[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19521-19582]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 574, I call up 
the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) to authorize the use 
of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the joint resolution 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 114

       Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression 
     against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States 
     forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its 
     people in order to defend the national security of the United 
     States and enforce United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions relating to Iraq;
       Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq 
     entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement 
     pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other 
     things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical 
     weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, 
     and to end its support for international terrorism;
       Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 
     United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led 
     to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical 
     weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and 
     that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program 
     that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
     intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
       Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the 
     cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons 
     inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which 
     finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on 
     October 31, 1998;
       Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing 
     weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United 
     States interests and international peace and security, 
     declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to 
     take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
     and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
     compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 
     105-235);
       Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national 
     security of the United States and international peace and 
     security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
     and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, 
     among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
     significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
     actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting 
     and harboring terrorist organizations;
       Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the 
     United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in 
     brutal repression of its civilian population thereby 
     threatening international peace and security in the region, 
     by refusing to release, repatriate, or

[[Page 19522]]

     account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, 
     including an American serviceman, and by failing to return 
     property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction 
     against other nations and its own people;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the 
     United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate 
     former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of 
     occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged 
     in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing 
     responsibility for attacks on the United States, its 
     citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred 
     on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
       Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other 
     international terrorist organizations, including 
     organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American 
     citizens;
       Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 
     2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international 
     terrorist organizations;
       Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to 
     use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current 
     Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a 
     surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces 
     or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, 
     and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the 
     United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine 
     to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain 
     activities that threaten international peace and security, 
     including the development of weapons of mass destruction and 
     refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections 
     in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     687, repression of its civilian population in violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and 
     threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in 
     Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 949;
       Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has 
     authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council 
     Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 
     and 677'';
       Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
     it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
     goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as 
     being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that 
     Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a 
     continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of 
     the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the 
     use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
       Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) 
     expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
     of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
     the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a 
     democratic government to replace that regime;
       Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
     United States to ``work with the United Nations Security 
     Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to 
     ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making 
     clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be 
     enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be 
     met, or action will be unavoidable'';
       Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the 
     war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international 
     terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of 
     mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under 
     the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions make clear that it is in the national security 
     interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war 
     on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of 
     force if necessary;
       Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the 
     war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and 
     funding requested by the President to take the necessary 
     actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
     organizations, including those nations, organizations or 
     persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 
     terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such persons or organizations;
       Whereas the President and Congress are determined to 
     continue to take all appropriate actions against 
     international terrorists and terrorist organizations, 
     including those nations, organizations or persons who 
     planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks 
     that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons 
     or organizations;
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution 
     to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
     international terrorism against the United States, as 
     Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
       Whereas it is in the national security of the United States 
     to restore international peace and security to the Persian 
     Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable 
     to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions regarding Iraq.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the 
     exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use 
     force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon 
     thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours 
     after exercising such authority, make available to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate his determination that--
       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
       (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with 
     the United States and other countries continuing to take the 
     necessary actions against international terrorists and 
     terrorist organizations, including those nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, 
     submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this 
     joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the 
     exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of 
     planning for efforts that are expected to be required after 
     such actions are completed, including those actions described 
     in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act 
     of 1998).
       (b) To the extent that the submission of any report 
     described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of 
     any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution 
     otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War 
     Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a 
     single consolidated report to the Congress.
       (c) To the extent that the information required by section 
     3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by 
     this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the 
     requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the amendment to the 
preamble and the amendment to the text printed in the joint resolution 
are adopted.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 114, as amended pursuant to House 
Resolution 574, is as follows:

[[Page 19523]]



                             H.J. Res. 114

       Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression 
     against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States 
     forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its 
     people in order to defend the national security of the United 
     States and enforce United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions relating to Iraq;
       Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq 
     entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement 
     pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other 
     things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical 
     weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, 
     and to end its support for international terrorism;
       Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 
     United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led 
     to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical 
     weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and 
     that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program 
     that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
     intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
       Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the 
     cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons 
     inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which 
     finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on 
     October 31, 1998;
       Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress 
     concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction 
     programs threatened vital United States interests and 
     international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 
     ``material and unacceptable breach of its international 
     obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate 
     action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws 
     of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its 
     international obligations'';
       Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national 
     security of the United States and international peace and 
     security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
     and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, 
     among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
     significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
     actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting 
     and harboring terrorist organizations;
       Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United 
     Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal 
     repression of its civilian population thereby threatening 
     international peace and security in the region, by refusing 
     to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens 
     wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American 
     serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully 
     seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction 
     against other nations and its own people;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the 
     United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate 
     former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of 
     occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged 
     in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing 
     responsibility for attacks on the United States, its 
     citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred 
     on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
       Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other 
     international terrorist organizations, including 
     organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United 
     States citizens;
       Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 
     2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international 
     terrorist organizations;
       Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to 
     use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current 
     Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a 
     surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces 
     or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, 
     and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the 
     United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine 
     to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and 
     subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease 
     certain activities that threaten international peace and 
     security, including the development of weapons of mass 
     destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations 
     weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian 
     population in violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or 
     United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
       Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
     Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has 
     authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council 
     Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 
     and 677'';
       Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
     it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
     goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as 
     being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that 
     Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a 
     continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of 
     the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the 
     use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
       Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
     338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the 
     policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from 
     power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a 
     democratic government to replace that regime;
       Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
     United States to ``work with the United Nations Security 
     Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to 
     ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making 
     clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be 
     enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be 
     met, or action will be unavoidable'';
       Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the 
     war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international 
     terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of 
     mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under 
     the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions make clear that it is in the national security 
     interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war 
     on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of 
     force if necessary;
       Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the 
     war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and 
     funding requested by the President to take the necessary 
     actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
     organizations, including those nations, organizations, or 
     persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 
     terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such persons or organizations;
       Whereas the President and Congress are determined to 
     continue to take all appropriate actions against 
     international terrorists and terrorist organizations, 
     including those nations, organizations, or persons who 
     planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist 
     attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such 
     persons or organizations;
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution 
     to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
     international terrorism against the United States, as 
     Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
       Whereas it is in the national security interests of the 
     United States to restore international peace and security to 
     the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding 
     Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding 
     Iraq.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions regarding Iraq.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the 
     exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use 
     force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon 
     thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours 
     after exercising such authority, make available to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate his determination that--
       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
       (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent 
     with the United States and other countries continuing to take 
     the necessary actions against international terrorist and 
     terrorist organizations, including those nations, 
     organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
     2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

[[Page 19524]]

       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 
     days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to 
     this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to 
     the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status 
     of planning for efforts that are expected to be required 
     after such actions are completed, including those actions 
     described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-338).
       (b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the 
     submission of any report described in subsection (a) 
     coincides with the submission of any other report on matters 
     relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be 
     submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements 
     of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such 
     reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to 
     the Congress.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the 
     information required by section 3 of the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 
     102-1) is included in the report required by this section, 
     such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements 
     of section 3 of such resolution.

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, after 17 hours of 
debate on the joint resolution, as amended, it shall be in order to 
consider the further amendments printed in those House Report 107-724. 
Amendments in the report may be offered only in the order printed, 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 read, and shall be debatable for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the 
opponent.

                              {time}  1215

  After the conclusion of consideration of the amendments printed in 
the report, there shall be a final period of debate on the joint 
resolution, as amended, which shall not exceed 1 hour, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee of International Relations.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 8\1/2\ hours of debate on the 
joint resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the joint resolution under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 11 those who hate freedom tried to silence 
the voices of the American people as represented by this body. But free 
men cannot be silenced; and so once again today, as we have almost 
every day since September 11, we gather in this Chamber to do the 
people's business.
  There is no more grave responsibility that we undertake as Members of 
this House than the protection of our Nation and the lives of our men 
and women who serve that Nation in our armed services.
  So today and tomorrow and on Thursday, we will as free men should, 
passionately, but peacefully, debate what is best for America and for 
our freedom-loving allies around the world. We will do in this place 
what the ``Butcher of Baghdad'' and the remnants of the al Qaeda hiding 
in bombed-out caves in far-flung places around the world hate the most, 
we will exercise democracy; and we will show the world how free men and 
women behave.
  I rise in support of this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  This resolution authorizes the President to use necessary and 
appropriate military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to 
defend the national security interests of the United States and to 
enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions that Saddam 
Hussein has routinely ignored over the last decade. We take this step 
knowing that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people, to 
Iraq's neighbors, and to the civilized world at large.
  On September 11, 2001, this Nation changed utterly. On that fateful 
morning, Americans woke up with the usual expectations: go to work, 
provide for the family, feed the children, live the American dream. 
Firemen, stockbrokers, custodians, police officers, office workers, all 
started their day, perhaps with a cup of coffee, perhaps hurrying to 
get to work on time.
  But those plans were shattered when planes hit the World Trade 
Towers, the Pentagon, and while attempting to strike this very building 
and silence the voices of democracy in this very Chamber were thwarted 
by brave passengers over the skies of Pennsylvania. All of us lost our 
innocence that day.
  Before September 11, we all believed that the troubles that infected 
the rest of the world could not impact us. We lived in a splendid 
isolation, protected by two vast oceans. Before that fateful day, war 
and disorder were distant rumblings from a far-off land. But on 
September 11, that distant rumbling hit New York, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania. We have a sacred duty to do all that we can to ensure 
that what happened on September 11 never happens in America again.
  Some may question the connection between Iraq and those terrorists 
who hijacked those planes. There is no doubt that Iraq supports and 
harbors those terrorists who wish harm to the United States. Is there a 
direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? The President thinks so; 
and based upon what I have seen, I think so also. Should we wait until 
we are attacked again before finding out for sure; or should we do all 
that we can to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime before they provide al 
Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction?
  Just a year ago, this Capitol building was attacked when someone 
mailed anthrax-laden letters to Members of Congress. We have never 
found the perpetrator. Was that a terrorist attack? Undoubtedly. Was it 
connected to al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein? We do not know. But it serves 
as a wake-up call to all Americans. Why do we not take the biological 
and chemical weapons away from this regime before we find out for sure?
  For those Members who are worried about the doctrine of preemption, 
let me say this is not a new conflict with Iraq. Our planes which have 
been patrolling the no-fly zone since the end of the Persian Gulf War 
pursuant to U.N. resolutions have been fired upon by the Iraqi military 
hundreds of times.
  This conflict is ongoing, but now it has become critical that we take 
the next step. We know Saddam Hussein is a bad actor. We know what he 
did to the people of Kuwait when he invaded there. We know what he did 
to his neighbors in Iran when he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq 
war. We know that he gassed his own people, including women and 
children, to put down a rebellion. For those who argue that we must 
build a consensus with the United Nations, let me say that we are 
taking an effective action here in this Chamber to perhaps help the 
U.N. do what is right in their own chamber.
  Earlier this century, fascist regimes in Italy and Germany routinely 
ignored the dictates of the League of Nations. Both Mussolini and 
Hitler built up their armies, invaded their neighbors and oppressed 
their citizens, all in the face of an ineffective League of Nations.
  If the United Nations is to have relevance in the 21st Century, we 
must not let it go the way of the League of Nations. We must give the 
United Nations the backbone it needs to enforce its own resolutions. 
But if the U.N. refuses to save itself, and more importantly the 
security of its member

[[Page 19525]]

states and the cause of peace in this world, we must take all 
appropriate action to protect ourselves.
  Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph 
of evil is for good men to do nothing. We must not let evil triumph. We 
must do something. We must pass this resolution, support the President 
of the United States as he works to disarm Saddam Hussein, and win the 
war against terrorism.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my 
time be yielded to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and that 
he be allowed to further allocate that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is about to ask that 
the time allotted to the Democratic side of the aisle be divided 
equally between those Members who are in favor of the resolution and 
those Members who are opposed to the resolution.
  This is a motion that I fully and enthusiastically support, but I 
would like to make the observation that while there are Members on the 
other side of the aisle who are opposed to the resolution, no similar 
request has been made to divide that time equally. If no request is 
made to divide that half of the time which is allotted to the debate 
for this resolution, then it will develop that we will have a debate 
dominated by those who favor the resolution because three-quarters of 
the time will be allocated to those Members who favor the resolution, 
and only one-fourth will be allocated to those who oppose the 
resolution.
  It seems to me that this situation is inherently unfair. Therefore, I 
would request that the majority party also divide the time allotted to 
them so that half of that time may be distributed among Members who are 
opposed to the resolution. In that way we will have a fairer debate.
  If we enter this debate with three-quarters of the time distributed 
to one side and only one-fourth to the other, it is obvious that the 
weight of the debate will be unfair going in, and that those who oppose 
the resolution will be facing a stacked deck. That is not appropriate 
or in keeping with the traditions of this House.
  Now, I know a rule was passed earlier in the day, and perhaps it may 
have been more appropriate to make this statement or something similar 
to it at that time. Nevertheless, that time has now lapsed. This is the 
only time that is available to raise this issue and to make this 
request, which I make in all earnestness and all seriousness.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a resolution, the result of 
which is likely to cause the deaths of unknown numbers of unknown 
people should it prevail. This is the most serious matter that can be 
addressed by the Members of this free and open body. Therefore, it 
seems to me that this debate ought to be conducted in a free and open 
manner.
  Allocating the time, and I believe that this is a very short time 
which has been allocated for this debate, it should be much longer, but 
given the fact that we have only this short amount of time, that time 
ought to be divided equally so that those people who are opposed to the 
resolution will have the opportunity to make their case in the same 
amount of time as those people who favor the resolution.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman's 
statement because it makes a very good point about fairness.
  Prior to the writing of the rule, I did make some requests about 
getting some time because as a Republican, I have strong constitutional 
reservations about what we are doing, and I think they are worthwhile 
hearing. That was turned down. It was not written into the rule; and of 
course the amendment that I offered that may have offered an 
opportunity for me to make these constitutional points, that also was 
declined. But I have been informed today that I would be allowed 3 
minutes to make the case for the Constitution.
  I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing this up, and I hope our 
leadership will reconsider and allow Republicans on this side to have a 
fair share of the time, as the Democrats are doing.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  I earnestly thank the gentleman for his efforts made today. It seems 
to me that the rejection of the gentleman's efforts constitutes a 
mistake on the part of the people who made that decision. His voice 
ought to have been heard. He ought to have been listened to when he 
asked for a proper allocation of time. He ought to have been listened 
to when he asked for the opportunity to present an amendment on this 
resolution. He was not. We now have an opportunity to rectify those 
mistakes.
  Furthermore, the allocation of 3 minutes to defend the Constitution 
of the United States seems to me to be wholly inadequate and unworthy 
of this body. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly request that the 
request of the gentleman who just spoke be recognized by the majority 
party in this House, that fairness be honored by the majority in this 
House, and that they divide the time that has been given to them so 
that those people who are opposed to this resolution, earnestly and 
devoutly opposed to it, will have an equal time to express that 
devotion and earnestness in opposition to this resolution as those who 
favor it. I make that request.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is my intention to yield time to every Republican who asks for it, 
regardless of what side they are on. I will not discriminate between 
people who are for it or against it. If they are Republicans and they 
want time, we will give it to him or her so long as we have time; and 
we will allocate it as fairly as we possibly can.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for that. But I would just like to make the observation that, while the 
gentleman's offer is made sincerely and I respect him, as I always do, 
and everything he says on this floor and everything that he does, I 
think that he is not providing the opportunity that many people in this 
House earnestly desire and I think the people of this country earnestly 
desire, and that is a fair and open exchange on the merits of this 
resolution.
  I ask, how can we have a fair and open exchange on the merits of this 
resolution when those who are opposed to the resolution, regardless of 
what party they may belong to, are not provided the opportunity to make 
their case? They are only given a fourth of the opportunity, while 
those who favor the opposition are given three-fourths. This is 
inherently an unfair circumstance.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on 
his reservation?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I 
thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) makes a very valid point. 
It was my understanding by the resolution that each Member was 
guaranteed 5 minutes. I am not sure if I heard the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) correctly, but my understanding is that 
he reported 3 minutes.
  I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) I think it is 
extremely important in this debate that even 5 minutes may not be long 
enough to discuss the issues of life and death. I believe the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has made a very 
valid point about sharing of the time,

[[Page 19526]]

and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for sharing the 
time.
  I add my plea to the request that if we have to stay here into the 
weekend that this is such a vital discussion that there should be no 
limit and no limit on the amount of time and certainly we should equate 
the interests of the people of the United States with the interests of 
Members of the United States to be able to debate the issues of life 
and death in the full force and view of the American people, and it 
should not be limited, and certainly 3 minutes is not adequate.
  I would ask that the gentleman's request and his reservation be, if 
the Members will, judged and judged appropriately and approved that we 
share the time for this enormous decision that we have to make.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me these arguments should have 
been made when the rule was debated. The rule has been adopted. There 
was testimony before the Committee on Rules. I do not know that these 
folks were there making the same arguments, but to make it now comes 
rather late in the proceedings. We will be as fair as we possibly can, 
but the rule has been adopted. It does not address itself at all to how 
much time certain Members will have depending on their attitudes 
towards this resolution. This concern comes too late. The rule has been 
adopted by voice vote.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and 
I thank the Chair for his forbearance and I ask an opportunity to go on 
for no more than another 2 minutes.
  I appreciate what the gentleman said, and I recognize his sincerity. 
However, I believe that the House has made a mistake and that we have 
the opportunity now to correct that mistake and that people of goodwill 
recognizing the mistake will do so. That is, step forward honestly, 
forthrightly and correct the mistake that has been made in the context 
of the rule. We need to debate this issue fairly and openly, and it 
seems to me and I think it would seem to any fair-minded person, not 
just the Members of this House but any fair-minded American, that it is 
not possible to have a fair and open and equitable debate when the time 
has been so misallocated, three-quarters of it given to those who favor 
the resolution and a quarter for those who oppose.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern 
about how we manage our time on this side of the aisle, but I would 
point out to him as a matter of fairness that the manner proposed and 
being followed by the Chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations is the only fair way to apportion time on this side of the 
aisle.
  If, for example, the preponderance of the speakers on this side of 
the aisle are in favor of the resolution, to give half of the time to 
those in opposition of the resolution would be grossly unfair to those 
who favor the resolution and would have only a small portion of time 
with which they could express their point of view relative to a very 
large amount of time that perhaps 10 percent of those on this side of 
the aisle might choose to exercise. So the chairman of the committee is 
absolutely right to reserve the time.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his decision 
to apportion the time on his side of the aisle because there may be 
greater division over there. But the gentleman should yield to this 
side of the aisle to determine how we will apportion our time.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I understand what 
the gentleman is saying, and I appreciate it, but again I appeal to the 
House because I believe a mistake has been made.
  A small amount of time, in my view too small amount of time, has been 
allocated to this debate. This is a matter of such utmost seriousness 
which involves issues of life and death as well as the interpretation 
of this body of the United States Constitution and the division of 
powers between the executive and legislative branches, so much so that 
to provide such a small amount of time is unreasonable and unwarranted 
in this case. We have the opportunity to provide as much time as we 
want. We do not have to limit this debate to 2 days. We can give it 
much more time than that. In that context, again, it seems to me that 
if we are going to have a fair and open exchange of views on this 
issue, it is essential that those people who are in opposition to the 
resolution have as much time as those who are in favor of it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to suggest to all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, should the allotted time be 
insufficient to deal with this issue, in the event some Members feel 
that they have not had an opportunity to express their views, I want to 
serve notice that I will request under unanimous consent to extend the 
debate.
  I think this is a significant historic debate. No Member of this body 
should be deprived of the opportunity to express his views. So I want 
to assure my colleague that, should the initially allotted time to both 
sides prove insufficient, it is the intention of this gentleman to 
request additional time so that every Member will have an opportunity 
to express his or her views.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate that sentiment on the 
part of the gentleman. I know that he is sincere. However, if that 
procedure is to be adopted, we ought to have a vote on it now. Now is 
the time to make that decision, because I do not know that at some 
point in the future the gentleman may change his mind or at some point 
in the future he may not be recognized or some other event might 
intervene between now and then. I think that that decision ought to be 
made now.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that a decision should be 
made now. We do not know whether the allotted time is sufficient or 
not. If the allotted time is not sufficient, I can assure the gentleman 
I will not change my mind and I will request an extension of time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the House's attention 
to section 2 of the rule which says, ``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.''
  So this extension of time is provided for in the rule, which has 
already been adopted, and if and when the occasion arises I will do 
everything in my power to facilitate extending the time so nobody is 
muzzled or gagged in this Chamber.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiment, and 
it is not my belief that it is the intention of the leadership of this 
House to muzzle any individual Member. My point is that we are debating 
an issue of such profound seriousness with such vital life and death 
implications, both for individual human beings, Americans, Iraqis and 
others, as well as the life of the Constitution of this country that we 
ought to do this in the most open and fairest way; and it is my 
contention that the rule governing this debate is neither open nor fair 
under those circumstances.
  It is further my contention that this body possesses the ability to 
change that rule and to provide the Members of this House with an 
opportunity to engage in free and open and unfettered debate on an 
issue which is the most

[[Page 19527]]

critical that one may contemplate as a citizen of this country and as a 
Member of this House.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, could we ask for regular order on this?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is the gentleman asking for 
regular order?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) that 4\1/4\ hours of his time be 
allocated to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a Parliamentary inquiry. I want to 
ask if it is appropriate to request an extension of the time allotted 
for this debate in accordance with the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recognize the managers of 
the joint resolution as assigned by the special order adopted by the 
House for that purpose at this time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is recognized on his time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have any problem on our 
side of the aisle. I have asked unanimous consent to yield half of the 
time I control to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) who, during 
the deliberations of the Committee on International Relations, voted no 
on the resolution; and he is the highest-ranking Member on the 
Democratic side to vote in such a manner. We are perfectly satisfied 
with time allocation on this side.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to restate my position for 
the record. I believe that the House is proceeding improperly. I 
believe that the allocation of time is wrong, unfortunate and does not 
provide for an equitable debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend?
  Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) yield at this point 
in time to the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we now need to proceed with the 
debate. I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we begin a great debate, whether to grant our 
President the authority to use armed force against the threat posed to 
our Nation by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
  All of us who engage in this debate are patriots. All of us are 
deeply committed to safeguarding our national security, to promoting 
peace, and to waging war only as the very last resort. All of us weigh 
our words and cast our vote in accordance with the dictates of our 
conscience; and we are, therefore, deserving of each other's respect.
  Some argue that the outcome of this debate is predetermined. It is 
not. Although the language of this joint resolution may undergo little 
change and its passage is all but assured, the level of support it will 
command is far from certain.
  Will this debate demonstrate to the world this Nation's steadfast 
resolve, or our lingering doubts? Will it solidify our national unity, 
or expose national divisions? The answers to these crucial questions 
are far from predetermined.
  It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in strong support 
of this historic resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  In managing this debate with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde), I am committed not only to passing this joint 
resolution, but to securing for it the broadest possible support; for I 
believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is through a strong show of support for 
this joint resolution that war can best be avoided.
  Against such an implacable foe as Saddam Hussein, peace can only be 
achieved through strength, the strength of conviction as much as the 
strength of arms. It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our 
resolve and of our ability that peace becomes possible.
  The strategic importance of this vote is undeniable, Mr. Speaker. We 
do not have the luxury of considering this issue in splendid isolation. 
The whole world is watching, and it will measure the resolve of the 
United States by the outcome of this debate. Let the People's house 
seize this opportunity to lead.
  Mr. Speaker, in debating this issue, I am haunted by history. As a 
young man resisting the Nazis in my native Hungary during the Second 
World War, I experienced firsthand the ravages of both air and ground 
war. The murderous shriek of dive bombers, the thunderous rumbling of 
panzers still reverberate in my memory. I know all too well the painful 
human costs of war, the lives lost, the families broken, the homes 
destroyed, the dreams shattered. I abhor war in the way only a survivor 
and the grandfather of 17 can.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if the costs of war are great, the costs of 
inaction and appeasement are greater still. Had the United States and 
its allies confronted Hitler earlier, had we acted sooner to stymie his 
evil designs, the 51 million lives needlessly lost during that war 
could have been saved. Just as leaders and diplomats who appeased 
Hitler at Munich in 1938 stand humiliated before history, so will we if 
we appease Saddam Hussein today.
  To grasp the consequences of our choice, I urge my colleagues to 
consider two futures: first, imagine a future in which Iraq continues 
to build its arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. 
Wielding such weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein not only 
assures his own survival, but rises to preeminence in the Arab world. 
Within Iraq, Saddam intensifies his brutal repression of the Iraqi 
people and crushes all internal opposition.
  Beyond Iraq, Saddam Hussein seizes new territory, intimidates his 
neighbors into submission, and blackmails the United States and our 
allies. At the same time, terrorists sharing his anti-American hatred 
find refuge and resources under his wing.
  Now, I ask my colleagues to imagine a different future based on the 
alternative that Saddam Hussein is disarmed, is discredited, and falls 
from power. With strong material and moral support from the United 
States and the entire international community, Iraq could emerge as a 
beachhead of democracy and a beacon of hope in the Arab world. The 
Iraqi people are freed from the yoke of repression and Baghdad reclaims 
its greatness as a center of enlightened learning. And the Middle East 
emerges from the dark shadows of Saddamism.
  The choice is clear, Mr. Speaker. We must not allow Saddam's forces 
of repression to triumph over the forces of liberation. We must not 
allow tyranny to triumph over freedom. We must not allow fear to 
triumph over hope.
  Although the choice is clear, Mr. Speaker, the course we may be 
forced to take is not easy. Despite our best efforts, the United States 
may be forced to act without the unanimous consent of the international 
community. Let me remind ourselves that in 1981 the Israelis attacked 
Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Although the strike was condemned by 
contemporaries, it is now applauded by history.
  If Congress provides only tepid support for this joint resolution, 
fear may indeed triumph over hope. Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly 
seize upon U.S. indecision to divide the international community, to 
evade inspectors and to continue his deceptions while pursuing his 
clandestine weapons programs unabated. Weakness in the face of this 
mounting threat only plays into Saddam Hussein's grand strategy.
  Many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear that the President seeks to 
implement a new and untested doctrine of military intervention in Iraq. 
They fear that a dangerous precedent will be set should we authorize 
the use of force. I disagree.
  It is not the application of the doctrine of preemption we are 
considering here. We are dedicating U.S. power and prestige to 
upholding, not challenging, international law. We are devoting our 
efforts to strengthening, not weakening, the international system. 
Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are the

[[Page 19528]]

international outlaws breaking their obligations while suppressing 
their own people.
  Others of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear the implications of the 
United States acting without the blessing of the United Nations. But 
let us recall 1998, when we were confronted with a similar challenge to 
the international order, but the United Nations remained divided. To 
prevent genocide in Kosovo and strategic instability in the Balkans, 
President Clinton led the United States and our NATO allies to victory 
against Milosevic.
  Today the people of Kosovo live in peace, Serbia holds democratic 
elections, and in the Hague, Milosevic stands on trial for war crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, for many of the same reasons our Nation acted in Kosovo, 
today we must act in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the 
Iraqi people is a crime against humanity. His stubborn defiance of the 
United Nations is an affront to the civilized world, and his diabolical 
drive to develop weapons of mass destruction is a danger to the United 
States and to world peace.
  Let us be clear. We seek to preserve peace, not to provoke war; we 
seek to maintain international order, not to disrupt it. In doing so, 
we seek the support of our friends and allies.
  I support the President's decision to challenge the United Nations to 
enforce the Security Council resolutions Iraq has flagrantly and 
repeatedly violated. If the U.N. seizes this opportunity, it could 
prove to be its finest hour. The joint resolution before us is the best 
assurance that the international community may indeed rise to this 
challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein represents the antithesis of freedom and 
is the principal antagonist in a struggle unfolding in the Middle East; 
and the United States, I believe, is destined to be a principal 
protagonist in this struggle. The great debate we begin today 
represents the opening act of a drama that promises to define the 21st 
century.
  Each of us was elected to engage in just such a debate. Only in a 
democracy are the people, through their chosen representatives, 
entrusted with their own security. Only in a democracy must the 
protectors answer to those they protect. Only in a democracy must the 
Commander in Chief come to Congress in exercising military power. 
Debating war and peace as we do this day is the essence of democracy.
  Many different views will be heard during the course of our debate. 
Let no one, Saddam Hussein especially, confuse debate with disunity. 
The ability to debate freely, but unite ultimately, is the hallmark of 
democracy. It is a source of strength, not of weakness.
  Mr. Speaker, in debating this joint resolution, I urge all of my 
colleagues to consider the consequences of our decision. They will be 
felt far beyond the confines of this Chamber. Should we unite in strong 
opposition to Saddam Hussein, history will reward us. If we fail to do 
so, history will haunt us. A future of hope, or a future of fear hangs 
in the balance. I am confident that we shall make the right choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) who did not give an opening statement but 
rather contributed to the literature of freedom, a remarkable statement 
and worth keeping.
  Sixty-six years ago, on March 7, 1936, a brutal dictator who had 
terrorized his own people and instigated religious and ethnic 
persecutions on a massive scale declared his aggressive intent against 
his neighbors in a stream of gutter writings dating back a decade and a 
half and rearmed his country in defiance of solemn treaty obligations. 
He then flagrantly violated yet another international obligation by 
militarily reoccupying a portion of his country that had been 
demilitarized by international agreement.
  His democratic neighbors said nothing.
  Free men around the world did nothing, except protest weakly. The 
dictator, who may have been mad but who was certainly no fool, took 
those empty words of protest as further signs of the free world's 
weakness and fear.
  The League of Nations did nothing.
  Nine years and more than 40 million deaths later, the price of 
failing to confront aggression before the bombs started raining down on 
Europe had become horrendously clear. Hitler had been allowed to turn 
Europe into a slaughterhouse because free men had failed to stop him 
before he set loose the greatest war in human history. That the 
Holocaust was permitted to occur stands as a permanent reproach to the 
civilized world.
  Millions of innocents died because the free world lacked the will and 
the courage to face a brutal dictator's manifestly aggressive 
intentions, his burgeoning weapons capabilities, and his gross 
violations of international law.
  Does this scenario, does this failure to recognize that evil 
intentions plus destructive capability plus unscrupulous wickedness 
equals clear and present danger, sound familiar? It should. And not 
from the history books, but from the morning newspaper.
  We are faced today with a situation whose analogies to 1936 seem all 
too clear. An aggressive dictator has once again willfully and 
repeatedly defied the basic norms of international law. Having 
terrorized his own people into submission, Saddam Hussein has rearmed 
his country and feverishly sought weapons of mass destruction. It is 
sheer nonsense to suggest that he wants those weapons for anything but 
aggression. Does any sane person looking at this man's record over the 
past 2 decades imagine that he will be deterred by reason or by moral 
suasion?
  We have spent more than a decade trying, without any success, to 
enforce Saddam's pledges to disarm. We have tried diplomacy. We have 
tried sanctions. We have tried inspections. We have established no-fly 
zones. We have run out of options.
  In 1980, he attacked Iran and initiated a decade of warfare that 
killed and wounded over 1 million people, a conflict that included his 
use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait 
and imposed a brutal occupation on that country, laying waste to 
everything within reach when his forces were finally driven out. He has 
indiscriminately used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in his own 
country, and he has slaughtered any who dared oppose him.
  Given this record, there can be no doubt that, once armed with 
weapons of even greater destructive power, he will have little 
reluctance to use them.
  In a world of modern technology, the first strike might well be the 
last strike. If those who flew hijacked aircraft into the World Trade 
Center and the Pentagon had nuclear bombs instead of airplanes as 
weapons, do we doubt they would use them? We would then be mourning 3 
million deaths, not 3,000.
  Permitted to acquire and deploy even more lethal weapons of mass 
destruction, Saddam Hussein will use those weapons; and he will use 
them against us and against our allies. Some of us demand a smoking gun 
before we will approve the use of force. We may well get a smoking city 
like Hiroshima in place of a gun.
  He must not be allowed to gain those nuclear capabilities. We cannot 
afford another reoccupation of the Rhineland, another gross failure to 
enforce the basic norms of international order, this time, in a world 
of weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental ballistic missiles. 
Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, because the world simply cannot permit 
this man to obtain usable weapons of mass destruction.
  If the international community is so feeble as not to see that this 
man's threat to peace, justice, and freedom must be confronted boldly 
and decisively, then the United States and those allies who will stand 
with us must do the job for our own safety's sake and in defense of the 
minimum conditions that make a civilized world possible.
  The menace posed by Saddam is undeniable, but we are confronted with 
an

[[Page 19529]]

even greater danger. Despite clear and repeated warnings, it appears 
much of the world does not understand that we have entered a wholly new 
and increasingly perilous era, one with new and harsher rules.
  Through repeated usage, the term ``weapons of mass destruction'' has 
become almost banal, but the unimaginable destructive power these 
represent requires our constant focus and the determination to do what 
we must to defend ourselves.
  The problem is not merely that a murderous tyrant such as Saddam may 
be in possession of these weapons. In the aftermath of September 11, we 
must accept that he has been joined by many others of an even more 
fanatical purpose. Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to 
kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar 
conventions of deterrence. Their possession of weapons of mass 
destruction must be equated with a certainty that these will be used 
against us.
  We cannot shield ourselves with hope. We must not guess the world 
into annihilation.
  For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has 
centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a 
coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that 
approval by the United Nations might render our actions.
  I believe that is the wrong debate. We all agree that these are 
desirable things, and we should do all in our power to secure them. I 
believe the President and his administration have done and are doing 
just that.
  But the real question, the one which should occupy us, is one of far 
greater consequence: On whom does the final responsibility for 
protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours, or do we share it with others? 
Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others?
  I believe there is only one answer. We have no choice but to act as a 
sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves with our friends and 
allies, if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if 
we condition our faith on the cooperation of others, only a hope that 
all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail.
  For more than half a century, whatever safety and security has 
existed in this world has been there largely because America has been 
unafraid to act against threats and to act alone, if necessary. The 
perception that we are resolved to do so has prevented many assaults on 
that security and continues to do so today.
  On many occasions we have been joined in our efforts by our friends 
and allies; and, more rarely, we have enjoyed the world's approval. But 
often we have not, and still we acted.
  If we are to have a chance of averting conflict in Iraq, a simple 
resolve on our part will not be sufficient. For the great danger we 
face with Saddam is ambiguity.
  Saddam has often miscalculated in the past. His flawed judgments have 
resulted in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. For 
that reason, any ambiguity regarding our course of action and our 
determination to act alone if need be risks yet another miscalculation 
on his part and a false grant of safety to call our bluff.
  Vigorous debate in our deliberations is not only desirable, it is 
essential. The question before us demands it. But the result of that 
debate cannot be to condition our actions on the approval of others, 
for we might wait and wait and wait for an approval that may never 
come.
  We must remember our debate here today is not for ourselves alone and 
that our audience is not confined to this Chamber. The world is 
watching. The allies are watching. Our enemies are watching. Saddam is 
watching.
  They are looking for signs of indecision in our resolve, searching 
for a fatal sign of weakness that will come from binding ourselves to 
act only in concert with others. The voice of indecision would cut 
through any wording in which we might attempt to secrete it, however 
artfully phrased and cleverly contrived we might render it.
  We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger 
confronting us. All of our choices are difficult, but our only real 
option is to act.
  Over a century ago, in another conflict, Abraham Lincoln said, ``We 
cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will 
be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or 
insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through 
which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest 
generation.''
  A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. 
Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only 
because we were there to rescue her. But there is no one to rescue us.
  We cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If 
we are not prepared to defend ourselves and to defend ourselves alone, 
if need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakeably 
resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to 
be purchased, no refuge to be found.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President. I do so not simply 
because he is a good, honest, intelligent man who happens to be the 
leader of my party. I support the President because he is right, 
strategically, politically, and morally right. In the autumn years of 
my long life, I do not intend to see the free world repeat the errors 
it made when I was a teenager, errors that extracted an unfathomable 
cost in blood and treasure. I do not believe my country wants to be a 
party to appeasement.
  We cannot defend America, we cannot build a world of peace, order, 
justice, and freedom by hope alone. The statesmen of the 1930s tried to 
secure the peace by hopes alone. They failed, and the results are with 
us still. We cannot repeat their failure. We must not. History will not 
forgive us another failure of imagination and will.
  I propose there is a reason why you are here today and I am here 
today. That is because providence has burdened us with the terrible 
decision of what is best for America. I propose what is best for 
America is to support our President.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my good friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, for his powerful and brilliantly 
reasoned statement.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be 
allocated to my good friend and our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and that he may be permitted to 
control that time and yield it to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) for equally dividing his time.
  Mr. Speaker, this signal from the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), although he very strongly supports this resolution, and we 
have heard his eloquence as he has, in so many instances done, and his 
position is clear, and given the respect that we have for the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), a survivor of the Holocaust, a person who 
stands for fairness, that he would yield 50 percent of his time so 
other voices could be heard is simply another example of the character 
of the gentleman from California. With that, I thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a very difficult decision to make here. We will 
be watched by the world. I think that the strength of America is that 
people can have different opinions. In my opinion, that does not weaken 
our cause. We come out as strong as Americans with our diversity. We 
are the most diverse Nation in the world, and we are the strongest; so 
I think that it is important that dissenting voices be heard.

[[Page 19530]]

  First of all, let me say from the outset that I oppose a unilateral 
first-strike attack by the United States without a clearly demonstrated 
and imminent threat of attack on our soil. The President's resolution 
does not prove that the United States is in imminent danger of attack, 
and we in Congress have received no evidence of such an imminent and 
immediate threat.
  If the United States is in fact in danger of immediate attack, the 
President already has the authority under the Constitution, the War 
Powers Act, the United Nations Charter, and international law to defend 
our Nation.
  A unilateral first strike would be codified in this resolution. The 
fact that it could set an example for potential conflicts between India 
and Pakistan, between Russia and Georgia, between China and Taiwan, and 
many other corners of the world is something that we have to be 
concerned about.
  Only Congress has the authority to declare war. House Joint 
Resolution 114 is not a declaration of war, but it is a blank check to 
use force without moral or political authority of the declaration of 
war that, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did on December 8 to 
begin World War II.
  Every diplomatic option must be exhausted. This resolution authorizes 
the potential use of force immediately, long before diplomatic options 
can be exhausted or even fully explored.
  Other governments, including France and Russia, have proposed a two-
step process in which the world community renews vigorous and 
unfettered inspections. This resolution, however, is a one-step 
process. Rather than letting the United Nations do its work to seek out 
and destroy weapons through inspections, it places immediate force on 
the table.
  A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the 
United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the 
Middle East region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address 
unmet domestic priorities. The President's resolution authorizes all of 
these outcomes by authorizing and codifying the doctrine of preemption.
  This resolution can unleash all these consequences: destabilization 
of the Middle East; casualties among U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens; a 
huge cost, estimated at between $100 and $200 billion; and a question 
about our own domestic priorities, with such a cost looming over our 
heads.
  Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region 
would be costly and would require a long-term commitment. Experts tell 
us that the United States might have to remain in Iraq for a decade. 
Such a commitment would drain resources for critical domestic and 
international priorities. Failure to make such a commitment would leave 
another post-intervention disaster scene.
  We still have the commitment that we were making to Afghanistan, 
where we said we would rebuild schools and we would repair roads and we 
would build water treatment plants to bring water out for the people 
there. We have been unable to do that in Afghanistan; however, now we 
are moving to Iraq.
  Many have even suggested that Iran is more of a threat to us than 
Iraq. They are more advanced in their weapons of mass destruction. 
Therefore, is our next attack on Iran; after Afghanistan, Iraq and then 
Iran?
  So many people have spoken recently, and we have heard many calls 
from our constituents. There has been a tremendous amount of 
discussion. Vice President Al Gore began it several weeks ago when he 
raised a question on the first resolution that was proposed by the 
President.
  We heard Senator Kennedy state that al Qaeda offers a threat he 
believes more imminent than Iraq. The Senator also underscored that our 
first objectives should be to get U.N. inspectors back to the task 
without conditions. Only when all responsible alternatives are 
exhausted should we discuss military action, which poses the risk of 
spurring a larger conflict in the Middle East. Furthermore, Senator 
Kennedy correctly observed one's view on how to handle the situation in 
Iraq is not a reflection of one's loyalty to the United States.
  Senator Dodd noted that international cooperation is necessary to 
counter terrorism. This cooperation should not be diminished by our 
unwillingness to address Iraq through multinational channels.
  Senator Feinstein questioned the immediacy of the threat posed by 
Iraq and argued that there was time to build support within the 
international community.
  Our own Representatives, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), went to Iraq 
to see firsthand. They support unfettered, unrestricted weapons 
restrictions and said, let us give that an opportunity.
  Senator Breaux observed that ``with America so divided on this issue, 
a strong burden remains on the administration to demonstrate the need 
for military action to address the threat posed by Iraq.''
  Last night, Senator Byrd had strong observations about this and 
questioned whether at this time it is a time for us to move into the 
Iraq situation possibly unilaterally.
  All of these opinions and observations bear testimony to the belief 
that the United States should confront the evidence on Iraq directly 
and should make decisions based from a broad base. I concur with many 
others who believe that we must work cooperatively with the United 
Nations, both to foster collective action and to reinforce the strength 
and sanctity of the United Nations Security Council.
  I strongly believe that unfettered inspections must resume promptly 
in Iraq and that Iraq must allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to carry 
out their responsibilities. This and a full range of diplomatic efforts 
need to take place before we can conclude that military action is 
warranted.
  Therefore, in conclusion, we must keep our eyes on the main 
objective, that of countering terrorism and working with others to 
ensure that this world will be a better place tomorrow for our children 
than it is today. This calls for cooperation, communication, consensus, 
and careful calculation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that, in this 
debate or any other, it is inappropriate to refer to individual 
Senators, except as provided in clause 1 of rule XVII.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the threats posed by Saddam Hussein are real. As 
President Bush forcefully said last night, we refuse to live in fear.
  Only a few of us can remember the threat posed by an evil man a few 
generations back, a man by the name of Adolph Hitler. A lot of us in 
those days were discussing whether Hitler was a real threat. No, he is 
not very dangerous, they said. We do not need to worry about him.
  All of a sudden, he wanted Alsace-Lorraine, and he took it. The world 
said, They are mostly Germans, so it is really not a big deal. A little 
while later he took Austria. Everyone said, you know, They are Germans, 
too. Then he took Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Again, the world said, 
They are mostly Germans, as well. We should not worry a great deal 
about that.
  Then Hitler took Czechoslovakia. A fellow named Neville Chamberlain, 
the Prime Minister of Great Britain, joined the world leaders and 
created a settlement which Chamberlain declared would bring peace in 
our time.
  Not long afterwards, Hitler decided that he wanted Poland, so he and 
Stalin cut up Poland. As a result, 51 million people died throughout 
the war, and some of them were my classmates. I do not know how many 
people could have been saved if Britain and France had shown the 
leadership that it was necessary to stop Hitler at the Alsace-

[[Page 19531]]

Lorraine, but I am sure it would be a lot less than 51 million.
  I do know this: we are in a similar position today, and we need to 
show the leadership that was lacking in World War II. I hope we are 
assisted by the United Nations in these actions. I hope that this 
resolution will give the U.N. a backbone to step up and speak out.
  While I will vote for this resolution, I also have a personal problem 
and a great deal to worry about. I have grandchildren who are young 
men, bringing forth the possibility that they could become involved in 
this potential conflict; so I have not arrived at this decision without 
a great deal of thought.
  Many times, because we have been lacking in leadership in this world, 
millions of people have been killed before someone decided to take 
preemptive action. We must and we will support President Bush in his 
request of this Congress to give him the authorization to use force.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a distinguished member of 
our committee.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we face a toxic mix in Iraq: dangerous weapons 
controlled by a dangerous tyrant. From the beginning of this national 
debate, I have felt strongly that we must act through the United 
Nations, in concert with our allies, and with multinational support, 
and focus on the weapons of mass destruction and disarming Hussein.
  Clearly, we must rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction and the 
means of producing new weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam resists 
and regime change thus occurs, we must be prepared for what happens 
next, the very next day.
  Accordingly, I oppose the initial resolution the President sent to 
the Congress. It gave credence to the fear that we would, as a first 
step, act in a preemptive unilateral military strike, which I would not 
support and do not support in the absence of an imminent threat to the 
United States. That resolution was too broad, did not require the 
President to work through the U.N., and did not address our plans for 
the future of Iraq.
  Since then, the House and the administration, in a bipartisan manner, 
have negotiated a compromise resolution that addresses many of those 
issues. I support the resolution now. It strikes a good balance between 
urging a multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend 
our citizens.
  The President has promised congressional leaders he will exhaust all 
options at the U.N. before taking military action. At a White House 
briefing I attended last week, the National Security Adviser and the 
CIA Director made the same assurances.
  The resolution, even with this balancing and moderating language, 
still represents a grant of broad military authority to the President, 
broad authority for the President to wage war. The question is, Do we 
trust the President's judgment to use this authority wisely? This 
President came to office without much background in foreign policy and 
without much apparent interest in foreign policy. The President's 
initial steps in foreign relations were an isolating brand of 
unilateralism that told the world that America would thrive if we acted 
alone in our own interests.
  Then came 9-11 and the President changed his policies, and I am glad 
he did. In the war on terror, the President resolutely has led this 
country, skillfully assembled the international coalition against 
terror, and has made necessary and appropriate use of America's 
military power.

                              {time}  1330

  Presidential historians argue and teach that presidents grow fond of 
foreign and military exercise of power because they can more readily 
make things happen than in the domestic arena, and I think this 
President is no different. President Bush has clearly come to relish 
the exercise of American power on the world stage, and he deserves the 
strong public and congressional support generated to date by his 
policies against terror. I hope and pray the President also understands 
and respects the need for restraint in the use of America's awesome 
military power. I hope his judgments will be sound.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the President in the strongest terms to adhere to 
the letter and spirit of this resolution in exhausting all diplomatic 
options in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. But the use of American 
military power alone will not meet all of our challenges. We must be 
prepared for the challenges of nation building, prepared for challenges 
of peacekeeping. We must be prepared for the redevelopment of Iraq and 
other trouble spots around the world where people not just have to deal 
with the grinding poverty and the lack of day-to-day opportunity but 
they have to deal with day-in, day-out sense of hopelessness.
  We must consider the demand for a new, modern-day Marshall Plan to 
address the development needs, the food and educational needs, the hope 
that people must have to lead to democracy and self-government.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 114, an important 
historic resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The 
distinguished chairman of our House Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we thank him for his 
leadership in bringing this critical resolution before the House today. 
I also want to express our appreciation to the ranking member of our 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his staunch 
support of this resolution.
  Since expelling U.N. inspectors from Iraq, Saddam Hussein has had 4 
years in which to rebuild and rearm his country's weapons stock piles. 
It is imperative that the united front takes this threat seriously and 
takes preventive action against the tyranny of the Iraqi government to 
disarm before any of the events of September 11 are repeated. 
Accordingly, I fully support President Bush's ongoing efforts to demand 
Iraqi compliance with all previously adopted U.N. resolutions.
  Saddam's continued breaches of these U.N. resolutions constitutes a 
real threat to our Nation and to our interest in the region, a threat 
that we can no longer ignore. Yet, in the same fashion that we have 
responded to Saddam Hussein's continued threats, we must be fully 
committed to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified and a democratic 
state in the event of a military strike that topples Saddam Hussein.
  President Bush has characterized Iraq as part of an ``axis of evil'' 
and has identified the key threat from Iraq as its development of 
weapons of mass destruction and the potential for Iraq to transfer 
those elements to terrorists.
  We all know that Iraq has worked to rebuild its weapons of mass 
destruction programs in the 4 years since the U.N. weapons inspectors 
were forced to leave Iraq. We know, too, that Saddam is using mobile 
facilities to hide biological weapons research and even had placed 
underground some weapons of mass destruction; and there is a growing 
belief that in a few more years Iraq is going to be able to develop a 
nuclear weapon, if not sooner.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own people, 
the Kurds, and against Iraq's neighbors in Iran. Moreover, Iraq did not 
hesitate in 1991 to send Scud missiles to strike at the very heart of 
Israel. Even if U.N. weapons inspectors return to Iraq, there are no 
assurances that Iraq is going to become free of weapons of mass 
destruction. The threat to our Nation's national security interest 
remains and, hence, this legislative need to provide President Bush 
with a maximum amount of flexibility to respond to this crisis.
  In summation, no other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein's 
record of waging aggressive war against its neighbors; of pursuing 
weapons of mass destruction; of using weapons of mass destruction 
against its own people and other nations; of launching ballistic 
missiles at its neighbors; of brutalizing and torturing its own 
citizens; of harboring terrorist networks; of engaging

[[Page 19532]]

in terrorist acts, including assassination of foreign officials; of 
violating his international commitments; of lying and cheating and 
hiding weapons of mass destruction programs; of deceiving and defying 
the express will of the United Nations over and over again.
  As our President has noted in his recent speech to the U.N. General 
Assembly recently, ``In one place, in one regime, we will find all 
these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms.''
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to lend their full 
support to H.J. Res. 114, authorizing the use of U.S. Armed Forces 
against Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Our Nation faces a monumental decision, one that could drastically 
change our lives, harm our national security, and one that could 
forever shatter the fragile stability that we have carefully rebuilt 
since September 11.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, ``War is an instrument entirely 
inefficient towards redressing wrong and multiplies, instead of 
indemnifying, losses.'' Multiplies, instead of indemnifying, losses.
  We are told this war, this invasion of Iraq, will right the wrongs 
that Saddam Hussein has created. We are told that this war will help 
end the evils of terrorism. And we are told that this war will bring 
peace and regional stability to the Middle East.
  I do not share that view.
  We have to be cognizant of what this war will unleash upon the world. 
I have never in my 30 years of public life and 26 years of serving here 
seen the world community so fragile. It is a tinderbox, and a hair 
trigger waiting to go off could unleash the violence that we all seek 
to avoid.
  I am not ready to alter the course that we have taken since our 
founding to embrace the preemptive strike doctrine. If we strike first, 
what kind of message does that send to the tinderboxes of Pakistan and 
India, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea? Are we prepared to 
strike first in Iran, in North Korea? Where does it end? The broader 
global implications will be grave.
  Second, I am not ready to act unilaterally and in potential defiance 
of the United Nations Security Council. Because, by going it alone, 
what signal do we issue by tossing aside diplomacy? What sirens do we 
set off by ignoring the rest of the world?
  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Destructive 
means cannot bring about constructive ends.'' And yet here we are 
thrown headlong into a decision that could cost thousands and thousands 
of American men and women their lives, could put our personnel in 
embassies all over the globe in harm's way, in danger, could unleash 
another round, another decade of untold suffering among innocent 
Iraqis, and we are told that we have no other choice.
  By rushing into war, we alone will bear the burden of seeing this 
conflict to its blood end, most likely in the streets of Bagdad among 
innocent families and U.S. troops engaged in door-to-door combat. By 
rushing into war, we alone will be responsible for splintering the 
international coalition that has been built to fight the imminent 
threat posed by the terrorists, al Qaeda. And by rushing into war we 
alone will fuel far more extremist passions against the United States, 
a whole new generation of terrorists bent on our demise.
  It will strain our military. It will cost us tens and tens, if not 
hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will erode any cooperation from 
Arab and Muslim nations in tracking down and neutralizing the remaining 
al Qaeda cells.
  Instead of fighting a war against terrorism, we will have the 
potential instead of fighting the war against a quarter of the world. I 
am not ready to support a resolution that could take American people 
down that road. The sabers continue to rattle, the war drums pound 
louder every day, and it is quite clear that many people here believe 
that preparing for war ensures that it will truly happen.
  I know that, as we talk of the enemy and of war, it is not popular to 
talk of the suffering of the other side. Our enemy here is Saddam 
Hussein and his brutal regimes, not the Iraqi people. Little discussion 
is being devoted to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, a challenge that 
the American people will understand eventually and a challenge that we 
have a moral responsibility to deal with, regardless of victory.
  No one wants to talk about that. No one wants to put a price tag on 
it, but it is there. And while we may not know about it in this 
country, I assure you that the people in the Arab world know about it, 
the people in Central Asia know about it.
  They know about the 500,000 children who have died prematurely since 
the end of the war because of U.S. sanctions. They know of the 50,000 
children who die prematurely each year because of sanctions. They 
understand because of depleted uranium attached to the bombs that we 
dropped on Iraq during the last war the leukemia rate and the cancer 
rate and the lymphoma rate of 10- and 12- and 13-year-old children have 
increased 100 to 120 percent.
  I saw those children not a week ago in hospitals. I talked to those 
mothers who cannot feed their children because of the protein 
deficiency in their diet which has caused 25 percent of the children 
born in Iraq to have low birth weight. I have talked to doctors who 
have delivered babies who have said to me, The mothers used to say to 
me when the child was born, is it a male or a female? Now they say to 
me, Is it normal or abnormal?
  The costs are already been horrendous, and the question we have to 
ask ourselves is, is there not another way? I believe there is. Vote 
against this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Appeasement does not work. The chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), spoke 
just a few minutes ago and he talked about what happened in the 1930s 
and how 40 to 50 million people died because of appeasement.
  Nobody wants war. But what my colleagues failed to mention, the 
previous speaker, is that we are at war now, right now. Has anyone 
forgotten that we lost over 3,000 people on September 11 last year? 
There are al Qaeda cells and terrorist cells in the United States and 
around the world that want to do us ill.
  Saddam Hussein is part of that terrorist network. We all know that. 
He has used chemical weapons on his own people, chemical weapons on the 
people next to him, killing tens of thousands of people. He has used 
Scud missiles. He has violated every U.N. agreement he has signed, and 
he has been shooting at our airplanes in a no-fly zone. Does anyone 
doubt his intentions?
  Now, what are we to do about that? Are we to wait for another attack 
on America where maybe 10 or 20,000 or hundreds of thousands of 
Americans might die? Or do we take preemptive action?
  I think if everybody thought very seriously about this, they would 
realize that we have to preempt Saddam Hussein and the terrorist 
network that he is a part of.

                              {time}  1345

  Do we preempt him or do we react? Do we react after the fact, after 
we lose 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 or 100,000 people?
  Our responsibility in this Chamber and in this government is to 
protect American citizens, to protect our democracy, our freedoms and 
our rights; and if we do not take the right actions now, we will suffer 
the consequences later.
  Let me just tell my colleagues, we have a chance now to avoid more 
carnage in America; and the only way to

[[Page 19533]]

do it is to send a very strong signal to the terrorist network around 
the world that we mean business, that we are not going to appease them, 
and if they mess with us, we are going to take them out; and the first 
target ought to be, and I believe if President Bush has his way will 
be, Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Until September 11, we knew what the dangers were, but we chose to 
ignore them. We knew Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and had 
biological weapons. We knew that al Qaeda had killed hundreds at our 
embassies in east Africa. We knew of these dangers, and we did not act.
  On September 11, the dangers did not change. America changed. We now 
look seriously at these threats, and we know that our victory in the 
Cold War does not immunize us from future danger.
  Saddam Hussein has killed hundreds of thousands. He has gassed his 
own people. He has risked his own life many times, all in an effort to 
expand his power.
  If he had nuclear weapons, he could smuggle one into the United 
States--after all a nuclear weapon is about the size of a person--hide 
it in an apartment building in some American city, and prove to us that 
he had it hidden there. Saddam could then blackmail America into 
inaction, as he invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, et cetera. We would then 
never be able to quench Saddam's lust for additional power, and his 
imitators would be spawned as they, too, would seek nuclear weapons in 
an effort to become regional viceroys.
  There are two approaches for dealing with this threat. One, 
associated often with the Vice President, is to invade now, no matter 
what. This approach has a legalistic version that says we must invade 
Iraq unless it immediately complies with all U.N. resolutions, 
including the resolutions that say Iraq should stop oppressing its own 
people. I do not think Saddam Hussein is going to morph into Mother 
Theresa; and if that is what it would take to prevent an invasion, we 
might as well invade now.
  The other approach is not to focus on every U.N. resolution, but 
instead to demand robust inspections to make sure Saddam does not 
develop weapons of mass destruction.
  Neither of these approaches is perfect, but I would point out that 
the invade-now approach has a number of flaws, including the fact that 
even if we achieve regime change today, 10 years from now we may be 
faced with another hostile regime in Baghdad, a Ba'thist regime or 
Ayatollah-led regime. War is not the perfect answer and I must admit 
that inspections are not perfect either.
  I would have preferred a resolution similar to one I put forward in 
the International Relations Committee that garnered the support of the 
vast majority of Democrats on that Committee. That resolution would 
authorize the use of force only if Saddam interferes with a robust 
inspections program, only if, for example, he continues to try to lock 
the inspectors out of his presidential palaces.
  We will not get the opportunity to vote for such a resolution, but we 
got the next best thing. Last night the President said he wanted to 
disarm Iraq without war, if possible. He said he would propose to the 
United Nations a resolution demanding a robust program of inspections, 
and effectively promised the world that if we got those inspections, we 
would not invade.
  So this is where we stand today. Only one question is before us now. 
Will this resolution, when it comes to final passage, pass with 325 
votes or 375 votes? That is important to the world because if America 
looks divided, Saddam may ``call our bluff.'' In 1991, the resolution 
authorizing the use of force just barely squeaked by each House. Saddam 
was misled. Saddam defied us and refused to withdraw from Kuwait, and 
war became necessary.
  France, Russia, and China will take America more seriously if we look 
unified. And that is why I call on all my colleages, because all of us 
desperately want to avoid war, to vote for this resolution, because if 
we look unified, Saddam is more likely to capitulate on the issue of 
inspectors.
  We cannot expect foreign tyrants to understand our political system; 
and in the next month, they will hear the most violent and loud 
political clashes on pharmaceutical costs and Social Security. Let us 
help Saddam understand the resolve of America. Let us pass this 
resolution by an overwhelming margin.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on International Relations and Operations.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, a year ago we stood in this Chamber 
trying to recover from the shock that no longer were U.S. interests 
threatened by terrorists; but the United States itself, our people, our 
way of life, our very existence was the target of terrorists. We were 
awakened and disbelief turned to a commitment, a commitment that we 
would work together as one Nation, one government, and take every 
appropriate and necessary action to prevent another day like September 
11, 2001.
  We afforded the President the resources and the broad support to 
ensure a swift, effective and successful campaign against a global 
terrorist network that killed thousands of our citizens on that fateful 
day a year ago.
  That campaign was built on the impression, the understanding that our 
military objectives must also have a political objective, a requirement 
that was underscored by Secretary of State Colin Powell when he was 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and so it was that we not only 
dismantled the al Qaeda operations inside Afghanistan, but also helped 
the Afghan people free themselves from the oppression of the Taliban 
regime, thereby diminishing future threats from Afghanistan by helping 
democracy to finally take root.
  What we are authorizing the President today and the resolution that 
is before us, Madam Speaker, is not much different than what we 
afforded him a year ago. We steadfastly supported this effort a year 
ago as the debris of the World Trade Center continued to burn. Now that 
time has passed, the smoke has cleared, the fires have subsided. Let us 
not waiver in our commitment to destroy the terrorist network. Let us 
not waiver in our commitment to the safety and welfare of the American 
people.
  A year ago we were surprised. Today, we have the opportunity to 
destroy the enemy's capabilities before they can be used against us. As 
President Bush so carefully articulated last night, Saddam Hussein's 
regime trained al Qaeda operatives in bombmaking, harbors these 
terrorists and provides medical treatment in Baghdad to some of its 
senior leadership. Saddam Hussein is not far from developing and 
acquiring the means to strike the United States, our friends and our 
allies with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, if we do not act now, 
when?
  Saddam Hussein's regime is pursuing unmanned aircraft to deliver 
chemical and biological weapons. The United Nations weapons inspectors 
and the U.S. intelligence community concluded a few years ago, based 
upon intelligence reporting statements by Iraqi defectors and the Iraqi 
Government's own admission, that Iraq had a more extensive prohibited 
biological weapons program than previously admitted, including the 
weaponization of these deadly biological agents. The Iraqi regime has 
dozens of ballistic missiles and is working to extend their range in 
violations of United Nations restriction.
  The former deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection team for Iraq and 
the dossier on Iraq's capabilities prepared by the British Government, 
both of these sources support the Bush administration's assertion that 
Iraq is at the threshold of possessing nuclear weapons. Satellite 
imagery has revealed that Saddam Hussein's regime is actively 
rebuilding its nuclear infrastructure and working to develop and 
acquire enriched uranium. Thus, if we do not address the problem now 
here

[[Page 19534]]

today, will it be a better time when the Iraqi regime is stronger and 
its weapons programs are even more advanced?
  The Iraqi regime has ordered the use of chemical weapons against its 
own people. It has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern 
Iraq, ordering the extermination of between 50,000 and 100,000 people 
and the destruction of over 4,000 villages.
  As former President Ronald Reagan once said: ``We have a rendezvous 
with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best 
hope of man on Earth. If we fail, at least let our children, and our 
children's children, say of us, we justified our brief moment here. We 
did all that could be done.''
  Let us all do what we can to protect our Nation and the American 
people. Let us vote ``yes'' on this resolution today, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a leader in peace and humanitarian issues.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, let me just thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for yielding me time and for his 
leadership on this issue and on so many other issues of such critical 
importance to our world community.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), the ranking member, for his fairness in ensuring that 
democracy prevails, even during this very critical and important 
debate.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution 
authorizing a unilateral first strike against Iraq. Such an action 
could destabilize the Middle East and set an international precedent 
that could come back to haunt us all.
  President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law. 
It violates the United Nations charter and our own long-term security 
interests. It forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried 
to pursue them. We do not need to rush to war.
  Furthermore, this resolution is not a declaration of war. In fact, we 
do not need this resolution. If the United States indeed faces an 
imminent attack from anywhere, the President already has all of the 
authority in the world for our defense.
  President Bush called on the United Nations to enforce its 
resolutions, but here we are today voting to go to war before the 
United Nations has even had a chance to implement inspections. What 
kind of international cooperation is that? What kind of leadership is 
that? It does not take leadership to go drop bombs and go to war. It 
takes real leadership to negotiate and to develop peaceful resolutions 
to our security needs.
  The President has called on the United Nations to assume its 
responsibilities. I call on the United States to assume our 
responsibilities by working with the United Nations to ensure that Iraq 
is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  1400

  I keep asking the question: Is our goal the elimination of weapons of 
mass destruction because they pose a potential danger, or is it regime 
change because we oppose the Iraqi government? We still do not have the 
answer to that question.
  For all of these reasons and more, on Thursday, I will offer the Lee 
amendment to H.J. Res. 114, incorporating my legislation, H. Con. Res. 
473, currently supported by 37 Members of the House. This amendment 
calls on the United States to work with allies to disarm Iraq through 
United Nations inspections and other diplomatic means.
  Those inspections succeeded in destroying thousands of tons of 
weapons in the 1990s, despite Iraq's attempts at destruction, and they 
can work again. It was a search and destroy mission.
  Now, today, as we face this vote, there are many questions that 
remain unanswered. Where is the proof that Iraq poses an imminent, 
clear, and present danger to the United States? What is our objective 
here, regime change or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction? 
Where would this doctrine of preemption lead our country? How could we 
be the first and then claim the moral authority to tell others not to 
do so? Is this the precedent that we want to set for India, Pakistan, 
Russia, China, and others?
  How does all of this make the American people safer? Are our airports 
safer today? Are our seaports secure? What happens to the economic 
security of our country and our unmet domestic needs, given the 
enormous amount of money, upwards of $100 to $200 billion, that this 
war will cost us? And how many of our brave young men and women will be 
put in harm's way?
  Going to war would result in substantial loss of life. We better be 
able to answer these questions before we spend $200 billion plus to 
create a new regime in Iraq.
  Now, remember, we all have to focus on the fact that it was not 
weapons of mass destruction used on 9/11. This blank check to authorize 
a first strike would not restore peace and security. I am convinced 
that it will inspire hatred and fear and increase instability and 
insecurity.
  There have been those who have questioned the patriotism of 
opposition and have claimed that those calling for war have a monopoly 
on this virtue. Yet I believe, like many, that it is our patriotic duty 
to seek each and every nonmilitary solution to eliminating the weapons 
of mass destruction. Containment, deterrence and disarmament should be 
our goal. That has been and continues to be the American way.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally wrong, 
financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national security 
interests. We have options, and we have an obligation to pursue them.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a senior member of 
our Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. KING. I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding me this time; 
and, Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. 
In doing so, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the 
bipartisan leadership of this House for coming together and forging a 
compromise which will give the President of the United States the power 
he needs in standing up to oppression and in standing up to a tyrant 
who has weapons of mass instruction.
  I also want to give special regard to President Bush for the 
leadership he has demonstrated in bringing this matter to this moment 
today, because without his leadership we would still be caught up in 
the double-talk and moral hypocrisy which constitutes so much of the 
diplomacy in the world today.
  So many countries choose to look the other way. So many countries 
just hope that somehow this problem will go away. But President Bush 
has brought this issue to the forefront; and because of that we are 
here today to take what I believe will be a very strong and manifest 
decision to destroy oppression, to eliminate a tyrant such as Saddam 
Hussein if he does not comply with the U.N. resolutions which have been 
passed to date.
  More important than that, Madam Speaker, I believe President Bush 
deserves credit for asserting the fact that the United States is the 
world leader. Yes, the United States is going to the United Nations, 
and we should go to the United Nations, but at the end of the day we 
cannot be bound by some morally opaque decisions made by countries who 
do not share our values.
  If the Security Council does stand with us, fine, and that is all to 
the better. Let us remember, when President Clinton was President, back 
in 1999, the U.N. Security Council would not give approval to attack 
Serbia because of what they were doing in Kosovo, but President Clinton 
went forward and led an attack, which I supported and which now has 
brought stability to Kosovo and, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) pointed out, has brought Milosevic to the international 
criminal court. So this is the type of action that must be taken.
  I have tried to listen carefully to those who are opposed, and I just 
cannot figure out really what the substance of their argument is. They 
say

[[Page 19535]]

we should use more diplomacy. We have tried diplomacy for 11 years. 
They say that somehow the policy up to now has worked. Well, it has not 
worked because Saddam Hussein has more weapons of mass destruction now 
than he had before. He has constantly flouted and violated resolution 
after resolution.
  The fact is, we saw on September 11 what happens if we are caught 
unaware. We have no excuses this time. We know the weapons that Saddam 
Hussein has. We know that Saddam Hussein will use those weapons if 
given the opportunity.
  Another argument that is used is somehow that we should carry out the 
war on terrorism before we go after Iraq, before we take action against 
Iraq. To me, the two are intertwined and connected. You cannot have one 
without the other. These are people who work in collusion. They work in 
the same league. There is no doubt about that.
  We are also told that if somehow we go forward we will lose allies in 
the war against terrorism. I am not aware of one country, whether it be 
in the Arab world or whether in Europe, which is backing away from 
supporting us in the war against terrorism because of our policy on 
Iraq.
  The fact is, Madam Speaker, there is no alternative. We must go 
forward.
  Let me just say, in conclusion, that I respect those who have honest 
differences, and I acknowledge that. I would just say, though, if this 
resolution does pass and does pass by a large vote, that once that has 
been done we should stand together and speak with one voice and send 
the world a united message that the people of the United States and the 
Congress of the United States stand behind the President of the United 
States in taking the action that he will take pursuant to this 
resolution.
  I would also ask all those who vote for the resolution to not do so 
in any way grudgingly but to give it their fullest and total support. 
There is no such thing as an easy war. If there are tough days ahead 
and rough days ahead, not to use that as an opportunity to somehow back 
away. If we go ahead, we are in this for the long haul. We are in it 
until we succeed. We owe that to the men and women of our Armed Forces. 
We owe that to the people of the world and to the people of our country 
who look to us for guidance and direction and for leadership.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), my good friend and 
colleague, a leader in the field of national security.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for 
yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution because it puts our country back on the right track of 
working with the United Nations to disarm Iraq.
  The passage of this congressional resolution in support of efforts to 
disarm Iraq will not provide President Bush with open-ended authority. 
In fact, Congress and the President's hard work is just beginning. The 
United States has a responsibility, as the world's only superpower, to 
set the standard for international behavior. We must consider every 
peaceful alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we 
turn to force.
  With this resolution, Congress is making clear that our first 
priority is building an international coalition through the United 
Nations. If the President decides that diplomatic efforts have failed, 
he must inform Congress and explain his reasoning. If the United States 
engages in military action, the President must provide continual 
updates to Congress regarding the status of the war. The President will 
also be required to declare that any military action against Iraq will 
not hamper our ongoing efforts on the war on terrorism.
  I also expect the President to provide clear plans for military 
engagement that explain our military strategy, detail where our troops 
will be based, report to Congress on his efforts to secure 
international assistance, protect us against simultaneous threats from 
other parts of the world, and define plans for Iraq after Saddam.
  While I am firmly committed to using diplomacy first and our military 
only if we must, I cannot ignore Saddam Hussein's track record of 
disdain for international law. With everything we know about his 
aggressive pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, it would be 
irresponsible not to at least make plans for what we may need to do in 
order to counter the threat that he poses.
  If the President follows congressional intent and builds a successful 
international coalition to address the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction, he will not only improve our national security and that of 
our allies but he will also put meaning into the will of the 
international community as expressed in the United Nations resolutions.
  On a personal note, should the use of force become necessary, I will 
be sending young men and women from my local Air Force Base, Travis, 
and across California to fight in this war. So my role as a check to 
the administration's power and plans is something that I take very 
seriously. I will use my position on the House Committee on Armed 
Services to make sure we are protecting our fighting men and women and 
that the President is doing this every step of the way.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to work to unite this Congress 
and to work to support the American people in this effort.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chairman of our 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the full committee for his exemplory 
leadership, as well as the ranking member (Mr. Lantos).
  I, too, like many of my other colleagues, respect those who disagree 
with this resolution. I think this debate is enlightening and is being 
carried out in the highest way befitting this institution, and I want 
to thank my friends on the other side of the issue as well.
  Madam Speaker, President Bush has made, I believe, an extraordinarily 
convincing case that the Iraqi dictatorship poses a significant, lethal 
threat to the people of the United States, our allies, and to the tens 
of millions of people living in the region of the Middle East. Saddam 
Hussein's dark obsession with acquiring, developing, stockpiling, and 
using weapons of mass destruction can no longer be ignored, wished 
away, or trivialized.
  In the past, Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, killing 
thousands of people, mostly Kurds, in the late 1980s. If not disarmed, 
pursuant to the terms and conditions that ended the Gulf War and all 
subsequent U.N. resolutions, he will likely use them again at the place 
and time of his choosing.
  Madam Speaker, the loss of human life as a result of the hideous 
effects of these weapons cannot even be imagined. In like manner, the 
environmental and economic consequences would be staggering and 
possibly earth changing. The agony of death by mustard gas, VX, sarin 
or radiation sickness is absolutely numbing. The massive release of 
germs and microbes like anthrax, smallpox, and botulinum toxin would 
result in massive deaths and casualties and a regional or global 
epidemic that might not be stoppable.
  And now, as we all know, Hussein is on an aggressive quest to develop 
nuclear warheads and the means of delivering them.
  Madam Speaker, according to the U.S. and British intelligence 
services, Hussein's drive to develop nuclear weapons has been 
reconstituted, that is, if it ever went out of business in the first 
place. The British Joint Intelligence Committee assessment noted, and I 
quote, that Iraq had recalled its nuclear scientists to the program in 
1998. Since 1998, Iraq has been trying to procure items that could be 
for use in the construction of centrifuges for the enrichment of 
uranium. The report

[[Page 19536]]

notes that intelligence shows that the present Iraqi program is almost 
certainly seeking an indigenous ability to enrich uranium to the level 
needed for nuclear weapons.
  Madam Speaker, last night, while brilliantly reiterating U.S. resolve 
to promote peace by disarming Hussein's brutal dictatorship, President 
Bush made it clear that war was not the only option, that war can be 
averted, but the burden rests squarely on the shoulders of Saddam 
Hussein.
  The best outcome, of course, would be a successful redeployment of 
U.N. inspectors to Iraq, backed to the hilt by the international 
community, with a clear, nonambiguous mandate to inspect without 
condition, to have unfettered access to suspicious locations, and to 
compel Iraqi disarmament.
  Madam Speaker, given Hussein's ugly, pathetic record on human rights 
abuse, widespread torture, systematic rape and mass murder, the only 
way to ensure that diplomacy and arms inspectors have a chance to 
succeed is by backing it up with the credible threat of overwhelming 
force. Standing up to the raving bully, especially when he is armed to 
the teeth with weapons of mass destruction, is the work of peacemakers.
  No one, Madam Speaker, no one wants war. But if we fail to back the 
diplomacy with the credible threat of force, it seems probable to me 
that it is only a matter of time before Hussein and his allies in his 
network of terror use weapons of mass destruction again.

                              {time}  1415

  The question will not be a matter of if, the question will be when 
and where and how. Support the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a leader in environmental affairs and a member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time and the leadership for promoting a full and thoughtful debate 
on this critical issue for our country. It has truly been a very 
positive experience on our committee, and I am looking forward to 
bringing it here to the floor of the House.
  As I listened to President Bush attempt to make his case for war last 
night, what I heard him debate was debating with thousands of Americans 
who have voiced their concern to us in e-mails and letters and 
conversations. These are our constituents, ordinary citizens, raising 
straightforward, commonsense arguments against unilateral preemptive 
military action. Those voices were unanswered last night.
  Unanswered was the learned warning of a respected Portland rabbi 
recently returning from another month-long stay in Israel who assures 
me that Israel will, in his judgment, undoubtedly respond with nuclear 
weapons if Saddam Hussein unleashes Scuds armed with chemical or 
biological agents against it.
  Unanswered was the common knowledge that some allies have already 
used the rhetoric of this administration to pursue policies against 
their own terrorists, complicating the lives of our officials who must 
deal with the results.
  Unanswered were the countless questioners in our meetings at home who 
asked why some of the same people who are promoting this action against 
Iraq are the same who aided Saddam Hussein in getting chemical and 
biological agents in the 1980s and who did not speak out when he used 
them against his own people then.
  As the President confidently predicts our precise military strikes, I 
hear the viewers and readers of Black Hawk Down reminding us how things 
can go horribly wrong, all lessons learned by Presidents Reagan, Bush, 
and Clinton.
  Unanswered are those critics, including my colleagues, who fear not 
that the United States would ultimately be defeated by Saddam Hussein, 
but that the young American soldiers lack sufficient preparation and 
equipment for chemical and biological warfare and could suffer horrible 
losses.
  I was intrigued with the insight of my own son about to return to 
Southeast Asia calling this a policy of national insecurity, putting 
him at greater risk in the weeks ahead traveling amongst the Muslim 
populations in Asia, while increasing the likelihood of terrorist 
violence here at home.
  Our constituents describe a much more complicated world, one where 
the United States has yet to develop a coherent strategy for democracy 
in the Middle East, a world where other elements are at least as great 
a threat. Persuasive cases have been made against Iran and North Korea. 
Remember the axis of evil.
  And we are not yet finished in Afghanistan. President Karzai is 
barely the mayor of Kabul. It is uncertain whether we or the countries 
who supported us there are ready to do the job.
  In addition, it is important to point out that this is not Munich. No 
one talks of appeasement. If Saddam Hussein takes one step outside his 
borders, his forces will be annihilated. There is no question about it.
  It is interesting how recently the polls are starting to more 
accurately reflect the mood of the American public that has been 
expressed to us for months. But regardless of what the polls say, some 
things are just wrong. Unilateral preemptive action as an operating 
principle is wrong. Delegating the unfettered authority to this 
President or any President to wage war is wrong. Missing the chance to 
build a more secure future with a more coherent foreign policy is also 
wrong.
  This debate does not yet capture the nature of the many challenges we 
face or the legitimate concerns and observations of the American 
public. It does not prepare America for the real struggle ahead. I will 
vote ``no,'' and I urge Members to do likewise.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), a senior member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of 
the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our 
foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the 
conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no 
convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of 
this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a 
war.
  But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. 
This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a 
resolution that does something much different. This resolution 
transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the 
Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants 
to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go 
to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the 
people through the Congress of this country in that manner.
  It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers 
this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. 
resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President 
when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than 
accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates 
of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs 
him to follow all of the resolutions.
  But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are 
endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed 
off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never 
been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that 
has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy 
is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have 
ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will 
adopt this same philosophy.
  I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially 
never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a 
doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I 
think this effort and

[[Page 19537]]

this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says 
that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an 
act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from 
their shores.
  Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I 
do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, 
the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.
  Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be 
responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper 
authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United 
Nations.
  But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations 
has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in 
for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the 
House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend 
on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a 
Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is 
correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 
12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? 
He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.
  My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more 
likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the 
wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this 
very seriously.
  Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has 
been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at 
our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 
years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the 
strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does 
not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.
  But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act 
of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over 
the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and 
all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and 
the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says 
nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.
  So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a 
minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating 
against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume 
responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the 
American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility 
of a military draft which may well come.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which 
regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with 
Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is 
an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-
mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive 
branch. This resolution tells the President that he alone has the 
authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. 
It merely asks the President to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days 
after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is 
exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our 
form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the 
power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most 
wished to avoid.
  As James Madison wrote in 1798, ``The Constitution supposes what the 
history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the 
branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, 
accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the 
legislature.''
  Some--even some in this body--have claimed that this Constitutional 
requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following 
the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I 
could not disagree more.
  Madam Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a 
federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign 
affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on 
the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to 
review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and 
mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international 
terrorism.
  Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the 
Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again 
toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was 
unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices 
who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now 
demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate 
that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as 
cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion 
of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I 
remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and 
imminent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of 
such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported 
President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the 
necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

  Further Background/Points on H.J. Res. 114 and Iraq, 8 October 2002

       Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness 
     to use force against the U.S. through its firing on our 
     planes patrolling the UN-established ``no-fly zones.''
       Reality: The ``no-fly zones'' were never authorized by the 
     United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and 
     British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. 
     Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), 
     Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, 
     but there was no authorization for ``no-fly zones,'' much 
     less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states 
     to ``contribute to humanitarian relief'' in the Kurd and 
     Shi'ite areas. Yet the U.S. and British have been bombing 
     Iraq in the ``no-fly zones'' for 12 years. While one can only 
     condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real 
     argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq 
     relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been 
     flown over Iraq.
       Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.
       Reality: According to the latest edition of the State 
     Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors 
     several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq 
     (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these 
     carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of 
     fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has 
     enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According 
     to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not 
     been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 
     1993--the alleged attempt against former President Bush.
       Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.
       Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the 
     attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti 
     assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against fmr 
     President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from 
     Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993:
       Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of 
     Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl 
     testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about 
     Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned 
     out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to 
     Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of 
     Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was 
     challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-
     rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister 
     of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official 
     in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged 
     assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second 
     incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special 
     session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming 
     that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been 
     involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-
     disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The 
     Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis 
     had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, 
     and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did 
     take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler 
     dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that 
     had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace 
     for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.
       This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied 
     about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the 
     article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and 
     the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:
       The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the 
     Attorney General, also had her doubts. ``The A.G. remains 
     skeptical of certain aspects of the case,'' a senior Justice 
     Department official told me in late July, a month after the 
     bombs were dropped on Baghdad. . . . Two weeks later, what 
     amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in 
     the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. 
     Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified 
     C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims 
     of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the

[[Page 19538]]

     C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait 
     might have ``cooked the books'' on the alleged plot in an 
     effort to play up the ``continuing Iraqi threat'' to Western 
     interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post 
     made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had 
     been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-
     Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the 
     C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been 
     driven by their source to the other side of the debate.
       At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged 
     bomb threat is not conclusive.
       Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction 
     against us--he has already used them against his own people 
     (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).
       Reality: it is far from certain that Iraq used chemical 
     weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional 
     wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed 
     there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from 
     conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institutes 
     of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim 
     that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are 
     the two gassing incidents as described in the report:
       In September 1988, however--a month after the war (between 
     Iran and Iraq) had ended--the State Department abruptly, and 
     in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq 
     for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. 
     The incident cannot be understood without some background of 
     Iraq's relations with the Kurds . . . throughout the war Iraq 
     effectively faced two enemies--Iran and elements of its own 
     Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had 
     launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed 
     up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq 
     announced its determination to crush the Kurdish 
     insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, 
     and in the course of the operation--according to the U.S. 
     State Department--gas was used, with the result that numerous 
     Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied 
     that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of 
     State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. 
     Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic 
     sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human 
     rights.
       Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, 
     we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim 
     that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were 
     never any victims produced. International relief 
     organizations who examined the Kurds--in Turkey where they 
     had gone for asylum--failed to discover any. Nor were there 
     ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on 
     testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into 
     Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee. . . .
       It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was 
     influenced by another incident that occurred five months 
     earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 
     1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical 
     weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish 
     victims were widely disseminated in the international media. 
     Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was 
     subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in 
     this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian 
     bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
       Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of 
     emotionalism that factual information, and without sufficient 
     thought for the adverse diplomatic effect of its action.
       Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN 
     Security Council resolutions--these resolutions must be 
     backed up by the use of force.
       Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have 
     not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In 
     addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being 
     violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there 
     are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by 
     countries other than Iraq that are also currently being 
     violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated 
     would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council 
     resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries 
     currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, 
     Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, 
     India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. None of these countries have 
     been threatened with force over their violations.
       Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological 
     agents.
       Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's 
     chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq's chemical and 
     biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; 
     those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening 
     four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking 
     Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly 
     chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 
     1980s. As one recent press report stated:
       One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type 
     Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six 
     strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three 
     strains of bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later 
     admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out 
     of all three . . .
       The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi 
     Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in 
     Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples 
     in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid--used to make 
     vaccines against botulinum toxin--directly to the Iraqi 
     chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the 
     records show.
       These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq 
     covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in 
     that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on 
     Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just 
     another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs 
     that do not concern us--and how this interventionism nearly 
     always ends up causing harm to the United States.
       Claim: The President claimed last night that: ``Iraq 
     possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds 
     of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey 
     and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 
     American civilians and service members live and work.''
       Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for 
     the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem 
     concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans 
     in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just 
     makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to 
     defend our own country.
       Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.
       Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda 
     elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is 
     territory controlled by the Kurds--who are our allies--and is 
     patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, 
     dozens of countries--including Iran and the United States--
     are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other 
     terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated 
     with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.
       Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: 
     ``Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to 
     developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and 
     that's the problem . . .''
       Reality: An admission of a lack of information is 
     justification for an attack?
       Also worth mention:
       President Bush claimed that our deposing Saddam Hussein . . 
     .

  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Ackerman), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, the President continues to make his case 
before the Congress, before the American people, and before the United 
Nations to garner support and legitimacy in the case against Saddam 
Hussein. There is no question about any of the facts the President has 
cited in making the case for urgent action against the threat posed by 
the Iraqi current regime.
  Only the deliberately obtuse can doubt that Saddam Hussein is a 
murderous, rapacious dictator with an addiction to aggression, and a 
long record of gross miscalculations.
  Since seizing power and killing all of his domestic rivals, Saddam 
spent the entirety of his rule either committing acts of gross 
unprovoked aggression, preparing for war, conducting war, brutalizing 
his own countrymen, or committing crimes against humanity.
  Madam Speaker, if we believe there is good in the world, surely we 
must recognize that there is also evil. Saddam Hussein is pure evil. 
The litany of Iraq's bad behavior is very familiar, and there is no 
real question about Iraq's appetite for weapons of mass destruction and 
his thirst for nuclear weapons. We know beyond a shadow of doubt that 
even after defeat in the Gulf War, and even while the United Nations 
inspectors were attempting to verify Iraq's United Nations mandated 
disarmament, Saddam Hussein's regime continued his covert and 
comprehensive plans to acquire those weapons and the means to deliver 
them.
  All of these facts are established and known, and the President made 
them all very clear last night. The single question we must answer, the 
single decision from which all other decisions will naturally descend 
is what to do about this threat. It is grave. It is immediate, and it 
will not satisfactorily resolve itself without action. We cannot simply 
hope that Saddam Hussein will be deterred. He has shown himself

[[Page 19539]]

to be an inveterate and dangerous gambler.
  We cannot simply hope that Saddam will not share weapons of mass 
destruction technology with terrorists. We know al Qaeda elements have 
already been at work soliciting Iraqi aid in this field. We cannot 
simply hope that U.N. inspections will rout out Saddam Hussein's 
weapons of terror. We know that he has defeated inspections for 10 
years and is prepared to risk his regime in order to preserve them.
  Madam Speaker, hope is not a plan; nor will hope ensure our national 
security. I believe that we all want a nonviolent resolution to this 
problem.

                              {time}  1430

  As the President said last night, ``Military action is not imminent 
or unavoidable.''
  Madam Speaker, it is not our first choice, but the only way for us to 
be clear about Saddam's obligation is for us to speak with one voice. 
Madam Speaker, we have fought wars that we have not declared, and we 
have declared wars that we have not fought. Let us hope that this is 
one of the latter.
  I believe that authorizing the President to use force, if necessary, 
is the best way to avoid war and is the best way to make clear that 
preservation of peace depends on Iraq's compliance with its 
obligations. But if we must use force, then the central issue to my 
mind is how to secure the greatest and the broadest international 
endorsement for our proposed course of action.
  Madam Speaker, since World War II, the United States, on the basis of 
broad bipartisan consensus, has been leading the world through the 
creation of a system of international security based on shared norms 
and institutions. The international order our Nation has established 
and sustained since the presidencies of Roosevelt and Truman and 
Eisenhower, the so-called Pax Americana, has succeeded for decades 
because it has been perceived internationally as legitimate and is not 
just self-interested. The peace of the Americans, not just the peace 
for the Americans.
  The goodwill that we have built up for decades is not simply the 
product of our support for democracy and free markets but rather our 
enduring and substantial material support for international 
institutions such as the United Nations and NATO and, through them, our 
commitment to international cooperation in the pursuit of global 
security. The global idea that we are all in this together has enabled 
our country to lead for decades without any significant backlash.
  The real questions that we should be asking are not about whether 
something should be done about Iraq. Something must be done. Our 
national security requires it. The key questions that remain are about 
international order and our relationship with the rest of the world.
  The President's speech to the U.N. seemed to be the first step in our 
effort to build a coalition. Last night's speech was another. These 
were necessary efforts, and we must continue. Because a preventative 
war devoid of any sort of international consensus is not a precedent 
that we choose to establish. Our Nation used to refer to that kind of 
project as aggression. Like it or not, we will need the international 
community when and if the time comes for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  But beyond our efforts in Iraq, we continue to need the international 
support for the war on terror. We cannot scorn international concerns 
and reservations without lasting harm to our larger and longer-term 
objectives.
  While I am prepared to endorse the President's request for 
authorization to use force to respond to the threat by Iraq, I continue 
to have grave concerns about the administration's complete failure to 
explain what an unsupported war on Iraq will do to our efforts to 
establish a stable global order. I continue to have grave concerns 
about the administration's complete failure to explain how an 
unsupported war in Iraq will advance international cooperation in the 
war on terror. And I continue to have grave concerns about the 
administration's complete failure to explain how we will restore a 
post-Saddam Iraq to the family of nations.
  Madam Speaker, all that being said, we must recognize Saddam 
Hussein's regime is a reign of evil, promising the world nothing but 
terror and death. A decent people have an obligation to confront evil 
in its womb.
  Madam Speaker, I will support the resolution, but I fear that 
defeating Iraq and deposing Saddam are likely to be orders of magnitude 
much easier than repairing a potential breach in international 
perceptions about our Nation's intentions and our values.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Over the next few days, this House is taking up yet another momentous 
decision in a session that is sadly full of historic challenges. The 
American people are watching and listening to our debate today. History 
is watching and listening to our debate today. And make no mistake, the 
Iraqi regime is watching and listening and weighing our words 
carefully.
  This debate can be a debate in the highest and best sense of that 
term, a serious exchange of ideas and opinions. That is the only 
opinion, that is the only mechanism that will do justice to this body, 
a body that has all too often been saddled with great and momentous 
decisions.
  But for that debate to be potentially realized, however, we must 
understand what our resolution is about and what it is not about. 
Despite what a misguided few will argue over these next few days, we 
are not debating a choice between war and peace. If it were only that 
simple.
  Make no mistake, I stand for peace, firmly and proudly. The real 
peace coalition is more than a handful of members who give themselves 
that label in the media. The real peace coalition is comprised of 
nearly everyone in this body today. As Americans we must all stand for 
peace.
  The real issue before us is how we secure that peace in the long run, 
peace for our children and peace for their children. The real debate is 
over what means will give us the best chance to stop a gathering storm 
in the terrorist world.
  There are some in this House and some in this Nation who are ready to 
put their faith solely in diplomacy. They believe that, given more 
time, there will be more discussion and more parley and somehow that 
can produce a result that it has not yet produced in the course of more 
than a decade.
  Others of us, I think most of us, would dearly like to put our faith 
in diplomacy alone, but we know that history does not allow us the easy 
way out, neither the history of our dealings with this tyrant nor the 
even dimmer and longer-term history of containment and appeasement. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) have painted that picture all too well, I am afraid.
  I support the resolution before us because I believe it strikes the 
right balance. It specifically requires the pursuit of diplomacy. In a 
civilized world like ours, diplomacy should always be the first path 
chosen, but it also backs that talk up with the threat of serious 
action. The resolution wisely faces the reality that a tyrant aimed at 
gamesmanship and amassing power instead of living up to universally 
accepted obligations is unlikely to take diplomacy very seriously 
without the potential for enforcement waiting in the wings. Under this 
resolution, the President must first determine that peaceful means 
cannot accomplish our goals.
  If we have learned anything over this decade, it is surely that 
Saddam Hussein will do everything he can to manipulate the diplomatic 
process for his own nefarious advantage. This is exemplified by his 
recent announcement that he will permit ``unconditional'' weapons 
inspections to resume but only if they do not include 12 square miles 
of his presidential palaces and thousands of buildings.
  He has hidden behind diplomacy, while continuing to develop his 
weapons of mass destruction. He calls for

[[Page 19540]]

more negotiations, while firing thousands of times at coalition planes 
in the no-fly zones. He cynically declares to the civilized world he 
would never support terrorism, and yet we know every day more and more 
why that is not true.
  We cannot ignore this history. We dare not ignore this history. Yet 
some would put all their faith in diplomacy. Others of us would like to 
put our faith in diplomacy alone, but, again, we are all too aware of 
its shortcomings. Force or the threat of it seems to be the only 
language Saddam Hussein understands. It is how he speaks, and it is the 
only way he listens. Diplomacy without the threat of force I am afraid 
is sure once again to get lost in the translation, the translation 
between the civilized world and the savage mind of Saddam Hussein.
  The resolution pushes diplomacy. It requires diplomacy. But, 
thankfully, it empowers diplomacy. This is how, God willing, we can 
secure real and lasting peace for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution to authorize the President of the United States to go to war 
with Iraq in a unilateral first strike.
  It is clear that Saddam Hussein has been and continues to be a threat 
to Iraq's neighbors and to all peace-loving nations. The United States 
and the United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by his pursuit 
of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The very existence of 
these types of weapons in our world is exceedingly dangerous. They are 
dangerous in the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but they are 
also dangerous stockpiled in the former Soviet Union. They are 
dangerous even in our own stockpiles. Control and destruction of 
weapons of mass destruction are essential to our national security and 
to world security.
  The world has wisely taken action to proactively address this threat, 
and I am proud that the United States has been a leader in addressing 
the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Right now, the United States 
is spending $1 billion per year to prevent the proliferation of these 
weapons, but we must do more.
  The question before the world today and the Congress of the United 
States is, what steps do we take to ensure that Iraq does not use 
weapons of mass destruction? The President has indicated a willingness 
to work together with the United Nations to renew international 
inspections and the disarmament process. We must let this process 
begin, and we must do everything we can to ensure that it succeeds.
  In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, in which 
case the President, as Commander-in-Chief, already has the legal 
authority to respond, but in the absence of an imminent threat, working 
with our allies and other nations to address this threat is the 
appropriate way to proceed.
  The administration's skepticism about Iraq's agreement to allow 
weapons inspectors without conditions is understandable. However, we 
must allow weapons inspections a chance to proceed before concluding 
that they have failed. The world community is with us in demanding 
inspections and disarmament. Establishing an inspection process that is 
complete, thorough and comprehensive can be done, but it will require 
resources and it will require our determination and it will require the 
active cooperation of our allies and the world community.
  War against Iraq should not be our first choice but rather our very, 
very last resort. The United States has many tools, I mean many tools, 
to address the threats of weapons of mass destruction. Absent an 
imminent threat, we must exhaust our other tools before hauling out the 
machinery of death and destruction, and there are alternatives between 
doing nothing and declaring war.
  It is our responsibility to address the threat to the safety of 
Americans and our allies from Iraq. Nothing is of greater concern to a 
Member of Congress than the health and safety of our citizens. A 
military first strike on Iraq, absent the support of the international 
community, may be more dangerous to our citizens than using means short 
of war. War against Iraq could further destabilize the Middle East. War 
against Iraq could make it more likely that weapons of mass destruction 
are used on our civilians. War against Iraq could endanger our allies 
in the region. War against Iraq could reinforce anti-American extremism 
and terrorism recruitment. It is absolutely essential to weigh these 
costs of war, also.
  The President's case for war emphasizes the potential threat from 
Iraq, while minimizing the dangers inherent in military action targeted 
at a regime change. War is far from risk free. In fact it may be far 
more dangerous an option to American security.
  A rat backed into a corner will fight, not surrender. If Saddam 
Hussein has no other option, he is more likely to use weapons than 
under our current containment policy. He could use them against 
American troops. He could use them against Israel. He could use them 
against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He may even decide that, with 
nothing to lose, why not give them the weapons to anti-American 
terrorists.
  Madam Speaker, we should be very aware that Iraq's neighbors are not 
clamoring for us to attack. They understand the danger of war with 
Iraq.
  An attack on Iraq would likely be perceived by some as an attack on 
Islam, generating more anti-Americanism and encouraging radical 
fundamentalism. The precedent set by a go-it-alone first strike would 
shape the future of this century. Is that how we will approach the 
nearly 30 other countries that possess or are developing the weapons of 
mass destruction or the means to deliver them? And how will we speak 
with any moral authority to other sovereign nations who seek to take 
things into their own hands against other states they see as threats?
  Madam Speaker, issues of war and peace are never easy. The decision 
we will make will shape our century. I do not know what the future will 
bring. However, I firmly believe that we must pursue diplomacy and 
every other tool first. War with Iraq now is not the answer.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution to authorize 
the President of the United States to unilaterally go to war with Iraq.
  It is clear that Saddam Hussein has been and continues to be a threat 
to Iraq's neighbors and to all peace-loving nations of the world. The 
United States and United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by 
his pursuit of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The very 
existence of these types of weapons in our world is exceedingly 
dangerous. They are dangerous in the hand of a dictator like Saddam 
Hussein. They are also dangerous stockpiled in the former Soviet Union. 
And they are dangerous even in our stockpiles. Control and destruction 
of weapons of mass destruction are essential to our national security 
and world security.
  The world has wisely taken action to proactively address this threat. 
I am proud that the United States has been a leader in addressing the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction. Right now the United States is 
only spending $1 billion per year to prevent the proliferation of these 
weapons. We must do more.
  The question before the world today and the Congress of the United 
States is: what steps do we take to ensure that Iraq does not use 
weapons of mass destruction? The President has indicated a willingness 
to work together with the United Nations to renew international 
inspections and the disarmament process. We must let this process 
begin. And do everything we can to make sure it succeeds.
  In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States (in which 
case the President already has the necessary legal authority as 
Commander-in-Chief to respond) . . . in the absence of that imminent 
threat, working with our allies and other nations to address this 
threat is the appropriate way to proceed.
  The Administration's skepticism about Iraq's agreement to allow 
weapons inspectors without conditions is understandable. However, we 
must allow weapons inspection a chance to proceed befor concluding they 
have failed. The world community is with us in demanding

[[Page 19541]]

inspections and disarmament--we should do all we can to make them 
effective. Establishing an inspection process that is complete, 
thorough and comprehensive can be done. It will require resources. It 
will require determination. And it will require the active cooperation 
of our allies and the world community.
  War against Iraq should not be our first choice, but rather our last 
resort. The United States has many tools to use to address the threats 
of weapons of mass destruction. Absent an imminent threat, we must 
exhaust our other tools before hauling out the machinery of death and 
destruction. And there are alternatives between doing nothing and 
declaring war.
  The President has articulated his case against Iraq by citing the 
danger posed by its weapons of mass destruction. He has envisioned a 
Middle East dominated by a nuclear-armed Iraq, bullying its neighbors, 
blackmailing the region, threatening the United States, and arming 
terrorists. I believe the United States and the United Nations should 
take actions to prevent this nightmare scenario from occurring.
  It is our responsibility to address the threat to the safety of 
Americans and our allies from Iraq. Nothing is of greater concern to a 
Member of Congress than the health and safety of our citizens. A 
military first strike attack on Iraq, absent the support of the 
international community, may be more dangerous to our citizens than 
means short of war. War against Iraq could further destabilize the 
Middle East. War against Iraq could make it more likely that weapons of 
mass destruction are used on civilians. War against Iraq could endanger 
our allies in the region, like Israel and Turkey. War against Iraq 
could reinforce anti-American, extremism and terrorist recruitment. It 
is absolutely imperative to weigh these costs of war against the 
threat.
  The President's case for war emphasizes the potential threat from 
Iraq, while minimizing the dangers inherent in military action targeted 
at a regime change. War is far from risk free. In fact, it may be a far 
more dangerous option.
  A rat backed into a corner will fight, not surrender. If Saddam 
Hussein has no other option, he is more likely to use these weapons 
than under our current containment policy. He would use them against 
American troops. He would use them against Israel. He would use them 
against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He may decide that with nothing to 
lose, why not give the weapons to anti-American terrorists.
  Madam Speaker, we should be very aware that Iraq's neighbors are not 
clamoring for us to attack. They understand the danger of war with 
Iraq.
  An attack on Iraq would likely be perceived by some as an attack on 
Islam, generating more anti-Americanism and encourage radical 
fundamentalists.
  In addition to the military dangers posed by an invasion of Iraq, we 
must consider the post-war challenges. Rebuilding Iraq will be a major 
challenge that will take many years and a great deal of money. There is 
no history of democratic government in Iraq. The Iraqi opposition is 
disorganized and divided, despite U.S. efforts to pull them together. 
The economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and 
sanctions.
  If we look at previous wars and occupations that the United States 
has undertaken, success has meant an extended commitment of time, 
resources and American forces. We did successfully rebuild Europe and 
Japan after World War II. It has been an unqualified success. Yet more 
than fifty years later, we still maintain military forces on their soil 
and in their defense. Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in 
Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime 
emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle 
East? If we don't, will Kurdish separatists declare a new state, 
destabilizing our NATO ally Turkey? Will Turkey react? If we don't, 
will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq? We cannot know what will 
happen in a post-war Iraq, but all of the good outcomes clearly require 
a substantial U.S. commitment, far more than any other in the region, 
even Afghanistan.
  International law is clear in reserving for a sovereign nation the 
right to self-defense. It is also generally accepted that this right of 
self-defense extends to a preemptive attack in the case of an imminent 
threat. Thus, should Iraq pose an imminent threat to the United States, 
we would be justified in taking preemptive action. The President has 
not made the case that an imminent threat exists. Instead, he has made 
a much broader and more troubling argument: that we are unlikely to 
ever have enough evidence of an imminent attack from Iraq and therefore 
must act now. The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is 
that it blurs the standard of evidence required to justify a preemptive 
attack under international law, undermining the ability of the world 
community to maintain peace and security.
  The precedent set by a go-it-alone first strike would shape the 
future of this century. Is that how we will approach the nearly 30 
other countries that possess or are developing weapons of mass 
destruction or the means to deliver them? And how will we speak with 
any moral authority to other sovereign nations who seek to ``take 
things into their own hands'' against other states they see as threats?
  Absent an imminent threat, it is imperative that we build a strong 
case for taking preemptive action against Iraq. The standard of 
evidence must be high, not low. The best way to build a convincing case 
is to work with the world community to build that case. Coercive 
weapons inspections will help us build that case in two ways. If Saddam 
Hussein cooperates, even reluctantly, we will know far more about his 
weapons capability and the threat. We will also be able to disarm him 
of all that we find. If Saddam Hussein refuses to cooperate, or 
undermines the work of the inspectors, the world will be more willing 
to accept a military solution. A coercive inspections effort over the 
next several months will strengthen our ability to deal with the 
threat.
  The President should be commended for going to the United Nations 
last month to urge a resumption of the inspections. We should work with 
our allies and other nations to implement a strong inspections program. 
The goal of these inspections should be to find all weapons of mass 
destruction and disarm Iraq. I believe that the United Nations Security 
Council would support a strong inspections program that meets the goals 
articulated by the President.
  I believe it is a mistake to demand that the Security Council 
authorize the use of force now, just as I believe the U.S. Congress 
should not authorize the use of force today. We should move forward as 
quickly as possible with unconditional inspections. Authorizing the use 
of force to enforce these inspections and disarm Iraq should come after 
our diplomatic efforts have been attempted and found to fail. They may 
fail. But they also may succeed. And they are more likely to if it is a 
united world against Saddam Hussein instead of the United States and 
Britain on our own.
  Madam Speaker, issues of war and peace are never easy. The decision 
we make will shape this century. I do not know what the future will 
bring. However, I firmly believe that we must pursue diplomacy and 
every other tool first. War with Iraq now is not the answer.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), a distinguished member 
of our Committee on International Relations.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution on the use 
of force in Iraq. This resolution may very well determine where 
America's future lies, and I do not take this responsibility lightly.
  I fully understand what it will mean to watch the carriers leave port 
in Virginia, or see the men and women leave the many military bases 
that I represent back home.
  This vote may send them in harm's way, in defense of liberty and 
freedom; and that is a very heavy weight to carry. However, we cannot 
forget the attack that struck America over a year ago, and we must act 
to ensure that our way of life is protected and preserved.
  It has been asked almost in unison across America how that fateful 
day last year could have been avoided. The answer is simple: we do not 
avoid these disasters; we prevent them. I support this resolution 
because I firmly believe that prevention is the only way to preserve 
our way of life, and a regime change in Iraq is necessary to restore 
global peace.
  I believe that if we do not remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from 
power and bring liberation to Iraq, the terrorist attacks of last year 
will simply serve as a preamble to countless acts of terrorism across 
American soil.
  We are certain that Iraq has continued with development of nuclear, 
biological and chemical weapons; and we know of their effectiveness. 
Hussein's maniacal use of these agents on his own people proves not 
only his disregard for human lives, but also proves their 
effectiveness. He has killed thousands in his very own country.

[[Page 19542]]

  We know that without intervention, Iraq's weapons programs will only 
increase and improve; and the longer we wait to intervene, the more 
seriously our troops will be threatened by Iraq's nuclear, biological, 
and chemical warfare programs. The possibility of Hussein having long-
range nuclear capabilities in the near future is very, very real.
  America cannot afford to allow its people to live in a world where 
Iraq has nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein is the world's most dangerous 
terrorist; and as the attacks of last year have shown, terrorists do 
not consider the consequences. America must prevent these disasters 
before they happen and ensure that nuclear war never enters the pages 
of 21st-century history.
  America's Iraqi policy of containment must be replaced with a policy 
of prevention. We must prevent future disasters by disarming Saddam 
Hussein of his nuclear, his chemical, and his biological weapons and 
overthrowing his regime.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our President and 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 7 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), one of our 
leaders in the field of foreign policy and national security.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Madam Speaker, to my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a visionary thinker and 
planner, and also one that is a Holocaust survivor, our only one in the 
U.S. House of Representatives, I rise in support of the resolution 
before us today. As a veteran, I understand the importance of this vote 
and the enormous impact it may have on the men and women who serve in 
our Armed Forces and their families, as well as our country and our 
world.
  As debate on this issue has progressed over the last several months, 
I have repeatedly heard one concern from the citizens of Tennessee: 
exhaust diplomatic alternatives first; engage the international 
community before taking any military action.
  Let me say for the record that I am pleased that the resolution does 
not call for the U.S. to act alone. Quite simply, this resolution makes 
clear the convictions of Congress that the President should pursue all 
diplomatic options first; but if Iraq resists diplomatic solutions, 
then the President is authorized to use all necessary means to enforce 
U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  I believe the language in this resolution offers a balanced approach 
that is limited in scope and specific in its goals. This resolution 
gives the President the flexibility he will need, while ensuring that 
Congress is consulted and has a meaningful role.
  Most importantly, it reflects the importance of putting diplomacy 
first and working with the international community to address the Iraqi 
threat. While we must pursue a diplomatic solution, we cannot afford to 
ignore the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbors and to our 
national security.
  According to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Persian 
Gulf War, Iraq was required to destroy its stockpiles of chemical and 
biological weapons and stop its development of nuclear weapons.
  Before the Gulf War, the U.S. intelligence community estimated that 
Iraq was between 5 and 10 years away from building a nuclear weapon. 
However, when international inspectors went in after the war, they 
discovered that Iraq was less than a year away from building a crude 
nuclear device. In fact, the inspectors found that Iraqi scientists had 
crafted a workable weapon design and were very close to refining enough 
heavily enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.
  Fortunately, over the course of the next 7 years of internationally 
supported weapons inspections, Iraq's nuclear program was largely wiped 
out. But in 1998 the Iraqis stopped cooperating with U.N. mandates and 
Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors.
  Since that time, our intelligence indicates that Saddam has moved 
quickly to reconstruct his nuclear program. He has hired 200 nuclear 
Ph.D.s and 7,000 technicians to build a nuclear bomb and has tried to 
obtain nuclear components from the black market; and he has continued 
to stockpile huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, 
including mustard gas, VX nerve gas, sarin gas, and anthrax.
  Hussein's pursuit of these weapons of mass destruction presents a 
clear and present danger to U.S. national security, and disarmament of 
his regime must be our top national priority.
  Unlike the Gulf War in 1991, we are not dealing with a threat posed 
by Iraq's conventional forces. Iraq's military has largely been 
contained and isolated and is unprepared to take the kind of aggressive 
action it did against Kuwait in 1990. The danger we face from Iraq is 
much more dire, because it involves Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass 
destruction which could devastate our Nation on a scale that we have 
never seen before. And the longer we wait, the greater the chance is 
that Saddam Hussein will turn over his weapons of mass destruction to 
al Qaeda or other terrorists who share his hatred of the United States.
  We know that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda seek weapons of mass 
destruction to kill innocent Americans in large numbers and destroy our 
way of life, and we know Hussein is working around the clock to build 
his nuclear capacity.
  How long will it be until these two forces join together against the 
United States? If we wait until we are attacked, the loss of life could 
be devastating. The detonation of only one nuclear device in a highly 
populated urban area could cause the deaths of tens of thousands of 
people. This is an unacceptable threat to our national security, and we 
must do everything we can to disarm his regime immediately.
  We have given Saddam Hussein 11 years to comply with United Nations 
resolutions, and he has chosen not to do so. Saddam Hussein has defied 
the international community for far too long. Diplomatic efforts have 
failed. Economic sanctions have failed. Saddam has thumbed his nose at 
the international community for more than a decade by ignoring U.N. 
Security Council resolutions that required him to disclose his weapons 
stockpiles, to disarm, and to cut ties to terrorist groups.
  The time is now for Saddam Hussein to live up to the 16 U.N. 
resolutions he has defied. This is Iraq's last chance. Confronting 
Saddam Hussein now is a necessary step to rid the world of his deadly 
potential. Saddam must clearly understand that swift and decisive force 
will be the automatic consequence, should he continue to ignore and 
avoid the inspections regime he agreed upon.
  Madam Speaker, I remain hopeful that we will see a diplomatic 
solution, but we must be prepared to act if those efforts fail. There 
is no more difficult decision that we as Members of Congress are called 
upon to make than a decision to authorize the President, the Commander 
in Chief, to put the men and women of the United States military into 
battle. Each Member of Congress must make this decision according to 
his personal conscience and his sense of what is best for the 
securities of the people of the United States of America. For my part, 
I have made that decision. We must be prepared to use force if 
diplomacy fails.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and others have done outstanding work on this 
resolution; and I commend them.
  Madam Speaker, I want to apply hindsight. Hindsight inevitably is 20-
20. But as I apply hindsight, my train of thought reverts to the Second 
World War. I wonder aloud how, if there had been four or five or even 
two or three additional Winston Churchills who would have dared stand 
up to Adolf Hitler, would the Second World War have been averted. 
Perhaps. I think certainly its impact would have been diminished if 
that had occurred.
  Saddam Hussein, in my opinion, is the modern day version of Adolf 
Hitler.

[[Page 19543]]

I have read that he is not as astute as Hitler. I do not know their 
respective intelligence quotients; but I do believe that Saddam is as 
brutal, as wicked, and as evil as Adolf Hitler was.
  The time for us to act is now. As the President told us last evening, 
Saddam and his thugs are not only willing to do us in, they are eager 
to do us in; and that distaste is shared by sizable numbers around the 
world.
  I am pleased, Madam Speaker, that President Bush last evening made it 
clear that we Americans are friends of the Iraqi people. This is not an 
effort to be adversarial to those people. They are the victims of this 
schoolyard bully; and Saddam, not unlike the schoolyard bully, has no 
respect for anyone. They are afraid of him.
  I think many of the Arab states would like to see him removed, but 
they do not want their fingerprints on it. If he is in fact removed, I 
think they would silently applaud enthusiastically.
  I was in the Middle East recently, Madam Speaker, and was confronted 
by a journalist who accused President Bush of being abusive to Saddam 
Hussein. I reminded that journalist that it was not President Bush who 
was being abusive, but that Saddam himself had been ruthlessly abusive, 
not only to others, but to his own people. The journalist did not 
respond to me, because he knew I was speaking factually and accurately.
  The time to act is now. I am uneasy when I think about nation 
building, because that could involve disastrous results. But the point 
is, and we need to drive this home, that nation building can be avoided 
with mere compliance. All Iraq must do is comply with the U.N. 
resolutions is to permit these inspectors back in, unfettered, no 
strings attached, in full view; and if this is done in a compliant 
manner, I see no need for war.

                              {time}  1500

  President Bush himself last evening said, this is avoidable. It lies 
upon his table, and he can act accordingly. I urge him to do so. We do 
not want war. I think most people do not want war. But the time to act 
is now. Because, not unlike Hitler, if he is permitted to continue to 
defy the U.N., to violate this resolution or that resolution, who knows 
when he may well attack?
  Madam Speaker, the time to act is now.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The Chair notes a disturbance 
in the gallery in violation of the Rules of the House and directs the 
Sergeant-at-Arms to restore order.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chairperson of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time.
  I rise before my colleagues today with a high degree of frustration 
as we consider the grave prospect of authorizing the President to send 
our uniformed men and women into military action in Iraq. I believe I 
speak for all Members of Congress when I say that I am awed by the 
moral weight of this decision. We all know that any military action 
would likely lead to an immediate and substantial loss of human life 
and have untold implications on the security of our Nation in years to 
come.
  Madam Speaker, no one desires to be on the opposite side of our 
President in times like these, but I regret to tell my colleagues that 
I am unable to support this resolution in its present form. I would 
like to add to the Record the statement issued by the Congressional 
Black Caucus outlining specific principles we believe must be addressed 
before military action should occur:
  ``We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United States 
without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the 
United States.
  ``Only Congress has the authority to declare war.
  ``Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.
  ``A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of 
the United States, destabilize the Middle East region and undermine the 
ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities.
  ``Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the 
region would be costly and require a long-term commitment.''
  Madam Speaker, I believe that the President has failed to address 
these principles.
  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to the 
Iraqi people, to his neighbors in the Middle East, to the United 
States, and to the world at large with his biological and chemical 
weapons and his nuclear program ongoing. For this reason, I cannot 
unequivocally count future military action out in the face of this 
legitimate threat.
  However, I strongly believe that the most effective way of combating 
this menace is by solidifying the support of the international 
community and acting within the auspices of the United Nations, not by 
acting unilaterally.
  In the 1990s, we made significant progress in conjunction with our 
international allies through the United Nations weapons inspection 
program which led to the destruction of 40,000 chemical weapons, 
100,000 gallons of chemicals used to manufacture weapons, 48 missiles, 
30 warheads, and a massive biological weapons facility equipped to 
produce anthrax.
  Inspections are a proven, nonviolent, and internationally supported 
method of thwarting Iraq's acquisition of weapons material and 
technology. What is more, a clear majority of the American people want 
us to give the inspectors the opportunity to work before we take 
military action.
  To this end, I am not convinced that giving the President the 
authority to launch a unilateral, first-strike attack on Iraq is the 
appropriate course of action at this time. While I believe that under 
international law and under the authority of our Constitution, the 
United States must maintain the option to act in its own self-defense, 
I strongly believe that the administration has not provided evidence of 
an imminent threat of attack on the United States that would justify a 
unilateral strike.
  I also believe that actions alone, without exhausting peaceful 
options, could seriously harm global support for our war on terrorism 
and distract our own resources from this cause.
  I am disappointed that those who favor this resolution make no 
mention of the long-term commitment for nation-building that will be 
necessary in order to maintain stability in the Middle East region 
following an attack on Iraq. Thus far, this administration has not made 
public any plans for our role in Iraq in the years to come, if not 
decades, after the attack.
  I cannot imagine that any of us believe this administration and our 
Nation is prepared to orchestrate and assume the entire financial 
burden of economic reconstruction, democratization, and nation-building 
that would be necessary to stabilize post-conflict Iraq. Let us not 
forget that this Congress would have to authorize aid for this long-
term task at a time when we are still engaged in the Balkans and have 
only recently started to help in Afghanistan.
  Furthermore, our Nation's economic recovery demands our immediate 
attention; and I am disturbed by reports that our Nation's poverty 
rate, joblessness, and health care costs continue to rise at the same 
time personal wealth and retirement savings are being desecrated. I 
fear the prospect of military action in Iraq will further distract our 
attention from an ominous economic outlook.
  So, before we undertake military operations in Iraq, we must ask 
ourselves some very basic questions:
  Does a war with Iraq improve our national security?
  Does it allow the United States to make peace through the power of 
our example?
  Does it allow us to focus on the economic suffering of our own 
people?
  Madam Speaker, I believe the answer is a resounding ``no.'' 
Therefore, I regret that I cannot vote with the President for this 
resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 5 minutes

[[Page 19544]]

to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a valued 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
yielding me this time.
  The American people are now going to experience a wonderful and 
lengthy debate, something that is just absolutely essential for this 
country, and they will have their fill of it.
  I want to stand here, though, and say that in 1944 I enlisted in the 
Marine Corps. I voted for Desert Storm. I have always felt that the 
first dollar of Federal money should go into defense, to be able to 
protect our country. But I am prepared to vote against this resolution. 
This is a sad day for me, because I want to support my President. I 
admire him greatly. But I guess, with thousands of votes which we make 
over the years, I have found that conscience is probably the best thing 
to follow and is most honest if one is going to be true to one's self, 
if not always politically popular.
  Following September 11 of last year, we were told that terrorism is 
the enemy. We have to get rid of al Qaeda. We have to take out Osama 
bin Laden. We have to eliminate the pockets who hate Americans. We have 
to rebuild Afghanistan. Secondly, we were told that to win the war 
against terrorism, our main objective, it required the cooperation of 
our allies around the world. And I bought that, and the President 
spelled it out very clearly and very eloquently.
  But now we hear that the priorities have changed and that Iraq is the 
prime target. Saddam Hussein is a bad man, he has horrible weapons, and 
I believe all of that. But as a single-minded believer I asked, what 
does this have to do with September 11? There is very little evidence 
that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on September 11 or on 
terrorism itself. As a matter of fact, probably Saddam Hussein and 
Osama bin Laden are mortal enemies. One is from a secular country and 
the other is a religious fundamentalist.
  Now, I happen to be a hawk on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is bad, and some 
day we should deal with him. But, right now, the security of the 
American people is at stake, and I believe we must fight terrorism in 
its emerging and subtle forms.
  So, I see that, without finishing what we started to do and with no 
intimate knowledge that there is nuclear weapons at hand or that there 
is a relationship to terrorism, why is it that we refocus our 
objectives? It is hugely costly. We are not backed by some of our key 
allies, and we potentially can unleash even more of the thing which we 
are fighting: terrorism.
  I met with some Arabs the other day, with a group of Israelis and 
Arabs who were talking about the Middle East, and they said, the Iraqis 
in general hate Saddam Hussein, but they hate the United States even 
more.
  So Iraq is now one of the only secular countries in that region. And 
the Sunnis and the Shiites could create such a mess following a war 
that we could find ourselves against a religious fundamentalist state 
that could develop, where that is not the case now.
  The bill here today says that the President, ``is authorized to use 
the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary 
and appropriate.''
  Now, I have great respect for this President. He is an unusual man. 
And he may be right. We do not know. This is all the future that we are 
dealing with.
  But I am given the opportunity as a Congressman to express my 
feelings and to cast my vote; and I, frankly, feel uncomfortable. 
Unilateralism scares me. We have not shown a lot of patience. Our goal 
as a Nation is to bring people together, not divide them. This is not 
going to be a cakewalk. People fighting for their own country fight, 
just differently. And what about the dire Arab-Israeli or Palestinian--
Israeli situation?
  I think we have the cart before the horse. I think the U.N. ought to 
do its will first. Frankly, I feel that a right decision at the wrong 
time is a wrong decision; and somehow we must finish our war on 
terrorism before we take on another fight.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), a valued member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this resolution.
  I intend to support the resolution for three reasons.
  First, I believe the President needs, as has been said by a number of 
speakers, the credible threat of force to maximize the chances of 
negotiating a peaceful settlement to disarm Saddam Hussein through the 
United Nations.
  Secondly, I believe that we should at least attempt, if necessary, to 
use military force to back up an attempt to inspect and disarm. 
Obviously, Saddam Hussein has been very difficult to deal with in the 
past, and a more muscular form of inspection may be a further way to 
avoid a more broad military attack.
  Finally, if Iraq fails to disarm and then, in fact, if it is clear 
that Iraq poses a likely risk of serious harm to this country, I 
believe we should be prepared to defend ourselves by the use of force 
as a last resort.
  I think it is important to point out that this very difficult 
decision before us today has been made more difficult by the 
mismanagement of this issue by the Bush administration in the days 
leading up to this. Originally, the presentation by the White House was 
very much of a unilateralist tone and, as the previous speaker 
mentioned, many Americans, many Members of Congress have had difficulty 
recovering from that initial misstep. I am pleased that the resolution 
reflects a change in heart by the President to work with our allies 
through the United Nations.
  Secondly, it was originally suggested to the Congress and the country 
that there was some additional information that made the risk of Iraq 
to the United States imminent. This also proved ultimately to be 
incorrect. There was no additional information of a heavily significant 
nature in terms of the level of risk that Saddam Hussein posed to this 
country, and I personally do not believe the case has been made that 
the threat is imminent.
  I do believe the case has been made that the threat is significant 
and, if we do nothing, it will grow; and that is one of the reasons why 
I support acting. But the case of regime change, based on any 
additional information and the allegation of the NSC, has not been 
made.
  Finally, all of the tone coming out of the administration in the 
early days was force as a first resort, not as a last resort. That is 
not what has made this country great. It is our strength and our wisdom 
that has allowed us to succeed and enjoy the moral authority that we 
enjoy today.
  I am pleased that, as recently as last night, the President has 
changed his tone and is saying correctly that force should be used as a 
last resort, and the resolution reflects that as well.

                              {time}  1515

  But let me add, I think we can do better. It would be my intention to 
continue to pursue an amendment to this resolution similar to what I 
offered in the Committee on International Relations. That amendment 
borrowed from the proposal of the chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, supported then by Senator Hagel.
  What that amendment provided for was that before the President would 
use force, in the event the United Nations was not successful in 
negotiating disarmament, that the President must make a determination 
and a declaration to Congress and the American people that the risk 
that Iraq posed to our country was so great as to justify the use of 
military force.
  I believe that higher standard, that moderation, is what will help 
bring this Congress together to give the President the tools he needs 
to do his job and to demonstrate that what we are acting with is a 
combination of strength and wisdom.
  Secondly, and most troubling of all, we should adopt an amendment 
that

[[Page 19545]]

clarifies that the mission of the United States of America and our 
allies is to disarm Saddam Hussein, not to engage in regime change. The 
way the resolution is currently written, it is far from clear, it is 
far from precise, that the Security Council resolutions that we are 
authorizing the President to enforce through force deal strictly with 
disarmament.
  These two changes should be adopted to make the resolution stronger, 
more precise, and more clear. For that reason, I hope the House will 
take that amendment up later in the action.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), a valued member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. KERNS. Madam Speaker, we are faced today with an important 
decision regarding Iraq, a decision that we wish were not before us; 
but we cannot simply wish our responsibilities away. We are faced with 
a frightening proposition. However, I have concluded after much prayer 
that the failure to act or the failure to support our President is even 
more frightening.
  Saddam is a cancer to society. I think most of us have lost someone 
dear to cancer. I have loved ones that are battling cancer today, a 
father in Indiana and a mother-in-law in Baltimore. Would we tell them 
or advise them to ignore their spread of cancer because it is too 
costly to fight, because the treatment is too unpleasant, because the 
treatment will upset our day-to-day lives, or because the treatment 
might not work, or perhaps they could lose their life in the fight? I 
think not.
  As is true with cancer, it is true with Saddam Hussein and the regime 
in Iraq: it is a cancer that is spreading, and is spreading at an 
alarming rate. While it is true that we may be able to survive the day, 
we know ultimately what he will do: Saddam will kill. He will kill 
anyone in his way; and make no mistake, he will kill Americans, he will 
kill our children, and he will kill our grandchildren.
  Today, Madam Speaker, my fellow Members have quoted great Americans. 
I would like to share the words of another great American, the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who said shortly after the attacks of September 
11, ``I hope someone is thinking about the enemy we face today, that 
they do not think that they are dying when they fly airplanes into 
buildings, they think they are going to meet their God.''
  Well, someone has been thinking about the type of enemy we face 
today, and that someone is President Bush. He has courageously led the 
world in its fight against terrorism. He has brought the world 
community together. Perhaps never in history has the world community 
been so united in its denunciation of terrorism and the attacks that 
the world has seen.
  I ask my colleagues to support the President. Let the rest of the 
world know that the Congress stands with our President and the American 
people will not tolerate the slaughter of innocent people anywhere.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a great addition to the Committee on 
International Relations with his extensive background.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I urge defeat of the resolution.
  In the landmark case of Schenck versus The United States, Justice 
Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that freedom of speech should not be 
abridged, even in wartime, unless the circumstances are of such a 
nature as to create a clear and present danger to the United States.
  That doctrine, I suggest, offers an appropriate standard for any 
preemptive unilateral action. It creates a burden of proof that was 
best articulated by a patriot from New England who served as Secretary 
of State in 1837, Daniel Webster. He stated that the need for self-
defense must be ``instant, overwhelming, and leaving no chance of means 
and no moment for deliberation.''
  I would add that the quantum of evidence necessary must be compelling 
and convincing; not the higher criminal standard of beyond a reasonable 
doubt, but at least compelling and convincing, because of the obvious 
magnitude of the consequences that are implicated here.
  The resolution before us permits the President to take us into war 
without satisfying either of these requirements. In terms of the clear 
and present danger test, only last Friday the CIA stated publicly that 
without material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a 
weapon until the last half of the decade; and further, the evidence 
needed to support the proposition that Iraq is a clear and present 
danger is not compelling and convincing, but rather, murky and 
speculative.
  I was particularly disturbed to learn that a national defense 
intelligence estimate had not even been done before the option of 
unilateral preemptive military action had become administration policy. 
It is as if a policy had been crafted and there was no need for a 
factual basis based on our own historical precedents, the evidence, and 
the rule of law; a conclusion in search of facts, if you will.
  Now, the factual basis for congressional authorization is 
incorporated in the preamble of the resolution before us, but the 
allegations that are recited therein could be made about a number of 
countries, such as Iran and North Korea, the other original members of 
the ``axis of evil'' club, both of whom are further along in the 
development and capacity to deliver a nuclear device, and both of whom 
possess biological and chemical weapons. Our own intelligence for years 
has claimed that North Korea has enough plutonium for several nuclear 
bombs. So why the focus on Iraq?
  It is asserted that Saddam has used chemical weapons and thereby 
demonstrated the necessary intention. Well, in fact, we do know of at 
least 10 occasions in the 1980s that he used chemical weapons during 
the war with Iran because we supported him; yet we still took him off 
the terrorist list, opened an embassy in Baghdad, shared intelligence 
with the Iraqi military, and provided billions of dollars in 
agricultural credits.
  But since the last incident occurred in 1988, I would submit that 
that evidence is stale and fails the clear and present danger test. 
What is not mentioned is that he did not subsequently use weapons of 
mass destruction during the Gulf War because he was told that our 
response would be devastating.
  Yes, he is despicable and truly evil, but he is not stupid. He can be 
deterred. He is not an al Qaeda fanatic seeking martyrdom. That is not 
Saddam Hussein. Rather, he is a survivor; and his only concern is 
maintaining power.
  Now, the President in his remarks last night mentioned links between 
al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but that conflicts with reports that both 
the FBI and the CIA have failed to corroborate any relationship between 
Saddam and al Qaeda with credible evidence.
  The President further noted that some al Qaeda leaders who fled 
Afghanistan went to Iraq; and that is true, but they are in northern 
Iraq. They are in northern Iraq, protected by Iraqi Kurds who are 
opposed to Saddam. It is difficult to imagine such an alliance because 
they are natural enemies.
  One of the goals of al Qaeda is the destruction of secular Muslim 
regimes such as Iraq because they believe they have corrupted Islam. 
Remember, Iraq did not recognize the Taliban, unlike our allies, 
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
  Like all Members, I fervently hope that if this resolution passes, 
and I am sure it will, a preemptive military offensive will not be 
necessary; but sadly, this is not just about Iraq, because what we will 
have done goes far beyond the instant moment. It will have established, 
I fear, a precedent that will be used by other nations who have 
aggressive intentions against their neighbors and others that all they 
need is stale evidence, historical sins, and ill-defined allegations 
that can serve as the basis for unilateral preemptive military action.

[[Page 19546]]

  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, today we are taking a necessary step to hold a tyrant 
accountable for his actions. For over a decade now, Iraqi President 
Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at every resolution approved by the 
United Nations Security Council. He continues to develop weapons of 
mass destruction to repress the Iraqi people, to support acts of 
terrorism, and to deny unconditional access to United Nations weapons 
inspectors.
  Further, he continues to evade the United Nations economic sanctions 
by violating the principles of the oil-for-food program in order to 
solicit illegal arms and materials to develop weapons of mass 
destruction.
  It is now time to hold Saddam accountable for his refusal to abide by 
specific agreements made with the international community, especially 
when his actions can be devastating, not only on his Middle Eastern 
neighbors but also on the citizens of our country.
  As President Bush stated in his speech last night, the attacks of 
September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us 
from danger. We see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly 
defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam 
Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from 
our responsibilities. We cannot sit idle, Madam Speaker, while Saddam 
Hussein empowers people with fanatic ideas, with weapons of mass 
destruction, against our citizens and against our American values of 
freedom and democracy.
  Through the course of my briefings with the National Security 
Adviser, the Director of the CIA, the President, others, I have become 
convinced that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the United States. We 
must not lose time. The safety and the security and prosperity of our 
Nation, as well as that of the world, hinge on confronting the 
immediate threat Iraq poses to its neighbors, as well as to the 
international community.
  The President will not send America's sons and daughters to war 
without serious study and deliberation; and I agree with him that war 
should always be the final option. But I will not shirk from my 
responsibility to protect the American people against this tyrant if 
all other means have failed.
  I support this resolution that grants the President the authority to 
continue leading the world in eradicating future acts of terrorism.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, after much study, reflection and prayer, I 
rise in support of the resolution authorizing the use of force against 
Iraq. While I am certain that little of what we say here will be long 
remembered, I am also confident that this is a time of conscience and 
judgment for this Congress.
  We will be subject to the judgment of the American people and of the 
world. Time will judge us. History will judge us. And each of us will 
also answer to him who created and sustains this very Earth we inhabit.
  And when that judgment is rendered what of the verdict, Madam 
Speaker? I grieve at the very thought of the United States in armed 
conflict, and I cannot escape the thought of the American families that 
may be called upon to send their loved ones into harm's way on our 
behalf.
  It is a terrible burden, yet one from which we dare not shrink or 
retreat. For it is not just peace or liberty that hang in the balance, 
but, as our President has said, potentially the lives of millions. For 
we decide today whether and in what manner our great Republic might 
call upon its military arsenal to compel a persistent enemy to disarm 
and embrace the civilized world and its principles.
  Madam Speaker, the United States does not seek to start a war. We 
seek to finish one. For Saddam Hussein has been America's warring foe 
for more than a decade.
  In 1991, we ceased hostility. We ended the battle. But, Madam 
Speaker, his war took no respite. It shows no mercy.
  And yet if in some horrible, yet possible, day Saddam and the 
metastasizing network of terrorists he harbors and protects bring to 
America another World Trade Center, another Pentagon, another Oklahoma 
City or Khobar Towers, when, and not if but when, Saddam creates and 
uses nuclear weapons, what will we tell the American people then?
  Will we tell the survivors that we did not realize that Saddam 
Hussein had never finished his war against America? Will we tell them 
we thought the war was over? Will the judgment of the American people 
find that, even though we knew of the danger, they will accept that we 
waited for public opinion, for world opinion to congeal across the 
globe?
  It is my profound hope and fervent prayer to the God who intervenes 
in the affairs of men, by whose hand nations rise and fall, that well 
before this Nation fires a single shot in anger that Saddam Hussein 
would relent and disarm, that he would see and believe the strength of 
our resolve, that he would know the lengths to which we will go and the 
price we are willing to pay to protect freedom. Then his own mind would 
be turned and the cup of conflict and destruction which is now poised 
might pass us by.
  But, Madam Speaker, that cup is at hand. It is appropriate, even 
necessary, that this Congress, this day, authorize this President to 
use the full and unrelenting force of America's moral and, yes, if 
necessary, military might to eclipse the night of terror and usher a 
dawn of security and freedom. Our enemies should pay heed to our 
resolve.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I also would offer that our soldiers and 
their families should also heed the word that has comforted so many of 
our heroes throughout the history of this Nation and all of those who 
have said in their hearts of the Lord, that he is my refuge and my 
fortress and the God in whom I trust. Let them be comforted with the 
knowledge that surely he will save you from the fowler's snare, from 
the deadly pestilence. He will cover you with his feathers and under 
his wings you will find refuge. You will not fear the terror of night, 
nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in the 
darkness. A thousand may fall at your side, 10,000 at your right hand, 
but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and 
see the punishment of the wicked.
  May it be our prayer as our new heroes are forged in this act of 
Congress and during the ominous days ahead.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green), our good friend and distinguished colleague.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and 
colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, this vote is the most important vote that many of us 
will cast in our congressional service. This vote is not one to be 
taken lightly or in haste. We have asked our young people who serve in 
our Armed Forces to put their lives in harm's way for our Nation. This 
vote and debate must be in the most serious of nature.
  It is our job as Members of Congress to protect our people, to make 
sure Americans can raise their families and go to work without the fear 
of attack. Our defenses did not work on September 11, 2001; and we saw 
the devastation that killed 3,000 people. Our job is to protect our 
fellow Americans; and that is why, after a great deal of listening, 
discussing and learning, I will support the resolution.
  Our Nation does not go to war easily. We are inherently a peaceful 
Nation. We want to be left alone, to live our lives, to raise our 
families and enjoy the freedoms of our country. We had to be attacked 
to enter World War I and World War II. But when they attack or threaten 
our Nation, we respond.
  As with other Members of Congress, during August I was at home in 
Houston meeting with my constituents, doing town hall meetings and 
listening

[[Page 19547]]

to the people I am honored to represent. My Houston constituents were 
as surprised as I was at the aggressiveness of our administration in 
relationship to Iraq. It sounded like we were beating a war drum. The 
impression it left on many people was the administration will wage war 
no matter without regard to Congress or international support. Many 
people wondered what this threat that suddenly in August Iraq became 
the prominent issue discussed by President Bush.
  My folks were and are more concerned about our deteriorating economy, 
increasing unemployment, drop in the stock market, the increasing 
national deficit. This deficit was and is increasing without addressing 
additional unemployment assistance, without addressing the loss of 
health care, without addressing increased spending for education, 
without addressing the plunging stock market or without addressing a 
jobs program that reverses our economic decline.
  My folks are still concerned about their everyday lives, and that is 
true with this as previous generations. We need to protect our people 
but not lose sight of our economic problems.
  I will work with the President to protect our people, but let us not 
forget we must revive our economy. Tax cuts, permanents or temporary, 
are not working. We need an economic revival plan, not more foreign 
entanglements.
  Saddam Hussein has been a problem for last month, the last 6 months, 
and the last decade, for that matter. I am pleased that the 
administration and Congress has come together in a bipartisan fashion 
to draft a balanced resolution. I think this bipartisanship is evident 
in several changes contained within the resolution, issues like 
compliance with the War Powers Act, language more clearly defining the 
length and scope of any conflict with Iraq, affirmation to Congress 
that all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted prior to using military 
force.
  I am pleased because these changes strengthen the lines of 
communication between the President and Congress on this most important 
issue. Unity is critical if our Nation is going to move against any 
enemy. The United States is prepared to fight for the safety of our 
Nation, regardless of whether our allies choose to stand with us. It is 
our job to protect our people, not the U.N.'s. The time for diplomacy 
is short, and the only acceptable solution we should hear coming from 
Bagdad is that U.N. inspectors will have complete and unannounced 
access to anything they want to see. That includes the presidential 
palaces that constitute hundreds of buildings that are guarded like Ft. 
Knox.
  America will not tolerate a weapons shell game played by the Iraqi 
military designed to foil international weapons inspectors. Saddam 
needs to play by the rules or suffer the consequences. And let there be 
no doubt that the penalty for noncompliance will be severe.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today on this solemn occasion to speak in 
support of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against 
Iraq. The choice before us is clear. Do we sit back and allow Saddam 
Hussein to keep his weapons of mass destruction and hope that he 
voluntarily chooses not to use them against us, our allies, or do we 
take action to separate him from those weapons of mass destruction?
  I support this resolution authorizing the use of military force 
against Iraq for two reasons: First, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his 
nose at the United States and the United Nations by failing to destroy 
his weapons of mass destruction, failing to destroy his long-range 
missiles, and by kicking out the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
  A second reason to support this use of force against Iraq is because 
time is of the essence. Saddam Hussein is now less than a year away 
from developing nuclear weapons, according to reports we have received 
in the last month from the CIA and the International Institute for 
Strategic Studies. The only thing Saddam is missing now is enriched 
uranium. We know he has 200 Ph.D.s working around the clock on this 
process. We also know he could assemble these nuclear weapons within 
months if he obtains the enriched uranium on the black market from 
foreign sources. And we know from a recent CIA report that he has up to 
$3 billion to spend to obtain this enriched uranium as a result of his 
recent sale of oil on the black market.
  Given these facts, does anyone really believe that it is beneath 
Saddam Hussein to bribe some down-and-out vulnerable nuclear scientist 
from North Korea or Pakistan who regularly works with enriched uranium?
  But even if Saddam Hussein is not successful in obtaining nuclear 
weapons within a year, time is still of the essence. Because we know 
that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons of mass 
instruction such as anthrax and nerve gas which he could easily give to 
terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda. And we know that Saddam 
Hussein is sympathetic to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden because, after 
September 11, Saddam Hussein callously told the world that he was happy 
that thousands of Americans were killed. Specifically, just after 
September 11 Saddam Hussein said, ``Bush wants me to send my 
condolences, but if I do that I would be lacking respect for my people. 
Americans should feel the pain they have inflicted on other peoples of 
the world.''
  The decision before this Congress could not be any more serious, but 
it also could not be much clearer. We are on notice. Saddam Hussein is 
a remorseless, pathologically aggressive dictator with a history of 
striking without warning, a history of using weapons of mass 
destruction to kill people, and a burning desire to have his finger on 
the button of a nuclear weapon pointed in our direction.
  The danger from Saddam Hussein's arsenal is far clearer than anything 
we could have seen prior to September 11. History will judge harshly 
any of us who saw the dark cloud on the horizon but passively chose to 
look the other way.
  Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this issue at length. It is the only 
course for us to follow. Why should we wait any longer? We owe it to 
our children and to future generations to take action to deal with this 
problem right here, right now. Let our country boldly move forward, not 
to devastate and to concur, but to reestablish the reign of peace.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to authorize the 
military force against Iraq.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms DeGette), a leader in the Democratic Caucus and a member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  I commend the President for his vigilant efforts to protect the 
security of the United States. We stand united in our commitment to 
this cause. But there are legitimate differences about the best way to 
protect our Nation.
  The President has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to 
Congress that unilateral military action against Iraq at this time is 
justified. We have seen over the last 10 years that Iraq is trying to 
amass chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons. But we 
have seen no evidence of their success, and we have seen no evidence of 
a delivery system.
  I would ask, given the evidence we have today, is this reason why we 
should vote for this resolution which essentially gives the President 
unfettered ability to go into Iraq with a first strike military attack 
in a unilateral fashion, potentially destabilizing the entire world 
order at this time? I say it does not.
  Why are we discussing a war with Iraq right now? What has changed in 
the last 10 years to make the threat from Iraq imminent? So imminent, 
in fact, that Congress has got to rush to pass this resolution now 
before we can let the weapons inspectors back in, before we can find 
any evidence of an imminent threat? What information have we have 
recently obtained that has led the President to believe the war is 
absolutely necessary now?

[[Page 19548]]



                              {time}  1545

  Many of us in Congress felt that it was essential that the President 
come to Congress for action before he attacked another country 
unilaterally, and we were pleased when he did come to Congress; but if 
he is going to come to us and ask us to pass this type of resolution, 
he has to give us the information on which we can base our vote, and to 
date, I have not, and many Members of Congress, no one I know, has been 
given information by the administration that Iraq indeed poses an 
imminent threat to the United States. We must have that information 
before we can pass a resolution like this, especially since the U.N. 
Security Council is working hard to send weapons inspectors back in and 
to have international cooperation in dealing with Iraq and in dealing 
with Saddam Hussein.
  International cooperation and the support of the United States people 
are what will make any action against Iraq successful, just as we had 
success in our initial action in Afghanistan. I might add, I have had 
myself now over 3,000 phone calls and letters from my constituents and 
congressional office, and five have supported this type of uninformed 
unilateral action. This is not the support of the United States people.
  Some of my colleagues have made the tortured analogy that we face the 
same challenge with Saddam Hussein that our predecessors did with 
Adolph Hitler in 1936; but Iraq is not Nazi Germany, as evil as they 
are. We have been given no evidence that the Iraqi military has grown 
stronger in the 10 years since 1991. We have been given no evidence 
that Iraq intends to cross its borders into Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi 
Arabia or Iran, as it did in 1991 when the U.S. did intervene; and we 
have been given no evidence that Iraq is close to possessing nuclear 
weapons, merely that it would like to.
  If the President has acquired intelligence that answers these 
questions, he must provide it to Congress and let us know because today 
he is asking Congress to authorize unilateral action against Iraq. This 
is a not a debate about appeasement versus action. We must not and 
cannot try to appease someone like Saddam Hussein; but what it is is a 
question of acting alone or at most with one ally versus building a 
global coalition as we did 11 years ago to oppose Iraq's aggression 
against a peaceful neighbor. To triumph in this effort we must do that 
again.
  The United States is at a crossroads in the war against terrorism. To 
this point, we have shown the world the threat posed by terrorists to 
our national security. We have successfully built an international 
coalition to combat this threat, and together we have led the coalition 
to rout terrorism from its role in Afghanistan. This is the path we 
must take, and that is why we must oppose this resolution today.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), who chairs the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
for yielding me the time, and I rise today in support of the resolution 
calling for disarmament by Iraq and authorizing the President to use 
force to protect America from the threats posed by Saddam Hussein.
  It has often been said that those who do not remember history are 
condemned to repeat it. Today, by passing this resolution, we are 
showing that we have learned the lessons of World War II and September 
11 and that we are committed ourselves to ensuring that those horrors 
are not repeated.
  After World War I, the international community came together to form 
the League of Nations in order to resolve international conflicts 
without war. Stiff requirements were placed on Germany to ensure that 
it could no longer pose a threat to its neighbors; but when Adolph 
Hitler came to power and began testing the world's resolve, he was only 
met with appeasement, allowing Hitler to build his military and his 
territory.
  The appeasers of the 1930s were content to receive paper agreements 
for peace and stability from the German dictator, and when those 
agreements were shredded by Hitler's words and his actions, the 
international community refused to enforce its own agreements. Only 
when Hitler brutally invaded Poland and launched World War II, did the 
world finally realize his true intentions and take stock of the 
enormity of the failure of appeasement; and to defeat him, 30 million 
people died.
  After the failures that led to World War II, the United Nations was 
formed in an attempt to fulfill the worthy ambitions of the League of 
Nations. Today, the U.N. is facing a stern test of its resolve by 
another dictator.
  The U.N. has placed stiff mandates on an Iraqi dictator who has shown 
a thirst for more territory, more power, more deadly weaponry, no 
matter how horrific. Just as in the past, today's dictator has violated 
agreement after agreement, 16 U.N. resolutions by my count.
  Now, by passing this resolution, Congress is showing that we have 
learned the lessons of history. We will enforce our international 
agreements, and we will not allow rogue dictators to bring about the 
deaths of thousands or millions of Americans and others by our 
inaction.
  I commend the President for recognizing the need for this resolution. 
By passing this resolution, Congress will show that the U.S. speaks 
with one voice to counter the threat posed by Iraq. Further, we will 
send a message to the United Nations that failure to enforce its 
international agreements will only lead it down a path of irrelevance 
and ineffectiveness that the League of Nations went down over 60 years 
ago.
  This is not a resolution that must lead to war. It rightly calls 
first for disarmament through diplomacy and inspections. These efforts 
alone could bring more security to the world and could prevent conflict 
if Saddam Hussein cooperates fully with the demands laid out before him 
by the Congress, the President, and the United Nations; but if 
disarmaments through diplomacy and inspections fails, and it can only 
fail at Saddam Hussein's own choosing, this resolution shows that 
Congress and America have the resolve to protect those who live in 
freedom from the dangers of tyrants.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a valued member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California, whose 
wisdom gets greater with each passing day, for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, there is no jumping for joy in this debate. This is a 
very solemn moment. Each Member of Congress has to do a lot of personal 
soul searching. There should be no finger pointing, no questioning of 
patriotism. This is the American way of life, the American Congress at 
our best, democracy where everyone can speak. This makes me so proud to 
be an American and so proud to be a Member of the United States 
Congress.
  Madam Speaker, for me, I will support this resolution, even though I 
must say there are some unanswered legitimate questions. I think it is 
best to speak about some of those questions up front.
  There are serious questions about the timing of this. Why is this the 
absolute right time to do it? Why not 3 months ago? Why not 3 months 
from now? Why not 6 months from now? I think that is a very legitimate 
question, and I am not totally satisfied with the answers.
  Secondly, I do not think there has been enough thought about what 
happens after we get into Iraq. We have to stay the course. We cannot 
pick up and run. We have to make sure that democracy sets root in that 
country.
  Thirdly, there is a question about our war against terrorism and 
other nations that support terrorism. For me, Iran and Syria have 
supported terrorism and terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas far greater 
than Iraq. They support terrorism against us. They support terrorism 
against our ally Israel; and very little has been done to

[[Page 19549]]

confront Syria and Iran, and I hope the looking at Iraq does not turn 
us away from other nations that support the evil of terrorism.
  I think for me, Madam Speaker, what is most important and the bottom 
line for me is that as a New Yorker and as an American, after September 
11, the equation changed.
  I was in New York when the World Trade Center went down. Three 
thousand lives were lost, including many of my own constituents. The 
Cold War arguments of deterrence and containment I do not think apply 
anymore.
  In this era of terrorism, the U.S. has to be proactive. When there is 
evil around the world, and the evil threatens our country, and the evil 
threatens innocent people, we have to act. We did so in Kosovo. We did 
so in Kuwait back in 1991. We did so in Bosnia. We should have done so 
in Rwanda where a million innocent lives were lost. I am not willing to 
let that happen again.
  I have no apologies when the U.S. does what is in our national 
interests to save our people and to save innocent lives, but we have to 
try to work with many nations. We have to work with U.N. resolutions. 
We have to work with others.
  Madam Speaker, back in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, we knew then 
that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a menace to his people, a menace to 
our people, and a menace to the world. I said in 1991 that we should 
have removed him then, and I am consistent. He has weapons of mass 
destruction. He flaunts U.N. resolutions. He supports destruction of 
our ally Israel. He has played a shell game for years with weapons 
inspectors. We cannot allow this to continue.
  In the Committee on International Relations, I voted yes on this 
resolution because it is an improvement from the original resolution 
that was sent down by the White House. This resolution does not give a 
blank check. This resolution limits the scope. This resolution is no 
Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This resolution strikes the right balance.
  I am willing to look at some of the amendments. I am willing to 
listen to what our colleagues have to say; but in terms of this 
Congress, in terms of final passage, we need to stand together as a 
Nation. I believe it would be a monumental mistake not to support the 
President on this.
  The arguments against this resolution are similar arguments that were 
made against Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Time has shown that those 
arguments were wrong, and backing down now would allow Saddam Hussein 
and others who wish us ill to conclude that they can simply violate 
U.N. Security Council resolutions, kill their own people, threaten 
their neighbors and the world, become a danger to the United States and 
our way of life while we simply stand idly by. This cannot stand.
  Years later, when my children ask me what did I do when confronted 
with evil, I want to be able to say to them that we rose to the task 
and did not let tyrants and terrorists threaten our way of life. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of 
the Committee on International Relations.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. I would like to remind everyone that we are not really 
talking about a resolution. We keep hearing this ``war on Iraq,'' ``war 
on Iraq.'' We are not talking about a war on Iraq. That is totally 
misleading. We are talking about helping the people of Iraq liberate 
themselves from this monster and, in doing so, alleviating a major 
threat to the security and well-being of the people of the United 
States of America.
  There is nothing for us to apologize about in terms of helping those 
people free themselves from a tyrant who is renowned in the world among 
all tyrants. We are talking about helping them, liberating them. They 
will be dancing in the streets, waving American flags, just as people 
of Afghanistan still are grateful to us for freeing them and helping 
them free themselves from the horror of the Taliban and bin Laden, who 
held them in their tyrannical grip for years.
  And let me remind those people who are so concerned, and, by the way, 
there will always be the hand-wringers among us, believe me. There 
would be no action that we could possibly take that is going to get the 
support of people who will always find an excuse for doing nothing. It 
takes courage to step forward.
  This job in Iraq will be easier than what happened in Afghanistan. I 
spent a long time familiarizing myself with Afghanistan, as my 
colleagues know. Afghanistan, perhaps 10 percent of the people 
supported the Taliban. Perhaps that many. Nobody supports Saddam 
Hussein in Iraq. He has almost zero support among the people. They are 
frightened to death. Even his Republican Guard has been purged, and 
they now are not reliable for him. They are waiting for us to help them 
free themselves. They are, and will be, friends of the United States.
  We are not declaring war on Iraq. We are declaring that Saddam 
Hussein must go. And Saddam Hussein must go for the sake of the people 
of Iraq and for the sake of the safety of our own people.
  And let me note this. Rebuilding Iraq will be much easier than 
building Afghanistan. Iraq has enormous resources that have been 
channeled away by Saddam Hussein to develop chemical and biological 
weapons and to develop nuclear weapons. Those billions of dollars can 
be put to use to build a better Iraq, and the people will applaud us 
for helping them to that end.
  No, this is much easier than the job in Afghanistan, yet we have the 
naysayers among us who would lead us in the other direction. Twelve 
years ago, we heard similar naysayers. It was this urge to be overly 
cautious that led to, I would say, the devastatingly wrong decision not 
to finish the job we started. Twelve years ago, and this is not going 
to be partisan, because I will have something to say about Republicans 
in a minute, the majority of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle voted to keep our people out in the desert without the ability to 
go on the offensive and, thus, it would have destroyed our ability to 
win that conflict. What would it have been like if they had been stuck 
out there and able to just absorb attacks?
  That is what the majority of people on the other side of the aisle 
voted for, and their entire leadership voted for that. It was wrong. It 
was wrong and almost did a major disservice to our country.
  Let me note what also did a major disservice to our country. When we 
moved forward, a Republican president decided not to finish the job. A 
Republican president, once we had achieved victory, stepped back from 
that victory; and now we are stuck with finishing the job today. Now we 
are stuck with an enemy that could get his hands on nuclear weapons, 
chemical and biological weapons, and murder millions of our own people 
because that dictator now has a blood grudge against the United States 
of America.
  It is long past the time that we should have finished the job. But it 
was not until 9/11 that the American public would support the military 
commitment necessary to rid the people of Iraq and to rid the United 
States of this monstrous threat to both our peoples.
  This is not just a dictator. There are many dictators in the world. 
This is a dictator who holds a blood grudge against us, who has now the 
ability, or he is trying to achieve the ability, to obtain those 
weapons that would permit him to murder millions of Americans. This is 
not just any dictator. This is a dictator with billions of dollars of 
oil wealth that he is using to obtain these weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Over the last few weeks, we have witnessed what I consider to be 
unconstructive nitpicking on our President. Let us face it. First, he 
was told to go to the U.N.; and that is where he went. Then he was told 
he should go to Congress. So here we are. Now what we are hearing from 
the

[[Page 19550]]

other side is, we cannot support this resolution because it will permit 
us to have some sort of preemptive strike. What that means is we have 
to wait until we are attacked before we can act. That is what that 
means.
  Do we really want to wait in this world to be attacked by the likes 
of Saddam Hussein once he gets his hands on weapons of mass 
destruction? Instead of having 3,000 people, as on 9/11, we would have 
millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of Americans slaughtered.
  This makes no sense whatsoever. We must step forward today. If we 
back down today, we are sending a message of cowardice to the despots, 
to the tyrants and the terrorists around the world.
  We must back up our President, who has gone the extra mile to reach 
the compromises with us, to make the democratic system work, and to 
make sure that the American people have the protection that they 
deserve.
  We want to join with the people of Iraq, helping them liberate 
themselves from this problem. We should be supporting the President of 
the United States in this effort to protect us and to expand democracy.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a leader in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and a leader in progressive ideas.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, we are at a very important place in the 
history of our Nation and I believe a turning point for the future of 
our world.
  The United States, as the world's wealthiest economy, the superpower 
and leader, is faced with a decision that will truly mark who we are as 
Americans, as participants in the world community, and as human beings. 
Our choice is whether we use our power to make the future better or 
whether we repeat the mistakes of the past, like World War I or 
Vietnam, mistakes that do not work, do not solve the problem, do not 
make the world safer for our children.
  I will vote against the President's resolution because I do not 
believe we are making anyone safer if we alienate our allies or set a 
precedent that it is acceptable to preemptively attack other countries 
because we do not like their leader or because we think that country 
could be dangerous someday.
  I will vote against the President's resolution because we must not 
risk the lives of our sons and daughters or the lives of Iraqi 
civilians when we have no evidence that our country is in imminent 
danger.
  I will vote against the President's resolution because we should not 
spend our scarce tax dollars on war when money is so desperately needed 
here for education, for prescription drugs, health care, Social 
Security, and Medicare.
  Americans demand that we fix the economy. Workers want to know what 
has become of their pensions. Families worry about their health care. 
Seniors question whether they will ever be able to afford prescription 
drugs. Yet we stand here listening to those who are threatening war. We 
have no business voting on a resolution while there are so many 
unresolved issues on the table.
  What happened to finding Osama bin Laden? What happened to rebuilding 
Afghanistan? What happened to helping create an Israeli-Palestinian 
peace?
  My constituents want us to concentrate on saving Social Security and 
Medicare. They want us to pass an energy policy that will make us a 
safer, more secure Nation; and they want us to prosecute corporate 
criminals and prevent corporate crime.
  I believe, as my constituents do, that we need to work through the 
United Nations to remove weapons of mass destruction, working 
multilaterally to address the lack of cooperation or aggression that 
would put the United States or our allies in imminent danger. I would 
make certain that the energy policy of the United States will become 
independent from fossil fuels, especially foreign oil.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, realizing how small our world has become, 
with communications and transportation bringing us together as one big 
neighborhood, I would invest what this war will cost, $100 to $200 
billion, in the human infrastructure needs in our country and in other 
nations around the globe. Because in a neighborhood we are only as well 
off as the least of us, it is time in our history to invest in 
humanity, not destruction. It is time to protect the earth's 
environment, the resources we have been given. And it is time to make a 
safe and peaceful world for our children, all children around the 
world, now and forever.
  To that end, I will vote against this resolution and any resolution 
that I believe will not make the world a safer and better place.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in support of this resolution, because there 
is nothing more frightening and the prospect of Saddam Hussein or any 
terrorist using poison gas, germs, or radiation bombs against innocent 
people in freedom-loving nations. The stark reality is that Saddam 
Hussein has committed these horrific acts before, and he may do so 
again without warning.
  Such a catastrophe or the threat of such terror against humanity is 
what the President says in his own words is ``a permanent condition 
with no nation being immune.'' We may need to act against Iraq now to 
prevent such a nightmare and lessen the potential for another attack on 
our fellow Americans here at home.
  Madam Speaker, there is no more important task before this Congress 
and our President than the responsibility to help defend America and 
protect our citizens. This is our charge to keep. Nothing else we do 
here matters unless our children and future generations are assured of 
a safe, secure Nation where there is freedom and justice and where we 
can be free of fear. As our President has said, ``We refuse to live in 
fear.''
  Even without the passage of this historic resolution, we are a Nation 
at war, engaged in a global battle to rid the world of terrorism. This 
is a critical fight and one we are resolved to win. But as your young 
men and women in uniform continue to make us proud, serving in the war 
against terrorism, our President has asked our Nation and this House to 
consider very seriously the prospect of war with Iraq, part of the 
terrorist network.
  Our President's request is not taken lightly. It is serious. There is 
no more solemn duty given to a Member of Congress than considering the 
President's request for authority to send our troops to war, if he 
eventually decides to do so.
  As a veteran, I am keenly aware that wars are fought by the young. 
Indeed, we have called upon our young men and women in uniform to wage 
and win the war against terrorism. And if we go to war against Iraq, 
and we may not, our future and freedom will rest again on their 
shoulders.
  After September 11, we were a changed Nation. We have grieved 
together. We have also risen together to meet the many challenges our 
Nation has faced and will continue to face. As a country that loves 
freedom, we have been reminded that liberty, our way of life, and those 
we love must be protected, because they can be so easily taken away 
from us.
  As Americans, we have renewed our historical obligation to fight to 
protect our citizens and our American values of life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. These values are endangered by Saddam Hussein. In 
Saddam Hussein, our Nation faces another grave challenge. He is armed 
and very dangerous; and, like other terrorists, his regime is a threat 
to our everyday existence. We cannot trust him, and it is this distrust 
that may compel us to act. We must do everything possible to ensure our 
children do not grow up in a Nation and in a world that fears his 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Iraq persists in violating United Nations resolutions on almost a 
daily basis. Saddam Hussein, as the world knows well, is a barbarian 
who has used nerve gas against tens of thousands of his own people, 
innocent men,

[[Page 19551]]

women and children; and we have seen the pictures, as horrible as they 
are. He has waged war against his neighbors, launched missiles at 
countries in the region, and has given safe harbor to terrorists.
  Madam Speaker, to my colleagues and to those I represent, there are 
some cold, hard facts about Iraq, its capabilities, and its deception:
  In recent years, Baghdad has diverted some of the $100 billion worth 
of humanitarian goods contracted under the Oil for Food program for 
military use and has actively sought materials and ingredients that are 
going towards the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  1615

  He has retained a cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians and 
capability to constitute nuclear weapons programs.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, two summers ago before deciding whether to 
run for Congress, I sat down with my two daughters. They were, at the 
time, 13 and 10. They asked how much time I would spend in Washington 
and how frequently I would be away from Long Island.
  I said Congress usually meets on Tuesdays through Thursdays, Members 
spend plenty of time back home, and we adjourn in October. And then in 
that tranquil summer I said, unless there is a war, and that is not 
going to happen.
  That summer we made the decision I should run for Congress. The 
people of New York's Second Congressional District sent me here; and in 
the 22 months I have served those people, we have been required as a 
Congress to vote on two resolutions to send young Americans into 
battle. Today on the verge of our second vote authorizing the war, I 
think of my two daughters and all of the children of my congressional 
district; and it is for them and for their future that I will support 
the resolution in the fervent hope that the diplomatic efforts required 
by the resolution will be effective and that war is not inevitable.
  I have relied on the diverse views of those I represent, as well as 
exhaustive information I received in classified briefings and public 
hearings, published reports, in-depth discussions. I have spoken with 
analysts as diverse as President Bush's National Security Adviser and 
President Clinton's National Security Adviser. I have talked with 
colleagues who support the use of force now and with colleagues who 
oppose any force ever.
  I have read several books and journals on the subject, including a 
book by the former head of Saddam Hussein's crusade to build nuclear 
weapons. Last week I joined with just 10 of my colleagues in the 
Cabinet Room of the White House with the President and Vice President. 
This week I am meeting again with Secretary Rumsfeld. I have talked 
with hundreds of my constituents at supermarkets, in churches and 
synagogues; and, in fact, just before flying to Washington yesterday, I 
met with a group of clergy representing religious institutions 
throughout my congressional district.
  We have all weighed the risks and the benefits and the provocations. 
The United States since the 1970s has pursued a policy of containment 
and deterrence towards Saddam Hussein. This policy failed to prevent 
him from attacking the Kurds in 1974, Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. 
He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his 
neighbors viciously, brutally, and repeatedly.
  In 1998, Saddam Hussein threw U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq. 
Since then he has accelerated the development of weapons of mass 
destruction in unchecked secrecy. He has developed short-range 
ballistic missiles; he is working on longer-range and more efficient 
delivery systems. In 1990, he constructed a nuclear device, but did not 
have the fissile material to arm it.
  Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a deluded determination. He has the 
proven technology. He has shown an irrational motivation, and I fear 
that unchecked he will have nuclear weapons capability and the 
capability to deliver it by missile against our allies or smuggle it 
into the United States to be used against the American people.
  I am not prepared to let this happen. We must remove this capability 
sooner rather than later. Former NSC specialist on Iraq Ken Pollack was 
absolutely right in his book ``The Threatening Storm.'' For me the most 
vital argument is this: fighting sooner is less costly than fighting 
later. Today Saddam Hussein has a limited quantity of weapons; tomorrow 
he will have more. Today Saddam Hussein's forces are weak; tomorrow 
they will be stronger. Today Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capability; 
tomorrow he will. Today the risk to our troops is serious; tomorrow it 
will grow worse. Why wait until tomorrow?
  Madam Speaker, in 1938 Britain and France were stronger than Nazi 
Germany. They knew Germany would challenge them at some later time. 
They knew Germany was belligerent. They knew that Germany was 
rebuilding its armaments and its decision makers were not rational; yet 
they chose to wait. The cost of waiting was millions of lives, the 
devastation of their homelands, and mass destruction. There is no 
parallel between Hitler and anyone else on the world stage, but the 
world has an obligation to learn from history's mistakes.
  Finally, we must learn other lessons as well. We have an obligation 
to address the long-term issues that will arise from this conflict. We 
must help the Iraqi people rebuild a democratic society, and we must 
ensure that those who fight bravely for our freedom today are not 
forced to fight a bureaucratic and budget battle for their health and 
veterans' benefits tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, I close by returning to my daughters. I do not want 
them or any children in America to grow up in a world dominated by 
Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon; nor do I want to increase the 
risks to the young Americans that we will commit to battle today by 
committing them to a harder battle against a nuclear-armed Saddam 
Hussein tomorrow. We are all dedicated to peace and freedom on both 
sides of the aisle, but we know from history that freedom is not free. 
For all of these reasons, I support the use of force in Iraq with the 
very strong belief that we must go to war only as a last resort, but 
also in firm agreement with President John Kennedy: ``Let every nation 
know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, 
bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, 
in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.''
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I 
understand the concerns that have been raised about the United States 
taking action against the Iraqi regime; but I believe that the 
President, as Commander in Chief, should have the flexibility he seeks 
in responding to the very real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to 
freedom.
  We witnessed the vulnerability of America on September 11, 2001, when 
hijacked jetliners were used as weapons of destruction in New York 
City, and even close to this Capitol just across the Potomac River at 
the Pentagon. The families of several dozen people who live in my 
congressional district gave their lives that day knowing all too well 
the evil of terrorism.
  The devastation of 9-11 must never again be allowed to come to our 
shores. We must take all appropriate action to stop terrorism and 
tyrants who would do harm to America and allies. That action includes 
enforcing the more than a dozen resolutions of the United Nations which 
calls for the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.
  America also saw the face of terrorism in 1998 when two American 
embassies in east Africa were bombed by terrorists linked to Osama bin 
Laden, killing 12 Americans among the 230 who died. Because of my 
concern at that time about the emerging threat to our country, I 
authored the legislation

[[Page 19552]]

to create the National Commission on Terrorism. Quite frankly, it was 
hard to get the Congress interested at that time, but we were 
successful in establishing a bipartisan commission to assess the 
terrorist threat and recommended a response in June 2000.
  The Bremer Commission said: ``U.S. policies must firmly target all 
states that support terrorists.'' The State Department clearly lists 
Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. Evidence shows, and we have heard 
the debate today, that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has provided 
headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to 
terrorist groups.
  The President has made the case to the American people, to the 
Congress, to the United Nations, and to our allies that Saddam Hussein 
poses a clear, lethal threat to our Nation and the world. He has failed 
to live up time after time to U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein has used 
chemical and biological weapons on his neighbors and even on his own 
people. Evidence shows he has tried for years to develop nuclear 
weapons; and if he gets a nuclear bomb, I believe he may use it on 
America or our Armed Forces somewhere around the world.
  It is critical that Congress come together united now behind the 
President to approve this resolution before us today to give the 
President authority to enforce through the United Nations Security 
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq 
and obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure 
that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, noncompliance, and 
promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council 
resolutions.
  America is a peace-loving Nation, and we have never sought war. We 
never seek the use of force; but when we are attacked or our security 
is threatened, we will and must act in the Nation's best interests. Our 
Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001; 3,000 people were killed. We 
acted swiftly to declare war on terrorism. We are in a long and 
difficult battle.
  As the President has declared, the war on terrorism includes not only 
the terrorists who attack us, but also the nations that harbor or give 
aid. We must work to exhaust all peaceful options to enforce the will 
of the United Nations in disarming Iraq. But if those peaceful means 
fail to accomplish that goal, America must stand up for freedom and 
security, as history has witnessed our great Nation doing in past 
causes to fight evil, and forcefully remove Saddam Hussein and the 
threat he brings.
  This is a difficult challenge before us. The fight for peace and 
freedom is never easy, but we must respond to this call for action. The 
challenge before our President, the Commander in Chief, and before this 
Congress as the representatives of the United States is sobering. To 
cast a vote to send America's troops into harm's way to face what could 
be the supreme sacrifice for freedom is our most solemn duty. But to 
wait and do nothing could lead to weapons of mass destruction being 
used against the United States, our allies and others, resulting in the 
death of thousands and thousands of people. It is not a vote we seek 
with eagerness, but we all must do what we believe in conscience is the 
right thing to do; and I believe the right thing to do is to help make 
the world a safer, more secure and peaceful place where people can live 
in freedom without fear of tyrants and terrorists.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, no person or nation should doubt our 
country's commitment to eradicating the threat of terror. That is why I 
voted last year to support the President's actions in Afghanistan. But 
before we authorize the President to go to war with Iraq, Congress must 
have clearer answers to several crucial questions.
  What is the nature and the urgency of the threat to the United States 
posed by Saddam Hussein? What is the clearly defined mission of our 
troops? Is it to eliminate Iraq's potential chemical, biological or 
nuclear weapons? Is it to remove Saddam Hussein from power and 
establish a friendly regime in Baghdad? Is it to engage in nation 
building, to create a democratic Iraqi government and society?
  What is the extent of the international support? What will be the 
position and role of the United Nations? Which nations will provide 
troops, planes and ships for the military operations? Which nations 
will provide financial support to pay for the military operations in 
the aftermath?
  Will the military operations in Iraq make it less or more likely that 
America will suffer from terrorist attacks? Finally, what is the exit 
strategy to withdraw our troops from Iraq? When and how will they be 
withdrawn once they have accomplished their mission?
  Madam Speaker, we must ask these questions, and we must have answers 
to these questions. We have made mistakes other places in the world. We 
certainly did not ask or answer all these questions in Somalia. In 
Korea, we had our troops there 50 years. These questions must be asked 
and answered.
  Madam Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last night, and I 
look forward to the debate in this House over the next few days. 
However, at this point I have not heard any clear answers to the 
questions I have posed here today. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I 
cannot yet support the resolution authorizing the President to go to 
war with Iraq.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, today our Nation stands at a crossroads. I noticed 
that it is quieter today, it is a solemn day, it is a serious day as 
Members of Congress individually try to make the right decision and 
hope and pray that we do.

                              {time}  1630

  Are we to move ahead protecting America and free people by 
authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, accepting the very 
grave danger that we know will come with that decision, knowing that 
there are many, many questions that we have in Congress that go 
unanswered and, frankly, cannot be answered in many cases except in the 
future? Or are we to wait on the U.N. Security Council to decide for 
us? Are we to allow the Security Council to determine what is the 
appropriate course of action for Americans and when that action should 
be taken? All the while waiting for these answers, many of which that 
cannot be answered, while Saddam Hussein plots and plans or even 
strikes us with a terrorist armed with chemical or biological or 
nuclear weapons.
  The question is not whether he has nuclear weapons. He has weapons 
now of mass destruction that can be put into this country at any time. 
It seems to me the greater of the two dangers is for us to wait and 
wait until Saddam Hussein strikes. And make no mistake about it, if 
given the opportunity, and it will be there, he will strike.
  When this madman has carried out his mission and New York City is 
gone, not just the towers but the city, or Atlanta, Georgia, is gone or 
Washington, D.C., is gone, what then, Madam Speaker, will we debate? 
What will the sleeping tiger do then? The possible answers to that are 
extremely frightening.
  For the past 11 years, the U.N. has basically been a paper tiger. The 
Security Council resolutions that we put in place to protect the world 
from Saddam Hussein and his regime have gone from being resolutions to 
suggestions to really a very bad joke. Today we see where the U.N.'s 
policy of turning a blind eye has gotten us. None of us know if France 
or China will give us permission to protect ourselves or if the U.N. 
will ultimately join us.
  But we do know one thing for sure. It is the Congress and the 
President's responsibility to protect this country. It is not the 
responsibility of the U.N. or any other nation. It is our job. I do 
believe the President is to be commended for working with the U.N. 
Security Council and certainly should continue to do so, and we should 
welcome their

[[Page 19553]]

help if it is offered, but should the U.N. disagree with the President 
on the correct course of action or if they stall to the point that our 
national security is put in even greater peril, our President needs the 
authority to make the best decision for our Nation and ensure our 
safety.
  With all due respect, the President is the leader of the Nation, 
Commander-in-Chief. I, for one, trust his judgment and his decisions on 
my behalf and everyone else in my district, but not necessarily so for 
the U.N.
  Madam Speaker, I believe time is of the essence. Every Member of 
Congress should support this authorization for the President to protect 
us and our borders and provide our national security in dealing with 
Saddam Hussein.
  In the wake of last year's dastardly terrorist attack on September 
11, many have asked this body and in this town, could it have been 
prevented? Today, Madam Speaker, this Congress has an opportunity, I 
believe, to do the right thing, to ensure that another equally criminal 
and reprehensible attack against humanity is not carried out and to rid 
the world of this madman. Our President, this Congress, must now be 
prepared to say in a loud and a united voice we will protect our 
country with whatever military force is necessary. Without this united 
voice, there will be no diplomatic solutions. There will be only, for 
sure, war.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler), my good friend and distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the moment which Congress must act to defend 
freedom, confront a brutal dictator and rid the world of his 
increasingly devastating threat.
  Our decision will not be easy or without consequence. It will pose 
severe implications for the stability of the world, the security of the 
Middle East and, ultimately, the future of the United States. It will 
alter the course of history, change the lives of millions, and resonate 
in the collective memory of America for generations to come.
  It is in this regard that I have contemplated this issue with great 
deliberation, taking into account the concerns of my constituents in 
South Florida, many of whom fought in World War II and Korea, who have, 
time and again, expressed their profound reservation concerning the 
President's rush to engage in military action in Iraq.
  I will vote for this resolution because it has become painstakingly 
clear that Saddam Hussein represents the epicenter of hostility and 
conflict throughout the entire Middle East. His very presence threatens 
to undermine America's war against terror and compromise all prospects 
for regional security, stability, and peace. There is no doubt in my 
mind it is long past time for Saddam to go.
  I will vote for this resolution, not because I support the 
irresponsible manner and timing in which President Bush has proceeded 
with his plans for war, not because I support the President's attempt 
to handcuff Congress into granting a blank check for unilateral 
military action, and not because I accept the President's shameful 
neglect of our spiraling economic crisis and other domestic issues of 
imminent concern. Homeland security and foreign policy threats must be 
addressed in conjunction with, not instead of, America's economic and 
social needs.
  I will vote for this resolution because I believe, without a doubt, 
that the threats posed by the current Iraqi regime supersede politics 
and that America and our allies would be undeniably safer without 
Saddam Hussein.
  Since the Gulf War, the threats posed by Saddam Hussein have not 
dissipated. They have only increased, making it all the more clear that 
former President Bush should have ousted him when we had the chance in 
1991. Since then, Saddam has cultivated his contempt for the 
international community, his hostility towards the United States, his 
intent to develop weapons of mass destruction, and his unbridled 
willingness to use them.
  While I agree that we must disarm Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein, I 
share the deep misgivings of the American people that President Bush 
appears all too ready to accept the military, financial, and diplomatic 
burden of going it alone. Unilateralism is a grave mistake, and 
President Bush must make every attempt to build support in the 
international community for regime change in Iraq.
  We must give the U.N. and the international community a credible 
chance to fulfill the demands laid out by President Bush. This would 
place America and the world in the strongest possible position to 
disarm Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein, and liberate the Iraqi people from 
tyranny and oppression.
  Ultimately, we will best achieve our goals in Iraq not through 
alienation and unilateral aggression but, rather, through determined 
diplomacy and partnership with nations that share our vision of 
stability and peace. This has been America's legacy, and we owe it to 
future generations to proceed along this path.
  Mr. President, you will get your resolution and with my support, but 
I implore you to exhaust all options and reserve war as the very last 
resort.
  Mr. President, my constituents are terrified that you are leading 
America into war with unnecessary impulse and haste. I trust you will 
prove them wrong.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members are reminded to address 
their comments to the Chair and not to the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which would 
authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
  Since August, the intense national debate that has developed in 
Congress, in the American public, and internationally about whether the 
United States should use military force if necessary against the regime 
of Saddam Hussein, and to use such force preemptively, has served a 
very salutary, even necessary, purpose. Both as a former Army 
counterintelligence officer and a member of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, this Member hates security leaks. The 
massive leaking about sharp internal disagreements within the executive 
branch, especially the Pentagon, unfortunately preceded the necessary 
international diplomacy, essential consultation with at least key 
committees in Congress, and any concerted effort to inform the American 
public as to why military action may be required now and why an Iraqi 
regime change may be necessary.
  It also seems clear that the discussions of U.S. military action to 
eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, WMD, stocks and efforts 
for a regime change in Iraq had gotten ahead of the planning and 
decisionmaking for such possible action.
  Many of this Member's colleagues, in both Houses of Congress on a 
bipartisan basis, and this Member, along with a sufficient number of 
voices from the American public, helped make it clear to the Bush 
administration that a congressional resolution authorizing the use of 
force was an essential step before any preemptive military action 
against Iraq could be launched. Despite an earlier White House 
counsel's advisory opinion that a congressional resolution was not 
required, in a September 4 meeting with elected congressional leaders, 
President Bush advisedly agreed that his administration would first 
seek such a resolution. Thus, the House is here today embarked on this 
gravely important duty.
  Another very positive result of the leaking and the resultant intense 
controversy over the issue of military action on Iraq is what likely 
will be the outcome of the international community's furor about a 
potential unilateral and preemptive American strike against Iraq. That 
strenuous opposition is especially the case among our traditional 
European allies and the Arab states.
  As was the case in the Gulf War, the administration sought 
international support for actions on Iraq through the

[[Page 19554]]

United Nations as a result of President Bush's exceptional speech to 
the U.N. General Assembly. Finally the international community has 
become serious about demanding the reintroduction of U.N. weapons 
inspectors in Iraq with the unfettered access demanded to search out 
and destroy production in storage sites of chemical, biological, and 
possible nuclear weapons.
  The U.S. is right to insist upon an unconditional time-certain demand 
for any new inspection regime to begin and to insist upon full 
compliance with unfettered access for U.N. inspectors. The 
international community now has this forceful proposition before it: 
Either an effective U.N. weapons inspection program resumes and 
continues in Iraq now or the U.S. has established more forcefully the 
legitimacy of military action for regime change with the reasonable 
expectation of a supportive international coalition for military action 
against Iraq and for the perhaps more difficult task of Iraq 
reformation in its aftermath.
  Because of an intense public debate on the necessity of military 
action against Iraq and especially the involvement of Congress, the 
resolution the House has before it today has evolved into a far more 
acceptable one and the legislative process has not yet been completed. 
The broad language extending the authorization for the military force 
to ``secure peace and stability in the Middle East'' has been narrowed 
to Iraq. The War Powers Act's requirements with reporting requirements 
to Congress are now included in the resolution. A limited notification 
to Congress by the President about the intent to use or the use of the 
authorization for military force is now included in the measure. And 
importantly now included in the resolution is the requirement to report 
to Congress under Section 7 of Public Law No. 105-338 about the U.S. 
planning and actions to be conducted or undertaken by America in Iraq 
after the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power.
  In other words, according to that Act and that report, humanitarian 
assistance, democracy transition assistance, and methodology for Iraq 
to repay its debts are all elements explicitly required.

                              {time}  1645

  Before using military force, the President now under the procedures 
specified in H.J. Res. 114 must make available to Congress his 
determination about two things: that ``reliance on further diplomatic 
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect 
the national security of the United States against the continuing 
threat posed by Iraq and is not likely to lead to enforcement of all 
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq,'' and (B) 
that military action is consistent with the U.S. and international war 
against terrorism. These are among the important changes to a proposed 
congressional resolution that evolved to the one before us today.
  Now, what is the case against Saddam Hussein? Especially important, 
what is it that justifies the preemptive use of military force?
  This Member's colleagues will recall, of course, that without 
provocation, Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait with an attempt to 
annex it. Crucially, however, as the House considers preemptive force, 
it must be recognized that Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction, 
specifically chemical weapons, against Iran and against the Kurdish 
population of his own country. Is there any legitimate doubt that he 
would be willing to use them again? Unfortunately, I have no such 
doubts that he would indeed use weapons of mass destruction again.
  There also is no legitimate reason to doubt that he has a significant 
stock of both chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. recovered 
unused SCUD warheads with traces of both such types of chemical and 
biological agents in 1991, and in this forum this Member can only say 
that Saddam Hussein has now developed further ways to deploy such 
chemical and biological agents against his enemies.
  The evidence is clear too, obtained from numerous verifiable sources, 
that Saddam attempts to develop nuclear weapons, that he did so in the 
past and today again. Ongoing attempts by Saddam to acquire dual-use 
technology for use in a nuclear development program continue, and that 
is notwithstanding the controversy about the intended use of one such 
attempted acquisition.
  Should anyone have any doubts that Saddam has and is attempting to 
procure plutonium to substantially shorten the time of developing 
nuclear weapons, I have no such doubts. Thus, WMD remains a great 
threat to a widening circling of Saddam's neighbors and our own forces 
and facilities in the area.
  However, again, what is also crucial and urgent is whether after the 
terror strikes of 9-11, we have any doubt that he would provide such 
WMD chemical, biological, and perhaps nuclear, in the future to 
terrorist groups who would use them against our citizens and those of 
our allies. This Member does not doubt in the slightest, and it is a 
risk that the U.S. cannot accept.
  In saying this, this Member does understand that the administration 
cannot yet present incontrovertible evidence of a link between al Qaeda 
and Saddam. There are, of course, reasons for strong suspicions about 
such links.
  That logically brings the House to the question of why at this time 
Congress should authorize the future potential use of military action 
by the administration.
  This Member believes it is clear that the threat Saddam poses will 
only intensify. The U.S., the Western democracies, and Iraq's neighbors 
should never have permitted Saddam to hamper and then bar the reentry 
of U.N. weapons inspectors.
  In the 11 years since the end of the Gulf War, and certainly in the 
4-year absence of such inspections, Americans are now in more danger 
because of that collective lack of resolve to enforce WMD disarmament 
and because of the commercial and foreign policy goals of some of 
America's European allies and Russia.
  Now, of course, in a post-September 11 world, the U.S. knows all too 
well that mass terrorism has been waged against civilians, in this 
country and abroad. It is a terrible part of the equation that the 
American President and the Congress now must responsibly consider. Does 
the U.S. now have a reasonable basis to conclude that Saddam is not an 
imminent threat against the United States? Is there a clear 
justification for attempting to override the conclusions of the 
Commander in Chief?
  The answers are, unfortunately, no. Delaying action is a greater risk 
to America's national interest, the security of our citizens, than the 
uncertainties that always attend a war and its aftermath. The 
resolution authorizing the use of force, or one that we might craft by 
amendment, is an authorization this Congress should approve.
  As the House takes this extraordinarily important step, fully mindful 
that Congress in passing the resolution authorizes putting members of 
the U.S. Armed Services in harm's way, and recognizing no citizen in 
this country is assuredly safe now from related terrorist events 
either, Congress has additional important responsibilities. Congress 
needs to take every step to assure that the executive branch has given 
adequate consideration and provided contingency planning and resources 
on the following questions, which, bear in mind, are beyond the 
questions about adequately helping and preparing and deploying our 
military force.
  These questions are: number one, has the U.S. taken adequate steps to 
broaden the international coalition for not only the military 
operations, but especially for the more important and long-term task of 
developing a democratic regime in Iraq that will not threaten the 
security and stability of the region? The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Wexler) made reference to this question.
  Number two, has the administration prepared contingency plans to take 
into account that Saddam may use chemical and biological weapons of 
mass destruction, directly or through anonymous terrorists, against 
other nations in the region before or during the conflict which may 
ensue, for example, to be used against Israel? Has

[[Page 19555]]

the U.S. prepared for what could be a rather extraordinary Israeli 
response?
  Number three, has the administration taken steps to understand and 
prepare for the international consequences of such military action 
against Iraq in the region and elsewhere in the world? Will U.S. action 
strengthen the influence of Iran in the region, even in Iraq? Will U.S. 
military action strengthen demands for an independent Kurdish state in 
Iraq, including areas in neighboring countries? Will a victory in Iraq 
unleash a Shi'a Muslim bloodbath against the Sunni Muslim population or 
a large part of the Iraqi population that supported or is perceived to 
have supported Saddam Hussein? Is the U.S. ready to control it? 
Certainly the Shi'a have suffered tremendous provocation for such 
retribution.
  Number four, has the administration adequately considered the 
resources the U.S. will need in this Iraq war-peacekeeping scenario in 
order to successfully pursue the ongoing American war effort against al 
Qaeda and terrorism, including the far-from-finished military, 
peacekeeping and broad reconstruction requirements in Afghanistan?
  Mr. Speaker, this list of questions is only illustrative. It could be 
much longer. The passage of H.J. Res. 114 today, momentous as it is, as 
necessary an action as it is, constitutes but the first step in many 
important duties the Congress must pursue in this arena. Congress must 
be ready and fully committed to accomplishing them in a constructive, 
bipartisan effort with the executive branch.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly encourages his colleagues to vote 
``aye'' on H.J. Res. 114 and then to join in a constructive bipartisan 
effort to insist and assure that the executive branch has considered 
and proposed contingency plans and resources to meet the unexpected 
challenges and the unattended consequences of military action against 
Iraq, if it is necessary, if it is necessary, I emphasize, to use 
military force to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein poses to the 
countries in the region, to our allies, and to our citizens here at 
home and abroad.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the leader in our party and 
the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in over 32 years I have never seen an issue 
that has been more important to me and probably to many of you who have 
served here than to decide the question of putting our men and women in 
the Armed Forces in harm's way. It just would seem to me that there is 
no question that if anyone in the House or the other body thought that 
our Nation was in eminent danger, that we would have no doubts about 
taking a preemptive strike and destroying that force before they 
attempted to harm us.
  The President of the United States has said to us that time is not on 
our side. Well, it may not be, but there are a lot of questions I would 
like to believe that our constituents will be asking us and that we 
should be getting answers to these questions before we give up our 
authority to declare war and turn it to the President of the United 
States to subjectively make a decision as to whether or not we are in 
danger.
  We are not talking about a danger like 9-11. We are talking about a 
potential danger that is somewhere in the future. Whether it is 1 month 
or 1 year, one thing is clear, nobody has said that we are in danger 
before November 5. That date just comes up, not as frequently as 9-11 
does.
  But it seems to me as I have traveled around the world, one of the 
things that I have been so proud of in saying is that with all the 
problems we have in the United States of America, one thing is that we 
never start a fight with anybody; that we were always there talking 
about democracy and believing that when people and communities and 
nations had disputes, that we were there to talk about those bonds of 
law, of due process, of diplomacy. We felt so proud to set up the 
United Nations in such a way as to say that before we destroy each 
other, let us attempt to talk this out.
  The President has reluctantly, but beautifully, gone to the United 
Nations and laid our case before the leaders of the nations of the 
world, and I have never felt more proud of being an American than to 
hear him prod them to do the right thing and to complain about the 
negligence in which they have not enforced the United Nations 
resolutions as relates to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
  But, strangely, it ends up with him saying, ``And if you don't do the 
right thing, if you don't abide by international law, if you don't 
respect the resolutions that you have enacted, then I will unilaterally 
go into these countries and justice will be done.''
  I do not expect that I would want the defense of the United States to 
be left to other countries. But if there is no imminent danger, but 
danger that is perceived, especially as the President has said, danger 
to the surrounding nations around Iraq, those that are within the 
direct threat of bio-chemical weapons, those that can be hit by the 
missiles, then I wonder why, when the President talks about coalitions, 
that he does not mention any of these countries?
  Israel is in direct danger of a strike by Iraq if we invade, as well 
as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why at least, if not the European 
countries, why are these countries not saying let us go to the United 
Nations and we will prove to you that this man is a demon and not just 
a threat to the United States of America, but a threat to everything 
that free countries believe in?
  It just seems to me that we will never, never, never be in a position 
to chastise the governments of Pakistan and India, of North and South 
Korea, of Georgia and the Soviet Union, that we will never be able to 
tell them that they cannot take their subjective fears and strike 
against the other nation without taking their complaint to the United 
Nations, because we are the ones that have said that, yes, we will go 
to the United Nations, but we are not bound by the United Nations.
  I think we should say that, but I think we should come back to the 
United States Congress and ask for permission, if that is necessary.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
resolution on Iraq. I want to congratulate the leadership and Members 
of both sides of the aisle who worked hard to craft this bipartisan 
resolution.
  I am certain that if left to our own devices, each of us would write 
this resolution differently than the one before us today. But while it 
may not be what each of us would want perfectly, it goes a long way 
towards addressing the concerns raised by many in this body, and, more 
importantly, by many of our constituents.
  It calls on the President to work with the international community in 
ending the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But should diplomatic 
efforts fail, it authorizes the President to take military action to 
protect Americans from the threat posed by Iraq.
  The distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), put it best when he said this resolution means we should act 
diplomatically if we can, and militarily if we must. All of us hope 
military action will not be necessary and that Iraq will abandon its 
strategy of delay and evasion and instead act responsibly.

                              {time}  1700

  But should diplomacy fail, we are making it clear that America will 
act decisively to remove the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime 
poses not only to our citizens but to all freedom-loving people 
everywhere.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen), my good friend and our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, last night in his address to the United States on the 
administration's policy towards Iraq, the

[[Page 19556]]

President laid out his indictment of the Iraqi regime and particularly 
its leader, Saddam Hussein. In doing so, he answered a number of 
questions that Members of this body, as well as the American public, 
have raised regarding the administration's policies.
  While I will argue that I have few differences with the President on 
those issues with respect to the Iraqi regime's efforts to produce 
weapons of mass destruction and its efforts against its own people, 
even the tenuous, but troubling, allegations regarding its connections 
with al Qaeda, the President still did not answer a lot of questions 
and a lot of questions that have been raised on this floor. That is why 
I intend to support the substitute offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  As poignant as the President's speech was with respect to his 
indictment of Iraq, it lacked crucial substance with respect to the 
means by which the United States can achieve the containment and 
dismantling of the regime and its threat to the region and, ultimately, 
our Nation. The President made limited reference to the need for a 
strong international coalition to rid the world of this menace.
  Unlike the last war with Iraq, the present administration has given 
insufficient attention to building the broad coalition to achieve the 
end we all desire. I do not believe, nor do I believe most Members 
believe, that the United States must obtain permission from other 
nations of the world to ensure our own safety. Clearly, we possess the 
military might. But, at the same time, our strength to defend ourselves 
and interests is bolstered by our ability to build coalitions with our 
friends; and undermining that ability will no doubt have costs.
  We do not know whether or not acting unilaterally will undermine our 
efforts with Iraq, with the Middle East, with our interests throughout 
the world, and our own long-term security. We risk losing the moral 
high ground that was so helpful in our last war with Iraq and has 
become the cornerstone of American policy. We run the risk of 
alienating our friends and foes alike, and I think that is a risk that 
this body should consider.
  Unfortunately, this administration has built a record on eschewing 
alliances in favor of unilateral approaches to foreign policy, contrary 
to the scope of American foreign policy by Republican and Democratic 
administrations for the last 60 years; and it is one that I think is of 
grave consequence as we go further.
  No question that we can address Iraq militarily, but what will be the 
cost in the long run? How long will we have to leave ground troops if 
we do not have a coalition going in with us?
  I think the administration is on the right track with respect to the 
regime, but I am concerned about whether or not the United States will 
have to shoulder the full burden and what will be the security risk of 
leaving tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in Iraq? No 
one in the administration, no one in this body or the other body knows 
how long it will take. And our recent experience in Afghanistan and in 
the Balkans tells us that it can take a long time before we can rebuild 
a nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Spratt resolution very clearly lays out where the 
Congress stands with respect to the Iraqi regime and their flagrant 
disregard for international law, their flagrant disregard for the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions. But it also says that the administration 
should try and do what every administration going back since the 
beginning of the United Nations has done, which is to build a broad-
based coalition, just as President George Herbert Walker Bush did in 
1991 that worked so masterfully in Desert Storm.
  Should that fail, it gives the President the authority to come back 
to the Congress and then ask for an authorization of war. We can do 
this now without risking the United States, putting the United States 
at grave risk, but we can also do it to ensure that the United States 
has a long-term foreign policy that is in our best interests, that 
ensures that we have our allies throughout the world working to ensure 
that we protect our interests throughout the world as well as defending 
the homeland here.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid that this administration too often seeks 
to ignore the attempts that all of these prior administrations have 
attempted to do in ensuring U.S. national security.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to see where the resolution, which I 
agree that the bipartisan leadership crafted in bringing it closer to 
where we ought to be and having consultation with the Congress and 
trying to build a coalition, but I am afraid it still gives a blank 
check. I think the resolution by the gentleman from South Carolina 
still puts the U.S. firmly on record with respect to the regime but 
also does it in a way that protects the historical precedents of 
American foreign policy and the defense of the Nation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the deputy chief 
whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, Aflatoxin, a biological weapon that has no 
battlefield use, something I only recently read about, as it has become 
apparent that this weapon has been designed and put on missiles able to 
be delivered by Saddam Hussein, no battlefield use, no military 
advantage. Somebody has written it could keep a lieutenant from 
becoming a general, but otherwise has no effect on the battlefield that 
day. It is designed to end life, it is designed to end life in a slow 
and painful way.
  The greatest target of aflatoxin are children, children who, many of 
whom, would eventually die from liver cancer if this particular weapon 
is used.
  In so many ways it sums up Saddam Hussein. Other countries have 
developed weapons of mass destruction, but only one person in charge of 
a government today has ever used these weapons. He has used them 
against his own people. He has used them against a neighboring country. 
Saddam has stepped beyond the bounds of civilized nations. I am 
convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the President will use the authority of 
this resolution after exhausting all reasonable alternatives.
  For too long, Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. For too 
long, Saddam Hussein has encouraged international terrorism. For too 
long, Saddam Hussein has defied the international community. For too 
long, Saddam Hussein has ignored his agreements with other nations and 
with the United Nations.
  The United States did not seek the decision we have before us today. 
It was forced on us by a discredited dictator and the cowardly forces 
of terrorism he encourages. Our leadership today will encourage the 
international community.
  The United Nations was created specifically to deal with this type of 
situation, this kind of aberration among civilized nations. Hopefully, 
the United Nations will act and act soon. In any case, we must show our 
willingness to enforce the standards of civilized nations on this 
dictator. We will be joined by many immediately and others as we 
demonstrate our commitment to the cause of freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, a 
decision we all come to reluctantly but necessarily as we maintain and 
understand our position of leadership in the world.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote to authorize the President to 
use military force against Iraq, provided that we are part of an allied 
coalition under the authority of a new U.N. resolution. But if the 
President cannot obtain the support of our allies or passage of such a 
U.N. resolution, then the congressional resolution must provide an 
opportunity for Congress to evaluate the situation at the time before 
deciding on unilateral action.
  I would not be comfortable supporting any resolution that is an 
immediate blank check, Gulf of Tonkin, take-it-or-leave-it abdication 
of congressional responsibility that would not provide for that 
opportunity.

[[Page 19557]]

  Saddam Hussein is a bad actor who must be dealt with. The issue is 
not whether Saddam will be dealt with, but how. The United States' 
interests are best preserved over the long haul if we act in concert 
with our allies and with the approval of the United Nations. The U.N. 
cannot have a veto, but Congress should know where it and our allies 
stand and how much of the effort and cost they will bear before we 
decide to proceed unilaterally.
  The best way to unite this country and the world in this effort is to 
follow a careful, two-step process; and I am convinced that this is the 
wisest course to follow if we want to minimize regional instability and 
maintain the broadest possible international support for our war 
against terrorism.
  It is more important that we do things right than that we do things 
fast, because the fight against terrorism is a long-term, not a one-
week struggle, and we must think long term. Over the long haul, we will 
not be able to conduct a successful war against terrorism without the 
sustained support of our allies.
  Senator Vandenberg, the wise Republican foreign policy leader, once 
told Harry Truman that if presidents wanted Congress with them on what 
could be crash landings, they needed to be with him on the takeoffs. 
That is just as true for our allies as it is for the Congress. It takes 
a little longer, but it makes us stronger.
  Despite the dangers involved in an initial attack on Iraq, the most 
serious consequences could well be those we face after Iraq is 
occupied, unless this effort is well thought out. Based on discussions 
with the administration and the intelligence community, I believe much 
more work needs to be done to put together a plan that will avoid an 
anti-U.S. backlash in the Arab world, a backlash that could generate 
thousands of new recruits for al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist 
organizations.
  We need an after-the-attack plan that demonstrates we are not just 
going after another Arab country and not just doing it for oil. Part of 
that plan should be an effort with our European and Middle Eastern 
allies to attack the poverty, anger, and ignorance that plague so many 
in a region in which a small elite displays almost obscene palatial 
riches.
  If we are to deny bin Laden and other terrorists thousands of 
recruits because of our actions, we must show what we are for as well 
as what we are against in that part of the world.
  One of the things we must be for is a resolution of the Palestinian 
problem. We must be ready to immediately demonstrate our determination 
to resolve that problem in order to make clear that our target is 
Saddam's reckless despotism and not the Arab world in general, and we 
need allies to make that believable. That is why I will vote for the 
Spratt amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also hope that once this debate is over we will 
also give equal attention to the problems that we have in this country, 
problems of unemployment, problems of retirement insecurity, problems 
of a deteriorating economy. We must have a strong economic base if we 
are to have the social and political cohesion necessary to fight any 
war against terrorists or anyone else. I urge that this Congress give 
at least as much attention to those problems as it has given to the 
Iraq issue over the last month. That will truly produce the kind of 
balance that will be best for our country.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, after about 20 meetings and 
briefings over the last couple of months, last Thursday the Committee 
on International Relations reported out this resolution, H.J. Res. 114, 
which would authorize the President to use force in Iraq, if necessary.
  Before this came up in the Committee on International Relations, I 
met with CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Adviser 
Condoleezza Rice at the White House last Wednesday to get answers to 
some of my remaining questions. They related classified information 
about Saddam Hussein's buildup of chemical and biological and 
radiological and nuclear weapons, as well as the buildup of technology 
and equipment to deliver those weapons.
  This information is very alarming. I suggested to the White House 
that they try to work at declassifying more of this information and 
make it available to the American people so that there would be a 
better understanding of the real threat that Saddam Hussein's regime in 
Iraq is posing against the United States.

                              {time}  1715

  As an old Air Force intelligence officer, let me suggest that it is 
my conclusion that Saddam Hussein represents the same terror that we 
experienced on September 11, a year ago.
  We know that he has a buildup of these weapons of mass destruction. 
We know that he has shown a willingness to use these weapons against 
his own people up north in the Kurdish area. We know that he is a bully 
that wants power, we know he is bloodthirsty, we know that he tried to 
take Kuwait to expand his power and influence as far as expanding his 
ability to export his products.
  I offered an amendment in the Committee on International Relations to 
emphasize one important point, that was, that our quarrel was not with 
the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people had little to do with any of the 
decisions leading us into this conflict. The aggression and buildup of 
weapons has happened because the Iraqi Government was seized by Saddam 
Hussein, who has used Iraq's resources and the Iraqi people for his own 
delusional purposes. In fact, I believe the people of Iraq will be our 
allies against Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Afghan people were our 
allies against the Taliban.
  In conclusion, let me recall what we were talking about a year ago 
after the September 11 attack. There were accusations of who knew what 
when and what could have been done to prevent that kind of attack.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what we can do: we can take a stand. We 
can inform ourselves of the seriousness of the information that is now 
available to us to know that this is a real threat. We can have strong 
support in this Congress so that the United Nations Security Council is 
going to pass a strong resolution there with ramifications for 
enforcement.
  That is what we can do for this country, and that is what we can do 
for the free world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the decision to declare war is one of the 
most important responsibilities our Constitution has charged to us as 
Members of Congress.
  As a parent, there is no responsibility that weighs on my mind more 
heavily than the decision to send our sons and daughters off to war. 
Yet as a New Yorker, I want to ensure that our country never again 
faces anything as horrific as the September 11 attack of last year.
  I have sought out as much information as possible on the threats and 
risks posed by launching a military confrontation by Iraq, as well as 
the risks of not acting at all. I have heard intelligence briefings on 
Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. I have heard administration 
officials and experts make both sides of the argument in testimony to 
Congress. I have thought about the thousands of young men and women who 
may be put in harm's way, and I have thought of their families.
  During the Vietnam War, my neighborhood of Woodside, Queens, the 
11377 ZIP code, lost the highest number of people per capita in our 
Nation during that conflict. Countless constituents have called me and 
written to me to express their concerns about the impact that a war 
against Iraq will have on our Nation, our economy, our communities, and 
our daily lives.
  After carefully considering the evidence regarding Saddam's 
continuing efforts to develop chemical, biological,

[[Page 19558]]

and nuclear weapons, I believe that it is clear that his regime poses a 
severe threat to the Middle East, our allies in Israel, the United 
States of America, and to the entire world.
  Many of my colleagues have called for weapons inspections to be given 
one last try; but years of U.N. weapons inspections and international 
monitoring have demonstrated that such efforts cannot work as long as 
the Iraqi regime remains determined to thwart them.
  It is also clear that Saddam has no plans to end his support for 
terrorism. While the administration has not, in my mind, proven that 
Iraq has provided support to al Qaeda, Saddam has funded Palestinian 
terrorist attacks against innocent civilian Israelis, paying a sliding 
scale of benefits to the families of Palestinians who are killed or 
injured in such attacks.
  The families of Palestinians who blow themselves up in homicide 
bombings receive $25,000 in cash; the families of those killed in other 
attacks against the Israelis receive $10,000. Palestinians seriously 
injured in attacks on Israelis receive $1,000, and Palestinians 
slightly injured in such attacks receive $500.
  Saddam Hussein has volunteered to be the workers' compensation plan 
for Palestinian terrorists whose homicidal intentions are no different, 
no different from those of the 19 murderers who flew airplanes filled 
with innocent people into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a 
field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people. Only when Iraq 
ceases to be a threat and takes its place as a responsible member of 
the international community will our future be secure.
  Because of Saddam's continued support for terrorism and the serious 
threat posed by his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, I 
want to express my support for this resolution. It now includes several 
provisions that I and other Democrats have fought for to focus the 
authorization more clearly on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
  First, I am pleased that the resolution calls on the President to 
work through the U.N. Security Council to secure Iraq's compliance with 
existing U.N. resolutions. None of our allies, save Great Britain, have 
indicated support for military action unless it is authorized by the 
U.N. Security Council. If we want to bring an end to religious 
extremism and terrorism in the Middle East, we must work with and not 
against leaders in the region and in the international community. It is 
imperative that the United States act in concert with allies and 
partners, with the authorization of the U.N. Security Council.
  Second, it is important that the resolution prevents the President 
from using force against Iraq unless and until he declares that he has 
exhausted all possible diplomatic efforts and attests that further 
diplomatic initiatives will have no effect. This means that the use of 
force will truly be a last resort.
  Third, the resolution also requires the President to submit to 
Congress a determination prior to using force that taking military 
action against Iraq is consistent with actions needed to eliminate 
international terrorism. This ensures that the war against terrorism, 
which must remain our top national priority, will not be pushed aside 
by efforts in Iraq.
  Finally, the resolution requires the President to report every 60 
days on military operations and on the planning for post-conflict 
activities such as reconstruction and peacekeeping. This provision is 
critical, as I believe that the administration has yet to develop a 
strategy for rebuilding Iraq. We will need to lead a reconstruction 
effort, not just because the Iraqi people need such assistance after 
decades of living under a despotic regime, but rather because ensuring 
that Iraq is a democratic, prosperous and stable country furthers all 
of our national interests.
  Mr. Speaker, despite my misgivings, and though I wish the 
administration had decided to wait to pursue this campaign until we and 
our allies made more substantial inroads in the war against terrorism 
and groups that support terrorism around the world, I will nonetheless 
support this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Winston 
Churchill is purported to have once said: ``An appeaser is one who 
feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.''
  I contend that Saddam Hussein is that crocodile. For more than a 
decade, Saddam Hussein has wreaked havoc on our world. He has 
established a pattern of deception and untold cruelty against humanity. 
The Iraqi dictator has made a mockery of the international community by 
defying 16 United Nations resolutions. He has deceived and defied the 
will and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. He has 
gassed, tortured, starved, and executed the people of Iraq, including 
tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. He has provided 
a support network for, and has housed, terrorists. He has refused to 
account for missing Gulf War prisoners. He has refused access multiple 
times to U.N. weapons inspectors, in spite of his promises to allow 
complete inspections of weapons of mass destruction. He has refused to 
return stolen military equipment. He has fired upon American military 
forces patrolling the no-fly zone. He has sought to circumvent economic 
sanctions.
  Most alarming to me, Mr. Speaker, as a physician, he has developed 
weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons, 
with long-range ballistic missiles capable to create untold devastation 
and human misery. Worse, he is close to possessing a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I can tell the Members that we can 
remediate and protect to a certain degree against chemical and 
biological attacks, but there is no way to deal with a nuclear 
explosion. All of these findings are well documented and are a matter 
of public record.
  While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Saddam 
Hussein stands alone because, as President Bush said, it gathers the 
most serious dangers of our age in one place under the leadership of a 
merciless dictator.
  Some critics have argued that the U.S. should only take military 
action against Saddam Hussein if the U.N. Security Council endorses 
military action. While I believe it is important to seek international 
support, including support of the U.N. Security Council, I do not 
believe it is wise to give other nations like Russia, China, and France 
veto authority over the national security interests of the American 
people.
  Military conflict is not something to be undertaken lightly, nor is 
it something we should undertake without exhausting efforts to resolve 
the issues at hand in other ways. Unfortunately, over the past 10 
years, since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has chosen to be 
an outlaw from the international community. He has chosen to disregard 
the will of the international community.
  Some would like to pretend that he has not done this, that he has not 
been continuing the development of weapons of mass destruction, that he 
has not been harboring terrorists, that he is not aiding those who seek 
to harm America. The record of his dictatorship demonstrates otherwise.
  We have been students of history. While conflict is not something 
that we desire, it is something a peaceloving people sometimes have to 
engage in in order to protect the peace. This often is the only way to 
stop greater evil from being brought to bear on millions of innocent 
men, women, and children.
  What would have been the course of history had a policy of 
appeasement toward Adolph Hitler not been adopted in 1938? The world 
was promised peace then, and 6 months later the world was engulfed in 
World War II. We have been engaged in an appeasement of Saddam Hussein 
over the past decade. He has been unwilling to respond to the pressure 
of the international community. How much longer should we continue this 
policy of appeasement?
  What if we refused to take the necessary action to stop the Iraqi 
dictator

[[Page 19559]]

from building these weapons? I feel the results could be catastrophic. 
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the most important questions before the House 
today and tomorrow and the next day are posed by the resolution 
introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and many 
others of us.
  The question is not whether action must be taken to disarm Saddam 
Hussein of weapons of mass destruction; that action must be taken. The 
question is not whether the U.S., as the sole superpower, should exert 
leadership to bring this action about; it must. The basic question is 
where the emphasis should be in the use of our superpower standing.

                              {time}  1730

  What messages do we want to send the rest of the world? In meeting 
the challenge posed by Saddam Hussein, is the emphasis on using our 
leadership to form a broad partnership with other nations or to go it 
alone? And should any decision as to how and when to use unilateral 
force be essentially in the hands of the executive alone or should the 
elected representatives of the public in this U.S. Congress be an 
active participant? Should we be authorizing the President to use the 
U.S. Armed Forces to go it alone in a war against Iraq now, before the 
U.N. Security Council has acted further, or not? Before Iraq has 
responded completely to those demands or not? Before a new inspection 
regimen occurs or not? Before we might use force as a member state in 
compliance with U.N. resolutions?
  I believe there is a role for Congress and the American people in 
evaluating the success or failure of those efforts in reaching any 
decision to authorize unilateral military action in a war against Iraq. 
From the very beginning, the thrust of the administration's approach 
has been to discount collective international efforts and towards 
unilateral action by the U.S. Urged by a broad array of critics, the 
President went before the U.N. He delivered a strong speech urging that 
the U.N. live up to its responsibilities. The President was 
appropriately applauded for that speech.
  It is critical that we keep the emphasis on achieving collective 
international action. That does not mean, and I emphasize this, that we 
are ceding a final decision to the U.N. Quite the opposite. We are 
leading the way for the U.N. to act.
  The Spratt resolution, as does Senator Levin's resolution in the 
Senate, makes clear the U.S. will make final decisions about our 
policies. But the emphasis needs to be on forging collective action 
through the U.N., with a strong resolution requiring unfettered 
inspections as to all weapons of mass destruction and their 
elimination.
  The outcome of this international effort remains today uncertain. The 
odds of effective collective action will be more uncertain to the 
extent the U.S. position is not total disarmament but a change in 
regimes. And the President's speech last night veered toward regime 
changes as a prerequisite.
  Further, the chances of collective action are dim to the extent the 
President's approach to Iraq is framed against the broad doctrine 
enunciated by the administration several weeks ago. As written, it is a 
doctrine of preemptive action in cases short of imminent danger with 
only cursory references to the strength of collective action and our 
responsibilities under international law.
  The President says that the U.N. action will be enhanced if the U.S. 
speaks with one voice. True. The approach adopted in the Spratt 
resolution would have provided a much clearer opportunity for one voice 
to be spoken and to remain so. The focus of the Spratt resolution is on 
Iraq. It is total disarmament, not a variety of goals stated in the 
administration's resolution. Its emphasis is the effort to achieve 
collective action. Collective international action rather than 
unilateral will likely maximize the chances of success in disarming 
Saddam Hussein and will minimize the potential adverse consequences for 
the U.S., adverse in terms of reactions throughout the world, stability 
in the region, cooperation in the war against terror, and in broad 
participation in the aftermath of any war on Iraq.
  The Spratt resolution gives the President authority to proceed 
militarily, to enforce a strong U.N. resolution that provides for 
enforcement by member states; and it makes clear that the U.S. stands 
ready to consider unilateral action through this Congress if the U.N. 
fails to act effectively. That surely sends a clear message to the U.N. 
and Saddam Hussein.
  The approach in the Spratt alternative lays out a more effective 
course than the majority resolution. It keeps the emphasis in the right 
place both in terms of the U.S. using its superpower status to try to 
achieve collective international action, allowing for the use of 
military force in that context and, importantly, in preserving an 
adequate role for the elected representatives of the public in this 
U.S. Congress in reaching a decision to go to war against Iraq.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the United States left Iraqi dictator Saddam 
Hussein in power after his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. and 
our coalition powers failed to understand the depths of evil that 
Saddam would sink to as the leader of Iraq or the willingness of the 
international community to look the other way as he continued to 
develop weapons of mass destruction.
  Over the last decade, Saddam has systematically negotiated and then 
violated multiple international agreements with the United Nations, 
allowing him to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction, 
while at the same time terrorizing his own people.
  President Bush has called for an end to the international appeasement 
of Saddam. The President has challenged every nation of the world to 
face up to its responsibility and stop this evil man with his evil 
designs. The President said that if the international community is not 
willing to meet this challenge, that the United States is.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the President's call for action; and I call on 
my colleagues to do the same by supporting this resolution. Let me 
explain why.
  In 1991, the world came together to defeat a common enemy and then 
demanded through the United Nations that Iraq stop the repression of 
its people, return prisoners of the Gulf War, renounce terrorism and 
end its program to develop and stockpile weapons of mass instruction. 
Iraq agreed to each of these demands. Instead, in the last decade Iraq 
has systematically and uniformly defied each and every one of these 
agreements. These actions alone warrant international action. But, of 
course, there is more.
  We know that the Iraqi government maintains successful biological 
weapons laboratories. We know that Iraq maintains a chemical weapons 
stockpile it has shown a willingness to use. And we know that Iraq 
continues to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. These are not guesses. 
These are facts.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the development, manufacture and 
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles is the 
overriding goal of the Iraqi regime. It is also clear that Saddam 
Hussein would use every weapon in his arsenal to damage the United 
States and its citizens, whether within our borders or overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, these deadly weapons are in the hands of a dictator who 
has invaded both Iran and Kuwait. These deadly weapons are in the hands 
of a dictator who has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, 
Israel and Bahrain that have killed and injured U.S. military men and 
women. These deadly weapons are in the hands of a dictator who has 
gassed Iranian troops and villages in his own country.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, diplomacy is the preferred course of action 
to solve

[[Page 19560]]

this problem. In fact, the United Nations and the United States have 
been patient over the last decade. Yet Iraq continues to defy U.N. 
resolutions demanding international inspections for weapons of mass 
destruction. Yet Saddam continues to block, ignore or defy the 16 
separate U.N. resolutions. He clearly has no interest in yielding to 
the international community.
  Amazingly, there are some in the international community who want to 
give Saddam additional opportunity. They believe that the 16 U.N. 
resolutions are insufficient evidence of Saddam's intractable 
opposition to inspections. I disagree. Saddam has had his opportunity. 
Unless inspectors are immediately allowed unfettered action to the 
entire nation, the United States must act.
  Others here in the United States believe that we must wait for the 
U.N. to act before the United States can protect its national security. 
Again, I disagree. The United States must determine for itself how we 
should protect our nation and our citizens. It is we, Members of 
Congress, the President, and the American people, who should determine 
the fate of our Nation.
  Now we, as Members of Congress, have the terrible task of determining 
whether or not our Nation should go to war. As a Member of Congress, I 
cannot avoid my responsibility to protect our Nation and ensure that 
Americans both at home and abroad are safe.
  I have concluded that to protect the lives and safety of our country 
and our people we must act. Mr. Speaker, it is time to give the 
President the authority he has requested to deal with the imminent 
threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and to the world.
  I hope the diplomacy will work and that Saddam will finally yield 
unconditionally to international inspections for weapons of mass 
destruction. I also hope that the U.N. will join the U.S. in this 
effort. However, we cannot as a Nation make our national security 
dependent upon this body.
  In the end, the growing coalition of countries supporting our efforts 
will see the overwhelming bipartisan vote this week as a symbol of our 
unity and commitment to disarming Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
resolution and of the President of the United States in this action.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the resolution to authorize the 
use of force and deal with Saddam Hussein once and for all. No one can 
dispute that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a thug. His brutal 
dictatorship has enslaved the Iraqi people in a state of terror for 
many, many years. His outlaw regime has long been characterized by 
vicious political repression and a denial of basic human rights. He has 
unleashed the horrors of chemical and biological weapons against 
innocent men, women and children in his own country.
  Saddam Hussein's international crimes are well known. On two separate 
occasions he has invaded neighboring countries to launch wars of 
conquest against nations that presented him no threat. He has attacked 
civilian population centers in our allied countries of Israel and Saudi 
Arabia. He has threatened the security of the Middle East region and 
peace in the world. And his military routinely fires upon American and 
allied aircraft patrolling the Iraqi skies to enforce the United 
Nations Security Council's resolutions which he agreed to abide by at 
the conclusion of 1991 Persian Gulf War.
  Make no mistake, Saddam Hussein is an international outlaw who must 
be confronted once and for all. He must be thoroughly disarmed so that 
he no longer poses a threat to world peace. Frankly, we should have 
taken care of this festering problem when we had the chance, but the 
first Bush administration walked away and let this murdering thug 
ravage his country and consolidate his iron grip on power.
  The Clinton administration contained Saddam Hussein for 8 years, but 
Iraq's progress in obtaining weapons of mass destruction renders 
``containment'' a policy no longer sufficient to the task.
  I support President Bush's policy of confronting Saddam Hussein, but 
we must not wage war without making every effort to achieve our goal 
without further bloodshed. We must not take a go-it-alone approach. 
Rather, we should assemble an international coalition among the family 
of nations of the world to present a united front in the struggle 
against this evil dictator.
  International cooperation must not be considered a luxury to be 
obtained if convenient. Rather, we must recognize a great lesson of the 
20th century, that international cooperation is essential to American 
security and prosperity.
  We must also not lose sight of our ongoing worldwide military 
campaign to eradicate the threat of al-Qaeda terrorist network. The 
wounds of 9/11 still ache. America has unfinished business with Osama 
bin Laden and his fanatical followers. Bin Laden may be dead or he may 
be alive, but let there be no doubt that his loyalists still lurk in 
the shadows ready to strike America in our unguarded moments. We must 
have no relent in our pursuit of our terrorists, and we must not 
mishandle the present Iraqi situation in a manner that breeds suicidal 
maniacs begging for the chance to kill Americans. Rather, we must 
engage moderate Arab republics and leaders of the Islamic faith to 
demonstrate that our cause is just, our intentions are noble, and our 
friendship is genuine and enduring.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Democratic colleagues who have 
stood on principle to address the important shortcomings of the White 
House's original resolution. Now is not the time for partisan politics, 
and I am pleased that we have arrived at language that a broader cross-
section of this House can support, while leaving individuals Members 
free to vote their conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of the United States Army, my thoughts and 
prayers are with our brave men and women in uniform and the families 
who love them. Our military is the finest fighting force ever assembled 
in world history.

                              {time}  1745

  They are well trained, highly motivated and superbly trained. Should 
force be necessary, their mission may well be a very difficult one, but 
I have no doubt our warriors will rise to the occasion and win the day.
  Finally, Congress must get back to addressing the critical issues 
facing our families every day. Congress must act to improve education, 
reduce health care costs, protect Social Security, and get our economy 
back on track. We must balance the budget and pay down the national 
debt for long-term economic growth. We must lower health care costs. We 
must fund education so that every American willing to work hard can 
have the most of his God-given abilities.
  In conclusion, I will vote for this use of force resolution; and at 
the end of the day, the leadership of this country must speak with one 
voice. As President Kennedy said in his inaugural address: ``Let every 
Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any 
price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose 
any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.''
  Saddam Hussein is the world's leading threat to human liberty. I 
support this resolution as a last resort to eliminate this threat.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a courageous war 
hero from Vietnam and former POW.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in full 
support of giving the President the tools he needs to protect the lives 
of Americans at home and around the world. The United States and United 
Nations have tried sanctions. We have tried inspections, we have tried 
no-fly zones, we have tried treaties, peace talks and 16 different 
Security Council resolutions. Saddam has violated every agreement.

[[Page 19561]]

  Anyone who holds hope after 11 years of Saddam Hussein's outright 
rebellion against the world must be the eternal optimist. Saddam 
Hussein has no intention of allowing inspections inside his palaces or 
weapons facilities. Saddam Hussein has no intention of allowing his 
scientists and families to be questioned outside of Iraq as President 
Bush has asked for; and Saddam Hussein has no intention of giving our 
government or the family of Scott Spiecher, the downed American pilot, 
any information on their son's whereabouts.
  Saddam is a blood-thirsty madman who cannot be left to his own 
devices. If left alone, Saddam Hussein will continue to build 
biological and chemical weapons and obtain a nuclear capability.
  Last night, the President told us that Saddam is now building 
unmanned vehicles and airplanes to disperse those weapons almost 
anywhere. As a representative of the people of the State of Texas, I 
cannot sit back and allow Saddam Hussein more time to plot the demise 
of the United States and our allies.
  As one of the few Members of Congress to fight in combat and the only 
Member held captive as a POW in Vietnam, I know we cannot fight a war 
from the Congress of the United States and win. Our President, with the 
passage of this authority, can and will deliver.
  Let us learn from our Vietnam experience and ensure that President 
Bush has all the tools he needs to protect freedom in America and in 
the world. A resolution without restriction must be passed. Our future 
is at stake.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Committee on Resources and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and a real leader in 
our delegation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  One of the most solemn duties given by us to the Constitution is 
before the House because the resolution before us is most certainly a 
declaration of war. It lacks the specificity of the last declared war, 
World War II, but it closely mirrors the open-ended authority granted 
President Johnson in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964.
  The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United 
States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 
defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat 
posed by Iraq. That is it. That is the key part of this, despite all 
the whereases and everything else.
  So, with this resolution, Congress will preauthorize the first-ever 
preemptive war in the history of the United States, a war that may be 
fought unilaterally, without a single ally, conducted without restraint 
or clear objective, potentially in violation of the U.N. charter and 
widely accepted international law. I do not believe our Nation's 
founders would think that this was the proper use of our authority 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
  What is so extraordinary about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses 
that would justify this broad grant of authority? What has changed in 
the 2 years since then-candidate Bush said, The United States will not 
be the world's 911, the world's police force, and that we will not 
engage in nation building? There were the horrendous attacks of 
September 11, attacks against the United States; but neither the United 
States nor British intelligence services can find the slightest link 
between al-Qaeda and Iraq. So that cannot be the reason.
  The President went to the U.N. 3 weeks ago, and he repeated in 
Cincinnati a long litany of charges against Iraq, most of them true. 
Saddam Hussein is a brutal psychopathic dictator. He has committed 
crimes against humanity. He used chemical weapons against Iranian 
troops, against rebellious Kurds in his own country. He killed tens of 
thousands, but that was during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and Bush 
41; and the United States turned a blind eye because Saddam was allied 
with the U.S. against Iran.
  He has violated a number of U.N. resolutions, but all along before 
the last Presidential election. So something else must be behind this.
  Is this an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons? Two other members of 
the axis of evil are much further along. Iran has a very well-developed 
nuclear weapons programs and much stronger proven ties to terrorist 
groups, including harboring al-Qaeda; and of course, North Korea has 
probably nuclear weapons and two-thirds of an almost functional 
intercontinental missile which is having us rush to build Star Wars. 
So, is that the reason? I do not know.
  It really seems to me there is something else going on here. Perhaps 
it is because the President brought a number of people from his 
father's administration who felt that they were frustrated because they 
did not get to go to Baghdad the first time when Colin Powell and 
George Bush 41 stopped them short of that goal; but these men, these 
old men, these oil men, most of whom have never fought in a war or have 
never served in the military, are very deaf to the substantial concerns 
of Colin Powell, General Clark, and others in the war all too well.
  They are deaf to the concerns of Middle East experts and Arabists at 
the State Department and our intelligence services. They are deaf to 
the very vocal concern of our allies around the world. They are deaf to 
the concerns of millions of Americans who have doubts about this 
adventure, and they are blind to the potential repercussions of the 
Pandora's box they will open with this war, the first war fought under 
the new Bush doctrine of preemptive war.
  Never has the United States of America launched a preemptive war. The 
prospect of the United States pursuing a unilateral preemptive war with 
Iraq with little or no support from allies in the international 
community is gravely disturbing; but the international application of 
this doctrine could launch a war against a threat, that is, U.S. or any 
nation, could launch a war against a threat or perceived threat by 
another nation. Just think, India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, 
Russia and Georgia. The list is long and frightening.
  The administration proponents of this resolution would have us 
believe we have no option, but we do. Continued containment, deterrence 
and intrusive, unfettered inspections. There is a long list of the 
success of the last inspections rendered by Tony Blair to the 
Parliament, not by the Bush administration to the Congress: destruction 
of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons; 2,610 tons of chemical 
precursors; 411 tons of chemical warfare agent; dismantling of Iraq's 
prime chemical weapons development and production complex at LAl-
Muthanna; the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles; the destruction of 
the Al-Hakam biological weapons facility. The discovery in 1991 of 
samples of indigenously produced highly enriched uranium made them 
disclose their program so that led to the removal and destruction of 
the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the Al-
Athir weaponization testing facility.
  Intrusive inspections, despite the harassment, did work. We do have 
an alternative. We should return to that regime. We should go with our 
allies under the auspices of the United Nations. We should root out and 
destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We have an opportunity and a 
proven alternative before us, unfettered inspections, destruction of 
the arsenals; but it is not clear that that is the sole objective of 
this administration.
  War should be a first resort? No. War should be a last resort.
  Do not vote a blank check to this administration. They are all too 
determined to have this war no matter what occurs.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as we engage in this most patriotic debate, 
I am struck by how much we all seem to agree upon. We all seek to avoid 
using

[[Page 19562]]

our troops and unleashing our military might unless we are forced to. 
The greatness of our Nation is not measured in our muscle, but in our 
restraint. We are a Nation of awesome power; but we do not use it to 
conquer other peoples, to expand our borders. We are rightly proud of 
our history of taking the first blow before we move to respond. On this 
we all agree.
  We all seem to understand and support the imperative of operating in 
cooperation with international institutions and multilateral coalitions 
when tackling truly global challenges. It is moral leadership to act in 
concert with others, and it is smart politics. We prefer this path for 
it speaks to our respect for others, and we follow this path because it 
makes the road to our national goals that much smoother. On this we all 
agree.
  We all agree that the regime in Iraq is a menace to the region and 
anathema to international law, not to mention a disgrace to our common 
humanity. Even the most fervent opponent of use of force does not 
contend that Saddam Hussein is not a tyrant. On this we agree.
  Finally, we all agree that in some degree or another preemption has 
to be part of our national defense. Perhaps this is more clear to those 
of us who once lived in the shadow of the World Trade Center or those 
of us who attended a funeral for one of the fallen of September 11 or 
those of us who looked into the eyes of a child whose parent was taken 
from them in the attacks.
  We all agree if we could strike first to prevent the terror of 9-11 
we all would have. We all would have. Preemption is not immoral. 
Permitting an attack that we can deter is immoral. On this we agree.
  So how is it that we agree on so much yet differ on this resolution 
so starkly? Let me address three points I have heard today and, 
commonly, over the last weeks.
  First, I have heard those that oppose the resolution argue that there 
is no imminent threat, nothing dire enough for us to act immediately. 
First, let me concede that this debate should have taken place after 
the election. It could have taken place after the election, and it 
would have been most appropriate for it to take place after the 
election; but I find it astounding that some suggest that because there 
is no smoking gun we ought not act.
  To employ the same metaphor, we have a madman who hates us, gun and 
bullets in the same room. After hundreds of hours of hearings and 
thousands of pages of revelations about our failure to connect the dots 
on so many occasions, why is it now we hear this insistence on 
metaphysical certainty of the madman's intent before we act? News 
flash. What we do not know about his intent could fill a book. The same 
critics of our intelligence capability are now expecting perfect 
intelligence.
  Secondly, some have argued that Saddam has not been belligerent. In 
fact, he has. The U.N. resolutions that were passed as part of the 
ceasefire in 1991 were agreed to by the parties to ensure that Saddam 
would not be belligerent. He has violated every one. Is not the 
violation of anti-belligerence agreements itself a sign of 
belligerence?
  Finally, I have heard the argument that Saddam's capabilities are so 
degraded that he posed no threat to us or to his neighbors. I remind my 
colleagues that the cost of the entire September 11 attacks on our 
Nation were less than that of a single tank. How much does it cost, how 
hard is it to strap nerve canisters to a terrorist posing as a tourist 
and have them walk into Times Square or into the National Archives? He 
does not need an ICBM to reach New York or Washington. Saddam Hussein 
just needs a chance.

                              {time}  1800

  I will vote for the resolution, but I say to the President that I am 
voting for all of it. I am voting for the part that encourages that all 
diplomatic measures possible be taken, including a final round of 
inspections. Use of force as a last resort must truly be a last resort.
  And to my colleagues who seek disarmament and concession for Saddam, 
as do I, I would urge we consider the need to demonstrate with no 
uncertainty that we mean business. The best way to avoid the use of 
force, I would argue, is to authorize the use of force. Cajoling, 
negotiating, strong language, harsh proclamations alone will not work 
against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein must understand today that the 
jig is up, no more delay, no more obstruction. We will take your 
weapons either with your assent or without it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I come to the floor, as we all have today, to address one of the most 
serious, probably the most serious matters that Congress can consider, 
and that is the use of America's military to preserve peace and defend 
our citizens. I rise in support of this resolution to authorize the use 
of force against Iraq.
  The Iraqi regime, controlled by Saddam Hussein, remains a threat to 
the Iraqi people, Iraq's neighbors, the U.S., our allies, and American 
citizens. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction at his 
disposal, biological and chemical; and he has used them, as we all 
know, on his own people and against other countries. He has 
continuously expressed hostility toward and a willingness to attack the 
United States. In fact, he was the only world leader to publicly 
applaud the horrific September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America. 
Members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization are known to be in Iraq.
  These facts simply cannot be ignored, and we cannot afford to wait 
while further terrorist attacks against the United States are being 
planned.
  Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its 
nuclear program, weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an 
accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign 
assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians and 
retains physical infrastructure needs to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq 
has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to 
enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon, and the country's state- 
controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein 
and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued 
appetite for these weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to preserve the security of the United States 
and our allies, we must move forward to address the threat posed by 
Saddam Hussein's regime. However, congressional approval of this 
resolution does not mean military action against Iraq is imminent or 
unavoidable. The military option is only one option. We are continuing, 
as we should, to work with our allies to address this threat together.
  What Congress is doing by passing this resolution is showing the 
United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice. By 
passing this resolution, we are showing the world we are determined to 
support the President, and we are showing Saddam Hussein that full 
compliance with the demands of the civilized world is his only option.
  I am pleased the President has moved forward to press for a new 
resolution on Iraq within the United Nations. This is appropriate, and 
I hope our efforts will be successful. However, in order to be 
successful, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms 
will have to be different than the ones that the Security Council has 
already passed.
  I remain concerned about the United Nations' inability to address 
Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi regime remains in unacceptable breach of 
numerous United Nations' Security Council resolutions, including those 
requiring full and unfettered weapons inspections.
  Since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq has fired many 
hundreds of times at American and British pilots as they enforce these 
resolutions. Every time the Iraqi regime fires a missile at our 
military, it further expresses its

[[Page 19563]]

contempt for the U.N. resolutions, for America, and the international 
community. We should move forward to address this issue within the 
U.N., but the U.N. must move forward as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also stress my concern for the innocent Iraqi 
people who continue to suffer under the regime of Saddam Hussein. This 
regime has forced them to suffer immeasurably, and my heart goes out to 
those people and their families. As we consider the use of force 
against Iraq, we must focus on the Iraqi people and ensure that any 
military action fully minimizes any civilian casualties. Our action 
must be taken to help the Iraqi people, not force them to suffer even 
more than they already have.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to preserve the security of the United States, 
our interests and our allies, I urge my colleagues to join me and all 
of us supporting this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations conducted 2 
days of spirited debated last week and has reported out a bipartisan 
resolution that I believe all my colleagues can and should support. The 
resolution before the House today clearly lays out the case for the use 
of United States Armed Forces against the Iraqi regime of Saddam 
Hussein.
  What brings us to this point? Why must we consider taking such grave 
action? Let us review for a moment the recent history of Saddam's 
reign.
  He has already used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own 
people. He has launched an ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurdish 
people, killing thousands of civilians. He has invaded Kuwait. And 
during the ensuing Gulf War, he conducted an unprovoked missile attack 
against Israel.
  Following his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to eliminate his 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program and to end his 
support of international terrorism. He has done none of that. In fact, 
he has repeatedly violated 16 United Nations' Security Council 
resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to 
international peace and security.
  We know that Saddam possesses and manufactures chemical and 
biological weapons. We know that he seeks nuclear weapons. Many of us 
believe that, given nuclear capability, he would no doubt use it 
against his enemies, including, and perhaps most especially, the United 
States, for which he has shown nothing but disdain.
  We also know that the Iraqi regime continues to serve as a supporter 
and sponsor of international terrorism, and that members of al-Qaeda, 
the terrorist group responsible for the murder of thousands of 
Americans on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Saddam, of 
course, praised those attacks on innocent people.
  We know that Iraqi military forces continue to fire upon American and 
British military aircraft as they seek to enforce the no-fly zones in 
northern and southern Iraq. The Pentagon confirmed last week that, 
since April of 1991, Iraq has fired on our coalition aircraft some 
2,500 times, 406 times this year and 67 times in the last 2 weeks.
  As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq, the Middle East 
remains a potential powder keg, and countless innocent people 
throughout the world face imminent danger. By all accounts, the 
immediate threat posed by Iraq's possession, creation and/or 
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a substantial one. The 
President's request for congressional authorization to eliminate that 
threat is entirely appropriate.
  Last night, in my hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, President Bush made 
the case for adoption of the resolution before us here today. The 
President eloquently stated, and I quote, ``Facing clear evidence of 
peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could 
come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''
  Mr. Speaker, many of the critics of this resolution have wondered 
what terrible things will happen if we take action against Iraq. The 
real question, I would submit, is what terrible things will happen to 
our Nation and the rest of civilized world if we do not take action.
  Throughout the history of Saddam Hussein's long and brutal reign, he 
has shown no interest in being part of the world community. He has 
terrorized his countrymen and his neighbors, he has supported and 
provided safe haven for terrorists, and he continues his long-standing 
efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass murder and destruction. 
All the while, he has shown no signs of remorse and he has given no 
reason to believe that he will change.
  My colleagues who remember their history will recall a tyrant who 
terrorized Europe a few decades ago. The British Government at the time 
chose a policy of appeasement. Soon, Adolph Hitler's forces marched 
across Europe, raining death and destruction. Fifty-one million people 
went to their graves. We cannot let that happen again. As Americans, we 
will not let that happen again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Chief Deputy Democratic Whip. The gentleman from 
Georgia has personally been terrorized and has been a man of peace for 
so many years.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this resolution. I rise to speak 
for peace. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the 
children of God. Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikhs; be 
they white, black, yellow, red, or brown, blessed are the peacemakers, 
for they shall be called the children of God.
  Today, we must ask ourselves, are we peacemakers? Will we cast aside 
our fears, our prejudices, our hate and embrace peace? Will we sow the 
seeds of peace, or are we just another nation sewing the seeds of war?
  War with Iraq will sow seeds in the desert sands of the Middle East 
and throughout the world. What fruit will our actions bear, not just 
for us but for our children? And not just for the children of our land, 
but for the children of the West and the Middle East and the world? For 
it is the children, our little boys and girls, who must live with the 
consequences of our war.
  What do we gain? What do our children gain when we have destroyed 
another nation? What do we gain when we have killed hundreds and 
thousands of their men, women, and children; when hundreds of our sons 
and daughters have died?
  War with Iraq will not bring peace to the Middle East. It will not 
make the world a safer, a better, a more loving place. It will not end 
the strife and hatred that breed terror. War does not end strife; it 
sows it. War does not end hatred; it feeds it.
  War is bloody, it is vicious, it is evil, and it is messy. War 
destroys the dreams, the hopes and aspirations of people. As a great 
Nation and blessed people, we must heed the words of the spiritual, ``I 
am going to lay my burden down by the riverside. I ain't gonna study 
war no more.''
  For those who argue that war is a necessary evil, I say that they are 
half right. War is evil, but it is not necessary. War cannot be a 
necessary evil because nonviolence is a necessary good. The two cannot 
coexist. As Americans, as human beings, as citizens of the world, as 
moral actors, we must embrace the good and reject the evil.
  As Ghandi said, ``The choice is nonviolence or nonexistence.'' The 
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``We must learn to live 
together as brothers and sisters, or perish as fools.'' There is 
something greater than military victory, bigger and greater than regime 
change and toppling governments. It is to this greater good

[[Page 19564]]

that as a Nation and as a people we must aspire.
  The scriptures say, ``What does it profit a man to gain the whole 
world and lose his soul?'' America's strength is not in military might 
but in our ideas. America ingenuity, freedom, and democracy have 
conquered the world. It is a battle we did not win with guns or tanks 
or missiles, but with ideas, principles and justice.
  We must use our resources not to make bombs and guns but to solve the 
problems that affect humankind. We must feed the stomach, clothe the 
naked bodies, educate and stimulate the mind.
  We must use our resources to build and not to tear down, to reconcile 
and not to divide, to love and not to hate, to heal and not to kill. 
This is the direction great nations should move.
  War is easy, but peace, peace is hard. When we hurt, when we fear, 
when we feel vulnerable or hopeless, it is easy to listen to what is 
most base within us. It is easy to divide the world into us and them, 
to fear them, to hate them, to fight them, to kill them. War is easy, 
but peace is hard. Peace is right, it is just, and it is true. I know 
it is not easy to love thy enemy. No, peace is hard.
  So we have war in Israel, and no peace. We have war in Kashmir, but 
no peace. We have war in Afghanistan, in Colombia, in Sudan and the 
Philippines, and no peace. It may be hard, it may be difficult, but the 
quest for peace is as old as the dawn of history and as fresh as the 
morning newspaper.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, my brothers and sisters, sometime, some place, leaders 
of a great Nation will have the courage to say, ``We will lay down the 
burden, the tools and the instruments of war. We will wage peace, not 
war.'' And that nation will be blessed, for they shall be called the 
children of God.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, this morning at 9:07, each Member of this 
body received an e-mail message, an alert; and it asked all of us to 
take precautionary measures. It told us all to restrict our activities 
at home and in our office. We were asked to share it with each member 
of our staff. I have that e-mail here. That e-mail dealt with a killer, 
a killer who we all know had murdered 5 people in Montgomery County, 
Maryland, and now is expanding his range.
  The question has been asked this entire weekend, What motivates this 
person? Why is he doing what he is doing? Last night if one listened to 
the news stories, there was an answer given, a profile. The profile 
gave his motive; it gave his weapon. We all know his weapon is a high-
powered rifle. It showed the geographic area he was operating in.
  But what caught my attention was his motive. They said he is not a 
serial killer because a serial killer selects a certain type of victim. 
They said no he is motivated by something else, he enjoys killing. It 
is sport. He must kill again. He is what we call a thrill killer.
  In that regard he shares something with another thrill killer, a 
thrill killer we know as Saddam Hussein, a thrill killer that is not 
equipped with simply a high-powered weapon, but we have heard the 
litany of weapons at his disposal. We are also told that he started out 
killing members of his own family in his own village and then he moved 
on to members of his cabinet, members of his political party, his 
countrymen, whole villages at a time, then Iran, then Kuwait. Then in 
the Gulf War, the first two victims of this thrill killer were two 
majors from the Alabama National Guard that served at the same base I 
served in in Birmingham, a thrill killer.
  What is the response to a thrill killer when we identify, when we 
learn the identity of that thrill killer who started his rampage in 
Maryland? Will we react with resolutions? Will we try to establish a 
dialogue? Will we restrict him to home? Will we give him a notification 
that we would like to inspect his home from time to time? Will we 
simply rage about the violence and say that we are good people and he 
should not do these things?
  Thank goodness when we find him it will not be the United Nations 
that goes after him; it will be the Montgomery County Sheriff's 
Department, and we will not have to build a consensus all over the 
United States among every sheriff's department and every group as to 
what to do. We will know what to do with him; and it will not be home 
restrictions, and it will not be inspections with notifications and 
limitations.
  Mr. Speaker, I close with the words of George Washington, our 
greatest President when he responded at a moment like this as to how do 
you preserve peace, how do you make the community safe once again, how 
do you assure the safety of the people. He said: ``To be prepared for 
war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.''
  I close by saying that what this Congress needs to do is give our 
President what he needs to prepare our Nation for war, and in doing so 
we will preserve the peace and ensure the peace for our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we pause briefly in this 
debate as we debate our fundamental responsibility about how we best 
protect our country and what role our constituents will play in 
protecting our country to appreciate the fact that at 4:15 this morning 
Eastern Standard Time two Marines with the 11th Marine Expeditionary 
Unit from Camp Pendleton, California, were outside of Kuwait City 
participating in a training exercise. One of those young Marines was 
shot and killed, and the other was seriously injured. We are waiting an 
update as to his condition. This was merely a training exercise taking 
place with the Kuwait military, and one person lost his life and 
another may because of a senseless act of terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Members to join me in a minute of 
silence to give thanks to these two brave Marines and appreciate the 
sacrifice they have made.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members for joining me in that minute of 
silence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if 
necessary and under certain circumstances. He has laid the proper 
predicate. He seeks the support of Congress; and if successful here, he 
will pressure the United Nations to do their job.
  If the U.N. succeeds in a full and acceptable inspection and finds no 
major violations, they file their report. If they find major 
violations, they should be forced to take the proper action. If they do 
not act, the President has a decision to make; and I trust his 
decisions, just as I trusted Harry Truman's decisions 57 years ago.
  Thus, he has, and as much as the Nation has requested him to do, he 
has taken the steps they have asked him to take prior to asking for 
this resolution.
  The fight against terrorism is a long and difficult mission. I along 
with most Americans have stood behind President Bush in his campaign 
against terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan, and I continue to 
stand behind him. The President has consulted the American people and 
the Congress throughout this war. He is consulting us now before any 
decisions are made concerning Iraq. He will continue to put pressure on 
the United Nations and give them the opportunity to do their work. He 
will continue to call for Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. 
resolutions and for weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to do 
their job. He will continue to insist that any resistance, evasion, or 
delay must be dealt with clearly and decisively.
  I believe that if force becomes necessary, the President's timing 
will be the right timing. The President has the benefit of information 
from international fact-finding sources, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
United States intelligence, information that Congress and the average 
American citizen might

[[Page 19565]]

not have available to them. I am convinced that the United States will 
not act until our actions are justified.
  Saddam Hussein's past refusal to allow weapons inspections is a 
strong indication that his regime poses a very real threat to the 
civilized world. As cited in the resolutions we are debating today, 
Iraq has ignored 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions to 
date, and we expect that there will be more contempt for the United 
Nations. Saddam Hussein's continued pursuit of weapons of mass 
destruction, the appalling treatment of his own people and the 
neighboring countries around him, and his outward defiance of the 
United Nations mark him as a man who is not only dangerous in his own 
country, but also dangerous to many others, including the United 
States.
  I think we are all in agreement that no one wants to go to war; but 
during these turbulent times, in order to preserve freedom and liberty, 
we are given sometimes very little choice. Thomas Jefferson once said: 
``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' Men like Saddam Hussein 
will not stop until they have accomplished their objective, or until 
they are forced to stop. We must be prepared to do what is necessary to 
remove the threat to our country and to all peace-loving people.
  The Congress and the United States stand with the President in his 
strong resolve to defeat terrorism. The United States stands ready to 
carry out this mission in Iraq if necessary, and we ask that our allies 
and all free-loving countries join us in this just cause.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution and give 
President Bush the authority he needs in order to protect the United 
States of America and the world from Saddam Hussein's oppressive rule.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.J. 
Res. 114. My support comes after many hours of personal consideration 
of the facts that are clear, as well as what may be the consequences of 
military action against Saddam Hussein. I have concluded that clear and 
present threat of military force is the only way to forge both a 
meaningful and enforceable resolution in the United Nations Security 
Council and hopefully a peaceful disarmament and destruction of weapons 
of mass destruction by Iraq. If the U.N. falters or Hussein continues 
his deception, then the United States must act.
  President Bush has made a clear case against Iraq, and last night he 
answered the questions that all of us have heard from our citizens in 
our districts. I respect and understand the concerns that some of those 
in this Chamber have regarding preemption and a military strike. I 
understand those who speculate on the consequences of military action 
against Iraq. In my mind I fear the consequences of a failure to 
preempt the use of weapons of mass destruction far more.
  On September 11, 2001, terrorists made an unprovoked attack using 
airplanes as weapons of mass destruction and killed over 3,000 innocent 
men, women, and children in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. 
Saddam Hussein praised them. In the Middle East, the families of 
suicide bombers are rewarded with cash by Saddam Hussein. Saddam 
Hussein considers mass murder an acceptable practice. If there were 
ever a case for preemption to be made, Saddam Hussein has made it 
himself.
  Twice before in my lifetime two great American Presidents, John 
Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, used the American military and the fear of 
its use to peacefully resolve two of the world's greatest threats: the 
Cuban missile crisis and the Cold War. They were right then, and 
President Bush is right now. Our country and the world deserve a united 
Congress behind the President of the United States.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no question 
that this is a serious debate about the future of our country and about 
the future that our country will play in the world in which we live. 
The decision to be made here after this debate is whether or not the 
United States would declare war on Iraq because, that is what in fact 
is being debated before the Congress of the United States.
  The President can argue, as he has, that he wants this resolution for 
a number of different reasons. He has said that he wants it to have a 
regime change. Later, he said he wanted it to disarm Saddam Hussein. He 
now says that he wants it simply to get leverage against the United 
Nations so that they will do what he has asked them to do, what he has 
quite properly asked them to do.
  But, at the end of the day, we will be saddled with a vote to declare 
war on Iraq. I say this because this is the same administration that 
was arguing that they did not have to come to the Congress because, 
from the resolution that we passed in 1991, that they had inherent 
authority to do this. So I suspect you will be living with the results 
of the vote here for a long time to come.
  There is no debate, I believe, in the Congress of the United States 
or most places in the world that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, that 
Saddam Hussein is engaged in some of the most atrocious acts against 
his own citizens and others around the world. But there is also no 
debate that he is in violation of the agreements that he signed at the 
end of the war, he is in violation of the United Nations' resolutions 
that have been passed, and a case can be made and clearly was made by 
the President of the United States that the United Nations should take 
action because of his contempt of those resolutions and his failure to 
comply.
  Those were the agreements that he signed; and, if necessary, the 
United Nations should back that up with force.
  This is not a matter of trusting Saddam Hussein or allowing Saddam 
Hussein to dictate where the United Nations will inspect or not 
inspect, and we have all been through that. This is not about him. This 
is about us, and these are the terms and conditions, and they should be 
enforced.
  If that fails, then it is not to suggest that the United States 
should go to war against Saddam Hussein. It is to suggest that the 
President then must come back to the Congress and meet the burden of 
proof that he, in fact, poses an imminent threat to the national 
security of the United States.
  So far, from the best information I have been able to receive from my 
colleagues on the various committees of jurisdiction dealing with 
intelligence and defense and in the briefings that I have attended, 
that case has not been made. That does not mean that it cannot be made. 
It does not mean that maybe there is information that they are not 
sharing with the Congress. But understand this: They are supposed to 
share it with the Congress.
  But that is a different burden of proof. That is a burden of proof of 
whether or not we will unilaterally make a decision to put American men 
and women in harm's way and whether or not we will invade another 
country for those reasons. That is a far different burden of proof. 
That is a far different decision than whether or not we will be part of 
or whether the United Nations will assemble a multi-lateral force to go 
in and to deal with the violations and the failures to keep the 
agreements that the United Nations has passed when he surrendered to 
the multi-national force in 1991.
  But I suggest to my colleagues that if we do it in the manner which 
was presented in the resolution, not only do we undermine the idea of 
working with the United Nations, I believe that in the long term we 
undermine our position in the world and our moral authority to conduct 
these activities. I think when we combine this with the announcement by 
the Bush administration of its doctrine on national security of 
preemptive strikes, preemptive war, it is a declaration of war. Be it 
preemptive or be it defensive, it is war. That is what it is about. We 
can dress it all up into fancy policy language,

[[Page 19566]]

but the question is whether or not American men and women will be 
called upon for that sacrifice to this country.
  I think that, when we do that, we have got to make the case to the 
Congress and to the American people; and I think it is clear that case 
has not been made. I think it is also clear that the American people 
believe that we have got to deal with Saddam Hussein. I do believe that 
the President set out that course of activity when he went to the 
United Nations and rightfully asked the United Nations to take the 
action in support of those resolutions.
  The suggestion is here that somehow if we pass this resolution this 
will give meaning to the United Nations because they will know, whether 
they do it or not, we will do it anyway. I suggest it is just the 
opposite. That suggests to the United Nations that they really need not 
act because somehow the United States alone will take care of Saddam 
Hussein, even if that violates the tenets of the reason the United 
Nations exists, so that nations can act together. But if the United 
Nations does not act, then they remove the means by which we can 
prevent the unilateral action that so many people say they do not want.
  At the end of the day, I believe we have an obligation to vote 
against this resolution. I believe that if we are unsuccessful in the 
United Nations, then this President should come back to this Congress 
of the United States, make his case that Saddam Hussein/Iraq are an 
imminent threat to the United States, and let the Members of Congress 
vote how they will when that case has been presented and keep it out of 
just the notion of giving speeches and going to the newspapers. Come to 
the Congress and make the case. To date, the administration has not 
done so.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a senior 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  If I had not been one who was given intelligence briefings, I may 
well have opposed this resolution. But since I know the facts, I 
support it.
  I am a mother and a grandmother, and no one knows the horrors of war 
more than I do. None of us wants to rush into this war.
  For months, our President has demonstrated that he will exhaust all 
avenues for peace before taking military action. However, we must 
remember that America has been trying for years to stop Iraq's weapons 
program through diplomacy; and it has not worked. Saddam Hussein 
threatens America and his allies at home and abroad.
  It is easy to point out that Saddam is not at present invading other 
sovereign nations. However, it is not 1940. Saddam Hussein does not 
have to leave home to wreak havoc on humanity all around the globe. We 
Americans cannot understand the mind of a tyrant or a terrorist. If we 
think we can just live and let live, we must understand that they read 
that as weakness; and they will not let us live.
  America has always achieved peace through strength and not always by 
going to war. Remember the Cold War. Some say, if we attack, it will 
further inflame the Muslim world. But we do not have a problem with all 
Muslims, only terrorists and tyrants. People who have been taught hate 
and have nurtured that from birth, hate for America, they do not need 
further cause. It is ingrained in their psyche, and pacifism on our 
part will not change that.
  I am hearing people today say, well, let us wait until we see what 
they do and then we will discuss what we do. Or Saddam Hussein will not 
have weapons of mass destruction for another 10 years. Let us wait and 
see.
  Wait until they attack us and kill who knows how many more Americans? 
What will then be the satisfaction in being able to say, well, gee, I 
guess President Bush was right?
  President Bush is not the aggressor. Saddam Hussein is the aggressor 
who has chosen to live by the sword. Let us never forget that 9/11 was 
not the first terrorist attack on America or American interests. We not 
only have a right but we have a responsibility to defend our Nation and 
its citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, often when we Members come to the House 
floor to make our arguments about public policy, our rhetoric differs 
significantly because we have sharply different visions. Our policies 
are aimed towards different goals and priorities, and those various 
goals dictate various approaches.
  Today, I do not believe we have different goals or hopes. I am 
convinced that every Member of Congress and, in fact, virtually every 
American citizen shares a common goal: protecting the safety and 
security of our Nation.
  Everyone I know would prefer to avoid war. Everyone I know hopes that 
diplomatic measures will cause Saddam Hussein to disarm. Everyone I 
know agrees that multi-lateral action which brings international allies 
to the side of the United States is far more desirable and effective 
than unilateral action. These goals and preferences are shared by every 
Member of Congress who speaks on the floor this week.
  I spent a great deal of time over the past few weeks listening to the 
concerns and anxieties of my constituents, the arguments of this 
administration, and the whispers of my own heart. Following that time 
of listening, these are the things I now conclude:
  First, the message of September 11, 2001, was undeniable. The United 
States has enemies who will stop at nothing to harm us in the most 
insidious and destructive ways possible. Their disregard for their own 
lives means that they can and will take the lives of thousands of 
innocent Americans on our own land.
  Secondly, despite this horrible truth, we must refuse to live in 
fear. If we allow ourselves to be intimidated, our enemies have 
conquered not only our bodies but our spirits as well.
  Thirdly, Saddam Hussein has left no room for doubt about his 
willingness to amass and use weapons of mass destruction. Knowing of 
his character and capacity, we simply give time for Hussein to become 
stronger and more dangerous if he believes there will be no 
consequences for his actions.
  Fourth, I do not believe the United Nations will take the action it 
must take to defend its own credibility and, most importantly, the 
safety of the world absent a forceful statement of conviction from the 
United States.
  This resolution which will pass the House of Representatives by a 
strong bipartisan vote tells the world of our resolve. Having reached 
those conclusions, I am now prepared to vote for the amended bipartisan 
resolution authorizing force against Iraq.
  Like every one of my colleagues who votes the same way, I reach this 
point with a great sense of somberness. The President made it clear 
that military action is not inevitable, but it is possible, and this 
means that some of our finest young men and women will once again risk 
their lives to protect our Nation. As the father of three and the 
grandfather of two, I have great empathy for every family whose young 
people will be at risk. I also have an enormous sense of gratitude for 
the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line day after 
day.
  The vote we take this week is difficult because it acknowledges the 
hard and potentially painful work we have ahead of us. This is just one 
step of a very long journey towards national security. I am convinced, 
however, that we risk only greater pain if we do not take this step. 
Ignoring the threat Saddam Hussein poses will not eliminate that 
threat. It will not remove the potential pain. We must face Hussein 
head on so that he has no more time or opportunity to become stronger 
and more dangerous. I sincerely hope and pray that freedom-loving 
nations around the world will join us in that cause.
  President Bush, his administration, this Congress and the American 
people

[[Page 19567]]

will need wisdom and strength for the days ahead. My prayer for all of 
us is that we might be granted just that as we continue down this path 
together.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we all stand in this Chamber once 
every 2 years in January and hold up our right hands and take an oath 
to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and defend 
our great Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That same 
Constitution that we swear an oath to defend gives the President of the 
United States the right to serve as Commander-in-Chief and to also 
conduct foreign policy.
  Today, our President has come before the Congress and asked us to 
support a resolution so that he can conduct foreign policy and that if 
he needs to serve as Commander-in-Chief, defend our Nation against an 
enemy who is both foreign and domestic. Because Saddam Hussein, as 
leader of Iraq, has engaged in terrorism, has sponsored terrorism, has 
said repeatedly that he wants to do the United States of America harm.
  Some would have us believe that we should not take Saddam Hussein at 
his word, that we can continue to use diplomatic means to try to get 
him to back away from developing biological weapons and chemical 
weapons and to get him to back away from calling the United States the 
Great Satan, things of this sort.

                              {time}  1845

  It has not worked in the 11 years since we were last in the Middle 
East; there is no reason to expect that it would work today. But that 
is an option.
  Others would have us believe that if we just go to the United Nations 
and get one more resolution, one more sanctions resolution, that 
somehow Saddam Hussein, although he has violated repeatedly every other 
U.N. resolution, one more U.N. resolution he might honor.
  The proof is in the pudding. If we wait for the U.N. resolution, 
there is a probability, almost a certainty, that our great Nation will 
probably be subjected to some sort of an act of terrorism that is in 
fact orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.
  So I think the President is right when he says that he wants to work 
with the U.N., he wants to get international cooperation. But the fact 
of the matter is that the Constitution that we swore an oath to defend 
says we have to protect our great Nation against all enemies, foreign 
and domestic. We cannot wait for diplomatic means; we cannot wait for 
U.N. resolutions that might or might not have an effect in the future.
  What should we do? We should vote for this resolution. What if we do 
not? Well, Iraq has used chemical weapons in the war against Iran. It 
has used biological weapons in the war against Iran. It has developed 
at least six chemical weapons and eight biological weapons. It is 
developing the means to develop a nuclear weapon. It is developing the 
means to transport these biological and chemical weapons by bomb and by 
missile.
  So I think the time is now to act. I think we vote for the 
resolution. We show the President of the United States we will support 
him as Commander in Chief, if need be. He certainly has conducted our 
foreign policy.
  We prepare for the worst; but, hopefully, by doing this, we will yet 
engender some solution that does not require the use of military force. 
But if it does, as the resolution says, we should give the President 
that right.
  So I intend to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, ``no'' on the 
Democratic substitute, and hope we can move in a unified way to support 
President Bush and defend our Nation as we said we would when we took 
the oath of office when we stood up here in January of 2 years ago.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a senior member of the Committee on 
International Relations and vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the most important choice 
that any Member is called upon to make, that of war or peace, of life 
and death, I begin with the earnest view that in the defense of our 
beloved country there are no Democrats or Republicans, only patriots. 
Together we exhibited this idea after the attack on our homeland on 
September 11. I, along with others, voted to give the President 
unprecedented powers and resources to fight the war against terrorism, 
bin Laden and al Qaeda. That is the war I want to stay focused on. I 
have voted in the past for the use of force in the national interest 
and security, and I stand ready to do so again.
  But I am not willing to invoke that power in the passion of the 
moment, or at the beat of someone's drum. So I say, Mr. President, I 
have yet to see your evidence of the clear and present danger, the 
imminent threat to the United States.
  I listened intently to your speech at the United Nations and to that 
of Secretary Powell before our committee. You cited a long litany of 
Saddam Hussein's violations of U.N. resolutions, and these violations 
are real. But, Mr. President, they were real when you took office 
nearly 2 years ago. They were violated before you took office, and they 
were real before September 11. Why the rush now?
  Mr. President, I have heard you describe Iraq's possession of weapons 
of mass destruction, chemical and biological; and, yes, Saddam Hussein 
has had those weapons since you took office and before you took office. 
Yet you did not beat the drums of war then.
  Yes, Saddam wants to acquire nuclear weapons; but that has always 
been his goal, both before and after you became President. And yet, Mr. 
President, you did not beat the drums of war then.
  Saddam does not have nuclear weapons, and the estimates are that it 
may be years before he can achieve that dark reality. Who did we attack 
after September 11's tragedy? Was it Saddam Hussein? No, it was al 
Qaeda and Public Enemy Number One, bin Laden.
  This September, Mr. President, you challenged the United Nations to 
act or be irrelevant. I agreed with you in that assessment. But you 
cannot ask the United Nations to act and be relevant while you tell 
them that we, nonetheless, intend to be a Lone Ranger, regardless of 
their actions.
  The war on terrorism is working because we are working as an 
international team. Let us not tear that apart.
  The doctrine of preemption, if carried out precipitously on Iraq, 
without the exploration of viable alternatives, without the full 
support of a coalition we have built to fight terrorism, and without a 
serious consideration of the attendant risks, may cost America in 
lives, money and international cooperation, far more than the presumed 
benefits may justify.
  Like the Statue of Liberty, America's foreign policy has been a 
symbol, a powerful beacon that guides the world towards peace and 
cooperation. This is not to say that America can never act preemptively 
in self-defense. But it most certainly is to say that we must consider 
how unilateral action might affect the international system we have 
worked so hard to build for the last half century. It most certainly is 
to say that attacking Iraq without the support of the world community 
will create more enemies and expose the United States to more dangers.
  Mr. President, the drum of war has left no room for the answer to 
these questions: If we do not have an international alliance to disarm 
Iraq, what will be the damage to our alliance on the war on terrorism?
  If we invade Iraq alone, are we ready to lose thousands of American 
lives in a ground attack in urban warfare?
  Since you have said regime change is our goal, is it not more likely 
that Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against our troops and 
our allies, which he withheld during the Gulf War?

[[Page 19568]]

  If he strikes our ally, Israel, what will be the consequences of the 
stated intention of Israel to strike back, in the rest of the Middle 
East? Will we fan the flames of a wider regional war and create a new 
crop of al Qaeda recruits? In such a regional conflict, will President 
Musharref in Pakistan hold on to power or will he lose it, and the 
nuclear weapons Pakistan has, to dangerous fundamentalists?
  What is our post-Saddam strategy? In a country that has separatist 
desires by Kurds and Shiites, how long will we stay, how many lives 
will be lost and how much will it cost? Are the estimates of $200 
billion to prosecute this war the floor, or the ceiling?
  If we seek to disarm Iraq, we need an international coalition to do 
so. Not only should the international community be enlisted in this 
cause, they must be part of shedding the blood and spending the money 
for global security. Such a coalition ensures that America is not left 
alone in our fight against global terrorism.
  You have said that Iraq is a continuing threat. America faces many 
continuing threats which we have not sought to preemptively strike. The 
standard must be higher.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair would remind Members 
that their comments should be directed to the Chair and no other 
person.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is another grave and 
gathering threat to the United States. It is the threat of economic 
insecurity at home that leaves us ill-poised to have the resources to 
prosecute the multiple wars the President has asked us to pursue.
  A war against Iraq could be a dangerous blow to our fragile economy 
at this time. It is a grave and gathering economic threat to the self-
confidence and stability of American families who have already seen 
their retirement security squandered by corporate crimes and their 
children's educational savings squandered by the blows to a market at 
4-year lows.
  But to these threats, we have heard no drumbeat, only silence.
  Mr. President, we stand with you in defense of the United States, but 
we cannot sign on to a blank check that has no clear exit strategy, 
that will leave us all but alone in the world community, and that will 
strain our ability to deal with other security challenges that we may 
simultaneously face. And that sets an unwise precedent that will be 
paid with the lives of thousands of young Americans.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, in 1941 President Roosevelt asked Winston 
Churchill what the new war should be called. Churchill replied that it 
should be called the ``Unnecessary War,'' because throughout the 1930s 
Hitler had done this: he had declared his intent; he had written a book 
about it; he had built his arsenal and military; started the Holocaust; 
invaded Poland and Denmark; and refused diplomatic settlement.
  Most of Europe, and the United States in addition, hoped that Hitler 
would be satisfied with his latest conquest. So we sat and we watched, 
and we sat and we watched.
  Churchill's point was this: Hitler could have been stopped in 1935 or 
1936 or maybe 1937 with few or no casualties at all. By 1941 he was 
poised to conquer the world; and as a result, 50 million people died.
  There are some parallels I think with our present situation, because 
Saddam Hussein has, number one, declared his intent to move against his 
neighbors. No one doubts his motives or intentions. He has killed 
thousands of his own people, which is very similar to the Holocaust. He 
has invaded Kuwait, similar to what Hitler did in Poland. He developed 
weapons of mass destruction, and he has used them. And he has defied 
all diplomatic resolution of the problem.
  One thing is different in 2002 from that which was present in 1941, 
and that is that today's weapons can kill hundreds of thousands of 
people, where in 1941 a bomb or a shell could maybe kill 100 or tens or 
whatever.
  We would be foolish not to heed the lessons of history. The President 
is correct, we cannot afford to do nothing. It will only cost more 
human lives if we wait. The best chance we have for a peaceful 
resolution with Iraq is to convince Saddam Hussein that we will not 
settle for less than complete disarmament, even if this involves 
military action. I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for his generosity in yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the intentions of this Congress and the 
people of this Nation are turned to the question of war. I would 
greatly prefer that we take the floor of this People's House tonight to 
engage the keenest minds and truest hearts of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in the difficult and persistent struggles for better 
health care and financial security for our seniors, economic and social 
justice for people of color in this Nation, and to begin again to set 
this country on a course that will revive the prospect of economic 
growth for our business community and for labor.
  In fact, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, given a 
choice, I would rather we wrestle tonight with the issue of how we 
might as a government meet our obligation to care for our aging and 
disabled armed service veterans.
  But instead, tonight we face the prospect of war. And a new 
generation of good Americans from cities and towns all throughout our 
districts, who, like their grandparents and parents before them, will 
be the ones who will answer the call to duty. From my perspective in my 
district, they will come from neighborhoods like South Boston and 
Dorchester and Hyde Park and West Roxbury and all across the city of 
Boston. They will come from the historic blue collar city of Brockton 
and from the proud communities and historic communities in Braintree 
and Milton and Norwood and Dedham and Bridgewater, whose streets and 
town commons are marked row after row with memorials of heroes past, 
from battles that begin at the birth of our country to the present, and 
whose grandsons and granddaughters will now be asked to serve in the 
defense of our freedom.
  We have been asked tonight to decide whether the President of the 
United States shall be granted the authority to use military force to 
eliminate the threat posed by the regime in Iraq led by Saddam Hussein, 
in the event that all diplomatic efforts fail.
  This is a question that weighs heavily on me, and it is the gravest 
question that will confront this Congress.
  After attending with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
numerous briefings at the White House and with defense officials, as 
well as independent briefings with foreign policy experts, including 
the former chief U.N. weapons inspector during the Clinton 
administration, I have come to the conclusion that the danger to the 
American people as a result of a failure to act against Iraq is simply 
too great.
  In reaching my decision to support this authorization resolution, I 
have focused on the undisputed facts: Saddam Hussein has developed and 
deployed chemical and biological weapons. Despite Saddam Hussein's 
denials, we know that he has actively sought to develop a nuclear 
weapon since the early 1970s, a pursuit that he accelerated during the 
Gulf War.

                              {time}  1900

  Saddam Hussein has murdered thousands of his own citizens with 
chemical weapons, and we know that Saddam Hussein has already given aid 
and support to terrorist organizations and indeed has engaged in 
terrorist actions himself as he attempted to assassinate or give 
directions for the assassination of our former President George Bush in 
1993.
  Saddam Hussein has committed environmental terrorism by setting fire 
to Kuwaiti oil fields and dumping raw crude oil into the ocean during 
the

[[Page 19569]]

Gulf War. And he most recently has authorized payments to the families 
of suicide bombers who would take the lives of innocent civilians, and 
he has given shelter to terrorists within his own country.
  As one who shares with my colleagues the responsibility to protect 
Americans at home and abroad, I cannot and will not stake tens of 
thousands of American lives or our long-term national security on a 
hope that Saddam Hussein will reverse 25 years of deceit and 
aggression.
  The consequences of a failure to act in this instance will be visited 
upon our cities and towns. That is the nature of the threat that we 
face. Unless this man is disarmed, until we know that he no longer has 
and will not ever develop these devastating weapons, we will not be 
safe; and international peace will continue to be threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, we are working with the international community through 
the United Nations to build a consensus on a course of action that will 
force Hussein to comply with U.N. mandates. This process is important; 
and I believe we must continue to try to work with the United Nations, 
as Saddam Hussein is not just a threat to America, he is a threat to 
world peace. As well, the consequences of the use of weapons of mass 
destruction are global and the effort to prevent their use should be 
global as well.
  I respect the right and the position of my colleagues, especially 
from my own delegation in Massachusetts who have come to a different 
conclusion, but I feel in my heart that in the best interests of our 
country we should support the President's resolution, and I ask the 
Members to support that resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, the first President of the 
United States addressed the Nation's first Congress with these 
prophetic words: ``The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and 
the destiny of the Republican model of government are, finally, staked 
on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.''
  Today, we find ourselves in a new century confronted by new trials. 
We have withstood attempts at invasion, survived a bloody Civil War, 
endured two world wars, and prevailed in the long twilight struggle 
President Kennedy spoke of more than 40 years ago.
  Ten years ago, confronted by the specter of Kuwait brutally overrun 
by Iraqi forces, the United Nations and the United States led a 
coalition of more than 28 nations in a war of liberation. Then 
President Bush plainly outlined our war aims. He said, ``Our objectives 
are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate 
government of Kuwait will be restored, and Kuwait will once again be 
free.'' All of this was achieved.
  He then went on to say that, once peace was restored, it was our 
Nation's hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member 
of the family of nations. This hope has been unfulfilled.
  So in Franklin Roosevelt's words, ``There has come a time in the 
midst of swift happenings to pause for a moment and take stock, to 
recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we 
are and what we may be.''
  There is no greater example of what we are than how we responded to 
the terrible events of September 11. Confronted with the massacre of 
innocent lives, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 
and the horror of the instruments of modern technology being used as a 
means of our destruction, we did not falter. In the weeks and months 
since, we have buried our dead, cared for our wounded, aided the widows 
and orphans, improved our defenses, and taken the war to our enemy. 
Now, we are asked to do more.
  Over the past few months, I have agonized, along with my neighbors 
and constituents, on the degree of threat the renegade regime in Iraq 
represents to our safety and security. It is for these and other 
reasons that I set the bar so high on what I would require before I 
would embrace any presidential action that included the use of force to 
remove Hussein and his henchmen from power.
  The most compelling reason, as I have written to my constituents, was 
the realization that any decision to finally remove Hussein and his 
regime, once begun, could not be permitted to fail. For those reasons, 
I urged the administration to work to promote a regime change short of 
the use of the military option.
  I went on to argue that, should these efforts fail, then it was 
incumbent upon the administration to make its case to the United 
Nations, to the American people, and to Congress before inaugurating 
any major military undertaking against Iraq.
  This our President has done. Now it is time for us to decide.
  I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution. While I still hold out hope 
that by its passage the United Nations will be empowered to force Iraq 
to comply with the will of the international community, that it will 
eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction, I bear too great a 
responsibility to allow my actions to be governed by that hope alone. 
As a Member of Congress, I must act upon information I possess in a way 
that most clearly protects our people and our way of life, and what I 
know is this: Should the U.N. fail in its mission, we will have very 
little choice but to act.
  I am now persuaded that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will 
not be content until he has the means to murder his own people and the 
people of many nations with the most horrible weapons of war. This we 
cannot permit.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for an affirmative vote on the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens), the voice of the boisterous and a senior member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution which seeks to stampede the Congress into granting the 
powers for unilateral declaration of war on Iraq. Aggressive action 
against terrorists is needed, but we should not damage our own 
capability to wage the broader war against terrorism by succumbing to 
an all-consuming tunnel vision action on Iraq.
  Certainly, all Members of Congress recognize that we are living in a 
time of new dangers and new kinds of unique risk. The Cold War era, 
with its possibilities of nuclear annihilation restrained only by 
threats of mutual destruction, was also a time of great danger. We did 
not succumb to panic and hysteria during the Cold War; we should not 
succumb now. Our present recognition, our new awakening to the possible 
lethal potency of terrorist tactics perpetrated by hidden worldwide 
terrorist organizations is the new national defense reality. The 
massacre at the World Trade Center on September 11 has seared the 
reality of this new danger into our minds.
  This is a debate about how our great democracy will coexist with this 
new set of challenging dangers. It is about how we will cope with a new 
set of recognized risks.
  I contend that this administration has made the wrong analysis and 
has set the wrong priorities. President Bush mistakenly proposes that 
the obliteration of the capacity of Iraq to deliver biological, 
chemical, or nuclear weapons must be at the center of our strategy for 
national security and safety. In particular, the President proposes 
that we go to war to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. The 
assumption, which is certainly correct, is that, through Iraq, 
terrorists would have access to nuclear weapons. It is absolutely 
necessary that we do all that we can to prevent nuclear weapons from 
falling into the hands of terrorists.
  In connection with this overwhelming need to keep nuclear weapons out 
of the hands of terrorists, Mr.

[[Page 19570]]

Speaker, to the President and to all advocates of the invasion of Iraq, 
I would ask one simple question: Do you all realize that the simplest 
route for terrorists to gain access to nuclear weapons is through the 
takeover of our embattled and endangered Islamic ally, the Nation of 
Pakistan, which already at this moment has nuclear weapons?
  Al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists are already on the borders 
and inside Pakistan. This Muslim Nation is our most vital ally in our 
fight against terrorism, but Pakistan is an endangered ally. Each $1 
spent to strengthen the friendly government of Pakistan, whether it is 
for economic development or education or whatever, each dollar would 
produce more safety and more security for America than $1 million spent 
invading Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, my contention is that our present all-consuming focus on 
Iraq is a major blunder. I repeat my common-sense observation: Iraq may 
acquire nuclear weapons within a year, but a successful terrorist coup 
in Pakistan would place nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists 
immediately.
  Saddam Hussein, the monster who pays bonuses to the families of 
Palestinian suicide bombers, is truly one of the most dangerous tyrants 
in the world. All that has been said and charged against Saddam Hussein 
on this floor are true charges, and he must be contained. But blind 
obsession with Iraq represents dangerous American policy and strategy 
tunnel vision.
  Wake up, FBI, CIA, colleagues here in the Congress. Wake up and 
understand that the war on terrorism must remain a comprehensive war. 
If we are sucked into the bottomless pit of a war with Iraq, we will be 
unprepared and shocked by calamities that rain down on us from other 
theaters of conflict.
  Our cocksure experts have already blundered and allowed the 
leadership of al Qaeda to escape in Afghanistan. I challenge these same 
experts in their assignment of maximum priority to an invasion of Iraq. 
Protecting nuclear capabilities of friendly Pakistan from terrorists 
should be a greater priority.
  We must not remain silent and compliant. We must understand that it 
is important that we fight terrorism, the wider war against terrorism, 
and it must be fought more effectively and not jeopardized by a focus 
on Iraq. Vote ``no'' on the resolution to declare war on Iraq.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, we would all choose 
peace, words could be trusted, and war would be unnecessary.
  But we do not live in that world. Our world has tyrannical thugs and 
fanatical terrorists who choose to make us their enemy.
  Supporting the resolution that would send Americans to war is not 
easy. We all know young people that wear our Nation's uniform and we 
know that when we send Americans to war, some do not come home.
  But we also know that 3,000 people died right here at home, the 
result of fanatical terrorists. We know that we must lead. The world 
wants America to lead. We need to keep that line in the sand, but if we 
must wage war, we must also wage peace. We must show the world that we 
are not aggressors, that we want peace and stability and that America 
will stand to improve the region and improve stability.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), my good friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Speaker, before all of America, President Bush 
declared our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end 
there. Without fully disarming Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass 
destruction, America and our allies cannot be safe; and the war on 
terror cannot be won.

                              {time}  1915

  The safety of all Americans, both here and abroad, is directly 
threatened by the weapons of terror already developed by Iraq. We must 
not allow America's cities to become the testing grounds for Saddam's 
nuclear capabilities, which is just around the corner. We must now act 
to protect our children, our neighbors, and our future generations from 
the evils that lie ahead.
  The case against Saddam Hussein and his regime is clear. He continues 
to stockpile chemical and biological weapons and actively seeks nuclear 
capability; he threatens his neighbors and has stood in defiance of 
U.N. resolutions time and time again. Saddam must be stopped before we 
find him and his evil regime dispensing terror within our borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting House Joint 
Resolution 114.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 1-year anniversary of American 
efforts to drive al Qaeda from Afghanistan and liberate the Afghan 
people from the Taliban. We have already learned important lessons from 
that conflict. First, we reaffirmed that the men and women of America's 
Armed Forces are strong and that they are courageous; second, we saw 
the benefits of acting with regional partners and other friends united 
behind us; third, we continued to see every day the long-term 
commitment required to help a society transition from a ruthless 
dictatorship to a more representative government.
  The way we fought in Afghanistan offers important lessons as we now 
confront the threat posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass 
destruction. He is a menace to his people and to the entire region; but 
his weapons of mass destruction pose the most significant risk, and it 
is because of these weapons that we must today authorize the President 
to act, including with military force.
  In saying that, I am not accepting the administration's line 
uncritically. The first resolution submitted to Congress by the 
President was patently unacceptable. It would have allowed the use of 
force not just against Iraq, but throughout the region. It did not link 
the authorization in any way to the essential negotiations now 
occurring within the United Nations Security Council.
  Critically, in my mind, the resolution also did not address the 
broader implications of action. The administration has said that the 
risk posed by Saddam is too great to do nothing, but this risk must be 
balanced against the long-term risk of reckless or ill-considered 
action.
  On September 4, Mr. Speaker, before the original resolution was 
submitted to Congress, I drafted a letter to the President asking three 
critical questions: First, how would we manage Iraq's transition to a 
stable post-Saddam regime? Second, how can we ensure that action in 
Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on 
terrorism? Third, how can we ensure that the United States military can 
still execute its other missions?
  The resolution originally sent to Congress offered no means to ensure 
that these questions were answered. Through meetings and hearings by 
the Committee on Armed Services and in private conversations, I have 
discussed these issues with the White House, the Defense Department, 
the State Department, the Central Command, and numerous retired senior 
officers and foreign policy experts. What chilled me were the 
implications of getting the long-term implications wrong.
  If we act without international support, we risk losing support for 
the broader war on terrorism, as well as our credibility as a global 
leader. If we do not immediately plan for the post-Saddam transition, 
we risk fueling resentment and creating anarchy that could destabilize 
the Middle East and create legions of new terrorists.
  In the history books, Mr. Speaker, this resolution will constitute 
only a footnote, and any conflict with Iraq will constitute but a 
paragraph; but Iraq's future beyond Saddam and the role we play in its 
transition will fill a chapter, as its implications cascade far beyond 
Iraq to the rest of the region.

[[Page 19571]]

  That is why, with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I 
drafted a resolution that would deal with all these points. Through the 
leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and others, 
the resolution before us now incorporates almost all of them.
  This resolution authorizes the use of force, but strongly supports 
the President's efforts to work through and with the United Nations to 
enforce its resolutions and to force Iraq's compliance with them. It 
expresses a strong desire to work multilaterally, but reserves the 
right to act alone if we must. It requires certification, before force 
can be used, that diplomatic efforts will not achieve the goal of Iraqi 
compliance and that actions entailing military force will be consistent 
with the global war on terrorism.
  Finally, the resolution requires the President to report to Congress 
both on the conduct of any military action and on what comes next.
  This is not a perfect resolution, but it is a resolution that 
simultaneously supports the United Nations and our men and women in 
uniform who every day risk their lives to defend our national security. 
It makes clear to Saddam Hussein that we will work with our friends and 
with our allies, but that his efforts to blackmail the world with his 
weapons of mass destruction will not succeed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy heart, great hope, and mindful of 
the responsibilities borne by Congress alone that I urge my colleagues 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a combat Vietnam veteran who 
was wounded during his service and is chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding 
time to me, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues at the end of the 
debate to vote for the resolution that is now before us for the 
following reasons:
  Blessed are the peacemakers, who freed the prisoners at Auschwitz; 
blessed are the peacemakers who freed Europe from the yoke of Nazism; 
blessed are the peacemakers who saved the people of Kuwait from Saddam 
Hussein; blessed are the firemen, the policemen, the medical personnel, 
and others who sought and brought comfort to those wounded and to the 
families of those who were killed on September 11; blessed are those 
men and women over the generations who sought peace.
  We are not in a panic tonight about Iraq; we are moving deliberately 
and methodically in a way to understand and to base our decisions on 
the following facts: Saddam Hussein has waged aggressive war, brutal 
war, against his neighbors over the last 20, 25 years; he is pursuing 
weapons of mass destruction to do it again; he is pursuing weapons of 
mass destruction against his own people on a tragically experimental 
basis; he has launched ballistic missiles against his neighbors; he is 
brutalizing and torturing his own citizens; he is harboring a network 
of terrorists. The list goes on, and it is endless.
  It is not a matter for us as peacemakers of if we go into Iraq. It is 
a matter of when we do it, how we do it, and who we do it with.
  The world has had, for thousands of years, three main enemies that 
have wrought despair and destruction. Those enemies are ignorance, 
arrogance, and dogma. When we put them together in the form of a man 
like Stalin or Pol Pot or Hitler or Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, we 
wreak despair and destruction.
  The solution to those things in a democratic process is knowledge, 
humility, and tolerance. Those are the tenets upon which a democratic 
process finds its strength. They are absolute, in an absent way, in a 
dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's. Absent democracy, we have an 
Auschwitz, we have Pearl Harbor, we have September 11.
  It is difficult for us, yes, as we debate this to understand naked 
brutality, a psychological nemesis like Saddam Hussein; it is not 
difficult to understand what must be done. What must be done now is for 
the United States, the only country in the world that can do it, to 
take a leadership role in this time now, with the international 
community, to remove Saddam Hussein from his power and restore peace, 
life, hope, and dignity.
  Blessed are the peacemakers.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we meet today to debate and cast one of the most 
important votes we are asked to make as a Member of this body. None of 
us can look lightly nor politically upon the decision to send American 
men and women to war. This is a resolution to grant one man 
unprecedented, unconstitutional, unprovoked, and unsupported power to 
start a war.
  As was the case 11 years ago, this vote has weighed heavily on my 
mind; but unlike 11 years ago, today we debate the issue within 30 days 
of political elections, versus 11 years ago, when we were in a rare 
January session after the elections and in a much calmer atmosphere.
  I supported President Herbert Walker Bush. The evidence back then was 
clear and convincing: Iraq had invaded a neighbor. The United States 
had strong international support which even helped us pay the costs of 
that war.
  Today, the situation is starkly different. Not only is the evidence 
circumstantial, at best; but we will have to pay our allies or cut them 
in on oil deals to buy either their silence or reluctant support for 
this war. These costs are on top of what President Bush's top economic 
adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimates to be a 100 to $200 billion cost 
of an invasion of Iraq, figures that are mind-boggling.
  I have had many questions about the prospect of U.S. military 
engagement with Iraq. This vote is so important to me that I did travel 
to that country to seek answers to some unanswered questions. I thought 
it was important to open a dialogue with the Iraqi people for several 
reasons. I did not get all the answers which I sought, either in Iraq 
or here in this country.
  I will not be bullied by this or any President of the United States. 
I do not work for the President of the United States. I think it is 
time to cool the war rhetoric, the cowboy rhetoric, if you will. I 
think it is important for Iraqi civilians to see that Americans, among 
them West Virginians that I represent, are not a warmongering people. I 
work for the people of West Virginia.
  The President has, and rightly so, asked Congress to debate and vote 
on this issue. We do not wage war simply for war's sake. The State of 
West Virginia proportionately sends more of our men and women to wars 
than most other States. West Virginians could die. We consider the life 
and death of people on both sides of this war, and even beyond. That is 
what we are considering today.
  As an Arab-American Member of Congress, having extensively traveled 
in the Middle East and having questioned U.S. policy in this region 
under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, I felt myself to be a 
credible messenger. I would go again, even if I remotely thought the 
door to peace would be ajar.
  I wanted to deliver a message to the Iraqi leadership that President 
George Bush is serious; that the only hope whatsoever of any possible 
peaceful resolution, and in order to prevent further devastation and 
suffering of the Iraqi people, would be to accept unconditional and 
unfettered access to U.N. weapons inspectors into the country, period. 
No gimmicks. No games. No kidding.
  My repeated message to Iraqi officials during my trip was to allow 
the unconditional and unfettered access by U.N. inspectors. I told them 
the moment was right if the fruits of peace are to be harvested.

                              {time}  1930

  But Iraq had to take a dramatic new approach. I was pleased when, 
upon my

[[Page 19572]]

return to the United States, the Iraqi government announced it would 
allow U.N. inspectors back into the country unconditionally. Was this 
all that I asked? No. No. It certainly was not, but it was a step in 
the right direction, but it should not be so out rightly rejected by 
slamming shut airtight the door to peace.
  There is no question, and I recognize as well as the next person that 
Saddam has played games in the past, there is no question that past 
weapons inspectors have also been spies, seeking pernicious 
embarrassing minutia on the Iraqi leadership.
  Today's inspectors must be objective, professional and no doubt will 
have more advanced technologies than 4 years ago. They must have the 
time to do their job, and they no doubt will have international 
support. Weapons inspectors must have access to presidential palaces, 
mosques, schools, hospitals, places where Saddam will, if he has 
anything to hide, no doubt use so as to be able to claim collateral 
damages when we hit these sites.
  So I do not trust the man. No, I do not. I recognize the deceit and 
the lies of the past and the fact that he has used chemical weapons 
against his own people, during which time the U.S. said little because 
we cared little for victims and Saddam knew that at the time. We cared 
little for those victims whom Saddam was gassing and using chemical 
weapons against.
  I want America to give peace a chance. I want Iraq to give peace a 
chance. As hard as it is for them to say anything, Iraqis may be the 
first to say that Saddam Hussein must go. But I guarantee you, 
Americans are the last from whom they want to hear the message. Iraqis 
feel that U.S. policy in the region robs us of any credibility and 
morality whatsoever.
  I ask the administration to abandon its cowboy war rhetoric. Remember 
your campaign words, Mr. President, for a more humble approach to 
international affairs. We have and will be able to continue to contain 
Saddam. He loves himself more than he hates us.
  I know we all are and will continue to seriously reflect and ask what 
is in America's best interest. I know that we will all continue to 
seriously reflect and ask what is in America's best interest here, and 
I do hope we not take as gospel what one particular country in the 
region tells us nor follow their agenda above our own. We should plan 
what is best for America in the whole region and our future, not to be 
perceived as siding and consulting and planning every detail with 
another country. Only one voice and one view is needed.
  Let us consider the feelings, whether public or private, of all of 
our allies in the region. Let us recognize the tremendous strains and 
pressures we put upon the very effective coalition that President Bush 
has put together to fight the true terrorists, al Qaeda, America's war 
on terrorism. I strongly support those efforts. That is the war that 
should be ratcheted up. That is a direct and imminent threat to the 
United States for which we have proof.
  So I say to my colleagues as I conclude, let us defeat this 
resolution. Let us recognize that we must tread carefully in a region 
that is already volatile, where U.S. military engagement could tip the 
region into further chaos and further bloodshed. I urge defeat of the 
pending resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me note that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) has been very gracious. The time for the Committee on 
International Relations was supposed to end a half hour ago. We have 
had so many speakers, some of whom have waited. In the case of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), he has been waiting for 2 hours; 
and he has been very kind. We want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney), a man who lost friends in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade 
Center.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his 
graciousness.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor understanding the great gravity with 
which we debate this resolution. In particular as one who has two out 
of my three children in their late teens, I understand fully well what 
we contemplate here. But I believe that the arguments for voting in 
support of it have never been stronger.
  With each day that passes, Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq take 
another step towards building a weapon of mass murder, reach out with 
another hand to embrace and support terrorism, and turn another back on 
the peaceful diplomacy of the international community.
  It would not only be unwise not to confront this grave danger here 
before us, but it would be irresponsible. If the United States were to 
sit on its hands and wait for the meritless theory of nonintervention 
to somehow negotiate a compromise with Saddam Hussein, then we will 
have abdicated the greatest charge the world has ever bestowed upon 
America, that of the steward of freedom and democracy around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation has proceeded forward with the utmost dignity 
and courage of the aftermath of our darkest hour, September 11, 2001. 
We have forged ahead, determined to defend our precious creed of 
freedom and democracy. We have done so by turning to international 
diplomacy as a first option and military action as our last. But Saddam 
Hussein has chosen instead to resist, deceive and defy the 
international community by continuing to flout more than a dozen U.N. 
resolutions.
  The United States through its actions will rise to the occasion and 
help channel the greatest intentions of the United Nations. By doing so 
we will, as a Nation, help the U.N. make its case for relevance in this 
world and propel it forward. It is wholly appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for 
citizens, both American and throughout the world, to insist that this 
debate transcends international borders since Saddam Hussein's 
propensity to target his weapons of mass destruction does not stop with 
the United States but extends to every nation in the world.
  It is impossible to refute the fact that Saddam Hussein is intent on 
developing a delivery system for nuclear weapons or any other weapons 
of mass destruction that will reach well beyond the Middle East. Saddam 
Hussein has one eye on the United States. He most surely has the other 
eye on our allies throughout the world.
  The depth of Saddam Hussein's dark heart and cruelty should never be 
underestimated. To underestimate Saddam Hussein would amount to 
tolerance of provocations he has already displayed towards the United 
States and the freedom-loving world.
  It is with the utmost clarity and conviction that we must anticipate 
our Nation's self-defense against a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. The 
argument that anticipatory self-defense is a preemptive strike in my 
mind has no merit. Is it preemptive since Iraq has ignored dozens of 
U.N. resolutions? Is it preemptive since Iraq has repeatedly and 
recklessly fired at U.S. aircraft patrolling a U.N. no-fly zone 
established so the U.N. community could protect his own people? Is it 
preemptive since Saddam Hussein is complicit in his role of harboring 
and supporting those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or 
those who could presumably do the same or worse?
  President John F. Kennedy faced down one of the most perilous threats 
this Nation has ever faced 40 years ago when he embraced the doctrine 
of national defense that reserved the right of this Nation to act with 
a singular, individual, national interest in protecting the lives of 
its people. In this world, Mr. Speaker, in this new world community 
which has brought nations together in the most plentiful times and most 
desperate of times, the neighborhood has gotten much smaller. But in 
facing down the most dangerous threats, the challenge of protecting it 
has become that much greater.
  We must prove to the world that we will not tolerate such a ruthless 
and

[[Page 19573]]

belligerent regime as it continues to threaten world stability. We 
cannot waiver. We cannot wait. Our Nation must persevere in the face of 
doubt. We must stay united despite regional dissent, and we must remain 
resolute when others acquiesce. This is our charge as a people. This is 
our charge as a legislative body. This is our charge as a Nation, and 
it is our duty as leaders of the free world.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), 6 minutes of the time set aside for those 
who will ultimately vote for final passage to a man who has offered 
this House a very thoughtful amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, a senior member of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that the White House has sent 
us is a decided improvement over the original draft, but it could be 
better.
  If the amendment that I am offering is adopted, I believe that this 
resolution could draw even more votes and pass this House by a huge 
bipartisan majority. And in passing a war powers resolution, surely, 
surely, that should be one of our objectives.
  Our resolution supports the President's campaign in the Security 
Council for coercive inspections backed up by force. If the Iraqis defy 
the inspectors this time and the Security Council replies with military 
action, my amendment gives President Bush the power to use our Armed 
Forces just as his father did in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 in a 
military action sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council.
  If, on the other hand, the Iraqis defy the inspectors and the 
Security Council fails to respond with force, then we will be faced 
with going it alone. In these dramatically different circumstances, my 
amendment called for a second vote by Congress to approve a military 
attack, but it ensures that the President will have a fast track for 
its consideration.
  Those of us supporting this amendment, and we have a broad cross-
section of our caucus behind it, see Saddam Hussein as a menace. We 
agree with the President in demanding that the Security Council enforce 
its resolution and allow no quarter. But for several reasons we do not 
want to see the United States act alone unless there is no other viable 
choice.
  If we act alone, instead of being the United Nations versus Iraq, a 
war legitimated by the U.N. charter, this will be the United States 
versus Iraq; and in some quarters it will be the United States versus 
the Muslim or Arab world. This is why one general officer, a former 
Commander of Central Command which has jurisdiction over the Middle 
East, told us, I fear that if we go it alone, we may pay a terrible 
price.
  If we act alone, it will be harder to build a broad-based coalition, 
particularly an alliance of contiguous countries like Saudi Arabia and 
Turkey. If we can count on these countries as allies, their airspace 
and ports and airfields will be open to us; and the fight will be far 
easier. If we act alone, we will not have allies this time to help us 
share the cost of this war, as they did in 1991 when they picked up $62 
billion out of an overall cost of $66 billion.
  Right now, the administration is seeking new and tougher resolutions 
of the Security Council to disarm Iraq through inspection, if they 
work, but through armed force if it is necessary. Our resolution fully 
supports that objective. But if these arms inspections do not work and 
the Security Council does not pass a resolution calling for Armed 
Forces against Iraq, we believe there should be a separate vote on 
military action.
  I know that some will say that a second vote is an imposition on the 
President's powers, but in truth it is the age-old system of checks and 
balances at work. It is one way Congress can emphatically say what we 
prefer, that any action against Iraq should have the sanction of the 
Security Council and the support of a broad-based coalition.
  As a practical matter, I doubt that further action of Congress will 
be needed. The British seem to be bent on securing approval of the 
Security Council before war. And if Saddam stiffs the arms inspectors, 
the French have insisted on a second vote of the Security Council 
before any military action is taken.
  One way or another, I think a Security Council resolution is likely; 
and, once it passes, our resolution authorizes the President to use our 
Armed Forces to enforce it without further action of the Congress.
  But over the last 6 weeks we have heard from a host of general 
officers, all retired, Chuck Boyd, Wes Clark, our former commanders in 
Europe; Generals Hoar and Zinni, the former commanders of Central 
Command. They virtually agreed on two things:
  First of all, in any conceivable confrontation with Iraq, with or 
without allies, the United States will prevail. But having allies, 
especially in the region, will make victory more certain and less 
costly in money and, more importantly, in human lives.
  Secondly, the outcome after the conflict will be the hardest part and 
far less certain. We do not want to win this war only to lose the peace 
and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us. A broad-based coalition 
will help enhance our chances of success in that post-war period.
  Some will say, I know, that this resolution depends too heavily on 
the Security Council. But the precedent it follows is the one that was 
set by the first President Bush in 1990-1991, an action that I have 
voted for and supported. Within days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, 
President Bush defined his goal as nothing less than a new world order. 
He turned to the United Nations first and sought a series of Security 
Council resolutions culminating in Resolution 678, which authorized the 
use of force. He obtained all of these Security Council resolutions 
with the apparent and evident support of Congress but without an actual 
and expressed war powers resolution until just days before the war.
  Rather than asserting that he could go it alone, he sought the 
Security Council's approval and allies to stand with us and bear the 
cost and the burden of war and all but a fraction of the cost. The 
result was a successful military action and I believe a model that is 
still worth emulating.
  My substitute does just that. I urge my colleagues to consider it 
carefully, and I hope that you will all support it. Mr. Speaker, I 
thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and ask unanimous 
consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Armed Services has spent a great 
deal of time working on this issue.

                              {time}  1945

  We have had 5 major open hearings. We have had three classified 
briefings in which we invited every Member of the House to come in and 
listen to our intelligence agencies with respect to Iraq's capability 
and weapons of mass destruction. Most Members came. We did have over 
almost 200 Members appear at those particular briefings, and our 
Members put in a great deal of time on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of America's 
freedom, our Nation's security, and the resolution before us.
  We have the responsibility to deal with Saddam Hussein, not only 
because we have the most to lose, but because it is American leadership 
that the world looks to in times of crisis. While it is always 
preferable to lead a large coalition, America must be willing to go 
with a few like-minded friends or even alone if the situation demands 
it.
  Indeed, the United Nations is at a crossroads. Either it proves 
itself to be

[[Page 19574]]

relevant to the 21st century or, in the words of Winston Churchill, it 
will be known that ``they decided only to be undecided, resolved to be 
irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for 
impotence.''
  Our actions here in Congress speak to the world, and our resolve can 
only strengthen our case. For its own sake, the U.N. must act, not just 
engage in endless chatter.
  That our Nation is willing to stand up to the most despotic and 
corrupt regime speaks not only to American leadership but to our vision 
for humanity. We desire only to see the peaceful development of Iraqi 
society and to witness Saddam Hussein's veil of insanity lifted from 
the minds of the Iraqi people.
  We cannot sit idly by while Saddam Hussein stockpiles weapons of mass 
destruction to use against our allies and for distribution to those 
terrorists that would use them to attack America.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq poses a clear and present danger to the United 
States security and to the stability of a peaceful world; and, Mr. 
Speaker, in the words of Edmund Burke, ``The only thing necessary for 
the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a leader of that delegation, a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Saddam Hussein has been a 
menace to the international community. He has used chemical and 
biological weapons on his own people and in the war he started with 
Iran. Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations by failing to 
dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and by repeatedly obstructing 
monitoring and verification by U.N. weapons inspectors.
  Nobody in this House doubts that Saddam Hussein is a treacherous 
dictator, but Congress has not been presented a compelling case that 
Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to the peace and security of 
the United States that must be dealt with immediately.
  The President's resolution coincides with his introduction of 
unilateral preemptive military action as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign 
policy; and in fact, this resolution gives the President the authority 
to conduct a unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. That is a major 
shift in U.S. foreign policy. Such a strategy invites other nations to 
assert their right to use unilateral preemptive action outside the U.N. 
charter. In my view, a world where nations rely on unilateral 
preemptive force as a tool of foreign policy would be an exceedingly 
more dangerous world than we live in today.
  In asserting the right to use unilateral preemptive force in Iraq, 
the administration appears unconcerned about the consequences of an 
attack on Iraq, but unilateral preemptive force is virtually certain to 
further destabilize the region. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and Saudi 
Arabia, probably the most despotic Islamic regime after Iraq and the 
country of origin for 17 of the 19 suicide terrorists responsible for 
the heinous attacks of September 11, are the most likely to be 
destabilized.
  Such an attack by the United States against Iraq is a made-to-order 
event that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will use to recruit 
poverty stricken, disaffected young men and women in these countries 
and throughout the Islamic world to their cause. Thus our unilateral 
preemptive action could threaten the peace and security of Americans 
and American interests around the globe.
  War with Iraq will clearly divert attention from the war against al 
Qaeda, which is not yet won, and from Afghanistan, which we and our 
coalition allies are committed to rebuilding. Furthermore, unilateral 
preemptive action would make the quest for peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians more difficult. Were Saddam Hussein to launch weapons of 
mass destruction at Israel, Israel would likely respond with 
overwhelming force.
  Like many of my colleagues, I favor working through the U.N. to 
disarm Iraq by the strongest possible resolution, for unconditional 
inspection of any and all sites in Iraq and the destruction of 
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If Iraq refuses to allow full 
and unfettered inspections and refuses to fully disarm its weapons of 
mass destruction, military force may become necessary; but that action 
would best be sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council and be a 
deliberate, multilateral response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm 
rather than the unilateral preemptive action we are asked to authorize 
today.
  As all of us are aware, the decision to authorize the President of 
the United States to commit troops to battle is the gravest decision 
that we can be called upon to make. War with Iraq will bring untold 
American and Iraqi casualties. War should be considered only as a last 
resort after all possible alternatives have been exhausted by the 
international community.
  For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience vote for the 
resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a gentleman with a long and 
distinguished military background.
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to support the resolution before us 
today. Yet in my heart of hearts I hope it will never be needed.
  As a representative of more military personnel than any other Member 
of this body, I do not take our discussion on the use of military force 
or vote on this resolution to authorize the use of force lightly.
  The families of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District know firsthand 
the effects of the war on terrorism. To date, two Navy Seals from the 
district I represent have been killed while fighting to eliminate al 
Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Others lost their lives in training 
accidents while en route to the Persian Gulf.
  These families and many others throughout southeastern Virginia 
understand why this war resolution is necessary, particularly at this 
time in our Nation's history. On Saturday, we will commemorate the 
second anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole where 17 Norfolk-based 
sailors lost their lives during a terrorist attack in Yemen. We will 
never forget the aggression that was waged against our military and 
Nation by these terrorists.
  Today, we debate a resolution authorizing the President of the United 
States to use force against an enemy who constantly strengthens his 
grip on a terror-stricken people, has defied a peace-loving world, and 
aids terrorists who sow seeds of fear around the globe.
  There is much we know about Saddam Hussein's regime of terror. He has 
ignored 16 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council 
calling on him to dismantle and to destroy all weapons of mass 
destruction within his arsenals.
  He has defied the cease-fire agreement from the Persian Gulf War that 
ordered him to eliminate all missiles with a range greater than 90 
miles. Yet he continues to build weapons of mass destruction, and he 
possesses SCUD missiles that can reach distances of 400 miles. These 
weapons give Saddam Hussein the ability to attack American bases and 
allies such as Turkey, Israel, and other neighboring nations with 
chemical, biological and, in time, nuclear warheads.
  We know from experience that Saddam Hussein is not afraid to use his 
weapons. Saddam Hussein does not respect human rights or human life. 
Iraqi citizens speaking words of dissent often find themselves or a 
member of their family, including their children, being tortured to 
death.
  Saddam Hussein is an aggressor who threatens every nation and every 
person on Earth. No one knows when, where, or how he may use his 
weapons of terror. What we do know is his bad history shows that he 
will use these weapons against his enemies, including the United 
States.
  Waiting for a smoking gun is a risk that America cannot afford to 
take. If

[[Page 19575]]

unfettered weapons inspections are not allowed in Iraq, a preemptive 
strike against Iraq is the only way to build a lasting peace in the 
Middle East and around the world. The brave men and women of the Armed 
Forces they represent are prepared to protect America against this 
threat.
  I hope military action will not be necessary in Iraq, but I do not 
foresee Saddam Hussein conceding to unfettered weapons inspections 
throughout Iraq. If military action is necessary, the President and our 
troops should have the support of this Congress.
  Let us send a message to the United Nations and indeed the world that 
the United States is united behind our President in his efforts to 
remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
resolution, and I urge continued support for our President and our 
troops.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, today we have a grave decision to make on the 
resolution before us to authorize our Commander in Chief to use force 
supporting the United Nations resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to 
rid its nation of weapons of mass destruction.
  My constituents and I share the same concerns about this resolution. 
As in any war, we face battlefield casualties in Iraq if we go to war 
with them. We must be prepared for a vicious war. Will our build-up be 
sufficient for the force we need to strike and overwhelm? Will our 
forces be properly prepared for the special battlefield needs of Iraq 
with chemical and biological gear?
  The consequences of this action will be large, at home and abroad. I 
do commend the President for seeing the wisdom of coalition building, 
and we strongly and very strongly recommend the United States proceed 
with a united coalition.
  This debate in Congress must be a message to Saddam Hussein and his 
army that we are not playing games. There is a narrow opportunity for 
Saddam Hussein to prevent a military attack on his hiding places and on 
the protectors around him.
  Saddam Hussein has ignored 15 United Nations Security Council 
resolutions. The United Nations was created to provide a forum in which 
nations can confront offensive nations for their behavior, and the 
entire world can stand together to oppose offending Nations. This is 
why we must proceed. We must not go to war alone. We must have a 
coalition.
  Many things are pointing to the fact that time is our enemy in this 
moment. Whether or not Saddam now has usable nuclear weapons, he is 
fast approaching the moment he will possess them. While this is a 
tortured decision for all of us to make, it is time.
  Saddam can offer unlimited inspections under the resolution being 
debated at the United Nations, and the United Nations can remove the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Failing that, the 
military force of the United States and our allies would remove the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction.
  This is a hard decision, and I was in Saudi Arabia 11 years ago when 
I met this young Marine, 22 years of age, and he says, ``Congressman, 
we need to go in there and do our job against Saddam Hussein, and let 
me tell you why.'' He said, ``My wife gave birth to a little boy. He is 
2 months old now, and I do not want him to come and do the job that we 
did not do here.''
  We are facing that threat again. I do not want to second-guess our 
Commander in Chief or those who advise him on a daily basis. Therefore, 
I reluctantly support the resolution and ask for the prayers of the 
American patriots for the soldiers we would likely send to Iraq.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), one of the most senior, one of 
the most distinguished members of the Committee on Armed Services, as 
well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult decision. I do not think 
anyone here takes this decision lightly. And so I ask myself some 
questions as I approach this. The first one is, Can we do what needs to 
be done without going to war? And the answer I come to is, maybe. I 
hope so. But not if we show lack of resolve. That is why I am 
supporting this resolution. That is why I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  Saddam Hussein has said he will give inspectors unfettered access; 
however, his regime has in place an elaborate organized system of 
denial and deception to frustrate both inspectors and outside 
intelligence efforts. Unfettered access to him does not include the 
presidential palaces. And when I say palaces, my colleagues may think 
of some nice building with some scenic grounds and gardens around it. 
That is not what a presidential palace is in Iraq. Many of these 
palaces are many acres. One of these palaces is about the size of 
Washington, D.C., 40,000 acres, with thousands of buildings, including 
warehouses. That is what he calls presidential palaces.
  Some ask, now that Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections, why 
does Congress need to act? Well, my colleagues, the issue is not 
inspections; the issue is disarmament. The issue is compliance. Four 
years of satellite surveillance has shown these complexes he calls 
palaces are expanding. What is inside or underneath them we do not 
know, and we must know.
  The next question is, Does he have the means to be a threat? And the 
answer is, and we have heard it over and over today, of course he does. 
Iraq has a 30-year history of weapons of mass destruction programs. His 
regime is actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. His regime has 
amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including 
anthrax, botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox. His regime has an 
active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons. The answer to 
that question is, yes, indeed, he does have the means.
  The next question I ask myself is: Does he have the intent? Saddam 
Hussein's history of using weapons of mass destruction demonstrates the 
likelihood that he will use them in the future. In 1982, Iraq used 
riot-control agents against Iranian attacks. Iraq has used more deadly 
agents, including mustard gas in 1983, and tabun in 1984, becoming a 
nation in the world today who has used nerve agents in a time of war.
  The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks 
between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against the 
Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the 
tens of thousands. Saddam Hussein has ordered the use of chemical 
weapons, sarin, tabun, VX, and mustard agents against his own people, 
in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in one day.
  Well, then, what kind of a history does he have with these kinds of 
things? Saddam Hussein's regime has invaded two of its neighbors and 
threatened others. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons 
against Iranian forces. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and was 
responsible for thousands of documented cases of torture, rape, murder, 
and on and on the story goes. The answer is, yes, he has the will, the 
intent, the history to use these things and to thumb his nose at the 
world's society by violating United Nations' resolutions.
  A decision to use military force is never an easy decision, and no 
one with any sense considers war a first choice. It is the last thing 
that any rational person wants to do. We do not want to go to war. But 
there are times when we have to be prepared to go to war to stand up to 
such despotic psychopathic killers as Saddam Hussein. I encourage the 
support of this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and a long-time voice for justice.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me

[[Page 19576]]

this time and for his great leadership on matters of international 
affairs.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the majority 
resolution. I still get dizzy trying to figure out which of President 
Bush's multiple and often contradictory rationales for preemptive war 
to credit. First, he belittles Members of Congress who wanted him to go 
to the U.N. to assure an international coalition; then he goes there, 
but only after American and world opinion compelled him to go there, 
and even to come here.
  We must go further. We must repudiate the improvident and dangerous 
doctrine of preemption. Others will speak on the floor of Iraq. Iraq is 
the least of it. It is no accident that the President chose this same 
period to announce a brand-new American doctrine of preemption. Iraq is 
only the first case in point. Bush has already announced Iraq will not 
be the last.
  It is bad enough that if we vote for the majority resolution we are 
for the first time in 226 years of American history voting to allow an 
American President to go to war, and I am quoting, ``as he determines 
to be necessary and appropriate,'' not as Congress determines to be 
necessary and appropriate. As clear as it gets, this vote would be an 
unconstitutional delegation of the exclusive power of Congress to 
declare war. It is simply shocking to give away the unique life and 
death power to declare war bestowed on the Congress by the framers.
  The majority resolution is an equally perilous violation of the rule 
of law itself and of the law of nations. There is no rule of law unless 
it applies equally to all. And there is no law at all if not determined 
by precedent. Thus, a vote for the majority resolution is a vote not 
only for a preemptive war on Iraq, but for the new Bush doctrine of 
preemption that would then be available to all nations. There is no way 
to get away from what precedent means in our law and in the law of 
nations. Because preemption is unlawful under international law, 
passage of this resolution would make our country an instant 
international outlaw. Worse, the Iraq precedent means that all bets are 
off for all nations to do the same.
  This resolution gives over the power the people have given to us to 
the sole discretion of one man, the President of the United States. And 
who will fight Mr. Bush's preemptive wars? Today, we have a volunteer 
army whose race and class composition speaks to the absence of equal 
opportunity in civilian society. The middle- and upper-middle classes, 
for the most part, no longer serve and will not be on the front lines. 
African Americans are 25 percent of the U.S. Army today, Hispanics are 
9 percent, an Army more than one-third made of people of color. Already 
the American people have pulled Bush back. They would surely pull 
harder if the average son or the average daughter were subject to 
service today.
  Preemptive war is a doctrine that could only survive, if it does, 
when those who would be the ground troops have had other opportunities 
preempted. Let the Congress do its own preemption. Let us preempt this 
President by reclaiming our constitutional right to declare war and 
reclaiming two centuries of American principles. Let Congress speak up 
so that none may be sent to war without Congress sending them there, 
whether those who fight look like you or look like me.
  Let Congress take hold of this man-made crisis that has already 
introduced instability into a world that can least afford it now. Let 
Congress guide our Nation back to its own most precious principles.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who chairs our Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and has spent many hours on this issue as the chairman of 
the Panel on Terrorism on the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of the resolution, while I certainly 
hope that it will never be used.
  Madam Speaker, in 1991, when the coalition broke off the fight with 
Saddam's army northeast of Kuwait City, I was curious as to why that 
happened. And in garnering an understanding later, I understood it was 
because the United States and the coalition partners played by the 
rules. The United Nations had authorized certain activities, we carried 
out those activities, and we understood that the U.N. set the rules for 
that conflict and we abided by them.
  But I also had the opportunity a week or so later to be a part of the 
first civilian delegation to go to Kuwait City after the war, and I saw 
something different. I saw how Saddam Hussein ignored the rules, 
ignored the rules of warfare, ignored the rules of humanity, ignored 
the rules of being a human being. I saw how he burned the city, how he 
destroyed the homes, how he executed innocents.
  As a matter of fact, let me just share this one few-minute story with 
my colleagues. We were hosted during that trip to Kuwait City by a 
citizens group who showed us a videotape that had been taken a week or 
so earlier, while the Kuwaitis still occupied the city. And it was a 
videotape of the Iraqi military marching a young man out, tying his 
hands behind him on a post, and without a blindfold shooting him, 
firing-squad style. And has he lay there drooped on the pole, the 
leader of the firing squad walked over to him with a handgun and shot 
him one more time in the head. It was enough to make our group cry and 
to realize what a success it had been expelling such a despot from 
Kuwait.
  And of course during the war with Kuwait, the war with Iraq at that 
time, Saddam decided to attack two other countries. He attacked the 
Saudis with SCUDs and he attacked the Israelis with SCUDs, both Tel 
Aviv and Haifa. Innocent people were subject to SCUD attacks. And, of 
course, in 1980 through 1998, during the war with Iran, he used weapons 
of mass destruction. He killed people with gas by the thousands.
  And so this is the kind of a guy that we dealt with, where we 
realized we had to have a northern no-fly zone to protect his own 
people, the Kurds, and a southern no-fly zone to protect his own 
people, the Shiites.
  So I guess I would make two points in kind of finishing up here. We 
know from history the nature of tyrants, and Saddam has demonstrated 
time after time that he is a typical tyrant of our time and one who has 
to be dealt with, apparently, as a tyrant. We know that he rules by 
fear. In fact, the Ba'thist regime is held together only by fear. They 
gassed the Kurds, as we all know, their own people. They execute anyone 
who poses an opposition to the Ba'thist party, even Saddam's own 
family. So I say to my colleagues, we know what Saddam is like.
  The second point I would make is that while Saddam has not changed, 
something else has. Something else has changed a great deal, despots of 
the past. The Hitlers, for example, by and large, killed people one at 
a time. If an individual did something they did not like, or in 
Hitler's time if someone was a Jew, or they said something that was 
against him, he would simply shoot them and think nothing of it.

                              {time}  2015

  But that has changed because Saddam has the potential to kill people 
by the thousands. So we tried to deal with him as a possessor of 
weapons of mass destruction in the conventional way through the U.N. 16 
resolutions, and here is the list:
  In 1991 we started by saying in a resolution through the U.N., Iraq 
must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. He did not do 
it.
  In 1991, a second resolution, Iraq must unconditionally accept the 
destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international 
supervision of all chemical or biological weapons. He did not do it.
  In April 1991, a resolution, Iraq must immediately end repression of 
its own civilization. He did not do it.
  On August 15, 1991, Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds 
until the Security Council deems Iraq to be in full compliance. He did 
not do it.
  On October 11, 1991, Iraq must cooperate fully with the U.N. and IAEA 
inspectors. He did not do it.
  In 1994, Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. He 
did not do it.

[[Page 19577]]

  On March 27, 1996, Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items 
related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA. He did not 
do it.
  Beginning in 1996, we passed resolutions in the U.N. that said Iraq 
must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. Did he not do it.
  In June 1997, Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted 
access to U.N. officials. He did not do it.
  A similar resolution on March 2, 1998. He did not do. September 9, 
1998, Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors. 
Again, he did not do it.
  On two more occasions, once in 1999 and once later that year in 1999, 
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to run Gulf War prisoners and 
cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and he did not do it.
  So for those who say give Saddam Hussein one more chance, I have to 
disagree. I think he has had plenty of chances. I hope that a big vote 
will occur on Thursday and show Saddam Hussein that this body stands 
together against tyranny.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  After much thought and with deep conviction, I rise in strong support 
of this resolution. There is no task more grave or serious than the 
task of putting at risk the lives of people. The decision we are about 
to make will in fact put at risk the lives of the young patriots who 
wear the uniform of this country so well and so proudly. And it will 
put at risk innocent lives of people in Iraq who deserve better.
  I support this resolution because it will save lives. It will 
manifest the principled purpose of this country to use our great might 
and power as a force for saving life. Tonight Saddam Hussein and the 
Iraqi Government maintain an arsenal of weapons of mass death. Iraq 
tonight possesses biological weapons. It possesses chemical weapons. 
The best estimate of the most optimistic observers, in 5 to 7 years 
Iraq will possess nuclear weapons. Others are more pessimistic. They 
believe it will be a matter of months.
  I believe that failure to act is the greatest risk to innocent life 
in this country, in Iraq, and around the world. There are principled 
and patriotic people in this debate, many of my friends who take a 
different position than I do. I respect their patriotism. I listen 
carefully to their views, but I must say I disagree with what they have 
to say. Some say Iraq will not use these weapons of mass death because 
the leader of Iraq, although evil, is not suicidal.
  I share with the President the conviction that I am not willing to 
risk the lives of any Americans or any people anywhere on a prediction 
on the behavior of Saddam Hussein. There are others who argue that 
although Saddam Hussein possesses these weapons of mass death, he 
cannot use them against us because he cannot deliver them against us. 
This is not the case.
  Tonight American troops are within the range of his missiles, and 
perhaps even more importantly, we are all within reach of the use of 
these weapons through unconventional means: anthrax sprayed by crop 
dusters, sarin gas pumped through our subway system, smallpox virus 
dumped into the heating or air conditioning system of a shopping mall 
or an office building.
  Anyone who believes that we are beyond the reach of terrorist weapons 
has missed the lessons in the last 13 months in America. There are 
those that argue that we should wait for the United Nations Security 
Council to agree with our assessment of the compelling need to remove 
this risk. I support and encourage the President and his administration 
to seek that support from the United Nations.
  But Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, these weapons of mass 
death are not pointed at the Germans who doubt the scope of this risk. 
They are not pointed at Saddam's Arab neighbors who scoff at the 
necessity of this mission. These weapons of mass death are meant to 
kill Americans, and we will not and should not ask anyone's permission 
to defend the people of this country.
  There are those who say that we should give weapons inspections 
another chance. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) laid out 
chapter and verse just how many chances we have already given. On 13 
occasions since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has 
violated the weapons inspection agreements. After each such occasion, 
they promised the next time to comply. The next time never comes.
  We should heed the advice of four dozen U.N. weapons inspectors who 
told this Congress and this country on the record that there will never 
be effective disarmament of the Iraqi arsenal of mass death until there 
is a government in Baghdad that fully cooperates with that effort.
  We hear others say that we should not proceed because what follows 
Saddam Hussein in Iraq might be worse, that it will cause disruption 
around that area of the world. This is not a matter that we should take 
lightly. However, there is nothing worse than a despot with weapons of 
mass death that can be used against the people of this country.
  Madam Speaker, throughout history Members of this body have faced 
moments when they have to change history. Our predecessors during the 
American Revolution had their moment, and they chose to rebel and 
create independence for this country.
  Our predecessors at the time of the Civil War had the painful choice 
of waging war to keep the Union whole. They had their moment, and they 
rose to the occasion. Our predecessors in the 1940s had their moment 
when they had to die to frontally take on the evil of Nazi Germany and 
its allies around the world, and they rose to the occasion.
  Madam Speaker, this is our moment. This is the moment when we will 
begin to change history toward a path where there is liberation, 
liberation of the people of Iraq from tyranny and liberation of the 
people of America and the rest of the world from the fear of terror. 
Let us seize our moment, Republicans and Democrats together, and vote 
for this resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen), who has been a 22-year member on the Committee on 
Armed Services and is leaving this year. The gentleman has been a very 
wise contributor to this debate in the committee.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, there have been very few times in history 
when there has been a nation that has had the will and the military 
might to stop a murderer, a despot, a dictator. I have often wondered 
about the time in the thirties, as I read history, when Chamberlain, 
the Prime Minister of England, talked to Hitler about the idea of him 
not going into Czechoslovakia. He returned to Parliament, and he 
explained to Parliament that Hitler was not going to do it. There was 
another man in Parliament who stood up and said, No, we cannot trust 
Hitler. That will not happen. His name was Churchill, and he was booed 
off the floor for doing that, but Churchill had the courage and the 
vision to see what Hitler was actually going to do.
  Madam Speaker, what if there had been a nation with the 
determination, the understanding, and the military might to stop Hitler 
at that time, a nation which said we better stop him before he gets 
stronger than he is? What would have happened at that time? Literally 
millions of people would have been saved. But no, no one seemed to have 
it.
  In the early 1980s, many Members who were here remember our Israeli 
friends when they saw the build up of Iraq on heavy water. What did 
they do? The Israelis did not wait very long. They sent in F-16s with 
500-pound bombs on their wings, and they bombed it to smithereens to 
stop it from being built.
  I think we have some short memories around here. I have been 
listening to this debate today. Some Members say we cannot do a 
preemptive strike or go ahead with this on our own. How about Grenada? 
We walked in there because we could see a big problem starting out at 
that time. What about Panama? What about Muammar Qadhafi when he stood 
up and he talked about the line

[[Page 19578]]

of death, and Ronald Reagan sent three F-111s, and that kind of calmed 
him down at that time. But he was getting pretty big for his britches 
at that point.
  I have heard Members talk about inspections. I am given to understand 
Iraq is about the same size as Big Sky Country that the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg) represents. How many Members have been to 
Montana? It is pretty good-sized. I think we could put 10,000 
inspectors over there, and if Saddam Hussein did not want us to find 
anything, we would not have a prayer of finding it. It is a big 
country. Keep in mind, he is much better at hiding than we are at 
finding, and that seems to be the question that we have with him at 
this time.
  I do not think that Americans want inspection; we want disarmament. 
We want him to give up the weapons of war that he has.
  It reminds me of the old saw that Al Capone said to Elliot Ness, Sure 
you can come in and inspect the place, but you cannot look in the back 
room where the girls and the booze and the drugs are. I think basically 
that is what we have had during this time that we have had our 
inspectors over there.
  Madam Speaker, let me point out that our first President made a very 
wise statement and one we have to live by. He said, ``The best way to 
keep the peace is to be prepared for war.'' It always bothers me when I 
have heard our past Secretary of Defense, and now Vice President, when 
he gives that great talk about the yo-yos of war. We are prepared, we 
get ready, and then we disarm; and we do it time and time again.
  Madam Speaker, this time if we want to save ourselves some great 
problems, we should support this resolution and support the President 
of the United States.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COYNE. Madam Speaker, I believe that the United States has 
legitimate concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam 
Hussein's hands and that our government should be working to eliminate 
the threat presented by those weapons.
  Consequently, I believe that Saddam Hussein must comply with the U.N. 
mandate and guarantee U.N. inspectors unfettered access to any sites in 
Iraq that might be harboring weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  2030

  I object, however, to the approach that the Bush Administration is 
taking to deal with this particular problem. The administration has 
pursued a head-long, almost unilateral rush to war with the implicit 
goal of regime change in Iraq. The administration has yet to make a 
convincing case to Congress that military action against Iraq at this 
time is necessary or even desirable. I am gravely concerned that the 
policy of preemptive attack and U.S.-imposed regime change may produce 
a situation in the Middle East that is even more dangerous for the 
United States than it is today.
  Military action might eventually be necessary but only with clearer 
proof of that necessity and only after all other options have been 
exhausted with regard to Iraq. I oppose this resolution because it 
permits the administration to invade Iraq without first exhausting its 
diplomatic options. The administration should first pursue action 
through the United Nations to deal with the potential threat posed by 
the Iraqi government and then and only then should we consider 
unilateral action against Iraq.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, truly one of the most profound powers bestowed upon 
this or any other Congress is the authority to send our American men 
and women into armed conflict. The loss of human life that invariably 
attends every war, no matter how swift or certain its course, demands 
that such action be executed carefully, with a full understanding of 
the consequences likely to arise both from the conflict itself as well 
as from its aftermath.
  This debate will, as it should, reveal many such questions, many 
doubts that we have heard here already this evening, many pleas to 
adopt a different course.
  I want to say to those who raise those concerns I extend my 
gratitude. In my mind, their pleas are not a product of weakness, as 
some have suggested but, rather, to the contrary, a necessary challenge 
for all of us to carefully weigh every possibility, every path.
  The question, Madam Speaker, now for those of us entrusted with this 
awesome authority is to ensure that we have met those challenges, to 
ensure that the use of force that we contemplate on this floor for the 
next 20 hours is our one true choice, the one necessary step to protect 
the lives and the well-being of more than 280 million Americans who 
have bestowed upon us this trust in making such weighty decisions.
  For me, Madam Speaker, the answer is sadly a resounding yes.
  The most vital question before us at this moment is, should we fail 
to act, what does tomorrow bring? The answer is clear. More debate, 
more doubts. As President Bush said so clearly in his address to the 
American people last night, a future of fear.
  For the past 11 years we have placed our hopes as a good and decent 
people against the reality of the unabashed deceptions, deceits, and 
deeds of one of the most despicable tyrants the civilized world has 
ever known, Saddam Hussein. For 11 years, Madam Speaker, we have hoped 
Saddam would abandon his murderous ways and at long last obey the 
dictates of the world community and the rule of international law. We 
have hoped, hoped he would dismantle and destroy his stockpile of 
biological and chemical weapons of massive death and forego his 
feverish pursuit of nuclear weapons. We have hoped Saddam would respect 
the clear resolutions, 16 in number, of the United Nations and follow 
the terms that he himself committed to at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
  While we have hoped, Saddam Hussein has plotted and marched forward.
  How can we in the aftermath of September 11 tell the American people 
through this vote that all we can now offer is hope? How can we merely 
hope the next cloud we see rising from an attack on our shores will not 
be from the stockpiles of Saddam's terrible weapons? How will hope dull 
his affection for, and known support of, numerous terror organizations? 
And how can hope alone prevent the transfer of his horrible agents of 
death into the hands of those who have already declared war on our 
country?
  I ask my colleagues, can our message to the American people possibly 
be at this critical hour we hope the judgment, common sense, and 
humanity of Saddam Hussein will spare us one more day, just one more 
day so we can what? Begin to hope again.
  Madam Speaker, I will continue to hope. I urge our leaders to further 
pursue their ongoing efforts with the United Nations Security Council 
to produce a workable and just resolution of a dangerous situation too 
long ignored. I yearn for a way that a timely, unfettered, 
unconditional, and effective weapons inspection system can be put into 
place that Iraq will accept and cooperate with to the benefit of not 
just America but peace-loving nations throughout the world. And, most 
of all, I pray we may yet avoid the conflict that this resolution 
considers, avoiding the need to yet again call our servicemen and women 
into harm's way.
  But in the end, Madam Speaker, should all else fail, we cannot 
entrust the future of the world's greatest democracy and the very lives 
of its people to a man who trades not in hope but in destruction, to a 
man who rules not by favor but through fear.
  This country has seen many great yesterdays. It is our solemn duty 
this day, Madam Speaker, to ensure that we realize many equally bright 
tomorrows. It is at long last time for Saddam

[[Page 19579]]

Hussein to hope and for this Congress to act.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution but in even stronger support of our brave men and women who 
have dedicated their lives to the common defense of the United States 
and who stand firm with America, as we well should, in this critical 
hour of our history.
  If Saddam Hussein continues to threaten the security of our Nation by 
harboring terrorists, producing chemical and biological weapons, and 
developing nuclear weapons, then the use of military force becomes not 
a question of if but when.
  In adopting this resolution, we must do everything in our power to 
ensure that our forces have the means, the necessary tools, and the 
unequivocal support of every American to accomplish the daunting task 
before us. With U.S. forces stationed both here at home and abroad, 
from America to Afghanistan, from Kosovo to Korea and regions between 
and beyond, our military must be provided with the necessary support to 
achieve its objective. This means financial support, the best equipment 
possible, a clear objective, and continued diplomatic efforts, always 
hoping and praying that peace can be achieved.
  We must put American troops in the best possible position to do the 
job they are called to do. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that 
the United States will continue to remain the backbone of freedom and 
the beacon of democracy throughout the world.
  Putting our brave men and women in harm's way is a difficult decision 
but one for which they are prepared and we should be prepared. We owe 
them our unwavering commitment to provide all the means necessary to 
carry out the mission before them.
  Madam Speaker, I support this resolution before us because it 
contains three important components:
  First, it ensures that we have first exhausted all diplomatic 
efforts.
  Second, it authorizes the use of force once those efforts have been 
exhausted.
  And, third, it requires the administration to work with the Congress 
so that we can make sure that our troops are in the best position 
possible to do the job they are called to do.
  Our military is the most highly trained and well-equipped fighting 
force in world, and we owe each and every American serviceman and woman 
the thanks and prayers of a grateful Nation. May God bless our Armed 
Forces and all those who seek to protect the precious freedoms that so 
many have fought for throughout the history of this Nation, and may God 
grant us the wisdom and the will to stand firm for the blessings of 
freedom wherever duty may call.
  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on 
International Relations, I yield 60 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, very active.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind 
comments.
  Madam Speaker, a vote to place the men and women of our Armed Forces 
in the harm's way is one of the most crucial decisive votes I will ever 
have to make. Having fully considered the matter, I am convinced that 
Saddam's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction poses a 
significant threat to the United States. If he continues to refuse to 
comply with the demands to disarm, the use of force will be justified.
  Information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and the 
Defense Intelligence Agency and testimony received by the House 
Committee on Armed Services clearly establishes that Saddam Hussein 
currently possesses chemical and biological weapons and is actively 
pursuing nuclear weapons. Saddam has already demonstrated his belief 
that the use of weapons of mass destruction against both his own 
citizens and his enemies is a legitimate means to preserve his power 
and achieve his goals. Saddam's capabilities and willingness to use 
weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the security of the United 
States.
  This threat to our national security is imminent. The attacks of 
September 11, 2001, demonstrate that our enemies have embraced 
nontraditional warfare. They will not operate under traditional notions 
of warfare and will not confine their methods to conventional combat. 
Saddam's options for employing chemical, biological, and radiological 
weapons against the United States and our Armed Forces are not limited 
to bombers and missiles and artillery shells. In fact, Saddam's most 
effective uses of weapons of mass destruction could come through 
surrogates that obtain these weapons by Iraq.
  I know some urge reliance on additional inspections and sanctions. 
While I applaud the President's proposal for a new U.N. Security 
Council resolution and hope that U.N. member nations will follow the 
United States' lead in confronting this threat, we must remember that, 
after more than a decade, U.N. actions to this date have simply not 
worked. I am convinced that an inspection regime dependent upon 
Saddam's compliance will not result in disarmament.
  Since 1991, Saddam has flagrantly violated the conditions of cease-
fire that ended the Gulf War. As a part of the cease-fire, Saddam 
agreed unconditionally to give up his weapons of mass destruction. 
However, Saddam has retained possession of chemical and biological 
weapons produced before the Gulf War and has restored his ability to 
produce these weapons.
  Additionally, Saddam is vigorously pursuing a nuclear weapons 
program. It appears that if Saddam were able to acquire fissile 
material, he would be able to as quickly assemble nuclear weapons in a 
manner of months, not years.
  On September 16, 2002, Saddam promised the United Nations 
unrestricted access for weapons inspection in Iraq, but the U.N. 
agreement announced on October 1 does not provide such access. Saddam's 
presidential palaces, which are comprised of vast tracts of land and 
hundreds of buildings, are not open to inspection without prior notice. 
Under this program, Saddam will show the inspectors and the world empty 
buildings, while covertly continuing his weapons programs. One of his 
former weapons developers has testified that this was Saddam's regular 
practice while the U.N. inspectors were taking their action in other 
places.

                              {time}  2045

  Faced with these facts, I am convinced that Congress must give the 
President the authority and the flexibility he needs to confront this 
threat. The authorization of use of force against Iraq in this 
resolution does just that. While we hope the diplomatic efforts will be 
successful, we must be prepared to act if they are not. Certainly 
military action against Iraq, if it becomes necessary, will involve 
risk. However, the risk posed by delaying action are even greater. I 
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and 
a person who has put in a tremendous amount of time and effort in this 
very important matter.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt substitute and in 
opposition to the underlying resolution.
  Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a brute, a danger. Were this simply a 
referendum on him, the vote would be unanimous. But Saddam is not on 
the ballot.
  The two questions before us are, first, how do we diminish the threat

[[Page 19580]]

from Iraq without empowering Islamic fundamentalism and creating new 
recruits for terrorist groups; and, second, how do we avoid setting a 
dangerous global precedent for other nations to launch unilateral 
preemptive attacks as a legitimate tool of public policy?
  Our country is strong enough to attack Iraq and win, but we ought to 
be wise enough to achieve our ends with allies and without war. In the 
past year, terrorism has threatened us as never before. We should face 
that new threat resolutely, but not frighten our own people by 
overstating the risk to Americans.
  Some who support the resolution have morphed Osama bin Laden into 
Saddam Hussein and Saddam into Hitler and Stalin, yet the classified 
briefings that I have received do not lead me to conclude that the 
threat is imminent. We have time to work with our allies to enforce 
U.N. resolutions.
  Actions often have unintended consequences. An invasion of Iraq to 
enforce U.N. resolutions may cost hundreds of Americans lives, maybe 
more, and thousands of Iraqi lives. But the future is obscured to us 
and predictions on this floor can easily turn out to be wishful 
thinking.
  The resolution negotiated between the President and the House 
leadership has two fundamental shortcomings. It is still a blank check. 
I quote: ``The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the 
United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.''
  The Gulf War resolution of 1991 did not delegate decisions on ``force 
as he determines.'' The post-September 11 use-of-force resolution did 
not use the words ``as he determines.'' Not even the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution used the words ``as he determines.''
  Under the Constitution, the President and Congress share war-making 
powers, yet the underlying resolution represents an abdication of 
Congress' constitutional role. This is the people's House. Pass this 
resolution, and the people's voice will be silenced. Pass this 
resolution, and Congress' role in this matter is finished as of this 
week.
  We are being used as a megaphone to communicate the President's 
resolve. We should have a larger role, an equal role.
  The underlying resolution is also troubling for how it is 
rationalized. The President has justified his action under new 
doctrines of preemptive strike and regime change. What precedent do 
these doctrines set, for ourselves and for others? How many wars will 
start when another country launches a preemptive strike against a 
nation that it determines to be a threat?
  The United States created the institutions and laws that have 
governed the international system for the last half century precisely 
because no nation benefits more than the United States from a rule-
based international system. There are serious questions about the 
precedents we set and the dangers we create. This House should reserve 
to a later time the question of whether or not unilateral military 
action in Iraq should be authorized.
  We should, instead, pass the Spratt substitute. It reflects four 
fundamental principles:
  First, our mission should be clear, disarming Iraq of all weapons of 
mass destruction;
  Second, it contains 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 President gets expedited consideration by Congress on an up or down 
vote without amendment on the second resolution set forth in the Spratt 
amendment.
  The Spratt amendment affirms that the U.S. should work through the 
United Nations Security Council first, and unilaterally only as a last 
resort.
  In the war on terrorism, we need more friends and allies and fewer 
enemies. We are unlikely to succeed through unilateral preemptive 
policies so poorly received overseas. The Spratt substitute is our best 
opportunity to disarm Iraq without inflaming the Middle East and to 
keep this Congress relevant in the decisions that lie ahead.
  Support the Spratt substitute, and reject the underlying resolution.
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), a hard-working member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. RILEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, God has truly blessed America. Through his guidance 
and grace, we have built and preserved a nation more free and 
prosperous and peaceful than any in history; and it is written of those 
to whom much is given, much is required. I believe those words, and 
they have helped me to make my decision.
  Madam Speaker, it is my firm belief that Saddam Hussein is a clear 
and present danger to the world community. America has been given the 
ability to stop Saddam; and, therefore, I believe that America is 
required to stop Saddam. If we do not, no one will. That much is clear.
  The price of America's hesitation will be measured in lives lost and 
nations ruined. I, for one, Madam Speaker, am not willing to pay the 
terrible price that appeasement will eventually cost.
  I ask, if one less nation is willing to help in this endeavor, is 
Saddam any less dangerous? Americans have learned and learned 
tragically that we must confront the danger or else we will suffer the 
aftermath. Appeasement did not work with Hitler, and appeasement will 
not work with Saddam.
  Madam Speaker, tyrants like Saddam do not understand the language of 
peace. Therefore, Congress must give President Bush the ability to 
speak Saddam's language, which is force. But if we hesitate, if we fail 
to act, I believe history will judge this Congress with a single word, 
naive.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to address the points made by my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who gave 
really a very intelligent and thoughtful presentation of his position 
in opposition to this resolution. There are a couple of points he made 
that I would like to respond to.
  One, the question of this being an open-ended grant of authority to 
allow the President to get the United States into the war and 
analogizing it to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
  I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This is not the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution. At that particular time, based on an incident on the 
high seas, Congress quickly and without much discussion authorized a 
response that hardly anyone in either Chamber believed was an 
invitation to a massive expansion of U.S. participation in Vietnam. The 
subsequent use of that resolution to justify that action was not known 
at the time.
  Here it is totally different. We know what we are talking about. We 
are talking about authorizing the use of force, i.e., war, against 
Iraq, a major difference between now and the Gulf of Tonkin. This is 
what we are debating, this is what the American people understand this 
authorization to be, and the after-the-fact justification of the war in 
Vietnam based on that resolution is not what is taking place here. It 
is up front, and we know it.
  Secondly, it is not open-ended. The President's original proposal was 
quite open-ended, but H.J. Res. 114 is much more limited. The language 
authorizing the use of force to restore international peace and 
security in the region was deleted. The joint resolution and the report 
from the Committee on International Relations made quite clear that the 
threats that are the basis for using U.S. Armed Forces are Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction and the missile programs, the means to 
deliver them, and its support for international terrorism, not all the 
different resolutions passed by the U.N. that Saddam has violated.
  Page 42 of the committee report provides that the President is 
authorized to use force against Iraq to defend the national security of 
the United States from the continuing threat posed by

[[Page 19581]]

Iraq ``which primarily consists of its continued possession, 
development and acquisition of chemical and biological weapons and 
prohibited ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and its continued 
support for and harboring of international terrorists.''
  That resolution also provides that the authority is to be used 
against Iraq's continuing threat, that of yesterday and today, not of 
some potential and new threat at some point in the future.
  This is not a blank check; it is a broad, but circumscribed, 
authority to use the Armed Forces against a current threat.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I share my friend from California's profound respect 
for the gentleman from Maine. I work with him on the Committee on Armed 
Services, and every issue he approaches in a very thoughtful and 
reasonable way.
  I have a very different interpretation than he put on this 
resolution. The statement that our role is finished after this week as 
a Congress, I do not read the resolution that way, in two very 
important respects.
  The first is that the resolution explicitly references the War Powers 
Act and the reporting requirements that the President has under that 
act to come back to this body, consult with us and pay due homage to 
our co-equal constitutional responsibilities.
  Second, obviously the appropriations process is an ongoing process 
that gives us a frequent and important role in assessing the decisions 
that the executive branch makes.
  I would also say that the reference to the language of ``as the 
President determines,'' it is important to understand what precedes 
that language. What precedes it is an exhaustion, a complete playing 
out of the United Nations process and the weapons inspection process 
that so many people wish to see. This was an important improvement in 
this resolution that the majority leader of the Democratic Party was 
successful in negotiating.
  So I believe that this resolution does not run the risks that the 
gentleman from Maine referenced. I think that we have our continuing 
constitutional role, it is our obligation to exercise it, and that the 
President's determinations follow a careful engagement at the United 
Nations and an acute assessment of the success or failure of the 
weapons inspection process.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, is there anything in this resolution that 
would prevent the President from committing 500,000 troops to a war in 
Iraq without further congressional action?
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I indicated that this 
was a broad, but not unlimited, delegation of authority to use force 
for a specific purpose, the elimination of the weapons of mass 
destruction and the need to eliminate them and the supporting and 
harboring of terrorism. But we the American Congress and we the 
American people understand at the time, unlike the Gulf of Tonkin, just 
what we are discussing and debating; and no one has made a claim that 
this is not an authorization of the use of force, very specifically 
directed against Iraq for specific purposes.
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, it gives me an unusually great deal of 
pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), 
a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services, someone who 
is uniquely qualified to speak tonight on this issue, who is a 
decorated combat veteran of both Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War, and 
knows Saddam Hussein on a personal basis.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for his 
genuine recognition.
  Madam Speaker, there is no one in this body, no matter what political 
philosophy one ascribes to, that doubts that Saddam Hussein is not a 
leader for a peaceful political world.
  Having been in war, I am not one who rushes into war quickly or 
blindly, nor am I one who cowers when our country and our Nation is 
threatened. Madam Speaker, in 1991, I flew through the smoke and the 
ashes of the fires in Kuwait ordered by Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, 
and in that war I saw the death and the destruction this dictator is 
capable of. I saw missiles launched at our troops. But, more 
importantly, if we doubt Saddam's intentions, I saw nearly three dozen 
missiles launched at Israel, a country not even participating in that 
war. Innocent lives were lost.
  After the Gulf War, the United Nations Security Council passed 
Resolution 687 which stated that Iraq must disarm. That resolution 
created the U.N. Special Commissions to verify Iraq's elimination of 
their weapons of mass destruction.
  Throughout the 1990s, as weapons inspectors went throughout Iraq, it 
became more and more evident that Iraq had no intention of disarming. 
Saddam no longer gave U.N. inspectors the unrestricted access they 
needed to ensure Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction.
  From 1991 to 1998, the U.N. passed 16 resolutions mandating that Iraq 
allow weapons inspectors complete and unfettered access, and each time 
Iraq refused.
  Today, we find Iraq with 30,000 liters of anthrax, botulism and other 
biological weapons, thousands of gallons of chemical weapons, and 
months away from possessing nuclear weapon capability.
  I support sending U.N. inspectors back into Iraq to verify their 
disarmament, but not under the previous resolutions which Iraq has 
never followed. The only way to ensure the success of a weapons 
inspection team, or any weapons team, is to pass a new resolution that 
would add very tough consequences if Iraq fails to comply. We cannot 
allow U.N. weapons inspectors to be continually used as puppets.
  Since President Bush's address at the United Nations last month, Iraq 
has already changed its position four, yes four, times on the level of 
access U.N. weapons inspectors will have, the latest of which is not 
complete and unfettered access.
  While the use of military force is and must be the last option, it is 
an option that must be discussed here, must be debated here and, 
ultimately, granted to the President.
  I support the bipartisan resolution we are currently debating, 
authorizing the President to use military force if necessary. President 
Bush is responsible for our country's security, not the United Nations. 
I will not tie the President's hands by allowing the United Nations to 
decide when, how, and if we will protect the United States and its 
citizens. After the tragic events of September 11, we must do 
everything in our power to protect the people of this country.
  Ironically, Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to fully condone 
what happened on September 11 and has stated on many occasions his 
hatred for our country.
  Saddam Hussein supports international terrorism, including paying 
$25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and he shelters 
many terrorist organizations with a history of killing Americans, like 
the MKO and the Palestine Liberation Front.
  Recently, Saddam Hussein's media promised the American people that if 
their government did not change its policies over Iraq it would suffer 
even more devastating blows.
  I am convinced that, given the opportunity, Saddam would use his 
weapons of mass destruction against us, whether directly himself or 
indirectly through selling them to some terrorist organization.
  That must not happen. We cannot let a catastrophic attack on American 
soil be the smoking gun that he possesses such weapons. We must not 
cower. We must not back down. We must stand united and grant the 
President the authority he needs to protect this Nation and its people. 
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

[[Page 19582]]



                          ____________________