source of danger in the 
region than the current regime.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
thoughtful comments. I may not agree with all of them, but the 
contribution that he has made in this body will be sorely missed with 
his departure. And I know that I share with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle in knowing that this body will be poorer for not 
having the kind of insight and the kind of caring that we have just 
heard.
  I know this debate has gone on long, but some things are worth going 
on a little longer, and I once again would like to express my 
appreciation for his thoughtful comments.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
also compliment the gentleman from Ohio, who has served this House so 
outstandingly; and we will certainly truly miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), one of the brightest persons in the House, who serves on 
the Committee on Financial Services and who has patiently waited.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time, and thank him as well for having undertaken this 
thankless, but very important, job and has done it well.
  When I listened to the President's speech the other night, I found 
myself in agreement with much of it, but then I find myself in 
disagreement with his conclusion. I think the President made a pretty 
good case for a multilateral approach to making sure that Saddam 
Hussein is disarmed, but that is not what he is asking us to do.
  The President is asking us to authorize a unilateral invasion of Iraq 
to overthrow Saddam Hussein because he is an immoral and evil ruler. I 
wish he were the only immoral and evil ruler in the world. Our job 
would be simpler.
  But I do not see a rationale for a unilateral American invasion to 
overthrow Saddam Hussein that does not apply to a number of other 
governments, some of whom we are allied with. In fact, there will be a 
choice tomorrow for a very well-thought-out proposal that would empower 
the President with the full support of Congress to undertake a serious 
effort to get a multilateral approach, using force if necessary, to 
impose disarmament on Saddam Hussein. It is the resolution that will be 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
  And the President said, let us have unity, let us have a large 
majority here. He could get, I believe, more than 90 percent, if he 
were willing to throw his support behind a resolution that said let us 
use force in a multilateral context not to overthrow this government, 
because we cannot be in the position of, I think, invading every 
government that fails to meet our moral standards, as much as I believe 
those moral standards to be correct ones. He, instead, will choose a 
more divisive path.
  Why? One reason is that we are told the policy of deterrence will not 
work with Saddam Hussein. We are told that deterrence, which has worked 
with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China and with 
North Korea and with Iran and with other nations, uniquely will not 
work with Iraq because of the nature of Saddam Hussein. The problem 
with the argument that deterrence will not work, that is the policy 
that says the way to keep him from using chemical and biological and, 
ultimately, nuclear weapons, if he gets them, and we should try to stop 
him from getting them, but the way to keep him from doing it is to 
threaten him with overwhelming retaliation.

                              {time}  2245

  The President says it does not work. But American intelligence says 
it does.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Post article 
from last Monday from which I want to read.
  ``Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were 
deployed during the war of 1991, they were not used. U.S. officials now 
believe this was because the United States had repeatedly cautioned 
Iraq before the fighting started that use of such weapons would draw an 
immediate and possibly overwhelming response that would topple Hussein 
from power.
  ``One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade Iraqi 
officers from ordering the use of chemical and biological weapons is 
that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent has been rendered moot by the 
administration's decision to make removing Hussein the goal of any 
military action.''
  This is the conclusion of American military intelligence, not 
rebutted by the administration. It was recently reinforced by a letter 
released by the CIA, and the CIA said he is not likely to use the 
weapons because he is being deterred effectively by the threat of our 
force.
  In a colloquy with a Senator from Michigan he was asked the question, 
What about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an 
attack and he was an extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in 
response to our attack he would use chemical or biological weapons?
  Senior intelligence witness: ``Pretty high, in my view.''
  In other words, deterrence according to American intelligence 
analysis in 1991 and American intelligence analysis today works. So 
there is no need for this unilateral invasion.
  Yes, I think it is useful for the international community to put 
maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. I believe that the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is an 
authorization to do that.
  I disagree with the President about this policy of a unilateral 
American invasion with us paying all of the costs and having all of the 
responsibility for the subsequent administration with Iraq. I disagree 
with it; but if one agrees with it, it is the height of 
irresponsibility to pretend that we can pay for it in the current 
situation without serious social harm.
  This administration put through a major tax cut 2 years ago with the 
consent of Congress, over my objection and many others. Since that 
time, we have committed to spend on a war on Afghanistan, which I 
supported; reconstruction of Afghanistan, our moral obligation; 
significant increases to compensate the victims, both municipal and 
individual, of the mass murders of September 11; significant ongoing 
increases in expenditure of homeland security. Now add to that a war in 
Iraq and the subsequent responsibility to run Iraq and leave that tax 
cut in place. Members should understand the consequences: a 
deterioration in our environmental cleanup; a lack of transportation 
spending; indeed, a reduction of real spending for virtually every 
other domestic program.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact that deterrence still works means that is 
unnecessary.
  The previously referred to material is as follows:

               [From The Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2002]

                  U.S. Effort Aimed At Iraqi Officers

                           (By Walter Pincus)

       The Pentagon is preparing a campaign aimed at deterring 
     Iraqi officers from firing chemical or biological weapons 
     during a U.S. invasion because intelligence officials believe 
     President Saddam Hussein has given field commanders 
     conditional authority to use the weapons in the event of an 
     attack, according to defense and intelligence officials.
       The effort would include massive leafleting of Iraqi 
     military positions--a tactic used by U.S. forces during the 
     Gulf War in 1991--but also might employ covert techniques 
     that would enable the U.S. message to reach Iraqi commanders, 
     the officials said.
       Final authority to use weapons of mass destruction has 
     resided with Hussein. But the Iraqi president's knowledge 
     that the United States would seek to take down Iraqi command 
     centers and communications systems at the outset of any 
     military strike means he has likely already given authority 
     for firing chemical and biological weapons to his most loyal 
     commanders in the field, the officials said. They said 
     Hussein issued similar orders before the Gulf War.
       As a result, the sources said, the Pentagon plans to appeal 
     directly to these officers not to use the weapons. One of the 
     biggest challenges before military planners is determining 
     which Iraqi military units can be encouraged to defect in the 
     event of a U.S. invasion and how to communicate with them, 
     defense officials have said.

[[Page H7438]]

       A British intelligence report released Tuesday by Prime 
     Minister Tony Blair said Iraqi could deploy nerve gas and 
     anthrax weapons on 45 minutes' notice. It also said Hussein 
     may have already delegated authority to order use of such 
     weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican 
     Guard--elite units that control deployed weapons for mass 
     destruction.
       The Pentagon's campaign was signaled recent by Defense 
     Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Testifying before the House 
     Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said, ``Wise Iraqis will 
     not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction].... 
     The United States will make clear at the outset that those 
     who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new 
     Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off.''
       Rumsfeld added that if the order to use chemical or 
     biological weapons were made by Hussein, ``that does not 
     necessarily mean his orders would be carried out. He might 
     not have anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain 
     of command most certainly would have a great deal to lose.''
       A Pentagon official said Rumsfeld's comments ``are at least 
     the start of telling them were are serious.''
       After the Gulf War, coalition force interrogators learned 
     that Hussein had decided ahead of time to give commanders the 
     go-ahead to use chemical weapons if Baghdad's communications 
     were interrupted.
       One administration source said the Iraqi president issued 
     specific orders to use the weapons if ``the allies were 
     winning the ground war and they had crossed a line due west 
     of the city of Al-Amarah,'' which is 200 miles south of 
     Baghdad. Iraqi unit commanders were also told they should 
     employ the weapons against Iranian forces if they crossed the 
     border during the war and moved into Iraq's Maysan Province, 
     where Al-Amarah is located.
       Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were 
     deployed during the war, they were not used. U.S. officials 
     now believe this was because the United States had repeatedly 
     cautioned Iraq before the fighting started that use of such 
     weapons would draw a immediate and possibly overwhelming 
     response that would topple Hussein from power.
       One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade 
     Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical or 
     biological weapons is that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent 
     has been rendered moot by the administration's decision to 
     make removing Hussein the goal of any military action.
       Whether a plan to deter Iraqi commanders from employing the 
     weapons will work is a matter of disagreement among military 
     experts. the Republican Guard units that control the weapons 
     are run by Hussein's most loyal officers.
       They will face a short-term or a long-term problem'' one 
     former senior intelligence official said. ``We may come after 
     them when the fighting is over. But there may be a Saddam 
     loyalist with a gun who is threatening to kill him right away 
     if he doesn't follow orders.''
       Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at the National Defense 
     University, said that in 1991, according to documents found 
     after the war, Hussein had tried to persuade his commanders 
     to use the weapons because they would be killed anyway. Also, 
     Hussein had placed loyalists with the commanders to enforce 
     his wishes. ``The question is, are they still there?'' she 
     said.
       Richard Russell, a CIA area analyst who specialized in Iraq 
     and is now at the National Defense University, said the 
     effort to deter individual commanders ``makes sense as an 
     attempt.'' But he noted that Iraqi operational security was 
     very good in the Gulf War and ``you have to assume it is much 
     better now.''
       After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, U.S. officials 
     talked openly of American forces making preparations for 
     waging combat in a chemical environment. Then-Secretary of 
     State James A. Baker III told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq 
     Aziz that Hussein's government would be endangered if such 
     weapons were used. Then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney 
     hinted that if such an attack took place against Israel, that 
     country might respond with nuclear weapons.
       In the war's aftermath, U.S. intelligence officials learned 
     that Iraq had been deterred from using chemical weapons by 
     the threat of massive retaliation. Iraqi artillery units 
     armed with chemical shells were segregated from the rest of 
     the forces and chemical munitions were never moved to Kuwait 
     and never moved toward the front as coalition forces 
     approached, and in some cases breached, the Iraq-Kuwait 
     border.
                                  ____


            C.I.A. Letter to Senate on Baghdad's Intentions

       Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator 
     Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the 
     Intelligence Committee, by George J. Tenet, director of 
     central intelligence, about decisions to declassify material 
     related to the debate about Iraq:
       In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made 
     unclassified material available to further the Senate's 
     forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning 
     Iraq.
       As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance 
     between your need for unfettered debate and our need to 
     protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a 
     shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our 
     intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with sight 
     into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The 
     salience of such concerns is only heightened by the 
     possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
       These are some of the reasons why we did not include our 
     classified judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding 
     the use of weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent 
     unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. 
     Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we 
     can declassify the following from the paragraphs you 
     requested:
       Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of 
     conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. 
     [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.
       Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no 
     longer be deterred, he probably would become much less 
     constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism 
     might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful 
     attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W.
       Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting 
     Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the 
     United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by 
     taking a large number of victims with him.
       Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify 
     the following dialogue:
       Senator Levin [Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan]: ... If 
     (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is 
     it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of 
     mass destruction?
       Senior Intelligence Witness: ... My judgment would be that 
     the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a 
     time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the 
     conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be 
     low.
       Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've ... 
     indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks 
     against us ... But what about his use of weapons of mass 
     destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was 
     in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response 
     to our attack that he would use chemical or biological 
     weapons?
       Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
       In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--``in 
     the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand 
     now''--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of 
     Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise 
     grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used W.M.D., 
     it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such 
     weapons.
       Regarding Senator Bayh's [Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indian] 
     question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw 
     from the following points for unclassified discussions:
       Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-
     Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying 
     reliability. Some of the information we have received comes 
     from detainees, including some of high rank.
       We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between 
     Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
       Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have 
     discussed safe heaven and reciprocal nonaggression.
       Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of 
     the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some 
     that have been in Baghdad.
       We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought 
     contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. 
     capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has 
     provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of 
     poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
       Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled 
     with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, 
     suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, 
     even absent U.S. military action.

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to keep fairness in this body, I 
believe there are more speakers on the other side of the aisle, and I 
would like to inquire how much longer they would need in order to find 
a way to equalize time?
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we would need a minimum of at least one full 
hour. That would be the least amount of time. It is very difficult to 
predict. We will not let anyone speak over 5 minutes. However, we feel 
an obligation to every Member who was promised the opportunity to 
speak. We want to live up to our obligations, but we will try to move 
it along as quickly as possible.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, certainly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) had every 
intention in making sure that every Member got an opportunity to speak.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 44 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.

[[Page H7439]]

Payne) and that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep appreciation to the 
gentleman from California, and to the majority, for this very generous 
action. It is not always the norm, and I just want to express my 
appreciation.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and hope it will always 
be the norm on the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the thousands in my 
district who are opposed to an ill-conceived war, I rise in opposition 
to this resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
  Thousands of my constituents have spoken. Families of military 
personnel who reside in my district have spoken. They have all 
emphatically and resoundingly delivered an answer to the question of 
going to war with Iraq; and the answer is, no, no, and no. No against 
the war in Iraq. No against sending their sons and daughters to war for 
yet-unknown reasons. And no to the ignoring of the economic problems 
that still are plaguing our Nation.
  The war that my constituents want us to wage is a war on poverty, a 
war on layoffs, a war on inadequate health care, a war on a lack of 
affordable housing and a war for economic opportunity and fairness.
  Over the last several months, the President has been earnest in his 
efforts to inform the American public of what the risks are of not 
going to war and what they may be. But, to date, he has not convinced 
the people in my district why their sons and their daughters should be 
placed in harm's way.
  If we are going to engage in an honest debate, we owe it to the 
American public to ask the right questions. Questions like: What will 
the number of military and civilian casualties be? Questions like: How 
long will the conflict in Iraq be expected to last? And simple 
questions like: Does Saddam Hussein pose a clear and present threat to 
the United States?
  Simply citing all the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, and 
there are many atrocities that have been ignored for a decade, and 
calling Saddam Hussein a bad name is simply not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, during this incredible moment in American history, we 
should all be reminded of a quote by President James Madison, ``The 
advancement and infusion of knowledge is the only guardian of 
liberty.''
  If we are sincere about bringing democracy to the people of Iraq, we 
should lead by example in every step of the way. We should lead by 
presenting the American public and the American people with clear, 
balanced and realistic information on the consequences of a war on 
Iraq.
  Let us not insult our own citizens by ignoring the fact that all 
nations in the Middle East region and many of our long-standing allies 
around the world oppose this war. They see military action in Iraq as a 
glorified oil and land grab. Let us not ignore the fact that a strike 
against Iraq will not only have the effect of inflaming existing 
resentment of U.S. foreign policy and possibly provoking renewed 
terrorist attacks on Americans both here and abroad.
  And despite the President's proclamation that America is a friend of 
the Iraqi people, we cannot insult the American people by ignoring the 
fact that U.S.-led sanctions have created a hotbed of disease and 
extreme poverty in Iraq, and war will only plunge the Iraqi people 
deeper into death and despair.
  For those who are saber rattling, war mongering and unconcerned with 
America's place in the global community, let us not ignore the 
consequences that the American people will have to pay.
  To this issue, some argue that a war with Iraq is worth the blood of 
young Americans. But as a Representative who may have to face mothers 
and fathers and brothers and sisters of fallen constituents, I will not 
disrespect and dishonor them with tough talk, tough talk that refuses 
to answer obvious questions, tough talk that only provides the American 
people with answers that do not answer, with explanations that do not 
explain, and conclusions that do not conclude.
  While I am confident that we will win an armed conflict with Iraq, 
there must be a forthright discussion with the public about the impact 
of a war on the American people and the world in which we live.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for 
the gravity of our collective decision, I rise to oppose this 
resolution, not because I disagree with the goal of disarming Saddam 
Hussein, with force if necessary, but because I believe that this 
resolution is dangerously broad and counterproductive to America's 
greater goal of winning the war on terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, over the course of the history of our country and the 
Congress, relatively few issues have risen to the significance of a 
declaration of war. Like many of my colleagues, I have personally 
anguished over this decision because I am convinced that Saddam Hussein 
is a threat. It is clear that he has designs to amass weapons of mass 
destruction with the intent to exert control over the Middle East, if 
not a larger region. The core of our decision lies in the best way to 
address this threat.
  I have tried to understand all perspectives. I have attended 
classified and public hearings, examined evidence, studied pages of 
material, and sought the counsel of many. I have listened intently to 
those who have fought wars and those who have prevented them. I have 
also listened attentively to the citizens of San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, looking back on the lessons of history, it is clear no 
one can predict the future. Those faced with difficult decisions must 
make the best judgment based on the information at hand. To be sure, in 
the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, ``We do not know what we do not 
know.'' However, that is precisely the reason that I continue to have 
reservations about unilateral force.
  Unilateral preemptive force may indeed win the battle for Iraq but 
cause us to lose the war by isolating America from its many allies, 
turning nations against us and reinforcing the cause of those who wish 
us harm.
  In addition to these considerations, we must consider our young men 
and women in uniform. Before sending them into harm's way, we must 
fully explore every other avenue to achieve our goals without risking 
their lives. I do not believe we have done that.
  I applaud the efforts of many to bring Congress to a place where 
there is more agreement than disagreement. While we may disagree on the 
manner, we agree that something must be done, and we agree that Saddam 
Hussein is a menace, and we agree that the United States must exercise 
its leadership.
  To be a true leader, we must convince others to follow. Hubert 
Humphrey once said, ``Leadership in today's world requires far more 
than a large stock of gunboats and a hard fist at the conference 
table.'' That is precisely why we must continue to seek options to 
unilateral force, to work with the United Nations and the world 
community, and to use force only when all other options are exhausted. 
If we do not, how can we expect others to do likewise?
  In addition, we must be clear in our goal. Again, citing the 
Secretary of Defense, our goal is disarmament. To achieve this, we must 
insist on tough new rigorous U.N. inspections. If those inspections are 
thwarted, we may use force, first, if sanctioned by the U.N. Security 
Council, and then alone if necessary.
  Based on these principles, I will support the Spratt substitute 
because it embodies the best way to address the threat posed by Saddam. 
It holds the U.N. accountable, and it retains Congress' prerogative to 
truly be the voice of the American people.

[[Page H7440]]

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. Speaker, I question the notion that we must speak with one voice 
because it is the collection of voices that grants us our strength. Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow I will vote ``no'' because House Joint Resolution 114 
is a premature de facto declaration of war that fails to recognize the 
fundamental tenet that leadership involves leading, not merely acting 
alone. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote on the resolution does not 
restrict the President's power to act should an imminent threat arise. 
He already has that authority.
  To conclude, let me say to the servicemen and women, especially those 
living in San Diego who will be called upon to enforce this policy, my 
admiration and respect for you is as strong as ever and it will never 
waiver. Just as you always do your duty to America regardless of how 
you personally feel about a particular mission, so will I do my duty to 
give you the support you need to complete your mission and get home 
safely. Along with my fellow Members of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, I will fight vigorously to get you every tool you need to do 
the job right.
  To my colleagues on the committee and in Congress, I hope you will 
take my opposition to this resolution in the spirit in which it is 
offered, that of doing what I feel must be done to fight and win the 
war on terrorism and empower diplomacy. We may disagree over the 
strategy of addressing the threats posed by Iraq at this time, but we 
are united in the greater goal to free America and the world from the 
threat of terrorism.
  To our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, a warning: do not confuse 
democracy and debate with disunity or disarray. Our voices constitute 
our strength, and the United States of America is united in its 
resolve.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a member of the Committee on Government Reform 
and the Committee on Financial Services, a true leader in this 
government.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that 
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two 
wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The 
question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. 
The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the 
American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more 
harm than good.
  Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported 
that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we 
have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to 
initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' 
Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam 
conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might 
at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other 
words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we 
launch a precipitous invasion.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our 
intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a 
resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go 
forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies 
including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on 
terrorism.
  But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is 
ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-
being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public 
discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over 
the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the 
retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives 
disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today 
has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our 
manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs. 
The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower 
wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?
  Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family 
income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being 
driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on 
the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other 
benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When 
are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues 
that are of such deep concern to Americans?
  Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I 
am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral 
invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this 
resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young 
American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of 
thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a 
caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible 
suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in 
international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned 
about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish 
in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If 
President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against 
any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if 
another country chose to do the same thing?
  Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war 
against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 
11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are 
prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced 
before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National 
Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An 
attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, 
the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
  Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt 
and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term 
American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
  Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended 
consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and 
what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop 
in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large 
Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by 
extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions 
that remain unanswered.
  If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, 
what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United 
Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. 
inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should 
undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 
and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq 
resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should 
stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
114.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which 
would authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
  The diplomatic and military situation in Iraq without question 
remains one of the most difficult security issues facing the United 
States and the international community. It has only been further 
complicated by the terrorist attacks on our country last year. 
Recently, the President's national security adviser said Saddam Hussein 
has sheltered al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in 
the development of chemical weapons. Also of concern is the revelation 
that there may have been a meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence 
official and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11th attacks.
  The administration has stated on numerous occasions that the war on 
terrorism will continue to be fought against all countries that support 
or harbor terrorists. It appears that list must include Iraq.

[[Page H7441]]

  Our national security depends on preventing other countries from 
developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has pursued an agenda to 
develop weapons of mass destruction including chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons for many years. Saddam Hussein has already demonstrated 
an unconscionable willingness to use chemical weapons on his own 
people, attacking ethnic Kurds in Northern Iraq. He also used them 
against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's arsenal 
includes several delivery systems, including long-range missiles 
capable of carrying dangerous payloads to our allies in the Middle East 
and Europe, including U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Turkey.
  The United Nations Security Council required Iraq to scrap all 
weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow for 
weapons verification inspections. For the past four years, Iraq has 
prevented representatives of the United Nations from inspecting Iraq's 
weapon facilities. It is clear that the Iraqi government has undermined 
the authority of the United Nations by rebuilding many of its chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapon manufacturing plants.
  Iraq has a history of invading its neighbors and using any and all 
weapons at its disposal against its enemies. A nuclear weapon in the 
hands of Hussein's brutal regime would give him an unacceptable upper 
hand to expand control over the world's petroleum reserves and quite 
possibly give him the leverage he needs to expand the borders of 
tyranny.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not an unlikely possibility that Iraq, as a state-
sponsor of terrorism, would transfer weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorists intent on using them against the United States. September 
11th showed us that America is not immune to terror attacks, and Iraq's 
ties to international terrorist groups are unquestioned.
  I support the President's campaign against any state, including Iraq, 
which is found to support terrorism or seeks to develop weapons of mass 
destruction with the intent of attacking America or its allies. We 
cannot wait for a transparent threat to materialize. The longer we 
wait, the more we risk another unthinkable attack upon our soil. Simply 
put, the United States cannot ignore the threat that Iraq poses to our 
way of life and that of our allies.
  Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for years of noncompliance 
with United Nations resolutions. Failure to enforce the resolutions 
weakens the authority of the United Nations itself and sends a message 
to the foes of peace that future disobedience will be objected to 
solely through empty threats and resolutions without teeth.
  I am hopeful that diplomatic efforts may yet succeed, and believe the 
United States must try to work with our allies and the international 
community towards a peaceful solution to our present situation. Every 
Member of Congress weighs this decision carefully, knowing the votes we 
cast may place the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Yet 
if it becomes necessary, we must be certain we do not embark upon a 
Sicilian Expedition. Any use of force should include clear goals. If we 
are to enter into conflict in Iraq, we must plainly establish our 
objectives and follow through on a commitment to purge terror and 
rebuild Iraq into a strong and stable nation.
  Our first priority of any use of force should be to eliminate the 
ability of the Hussein regime to manufacture, distribute, or employ 
weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's goal has always been to obtain a 
weapon of such destructive force, that no other nation would be willing 
to resist his will. It would be fundamentally irresponsible to allow 
Iraq to obtain a weapon that could be used to deter allied forces from 
enforcing the internationally recognized authority of the United 
Nations. Saddam's arsenal of aggression and terror must be completely 
destroyed in order to encourage stability and prevent the proliferation 
of those weapons to other parts of the region. This action must be our 
first goal.

  The second goal, is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq 
has traditionally been a nation of commerce and prosperity, but Hussein 
hoards the resources of his country, starving her citizens into 
submission. His power is sustained by a 25,000-strong Republican Guard 
who, in return for maintaining Saddam's rule, are rewarded with Iraq's 
riches at the expense of her people. Hussein is not only guilty of some 
of the most heinous crimes against humanity, but he rules Iraq like a 
gangster by modeling his authority on the oppressive tyranny of Joseph 
Stalin and frequently and personally executes any who oppose his rule 
or stand in his way. We cannot continue to allow Hussein to cow the 
Iraqi people into living under an umbrella of terror. Hussein's 
sinister methodology of terror, assassination, and execution against 
all who oppose him must end. We must support a regime change.
  Our third objective should include a plan to root out all elements of 
terror within Iraq and bring accountability to the war on terror within 
the borders of Iraq. Hussein's government has proven uncooperative and 
refuses to help in the identification and apprehension of those in 
terror networks. The Hussein regime is unable to control areas within 
Northern Iraq giving terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda free rein to 
operate within Iraq's borders. This stands in stark contrast to the 
other nations in the region who are working with the United States to 
eradicate terrorist networks.
  Finally, the United States and the International Community must 
create a plan to rebuild Iraq and to restore a government that 
represents the interests of Iraqis and is dedicated to reconstructing 
an economy decimated by tyranny. New leadership will give the people of 
Iraq an opportunity to become a responsible member of the international 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush has requested the Congress pass a 
resolution authorizing the use of military force to enforce the United 
Nations' Security Council Resolutions which Iraq continues to defy. We 
must defend the national security interests of the United States. We 
must eliminate the threat posed by Iraqi terror and we must work to 
restore international peace and security to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House 
Joint Resolution 114.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a real spokesperson for justice in this country 
and a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. On September 
11, 2001, our Nation changed. We were traumatized when al Qaeda 
terrorists attacked our Nation, killed nearly 3,000 Americans, wounded 
many others physically, emotionally, and spiritually; destroyed 
families and buildings and disrupted our economy. The President, the 
Congress, and the American people responded quickly, appropriately and 
with courage. All Americans support the war on terrorism, and they want 
homeland security.
  However, terrorism not only changed our psyche; it changed our 
politics. Our politics shifted from hope to fear, and fear now clouds 
our thinking. September 11 and Iraq are two distinct issues. 
Nevertheless, President Bush is trying to take our legitimate fear 
following 9-11 and illegitimately link it to Iraq. The White House and 
some in this body have sought to link al Qaeda and September 11 to 
Iraq. That alleged link underscores the President's position that the 
Iraqi threat is imminent. However, congressional Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence members have said President Bush has 
presented no factual evidence proving that link. Even the President 
separates 9-11 from an imminent Iraqi threat, and here is the proof. 
President Bush sees 9-11 and Iraq as separate because just 2 weeks ago 
on September 24, he lowered the domestic risk of terrorist attacks from 
orange to yellow. He lowered it. If the Iraqi threat were imminent, 
would not the risk of terrorist attacks have at least remained the 
same, at orange, or even elevated and raised to red, a severe risk of 
terrorist attacks? But the President lowered it from orange to yellow.
  Yes, Iraq's threat is real; and in light of 9-11, it is normal for 
Americans to be afraid, but the Iraqi threat is not imminent. We should 
not let it affect our politics over the next 3 weeks. We should not 
vote on the basis of fear of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. We 
must vote our hopes and not our fears. So far this debate has been 
about military sticks, whether, when or under what circumstances to use 
them. But why not try carrots too? Most Americans do not know that the 
United States would not lift economic sanctions on Iraq even if Saddam 
agreed to and fully implemented all U.N. resolutions.
  In 1997 Secretary Albright said the U.S. would only lift sanctions 
when Saddam Hussein was gone, not when Iraq lived up to U.N. 
resolutions. President Clinton stated sanctions will be there until the 
end of time or as long as Hussein lasts. But economic sanctions are 
only hurting the people, making life miserable for the average Iraqi, 
causing an estimated 500,000 deaths, mainly women and children. The 
economic sanctions are not hurting Saddam Hussein. If they were, he 
would not be the threat that the President says he is. Insisting on a 
regime change before lifting economic sanctions goes beyond the legal 
mandate of U.N. policy and is not authorized by any U.N.

[[Page H7442]]

resolution. We need to lure Iraqi compliance with a meaningful economic 
inducement, not merely threaten them with military force. Why does the 
United States not offer to lift economic sanctions in an orderly and 
progressive way in exchange for unfettered and comprehensive 
inspections? Without the carrot of lifting economic sanctions in 
exchange for removing weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi government 
has no incentive to cooperate. Offering to lift economic sanctions in 
exchange for unfettered inspections will gain the support within Iraq 
and among our allies.
  Before there is any authorization for the use of armed force against 
Iraq, we must make sure that all peaceful means containing and 
eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted, 
including offering positive incentives, and the U.S. should lead this 
initiative. This positive incentive to get Saddam Hussein to comply has 
not and is not currently in play. But until we make this overture and 
change the policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime 
change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful alternatives to force.
  We are a Nation united by our Constitution and committed to the rule 
of law. That commitment is now challenged by an outlaw. We must bring 
this outlaw to justice but not become outlaws ourselves. And while our 
attention is focused on a military threat overseas, we are drowning at 
home economically. I believe we can creatively insist on a peaceful 
resolution to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction without an 
invasion and the actual use of force. Our military might is 
unquestioned. Our wisdom, our compassion, our commitment to a 
nonviolent means of resolving conflict is not. By that and that alone 
will move us toward a genuine peace, justice and security for all.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I take the threat of 
nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile and aggressive Iraq very 
seriously. On September 11 when my district was attacked, I thanked God 
the terrorists did not have nuclear weapons. We all want to protect 
this Nation. The question before us today is not whether to protect 
America, but how best to do so.
  Saddam Hussein unquestionably poses a real danger. He has 
consistently shown a virulent hostility to the United States and to 
Israel, a willingness to invade other countries without provocation, a 
willingness to use chemical and biological weapons against civilian 
populations, a relentless drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction 
including nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and a reckless 
aggressiveness.

                              {time}  2315

  The conclusion is inescapable that the acquisition of nuclear weapons 
by Iraq would pose an intolerable threat to the United States and to 
world peace. That threat must be met, if at all possible, through the 
United Nations and in accordance with international law, but war must 
be the last resort, not the first option.
  The resolution before us is not a compromise. It is in all important 
respects still very much the original draft: a blank check, like the 
Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We must not grant the President a blank 
check.
  Make no mistake, this resolution grants the President the power to go 
to war entirely at his discretion. While the resolution pays lip 
service to the need for international cooperation, it does not require 
the President to seek it. While the resolution mentions a desire to 
work through the United Nations, it does not require the President to 
exhaust our options at the U.N. before starting a war.
  The resolution requires the President to inform Congress that efforts 
in the U.N. and the international community have failed, but he need 
not do so until after he starts a war. We must grant the President the 
power to take prudent action to meet the threat from Iraq but only 
action that does not itself threaten international peace and security.
  The United States should seek a U.N. resolution providing for the 
immediate return to Iraq of beefed-up arms inspection teams and 
demanding that they be afforded unfettered and unconditional access to 
all sites they deem necessary to accomplish their task of locating and 
destroying all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and their 
production facilities.
  The U.N. resolution should authorize the use of military force to the 
extent necessary to overcome any Iraqi attempts to interfere with the 
inspection teams, and Congress should authorize the President to use 
such military force only to enable the inspection teams to do their 
jobs.
  We might this way be able to eliminate the threat of Iraq's chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons without military conflict. But if 
military conflict occurred, we would be better off as part of a 
multilateral effort enforcing a Security Council inspection and 
disarmament order, with the onus on Saddam Hussein for starting the 
conflict, than we would as the Lone Ranger invading Iraq on our own, 
with most of the world looking on in disapproval.
  Let me remind my colleagues: Before they were ejected from Iraq, U.N. 
inspectors destroyed more weapons and more weapons facilities than did 
the coalition forces during the Gulf War. This proven, successful 
course of action should be fully utilized before we risk regional 
conflagration.
  I believe the Security Council would adopt a resolution embodying 
such a specific limited approach, and that, working through the U.N. 
and with other nations, the U.S. could participate in successfully 
implementing it.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the President insists that, in addition to 
disarming Saddam, we must overthrow his regime. Demanding regime change 
is extremely dangerous. It is one thing to tell Saddam he must disarm. 
It is quite another to demand the end of his regime.
  Faced with such a threat, which in practical terms means his death, 
there would be nothing to deter Saddam Hussein from deciding, like 
Samson in the Philistine temple, that he might as well pull the world 
down with him. Why should he not go down in history as an Arab hero by 
attacking Israel with chemical or biological weapons of perhaps 
devastating lethality? Israel might then feel compelled to retaliate, 
and no one could calculate the course of escalation from there.
  But Members do not need to take my evaluation of this threat. Just 
yesterday, the director of the CIA, George Tenet, told the other body 
that ``Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of 
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or 
biological weapons.'' But, he continued, if Saddam concluded the 
survival of his regime was threatened, ``he probably would become much 
less constrained in adopting terrorist action.''
  Mr. Speaker, we must constrain the administration from pursuing this 
perilous course. The substitute resolution offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) grants the President the authority to 
use military force as part of a multilateral effort to divest Saddam of 
his weapons of mass destruction.
  That is as far as we should go. We must draw this line, Mr. Speaker, 
not because we are unconcerned with our country's security, but 
precisely because we care so very, very much for it.

                          ____________________