[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19510-19518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 574

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) 
     to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against 
     Iraq. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment to the preamble and the amendment to 
     the text recommended by the Committee on International 
     Relations and now printed in the joint resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, 
     and on any further amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) 17 hours of debate on 
     the joint resolution, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations, which may be extended 
     pursuant to section 2; (2) the further amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, which may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be in order without intervention of any point 
     of order or demand for division of the question, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent; (3) after the conclusion of 
     consideration of the amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, a final period of debate on the joint 
     resolution, as amended, which shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on International Relations; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order for the Majority Leader or his 
     designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader, to 
     move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended. 
     Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 114 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint 
     resolution to a time designated by the Speaker either on the 
     same legislative day or on the next legislative day.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule that provides for 20 hours of 
debate on the resolution as well as providing for two Democratic 
substitutes. The rule also provides that after consultation with the 
minority leader, the majority leader may extend debate to ensure that 
all Members have an opportunity to speak on this important issue. Just 
as in 1991, every single Member will have a chance to be heard.
  The rules makes in order two substitute amendments, two Democratic 
substitutes to be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), as well as 
providing for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, at this moment the people's House begins debate on one 
of the most difficult questions we will ever face. I rise today in 
strong support of the resolution authorizing the President to take 
action to address the very troubling issue of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. 
No Member of this body should ever be too eager to send our military 
into harm's way. Nor should we ever consider taking such an action 
without a strong and vigorous debate. At the end of the day, however, I 
am pleased that we have come up with a bipartisan resolution to prove 
once again that partisanship ends at the water's edge.
  I am a strong supporter of international cooperation, working with 
our friends and allies and the United Nations. However, in matters of 
national security, multinational cooperation and coalition-building are 
tools that help us to achieve our most precious national interests. We 
cannot be beholden to any institution whose interests may not coincide 
with our own.
  Obviously, we would all be gratified to have the full and 
unconditional support of the United Nations Security Council. Secretary 
of State Colin Powell has been working tirelessly for months to garner 
that support up in New York. But as the Government of the United 
States, it is our primary responsibility to provide for the safety and 
security of our citizens, both at home and abroad. That is why I 
support this resolution which will in fact strengthen our hand at the 
United Nations and demonstrate that this government is united in its 
determination to address the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein oppresses his people, flaunts the will of

[[Page 19511]]

the international community, has committed genocide, and pursues 
weapons of mass destruction that will dramatically alter the status of 
his country in the international system.
  For 12 years he has blatantly ignored the Security Council 
resolutions he previously agreed to. When the inspectors were 
conducting their inspections with Iraq, they were constantly impeded. 
The time for ineffective inspections, with conditions set by this 
Stalinist dictator, has passed. Iraq has received chance after chance, 
only to continue to obstruct and deny. The time for chances is over. 
Only unconditional and unfettered inspections with total disarmament of 
Iraq's cache of weapons of mass destruction are acceptable.
  So far, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proved unwilling to back 
its words with actions. As Saddam's primary enemy, it falls to the 
President and this Congress to protect the American people from this 
mass murderer. Saddam Hussein presents a clear and immediate threat to 
the safety of American citizens and our interests overseas. We know he 
has produced such deadly gases as VX and sarin, along with anthrax. We 
know he has over 30,000 delivery vehicles for such biological and 
chemical agents, and we know he has scuds capable of reaching our 
forces stationed in the Gulf and our NATO allies in Turkey.
  Perhaps more frightening, we know that Iraq is actively seeking to 
reestablish its nuclear weapons program and has reportedly been seeking 
uranium to achieve that goal, and the track record shows that his 
ability to inflict harm has always been underestimated. Given the level 
of technical expertise that Iraq developed prior to the Gulf War, it 
would take them months, not years, to develop a nuclear device once 
they obtained the proper materials.
  There are those who argue that Saddam Hussein, a man who has started 
two wars in 2 decades, can be contained and managed. Let me remind the 
Nation of Saddam Hussein's record in power. He sponsors terrorist 
groups that have killed American citizens. He routinely pays the 
families of suicide bombers while he lets his own citizens starve. He 
has executed thousands of Iraqis a year and combats dissent by publicly 
removing the tongues of his critics. He has engaged in ethnic cleansing 
utilizing chemical weapons that have killed over 5,000 Kurds, and he 
has completely destroyed entire towns he felt were disloyal. He has 
committed genocide and other crimes against humanity and deserves to be 
held accountable.
  The United States held the moral high ground in ending Slobodan 
Milosevic's reign of terror, and Saddam has reigned too long.
  Further, I disagree with those who argue that we should not undertake 
this action because it is preemptive. Authorizing the President to 
effectively address this situation is not preemptive. This is a 
response to those heinous acts I have just outlined. With every U.N. 
resolution Iraq ignores, it threatens international peace. Unless and 
until Iraq complies fully with the inspections, a standard it has never 
met, there remains ample justification for taking action to defend the 
security of our Nation. Iraq is a nation that publicly states that it 
has every intention of cooperating with the international community, 
but continues to try to shoot down our brave pilots enforcing the no-
fly zones.
  History has not been kind to the governments that have acceded to the 
wishes of brutal dictators in the hopes of staving off conflicts. The 
security of the future depends on the resolve we show here today. As we 
learned on September 11, delaying our response to security threats can 
have devastating consequences. It is incumbent upon all of us to 
demonstrate to the world's dictators they cannot hide behind false 
cooperation and that our Nation will not be cowed from protecting our 
citizens for fear of political or military difficulty.
  Mr. Speaker, our security comes first. I cannot help but think of 
Abraham Lincoln's words 137 years ago when he said: ``The struggle of 
today is not altogether for today. It is for a vast future also.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we begin a historic debate here in the House of 
Representatives. It will continue for 3 days, and every Member will 
have the opportunity to be heard. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, it is not 
often that Congress must consider matters of war and peace, so we have 
studied the issue seriously. Within the Democratic Caucus, Members have 
received numerous briefings from Republicans as well as Democrats and 
outside experts as well as those inside the administration and asked 
probing questions over the past few weeks and months.
  I expect that this debate will be as robust as it is serious. It 
should come as no surprise that many sincere people in the 
administration, in Congress, and among the public have varying views 
about how best to deal with Saddam Hussein; and it should come as no 
surprise that there is no party position on an issue of this gravity.
  In 1991, I was in the minority of my own party when I voted to 
authorize the first President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. 
Now, 11 years later, the situation is different; and I expect that more 
Democrats will authorize the second President Bush to use military 
force, if necessary, to end the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
  Mr. Speaker, I disagree with those who assume that the opposition's 
part is to automatically oppose the administration. When it comes to 
national security, the public expects Democrats and Republicans to lay 
down our partisan swords and try to work out a consensus.

                              {time}  1030

  We may differ in some areas, but those differences should be based on 
principle, not on party labels. The three resolutions on the House 
floor meet that standard. They have the support of thoughtful Members 
of both parties who have struggled sincerely to devise what they 
believe is the best approach to protecting America and our vital 
interests in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, our lively and honest discussion this week, and I expect 
it will be very lively, should not be mistaken for a lack of resolve. 
On both sides of the aisle there is general consensus that Saddam 
Hussein is a threat to the security and stability of the world, and 
there is an overwhelming bipartisan commitment to ending that threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Saddam's outlaw regime poses a 
serious threat to the United States, our allies, and the rest of the 
world. Between 1991 and 1998, weapons inspectors found and destroyed 
significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons, despite Iraq's 
protestations that none existed. Since then, Saddam Hussein has 
continued his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as well as his 
hostilities to the United States and our interests.
  I am pleased that Democratic and Republican leaders, working with the 
administration, have agreed to the compromise resolution H.J. Res. 114 
that is on the House floor this week. The President has accepted many 
important Democratic changes to his original resolution. As a result, 
it has been significantly improved and America's position against 
Saddam Hussein has been strengthened.
  The compromise resolution strikes a good balance between using a 
multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend our 
interests. It strongly supports the efforts of Secretary of State Colin 
Powell to build an international coalition through the United Nations 
against Saddam Hussein; and if diplomatic efforts fail, it requires the 
President to report back to Congress before beginning military action.
  There are other important changes. While the original White House 
draft would have authorized military action in the region, this 
compromise focuses on Iraq specifically. It also requires the President 
to comply with the War Powers Act and its regular procedures for 
consulting with, and reporting to, Congress. Moreover, this resolution 
requires the President to ensure the war

[[Page 19512]]

 on terrorism will not be hampered by military action against Iraq.
  Since September 11, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to 
wage the war on terror, and it is critical that the administration not 
forget its commitment to bring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice.
  Finally, this resolution forces the administration to report to 
Congress on their planning for the reconstruction, peacekeeping, and 
other activities that will be necessary after a military conflict with 
Iraq. Winning the peace is as important as winning the war, and we 
insist that the administration prepare the American people for the 
long-term commitment needed to restore peace and stability to Iraq and 
the Middle East.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan compromise is a substantial 
improvement on the White House's original draft. Just as importantly, 
it will help build broad support in the international community as well 
as here at home for ending the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. That is 
critical because this is not an easy job. I remain hopeful that 
international diplomatic pressure will allow a strong, unfettered 
inspections regime to disarm Saddam Hussein, and I believe that the 
strong signal that Congress sends with this resolution will increase 
our diplomatic leverage.
  But I am also not naive. Given Saddam's history, we must be prepared 
for the possibility of a military confrontation with Iraq. The United 
States has the finest fighting force in the world, and I am confident 
that if we are forced to fight Saddam Hussein our troops will defeat 
him overwhelmingly. But war is not something to be taken lightly, and 
it requires the full support of the American people. That is why, Mr. 
Speaker, Democrats insisted that the President seek congressional 
authorization before taking action against Saddam Hussein; and it is 
why Democratic leaders reached out to the White House to craft a 
bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a deadly serious matter, and I have tremendous 
respect for many of those who differ with me on it. After all, men and 
women who love their country can disagree on the best way to protect 
our country. Nonetheless, I believe that the best way to end Saddam 
Hussein's threat is to meet it head on, and I believe that the 
compromise resolution represents a sensible and responsible approach to 
protecting America and the world against Saddam Hussein. I expect it 
will pass with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support it deserves.
  In closing, let me make one more point. Before this is over we may be 
asking families across the Nation to make tremendous sacrifices. 
Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops may have to put their lives on the 
line.
  I have no doubt that the men and women of the military can secure 
America's interests abroad, but as these brave Americans do their job, 
I hope this Congress will finally do its job and address the deepening 
economic uncertainty that threatens our security here at home. After 
all, Iraq is not the only issue in America today. As we speak, 
unemployment and the poverty rate erupt, while the stock market and 
401(K) plans are down. Every day Americans across the country have to 
deal with economic security as well as national security. It is time 
this Congress followed their example.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the Republican members 
of the Committee on Rules are going to be standing today in strong 
support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia 
(Mr. Linder), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology 
and the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation 
which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the 
United States against Iraq.
  In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two 
amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of 
the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important 
issue. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), for his thoughtful deliberation in 
bringing this rule to the floor today.
  Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a 
debate of historic proportions; and, once the debate has concluded, we 
must give an answer to our President who has asked the Congress to 
unite with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam 
Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush and cast my vote in 
support of H.J. Res. 114.
  Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 
310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has 
authorized the use of force through legislation 11 times and has 
declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will 
cast on this legislation will be among the most profound of our 
careers. Yet a careful review of the evidence that President Bush has 
put before the country, the United Nations, and the world makes it 
clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable choice.
  Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein 
poses in the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be 
our preferred tool. Yet what has been going on for the last 11 years if 
not that? The failures of the United Nations' actions are well known. 
Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a 
different destination?
  The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the 
United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States 
must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes it clear 
to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United 
Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the 
consequences of those failures.
  The fundamental question before us today is: Will the United States 
of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, 
allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid 
the world of this growing menace?
  What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end 
we seek, a world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams 
unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power. The people 
of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical and 
dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the 
Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and, yes, North 
America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass 
destruction visit upon them.
  It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two 
centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our 
military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and 
freedom in the world. I see no reason now to answer this call with a 
message of timidity or caution.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me so that Congress can speak with 
a clear voice and support the President for peace throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying, 
H.J. Res. 114, which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the 
President of the United States against Iraq.
  In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two 
amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of 
the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important 
issue. I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for 
his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today.
  Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a 
debate of historic proportions. And, once the debate has concluded, we 
must give an answer to our President, who has asked the Congress to 
untie with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam 
Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush, and cast my vote in 
support of H.J. Res. 114.
  Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 
310 separate military

[[Page 19513]]

actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has authorized the use of 
force, through legislation, 11 times, and has declared war on sovereign 
states five times. Thus, the vote we will cast on this legislation will 
be among the most profound of our careers. Yet, a careful review of the 
evidence that President Bush has put before our country, the United 
Nations and the world makes clear that this difficult choice is our 
only reasonable choice.
  Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein 
poses to the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be 
our preferred tool. Yet, what has been going on for the last 11 years 
if not that? The failures of United Nations actions are well known. 
Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a 
different destination?
  The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the 
United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States 
must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes clear to 
Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United 
Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the 
consequences of those failures.
  The fundamental question before us today is: will the United States 
of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, 
allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid 
the world of this growing menace?
  What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end 
we seek. A world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams 
unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power.
  The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, 
tyrannical, and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving 
people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and 
North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass 
destruction visit upon them.
  It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two 
centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our 
military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and 
freedom for the world. I see no reason to now answer this call with a 
message of timidity or caution.
  Passing this resolution with a broad, bi-partisan majority gives the 
U.S. Congress the opportunity to bring a troubled world together under 
the flag of freedom, a flag that has been unseen in much of the Middle 
East for too many generations.
  I ask my colleagues to join with me, so that the Congress may speak 
in one clear voice, to answer the President's call for peace throughout 
the world, to remove those who seek to harm not only their own people, 
but everyone who believes in liberty and justice, and to bring freedom 
to the people of Iraq--by any means necessary.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, although I wish more of 
the substitute amendments had been made in order.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 114, the resolution on Iraq.
  I have great respect for the President and for all my colleagues who 
disagree with me on this vote of conscience, but I must dissent. Simply 
put, the resolution on Iraq grants authority for the United States to 
unilaterally attack Iraq. It grants the President the right to go to 
war with Iraq tomorrow, without the support of any other nation and 
absent the support of the UN Security Council.
  A little over a year ago, I voted to support the President when he 
asked for authorization to use force against those who attacked us on 
September 11. I believe that campaign remains the number one priority 
for our foreign, military and intelligence policy.
  In Afghanistan we are still engaged militarily, hunting down the 
surviving al Qaeda leadership and its network of supporters. That work 
is far from over. There is a desperate need for more resources to 
rebuild Afghanistan and restore democratic government. The U.S. and the 
international community cannot, must not fail Afghanistan again.
  Our work to take down al Qaeda's international organization and 
financial network is also far from over, and it requires the continuing 
assistance of the international community.
  Some argue that we have the resources to do it all, to wage a war 
against terrorism, to unilaterally invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq, 
and not compromise our troops deployed around the world. But why, when 
we can and should work with other nations to disarm Iraq, when our 
allies can share the cost?
  The President was right to challenge the U.N. Security Council to 
carry out its mandate to disarm Iraq and ensure that it can no longer 
stockpile, develop, produce or use chemical, biological, or nuclear 
weapons. We must now work to ensure that the U.N. Security Council 
meets its responsibilities. If we get inspectors back into Iraq, then 
once again we will destroy Saddam's weapons. This time we must ensure 
that he remains disarmed.
  I am not asking that we stand by or stand down. If Iraq continues to 
obstruct inspections, then the Security Council must approve coercive 
inspections or a broader military intervention. But we are not yet at 
that point, and this Congress should not approve immediate and 
unilateral U.S. action without the sanction of international law or the 
support of our allies.
  I have no doubt that we can defeat Iraq, but I have heard nothing, 
nothing in the shifting rhetoric and rationale supporting unilateral 
action against Iraq to make me confident that the consequences of such 
an invasion have been fully considered. There is no genuine plan of who 
and what would come after Saddam Hussein, or the requirements of an 
occupation force to hold and protect Iraq from internal and external 
enemies, or the resources needed to rebuild Iraq and who would provide 
them, or the impact of invasion on Iraq's neighbors or on popular 
feeling throughout the world, let alone the impact of achieving peace 
in the Middle East.
  If we take unilateral action outside the authority of the U.N. and 
without the direct involvement of our allies, invoking our new policy 
of preemptive strike, are we not setting a dangerous precedent for 
other nations? More than any other country, the U.S. has spent the past 
half century building a body of international law, rules of engagement, 
and multilateral institutions to guard against this very thing, nations 
taking matters into their own hands and deciding to fix what is wrong 
with the world as they see fit.
  As the world's greatest military power, it is our first 
responsibility to build consensus, create coalitions, and move 
international bodies to protect and provide for our collective 
security. It should not be ``Plan B.''
  People throughout my district have asked me, why are we going to war 
in Iraq? Veterans and seniors, students and CEOs have expressed their 
deep concern. They hate Saddam and recognize, as I do, that he is a 
brutal dictator, but they do not think we should go it alone.
  When I vote whether to send our brave young men and women into harm's 
way, I must be absolutely sure that I can face their fathers and 
mothers, their husbands, wives, and children and tell them we have no 
other choice; war is the only option. And I simply cannot do that yet.
  Last September, I voted for force. It was necessary. It was right. It 
was clearly in defense of our Nation. But today I must dissent.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, continuing with our colleagues on the 
Committee on Rules, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a true patriot and my great friend.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we can engage in no more important task than this, 
debating whether to authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United 
States. This task is difficult, but the issue before us is 
fundamentally clear.
  After it was expelled from Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to end its 
production forever of weapons of mass destruction. Despite that 
requirement set forth by the international community by means of U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq has at this time a usable

[[Page 19514]]

chemical and biological weapons capability, which has included recent 
production of chemical and biological agents.
  As recently declassified intelligence reports have made clear, Iraq 
can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive rage of 
artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles. 
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its 
obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and in breach of U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 687. Uranium has been sought by Iraq that 
has no civil nuclear application in that country.
  Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological 
weapons with command, control, and logistical arrangements in place. 
The Iraqi military is able to deploy these mobile units within 45 
minutes of a decision to do so. Iraq has learned lessons from previous 
U.N. weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and 
disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the 
possible return of inspectors.
  Despite having lost the war in 1991 and despite being required by the 
U.N. to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and to acquiesce to 
free and open inspections by the U.N. to verify his compliance with the 
world community's requirements that he not possess those weapons, 
Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
  What seems inconceivable to me is that we did not have this debate in 
this forum 4 years ago. But in reality, only the Commander in Chief can 
really lead in the field of national security.
  Some say we should wait until we find a smoking gun with regard to 
nuclear weapons. As my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
said last night in the Committee on Rules, that smoking gun would be a 
smoking city, and having to mourn 3 million innocent civilians instead 
of 3,000.
  Regime change in Iraq is a strategic necessity. It cannot be 
postponed because time is not on the side of the United States and the 
international community. The world community should have removed Saddam 
from power when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors 4 years ago. 
Saddam must be removed before he has a single nuclear bomb and before 
he has the means to deliver his other weapons of mass destruction on a 
large scale.
  The long-term cost in blood and tears of allowing Saddam to 
strengthen his position would be much higher than the cost of any 
action to remove him now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has begun a historic debate 
on the most serious topic that we have ever considered by this body, 
the question of whether to go to war. The Constitution states 
explicitly that Congress shall have the power to declare war. This 
great and terrible power is vested not in the individual of the 
President, but in the collective will of the electorate as embodied by 
its representatives. Members can cast no more weighty vote than this.
  That said, Mr. Speaker, every bone in my body is telling me that the 
American people do not want this conflict, nor do they believe this 
resolution is warranted at this present time. The voices are drowned 
out by the drumbeat for war emanating from Washington. These voices are 
not confident that the body has asked the tough questions. They are not 
confident that the shifting rationales for the invasion are anything 
but a war in search of a justification.
  In the last 2 months alone, more than 1,100 people have called or 
written my office expressing intense disapproval of any U.S. military 
action against Iraq. That contrasts with 15 who support it. These 
voices are not an anomaly. Members from both sides of the aisle are 
hearing them. I believe more and more that they represent the majority 
of the Nation.
  Like most of my colleagues, I have thought and reflected at length on 
this vote. It is never an easy decision for a Member of Congress to 
make lightly. I would like to share with my colleagues and constituents 
the issues and questions that have led me to oppose this resolution as 
written and not to send young Americans into harm's way.
  First I want to discuss the source of Iraq's bioweapons. Saddam 
Hussein is not a new threat for the United States. Since he took power 
in 1979, Hussein has committed a laundry list of human rights abuses, 
despotic acts and crimes against the global community. In 1990, this 
Chamber voted to empower the President to wage war against Iraq in 
order to free Kuwait and in order to preserve stability in the Middle 
East. Yet the policy by the United States has not always been clear.
  Most people do not know that during the early 1980s the Reagan 
administration, followed by the first Bush administration, backed Iraq 
in its war against Iran on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my 
friend.
  At that time, the Commerce Department of the United States approved a 
series of exports to the Iraqi Government of substances that will now 
sound familiar to many Americans. The administration allowed Iraq to 
receive biological samples of anthrax, the bacteria that makes 
botulinum toxin, the germs that cause gas gangrene, and West Nile 
virus, among others. Sure, he has biological weapons. We gave them to 
him.
  Clearly one must address Iraq and its arsenal, but we can go forward 
without alienating our friends and allies within the region. Indeed, 
our allies are critical to winning the war on terror, on which we have 
already embarked, just as they were an important part of the 1991 
coalition that led to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. 
Moreover, our allies financed that conflict.
  I am deeply troubled by the administration's unwillingness to address 
the long-term strategy of Iraq. The President has failed to articulate 
any plan for dealing with the future of Iraq if and when Saddam Hussein 
is removed. Is Saddam's removal the final goal? Or will the United 
States be expected to engage in the reconstruction of Iraq?
  Will our country be involved in overhauling their political 
institutions, the Iraqi economy, or its infrastructure? What if our 
invasion sparks more terror and a wider war in the Middle East? Are the 
American people ready to make these commitments?
  Why do we think that rank-and-file Muslims in the Middle East will 
support America in a war with Iraq, as they did in the early '90s? With 
millions of Muslims watching death and destruction on television, 
blaming the United States, is our strategy really one that will 
stabilize that region?
  None of these questions have been addressed publicly by the 
President, and we should not vote to authorize any President to 
initiate an open-ended conflict with so many unanswered questions.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, why now? What has changed? 
Saddam Hussein has been a threat in the region since he invaded Kuwait 
12 years ago, and yet we left him alone. He has not ever cooperated 
basically with the United Nations since shortly after the 1991 cease-
fire when the Security Council demanded that Iraq cooperate with 
weapons inspectors. He has not fully cooperated in more than 10 years; 
and as President Bush has noted, it has been 4 years since a U.N. 
inspector has been allowed inside Iraq.
  So if nothing has changed in the past 4 years, why are we going after 
Iraq now? If there are new developments and concerns, why does the 
administration not share them with us?
  The emotional and financial costs of any such action can be felt for 
a generation or more. In a time when our economy is reeling, when our 
stock market is spiralling, when the safety nets such as Social 
Security and Medicaid that have sustained our seniors and our most 
vulnerable citizens are threatened, this body needs to take a hard look 
at what this Nation's priorities are and why we are undertaking this 
and ask again, Why now?
  Mr. Speaker, I vote against this resolution with a heavy heart, but I 
am fortunate that there will be a resolution we can support by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) which does all the following 
things we have

[[Page 19515]]

talked about, making sure that diplomacy and all other avenues have 
been explored before we make this extraordinary decision.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to one comment made by my friend from Rochester.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very true that during the 1980s the United States 
did in fact provide biological materials to Iraq, but I should say it 
was done with the best of intentions, with the goal of trying to help 
the Iraqi people through fighting malaria and other diseases.
  Now, it is very apparent, we have learned, Mr. Speaker, that 
fertilizer request could be utilized to create a bomb, as we found in 
Oklahoma City several years ago. The challenge that we have is in 
dealing with the intentions of Saddam Hussein, and that is the question 
that we face right here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a very hard-working, thoughtful 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington 
(Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, each of us comes to Congress for the first time with 
hopes and dreams of what lies ahead while we serve as Members of this 
great institution. But surely none of us here today and none who came 
before us could possibly have wished for the terrible choice facing us 
at the conclusion of this debate. And make no mistake, it is indeed the 
most terrible of choices.
  For, one way or another, once we vote, lives will be lost. That will 
be the case whether military action against Saddam Hussein is 
authorized or not. And it goes without saying that none of us takes 
such a Hobson's choice lightly.
  Whether we like it or not, a choice must be made, and made without 
delay. The imminent nature of the threat facing America and the world 
means that not to decide is to decide.
  We all know too much about the plans that Saddam Hussein has made for 
those of us that love freedom and about his ongoing preparations to 
carry out those deadly plans.
  Simply put, this is a man who must be stopped. To those who oppose 
military action in Iraq, we can only ask if we do not stop Saddam, who 
will?
  Some say the case is yet to be made that military action is 
warranted. To them I say, the record is clear and unambiguous, as even 
the brief remarks highlighted to the Nation by President Bush last 
night made clear. That debate, Mr. Speaker, is over.
  Others say we must wait for the United Nations or for the active 
support of a broad coalition of nations. To them I say, protecting 
American citizens from the likes of Saddam Hussein is America's 
responsibility and no one else's. After all, protecting the American 
people from foreign enemies is the first and most critical function of 
our Federal Government. It is the very reason the Federal Government 
was established by our Founding Fathers.
  We cannot be the world's police force, but there are times when we 
must stand forcefully against threats to peace, both here and abroad. 
But far more important, we must never fail to protect the lives of 
American citizens, citizens who are at risk today from the attacks by 
the agents of Saddam Hussein.
  So if we must go it alone, let us not shrink from that duty. We know 
our troops will not shrink from theirs.
  But we should not assume, Mr. Speaker, that because some nations have 
yet to endorse this vital mission that we will be forced to carry this 
burden alone. Consider for a moment our experience in Kosovo. For the 
record, I voted against that military action. I did so because I was 
not convinced that the crisis in the Balkans threatened our American 
security, and I opposed military action there because I felt it was 
Europe's problem; and if the Europeans were not willing to support our 
efforts, it would be wrong to send young American men and women into 
harm's way on their behalf. But when my side lost that debate, I 
supported the President, because that is what we do in this country.
  In hindsight, however, I believe it was correct to undertake that 
mission in the Balkans, which is now rightly considered a success.
  I believe experience demonstrates that sometimes what the world wants 
from America is for America to lead. When the United States did what 
was right by moving militarily to stop the genocide in Kosovo, the 
Europeans fell into line and stood up for freedom. They continue to do 
so today. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same thing will happen if we act 
resolutely to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
  Once we act, freedom-loving nations everywhere will welcome the 
chance to rid this world of this deadly menace, but only American 
leadership will ensure that he is removed once and for all.
  Protect American lives, end Saddam's reign of terror and send a 
message of hope that will echo around the world by supporting this rule 
and the underlying resolution and giving the President the authority he 
needs to do what is right.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
resolution. The resolution presented to Congress by the administration 
gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a 
U.N. resolution. It authorizes the President to use U.S. troops to 
enforce U.N. resolutions, even without the United Nations' request for 
it. In other words, America would be going it alone, and we would be 
stuck alone.
  This is a violation, this resolution, of Chapter VII of the U.N. 
charter which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose 
to the U.N. Security Council alone.
  My esteemed colleague, who is the chairman of the committee, quoted 
Abraham Lincoln. I, too, would like to quote Abraham Lincoln. ``With 
malice towards none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right, 
as God gives us to see the right.'' Lincoln spoke of principles of 
unity, not only unity in this Nation but unity in the world, and 
Lincoln's prayer was for unity.
  At the beginning of this new century, our prayer should be for a 
world united by international law, for a world as an interconnected 
world. That prayer is already being answered. Changes in transportation 
and communication and trade have brought the world together.
  Wherever the world is divided, let the world community work together 
to heal those divisions. Where global security is threatened, let the 
global community respond. No nation should be above international law. 
All nations must confirm international law. All nations should seek to 
bring back into the international community any nation which sets 
itself apart.
  Inspections should occur in Iraq, through the United Nations, and the 
inspections should be unfettered and they should eliminate any weapons 
of mass destruction in Iraq to the extent that they exist. But the 
argument to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq if they exist 
should not be a license to destroy the people of Iraq. Let our concerns 
about weapons of mass destruction cause America to lead the way toward 
destruction of all weapons of mass destruction anywhere and everywhere 
in the world.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that of nations that possess, pursue, or 
are capable of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, there are 17 
nations pursuing nuclear; 20 nations that have biological weapons 
capability or are seeking them; 26 nations that have chemical weapons 
capability or are seeking those capabilities; 16 nations that have 
missile capabilities or are seeking them. Are we to suddenly declare 
war on the world?
  Now, we know about Saddam Hussein and that he does not respect the 
law. There is no question about that. But the question which the 
resolution that we will be voting on in the next few days poses is 
whether we, the United States, respect international law and whether we 
will act preemptively and whether we will uphold the United Nations, 
the Security Council, and the principles of our own Constitution.

[[Page 19516]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Springfield, New York (Mr. Reynolds), my very good 
friend.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for 
his leadership on the Iraq issue.
  Mr. Speaker, today we begin an important and serious debate. The 
decision of whether we commit America's military and America's 
servicemen and women to a confrontation with a sovereign nation is not 
something to be taken lightly. I applaud our President and this 
Congress for ensuring that we begin this debate well-informed and well-
prepared.
  As the President has said in his radio address to the Nation on 
Saturday, ``The United States does not desire military conflict because 
we know the awful nature of war.'' But ``If the Iraqi regime persists 
in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.''
  Mr. Speaker, 16 times the world has come together to stop Saddam 
Hussein from threatening our peace, stability, and security; and 16 
times this madman and murderer has ignored the will of that world, 
continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction that have no valid 
defensive purpose. They have only one purpose: to wreak as much havoc 
and to murder as many people as possible.
  Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons on his own people. Each 
day he comes closer to developing even deadlier weapons and more 
effective and longer-range delivery systems. Do we really want to see 
what these weapons are capable of before we force their destruction?
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Saddam Hussein to open his borders 
for inspection anytime, anywhere. It is time for Iraq and its regime to 
destroy those weapons of mass destruction. ``Delay, indecision, and 
inaction,'' as President Bush said, ``are not options for America.''
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. The rule is a fair rule, and I rise in support of it. I simply 
want to address a few of the comments of my friends and colleagues who 
have spoken before me.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts and others, the gentleman from Ohio, 
argue that this is a resolution authorizing the unilateral use of 
force, and that is why they are against it. Literally, they are 
correct. A strict reading of the resolution makes that clear. However, 
it fails to put into context what we are trying to do.
  Everyone knows that multilateral is better than unilateral. Everyone 
knows that approval by the Security Council for the use of force is 
better than not having approval for the use of force by the Security 
Council. It is the passage of this resolution, the strong statement by 
the Congress of the United States that we stand with the administration 
in the effort to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, that 
maximizes the diplomatic and political chances of achieving the 
broadest possible multilateral support for a meaningful disarming 
resolution out of the United Nations, another resolution and, if 
necessary, and it may very well be, the right to use force on a 
multilateral basis.
  We will have allies, and we will go to the U.N. Our effectiveness 
there is directly related to the extent to which we here today speak 
strongly in favor of this course of action, and that is why I support 
the resolution.
  I do have to take issue with my very good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. We did 
not do what we did in the 1980s up through 1990 because we were trying 
to help the Iraqi people. We did not take Iraq off the list of 
countries supporting terrorism even though Abu Nidal was based there 
and was involved in terrorist activities using Iraqi passports and 
diplomatic pouches, bombing and killing civilians all over the Middle 
East because we wanted to help the Iraqi people. We did not provide 
dual-use equipment which had military as well as nonmilitary uses, 
including precursors to biological weapons, because we wanted to help 
the Iraqi people. We did not encourage our allies to send arms to Iraq 
during the Iraq-Iran War because we wanted to help the Iraqi people.
  We made a strategic and foolish decision that Saddam Hussein was 
someone we could work with, that we wanted to tilt to Iraq during the 
Iraq-Iran war, and President Bush the first acknowledged his error and 
many others have acknowledged the errors of those policies during the 
1980s.
  So I think, as we come to terms with the past and what we have done 
wrong, we should acknowledge where our policies were wrong. Now that 
does not lead us to the conclusion that, because we had the wrong 
policies at one time, we do not take the decisive action we need to 
take now, but I think it is very important in the context of what is 
going to be a long debate that we stick to the historical record.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply respond to my very good friend with whom I have been pleased to 
work on this issue. That is, it is very clear that we need to focus on 
the fact that it is the intent of the recipient of this capability, and 
it would have been wonderful if the biological capability that had been 
transferred to Iraq would have been used to deal with the problem of 
malaria and other diseases there. That is my point.
  What I am trying to say is that Saddam Hussein is the one who has 
posed the threat here. His use of this biological and chemical 
capability is what poses a very serious threat to the United States and 
to the rest of the civilized world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), another hard-working member of the Committee on 
Rules and our very good friend.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time and for his strong leadership on this resolution. I rise in 
strong support of the rule which will allow this body and the American 
people the opportunity to engage in over 20 hours of debate on the 
resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
  I would like also to take a moment to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), for their efforts to put this country ahead of 
any other consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that we begin this debate 
on a resolution to authorize the use of force against another nation to 
protect freedom, the freedom of all Americans, the freedom of Iraq, the 
freedom of people all around the world. This is the freedom to be safe 
from fear, to be safe from oppression, and to be safe from hate. It is 
a choice that none of us wishes to make, but it is a choice that has 
been made for us.
  The President made his case to the American people last night and to 
anybody able to hear his speech. Unfortunately, the major networks 
chose not to carry it, so anyone whose local affiliates carried it or 
who have cable were able to hear his impassioned plea. But anyone who 
could hear his speech knows that this President does not want to lead 
us into war, but little has changed since he identified the threat from 
Iraq in his January State of the Union address. Iraq continues to pose 
a serious and imminent threat from its development of weapons of mass 
destruction and the obvious potential for Iraq to transfer these 
weapons to terrorist groups, terrorist groups that, like Saddam 
Hussein, hate the United States of America.
  There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and, 
under his leadership, Iraq is a dangerous nation. Our quarrel is not 
with the Iraqi people. They are among those who have suffered the most 
under this regime; and, like the Afghanistan people when liberated from 
al Qaeda, the Iraqi people will rejoice if liberated from Saddam 
Hussein and his regime of terror.

[[Page 19517]]

  By acting today, we move to protect the American people. We do not 
abandon diplomacy, and we seek international support. However, we do 
serve notice to the Iraqi regime and, indeed, the world that the United 
States will defend itself against all threats.
  As we move forward, we keep in mind that the goal of any decision 
with regard to Iraq must be disarmament. Saddam's arsenal of terror 
must be dismantled, and time may not be on our side. Each day we wait, 
each day we put off acting, each day we are led astray by idle delays 
puts us closer to real risk.
  Iraq's claim that they are now suddenly willing to allow inspectors 
back in is extremely dubious. We have been down this road before. To 
achieve real assurance that Iraq is disarmed and cannot threaten our 
national security, more serious action may need to be taken.
  For the last year, we have waged a war against extremism, against 
hate, and against terror. Today's resolution will give our President 
the tools he needs to continue and to win this fight. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule to allow us to enter into this full and 
open debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that one does not have to be a 
microbiologist, as I am, to know that we do not send a country Anthrax, 
botulism, and deadly viruses to cure malaria unless we expect that cure 
to be death; and I believe that was precisely what the intent was. It 
was supposed to be used against Iran.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to offer 
my deepest sympathy to the young Marine that lost his life in Kuwait 
this morning; and to the brave men and women who serve our United 
States military and protect our freedom around the world, I offer my 
deepest appreciation.
  The debate we begin this week is really a question of life or death. 
It is the most serious debate we have had in this Congress since the 
Vietnam War which saw 56,000 body bags come home to loved ones in 
America, and the Gulf War. That is why I agree with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) that this is not a partisan issue, it is not 
Democrats or Republicans, it is simply Americans. I hope that those of 
us who come to the floor to express a differing opinion will be 
respected for being patriots, the same as any of our colleagues.

                              {time}  1115

  The bill of particulars against Mr. Saddam Hussein is not new. It has 
been going on for a long period of time. That is why it seems that this 
resolution is premature; and in particular, it seems that we should 
have allowed 15 of the resolutions offered by thoughtful Members of 
Congress who wanted to be able to deliberate so the American people 
could know all of the facts. I believe they should have been made in 
order, all of our thoughts.
  Nothing in the present resolution on the floor prevents a unilateral 
preemptive strike, which is in violation of international law.
  Finally, as we begin this debate, as I hope to engage in the debate 
on a factual basis, nothing in the resolution prevents or allows or 
encourages the President of the United States to follow the 
Constitution and to come to this Congress for a separate, freestanding 
vote to declare war against Iraq.
  That should be the question that the American people ask, whether or 
not, under the three branches of government and the Constitution, we 
are following the law: an actual declaration of war against Iraq.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our friend, 
the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), another hard-working 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House begins debate on House Joint Resolution 
114 to authorize use of the force of the United States Armed Forces 
against Iraq. This is a serious debate that needs to take place.
  Mr. Speaker, I want Members to know that I support this resolution, 
and I support the President of the United States in what he is doing. 
But today we are here to debate the rule and to talk about what we are 
going to do as we debate the topic. I support this rule, I support what 
we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, if we dig deep within this resolution, we will see two 
important things.
  Number one, August 14, 1998, Public Law 105-235, Congress concluded 
that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction program threatened 
the United States and its allies; and, point number two, inspectors 
were withdrawn from Iraq on October 31, 1998, almost 4 years ago. The 
Iraqis have indicated through their administration, through the 
constant threat against the United States, that they intend to harm the 
United States and its interests around the globe. This is the same 
regime that attempted to assassinate former President Bush in 1993.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in now is the support of the United 
States against enemies around the globe. Our foreign policy had to 
change on September 11 when we were attacked. I believe that what 
President Bush is doing now is to make sure that America will no longer 
be held hostage, will no longer allow a nation state, any nation state, 
to threaten the United States and get away with it.
  It is time that we support our President. The process that has been 
laid out before the American people and to the United Nations is one 
that we can understand, that we can support.
  I believe this President is well balanced, is articulate, and last 
night spoke with great favor towards the Nation of the United States 
that wants peace, not war, but that we will not allow ourselves to be 
pushed around.
  Mr. Speaker, I support House Joint Resolution 114 and this rule, 
which is for peace, but making sure that peace through strength will be 
achieved through supporting our President. I intend to vote ``aye'' on 
the rule and ``aye'' on the resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I particularly want to 
commend the chairman and the ranking member for approving and bringing 
to the floor the separate substitute, which is supported by the 
following Members as it went to the Committee on Rules: the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. Speaker, the separate substitute reflects four fundamental 
principles:
  First, our mission should be clear: disarming Iraq of all weapons of 
mass destruction;
  Second, it includes a sense of Congress supporting tough new, 
rigorous U.N. inspections;
  Third, it authorizes the use of force if sanctioned by the U.N. 
Security Council; and
  Fourth, it establishes a separate fast track congressional 
authorization of force if U.N. action is insufficient.
  In other words, the separate substitute authorizes the use of force 
today through the United Nations, but it provides no blank check now 
for unilateral military action. Why does it do that? Because if the 
U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, there is a far 
higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim nations and 
swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists. Our fundamental concern 
has to be to deal with the terrorist threat represented by al Qaeda and 
other international organizations.
  Regardless of how Members vote on final passage, voting for the 
separate

[[Page 19518]]

substitute is an important way to voice concern that the U.S. should 
work through the U.N. Security Council first and unilaterally only as a 
last resort. If unilateral action is necessary, Congress should have a 
vote on that issue.
  We cannot fulfill our historic role if we end our consideration of 
this matter this week. We need to be more than the President's 
megaphone. We need additional consideration when the President has 
decided to use unilateral force and when he can tell us what it is he 
has in mind.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President somewhat vaguely 
announced the right policy for this country: to invade Iraq only if 
unrestricted inspections are not available. This gives us a chance to 
disarm Iraq without war; but if war becomes necessary, at least the 
fact that we struggled to avoid it will minimize foreign opposition.
  Unfortunately, the Resolution before us is far more vague than the 
President's speech. It allows for an invasion even if Saddam completely 
capitulates on the issue of inspections. Unfortunately, the Rule does 
not make in order a resolution limited to the President's rhetoric. So 
if we want to authorize force if inspections are not allowed, the Rule 
requires us to give the President a blank check.
  On a completely different issue, I would like to point out that 
during the 1980s we did provide dual-use material to Iraq that could 
have been used to wage conventional war, but there is no evidence that 
we knowingly provided material to Iraq that could be used to conduct 
biological or chemical warfare.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and obviously the 
resolution, as well. It is very clear we were talking about the issue 
of biological weapons. The United States of America does not traffic in 
biological weapons, and the attack that has been launched by many on 
the other side against President Bush No. 41 is an unfair one.
  We see much dual-use technology which, unfortunately, has been used 
in a wrong way. But the question that we need to address is the intent 
of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our stability, to 
the entire world. None of us is enthused about the prospect of going to 
war; but we face one of the most difficult issues we possibly can as 
Members of the people's House, that is, are we going to provide this 
President of the United States the support that he wants and deserves 
to proceed in defending the United States of America and our interests?
  Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time, and I think back to a debate 
that took place in the middle of the Civil War. John Stuart Mill wrote: 
``War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The 
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks 
`nothing worth a war' is worse.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to realize how tough this 
is; but the United States of America is a very unique Nation, and we 
stand for freedom throughout the world. It is important for us to stand 
up now. Vote ``yes'' for this rule, and vote in favor of the 
resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________