[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19838-19904]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

[[Page 19839]]

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

                              {time}  1645

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

[[Page 19840]]

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


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

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

[[Page 19841]]

We have before us today one of the most important issues that a 
democracy must decide, whether to potentially go to war against another 
nation. It is a vote of conscience, and I believe reasonable people can 
disagree while looking at the same set of facts.

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page 19842]]

chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, ``does this body have the will and resolve 
to commit this Nation to a future of peace, or will we leave for our 
children an inheritance of uncertainty and world instability? I do not 
want to see our Nation at war, and I pray that this crisis will be 
resolved peacefully. But I cannot in good conscience deny to the 
President of the United States every power and tool that he is entitled 
to in his efforts to resolve this crisis.''
  Mr. Speaker, I spoke these words right here in this very spot on the 
floor of the House of Representatives during my first speech as a 
Member of this body. One day later, on January 12, 1991, I cast my 
first vote, one to give the President the authority to use the Armed 
Forces in removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I could not ever have imagined that 
more than a decade later this body again would be faced with the 
challenge of dealing with Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime. But here we 
are in 2002, and Saddam is once again at the heart of our national 
security concerns.
  The September 11 terrorist attacks have changed this Nation forever. 
Those tragic events increased our appreciation of our vulnerability to 
terrorist attacks, particularly from weapons of mass destruction. 
Saddam Hussein has actively developed a deadly biological and chemical 
weapons program, and he is actively pursuing the development of nuclear 
weapons. We cannot ignore this reality.
  What has changed since the last time I voted to use our Armed Forces 
against Iraq has not been a new identification of our enemy, but the 
reassessment of our national security risk. The last 11 years have 
proven that attempting to contain Saddam through an ineffective weapons 
inspection regime does not alter his intentions nor force him to 
disarm. We must resolve to stand firm against Hussein's regime to 
guarantee security for Americans and the international community and 
justice for the Iraqi people.
  I commend President Bush for his consistent consultation with the 
international community and with the congressional leadership on both 
sides as he develops a strategy for confronting this grave threat. The 
resolution before us today is a result of those consultations, and its 
passage is the United States government's opportunity to speak with one 
voice in its efforts to protect American interests at home and abroad.
  We cannot expect the United Nations Security Council to take action 
to protect not only our interests but the interests of the 
international community without sending it a strong signal of our own 
resolve.
  Looking back on the vote that this House cast to authorize force back 
in 1991, I can recall how somber my colleagues and I were as we 
contemplated the consequences of our actions. Today, I sense a similar 
mood in the House. Whenever Congress votes to authorize the use of the 
greatest Armed Forces in the world, it is destined to be one of the 
most serious and difficult votes ever cast by our Members. It is not a 
decision we relish, but it is one that we must make.
  I pray and hope that the need to use military force to disarm 
Hussein's regime is not imminent. However, I stand ready to support 
such an action should the President deem it necessary.
  The famous legislator and philosopher, Sir Edmond Burke from England, 
once said, ``All that is needed for evil to exist is for good men to do 
nothing.'' I also recall the words of our great President Ronald Reagan 
when he said ``If not now, when? If not us, who?''
  It is time for us to act, it is time to support our President, and it 
is time to tell the rest of the world that the American people speak 
with just one voice.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight unanimously approved the report of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources titled ``Federal Law 
Enforcement at the Borders and Ports of Entry,'' the most comprehensive 
report ever on our Nation's border security.
  As chairman of this subcommittee, I would like to discuss some of the 
findings and how I feel they impact the debate on the resolution 
regarding Iraq that is before us.
  There are 130 official ports of entry on the northern border at which 
it is legal to cross, whether by vehicle or foot. There are an 
additional over 300 unofficial crossing areas along the northern 
border, roads which are unmonitored and allow for individuals or groups 
to cross undetected.
  Near Blaine, Washington, the only barrier is a narrow ditch easily 
stepped over and containing no water between two roads. In northwest 
North Dakota, it is even easier: It is flat for miles, and there is no 
ditch. As for the southern border, it is not exactly known as 
impenetrable. If we cannot stop tens of thousands of illegal 
immigrants, it does not breed a lot of confidence that we can stop all 
terrorists.
  Our subcommittee has also begun to study port security. The 
challenges in our largest harbors, Long Beach and Los Angeles, are 
overwhelming. But by the time a nuclear device has slipped into L.A., 
we are already in deep trouble. Preclearance at point of origin, or at 
a point prior to coming into the U.S., is a probable method to reduce 
risk; but shipments could have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons 
added en route at the receiving harbor or in transit to the next 
shipping point.
  I have not even discussed airport security.
  The point of my comments is this: If those opposed to this resolution 
somehow think we are going to stop terrorists from crossing our 
borders, that by itself is an incredibly high-risk strategy doomed to 
probable failure. As chemicals come across in different forms or 
nuclear weapons in parts, even with dramatically improved security we 
will not catch it all.
  We need a multifaceted approach. We need a vastly improved 
intelligence collection and information-sharing. That is obvious to 
everyone. We are working to improve border security, port security, and 
airport security. But when we can see the chemical and biological 
facilities that have manufactured, can manufacture, and probably are 
manufacturing weapons of mass destruction intended for us, we need to 
act to destroy those facilities. When we get solid intelligence that 
someone intends to kill Americans and that they have the weapons to do 
so, we need to eliminate their capacity to do so.
  If this leader and nation have already demonstrated, as Saddam 
Hussein has, a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorize, like Iraq, alone in the world in demonstrating such 
willingness, then the need to act becomes urgent.
  The American people do not want to burn while the politicians fiddle. 
We need to strengthen our borders. We need to monitor suspected 
terrorists and arrest those who become active. We need to take out the 
capacity of those bent on terrorizing our Nation.
  If we implement all of these strategies, we have a chance of success. 
Partial, timid strategies against people bent upon killing Americans 
will not save lives. They will cost lives.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  The preamble of this resolution sets out in detailed chronological 
order the obligations that were imposed upon and accepted by the regime 
of Saddam Hussein as the result of a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire 
in 1991. They were clear obligations for Saddam Hussein to end his 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to 
deliver them and to end his support for international terrorism. I have 
heard no one deny the existence of these obligations. I have heard no 
credible denial of their breach.
  Since our country has been attacked by terrorists and we continue to 
be threatened, at least in part, due to the breach of these 
obligations, it becomes the duty of the President and this Congress to 
chart a course of action that will protect our country and all its

[[Page 19843]]

citizens. This resolution in my opinion charts such a course.

                              {time}  1715

  It provides that the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces 
as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend the national security 
of the United States, and, secondly, to enforce all relevant United 
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  In the final analysis, it boils down to a matter of judgment, whether 
we should vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' My judgment is unless I vote ``yes,'' 
I have failed to meet the obligation that I have to the more than 
630,000 men, women and children who constitute the First Congressional 
District of Tennessee who are at risk today because of the failures of 
Saddam Hussein.
  Is there any question in anybody's mind what the votes of any of 
those brave leaders who founded or helped perpetuate our Nation would 
be? Leaders like President Washington, President Lincoln, President 
Truman, or President Eisenhower, all who demonstrated during their time 
in office the good judgment to chart and the courage to complete a 
difficult course.
  Can we not agree all of us in this Chamber that mankind would have 
been spared terrible agony and death if the judgment of Winston 
Churchill had been heard and heeded and adopted as a course of action 
in the 1930's?
  The eyes of all our great leaders of the past and the eyes of all who 
have laid down their lives for our freedom are upon us today to see if 
we are proper stewards of the freedom and the opportunities that they 
afforded us with their sacrifices. This decision is vital, not only to 
the future of Americans, but to the future of the world community and 
to all who would throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression and 
escape the horrors of chemical, bacteriological, and nuclear warfare.
  If we are forced to action following this resolution, and it is 
everybody's hope that we will not be, it will be easier in proportion 
to our accord for those who represent us on the battlefield.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 weeks, the President has changed long-
standing policy that prohibits a unilateral American first strike and 
has argued that his new policy should be imposed upon Iraq.
  President Bush, to his credit, has decided to include Congress in 
this process and to seek international support for his positions, 
although he will not wait for such support to enforce his new policy.
  The process is important, but it is not the most important aspect of 
his efforts. For me, the most important question in this entire matter 
is what happens after Saddam Hussein is dethroned. Forty years ago we 
amended our policies to state that America will no longer allow long-
range nuclear weapons to be installed in our hemisphere, a precise 
policy that applied only to Cuba at that time.
  Twenty years ago we amended our policy to state that America will not 
allow foreign leaders to enrich themselves by using their governmental 
structure to ship illegal drugs into America. Again, a precise policy 
which applied only to Panama at the time. Although the President has 
changed some of his arguments, there do seem to be three constant 
points that he uses.
  Number one, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Number two, Iraq 
has supported terrorists even if the link to al Qaeda cannot be proven. 
Number three, Iraq has a history of aggression and brutality against 
its own people and against its neighbors. We all agree on all of those 
points. They are not subject to debate. Based on constant repetition of 
these factors, we must conclude these are the criteria America will use 
to implement our new unilateral strike policy. But is this reaction to 
Iraq's threat comparable to previous reactions to such threats? Is it 
clear and precise? Who else violates this new policy and, therefore, 
who would be next to have our new policy implemented against them?
  Let us start with Iran. They have weapons of mass destruction. Iran 
has certainly supported terrorists and does so today. In fact, many 
people believe that this country, Iran, now is home to more al Qaeda 
members than any other country in the world. Finally, Iran has a 
history of aggression and brutality against its own people and its 
neighbors. When do we attack Iran?
  What about China? They certainly have very powerful weapons of mass 
destruction, including nuclear weapons. They are the leading sellers of 
both weapons of mass destruction and, more importantly, the industrial 
means to produce such weapons around the world. They have ignored all 
calls to withdraw from Tibet or to treat Tibetans fairly. They 
brutalize the Falun Gong. They brutalize Christians. They threaten 
Taiwan and the peace in all of Asia. When do we attack China?
  When do we attack the Sudan? When do we attack North Korea? When do 
we attack Russia itself?
  Each of these countries meets all of the criteria the President is 
now using to say we should attack Iraq unilaterally.
  Most Americans want Saddam Hussein gone. So do I. Most Americans want 
the United States to remain the strongest Nation in the world. So do I. 
But most Americans also want the United States of America to continue 
to be the world's moral leader while we accomplish both of these goals.
  President Bush's unclear, imprecise new policy in support of a 
unilateral force first strike does not do it.
  Not long ago another American stated, ``Our purpose is peace. The 
United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war. We seek the 
full and effective restoration of international agreements.'' This 
House reacted by voting, ``The United States is prepared as the 
President determines to take all necessary steps including the use of 
armed forces.''
  I am sure some of you recognize these words from the 1963 Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution that led to the Vietnam debacle. We all know the 
results of that resolution. We all know that this House had to repeal 
this resolution 6 years later.
  This resolution before us tonight uses virtually the same language 
and grants the President comparable authority to the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution. But I think our actions here today may actually prove to be 
more dangerous because we base them on a new policy of unilateral first 
strike. At a minimum, the President needs to refine his new policy 
before we implement. Until we do so, America must adhere to the long-
standing policies in existence now. Those policies require 
international agreement on war and peace, and they require war to be 
the last alternative, not the first.
  As of today, the United States, and we know it, has not exhausted our 
peaceful options; and by tomorrow when we vote on this, we will have 
set America and the world on a new course that has not yet been fully 
thought out or debated. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to 
go slow.
  Others have cited history as well. Let me be clear, no one has 
forgotten September 11. Everyone wants to avoid another such incident. 
But no one has divine insight as how to best accomplish that goal. Let 
me ask those who have cited World War II and to remind them that when 
Iraq did try to expand its borders, the world did react. This Congress 
reacted, unlike Europe in the 1930's. The comparison is not valid.
  If necessary there will be plenty of time to wage war against Iraq, 
and I may support it. But if an unnecessary war is waged, we risk 
forfeiting America's well-deserved reputation as humanity's best hope 
for a long-lasting worldwide peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the resolution and want to focus on what this debate is all about.
  This debate is all about whether Saddam continued to build weapons of

[[Page 19844]]

mass destruction after 1991 and would he use them. Well, I think 
everyone is in agreement in the second question, that he will use them 
because he has already done that. He has done it with the Kurds. He has 
done it with his own population a number of times.
  Let us talk about whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction 
and how he got them. Mr. Speaker, I have given no less than 12 speeches 
on the floor of this House about the proliferation that occurred to 
Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert two documents that I have inserted in the 
Congressional Record five times in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, these are chronologies of weapons-related transfers of 
technology to Saddam by Chinese interests and Russian interests.

              [Los Angeles Times Editorials, May 21, 1998]

                Indignation Rings Shallow on Nuke Tests

                            (By Curt Weldon)

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


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

[[Page 19845]]

 
Nov. 1997/April 1998................  May have transferred     MTCR--Arms Export        No sanctions.
                                       technology for           Control Act, Export
                                       Pakistan's Ghauri        Administration Act.
                                       medium-range ballistic
                                       missile that was
                                       flight-tested on April
                                       6, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Additional provisions on chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not enacted until February 10, 1996.
 
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime; and NPT: Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Treaty.


                            CHRONOLOGY OF SUSPECTED RUSSIAN WEAPONS-RELATED TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Reported Russian
                                      transfers that may have    Possibly applicable        Administration's
     Date of transfer or report         violated a regime or   treaties, regimes, and/          response
                                                law                  or U.S. laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
early 1990s.........................  Russians sold drawings   AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   No publicly known
                                       of a sarin plant,        11C.                     sanction.
                                       manufacturing
                                       procedures, and toxic
                                       agents to a Japanese
                                       terrorist group.
1991................................  Transferred to China     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       three RD-120 rocket      sec. 11B.                sanction.
                                       engines and electronic
                                       equipment to improve
                                       accuracy of ballistic
                                       missiles.
1991-1995...........................  Transferred Cryogenic    MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions against Russia
                                       liquid oxygen/hydrogen   sec. 11B.                and India under AECA
                                       rocket engines and                                and EAA imposed on May
                                       technology to India.                              6, 1992; expired after
                                                                                         2 years.
1992-1995...........................  Russian transfers to     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions reportedly
                                       Brazil of carbon-fiber   sec. 11B.                secretly imposed and
                                       technology for rocket                             waived.
                                       motor cases for space
                                       launch program.
1992-1996...........................  Russian armed forces     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       delivered 24 Scud-B      sec. 11B.                sanction.
                                       missiles and 8
                                       launchers to Armenia.
June 1993...........................  Additional Russian       MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  Sanctions imposed on
                                       enterprises involved     sec. 11B.                June 16, 1993 and
                                       in missile technology                             waived until July 15,
                                       transfers to India.                               1993; no publicly known
                                                                                         follow-up sanction.
1995-present........................  Construction of 1,000    IIANPA sec. 1604 and     Refused to renew some
                                       megawatt nuclear         1605, FOAA, NPPA sec.    civilian nuclear
                                       reactor at Bushehr in    821, FAA sec. 620G.      cooperation agreements;
                                       Iran.                                             waived sanctions on
                                                                                         aid.
Aug. 1995...........................  Russian assistance to    BWC, AECA sec. 81, EAA   No publicly known
                                       Iran to develop          sec. 11C, IIANPA sec.    sanction.
                                       biological weapons.      1604 and 1605, FAA
                                                                sec. 620G and 620H.
Nov. 1995...........................  Russian citizen          AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   Sanctions imposed on
                                       transferred to unnamed   11C.                     Nov. 17, 1995.
                                       country technology for
                                       making chemical
                                       weapons.
Dec. 1995...........................  Russian gyroscopes from  United Nations           No publicly known
                                       submarine launched       Sanctions, MTCR, AECA    sanction.
                                       ballistic missiles       sec. 73, EAA sec. 11B,
                                       smuggled to Iraq         IIANPA sec. 1604 and
                                       through middlemen.       1605, FAA sec. 620G
                                                                and 620H.
July-Dec. 1996......................  DCI reported Russia      MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       transferred to Iran      sec. 11B, FAA sec.       sanction.
                                       ``a variety'' of items   620G and 620H, IIANPA
                                       related to ballistic     sec. 1604 and 1605,
                                       missiles.                FOAA.
Nov. 1996...........................  Israel reported Russian  AECA sec. 81, EAA sec.   No publicly known
                                       assistance to Syria to   11C, FAA sec. 620G and   sanction.
                                       build a chemical         620H.
                                       weapon plant.
1996-1997...........................  Delivered 3 Kilo diesel- IIANPA sec. 1604 and     No publicly known
                                       electric submarines to   1605, FAA sec. 620G      sanction.
                                       Iran.                    and 620H.
Jan.-Feb. 1997......................  Russia transferred       MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       detailed instructions    sec. 11B, FAA sec.       sanction.
                                       to Iran on production    620G and 620H, IIANPA
                                       of the SS-4 medium-      sec. 1604 and 1605,
                                       range missile and        FOAA.
                                       related parts.
April 1997..........................  Sale of S-300 anti-      IIANPA sec. 1604 and     No publicly known
                                       aircraft/anti-missile    1605, FAA sec. 620G      sanction.
                                       missile system to Iran   and 620H.
                                       to protect nuclear
                                       reactors at Bushehr
                                       and other strategic
                                       sites.
Oct. 1997...........................  Israeli intelligence     MTCR, AECA sec. 73, EAA  No publicly known
                                       reported Russian         sec. 11B, IIANPA sec.    sanction.
                                       technology transfers     1604 and 1605, FAA
                                       for Iranian missiles     sec. 620G and 620H,
                                       developed with ranges    FOAA.
                                       between 1,300 and
                                       10,000 km. Transfers
                                       include engines and
                                       guidance systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regimes:
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention; and MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime.
U.S. Laws:
AECA: Arms Export Control Act; EAA: Export Administration Act; FAA: Foreign Assistance Act; FOAA: Foreign
  Operations Appropriations Act; IIANPA: Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act; and NPPA: Nuclear Proliferation
  Prevention Act.

  Mr. Speaker, during the 1990s, I would remind my colleagues, 37 times 
we had evidence of China and Russia transferring weapon technology to 
Hussein. Every one of those should have required a response, should 
have required sanctions. The previous administration imposed sanctions 
a total of four times out of 37. In nine of those cases, it was 
chemical and biological weapon technology, the very technology today 
that we are worried about. We saw it being transferred, and we did 
nothing about it. In fact, only in two of those nine cases did we 
impose the required sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, we have evidence which I will submit in the Record also 
of Iraq's policy on their defense system and offensive capabilities, 
both a 1984 document and a 1987 document. In the document Saddam's 
military talks about the use of chemical and biological weapons.
  In President Bush's speech this past week he said, ``All that might 
be required of Saddam are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi 
intelligence operative to deliver it.''
  Well, here it is. Mr. Speaker, this is a biological disbursing 
device. You can build it for less than $100. If I would not offend the 
Parliamentarian, I would turn it on and you would have a plume in this 
room. If you put that device in the Metro station subway in D.C. and 
activate it, based on a study by the Office of Technology Assessment, 
you would have 150,000 people in the D.C. commuter system killed by the 
dispersion of 4.5 kilograms of anthrax.
  Just like we saw back in the 1990s when we had evidence that Russian 
entities transferred these devices, a Soviet accelerometer and a Soviet 
gyroscope, which the previous administration did nothing about, never 
imposed the required sanctions. Now we have to pay the price.
  Does Saddam have chemical and biological weapons? Absolutely. Where 
did he get it from? He got it from those 37 transfers that we knew 
about that are now in the record that we did nothing about. Does he 
have a nuclear weapon like the one I have in front of me that General 
Alexander Lebed told my delegation in 1997 that they built? And the 
previous administration when it became public said, we deny the 
Russians ever built them.
  The previous administration sided with the Russian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and said we have no reason to doubt them, even though 
two top Russian leaders said there was reason to believe 80 of these 
devices were missing.
  The reason why we have to support the President is because the 
failures of our policies in the past decade have given Saddam Hussein 
biological and chemical weapon capability, nuclear weapon capability, 
missile capability, none of which should have occurred during the 1990s 
if we would have enforced the very arms control agreements that the 
other side now talks about. Thirty-seven times we had evidence, nine 
cases of chemical and biological weapons going from Russian and China 
to Iraq. And what did we do? We went like this and like that. And now 
we are faced with the consequence.
  So what President Bush has said is we must stand up and we must show 
the world that we will not tolerate what went on in the 1990s. We will 
not sit back and allow 37 violations to go unchecked. We will not 
pretend we do not see them because we want to keep Yeltsen in power. We 
will not pretend we do not want to see them because we want to protect 
the financial interests of the PLA for our fund-raising purposes.
  We should have done this during the 1990s, but we did not. I say to 
my colleagues, support this resolution. Give the President a unanimous 
voice that says to the U.N., we will act to finally do what we did not 
do in the 1990s, and that is enforce the requirements of the six 
resolutions that were passed back then.
  And if my colleagues want to see what a biological disbursement 
weapon looks like, come see me. I will activate it for them in the 
cloak room.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution.

[[Page 19846]]

As I have listened to this thorough debate and thought about the 
resolution we are about to vote on, it seems to me the Persian Gulf War 
has never really ended. In 1991 Saddam Hussein agreed to a conditional 
surrender. He has not met the conditions of his surrender. Iraq is 
still fighting, and we need to respond.
  I have heard some of my colleagues say that use of force against Iraq 
would be a preemptive strike. I disagree. In 1991 Saddam Hussein said 
Iraq would comply with all United Nations resolutions. Iraq has not 
done so. Iraq agreed to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons programs. Today Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and 
the will to use them.
  Hussein agreed to allow unfettered weapons inspection in this 
country. However, Iraq has done everything possible to obstruct those 
inspections. Iraq pledged to keep planes out of the no-fly zone. In the 
past few years, his pilots have fired on U.S. and British troops 1,600 
times. They have shot at us 460 times this year alone.
  Iraq continues to be a threat to the area. In 1993 Iraqi troops moved 
toward the Kuwaiti border. Iraqi planes continued to fly in the no-fly 
zone. When Iraq banned U.N. inspections in 1998, President Clinton 
responded by launching missiles into the country.

                              {time}  1730

  Was that a preemptive strike? Along with the British, we dropped more 
than 600 bombs on Iraqi military targets. We have continued strikes 
against Iraq air defense installations and in response to Iraq shots at 
our planes in the no-fly zone.
  Iraq must be held to the conditions it agreed to. This Congress 
authorized action to bring Iraq into compliance in 1998. We must do so 
again. Until Iraq complies with the terms of its conditional surrender, 
there has been no surrender. The Persian Gulf War is ongoing.
  Further, U.S. action against Iraq is not a preemptive strike, but is 
our responsibility to bring Saddam Hussein's continued plotting of his 
international obligations to an end. President Bush wants the 
commitment that Congress stands with him in dealing with Iraq.
  I urge that Congress stand with President Bush and support the 
resolution to finally end the Gulf War once and for all.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but we 
are engaged in debating the most difficult decision that Members of 
Congress are called upon to make.
  Notwithstanding that, Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler 
in power today, and the first one since Hitler, to commit chemical 
genocide. I believe there is reason for the long term to remove him 
from power. This resolution is the first step.
  My colleagues, remember that Israel absorbed the world's hatred and 
scorn for its attack on and destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear 
reactor in 1981. Today it is accepted by most arms control experts that 
had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Hussein's Iraq would have had nuclear 
power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way through Kuwait.
  We can see on this chart all the resolutions that were passed and 
that Saddam Hussein did not comply with. In fact, there were 12 
immediately after the war; 35 after those 12. All together, 47 
resolutions, of which he scarcely complied.
  Now, let us take the resolution on this chart, which is 687, 
governing the cease-fire in 1991. It required that Iraq unconditionally 
accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless its chemical and 
biological weapons. Within 15 days after the passage of the resolution, 
Iraq was to have provided the locations, the amounts, and types of 
those specified items. Over a decade later, we still have little 
information on that.
  That is why I applaud President Bush for taking his case to the 
United Nations and placing the burden of action upon the organization 
to enforce its own resolutions passed on Iraq. We owe diplomacy and 
peaceful opportunities the due diligence necessary to rid this despotic 
regime of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism sponsorship. 
However, if the U.S. is not credible in alternatives for noncompliance, 
we will again be at the crossroads asking the same question: If not 
now, when?
  Let us move forward with this resolution, develop a consensus, and 
work together with other nations to remove this evil dictator.
  Mr. Speaker, our vote this week will be whether or not to authorize 
the President of the United States to use necessary and appropriate 
force to defend the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq. I would like to emphatically state 
that no decision weighs heavier on the mind of a President, or a Member 
of Congress, than the decision to send our men and women of the Armed 
Forces into action.
  And I want to thank the President for working hard to make the case 
for possible--and I want my colleagues and the public to understand 
this--possible action against Iraq. The President stated last night 
that he hopes military action is not required. Iraq can avoid conflict 
by adhering to the security resolutions requiring ``declaring and 
destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, ending support for 
terrorism and ceasing the persecution of its civilian population. And, 
it must release or account for all gulf war personnel, including an 
American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.''
  To quote a recent article from the ``Weekly Standard'':

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

  And lastly, my colleagues, President Bush is not alone in calling for 
a regime change. Congress made the need for regime change clear in 1998 
with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. The congress specifically 
stated ``It should be the policy of the United States to support 
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in 
Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace 
that regime.'' In that legislation we also called upon the United 
Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal to prosecute 
Saddam Hussein and those in his regime for crimes against humanity and 
criminal violation of international law.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
comments made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who 
pointed out that our actions against Saddam during the 1990s were not 
as aggressive as they should have been.
  I would point out that we were also not aggressive until September 11 
of the prior year. Both administrations failed to grasp the importance 
of Saddam Hussein's weapons program until September 11 of last year.
  I would also point out that when the prior administration did take 
military action against Saddam Hussein, it did not receive the level of 
support and unified support that it should have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the extremely distinguished 
and thoughtful gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I join the gentleman from California and associate myself 
with his remarks. I would hope my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who I believe is right on this issue, would 
refrain from politicizing. If there is blame to go around, there is 
certainly enough blame to go around here in this town today, yesterday, 
and even a few days ago.
  After careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution. This vote is the most important and difficult one I have 
cast since coming to Congress some 6 years ago. I sincerely hope, as I 
imagine most of my colleagues do, that we will never have to cast 
another one like it.
  I have listened carefully to the concerns and objections of many of 
my colleagues and constituents; and having never served in the Armed 
Forces, I have sought the counsel of those who

[[Page 19847]]

have. I have reviewed the available intelligence about the threat from 
Iraq and weighed the risk of a potential conflict with Iraq in the 
context of our ongoing war on terrorism; and I have reached the 
conclusion, as many have, that the risk of inaction and delay far 
outweigh the risk of action.
  Saddam Hussein has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, as all 
have mentioned today, and is seeking the means to deliver them, if he 
does not already have the capacity now. He is developing missile 
delivery systems that could threaten American citizens, service 
members, and our own allies in the region. But in today's world, a 
sworn enemy of America does not need a missile to deliver weapons of 
mass destruction. All he needs is a suitcase, a small plane, a cargo 
ship, or a single suicidal terrorist.
  The most compelling case for action, however, Mr. Speaker, is the 
nuclear threat. Let us be clear. We do not have the intelligence 
suggesting that an imminent nuclear threat is upon us. I would urge 
Secretary Rumsfeld to cease suggesting to Americans that there is some 
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda unless he has evidence 
to present to this Congress and to this public.
  What we do have evidence of is that Saddam Hussein continues to 
desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain 
the raw materials, which may be available to him in any number of ways, 
he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year. The Iraqi regime's 
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are coupled with the recklessness of 
the Iraqi dictator. We know that Saddam is capable of murder and untold 
cruelty. We know that Saddam is capable of aggression and also capable 
of miscalculating his adversary's response to his aggression.
  Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless, and 
misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I 
could not vote to authorize military action abroad if I did not believe 
that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat to our security, one that 
will not recede just because we hope it goes away. That is why I 
support giving the President the authority to achieve our fundamental 
goal: disarming the Iraqi regime of all weapons of mass destruction.
  As we consider this resolution, every Member should read it carefully 
so we do not mischaracterize what we are voting on here today. So what 
is this resolution for? First, it is a resolution stating Congress' 
support for our diplomatic efforts. This resolution must not be taken 
as an endorsement of unilateralism. It explicitly affirms Congress' 
support for the President's efforts to work through the U.N. Security 
Council to address Iraq's ``delay, evasion and noncompliance.'' It 
calls for prompt and decisive action by the U.N. Security Council to 
enforce its own mandates on Iraq.
  Second, this resolution is not a declaration of war. The resolution 
forces the President to affirm that all diplomatic and peaceful means 
have proven inadequate to protect our Nation's security. This gives the 
President the flexibility to dangle a stick with that carrot.
  At the same time, it affirms that military action must be used only 
as a last resort. If it were up to some of us in this Congress, we 
would have done it another way, perhaps building international support 
before coming to Congress, but this President chose to do it another 
way.
  Third, the resolution more defines our purpose in authorizing the use 
of force. The use of force has two clearly defined purposes: one, to 
defend the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, two, to enforce all relevant 
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  Unlike the White House's draft language, the resolution carefully 
limits its authorization to Iraq and only Iraq. And it is clear that 
our purpose is to protect against the threat to the United States. This 
resolution authorizes military action to disarm Iraq but does not 
mention regime change. The goal is Iraq's disarmament and full 
compliance with U.N. mandates.
  I applaud Leader Gephardt and others, including Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate, for helping to negotiate such language.
  Although I strongly support the President in addressing the threat 
from Iraq, I believe the President must be more candid with us and the 
American people about the long-term commitment that is going to be 
needed in Iraq. It has been a year since we began the campaign in 
Afghanistan; and our efforts there politically, economically, and 
militarily are nowhere close to concluding. I visited Afghanistan in 
February and March and witnessed firsthand how fragile the peace is 
there. It will take years to forge stability in Afghanistan and years 
in Iraq.
  War is the last outcome that I want, and the last outcome I believe 
the President wants; but when America's national security is at stake, 
the world must know that we are prepared to defend our Nation from 
tyrants and from terrorists. With that, I ask every Member of Congress 
to support this resolution supporting our President and supporting our 
Nation.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I stand in support of Joint Resolution 114.
  Mr. Speaker, the way I see it is this way. Let us just say, 
hypothetically, if it was August 2001, and I stood before this House 
and said, listen, there is a guy out there named Osama bin Laden who is 
associated with a terrorist group named al Qaeda, and this terrorist 
group has found safe haven inside the corrupt Taliban government of 
Afghanistan. And, my colleagues, I think we should do something about 
it because our intelligence is not necessarily absolute, but this guy 
is up to no good and we need to strike before he strikes us.
  Now, if I had said that in August of 2001, people would have said, 
that war monger, that jingoistic guy from Georgia. What is he talking 
about? Yet before September 11, would it not have been nice if we could 
have had that speech and maybe prevented the tragedy of September 11?
  Well, here we are. We know Saddam Hussein has violated treaty after 
treaty which happened after Desert Storm, starting with U.N. Resolution 
660, U.N. Resolution 678, U.N. Resolution 686, 687, 688, 701, all of 
them. In fact, 16 total of very significant matters going back to 
Resolution 660. All of them violated, Mr. Speaker.
  And then here is the situation with the weapons. We know that they 
have VX. It is a sticky, colorless liquid that interferes with nerve 
impulses of the body, causes convulsions and paralysis. U.N. inspectors 
estimate that Iraq has the means to make 200 tons of VX. Sarin Gas. 
And, of course, we know that it causes convulsions and paralysis as 
well. It was used in a small quantity in a Tokyo subway in 1995. Again, 
inspectors estimate that they have maybe as high as 800 tons of sarin 
gas. It goes on. Mustard gas, anthrax, and other great worrisome 
chemical and biological weapons in their stockpile. We also know that 
he is trying to become nuclear capable.
  Finally comes the question of terrorism. We know that the State 
Department has designated Iraq as a state that sponsors international 
terrorism. We know that they shelter the Abu Nidal terrorist 
organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 different 
countries and killed over 900 people.
  We also know that Iraq shelters several prominent terrorist 
Palestinian organizations, including the Palestine Liberation Front, 
which is known for its attacks on Israel, including one on the Achille 
Lauro ship that killed the United States citizen, Leon Klinghoffer.
  My colleagues, the time to act is now. If we could just think for a 
minute what the price of action is versus inaction. Had Todd Beamer and 
the other passengers of Flight 93 elected a course of inaction on 
September 11, the price would have been significantly different for 
particularly those of us in this building. This is a time that calls 
for action. And in the great

[[Page 19848]]

words of Todd Beamer, let me close with this: ``Let's roll.''
  It is time to do something. Let us pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114, 
Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.
  Here's how I view the situation: Suppose last August (2001), I gave a 
speech announcing, ``There's a guy named Osama Bin Laden who is 
involved in a terrorist group called Al Quida, which has found a safe 
haven and training opportunities inside the corrupt Taliban government 
of Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies probably were 
involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the USS Cole in 
Yemen, and the bombing of our embassies in Africa. We know Bin Laden 
hates America and it is likely his group will attack our country in the 
future. Therefore we need to eliminate him. I suggest we start bombing 
his hideouts in Afghanistan immediately.''
  Had I given that speech, I would have been laughed at and called a 
warmonger, even though action against Al Quida in August 2001 could 
have saved thousands of lives in both America and Afghanistan. But 
this, in fact, is our situation today. Saddam Hussein hates us. He 
harbors terrorist groups, possesses chemical and biological weapons, 
and may become nuclear capable in a short period of time. America 
traditionally does not do preemptive strikes, but the events of 
September 11th change everything. Americans will not tolerate the 
threat of another horrific attack against the United States. Although 
no American desires a war, the best way to ensure Hassein's compliance 
with UN resolutions, and reduce the threat he poses to our national 
security, is for Congress to confirm the United State's willingness to 
use force if necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you an account of all the reasons why I 
support this resolution.
  The whole world knows that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated all 
16 of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) for more 
than a decade. These violations should not be taken lightly and are 
worthy of review. The list is substantial:


                 UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990--violated

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


                   UNSCR 686--March 2, 1991--Violated

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


                   unscr 687--April 3, 1991--violated

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


                   UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991--Violated

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


                  unscr 707--august 15, 1991--violated

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


                 UNSCR 715--October 11, 1991--Violated

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


                 UNSCR 949--October 15, 1994--Violated

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


                  UNSCR 1051--March 27 19961--Violated

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


                  UNSCR 1060--June 12, 1996--Violated

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


                  UNSCR 1115--June 21, 1997--Violated

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


                 UNSCR 1134--October 23, 1997--Violated

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


                unscr 1137--november 12, 1997--violated

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


                  unscr 1154--march 2, 1998--violated

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


                unscr 1194--September 9, 1998--violated

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


                 unscr 1205--November 5, 1998--violated

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


                unscr 1284--December 17, 1998--violated

  Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections 
Commission

[[Page 19849]]

(UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
  Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted 
access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
  Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
  Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies 
to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without 
discrimination.
  While all these violations are extremely serious, there are 3 or 4 
items that stand out in my mind.
  His blatant refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to oversee the 
destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.
  His continued development of new biological and chemical weapons.
  His continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, and
  His support and harboring of terrorist organizations inside Iraq 
(including Al Quida).
  Mr. Speaker, some people have said, ``why are we doing this now?'' 
They say there is no ``clear and present danger.'' I don't know how 
much clearer it has to be. The facts of the matter are documented, and 
undoubtedly pose a clear and present danger to our national security.
  Documented U.N. weapons inspector reports show that Iraq continually 
deceived the inspectors and never provided definitive proof that they 
destroyed their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.
  Iraq has admitted producing the world's most dangerous biological and 
chemical weapons, but refuses to give proof that they destroyed them. 
Examples of Iraq's chemical weapons include VX, Sarin Gas and Mustard 
Gas.
  VX, the most toxic of chemical weapons, is a sticky, colorless liquid 
that interferes with the body's nerve impulses, causing convulsions and 
paralysis of the lungs and blood vessels. Victims essentially chock to 
death. A dose of 10 milligrams on the skin is enough to kill.
  Iraq acknowledged making nearly 4 tons of VX, and ``claimed'' they 
destroyed it, but they never provided any definitive proof. U.N. 
inspectors estimate that Iraq has the means to make more than 200 tons 
of VX, and Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use facilities 
that it could quickly adapt to chemical weapons production.
  Sarin gas, a nerve agent like VX, causes convulsions, paralysis and 
asphyxiation. Even a small scale Sarin Gas attack such as the one used 
in the Tokyo subway in 1995 can kill and injure vast numbers of people.
  Iraq acknowledged making approximately 800 tons of Sarin gas and 
thousands of rockets, artillery shells and bombs containing Sarin, but 
they have not accounted for hundreds of these weapons. Iraq willingly 
used these weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and it also 
used them against Kurdish Iraqi civilians.
  Mustard Gas, a colorless liquid that evaporates into a gas and begins 
dissolving upon contact with the skin causes injuries similar to burns 
and damages the eyes and lungs.
  Iraq acknowledged making thousands of tons of mustard gas and using 
the chemical during it's war with Iran, but told U.N. inspectors they 
``misplaced'' 550 mustard filled artillery shells after the Gulf war.
  Examples of Iraq's biological weapons include Anthrax, Botulimun 
Toxin and Aflatoxin
  Anthrax, as we all know, is a potentially fatal bacterium that causes 
flu like symptoms before filling the lungs with fluid and causing 
death. Just a few tiny spores are enough to cause the deadly infection.
  Iraq has acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores--enough 
to kill millions, but U.N. inspectors determined that Iraq could have 
made three times as much. Inspectors say that at least 16 missile 
warheads filled with Anthrax are missing, and Iraq is working to 
produce the deadlier powdered form of Anthrax that could be sprayed 
from aircraft, put into missile warheads, or given to terrorists.
  Botulimun Toxin, is a poison that is one of the deadliest substances 
known to man. Even in small doses it causes gastrointestinal infection 
and can quickly advance to paralysis and death. A mere 70 billionths of 
a gram is enough to kill if inhaled.
  Iraq acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of Botulimun Toxin, most of 
which was put into missile warheads and other munitions. At least five 
missile warheads with Botulimun Toxin are missing according to U.N. 
inspectors.
  Aflatoxin, is a poison that can cause swelling of the abdomen, lungs 
and brain resulting in convulsion, coma and death.
  Iraq acknowledged making more than 520 gallons of Aflaxtoxin and 
putting it into missile warheads and bombs. At least four Aflatoxin--
filled missile warheads are missing according to U.N. inspectors.
  It is also a fact (and a clear and present danger) that Saddam 
Hussein continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon.
  We know he had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before 
the Gulf War, and the independent Institute for Strategic Studies 
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months 
if he were able to obtain fissile material.
  We now know that Iraq has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials 
to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy 
thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which are believed to 
be intended for use as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.
  As if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a ruthless dictator 
were not enough, we now know that Saddam Hussein harbors terrorist 
organizations within Iraq.
  Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the State 
Department as ``state sponsors of international terrorism.'' UNSUR 687 
prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or 
allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues 
to violate these UNSUR provisions.
  Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Terrorist Organization that has carried 
out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 
900 people. These terrorists have offices in Baghdad and received 
training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government 
of Iraq.
  Iraq also shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist 
organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front 
(PLF), which is known for attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu 
Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille 
Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leo Klinghoffer.
  Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money he offers to 
families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers who blow themselves up 
with belt explosives.
  Several former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret 
terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both 
Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and 
trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
  And in 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) attempted to 
assassinate former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. 
Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 17 
suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. The 
American people will not understand if we ignore these facts, sit back, 
and wait for the unacceptable possibility of Saddam Hussein providing a 
weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group for use against the 
United States.
  Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to fully condone the 
September 11 attacks on America. His media even promised the American 
people that if their government did not change its policies toward 
Iraq, it would suffer even more devastating blows. He has even endorsed 
and encouraged acts of terrorism against America.
  The case is clear. We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass 
destruction, we know he harbors terrorists including al-Qaida, and we 
know he hates America, so the case against Saddam really isn't the 
issue. The question is what are we going to do about it.
  Cearly, we must authorize the use of military force against Iraq in 
case it becomes necessary. The President has said that military action 
is a last resort, and our bipartisan resolution calls for the same 
tact, but Saddam Hussein must know that America is prepared to use 
force if he continues to defy UN Security Council resolutions and 
refuses to disarm.
  As the President said, approving this resolution does not mean that 
military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell 
the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice 
and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean 
something. Congress will be sending a message to Saddam Hussein that 
his only choice is full compliance--and the time remaining for that 
choice is limited.
  Mr. Speaker, the price of taking action against this evil dictator 
may be high, but history has shown that the price of inaction is even 
higher. Had Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 elected a 
course of inaction on September 11th, the price may have been far 
higher for those of us in this building. There comes a time when we 
must take action. A time when we must risk lives in order to save 
lives. This resolution authorizes action, if necessary, to protect 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I speak for every member of this 
House when I say I hope we can avoid war & that Saddam Hussein will 
allow unfettered access to all sites and willingly disarm. But if he 
does not, then

[[Page 19850]]

the Congress will have done its duty and given the President the 
authority he needs to defend our great nation. The authority to take 
action if Iraq continues to delay, deceive and deny. If Hussein 
complies, our resolution will have worked, but if he does not, then in 
the words of that brave American Todd Beamer, ``Let's Roll!''

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, in this body our first and highest 
responsibility is protecting our homeland, and that responsibility may 
from time to time require us to embrace unpopular policies and justify 
them to our constituents when we recognize a transcendent danger to our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize my vote for this resolution authorizes a 
military action that may put at risk thousands of American lives in 
Iraq. However, the tragedies of September 11 have vividly highlighted 
the danger that inaction may risk tens, if not hundreds of thousands of 
innocent American lives here at home from terrorism.
  This bipartisan resolution was drafted in recognition of this fact 
and, therefore, presents our President with the initiative in 
continuing the global war against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that Saddam Hussein, like Osama bin Laden, hates 
America and has called for the murder of Americans everywhere. We know 
that Saddam Hussein even in the face of crippling economic sanctions 
has found the resources to reconstruct his chemical and biological 
weapons programs, even at great painful expense to his people.
  We know that Saddam Hussein is directing an aggressive program to 
procure components necessary for building nuclear devices and that he 
actively supports terror in other nations, including Israel. So the 
question before us is, do we wait for Saddam Hussein to become a 
greater threat, or do we address that threat now?
  CIA Director Tenet has told us in recent days that al Qaeda has 
sought cooperation from Iraq. I cannot stand here and trust that Saddam 
Hussein will not supply al Qaeda and other terrorist networks with 
weapons that could be used to massacre more Americans. On the contrary, 
we have every reason to believe that the Iraqi dictator would share his 
growing arsenal of terror with agents willing to strike at the United 
States.
  With this in mind, and given other revelations from captured members 
of al Qaeda, it is clear that time is not on our side. That is why I 
support this balanced and nuanced resolution providing our President 
with the powerful backing of Congress in an effort to disarm Iraq. It 
is my sincere hope that this resolution will stimulate intrusive and 
decisive action by the United Nations and at the same time lead to a 
full disarmament of Saddam Hussein. But if it does not, the United 
States of America must stand willing to act in order to prevent more 
events like those of September 11.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and a combat veteran from Vietnam.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the vote we are debating 
today will be the most significant vote that we cast during this 
Congress and perhaps during our entire careers. I say that for two 
reasons.
  First, this vote may very well send our American soldiers into what 
has been called on this floor ``harm's way.'' Make no mistake about it, 
it is important to note that is a very nice and sanitary way of saying 
that our soldiers will be going to war. They will face combat 
conditions that our forces have not seen during most of our lifetimes. 
According to the military experts and the generals I have heard from, 
the casualty rates may be high.
  If, as some expect, Saddam Hussein uses chemical and biological 
weapons to defend Baghdad, the results will be horrifying.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in combat; and I am not willing to vote to 
send another soldier to war without clear and convincing evidence that 
America or our allies are in immediate danger and not without the 
backup and support of allied forces.
  The President delivered a good speech on Monday evening. I agree with 
him that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and that he is trying to 
build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. However, he showed us 
no link between Iraq and September 11, nor did he produce any evidence 
that even suggests that America or our allies are in immediate danger.
  This morning we learned from the CIA that Saddam Hussein is unlikely 
to use chemical or biological weapons if unprovoked by a U.S. military 
campaign. Most alarming about that news today is the report concludes 
by saying that, if we attack, the likelihood of him using weapons of 
mass destruction to respond would be ``pretty high.''
  Second, this vote is a radical departure from the foreign policy 
doctrine that has served us honorably for the past 200 years. This 
radical departure to an unprovoked, preemptive first-strike policy 
creates what I believe will be a grave new world. This new foreign 
policy doctrine will set an international precedent that tells the 
world, if they think their neighbor is a threat, attack them.
  This, I believe, is precisely the wrong message for the greatest 
Nation, the only true superpower Nation and the most wonderful 
democracy our planet has known, to send to Russia and Chechnya, to 
India and Pakistan, to China and Taiwan, and to whomever else is 
listening. And one thing we know, everyone is listening.
  For these two reasons, I cannot support a resolution that does not 
first require that all diplomatic options be exhausted, that we work 
with the United Nations Security Council, and that we proceed to disarm 
Iraq with a broad base of our allies.
  I appreciate the President's new position that war is the last option 
and that he will lead a coalition in our effort in Iraq. But, 
unfortunately, that is not what this resolution says. This resolution 
is weak at best on exhausting the diplomatic options and relinquishes 
to the executive branch Congress' constitutional charge to declare war. 
I believe that is wrong.
  We must address the potential danger presented by Saddam Hussein. The 
first step should be the return of the U.N. weapons inspectors; and 
they must have unrestricted and unfettered access to every square inch 
of Iraq, including the many presidential palaces. We must then work 
with the Security Council to ensure the strictest standards, protocols, 
and modalities are in place to make certain that Hussein cannot weasel 
out of any of these inspections.
  Finally, we need to amass the allied support necessary to carry out 
the inspections in a manner that will guarantee Iraq is completely 
stripped of all weapons of mass destruction and left unable to pursue 
new weapons of this type.
  We had great success in building a coalition to fight terrorism, and 
we should do no less when it comes to disarming Saddam Hussein. We must 
respect international order and international law in our efforts to 
make this world a safer place.
  With our military might, we can easily gain superiority over anyone 
in the world. However, it takes more than military might to prevail in 
a way that provides hope and prosperity, two ingredients that make it 
less likely for terrorism to breed and impossible for repressive 
dictators to rule.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is the decision of this Congress to go to war, I 
will support our troops 1,000 percent. However, I saw Baghdad and I 
know fighting a war there will be ugly and casualties may be extremely 
high. Let us exhaust the diplomatic options, return the weapons 
inspectors, continue to build an international coalition so Saddam 
Hussein sees the world, not just the U.S. at the end of the gun. By 
doing this, we can avoid sending our soldiers into combat in Baghdad 
unless it is absolutely the last option.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

[[Page 19851]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, voting to authorize sending young Americans to war is a 
serious decision. Members will make that decision in this Chamber 
tomorrow.
  Yesterday and today we have heard very impressive debate, most of 
which favors the resolution; some did not. We have heard over and over 
again the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime is not only to the 
United States and our interests but to many other parts of the world.
  I am not going to restate those issues that have already been stated 
yesterday and today, but as one of the many cosponsors of House Joint 
Resolution 114, I do rise in support of this resolution to authorize 
the use of United States military force against Saddam Hussein's 
regime.
  Much like the first hours and days after September 11, the world, our 
friends and our foes, wondered how would the United States respond to 
that attack on our Nation? They wanted to know if we as a Nation would 
follow through with a serious response to bring the terrorists to 
justice. They wanted to see if we would respond with a token strike, as 
we did following the attack on U.S. troops in Somalia, at Khobar Towers 
in Saudi Arabia, against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 
the attack on our sailors aboard the USS Cole. The world watched. Our 
credibility was at stake. Before joining us, many of our friends were 
waiting to see if we were serious this time. Our enemies were not 
concerned because they believed they could absorb another token 
response, as they had in past years.
  But the message became clear just 3 days after September 11. A 
response was certain when Congress, with a strong bipartisan vote, 
stood and unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to allow the President of the United States to lead 
not only a recovery effort in those parts of our country that were 
attacked in New York City and at the Pentagon but to pursue the war 
against the Taliban and against al Qaeda and against any terrorist, 
wherever they might be hiding. It was to fund the war against 
terrorism, wherever they were waiting to attack again.
  When Congress spoke, almost immediately, with unity and with force, 
our friends knew we were serious this time, and it was with confidence 
that they joined our cause. And our enemies knew right away that 
America was serious; and when President Bush said what it was we were 
going to do, they knew that we had the resolve to fight the battle, no 
matter how long it would take or where it would lead.
  Today, we are in a similar situation. There is no question about the 
threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's regime, to our allies, and 
to world peace. As has been pointed out here many times today, he has 
defied one United Nations resolution after another for more than a 
decade.
  Remember, he lost the war. He lost the war in Desert Storm, and he 
signed up to certain rules and regulations which go along with losing a 
war, and he has ignored all of them. He has developed and stockpiled 
chemical and biological weapons. We know that he is seeking nuclear 
weapons. We know that he has aided and abetted terrorists who have 
struck international targets around the world. But now it is time for 
Congress to speak again with a firm and resolute voice, just as we did 
on September 14, 3 days after the cowardly attacks on innocent 
Americans.
  Many of our friends are watching and they are waiting today, as they 
were last year. Are they going to join with us, or not? Is this a 
serious effort, or not? Is Congress speaking for the American people to 
support the President of the United States as he seeks to protect this 
Nation and our interests?
  President Bush needs Congress to act to convince our allies, our 
friends, and our enemies that we are serious. They need to know that 
our Nation is resolved to continue this battle against terrorism into 
Iraq if necessary.
  Many have said that Saddam Hussein is not a real threat to the United 
States because he is so far away, and he is far away. It is a long 
distance.

                              {time}  1800

  Many have said that the President's speech Monday night did not 
address a lot of new subjects. He compiled and organized very well, 
many of the existing arguments. But he did say something new for those 
who paid really close attention. The President discussed for the first 
time publicly information that many of our colleagues who work with 
intelligence issues have been aware of for quite some time. That 
involves Saddam Hussein's aggressive efforts to develop and use 
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, as a delivery method for his weapons of 
mass destruction. The SCUDs did not have a very long range. The SCUDs 
were not very accurate. I can attest to that because one night visiting 
with General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, a SCUD 
was launched near our site, and it landed not too far away; but it was 
far enough away that it did not hurt anybody. So we know that the SCUDs 
were not that accurate. UAVs are a different story. UAVs have a much 
longer range; UAVs are able to be piloted and trained specifically on a 
target. UAVs are dangerous. And if my colleagues do not think UAVs have 
a long range, we ourselves have flown a UAV from the United States to 
Australia and back. Saddam is aggressively seeking ability to use those 
long-range UAVs to put so many more targets in his sights. We cannot 
let that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, with this resolution Congress reaffirms our support for 
the international war against terrorism. It continues to be 
international in nature, as this resolution specifically expresses 
support for the President's efforts to strictly enforce, through the 
United Nations Security Council, and I will repeat that, through the 
United Nations Security Council, all relevant Security Council 
resolutions applicable to Iraq. It also expresses support for the 
President's efforts to obtain prompt decisive action by the Security 
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, 
and noncompliance with those resolutions.
  One of the lessons of September 11 is that terrorism knows no 
boundaries. Its victims are men and women, children and adults. It can 
occur here; it can occur abroad. It can occur anywhere. Terrorists 
strike without warning. If we are to fight and win the war on 
terrorism, we must remain united, united in the Congress, united with 
the President of the United States, and united with the American 
people. President Bush told the Nation last September that victory 
would not come quickly or easily. It would be a battle unlike any our 
Nation has ever waged. Now is not the time to send a mixed message to 
our friends and allies. Now is not the time to show our enemies any 
weakness in our resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to record our votes on this important 
resolution, we should remember the victims of terrorism, September 11 
and other examples, and our promise last year to seek out and destroy 
the roots of terrorism whether it be its sponsors, planners, or the 
perpetrators of these cowardly missions. We should remember the unity 
of our Nation and the world. The battle continues, the stakes remain 
high, and the cause remains just. America must again speak one more 
time with unity, with force, and with clarity. This resolution does 
that.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi regime has posed a threat to peace, to the 
United States, and to the world for too long. In order to protect 
America against this very real and growing threat, I support giving the 
President the authority to use force, to use military action if 
necessary against Iraq. Without a doubt this is one of the most 
difficult decisions I have had to make as a Member of Congress. But 
after briefings from the administration, testimony from congressional 
hearings, I am convinced the threat to our Nation's safety is real. 
After repeatedly failing to

[[Page 19852]]

comply with U.N. inspections, Saddam Hussein's efforts to build weapons 
of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, have gone 
unchecked for far too long. The world cannot allow him to continue down 
this deadly path. Saddam Hussein must comply with U.N. inspections; but 
if not, America and our coalition must be prepared to meet this threat.
  After the Gulf War, in compliance with U.N. resolutions, a no-fly 
zone was implemented. The purpose was to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shiite 
Muslims from Saddam Hussein's aggressions and to conduct aerial 
surveillance. But since its inception, pilots patrolling the zones have 
come under repeated attack from Iraqi missiles and artillery.
  The connection between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its 
longstanding ties to terrorist networks such as al Qaeda has 
significantly altered the U.S. security environment. The two linked 
together pose a clear and present danger to our country. Consider that 
Saddam Hussein could supply the terrorists who have sleeper cells in 
our land with weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S. while 
concealing his responsibility for the action. It is a very real and 
growing threat. The Iraqi regime has been building a case against 
itself for more than 10 years, and if we fail to heed the warning signs 
and allow them to continue down this path, the results could be 
devastating, but they would not be a surprise.
  After September 11, we are on notice. If Saddam Hussein refuses to 
comply with U.N. resolutions and diplomatic efforts, we have only one 
choice in order to ensure the security of our Nation and the safety our 
citizens.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was a world away fighting to 
contain the scourge of communism in Southeast Asia, a movement grew up 
here at home to protest what we were doing. Late in the war, one of the 
anthems of that movement was a song by John Lennon called ``Give Peace 
a Chance.'' We are not here to debate the Vietnam War, but we are 
discussing war and peace. Peace is a very precious thing, and we should 
defend it and even fight for it. And we have given peace a chance for 
11 long years.
  We gave peace a chance through diplomacy, but Saddam Hussein has 
broken every agreement that came out of that diplomacy. We gave peace a 
chance through weapons inspections, but Saddam Hussein orchestrated an 
elaborate shell game to thwart that effort. We gave peace a chance 
through sanctions, but Saddam Hussein used those sanctions as an excuse 
to starve his own people. We gave peace a chance by establishing no-fly 
zones to prevent Saddam Hussein from killing more of his own citizens, 
but he shoots at our planes every day. We gave peace a chance by 
allowing him to sell some oil to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi 
people, but instead he used the revenue to build more weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have given peace a chance for more than a decade, and 
it has not worked. Even now our President is actively working to 
achieve a diplomatic solution by getting the United Nations to pass a 
resolution with teeth; and while the United Nations has an important 
role to play in this, no American President and no American Congress 
can shirk our responsibility to protect the American people. If the 
U.N. will not act, we must.
  If we go down to the other end of the national Mall, we will see on 
the Korean War Memorial the words ``Freedom is not free.'' Peace is not 
free either. What some of those who are protesting the President's 
request for military authority do not understand is that our freedoms 
were not won with poster paint. Antiwar protestors do not win our 
freedoms or our peace. The freedom to live in peace was won by men and 
women who gave their lives on the battlefields of history.
  As the world's only remaining superpower, we now even have an even 
greater responsibility to stand up to prevent mass murder before it 
happens. No world organization can override the President's duty and 
our duty to protect the American people. If Mohammed Atta had had a 
nuclear weapon, he would have used that weapon in New York and not an 
airplane. By all accounts Saddam Hussein is perhaps a year away from 
having nuclear weapons. He already has chemical and biological weapons 
capable of killing millions.
  When police detectives investigate a crime, they look for three 
things: means, motive, and opportunity. Clearly Saddam Hussein has the 
means, he has the weapons, and he has the motive. He hates America, he 
hates the Kurds, he hates Kuwaitis, he hates Iran, he hates Israel, he 
hates anyone who gets in his way. And we know that when he hates 
people, he kills them, sometimes by the thousand. He has shown the 
propensity to use his weapons and so he has the means and the motive. 
But does he have the opportunity? Saddam Hussein could easily pass a 
suitcase with a nuclear weapon off to an al Qaeda terrorist with a one-
way ticket to New York. No fingerprints, no evidence, and several 
million dead Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very real danger. Before September 11 we might 
have thought this could never happen. Today we are too wise to doubt 
it, and it is a danger that grows every day. Every day Saddam Hussein 
grows stronger. Every day Saddam Hussein builds more chemical and 
biological weapons. Every day Saddam Hussein comes a little closer to 
achieving nuclear weapons capability. Every day that passes, America 
grows more vulnerable to a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack.
  In this case inaction is more costly than action. The price of delay 
is a greater risk. The price of inaction could be catastrophic, even 
worse than September 11. We must disarm Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not advocating war. We are calling for peace, but 
peace might only be possible if we are willing to fight for it, and the 
President needs that authority to do that. I urge support for the 
resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and that he be able to control 
and yield that time to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult vote for me. If there is ever 
one vote that should be made in the national interest, a vote that 
transcends politics and where Members must vote their conscience, it is 
the one that is before us tonight.
  I have received thousands of letters against the resolution, and just 
this past weekend over 15,000 gathered in Central Park in my district 
to protest. But what is at stake are not our political careers or an 
election, but the future of our country and our way of life. I believe 
there is a more compelling case now against Saddam than 12 years ago. 
Then the threat was of a geopolitical nature, a move to change the map 
of the Middle East. But I never saw it as a direct threat to our 
Nation.
  The main question before us today is whether Saddam is a threat to 
the United States and our allies. No one doubts that he has chemical 
and biological weapons. No one doubts that he is trying to stockpile 
weapons of mass destruction. No one doubts that he has thwarted 
inspections in the past and has developed UAVs. No one doubts that he 
has consistently worked to develop nuclear power. No one doubts that he 
has twice invaded his neighbors. The question is, Will he use these 
weapons against the United States and our allies, and can we deter him 
without using force?
  As Lincoln said in the beginning days of the Civil War: ``The dogmas 
of the quiet past are inadequate to the

[[Page 19853]]

stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must 
rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act 
anew.''
  I would be for deterrence if I thought it would work. We are in a new 
era and no longer in the Cold War. Deterrence depends on the victim 
knowing from where the aggression will come and the aggressor knowing 
the victim will know who has attacked him. It has been a year since the 
anthrax attacks in our Nation, and we still do not know where the 
attacks came from. Saddam has likely taken notice that we were unable 
to tie evidence of attacks to their source, and if he believes he can 
give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against us 
without our knowing he has done so, our ability to deter him from such 
a course of action will be greatly diminished.

                              {time}  1615

  Opponents of our war talk about the unintended consequences of war. 
They do not talk about the unwanted consequences of not disarming 
Saddam. In today's environment, it is very possible he could supply 
weapons to terrorists who will attack the United States or our allies 
around the world.
  I am pleased the resolution has been improved with congressional 
input. We should proceed carefully, step by step, and use the United 
Nations and the international community to disarm Saddam so that we are 
safer in the United States and New York and in our respective States 
and clear around the world.
  Just today I spoke with British Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, on this issue. Ambassador 
Greenstock told me that the members of the Security Council, both 
permanent and otherwise, will approve a robust inspection resolution; 
and if this fails to disarm Iraq, he expects a second resolution that 
may authorize force.
  I come from a family of veterans. Most recently, my brother served in 
the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. It happens to be his birthday today. He 
told me that he parachuted many times behind enemy lines to acquire 
enemy intelligence. He saw many of his friends machine gunned down. 
This searing experience left deep wounds. So it is my deepest hope that 
we will not have to send our men and young women into harm's way.
  So it is with a very heavy heart, but a clear resolve, that I will be 
voting to support this resolution. The accumulation of weapons of mass 
destruction by Saddam and the willingness of terrorists to strike 
innocent people in the United States and our allies across the world 
have, unfortunately, ushered in a dangerous new era. It is a danger 
that we cannot afford to ignore.
  I will be voting yes. I will be supporting the President on this 
resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to 
authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I stand behind the 
Commander-in-Chief and our men and women in uniform who may be called 
upon to defend America's freedom again.
  The War Powers Resolution was passed to ensure that the collective 
judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply before the 
introduction of our Armed Forces into hostilities. I want to commend 
the President for working with Congress on crafting this critical 
resolution.
  Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime 
have refused to comply with the sanctions imposed by the United States 
and its international community. In 1990, Iraq committed an unprovoked 
act of aggression and occupation against its Arab neighbor Kuwait, a 
peace-loving nation.
  After the Gulf War, the Iraqi government continually violated the 
terms of the United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement. They 
refused to provide access to weapons inspectors to investigate 
suspected weapon production facilities.
  Americans and coalition force pilots have been fired upon thousands 
of times while lawfully enforcing the no-fly zone crafted by the United 
Nations Security Council. In 1993, they attempted to assassinate former 
President Bush. As we speak here today, members of al Qaeda are known 
to be within the borders of Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, history has proven that Saddam Hussein and his 
government cannot be dealt with through diplomatic channels or peaceful 
means. He only understands death, destruction and trampling on the 
human rights of others, as evidenced by his treatment of the Kurdish 
people in Northern Iraq and anyone in his government who questions his 
power.
  Some may argue that America is acting as the aggressor and planning a 
preemptive strike without justification. To the contrary, this is 
anticipatory self-defense against evil forces and weapons that threaten 
our national security and peace and stability throughout the Persian 
Gulf and the world.
  We do not want to see another day like September 11 ever again in 
America, or anywhere else on God's great Earth. If we do not put an end 
to Iraq's development of its weapons of mass destruction program, the 
future could be worse.
  America must act forcefully and with great resolve because the costs 
are too high. The time has come for America once again to set the 
example for the rest of the free world. Our children and our 
grandchildren should not have to face this threat again.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this joint resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
President in his policy regarding Iraq. Resolutions regarding war are 
not something we consider without much thought, and this should be very 
serious business for this House and each Member of it.
  The last few months, there has been much talk about Iraq being given 
the opportunity to respond to weapons inspections. Sometimes this is 
said as if it were a new idea. However, when a defiant Saddam Hussein 
has repeatedly rejected inspections and threatened inspectors, there is 
little reason to believe that he will cooperate.
  You may have seen the movies in which a prison is going to be 
inspected. The warden replaces the spoiled food with fresh vegetables 
and maybe even a meat entree. If Saddam Hussein allows inspectors in, 
it will only be at specific locations and not the unlimited, surprise 
inspections that we need in order to have our questions answered.
  The fact that our President would consider any additional form of 
inspection is a testimony of his desire to avoid conflict. Saddam 
Hussein's actions in the past show a lack of regard, both for his own 
people and for his neighboring nations.
  I remember back about 10 years ago as a young man preparing to 
practice law. It was about that time that the U.S. and our allies spent 
an enormous time and effort freeing the Kuwaiti people and hoped that 
the Iraqi people would also be able to free themselves from the 
dictator.
  In World War II, Hitler introduced a concept of blitzkrieg, a high-
speed attack by land and air. Today's increasingly long-range and 
accurate rockets, armed with warheads of mass destruction, makes 
blitzkrieg look like slow motion.
  The President's top advisers and the Secretary of Defense, along with 
other members of the President's Cabinet, have briefed Members of 
Congress repeatedly and in a timely manner. I went down to Pennsylvania 
Avenue to the White House just last week, and back on September 19 met 
with the Secretary of Defense along with several other Members of 
Congress at the Pentagon to discuss and be briefed on the situation in 
Iraq.
  Now, the President needs our support so that he can act quickly and 
decisively against the threat of Iraq should he deem that action 
necessary.
  Again, let me stress, the action that we take this week is not just 
another

[[Page 19854]]

vote for the United States Congress. It is, indeed, one of those 
landmark votes that will be long remembered and recorded in the history 
books. The action that we take this week might just, and certainly we 
pray, negate the need to send our troops into harm's way.
  I would urge all the Members to support our President and vote yes on 
this resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we fully discuss here the most 
serious responsibility that is entrusted to Congress, and that is 
authorizing the President to use force in the defense of our Nation. 
The decision by Congress to authorize the deployment of the U.S. 
military requires somber analysis and sober consideration, but it is 
not a discussion that we should delay.
  The President has presented to the American people a compelling case 
for intervening in Iraq, and this body has acted deliberately in 
bringing to the House floor a resolution that unequivocally expresses 
our support for our Commander-in-Chief.
  The threat to our national security from Iraq could not be more 
apparent. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Special 
Commission on Iraq succeeded in destroying thousands of chemical 
munitions, chemical agents and precursor chemicals. Iraq admitted to 
developing offensive biological weapons, including botulinum, anthrax, 
aflatoxin, clostridium and others.
  Yet this list of poisons describes only what the U.N. inspectors were 
able to detect in the face of official Iraqi resistance, deception and 
denial. They could not account for thousands of chemical munitions, 500 
mustard gas bombs and 4,000 tons of chemical weapons precursors. In the 
intervening period, development efforts have continued unabated, and 
accelerated following the withdrawals of U.N. inspectors.
  Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a resolve not only to develop deadly 
weapons of mass destruction but to use them on their own people: 5,000 
killed, 20,000 Iranians killed through mustard gas clouds and the most 
deadly agents that were inflicted on human beings. Perhaps in different 
hands the deadly arsenal possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be 
less of an imminent threat.
  This authorization of force that we will vote on soon is at some 
level also a recognition of the ongoing state of war with Iraq. In the 
last 3 weeks, 67 attempts have been made to down collision aircraft. 
Four hundred and six attempts have been made this year.
  The U.S. has struggled against the tepid resolutions and general 
inactivity of the international community for a decade. Regime change 
cannot happen through domestic posturing. Disarmament requires more 
than fervent hopes and good wishes.
  On December 9, 1941, President Roosevelt said, ``There is no such 
thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up 
in the dark and strike without warning. We cannot measure our safety in 
terms of miles on any map.''
  In 1941, Congress stood with the President and promised full support 
to protect and defend our Nation. I urge our colleagues today to do the 
same.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown), who serves with distinction on the Committee on 
International Relations and is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee 
on Health Care of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for years our policy in this country has been one of 
containment, of deterrence, of collective security, of diplomacy. We 
contained and we deterred Joseph Stalin and the Soviets for decades. We 
have contained and deterred Fidel Castro and the Cubans for 40 years. 
We have contained and deterred Communist China in its expansionist 
tendencies for 5 decades.
  Now this President wants to radically change our decades-old foreign 
policy of containment and deterrence to a policy of first strike. What 
does that tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to attack Georgia to 
better deal with Chechnya? Does it set an international precedent for 
China to go into Taiwan or deal even more harshly with Tibet? Does it 
embolden India or Pakistan, or both, each with nuclear weapons, from 
going to war in Kashmir?
  The whole point of the Security Council is to prevent member states, 
including veto-wielding permanent members, perhaps especially veto-
wielding permanent members, to prevent those member states from 
launching first strike, unilateral, unprovoked war.
  Resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, called explicitly for 
countries cooperating with the exiled Kuwaiti loyals to create a 
coalition to use force. No country, no country in international law, 
has the unilateral right to decide Iraq has not complied with U.N. 
requirements, let alone what the U.N. response should be.
  A couple of weeks ago, three retired four-star generals testified in 
the other body, stating that attacking Iraq without a United Nations' 
resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, 
would supercharge, in the general's words, supercharge recruiting for 
al Qaeda and undermine our war on terrorism.

                              {time}  1830

  There are too many questions the administration has yet to answer. If 
we strike Iraq on our own, what happens to our campaign against 
terrorism? Most of our allies in the war on terror oppose U.N. 
unilateral action against Iraq. Will our coalition against terrorism 
fracture? And if we win a unilateral war, will we be responsible for 
unilaterally rebuilding Iraq?
  I am not convinced this administration possesses the political 
commitment to reconstruct the damage after we defeat Saddam Hussein to 
bring democracy to that country. It will entail appropriations of 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, year after year after year. Do 
we have the political will and the financial commitment to do that in 
that country, in that region? Should a new enemy arise while we are 
paying for the campaign against al Qaeda and the reconstruction of 
Iraq, will our resources be so overextended that we will not be able to 
address this new threat?
  This Congress should not authorize the use of force unless the 
administration details what it plans to do and how we will deal with 
the consequences of our actions, namely, what will the U.S. role be 
after military action is completed? We should set stronger conditions 
before any military action is permitted.
  The President should present to Congress a comprehensive plan that 
addresses the full range of issues associated with action against Iraq: 
a cost estimate for military action, a cost estimate for reconstruction 
of Iraq, along with a proposal for how the U.S. is going to pay for 
these costs. We are going more into debt. Will there ever be a 
prescription drug benefit? Will we continue to underfund education? 
Will the economy continue to falter if we do this war?
  We should do an analysis of the impact on the U.S. domestic economy 
of the use of resources for military action and the use of resources 
for reconstruction of Iraq. We should answer the questions.
  We should have a comprehensive plan for U.S. financial and political 
commitment to long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization 
in a free Iraq if the President is going to talk about Iraq being a 
model of democracy in the Middle East.
  We should have a comprehensive statement that details the extent of 
the international support for military operations in Iraq and what 
effect a military action against Iraq will mean for the broader war on 
terrorism.
  We should have a comprehensive analysis of the effect on the 
stability of Iraq, and the region, of any regime change in Iraq that 
may occur as a result of U.S. military action.
  And, finally, we should have a commitment that the U.S. will take 
necessary efforts to protect the health,

[[Page 19855]]

safety, and security of the U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi civilians.
  Mr. Speaker, before we send our young men and women to war, before we 
put our young men and women in harm's way, we must make certain in 
every way that this is the best course of action.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) has 2 hours and 26 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has 39 minutes remaining; and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has 20 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman on the other 
side of the aisle if we could agree to a 2- or 3-to-1 split in order to 
normalize the time, since there is such a disparity in the amount 
consumed.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would agree to a 2-to-1 split, I would 
say to my friend from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will proceed with 
two in a row and then yield.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that 9-11 and the events of that 
day taught us, it is that our policy of containment and deterrence does 
not work against terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up and, 
at the same time, innocent civilians.
  I rise in support of this historic resolution, fully aware that this 
may be one of the most important votes this body casts.
  We all hope that we can disarm Iraq without bloodshed. That is our 
goal. We all hope and pray that risking the lives of the women and men 
of our Armed Forces will prove unnecessary. We hold out hope that this 
time, against the recent tide of history, Saddam will allow U.N. 
inspectors full access, free of deception and delay. But if the events 
of 9-11 and ongoing intelligence-gathering have shown us anything, Mr. 
Speaker, it is that we must remain ever vigilant against the new and 
growing threat to the American way of life. Terrorists who are willing 
to commit suicide to murder thousands of innocents will not be halted 
by the conventional means and policies of deterrence we have deployed.
  The greatest danger we face is in not acting, in assuming the 
terrorists who are committed to destroying our Nation will remain 
unarmed by Saddam. The first strike could be the last strike for too 
many Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we know enough at this point about the specific dangers 
posed by Iraq to make this resolution unavoidable: large stockpiles of 
chemical and biological weapons, an advanced and still-evolving nuclear 
weapons production program, support for and the harboring of terrorist 
organizations, the brutal repression and murder of its own civilian 
population, and the utter disregard for U.N. resolutions and dictates.
  Mr. Speaker, we know enough.
  We all applaud and support the President's commitment to working with 
the U.N. Security Council to deal with the threat that Iraq poses to 
the United States and our allies. I continue to hope and pray for a 
peaceful, internationally driven resolution to this crisis, but I 
believe that passing this resolution strengthens the President's hand 
to bring this about.
  But with the events of September 11 still fresh in our minds and in 
our hearts, we cannot rest our hopes on the possibility that Iraq will 
comply with U.N. resolutions. Iraq has defied the United Nations openly 
for over a decade.
  Today we are being asked to fulfill our responsibilities to our 
families, our constituents, and our Constitution; and I think we have 
to give the President the appropriate tools to proceed if Saddam does 
not cooperate with the arms inspectors and comply with existing U.N. 
resolutions.
  While we should seek the active support of other nations, we must 
first and foremost protect our homeland, our people, and our way of 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray for the best as we prepare for the worst. Today, 
we recognize that there may come a time in a moment when we realize 
that we are involved in a profound global struggle in which Saddam's 
regime is clearly at the epicenter on the side of evil; when it becomes 
clear there are times when evil cannot be appeased, ignored, or simply 
forgotten; when confrontation remains the only option.
  There are moments in history when conscience matters, in fact, when 
conscience is the only thing that matters. I urge my colleagues to vote 
their conscience and acknowledge the danger confronting us, by not 
entrusting our fate to others, by demonstrating our resolve to rid the 
world of this menace. I urge this with a heavy heart, but a heart 
convinced that if confrontation should be required, we are ready for 
the task.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Defending America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is the 
first and fundamental purpose of the Federal Government. Once, it took 
countries of great economic wealth to field a powerful military, to 
threaten the United States, and to place our people in fear. The threat 
of this new century has now changed, because we have individuals that 
truly hate us and can use something as simple as box cutters to place 
our people in fear and terror.
  With regard to the threat of Saddam Hussein, it must be recognized 
for what it is: a deliberate and patient campaign by Saddam to 
terrorize free people and undermine the very foundations of liberty.
  I am sufficiently convinced without hesitation that Saddam represents 
a clear and present danger. As a Gulf War veteran, I am filled with 
emotion to contemplate that my comrades will once again be upon the 
desert floor. I submit that it is easier to be ordered to war than to 
vote that someone else may go in my place. However, now is the time for 
our Nation to in fact be vigilant and to authorize the President to 
preserve freedom through military action, if necessary, and to take our 
foreign policy as defense in depth.
  In many respects, this resolution represents a continuation of the 
Gulf War. Saddam Hussein agreed to provisions of the cease-fire. He has 
violated his cease-fire, he has been flagrant in his violations, and 
the hostility is now open and notorious. After a decade of denial, 
deception, and hostility toward the world, it is time to seek Iraq's 
compliance and, if necessary, remove this despotic dictator, his 
weapons of mass destruction, and the terrorists he supports and 
harbors.
  Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party rule Iraq through terror and 
fear. I will share some personalized stories.
  Through interrogations at the enemy prisoner of war camp during the 
Gulf War, having done these interviews with Iraqi high command 
conscripts, I learned several things: number one, the Iraqi people do 
not like Saddam because he, in fact, keeps the great wealth to himself, 
keeps different tribes in ignorance, to the pleasure of his own tribe. 
In fact, one of the conscripts that I interrogated was scared to death 
of an American soldier. Why? Because they had been told that if you are 
captured by Americans, that you, in fact, would be quartered, your body 
would be quartered. Over 90,000 Iraqis that were held in two prisoner 
of war camps, I say to my colleagues, have had the opportunity to tell 
the stories of how well they were treated by Americans and, in fact, 
they called the prisoner of war camps ``the hotel.''
  Let me tell about their leadership. Before the interrogation of a 
two-star Iraqi general, he was sitting with his legs crossed on the 
desert floor with his hands in his face weeping like a child. I had an 
interpreter with me. When I walked up, I kicked the bottom of his boot 
and, through the interpreter, I asked him to stand at attention. He 
stood up and I asked him if he was an Iraqi general. He responded and 
said

[[Page 19856]]

yes, he was. Here I am, an American captain in the Army, and I told 
him, then if you are an Iraqi general, then act like one.
  Mr. Speaker, why would an Iraqi general be weeping upon the desert 
floor? Because Saddam hand-selects his general officers. They do not 
earn it. The men who serve in their military have not earned the trust 
and confidence.
  Also, what will be told is the lethality of American combat troops. 
They know exactly what happened in the short war of the gulf. The 
operations with regard to any military action that may occur in the 
Gulf War, I say to my colleagues, is so completely different than the 
operations of 10 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the Iraqi people because I also remember 
them. Do my colleagues know what their request was at the prisoner of 
war camp to bring calm? They just wanted to listen to Madonna. So that 
is what we did. We piped in Madonna. They wanted to listen to ``The 
Material Girl.'' Their culture is far more Westernized than we could 
ever imagine, and they like Americans.
  This is not against the Iraqi people. This is any action to get 
Saddam Hussein to comply with the cease-fire to disarm; and if, in 
fact, he does not, then force is the means of last resort. And the 
soldiers, while they prepare to fight and win the Nation's wars, they 
are the ones who have taken the oath to lay down their life for the 
Constitution, and they do not want to fight. In fact, they want peace. 
But if called upon, they, in fact, will serve.
  So I will vote for this resolution, and I will think about my 
comrades who may be placed in harm's way, and I also will think of the 
children that are left behind and the spouses who will keep the watch 
fires burning for their loved ones. Support the resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, American 
foreign policy has struggled to define its role in the post-Cold War 
world. Unsure of when to use military force, how to use it, and with 
which allies, we have stumbled from engagement to ad hoc engagement 
from Somalia to Kosovo. We have at times acted hastily in the world; 
more often, far too late.
  Our recent fecklessness points up the foreign policy confusion that 
the welcome end of the long war with totalitarianism has left with us. 
Confronted with the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans were united 
in the goals of containment and deterrence, this latter purpose backed 
up by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Such strategies are, of 
course, still not outdated, as we face an unstable Russia and a growing 
China, both armed with significant nuclear arsenals. But the primacy of 
these doctrines has no doubt receded with the Peace of Paris and with 
the difficult challenges that have arisen since.
  As our Nation enters the 21st century, we are confronted by some of 
these challenges, like humanitarian crises in Somalia which are brought 
into our homes through the global reach of communications technology, 
and world opinion demands action to bring relief. Ethnic cleansing, 
with its echoes of the Holocaust, insist that the United States and its 
Western allies make good on the promise of ``never again.'' And the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction, which means that, for the first 
time in history, a nonstate actor can inflict lethal harm on a State, 
compels us to develop new doctrines of defense.

                              {time}  1845

  It is amidst this intellectual muddle that the current crisis with 
Iraq arises. There are certain undeniable facts about Saddam Hussein, 
who has so ruthlessly ruled Iraq for more than 20 years. He alone in 
the world has used chemical weapons, against his own people. He has a 
sophisticated biological weapons program. Most importantly, he has an 
insatiable appetite for nuclear weapons, which, but for the foresight 
of Israel and the success of the Gulf War, he would already possess. 
With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly tried to 
dominate the Middle East, a region of critical importance to the United 
States.
  These facts alone dictate immediate action to disarm Iraq. If Saddam 
Hussein were to acquire a nuclear weapon, he would be able to muscle 
surrounding states, as he attempted to do with Kuwait in 1990, with 
relative impunity, for the threat of nuclear reprisal would deter all 
but the most determined vindicators of international law and Middle 
East stability.
  Were Saddam Hussein to control not only his own mighty oil fields but 
also those of his neighbors, the havoc to the world economy could not 
be overestimated, as would the danger to our long-standing ally, 
Israel.
  Many people over the last 2 days have spoken eloquently of the need 
for United Nations approval before any American action against Iraq. 
President Bush was wise to recently address the U.N., and I am 
confident that the United Nations will acknowledge the need to enforce 
its own resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq; and recognize, 
too, that only the threat of military force can make those demands 
understood.
  But if the United Nations itself has so little self-regard as to not 
demand compliance by Iraq, then that body's impotence should not 
forestall the United States from making the world's demands on its own.
  While consistency is not always valued highly in Congress, my own 
party would well remember that President Bill Clinton chose to take 
action in Kosovo without any approval from the Security Council; 
indeed, against the opposition of at least one permanent Security 
Council member, but with the approval of most Democrats in the House of 
Representatives.
  Still others of my colleagues have suggested that we must wait for 
further provocation by Iraq. Somehow, they argue, it is against the 
American tradition to take preventative military action; or they argue 
that Iraq can be deterred in the same manner as was the Soviet Union. 
Grenada, Panama, and Haiti rebut the notion that the United States is a 
stranger to unilateral preventative action, as does the commonsense 
realization that times have changed, and it is not so much the 
detonation of a nuclear bomb that threatens the United States but 
Iraq's mere possession of such a weapon.
  Deterrence works well when it must, but the assumption that all are 
deterrable is, in the wake of September 11, on very shaky footing, 
indeed.
  There is, in the end, no choice about disarmament. The only 
alternatives are between forced agreement or nonconsensual military 
force. Paradoxically, it is the threat of force which we authorize in 
this resolution that offers the best chance for a peaceful disarmament.
  The authorization of force, which has in recent years taken the place 
of formal declarations of war, is the most grave and momentous decision 
anyone in Congress can make, but we will authorize force against Iraq 
tomorrow, and we will be right to do so. We will be right not because 
we desire war with Iraq, but because we desire to prevent it; right not 
because we lead this cause, but because no one else will; and right not 
because war is our first resort, but, unlike Iraq, it is always our 
last.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, if given a simple choice, no 
rational human being would advocate war over peace. No father and no 
mother would ever want to send their daughter or son into harm's way. 
No truly civilized people would ever want to sit idly by and let their 
friends and allies be annihilated.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these are principled beliefs, all of 
which confront us at this difficult time. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 
today we do not live in a perfect world. Tonight, however, as we debate 
the question of giving our President and Commander-in-Chief Congress' 
authorization to conduct war, we must remember the lessons of history. 
More than 60 years ago,

[[Page 19857]]

many closed their eyes, many covered their ears, or chanted the same 
chorus for peace that we now hear. Mr. Speaker, when will we learn that 
we cannot trust, we cannot pacify, and we cannot negotiate with a mass 
murderer?
  Mr. Speaker, humanity cannot afford ever to experience another 
Holocaust as a cruel reminder. Israel is not an expendable commodity.
  Tonight, just a few miles from here near our Nation's Capitol, a mad 
killer lurks. Think of the terror tonight of those in range of that 
single madman. Think also of the terror in Israel, never knowing true 
security. I ask the Members, is that the kind of world we want our 
children and grandchildren to live in? I say no, a thousand times no.
  That is why tonight I will support this resolution. I rise in support 
of the resolution and our President to ensure that we do not repeat 
history, or that we do not have our children live in that kind of 
world.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114 
to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. 
While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops 
to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to 
protect U.S. national security interests.
  The events of September 11 showed that we are not protected from an 
attack on our homeland. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein 
possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction. The 
U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq 4 years ago for a 
reason. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result 
in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively.
  Some ask why we must act against this threat in particular. The 
answer is that this threat is unique. I need not remind anyone that 
Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction already against his own 
people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East and has 
struck other nations in the region, including our ally, Israel, without 
warning.
  Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of 
freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam 
Hussein cannot carry out a first strike against the United States or 
our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, while there is no doubt that unqualified support for 
military intervention from the U.N. is preferable, we must be prepared 
to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of 
our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have 
U.S. interests at heart.
  The resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in 
Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade 
Iraq should he determine that Hussein is not complying with the 
conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these is full and 
unfettered weapons inspections. If he fails to comply, we will have no 
choice but to take action. Our security demands it.
  Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not 
conclude that respectful disagreements on the floor of this House 
divide us. On the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of 
all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look 
no further than to Iraq to understand why.
  At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I find 
comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we 
will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our 
homeland from those who wish to destroy us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who serves on the Committee on Financial Services 
and whose career has been earmarked by respect for the rule of law.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
that kind yielding of time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a quote: ``I'm concerned about living with my 
conscience, and searching for that which is right and that which is 
true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist 
following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to 
us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 
`Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' we tend to determine what 
is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority 
opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.
  ``Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more 
and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will 
take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though 
it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse.''
  That is excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a part of a creative minority in 
Congress who oppose this apparently inevitable resolution granting the 
President the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from 
power. But I will not be a silent minority.
  I know who Saddam Hussein is. I know he has viciously killed hundreds 
of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical and biological 
weapons. I know he has murdered members of his own cabinet; in fact, 
his own family. I remember vividly his aggressions in Iran and Kuwait 
and the SCUD missiles he launched into Israel in the Gulf War. I know 
the contempt he has shown toward the U.N. and its weapons inspectors as 
they attempted to enforce post-Gulf War resolutions; and I know that 
the world, and particularly the Gulf region, would be a better and 
safer place without Saddam Hussein in power and those of his ilk in 
power.
  But I also know that the resolution before us is a product of haste 
and hubris, rather than introspection and humility. I have seen 
President Bush confront the Iraq question with arrogance and 
condescension, initially bullying this Congress, our international 
allies, and the American people with accusations and threats and tales 
of terror eliciting fear in their hearts and minds.
  President Bush has told us that war is not inevitable, but does 
anyone really believe that? For months, this administration has marched 
inexorably towards an attack on Iraq, changing its rationale to suit 
the circumstances. I have no doubt that, regardless of what we do here 
or what Saddam does there, we will go to war. I pray I am wrong.
  The CIA today said Saddam is unlikely to initiate a chemical or 
biological attack against the United States and presented the alarming 
possibility that an attack on Iraq could provoke him into taking the 
very actions this administration claims an invasion would prevent.
  I know, too, who we are. America has never backed down from a just 
war. From the Revolutionary era to the Civil War, across Europe, Asia, 
and Africa, in two world wars, just a dozen years ago in the Persian 
Gulf, and countless missions to faraway places like Bosnia, Kosovo, 
Liberia, and Afghanistan, America fought. We fought with righteousness, 
determination, and vision. We fought because principles and freedoms 
were threatened. We fought because fighting was our last choice.
  America has always fought with a vision to the future and has been 
merciful and generous in our victories.
  But the White House has not offered any vision for post-Saddam Iraq. 
As a Nation founded on moral principles, we have a moral obligation to 
prepare a plan for rebuilding Iraq before we declare war. Iraq, like 
Afghanistan and many of the other nations in the Gulf region, is made 
up of many ethnic groups that will compete for power in the vacuum that 
is created by Saddam Hussein's ouster. But as important as the tactical 
plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein are, we must address how we intend to 
help the Iraqi people institute a democratic government.
  I ask the President, can he not answer a few simple questions: Have 
we completed the war on terrorism? What happened to Osama bin Laden? Do 
we know how long a war in Iraq would last? Has there been any 
assessment

[[Page 19858]]

for the American people of how much a war in Iraq will cost our 
economy? Does he have any idea of the human loss we should expect in a 
war with Iraq?
  Instead of answers, he gives us bombast. Yes, we have all heard the 
rhetoric: Saddam is evil, Saddam hates America, Saddam must be stopped, 
and you are either with us or against us. If you are not with us, we 
don't need you.

                              {time}  1900

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this resolution be extended for 2 hours to be equally divided 
between the majority and minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair grants an additional hour to be 
controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. 
Issa) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we face no more important issues 
than those of war and peace, and for that reason I agree wholeheartedly 
with my colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who just spoke that this must 
be a vote of Congress. For that reason this extended debate on the 
House floor is very appropriate and the views expressed by Members of 
Congress are deserving of respect. Having read it closely, my view is 
that the carefully crafted resolution before us is the right approach.
  On Monday in my hometown of Cincinnati, the President of the United 
States clearly explained to the country what is at stake. He not only 
made the case that inaction is not an option, but that given the 
dangers and defiance of the Iraqi regime, the threat of military action 
must be an available option. Time and time again, Saddam Hussein has 
proven to be a threat to the peace and security of the region. That is 
why the international community through the United Nations has 
repeatedly called on the Iraqi regime to keep its word and open all 
facilities to weapons inspections. Yet repeatedly Iraq has refused, 
defying the United Nations. There is no reason to believe that without 
the threat of force, the disarmament the Iraqi regime agreed to as part 
of the disarmament after the Gulf War more than 10 years ago will ever 
occur.
  And there is other gathering danger and risk to America and all 
freedom-loving people. The horror of September 11, Mr. Speaker, 
awakened us to that reality. We know that the Iraqi regime is producing 
and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons. We know they are in 
the process of obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know that this regime has 
a consistent record of aggression of supporting terrorist activities. 
Once the Iraqi regime possesses a nuclear weapon, it, or the technology 
that creates it, could easily be passed along to a terrorist 
organization. Already chemical and biological weapons could be 
provided. We must not permit this to happen.
  The resolution will authorize military action but only if it is 
necessary. I would hope that every Member in this Chamber would pray 
that it would not be necessary. But the choice is clear, and it is a 
choice for the Iraqi regime to make. If the regime refuses to disarm, 
our military and our coalition partners will be compelled to make a 
stand for freedom and security against tyranny and terrorism. And if we 
take this course, it will not be unilateral as others on this floor 
have said. The United States will not be alone.
  I commend the President for his diplomatic initiatives, for 
continuing to try to work through the United Nations, and for an 
impressive array of coalition partners already assembled. I do not take 
lightly the fact that the course laid out by this resolution may put at 
risk the lives of young men and women in uniform. But I believe not 
authorizing the possible use of force would put even more innocent 
Americans at risk.
  This is a solemn debate and a tough vote of conscience. Mine will be 
a vote for an approach that I believe faces up to the very real dangers 
we face and maximizes the chance that these dangers can be addressed 
with a minimum loss of life. I will strongly support our President, Mr. 
Speaker, and I support the resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and that he be able 
to control and yield that time to others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  September 11, 2001, is a day that will rank with December 7, 1941, as 
a day of infamy in the history of the United States. That one event, 9-
11, changed the world we live in forever. I serve as a delegate to the 
NATO Parliamentary Assembly from the Congress and never have I seen the 
outpouring of good will and support from our NATO allies as we 
experienced in the aftermath of 9-11.
  For the first time in the 50-plus-year history of the mightiest 
military alliance in modern times, article 5 of the NATO charter was 
invoked stating in essence that when one member nation comes under 
attack, all consider themselves under attack and each pledges to the 
other member nations all military, diplomatic, and territorial assets 
they individually and collectively possess.
  This past summer, less than a year from 9-11, the President and Vice 
President began to talk about a regime change in Iraq. The philosophy 
was this: Saddam Hussein is a despot and a threat to develop and 
perfect weapons of mass destruction including nuclear capabilities; 
and, therefore, he must be removed. Further, we, the United States, 
were going to effectuate that change with or without our allies, save 
the British. Suddenly the good will and support for America began to 
erode, particularly among our European allies and even here at home.
  In fact, some with good reason, in my view, think an election in 
Germany turned on this one issue. The United States, led by President 
Bush and Vice President Cheney's rhetoric, was boxing herself into a 
very dangerous and potentially disastrous position. Should that policy 
have continued, I would have voted ``no'' on this resolution.
  Why do I say that? The best offense we have available to us to 
protect our country and our citizens is accurate, timely intelligence 
information so that we know what al Qaeda or others are planning, how 
they are planning it, when they are planning to attack us again so that 
we can stop it. In this war of terrorism, all of the United States 
military might and every weapon our country possesses is of little or 
no value in the defense of our homeland without these intelligence 
resources.
  This unilateral approach by the administration threatened to 
jeopardize cooperation from those around the world who may be in a 
position to give us such intelligence information. World support, world 
opinion and the good will of every nation, no matter how small or 
militarily insignificant, has never been more important to us. A 
whisper in one ear from Kabul to Bagdad to the Philippines to Germany 
or even to Oregon can be more important in this war than all of the 
military might on Earth, for it may give us the warning we need to stop 
another event in this country as occurred on 9-11.
  Thankfully, the President's appearance at the United Nations last 
month

[[Page 19859]]

and his speech in Cincinnati Monday night sent a signal to our allies 
and to many of our own citizens who do not and did not support the 
``lone cowboy'' approach, that the administration finally recognized 
the importance of international cooperation and the role of all 
civilized people as expressed by the United Nations in this war against 
humanity. Again, I refer not to the military resources offered by our 
global allies, but to the intelligence information which is vital or 
perhaps more vital to our national defense.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has an amendment which 
I believe does no harm to the substance of the resolution and in my 
view is much preferable and more compatible with our constitutional 
powers as Congress. I hope every Member will seriously consider its 
adoption. But should that fail, I believe that passage of this 
resolution is in the best interest of our country at this time. Such 
action on our part will hopefully spur movement in the international 
arena to enforce the United Nations resolutions when violated, with 
civilization as the prosecutor and humanity as the victor.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my many esteemed colleagues today in support of 
the resolution authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. 
This is a historic moment in our country, and it should not be taken 
lightly. But it is not the first historic moment when it comes to 
Saddam Hussein's regime. This is hopefully the last chapter in a long 
saga of our dealings with Saddam Hussein.
  More than 20 years ago he began to endanger his neighbors. More than 
12 years ago he invaded Kuwait. His cruel regime has had a long history 
of the kind of practices that are not tolerated anywhere on this globe, 
and yet they persist.
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is in fact writing the last chapter as we 
speak in a 12-year war. We are not considering action which would be 
preemptive or a strike to begin a war. We are, in fact, dealing with an 
absence of peace which has cost America lives and time and effort for 
more than a decade. Over the past 10 years he has made a mockery of the 
United Nations and the multi-national diplomacy that we have in fact 
participated in. He has systematically undermined the United Nations 
resolutions that were designed to disarm and reform his regime. He 
threw out weapons inspectors in 1998 and has rebuilt his weapons of 
mass destruction; and there is no question he intends to target 
America. In fact, in 1993 he targeted President George Herbert Bush for 
assassination.
  Each of those events was more than sufficient for us to do what we 
now must do. But the United States was patient. The United Nations was 
patient. We have all been patient for more than a decade. I believe 
that we need not look for the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's 
back; but in fact we need to simply ask, Why did we wait so long? Why 
did we tolerate this dictator so long? Even why in 1998 when the last 
administration rightfully so called for a regime change did we not act?
  I hope that this body in its consideration of this resolution does 
not ask why should we act today, but in fact should ask why should we 
not act and why did we take so long?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, who recently returned from 
Afghanistan where she conducted a fact-finding mission.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Committee on International Relations for his kindness in 
yielding me time.
  As many of us who have come to this floor, I come with a heavy heart 
but a respect for my colleagues and the words that they have offered 
today.

                              {time}  1915

  As I stand here, I sometimes feel the world is on our shoulders, but 
I also think that my vote is a vote for life or death--I have chosen 
life and so I take the path of opposition to this resolution in order 
to avoid the tragic path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert 
MacNamara to admit, in his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam War, 
we were wrong, terribly wrong.
  He saw the lost lives of our young men and women, some 58,000 who 
came home in body bags; and after years of guilt stemming from his role 
in prosecuting the war in Vietnam, MacNamara was moved to expose his 
soul on paper with his book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons 
of Vietnam.'' He noted the words of an ancient Greek philosopher that 
``the reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded solemnly, let 
this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam; that we never send our young men 
and women into war without thoughtful, provocative analysis and an 
offer of diplomacy.
  I stand in opposition for another reason, and that is because I hold 
the Constitution very dear. I might suggest to my colleagues that when 
our Founding Fathers decided to write the Constitution over 4 months of 
the hot summer of 1787, they talked about the distribution of authority 
between legislative, executive and judicial branches, and they said it 
was a bold attempt to create an energetic central government at the 
same time that the sovereignty of the people would be preserved.
  Frankly, the people of the United States should make the 
determination through this House of a declaration of war. And as the 
Constitution was written, it said, ``We the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
provide for the common defense, establish the Constitution of the 
United States of America.'' For that reason, I believe that this 
Nation, that suffered a war in Vietnam, should understand the 
importance of having the Congress of the United States declare war.
  The reason I say that is we continue to suffer today as countless 
veterans of that generation from Vietnam have never recovered from the 
physical and mental horrors of their experiences, many reliving the 
nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless on our streets at 
night. What a price we continue to pay for that mistake. Can we afford 
to make it again?
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly 
steers us towards a treacherous path of war while yielding sparse 
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. As Benjamin 
Franklin said in 1883, ``There never was a good war or a bad peace.'' 
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to give the power of diplomacy a chance and 
the power of the moral rightness of the high ground the chance that 
civilization deserves. Do we not deserve as well as the right to die 
the right to live? We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the 
alternatives. So if the unacceptable costs of war come upon us, why not 
use diplomacy? It is time to use diplomacy now.
  The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the 
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion 
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks 
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a 
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy 
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said 
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of self-
defense is an acceptable way to go. The justification would sow the 
seeds of peace if we decided to follow peace.
  It is important to note that rather than the President's proposed 
doctrine of first strike, we would do well to look to diplomacy first. 
The first strike presumption of the President would represent an 
unprecedented departure from a long-held United States policy of being 
a nonaggressor. We would say to the world that it is acceptable to do a 
first strike in fear instead of pursuing all possible avenues to a 
diplomatic solution.

[[Page 19860]]

  Imagine the world in chaos with India going after Pakistan, China 
opting to fight Taiwan instead of negotiating, and North Korea going 
after South Korea and erupting into an all-out war. Because actions 
always speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous 
admonitions to show restraint to the world would go to the winds, and 
then, of course, would fall on deaf ears.
  There is another equally important reason I must oppose this 
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively 
abdicate our constitutional responsibility as a Member of Congress to 
declare war when conditions call for such action. The resolution before 
us declares war singly by the President by allowing a first strike 
without the knowledge of imminent danger and without the input of 
Congress. It is by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States that calls for us to declare war.
  Saddam Hussein is evil. He is a despot. We know that. And I support 
the undermining of his government by giving resistance to the United 
States, to be able to address these by humanitarian aid, by military 
support in terms of training, and also by providing support to the 
resistance. Yet I think we can do other things. Diplomacy first, 
unfettered robust United States weapons inspections, monitored review 
by United Nations Security Council, Soviet Union model of ally-
supported isolation, support of democratization, and developing a more 
stringent United States containment policy.
  This resolution is wrong. We must not abdicate our responsibility. 
And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as I go to my seat, I stand here on 
the side of saving the lives of the young men and women of this Nation.
  As I stand on the House floor today with great respect for the 
heartfelt positions of my colleagues, I must take the path of 
opposition to this resolution in order to avoid following the tragic 
path that led former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to admit in 
his painful mea culpa regarding the Vietnam war, ``We were wrong, 
terribly wrong.'' After years of guilt stemming from his role in 
prosecuting the war in Vietnam, McNamara was moved to expose his soul 
on paper with his book: ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of 
Vietnam''. He noted the words of the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus 
who said ``The reward of suffering is experience,'' and concluded 
solemnly, ``Let this be the lasting legacy of Vietnam.'' Therefore this 
legacy should remind us that war is deadly and the Congress must not 
abdicate its responsibility.
  This Nation did suffer as result of that war, and we continue to 
suffer today as countless veterans of that generation have never 
recovered from the physical and mental horrors of their experiences, 
many reliving the nightmares, plagued by demons as they sleep homeless 
on our streets at night. What a price we continue to pay for that 
mistake. Can we afford to make it again? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it so clearly 
steers us toward a treacherous path of war, while yielding sparse 
efforts to guide us to the more navigable road to peace. And as 
Benjamin Franklin said in 1883, ``there never was a good war or a bad 
peace''--but we have yet to give the power of diplomacy and the power 
of the moral high ground the chance that civilization itself deserves. 
We have had the experience of Vietnam to see the alternatives, so if 
there were ever a time for diplomacy, it has got to be now.
  The resolution before us is unlikely to lead to peace now or in the 
future because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. The notion 
of taking a first strike against another sovereign nation risks 
upsetting the already tenuous balance of powers around the world. In a 
time when countless nations are armed with enough weaponry to destroy 
their neighbors with the mere touch of a button, it can hardly be said 
that our example of attacking another country in the absence of a self 
defense justification would sow the seeds of peace around the world. 
Rather, the President's proposed doctrine of first strike, which would 
represent an unprecedented departure from a long-held United States' 
policy of being a non-aggressor, would say to the world that it is 
acceptable to do a first strike in fear, instead of pursuing all 
possible avenues to a diplomatic solution. Imagine the chaos in the 
world if India and Pakistan abandoned all notions of restraint, if 
China and Taiwan opted to fight instead of negotiate, and if North 
Korea and South Korea erupted into all-out war. Because actions always 
speak louder than words, the United States' wise previous admonitions 
to show restraint in the aforementioned conflicts would fall upon deaf 
ears as the nations would instead follow our dangerous lead.
  There is another equally important reason that I must oppose this 
resolution. It is because to vote for it would be to effectively 
abdicate my Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to delcare war 
when conditions call for such action. The resolution before us does 
authorize the President to declare war without the basis of imminent 
threat. Congress may not choose to transfer its duties under the 
Constitution to the President. The Constitution was not created for us 
to be silent. It is a body of law that provides the roadmap of 
democracy and national security in this country, and like any roadmap, 
it is designed to be followed. Only Congress is authorized to declare 
war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make 
the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear 
about the language in Article I, section 8, clauses 11-16 of our 
Constitution. In it, we are told that Congress has the power:
  To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules 
concerning captures on land and water;
  To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that 
use shall be for a longer term than two years;
  To provide and maintain a navy;
  To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 
forces; and
  To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
  This system of checks and balances, which is essential to ensuring 
that no individual or branch of government can wield absolute power, 
cannot be effective if one individual is impermissibly vested with the 
sole discretionary authority to carry out what 535 Members of Congress 
have been duly elected by the people to do. It is through the process 
of deliberation and debate that the views and concerns of the American 
people must be addressed within Congress before a decision to launch 
our country into war is made. The reason that we are a government of 
the people, for the people and by the people is because there is a 
plurality of perspectives that are taken into account before the most 
important decisions facing the country are made. Granting any one 
individual, even the President of the United States, the unbridled 
authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines 
to be necessary and appropriate is not only unconstitutional, but is 
also the height of irresponsibility.
  Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man. He has harmed his own people in 
the past, and cannot be trusted in the future to live peacefully with 
his neighbors in the region. I fully support efforts to disarm Iraq 
pursuant to the resolutions passed in the aftermath of the gulf war, 
and I do not rule out the possibility that military action might be 
needed in the future to see that those efforts come to fruition. I 
voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and still stand behind my 
decision to support the objective of helping the people of Iraq change 
their government. But that legislation contained an important caveat 
that precluded the use of United States armed forces to remove the 
government from power, and instead provided for various forms of 
humanitarian assistance. That Act, now has the effect of law, and 
unlike Iraq, we are a nation that respects the rule of law. And our 
Constitution, the supreme law of the land, sets forth the duties and 
responsibilities of Congress in clear, unambiguous language.
  The indictment against Saddam Hussein is nothing new. He is a despot 
of the worst kind, and I believe that when the United Nations Security 
Council passes a resolution determining his present status and 
outlining a plan for the future, that will provide further 
documentation for Congress to act on a military option in Iraq. Right 
now, however, we are moving too far too quickly with many alarmist 
representations yet undocumented.
  Some of us have begun to speculate about the cost that a war in Iraq 
might be. And while our economy now suffers because of corporate abuse 
and 2 years of a declining economy with high unemployment, I cannot 
help but to shudder when I think of what the cost might be--not only in 
dollars--but in human lives as well. My constituents, in flooding my 
offices with calls and e-mails all vehemently opposed to going to war, 
have expressed their concerns about the unacceptable costs of war. One 
Houston resident wrote, ``This is a war that would cost more in money 
and lives that I am willing to support committing, and than I believe 
the threat warrants. Attacking Iraq is a distraction from, not a 
continuation of the `war on terrorism'.'' I truly share this woman's 
concerns. In World War II, we lost 250,000 brave Americans who 
responded to the deadly attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing battles

[[Page 19861]]

across Europe and Asia. In the Korean war, nearly 34,000 Americans were 
killed, and we suffered more than 58,000 casualties in Vietnam. The 
possible conflict in Iraq that the President has been contemplating for 
months now risks incalculable deaths because there is no way of knowing 
what the international implications may be. Consistent talk of regime 
change by force, a goal not shared by any of the allies in the United 
Nations, only pours fuel on the fire when you consider the tactics that 
a tyrant like Saddam Hussein might resort to if he realized that had 
nothing to lose. If he does possess chemical, biological or nuclear 
weapons, we can be assured that he would not hesitate to use them if 
the ultimate goal is to destroy his regime, instead of to disarm it. 
With that being the case, there can be little doubt that neighboring 
countries would be dragged into the fray--willingly or otherwise--
creating an upheaval that would dwarf previous altercations in the 
region or possibly in the world. The resolution, as presently worded, 
opens the door to all of these possibilities and that is why I cannot 
support it.
  Because I do not support the resolution does not mean that I favor 
inaction. To the contrary, I believe that immediate action is of the 
highest order. To that end, I would propose a five-point plan of 
action:
  1. Diplomacy first;
  2. Unfettered, robust United Nations weapons inspections to provide 
full disarmament;
  3. Monitoring and review by United Nations Security Council;
  4. Soviet Union model of allied supported isolation--support of 
democratization through governance training and support of resistance 
elements; and
  5. Developing a more stringent United States containment policy.
  What I can and will support is an effort for diplomacy first, and 
unfettered U.N. inspections. As the most powerful nation in the world, 
we should be a powerful voice for diplomacy--and not just military 
might. Since we are a just nation, we should wield our power 
judiciously--restraining where possible for the greater good. Pursuing 
peace means insisting upon the disarmament of Iraq. Pursuing peace 
means insisting upon the immediate return of the U.N. weapons 
inspectors. Pursuing peace and diplomacy means that the best answer to 
every conflict and crisis is not always violence.
  Passing this resolution, and the possible repercussions that it may 
engender, will not enhance the moral authority of the United States in 
the world today and it will not set the stage for peace nor ensure that 
are providing for a more peaceful or stable world community.
  Instead, as we ensure that Iraq does not possess illegal weapons, we 
should make good on the promise to the people that we made in the 
passage of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. We should do all that we can 
to assist the people of Iraq because as President Dwight Eisenhower 
said, ``I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do 
more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people 
want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get 
out of the way and let them have it.'' I oppose this resolution--H.J. 
Res. 114.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am pleased and privileged to join this serious debate.
  I want to talk on a number of issues that I think are very, very 
important to us as we confront the decision we must make and the vote 
we must take tomorrow. I want to talk about the seriousness of this 
issue. I want to talk about the question of preemption and why America 
might even contemplate striking under these circumstances. I want to 
address the concerns of those who say they simply do not want to go to 
war and talk about why I do not want to go to war either, but sometimes 
war is necessary. I want to talk about the issue of why now, because I 
think that is a very pressing issue. And I want to talk, most 
importantly, about how I believe this resolution is the most certain 
way, indeed perhaps the only way, we have to avoid war.
  Let me begin with the seriousness of this issue. Beyond a shadow of a 
doubt, this will be the most solemn, most serious vote I believe I will 
cast in my tenure in the United States Congress. I have been here for 
some pretty serious votes. I have seen us balance a budget, I have seen 
us impeach a President, but nothing comes close to the vote on a 
resolution of force such as the one we will consider tomorrow. I 
approach that vote with the grave appreciation of the fact that lives 
are in the balance: lives of American soldiers, lives of innocent 
Iraqis, lives of people throughout the world.
  I also approach that vote with the grave knowledge that while my son 
is 16 years old and would not likely serve in this war, I have many 
constituents and many friends with sons and daughters who are 18 years 
old or 19 or 20, and who may be called upon to go to war. This is, 
indeed, I believe, the most serious issue this Congress can 
contemplate, and it is one that has weighed on me for weeks.
  Some of those amongst my constituents who are deeply worried about 
this issue say why should we act and why should we act under these 
circumstances? They argue that we should pursue deterrence. They argue 
that we should pursue containment; and then they argue that if neither 
deterrence nor containment work, we should wait until a first strike is 
launched and then we should respond.
  Well, I would respond by saying history has proven sadly over the 
history of the Saddam Hussein regime that deterrence does not work. 
This is a man who has proven by his conduct over and over again that he 
cannot be deterred. This is a man who will not respond to the kind of 
signals that the rest of the world sends in hopes that a world leader 
would respond. Although we have attempted containment, this is a man 
who has proven he will not respond to containment.
  At the end of the Gulf War, he agreed to a number of things that we 
are all now painfully aware of and that have been covered in this 
debate. He agreed to end his efforts to procure chemical and biological 
weapons. He agreed to end his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. He 
agreed to end his efforts to have and to develop long-term missiles and 
other delivery systems. And yet none of those have worked.
  At the end of the day, deterrence and containment simply have proven, 
over a pattern of 11 years, not to work. His deceit, his deception, his 
continued pattern of forging ahead show us beyond a question of a doubt 
that he will not be deterred and he will not be contained.
  We know some things. We know that because of the nature of the 
weapons that he has, and because of his willingness to use those 
weapons and to use them perhaps secretly, we cannot wait. I listened to 
the debate last night, and I was very impressed with it. One of my 
colleagues in this institution came to the floor and made an 
impassioned speech against this resolution and said, we absolutely 
should wait, and he cited the Revolutionary War and the command to our 
troops to wait until fired upon. I would suggest to my colleagues that 
when we have an enemy who has chemical and biological weapons of the 
nature of those that this enemy has, we simply cannot wait.
  VX nerve gas kills by paralyzing the central nervous system and can 
result in death in 10 minutes. Sarin nerve gas, cyclosarin nerve gas, 
mustard gas. I am afraid the words ``chemical weapons'' have lost their 
meaning; but they should not, because they are abhorrent weapons, and 
he has them. There is no doubt.
  Biological weapons. He has anthrax. He has botulism toxin. He has 
aflatoxin and he has resin toxin. It would be bad enough if he simply 
had those, but we know more. He has them and he has tried to develop 
strains of them that are resistent to the best drugs we have, resistent 
to our antibiotics. That is to say he has them, he could use them, and 
not until they had been used could we discover that the best our 
science has cannot match them.
  Now, why can we not wait, given that type of history and that type of 
chemical? Because the reality is we do not know when he will strike. He 
could indeed strike and we would not know it for days or weeks, until 
it began to manifest itself.
  But let us talk also about the whole possibility of him using 
terrorists. We talk a lot about him, and we get deceived by this 
discussion of he does not have a long-range missile that can reach the 
United States, because he does not have aircraft that can reach the 
United States, we ought not to

[[Page 19862]]

worry about those. We talk about the issue that it could be months or a 
year before he could develop a nuclear weapon. All of those are false 
pretexts. All of those are serious mistakes.
  The reality is that if he chooses to deliver those weapons through 
any of the means that we know he possibly could. By handing them in a 
backpack to a terrorist, we might never know that it was Saddam Hussein 
that delivered the weapon. And if he chooses to use chemical or 
biological weapons for such an attack, we might not know until 
hundreds, indeed until thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps 
millions of Americans were infected and fatally wounded and would die, 
and we would not know until afterwards.
  I would suggest that the old doctrine of wait until they fire is 
simply no longer applicable under these circumstances.
  Now, I have conscientious colleagues and I have constituents who come 
to me and say, I am not ready for war; I do not want war. I want to 
make it clear that no one wants war. Not a single Member of this body 
would choose war. And this resolution, as the President said the other 
night, does not mean that war is either imminent or unavoidable. The 
President made it clear he does not want war. But I would urge my 
colleagues that there are some certainties. One of those is that the 
best way to prevent war is to be prepared for war.

                              {time}  1930

  The best way to prevent such a war is to send clear and unmistakable 
signals. He has unarmed aerial vehicles. That is to say, he has model 
airplanes, and he has larger airplanes which can be operated by remote 
control.
  It has been pointed out that, given his lack of trust, an unmanned 
aerial vehicle, an unmanned airplane, is the perfect weapon for this 
leader, this insane leader, to use, because he does not have to trust a 
pilot who might not follow orders. He has the operator of a remote-
controlled vehicle standing next to him. If, in fact, the pilot were to 
choose to not drop his load, there would be little he could do in a 
manned aircraft to that pilot. But in an unmanned aerial vehicle, 
equipped with a chemical or biological weapon, he remains in control; 
and it could easily be done.
  He could bring that kind of weapon to our shores in a commercial ship 
like the hundreds lined up right now off the coast of California and 
launch them from there, and we would not know about the attack until 
after it was done.
  It seems to me that we cannot wait under these circumstances; and it 
seems to me that he has proven beyond a doubt that deterrence and 
containment, although we have tried them, simply will not work.
  One colleague pointed out he has chemical and biological weapons; and 
in time, because he is seeking them, he will have nuclear weapons. It 
was also pointed out that if we want to rely upon a scheme of 
inspections, and my constituents back home would hope that we could 
rely on inspections. I would hope that also. But make no mistake about 
it, there are two serious flaws.
  An inspection regime that relies on inspecting a country where 
hundreds of acres are off limits, cannot be gone into, the presidential 
palaces that are there, an inspection regime that relies on that is not 
an inspection regime at all. But an inspection regime where we know to 
a moral certainty that he has mobile production facilities is an 
inspection regime that will give us false hope.
  I was in the Middle East when the first weapons inspectors were 
kicked out of Iraq. I was on a CODEL with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) and four or five other Members of Congress. They left 
Baghdad and went by ground to Jordan and flew to Bahrain. We had an 
opportunity to meet with them in Bahrain the first night they reached 
there. One of my colleagues who was there is here tonight on the other 
side of the aisle. We spent 2 to 2\1/2\ hours talking with weapons 
inspectors who had just been kicked out of Baghdad.
  They made some serious impressions upon me which I will never forget. 
One was echoed in the President's speech last night, and that is the 
Iraq people are not our enemy. In fact, weapons inspectors explained to 
us that when individual Iraqis would learn that a given weapons 
inspector was an American, they would say, America, great place. I have 
a sister in San Francisco. I have a brother in Philadelphia.
  The President said it right the other night. The Iraqi people are not 
our enemies, but they delivered another message to us and made another 
impression. That is, they explained to us carefully, six congressmen in 
a hotel room in Bahrain, now 7 years ago, they said, make no mistake 
about it, every time they got close to making a real discovery, every 
time they were at the door of a facility that they were convinced was 
producing chemical and biological weapons, there would be a stall, 
there would be a delay. They would be forced to stand outside the gates 
of that building for hours and hours while the inside was obviously 
being cleaned up.
  Indeed, they would sometimes, when they got savvy to this, the 
inspectors would send somebody around to the back gate and watch the 
equipment, watch the trucks roll out the back door.
  There is no question but that an inspection regime where they are 
determined to deceive you, where they are determined to deny you access 
to some locations, and where they have mobile facilities is no 
inspection regime at all.
  I do not want war. No one wants war. But I am convinced that the risk 
of waiting is indeed too high.
  I do not believe, and I agree with one of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who said, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein will 
ever submit to a legitimate inspection regime. But I know this much, he 
will never submit to such an inspection regime until and unless it is 
backed by credible threat of force. That is what we are talking about 
here tonight.
  We also on that trip went and visited our American troops enforcing 
the no-fly zone, both the southern and the northern no-fly zone. The 
American people deserve to know that we have been at a state of war 
with this regime for 11 years. He has fired on our pilots over and over 
and over again. He probably fired on them today. He has certainly fired 
on them within the last month. He has fired hundreds of times, and he 
has declared war against us. He has declared a holy war against us.
  We know some other facts. We know over time Saddam Hussein's weapons 
regime will grow, and the threat will become worse. We do not want war, 
but it would appear doing nothing is the one way to ensure war.
  I believe to the depth of my soul that this resolution is a measured 
and thoughtful proposal to achieve one thing, and that is the 
disarmament of Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime, hopefully by peace, 
but if necessary by force.
  I think we know that it has the potential of creating the coalition 
we all want. If America sends a weak signal and says we are not sure of 
our course, we are not sure of our path, how can we even hope to bring 
into our ranks and to our side allies in a battle against an insane 
leader such as Saddam Hussein?
  I think we also know, those of us who intend to vote for this 
resolution, it holds a second potential and that is it could lead the 
United Nations, indeed, I am prayerful, as is the President, that it 
will lead the United Nations to rise to its obligations, to make its 
resolutions meaningful, to remove itself from the irrelevancy that it 
currently has by not enforcing its resolutions, and to stand with 
strength and to say once and for all to this vicious dictator, we will 
not let you flaunt the rule of law and the requirements imposed by the 
U.N.
  It could indeed cause Saddam Hussein to come to his senses. I hope it 
will.
  I know failing to act involves too great a risk. Failing to act 
exposes not just the people of his nation, whom he has terrorized and 
butchered and tortured, to suffer longer.
  We know the dimensions to which he will go. We know the threat. We 
know

[[Page 19863]]

he will in fact and has used violence of every dimension against his 
own people, and we know for a moral certainty he will bring that 
aggression against the rest of the world if not stopped.
  No one is happy about this moment, but I believe it is the right 
course and, for those who truly want peace, the only course.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a column from the New Yorker 
written by Jeffrey Goldberg. It is called ``The Great Terror.'' It is 
an interview of the people who were the victims of Saddam Hussein's 
attack on his own people. It documents his murder of some 50,000 to 
200,000 Kurds.

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

                            The Great Terror

                         (By Jeffrey Goldberg)

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

[[Page 19864]]

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


                            2. THE AFTERMATH

       The story of Halabja did not end the night the Iraqi Air 
     Force planes returned to their bases. The Iranians invited 
     the foreign press to record the devastation. Photographs of 
     the victims, supine, bleached of color, littering the gutters 
     and alleys of the town, horrified the world. Saddam Hussein's 
     attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the 
     Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women 
     and children.
       Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led the campaigns 
     against the Kurds in the late eighties, was heard on a tape 
     captured by rebels, and later obtained by Human Rights Watch, 
     addressing members of Iraq's ruling Baath Party on the 
     subject of the Kurds. ``I will kill them all with chemical 
     weapons!'' he said. ``Who is going to say anything? The 
     international community? Fuck them! The international 
     community and those who listen to them.''
       Attempts by Congress in 1988 to impose sanctions on Iraq 
     were stifled by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the 
     story of Saddam's surviving victims might have vanished 
     completely had it not been for the reporting of people like 
     Randal and the work of a British documentary filmmaker named 
     Gwynne Roberts, who, after hearing stories about a sudden 
     spike in the incidence of birth defects and cancers, not only 
     in Halabja but also in other parts of Kurdistan, had made 
     some disturbing films on the subject. However, no Western 
     government or United Nations agency took up the cause.
       In 1998, Roberts brought an Englishwoman named Christine 
     Gosden to Kurdistan. Gosden is a medical geneticist and a 
     professor at the medical school of the University of 
     Liverpool. She spent three weeks in the hospitals in 
     Kurdistan, and came away determined to help the Kurds. To the 
     best of my knowledge, Gosden is the only Western scientist 
     who has even begun making a systematic study of what took 
     place in northern Iraq.
       Gosden told me that her father was a high-ranking officer 
     in the Royal Air Force, and that as a child she lived in 
     Germany, near Bergen-Belsen. ``It's tremendously influential 
     in your early years to live near a concentration camp,'' she 
     said. In Kurdistan, she heard echoes of the German campaign 
     to destroy the Jews. ``The Iraqi government was using 
     chemistry to reduce the population of Kurds,'' she said. 
     ``The Holocaust is still having its effect. The Jews are 
     fewer in number now than they were in 1939. That's not 
     natural. Now, if you take out two hundred thousand men and 
     boys from Kurdistan''--an estimate of the number of

[[Page 19865]]

     Kurds who were gassed or otherwise murdered in the campaign, 
     most of whom were men and boys--``you've affected the 
     population structure. There are a lot of widows who are not 
     having children.''
       Richard Butler, an Australian diplomat who chaired the 
     United Nations weapons-inspection team in Iraq, describes 
     Gosden as ``a classic English, old-school-tie kind of 
     person.'' Butler has tracked her research since she began 
     studying the attacks, four years ago, and finds it credible. 
     ``Occasionally, people say that this is Christine's 
     obsession, but obsession is not a bad thing,'' he added.
       Before I went to Kurdistan, in January, I spent a day in 
     London with Gosden. We gossiped a bit, and she scolded me for 
     having visited a Washington shopping mall without appropriate 
     protective equipment. Whenever she goes to a mall, she brings 
     along a polyurethane bag, ``big enough to step into'' and a 
     bottle of bleach. ``I can detoxify myself immediately,'' she 
     said.
       Gosden believes it is quite possible that the countries of 
     the West will soon experience chemical and biological-weapons 
     attacks far more serious and of greater lasting effect than 
     the anthrax incidents of last autumn and the nerve-agent 
     attack on the Tokyo subway system several years ago--that 
     what happened in Kurdistan was only the beginning. ``For 
     Saddam's scientists, the Kurds were a test population,'' she 
     said. ``They were the human guinea pigs. It was a way of 
     identifying the most effective chemical agents for use on 
     civilian populations, and the most effective means of 
     delivery.''
       The charge is supported by others. An Iraqi defector, 
     Khidhir Hamza, who is the former director of Saddam's 
     nuclear-weapons program, told me earlier this year that 
     before the attack on Balabja military doctors had mapped the 
     city, and that afterward they entered it wearing protective 
     clothing, in order to study the dispersal of the dead. 
     ``These were field tests, an experiment on a town,'' Hamza 
     told me. He said that he had direct knowledge of the Army's 
     procedures that day in Halabja. ``The doctors were given 
     sheets with grids on them, and they had to answer questions 
     such as `How far are the dead from the cannisters?'''
       Gosden said that she cannot understand why the West has not 
     been more eager to investigate the chemical attacks in 
     Kurdistan. ``It seems a matter of enlightened self-interest 
     that the West would want to study the long-term effects of 
     chemical weapons on civilians, on the DNA,'' she told me. 
     ``I've seen Europe's worst cancers, but, believe me, I have 
     never seen cancers like the ones I saw in Kurdistan.''
       According to an ongoing survey conducted by a team of 
     Kurdish physicians and organized by Gosden and a small 
     advocacy group called the Washington Kurdish Institute, more 
     than two hundred towns and villages across Kurdistan were 
     attacked by poison gas--far more than was previously 
     thought--in the course of seventeen months. The number of 
     victims is unknown, but doctors I met in Kurdistan believe 
     that up to ten per cent of the population of northern Iraq--
     nearly four million people--has been exposed to chemical 
     weapons. ``Saddam Hussein poisoned northern Iraq,'' Gosden 
     said when I left for Halabja. ``The questions, then, are what 
     to do? And what comes next?''


                          3. Halabja's Doctors

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

[[Page 19866]]

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


                              4. AL-ANFAL

       The chemical attacks on Halabja and Goktapa and perhaps two 
     hundred other villages and towns were only a small part of 
     the cataclysm that Saddam's cousin, the man known as Ali 
     Chemical, arranged for the Kurds. The Kurds say that about 
     two hundred thousand were killed. (Human Rights Watch, which 
     in the early nineties published ``Iraq's Crime of Genocide,'' 
     a definitive study of the attacks, gives a figure of between 
     fifty thousand and a hundred thousand.)
       The campaign against the Kurds was dubbed al-Anfal by 
     Saddam, after a chapter in the Koran that allows conquering 
     Muslim armies to seize the spoils of their foes. It reads, in 
     part, ``Against them''--your enemies--``make ready your 
     strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of 
     war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah 
     and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, 
     but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the 
     cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be 
     treated unjustly.''
       The Anfal campaign was not an end in itself, like the 
     Holocaust, but a means to an end--an instance of a policy 
     that Samantha Power, who runs the Carr Center for Human 
     Rights, at Harvard, calls ``Instrumental genocide.'' Power 
     has just published ``A Problem from Hell,'' a study of 
     American responses to genocide. ``There are regimes that set 
     out to murder every citizen of a race,'' she said. ``Saddam 
     achieved what he had to do without exterminating every last 
     Kurd.'' What he had to do, Power and others say, was to break 
     the Kurds' morale and convince them that a desire for 
     independence was foolish.
       Most of the Kurds who were murdered in the Anfal were not 
     killed by poison gas; rather, the genocide was carried out, 
     in large part, in the traditional manner, with roundups at 
     night, mass executions, and anonymous burials. The bodies of 
     most of the victims of the Anfal--mainly men and boys--have 
     never been found.

[[Page 19867]]

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


                         5. WHAT THE KURDS FEAR

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

[[Page 19868]]

     democratic institutions, we didn't have a legal culture, we 
     did not have a strong military. From that situation, this is 
     a remarkable success story.''
       The Kurdish regional government, to be sure, is not a 
     Vermont town meeting. The leaders of the two parties, Massoud 
     Barzani and Jalal Talabani, are safe in their jobs. But there 
     is a free press here, and separation of mosque and state, and 
     schools are being built and pensions are being paid. In Erbil 
     and in Sulaimaniya, the Kurds have built playgrounds on the 
     ruins of Iraqi Army torture centers. ``If America is indeed 
     looking for Muslims who are eager to become democratic and 
     are eager to counter the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, 
     then it should be looking here,'' Salih said.
       Massoud Barzani is the son of the late Mustafa Barzani, a 
     legendary guerrilla, who built the Democratic Party, and who 
     entered into the ill-fated alliance with Iran and America. I 
     met Barzani in his headquarters, above the town of 
     Salahuddin. He is a short man, pale and quiet; he wore the 
     red turban of the Barzani clan and a wide cummerbund across 
     his baggy trousers--the outfit of a peshmerga.
       Like Salih, he chooses his words carefully when talking 
     about the possibility of helping America bring down Saddam. 
     ``It is not enough to tell us the U.S. will respond at a 
     certain time and place of its choosing,'' Barzani said. 
     ``We're in artillery range. Iraq's Army is weak, but it is 
     still strong enough to crush us. We don't make assumptions 
     about the American response.''
       One day, I drove to the Kurdish front lines near Erbil, to 
     see the forward positions of the Iraqi Army. The border 
     between the Army-controlled territory and the Kurdish region 
     is porous; Baghdad allows some Kurds--nonpolitical Kurds--to 
     travel back and forth between zones.
       My peshmerga escort took me to the roof of a building 
     overlooking the Kalak Bridge and, beyond it, the Iraqi lines. 
     Without binoculars, we could see Iraqi tanks on the hills in 
     front of us. A local official named Muhammad Najar joined us; 
     he told me that the Iraqi forces arrayed there were elements 
     of the Army's Jerusalem brigade, a reserve unit established 
     by Saddam with the stated purpose of liberating Jerusalem 
     from the Israelis. Other peshmerga joined us. It was a 
     brilliantly sunny day, and we were enjoying the weather. A 
     man named Azlz Khader, gazing at the plain before us, said, 
     ``When I look across here, I imagine American tanks coming 
     down across this plain going to Baghdad.'' His friends smiled 
     and said, ``Inshallah''--God willing. Another man said, ``The 
     U.S. is the lord of the world.''


                            6. THE PRISONERS

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

[[Page 19869]]

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


                          7. THE AL QAEDA LINK

       The man they introduced me to the next afternoon was a 
     twenty-nine-year-old Iranian Arab, a smuggler and bandit from 
     the city of Ahvaz. The intelligence officials told me that 
     his most recent employer was bin Laden. When they arrested 
     him, last year, they said, they found a roll of film in his 
     possession. They had the film developed, and the photographs, 
     which they showed me, depicted their prisoner murdering a man 
     with a knife, slicing his ear off and then plunging the knife 
     into the top of the man's head.
       The Iranian had a thin face, thick black hair, and a 
     mustache; he wore an army jacket, sandals, and Western-style 
     sweatpants. Speaking in an almost casual tone, he told me 
     that he was born in 1973, that his real name was Muhammad 
     Mansour Shahab, and that he had been a smuggler most of his 
     adult life.
       ``I met a group of drug traffickers,'' he said. ``They gave 
     us drugs and we got them weapons,'' which they took from Iran 
     into Afghanistan. In 1996, he met an Arab Afghan. ``His name 
     was Othman,'' the man went on. ``He gave me drugs, and I got 
     him a hundred and fifty Kalashnikovs. Then he said to me, 
     `You should come visit Afghanistan.' So we went to 
     Afghanistan in 1996. We stayed for a while, I came back, did 
     a lot of smuggling jobs. My brother-in-law tried to send 
     weapons to Afghanistan, but the Iranians ambushed us. I 
     killed some of the Iranians.''
       He soon returned with Othman to Afghanistan, where, he 
     said, Othman gave him the name Muhammad Jawad to use while he 
     was there. ``Othman said to me, `You will meet Sheikh Osama 
     soon.' We were in Kandahar. One night, they gave me a 
     sleeping pill. We got into a car and we drove for an hour and 
     a half into the mountains. We went to a tent they said was 
     Osama's tent.'' The man now

[[Page 19870]]

     called Jawad did not meet Osama bin Laden that night. ``They 
     said to me, `You're the guy who killed the Iranian officer.' 
     Then they said they needed information about me, my real 
     name. They told Othman to take me back to Kandahar and hold 
     me in jail for twenty-one days while they investigated me.''
       The Al Qaeda men completed their investigation and called 
     him back to the mountains. ``They told me that Osama said I 
     should work with them,'' Jawad said. ``They told me to bring 
     my wife to Afghanistan.'' They made him swear on a Koran that 
     he would never betray them. Jawad said that he became one of 
     Al Qaeda's principal weapons smugglers. Iraqi opposition 
     sources told me that the Baghdad regime frequently smuggled 
     weapons to Al Qaeda by air through Dubai to Pakistan and then 
     overland into Afghanistan. But Jawad told me that the Iraqis 
     often used land routes through Iran as well. Othman ordered 
     him to establish a smuggling route across the Iraq-Iran 
     border. The smugglers would pose as shepherds to find the 
     best routes. ``We started to go into Iraq with the sheep and 
     cows,'' Jawad told me, and added that they initiated this 
     route by smuggling tape recorders from Iraq to Iran. They 
     opened a store, a front, in Ahvaz, to sell electronics, 
     ``just to establish relationships with smugglers.''
       One day in 1999, Othman got a message to Jawad, who was 
     then in Iran. He was to smuggle himself across the Iraqi 
     border at Fao, where a car would meet him and take him to a 
     village near Tikrit, the headquarters of Saddam Hussein's 
     clan. Jawad was then taken to a meeting at the house of a man 
     called Luay, whom he described as the son of Saddam's father-
     in-law, Khayr Allah Talfah. (Professor Baram, who has long 
     followed Saddam's family, later told me he believes that 
     Luay, who is about forty years old, is close to Saddam's 
     inner circle.) At the meeting, with Othman present, 
     Mukhabarat officials instructed Jawad to go to Baghdad, where 
     he was to retrieve several cannisters filled with explosives. 
     Then, he said, he was to arrange to smuggle the explosives 
     into Iran, where they would be used to kill anti-Iraqi 
     activists. After this assignment was completed, Jawad said, 
     he was given a thousand Kalashnikov rifles by Iraqi 
     intelligence and told to smuggle them into Afghanistan.
       A year later, there was a new development: Othman told 
     Jawad to smuggle several dozen refrigerator motors into 
     Afghanistan for the Iraqi Mukhabarat; a cannister filled with 
     liquid was attached to each motor. Jawad said that he asked 
     Othman for more information. ``I said, `Othman, what does 
     this contain?' He said, `My life and your life.' He said 
     they''--the Iraqi agents--''were going to kill us if we 
     didn't do this. That's all I'll say.
       ``I was given a book of dollars,'' Jawad went on, meaning 
     ten thousand dollars--a hundred American hundred-dollar 
     bills. ``I was told to arrange to smuggle the motors. Othman 
     told me to kill any of the smugglers who helped us once we 
     got there.'' Vehicles belonging to the Taliban were waiting 
     at the border, and Jawad said that he turned over the liquid-
     filled refrigerator motors to the Taliban, and then killed 
     the smugglers who had helped him.
       Jawad said that he had no idea what liquid was inside the 
     motors, but he assumed that it was some type of chemical or 
     biological weapon. I asked the Kurdish officials who remained 
     in the room if they believed that, as late as 2000, the 
     Mukhabarat was transferring chemical or biological weapons to 
     Al Qaeda. They spoke carefully. ``We have no idea what was in 
     the cannisters,'' the senior official said. ``This is 
     something that is worth an American investigation.''
       When I asked Jawad to tell me why he worked for Al Qaeda, 
     he replied, ``Money.'' He would not say how much money he had 
     been paid, but he suggested that it was quite a bit. I had 
     one more question: How many years has Al Qaeda maintained a 
     relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime? ``There's been a 
     relationship between the Mukhabarat and the people of Al 
     Qaeda since 1992,'' he replied.
       Carole O'Leary, a Middle Eastern expert at American 
     University, in Washington, and a specialist on the Kurds, 
     said it is likely that Saddam would seek an alliance with 
     Islamic terrorists to serve his own interests. ``I know that 
     there are Mukhabarat agents throughout Kurdistan,'' O'Leary 
     said, and went on, ``One way the Mukhabarat could destabilize 
     the Kurdish experiment in democracy is to link up with 
     Islamic radical groups. Their interests dovetail completely. 
     They both have much to fear from the democratic, secular 
     experiment of the Kurds in the safe haven, and they both 
     obviously share a hatred for America.''


                         8. THE PRESENT DANGER

       A paradox of life in northern Iraq is that, while hundreds, 
     perhaps thousands, of children suffer from the effects of 
     chemical attacks, the child-mortality rate in the Kurdish 
     zone has improved over the past ten years. Prime Minister 
     Salih credits this to, of all things, sanctions placed on the 
     Iraqi regime by the United Nations after the Gulf War because 
     of Iraq's refusal to dismantle its nonconventional-weapons 
     program. He credits in particular the program begun in 1997, 
     known as oil-for-food, which was meant to mitigate the 
     effects of sanctions on civilians by allowing the profits 
     from Iraq oil sales to buy food and medicine. Calling this 
     program a ``fantastic concept,'' Salih said, ``For the first 
     time in our history, Iraqi citizens--all citizens--are 
     insured a portion of the country's oil wealth. The north is a 
     testament to the success of the program. Oil is sold and food 
     is bought.''
       I asked Salih to respond to the criticism, widely aired in 
     the West, that the sanctions have led to the death of 
     thousands of children. ``Sanctions don't kill Iraqi 
     children,'' he said. ``The regime kills children.''
       This puzzled me. If it was true, then why were the victims 
     of the gas attacks still suffering from a lack of health 
     care? Across Kurdistan, in every hospital I visited, the 
     complaints were the same: no CT scans, no MRIs, no pediatric 
     surgery, no advanced diagnostic equipment, not even surgical 
     gloves. I asked Salih why the money designated by the U.N. 
     for the Kurds wasn't being used for advanced medical 
     treatment. The oil-for-food program has one enormous flaw, he 
     replied. When the program was introduced, the Kurds were 
     promised thirteen per cent of the country's oil revenue, but 
     because of the terms of the agreement between Baghdad and the 
     U.N.--a ``defect,'' Salih said--the government controls the 
     flow of food, medicine, and medical equipment to the very 
     people it slaughtered. Food does arrive, he conceded, and 
     basic medicines as well, but at Saddam's pace.
       On this question of the work of the United Nations and its 
     agencies, the rival Kurdish parties agree. ``We've been 
     asking for a four-hundred-bed hospital for Sulaimaniya for 
     three years,'' said Nerchivan Barzani, the Prime Minister of 
     the region controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Party, and 
     Salih's counterpart. Sulaimaniya is in Salih's territory, but 
     in this case geography doesn't matter. ``It's our money,'' 
     Barzani said. ``But we need the approval of the Iraqis. They 
     get to decide. The World Health Organization is taking its 
     orders from the Iraqis. It's crazy.''
       Barzani and Salih accused the World Health Organization, in 
     particular, of rewarding with lucrative contracts only 
     companies favored by Saddam. ``Every time I interact with the 
     U.N.,'' Salih said, ``I think, My God, Jesse Helms is right. 
     If the U.N. can't help us, this poor, dispossessed Muslim 
     nation, then who is it for?''
       Many Kurds believe that Iraq's friends in the U.N. system, 
     particularly members of the Arab bloc, have worked to keep 
     the Kurds' cause from being addressed. The Kurds face an 
     institutional disadvantage at the U.N., where, unlike the 
     Palestinians, they have not even been granted official 
     observer status. Salih grew acerbic: ``Compare us to other 
     liberation movements around the world. We are very mature. We 
     don't engage in terror. We don't condone extremist 
     nationalist notions that can only burden our people. Please 
     compare what we have achieved in the Kurdistan national-
     authority areas to the Palestinian national authority of Mr. 
     Arafat. We have spent the last ten years building a secular, 
     democratic society, a civil society. What has he built?''
       Last week, in New York, I met with Benon Sevan, the United 
     Nations undersecretary-general who oversees the oil-for-food 
     program. He quickly let me know that he was unmoved by the 
     demands of the Kurds. ``If they had a theme song, it would be 
     `Give Me, Give Me, Give Me,''' Sevan said. ``I'm getting fed 
     up with their complaints. You can tell them that.'' He said 
     that under the oil-for-food program the ``three northern 
     govemorates''--U.N. officials avoid the word ``Kurdistan''--
     have been allocated billions of dollars in goods and 
     services. ``I don't know if they've ever had it so good,'' he 
     said.
       I mentioned the Kurds' complaint that they have been denied 
     access to advanced medical equipment, and he said, ``Nobody 
     prevents them from asking. They should go ask the World 
     Health Organization''--which reports to Sevan on matters 
     related to Iraq. When I told Sevan that the Kurds have 
     repeatedly asked the W.H.O., he said, ``I'm not going to pass 
     judgment on the W.H.O.'' As the interview ended, I asked 
     Sevan about the morality of allowing the Iraqi regime to 
     control the flow of food and medicine into Kurdistan. 
     ``Nobody's innocent,'' he said. ``Please don't talk about 
     morals with me.''
       When I went to Kurdistan in January to report on the 1988 
     genocide of the Kurds, I did not expect to be sidetracked by 
     a debate over U.N. sanctions. And I certainly didn't expect 
     to be sidetracked by crimes that Saddam is committing against 
     the Kurds now--in particular--``nationality correction,'' the 
     law that Saddam's security services are using to implement a 
     campaign of ethnic cleansing. Large-scale operations against 
     the Kurds in Kirkuk, a city southeast of Erbil, and in other 
     parts of Iraqi Kurdistan under Saddam's control, have 
     received scant press attention in the West; there have been 
     few news accounts and no Security Council condemnations 
     drafted in righteous anger.
       Saddam's security services have been demanding that Kurds 
     ``correct'' their nationality by signing papers to indicate 
     that their birth records are false--that they are in fact 
     Arab. Those who don't sign have their property seized. Many 
     have been evicted, often to Kurdish-controlled regions, to 
     make room for Arab families. According to both the

[[Page 19871]]

     Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of 
     Kurdistan, more than a hundred thousand Kurds have been 
     expelled from the Kirkuk area over the past two years.
       Nationality correction is one technique that the Baghdad 
     regime is using in an over-all ``Arabization'' campaign, 
     whose aim is to replace the inhabitants of Kurdish cities, 
     especially the oil-rich Kirkuk, with Arabs from central and 
     southern Iraq, and even, according to persistent reports, 
     with Palestinians. Arabization is not new, Peter Galbraith, a 
     professor at the National Defense University and a former 
     senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
     says. Galbraith has monitored Saddam's anti-Kurdish 
     activities since before the Gulf War. ``It's been going on 
     for twenty years,'' he told me. ``Maybe it's picked up speed, 
     but it is certainly nothing new. To my mind, it's part of a 
     larger process that has been under way for many years, and is 
     aimed at reducing the territory occupied by the Kurds and at 
     destroying rural Kurdistan.''
       ``This is the apotheosis of cultural genocide,'' said Saedi 
     Barzinji, the president of Salahaddin University, in Erbil, 
     who is a human-rights lawyer and Massoud Barzani's legal 
     adviser. Barzinji and other Kurdish leaders believe that 
     Saddam is trying to set up a buffer zone between Arab Iraq 
     and Kurdistan, just in case the Kurds win their independence. 
     To help with this, Barzinji told me last month, Saddam is 
     trying to rewrite Kirkuk's history, to give it an ``Arab'' 
     past. If Kurds, Barzinji went on, ``don't change their ethnic 
     origin, they are given no food rations, no positions in 
     government, no right to register the names of their new 
     babies. In the last three to four weeks, hospitals have been 
     ordered, the maternity wards ordered, not to register any 
     Kurdish name.'' New parents are ``obliged to choose an Arab 
     name.'' Barzinji said that the nationality-correction 
     campaign extends even to the dead. ``Saddam is razing the 
     gravestones, erasing the past, putting in new ones with Arab 
     names,'' he said. ``He wants to show that Kirkuk has always 
     been Arab.''
       Some of the Kurds crossing the demarcation line between 
     Saddam's forces and the Kurdish zone, it is said, are not 
     being expelled but are fleeing for economic reasons. But in 
     camps across Kurdistan I met refugees who told me stories of 
     visits from the secret police in the middle of the night.
       Many of the refugees from Kirkuk live in tent camps built 
     on boggy fields. I visited one such camp at Beneslawa, not 
     far from Erbil, where the mud was so thick that it nearly 
     pulled off my shoes. The people at the camp--several hundred, 
     according to two estimates I heard--are ragged and sick. A 
     man named Howar told me that his suffering could not have 
     been avoided even if he had agreed to change his ethnic 
     identity.
       ``When you agree to change your nationality, the police 
     write on your identity documents `second-degree Arab,' which 
     they know means Kurd,'' he told me. ``So they always know 
     you're a Kurd.'' (In a twist characteristic of Saddam's 
     regime, Kurdish leaders told me, Kurds who agree to 
     ``change'' their nationality are fined for having once 
     claimed falsely to be Kurdish.)
       Another refugee, Shawqat Hamid Muhammad, said that her son 
     had gone to jail for two months for having a photograph of 
     Mustafa Barzani in his possession. She said that she and her 
     family had been in the Beneslawa camp for two months. ``The 
     police came and knocked on our door and told us we have to 
     leave Kirkuk,'' she said. ``We had to rent a truck to take 
     our things out. We were given one day to leave. We have no 
     idea who is in our house.'' Another refugee, a man named 
     Ibrahim Jamil, wandered over to listen to the conversation. 
     ``The Arabs are winning Kirkuk,'' he said. ``Soon the only 
     people there will be Arabs, and Kurds who call themselves 
     Arabs. They say we should be Arab. But I'm a Kurd. It would 
     be easier for me to die than be an Arab. How can I not be a 
     Kurd?''
       Peter Galbraith told me that in 1987 he witnessed the 
     destruction of Kurdish villages and cemeteries--``anything, 
     that was related to Kurdish identity,'' he said. ``This was 
     one of the factors that led me to conclude that it is a 
     policy of genocide, a crime of intent, destroying a group 
     whole or in part.''


                          9. IRAQ'S ARMS RACE

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

[[Page 19872]]

     UNSCOM, fell into conversation with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's 
     confidant and Iraq's deputy Prime Minister. Butler asked Aziz 
     to explain the rationale for Iraq's biological-weapons 
     project, and he recalled Aziz's answer: ``He said, `We made 
     bioweapons in order to deal with the Persians and the 
     Jews.'''
       Iraqi dissidents agree that Iraq's programs to build 
     weapons of mass destruction are focussed on Israel. ``Israel 
     is the whole game,'' Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi 
     National Congress, told me. ``Saddam is always saying 
     publicly, `Who is going to fire the fortieth missile?'''--a 
     reference to the thirty-nine Scud missiles he fired at Israel 
     during the Gulf War. ``He thinks he can kill one hundred 
     thousand Israelis in a day with biological weapons.'' Chalabi 
     added, ``This is the only way he can be Saladin''--the Muslim 
     hero who defeated the Crusaders. Students of Iraq and its 
     government generally agree that Saddam would like to project 
     himself as a leader of all the Arabs, and that the one sure 
     way to do that is by confronting Israel.
       In the Gulf War, when Saddam attacked Israel, he was hoping 
     to provoke an Israeli response, which would drive America's 
     Arab friends out of the allied coalition. Today, the experts 
     say, Saddam's desire is to expel the Jews from history. In 
     October of 2000, at an Arab summit in Cairo, I heard the 
     vice-chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, a man 
     named Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, deliver a speech on Saddam's 
     behalf, saying, ``Jihad alone is capable of liberating 
     Palestine and the rest of the Arab territories occupied by 
     dirty Jews in their distorted Zionist entity.''
       Amatzia Baram said, ``Saddam can absolve himself of all 
     sins in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim worlds by bringing 
     Israel to its knees. He not only wants to be a hero in his 
     own press, which already recognizes him as a Saladin, but 
     wants to make sure that a thousand years from now children in 
     the fourth grade will know that he is the one who destroyed 
     Israel.''
       It is no comfort to the Kurds that the Jews are now 
     Saddam's main preoccupation. The Kurds I spoke with, even 
     those who agree that Saddam is aiming, his remaining Scuds at 
     Israel, believe that he is saving some of his ``special 
     weapons''--a popular euphemism inside the Iraqi regime for a 
     return visit to Halabja. The day I visited the Kalak Bridge, 
     which divides the Kurds from the Iraqi Army's Jerusalem 
     brigade, I asked Muhammad Najar, the local official, why the 
     brigade was not facing west, toward its target. ``The road to 
     Jerusalem,'' he replied, ``goes through Kurdistan.''
       A few weeks ago, after my return from Iraq, I stopped by 
     the Israeli Embassy in Washington to see the Ambassador, 
     David Ivry. In 1981, Ivry, who then led Israel's Air Force, 
     commanded Operation Opera, the strike against the Osirak 
     nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The action was ordered by Prime 
     Minister Menachem Begin, who believed that by hitting the 
     reactor shortly before it went online he could stop Iraq from 
     building an atomic bomb. After the attack, Israel was 
     condemned for what the Times called ``inexcusable and short-
     sighted aggression.'' Today, though, Israel's action is 
     widely regarded as an act of muscular arms control. ``In 
     retrospect, the Israeli strike bought us a decade,'' Gary 
     Milhollin, of the Wisconsin Project, said. ``I think if the 
     Israelis had not hit the reactor the Iraqis would have had 
     bombs by 1990''--the year Iraq invaded Kuwait.
       Today, a satellite photograph of the Osirak site hangs on a 
     wall in Ivry's office. The inscription reads, ``For General 
     David Ivry--With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding 
     job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made 
     our job much easier in Desert Storm.'' It is signed ``Dick 
     Cheney.''
       ``Preemption is always a positive,'' Ivry said.
       Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into 
     a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, 
     redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. Those 
     who have followed Saddam's progress believe that no single 
     strike today would eradicate his nuclear program. I talked 
     about this prospect last fall with August Hanning, the chief 
     of the B.N.D., the German intelligence agency, in Berlin. We 
     met in the new glass-and-steel Chancellery, overlooking the 
     renovated Reichstag.
       The Germans have a special interest in Saddam's intentions. 
     German industry is well represented in the ranks of foreign 
     companies that have aided Saddam's nonconventional-weapons 
     programs, and the German government has been publicly 
     regretful. Hanning told me that his agency had taken the lead 
     in exposing the companies that helped Iraq build a poison-gas 
     factory at Samarra. The Germans also feel, for the most 
     obvious reasons, a special responsibility to Israel's 
     security, and this, too, motivates their desire to expose 
     Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Hanning is tall, 
     thin, and almost translucently white. He is sparing with 
     words, but he does not equivocate. ``It is our estimate that 
     Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,'' he said.
       There is some debate among arms-control experts about 
     exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there 
     is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them 
     soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the 
     balance of power in the Middle East. ``The first thing that 
     occurs to any military planner is force protection,'' Charles 
     Duelfer told me. ``If your assessment of the threat is 
     chemical or biological, you can get individual protective 
     equipment and warning systems. If you think he's going to use 
     a nuclear weapon, where are you going to concentrate your 
     forces?''
       There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic 
     bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons. 
     When I talked about Saddam's past with the medical geneticist 
     Christine Gosden, she said, ``Please understand, the Kurds 
     were for practice.''

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  We in Congress must stand behind the President in granting him the 
authority to use military force against Iraq. The only chance to 
prevent war is to be prepared to go to war. We will not rush to war, 
but we cannot stand by while Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program 
poses a growing threat to our national security. Over the past few 
weeks, many have voiced a number of questions, including why we must 
take action at this moment, how long our armed forces may be in Iraq, 
and what the humanitarian, economic, and political costs of a military 
response may be. These are all valid concerns and questions I have 
considered. Ultimately, we must decide whether the threats we face 
merit the risk of American lives. The consequences of this vote are 
serious, and I have not had to make a more difficult decision in my 20 
years in Congress. I believe that support for this resolution will send 
a strong, decisive signal to Saddam Hussein that his continued 
violation of U.N. Security Resolutions will not be tolerated.
  This vote is evidence that the challenges we face today are unique in 
the context of our history. We as a nation, could not have prevented 
the horrific acts of September 11th and I witnessed the destruction 
firsthand, at both the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. Because 
of the events of September 11th, we cannot wait to act on a threat to 
our nation and to the American people, lest we allow ourselves to be 
victims once again. We are faced with a situation in which the lessons 
of history speak clearly of danger, and we face a threat unlike any 
other in history. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has proven himself to 
be a ruthless and unpredictable enemy, and even the slightest threat 
posed by his regime is one that we are unable to ignore without great 
risk to our national security. The world has come to know a long and 
terrible list of grievances against Saddam Hussein, including the 
brutal repression and torture of his political opponents, the use of 
chemical weapons against his own people, and his tireless pursuit of 
weapons of mass destruction. It is this record of brutality and 
tendency toward violence that should focus our attention on Iraq. 
Intelligence reports from both the United States and Great Britain 
highlight Iraq's relentless drive to produce chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons, and there is mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein is 
only 1-5 years away from nuclear weapons capability. Knowing that 
containment and deterrence are ineffective against the Iraqi regime, we 
have no choice. Knowing that Saddam Hussein has consistently violated 
United Nations resolutions we must act. We must act in a timely fashion 
to avoid the possibility that Saddam Hussein will use these weapons or 
that he would transfer these weapons to a terrorist organization such 
as Al Qaeda, which would not hesitate to use them against us. We cannot 
wait to protect ourselves until it is too late to do so. Now more than 
ever we must be proactive to protect Americans, our country, and our 
way of life.
  In 1991, after the United States and United Nations had demonstrated 
a willingness to peacefully resolve the crisis that followed the Iraqi 
invasion of Kuwait, and after Saddam Hussein refused to comply with 
several U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I cast my vote in favor of 
military action against Iraq. I voted for the resolution then because I 
believed that my support would help demonstrate that Congress, the 
President, and the American people stand together against Saddam 
Hussein's defiance.
  Since the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly 
demonstrated his disdain for the authority of international law by 
defying U.N. Security Council Resolutions that were designed to ensure 
that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. 
Inspections and sanctions have both failed in

[[Page 19873]]

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

[[Page 19874]]

no credible evidence provided to House Members of these weapons being 
supplied to terrorists.
  Individuals may still argue that we must assume that Iraq must have 
an accomplice with the al Qaeda attacks of September 11. If we wish to 
make this assumption, and it is only an assumption, not fact, then the 
President already has the authority to use ``all necessary and 
appropriate force against Iraq.'' If Saddam Hussein and Iraq are 
directly or indirectly responsible in any way with the attacks of 
September 11, the President has the authorization to take whatever 
means necessary to bring them to justice. The authority was given to 
the President just 3 days after the cowardly attacks on our country.
  The link between the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein is so 
tangential even the President cannot justify military action against 
Saddam Hussein and Iraq based on complicity.
  The strongest claim for military action against Iraq is its continued 
defiance of international law since the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. It is 
on this principle that President Bush went to the U.N. to seek their 
approval to use the U.S. military to enforce U.N. resolutions against 
Iraq. The legal, ethical and moral justification to get rid of Saddam 
Hussein and invade Iraq is enforcement of international law, the U.N. 
resolutions.
  The United States has never invoked a first strike invasion of 
another nation based on a fear of what might happen tomorrow. Now is 
not the time for a first strike policy based on fear, but let us strike 
with the support of the U.N. Security Council resolutions, with a 
multinational force to once and for all rid the world of Saddam 
Hussein.
  If we now allow the U.S. military to invade a nation or change a 
regime because of fear, then the goals of terrorism have been 
accomplished. If we allow the U.S. to become a first-strike nation in 
the name of defeating terrorism because of the possibility of future 
terrorist attacks, this opens the world to a Pandora's box of selected 
conflicts around the world. The U.S. would lose its moral, ethical and 
legal grounds and its stature to protest or to prevent, for example, 
Russia from invading Georgia to hunt down Chechnya rebels, Pakistan 
from invading India, or China from invading Taiwan.
  In our world, terrorism would now be defined and determined by the 
aggressor nation. The United States would lose its legal and moral 
ability to protest, as it did in 1979, the Soviet army's invasion of 
Afghanistan.
  The situation in Iraq must be addressed, but we must not be seen as 
moving forward unilaterally, and we must not alienate our allies who 
support it and fought with us in the Persian Gulf War.

                              {time}  1945

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

[[Page 19875]]

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

                              {time}  2000

  It is limited to Iraq, a nation that has made promises and then 
deliberately refused to live up to them.
  This resolution retains the constitutional power in defense and 
foreign affairs. This is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. We will be 
kept informed and can, if necessary, restrain any abuse of power.
  It also seeks to compel the entire international community to back 
efforts to compel Iraq to comply with the world's will as expressed in 
various U.N. resolutions. International support is vital. It will show 
the world that this is not a dispute between the United States and 
Iraq. It is not a dispute between American and Arab. It is not a 
dispute between cultures. If conflict occurs, the blame rests solely 
with Saddam Hussein, who first invaded Kuwait and then refused to 
accept the consequences of his actions.

[[Page 19876]]

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

[[Page 19877]]

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

[[Page 19878]]

with resources, and credits to depose Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who 
had just deposed the CIA-supported Shah in 1979. Through his U.S. 
contacts, Hussein assumed Iraq's quid pro quo would be access to the 
Persian Gulf on Bubiyan Island. Kuwait, however, never agreed.
  When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the dispute not only involved 
Iraq's belief that Kuwait was part of its historic territory. Iraq also 
surmised that Kuwait was asking too low a price for oil sold to the 
West. Yes, America went to war to defend Kuwait's border. But 
essentially the struggle involved who within OPEC would control that 
oil. Subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, America began stationing more 
and more troops in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to guard the oil flow out 
of the Persian Gulf. Is defending oil reserves worthy of one more life?
  Of course, these forces also conveniently offered some threat to 
unwelcome enemies of the Saudi regime, at home and abroad. Anti- 
western resentment in the region continues to rise. In 2000, our 
destroyer USS Cole was suicide bombed in Yemen harbor guarding the oil 
flows. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed and 39 wounded.
  Over the last quarter century, it is interesting to reflect upon the 
intimate connection between the George Bush family, oil, and the 
shaping of foreign policy towards the Middle East. During the 1950s and 
1960s, George Herbert Walker Bush, an oilman from Midland, Texas sought 
international exploration and investments as Texas oil wells were 
depleted prior to seeking office. In the 1960s and early 1970s, George 
Herbert Walker Bush served in the U.S. House, Senate, U.S. Ambassador 
to China, and was appointed head of the CIA in 1976 and served until 
March 1977.
  Simultaneous with George Herbert Walker Bush's service in the CIA, 
Syria sent troops to Lebanon to stem the civil war, the Iranian 
Revolution gained steam, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to 
Jerusalem and became the first Arab leader to recognize Israel.
  George Herbert Walker Bush served as Vice President from 1981 to 1989 
and as President from 1989 until 1993. During this period, the U.S. was 
drawn more directly into a central role in Middle East security.
  In 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, President George 
Herbert Walker Bush fashioned a U.S.-led coalition of nations to push 
Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. More than 400,000 U.S. troops were 
involved in that war. One hundred forty Americans died in that war, 
thousands have sustained war injuries and tens of thousands of Iraqis 
died.
  With each succeeding decade, wars involving terrorism and America 
escalated. Now George Bush's son is serving as President and a second 
war resolution is being contemplated. It is fair to say that the Bush 
view of the Middle East literally has dominated U.S. policy for 75 
percent of the past two decades.
  9/11 was but the latest chapter in the expanding violence.
  It is also important to inquire as to what private oil interests in 
the Middle East are held, or were held, by key officials in the current 
Bush Administration and how that might influence their views of U.S. 
``vital interests.''
  In the past, according to the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf Studies 
Project (supported by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of 
Sciences). George W. Bush sat on the board of Harken Oil of Grand 
Prairie, Texas, as a private citizen, and held major oil company 
involvement in Bahrain both professionally and personally.
  Halliburton, the firm that hired Vice-President Dick Cheney as its 
CEO subsequent to the Persian Gulf War, had previously operated in 
Iraq. During the early 1980's, Vice-President Chaney served as U.S. 
Secretary of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld as one of his Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense.
  Newspaper reports now indicate that during that same period, 
biological and chemical germ samples were transferred to Iraq from the 
government of the United States through the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons 
inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons 
program. Indeed, the U.S. government provided agricultural credits to 
Iraq to finance these transactions and the purchase of large amounts of 
fertilizer and chemicals to be used in Iraq's protracted war with Iran.
  Congressional records and CDC documents for that period show Iraq 
ordered the samples, and claimed them for legitimate medical research. 
The CDC and a biological sample company called the American Type 
Culture Collection sent strains of several germs. The transfers were 
made in the 1980's.
  Included among these strains: anthrax, the bacteria that make 
botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene. Iraq also got 
samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus. 
Senator Robert Byrd has questioned Secretary Rumsfeld, as President 
Reagan's envoy to the Middle East at that time, inquiring about how 
contacts were made with Iraq to transfer chemical and biological agents 
from the U.S. to Iraq as it launched its attacks on Iran.
  Before launching another war, this one unilaterally, Congress must 
vote to place U.S. priorities where they belong--security here at home 
and a valued partner in the global community of nations.
  Three policy prescriptions deserve greater weight.
  First, inspection now, rigorous and full, in legion with the world 
community.
  Second, America must restore energy independence here at home. If we 
could land a man on the moon in 10 years, surely we can gather 
ourselves to master this scientific imperative. No longer should oil 
become a proxy for America's foreign policy. Our economic relations 
should not reward dictatorships.
  Third, the U.S. must regain momentum to find a solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should dispatch former 
U.S. Senators George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to the Middle East as 
ambassadors without portfolio to exercise their considerable talents.
  In closing, let me re-emphasize:
  What is the ``imminent threat'' to the United States that justifies 
going to war now?
  Where is the hard evidence of the new threat?
  With unilateral action, how will the United States avoid being viewed 
in the Islamic world as a ``common enemy?''
  What specific threat justifies abandoning 50 years of strategic 
policy in favor of a unilateral policy of pre-emption?
  Who would succeed Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq? How would a 
partitioned Iraq be a stabilizing force?
  Does the United States want to engage in nation building in 
Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously?
  Who will pay for this nation building?
  When will the United States wean itself from its dangerous dependence 
on foreign oil, which takes money from our people and distorts our 
foreign policy?
  Why should the U.S. military be asked to serve as an occupying force 
in Afghanistan and Iraq?
  What makes Iraq's threat to the United States so much more serious 
today that it was four months ago or even two years ago?
  In closing, let not America be perceived as the ``bully on the 
block'' in the most oil-rich region of the world, where not one 
democratic state exists. Vote for security. Vote for stability. Vote 
for energy independence. Vote for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. Vote for Spratt-Skelton. Vote ``no'' on the Hastert-Gephardt 
resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman for his 
leadership on human rights and on safety throughout the world.
  You have to ask yourself at a serious time like this, was not 9/11 
enough? Was not 9/11 enough to spur America's resolve to defend our own 
country?
  I support this resolution because the first responsibility of our 
government is to defend American citizens. The government of Iraq, like 
our terrorist nations, presents a grave threat to the safety, to the 
security, to the well-being of every American that hears this debate 
tonight.
  We are in the early stages of what is likely to be a very long war 
against terrorism. In his September 20th, 2001, address to a Joint 
Session of Congress here in this Chamber, President Bush vowed that 
America would not rest until we had rooted out terrorism around the 
world. He said the countries harboring terrorists would be treated as 
terrorist nations themselves; that the coming war would be a long one, 
to be measured in years, rather than months.
  The Afghanistan campaign is the first step in putting that pledge 
into action, and much remains to be done. Does anyone seriously believe 
that terrorism began and ended in Afghanistan?
  Disarming Iraq and its support for state-sponsored terrorism is the 
next logical step to secure peace for our families and for this world. 
As we were reminded again this afternoon with the released audiotape of 
bin Laden's second in command predicting yet more terrorist attacks on 
America, the question is not if America will be attacked

[[Page 19879]]

again here at home, but when and by whom.
  Instead of crashing airplanes into our downtown office buildings or 
into our Pentagon, the terrorists of the future will turn to dangerous 
chemical and biological weapons, attempts to poison our air and water, 
disrupt our energy supply, our economy, our electronic commerce, 
destroy the jobs we rely upon each day.
  Yes, they will direct these weapons of terrible destruction toward 
America, because standing as the world's lone superpower means standing 
as the world's biggest target. Our homeland, our communities, our 
schools, our neighborhoods and millions of American lives are at risk 
as we speak tonight.
  It is clear to me we are going to fight this war on terrorism in one 
of two ways: either overseas at its source, or here at home when it 
lands in our neighborhoods. I choose overseas at its source.
  America's security at home depends upon largely our strength in the 
world. Terrorism expands according to our willingness to tolerate it. 
For too long the world has turned a blind eye to terrorism, afraid to 
confront it; and terrorism has flourished because the actions of our 
world leaders never matched their harsh words.
  Well, that is all over now. That all changed September 11. That all 
changed with President Bush.
  For the sake of our homeland, we must mean what we say. For the sake 
of our children, we must follow through on our vow to end terrorism. If 
the United Nations efforts should fail, if Saddam Hussein chooses to 
continue to arm himself and harbor terrorists, then America must act. 
Words alone are not enough. And when we send U.S. troops overseas, it 
must be to win and to return home as planned.
  Our first President said there is nothing so likely to produce peace 
as to be well-prepared to meet an enemy. We know the enemy, we know the 
difficulty, we know the duty, and we know the strength of America's 
military men and women.
  The resolution before the House tonight is not a question of the 
President's persuasiveness. It is a question of Congress's resolve to 
whip this terrible war on terrorism.
  We know where the President stands. The question is, where does 
Congress stand, and do we stand with him? I do, and I am proud to do 
so. Make it clear, our resolve is not for war today; it is for peace 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  2015

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

[[Page 19880]]

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

                              {time}  2030

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

[[Page 19881]]

fact, it can be carried without detriment to a carrier of it. The 
technology to build the weapon, unfortunately, is not that 
sophisticated today.
  One of the issues in terms of Iraq that is worth pointing out, in 
1981, when the Israelis blew up the Iraqi military nuclear reactor, in 
1981, they were 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon. That was 
over 20 years ago. If we think about a sense of how much the world and 
technology has changed in 20 years, personal computers did not exist 20 
years ago when that nuclear reactor was blown up. Obviously, technology 
has gone a long way from that point; as well, the effort of the Iraqis 
to acquire those weapons since that period of time and in the 
approximately 4 years that there have been no weapons inspectors at all 
in Iraq.
  When the weapons inspectors left 4 years ago, about 4 years ago, 4 
years and a short period of time, in the public domain we have the 
information that the Iraqis had smallpox and anthrax at that time, and 
we know they have used it against their own citizens and other 
countries.
  What does it mean? What is the issue? Iraq is not the only country in 
the world that has weapons of mass destruction. Why are we addressing 
this issue? Why am I supporting the resolution of use of force against 
Iraq? I think there is a policy that the President has articulated that 
it is just not enough that they have the weapons, but, really, the 
intent to use them.
  Clearly, Iraq does not have the ability to send ballistic missiles to 
the United States. We understand that. But they do have the ability 
today to attack us with biological and chemical weapons, today. We do 
not know how far off they are from nuclear weapons, but 20 years ago 
they were 6 months away. We know they are aggressively trying to seek 
those weapons today.
  I think we need to acknowledge this is really a change in policy, but 
a change in policy for this country that is needed in terms of weapons 
of mass destruction in the 21st century. The downside of not stopping 
these weapons is, in fact, the unthinkable.
  One of the things we do not talk about often is, once the sort of 
code of both equipment and delivery of these weapons is broken, why 
would a country, why would Iraq, have one nuclear weapon? Would they 
not have five, 10, or for that matter, 15, to be able to use in 
terrorist ways?
  We talk about the fact they have the ability today to build a weapon. 
The only restriction potentially is their lack of material, of enriched 
uranium, 7 pounds of enriched uranium. Effectively, we have no way of 
stopping that from entering the United States today. We acknowledge 
that, effectively, we cannot.
  We have thousands of pounds of cocaine, and our war on drugs, as 
effective as it is, it literally lets in thousands of pounds of cocaine 
a year into the United States.
  I urge my colleagues, I urge the country to support this effort. We 
have a country that literally wants to kill us. They do not want to 
kill the French. They do not want to kill the Swedish. The action is 
directed at us.
  This is an issue, as I started this evening, of national security, 
national defense, national survival for the United States of America. I 
urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to all the Members on this side who will be 
coming up, because of the large number of Members who would like to 
speak, we are asking if their remarks can be contained in the 5 
minutes, because from this point on we will be unable to yield extra 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca), who is a new Member, but his mark has been made in agriculture 
and science.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I come before this Chamber with a heavy heart, 
because I know that I am making one of the most difficult decisions in 
my life.
  Like my colleagues in Congress and every American, I have debated 
whether unilateral military action in Iraq is the best thing to do. I 
have carefully weighed and considered all options. I pray to God that I 
am making the right decision.
  I have not been able to sleep. I think about the mothers and fathers 
I have met who have asked me, how long will this war last? How many 
lives will be lost? Could our children be drafted? How many of those 
children will come back with deformities, with cancer or mental 
illness?
  I think about our many sons and daughters that will be affected by 
our decision. I wonder how many will not make it home to their parents.
  I think about the many veterans that already have served our Nation 
but still have not received access to the benefits of our country that 
has promised them that.
  I think about the innocent Iraqi children who will be caught in the 
crossfire.
  I think about how this war could make us more suspicious of others 
based on the color of their skin.
  I have talked to bishops, clergy, community leaders. All of my 
constituents have written and voiced their concern about the war. Is 
the price we will pay in lives worth the security we might gain by 
eliminating only one of countless threats? In our Nation's history, we 
have never fired the first shot, so why now?
  One thing is clear: We must exhaust every alternative before we send 
our sons and daughters into harm's way. We all want to keep our 
families and our Nation safe from terrorists and weapons of mass 
destruction, but I also want to make sure that I can look into my 
children's eyes and tell them that we have done everything we can to 
avoid a war.
  War should also be the last resort, not the first option. I do not 
believe the President has made the case clear to the American people 
that now is the best time, or that unilateral action is the best 
option.
  That is why I will vote in favor of the Spratt substitute. The Spratt 
substitute supports the President's proposal for intrusive weapons 
inspections and still gives the President the power to use our military 
if Iraq refuses to comply.
  Let me be clear: I support the President in his efforts to protect 
and defend this Nation, but we must do so with the support of the 
United Nations and the international community.
  The Spratt amendment says that the President has to get congressional 
approval before he unilaterally invades Iraq. Does that not make sense? 
Should the President come to Congress before he leads this Nation into 
war? That is what our Constitution demands.
  Like the rest of the Nation, I am concerned that Saddam Hussein could 
transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations, but we 
must not act in haste and not without the support of the United Nations 
and the world community. That is why I reluctantly will vote against 
H.R. 114.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear: Do not confuse my vote 
against the resolution as a vote against our troops. As a veteran, as a 
Congressman, as a patriotic American, I stand 100 percent for our 
troops. I remember how our brave men and women were treated when they 
returned home from Vietnam. They were treated with scorn and hate. We 
must not repeat our mistakes of the past. Regardless of what we think 
of the war, we must all support our soldiers, and we should protect 
their lives by winning support of our allies.
  Acting alone will increase our economic burden and leave us with few 
resources to rebuild Iraq. It would raise the question about the 
legitimacy of our action in the eyes of the world. It would create more 
instability in the region and turn a mere threat into our worst 
nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, has the Bush administration answered all of our 
questions? What will happen if we go to war and Saddam Hussein uses 
chemical or biological weapons against our troops?
  Our troops must have the equipment and resources they need to fight 
the war. Do we know what Saddam will throw at us? That is why we must 
provide them with all possible protection and treatment and benefits 
they need.
  When our children come back to us sick with cancer, horribly 
disfigured,

[[Page 19882]]

we must not turn our backs on them or their families.
  What will happen with this regime? We must make sure that a new Iraq 
is democratic and respects human rights. A post-Saddam Iraq must be a 
beacon of hope to the Arab world and not a tool of American foreign 
policy.
  What effect will this have on our war on terrorism? Would going to 
war with Iraq add fuel to the fire of the war on terrorism?
  What effects would this have on our economy? The Bush administration 
tries to paint a rosy picture of the state of our economy, but we have 
gone from a record surplus to crippling deficits. My constituents are 
concerned about their savings, their jobs, prescription drugs, Social 
Security, the schools. How will this war affect them?
  The President must not forget the economic problems of the American 
people. I am placing my trust, and our country is placing its trust, in 
this President to heed these concerns.
  I know the President's resolution will likely pass this body with 
little effort. I oppose it because more of our men and women will die 
if we go to war. I pray to God that I have made the right decision.

                              {time}  2045

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

[[Page 19883]]

weapons of mass destruction. The use of armed force should be a last 
resort to be used only when all other options have failed.
  In my judgment that commitment to the peaceful solution of problems 
and conflict is an important part of what our democracy should stand 
for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or an attack on 
Iraq at this time.
  I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he 
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as 
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict, at one 
point he wrote to the Philippians, ``Brethren, I count myself not to 
have apprehended, but this one thing I do, forgetting those things 
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are 
before. I press forth towards the mark for the prize of the high 
calling of Jesus Christ.''
  I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will 
press forward towards the mark of a high calling, that we will take the 
high road, that we will take the road that leads to peace and not to 
war, the road that lets us walk by faith and not alone by sight or 
might. Let us Mr. Speaker, walk by the Golden Rule. Let us do unto 
others as we would have them do unto us. Let us walk the road that 
leads to life and not to death and destruction. Let us walk the road to 
peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which 
authorizes the President of the United States to use armed forces of 
the United States against Iraq, and I am opposed to H.J. Res. 114, not 
because I don't believe we need to protect our national security, I am 
not in opposition because Saddam Hussein does not need to be checkmated 
and stopped, I am not opposed because I don't recognize the need for a 
strong military, and I am not in opposition because this resolution has 
been put forth by President Bush.
  However, I am opposed because after all the information that I have 
seen and after all that I have heard, neither am I, nor a majority of 
the residents of my district, the 7th Congressional District of 
Illinois, convinced that war is our only and most immediate option. We 
are not convinced that every diplomatic action has been exhausted. 
Therefore, I am not convinced that this resolution will prevent us, the 
United States of America from acting without agreement and involvement 
of the international community. I oppose a unilateral first strike 
action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent 
threat of attack against the United States.
  We are now being asked to vote on a resolution which will likely 
culminate in war with Iraq--a war which may involve the entire Mideast 
region.
  The American people are attempting to make sense of this complex 
situation. No one doubts the evil of the current Iraqi regime. No one 
doubts that eventually the United States would prevail in armed 
conflict with Iraq. What then are the central issues which confront.
  (1) Is there an immediate threat to the United States?
  In my judgment the answer is NO. We have not received evidence of 
immediate danger. We have not received evidence that Iraq has the means 
to attack the United States. We have not received evidence that the 
danger is greater today than it was last year or the year before.
  (2) Will the use of military force against Iraq reduce or prevent the 
spread or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
  In my judgment the answer is NO. All evidence is that Iraq does not 
possess nuclear weapons today. The use of chemical or biological 
weapons, or the passing of such weapons to terrorist groups would be 
nothing less than suicide for the current Iraqi leadership. As the CIA 
report has indicated we know that when backed up against the wall 
people sometimes lash out blindly and without careful thought.
  (3) Have we exhausted all non-military options to secure the 
elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in accordance with 
United Nations resolutions?
  In my judgment, the answer is no. We have not exhausted the potential 
for collective action with our allies. We have not yet exhausted the 
potential for inspections and for a strict embargo on technologies 
which could be used for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use of armed 
force should be a last resort, to be used only when all other options 
have failed. In my judgment, that commitment to the peaceful solution 
of problems and conflicts is an important part of what our Democracy 
should stand for, and that does not necessitate or demand invasion or 
an attack on Iraq at this time.
  I was at church on Sunday and the pastor reminded us of Paul as he 
talked about our problems with Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that as 
Paul instructed the Philippians on how to deal with conflict--
  Phillipians 3-13-14
  Paul wrote to the Phillipians--
  ``Brethren, I count myself not to have apprehended, but this one 
thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching 
forth unto those things which are before.
  I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in 
Jesus Christ.''
  I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as we press forward, I trust that we will 
press forward toward the mark of the high calling toward the high road, 
the road which leads to peace and not to war, the road that lets us 
walk by faith and not alone by sight or might. Let us walk by the 
Golden Rule--let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us. 
Let us walk the road that leads to life and not to death and 
destruction. Let us walk the road that leads to peace. I urge a no vote 
on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Health.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that Saddam Hussein is a 
bloodthirsty dictator and must be contained. But before we send young 
Americans into the deserts of Iraq, all diplomatic possibilities to 
avert war must be exhausted, and they have not been.
  In times like these amid all of the swirling difference of opinion, 
what we need more than anything else is a good dose of common sense. 
Just today the Columbus Dispatch offered an editorial opinion which 
presents a commonsense approach to the challenge we face. I would like 
to share that editorial as a commonsense message from Ohio, the 
Heartland of America.
  The editorial begins, ``In his speech on Monday, President Bush made 
an excellent case for renewed United Nations weapons inspections in 
Iraq. He did not, however, make a case for war. Though the President 
continues to paint Iraq as an imminent threat to peace, he offered no 
new evidence to back that assessment. Iraq appears to be neither more 
nor less a threat than it was in 1998 when the last U.N. weapons 
inspectors left the country; nor does it appear to be a bigger threat 
than Iran, Libya or North Korea, all of whom are developing long-range 
missiles and weapons of mass destruction and are hostile to the United 
States.
  The speech was a hodgepodge of half-plausible justifications for war 
with the President hoping that if he strings together enough weak 
arguments, they will somehow add up to a strong one. For example, the 
President failed to demonstrate any significant link between Iraqi 
dictator Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorism network. The truth 
is it would be far easier to demonstrate links between Iran and al 
Qaeda or Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. But President Bush is not proposing 
military action against those states whose support for terrorism and 
terrorist organizations is practically overt. In fact, less than a day 
after the President's speech, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress 
that Saddam apparently has a policy of not supporting terrorism against 
the United States.
  The backhanded admission came as Tenet warned that Saddam might 
change his mind if he believes the United States is serious about 
attacking Iraq.
  Next, the President cited the 11-year history of Iraqi attempts to 
deceive U.N. weapons inspectors as proof that inspectors have failed. 
But have they? For 11 years Saddam has not fielded a nuclear weapon, 
nor has he deployed any chemical or biological weapons. This suggests 
that in spite of Iraqi attempts to thwart inspectors, inspections have 
thwarted Saddam's ability to build the weapons he seeks.
  The President also points out that removing Saddam from power would 
be a blessing to the people from Iraq who have endured his totalitarian 
boot on their necks for decades. This is true.

[[Page 19884]]

Saddam idolizes Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and certainly will be 
skewered on an adjacent spit in hell. But if removing oppressive 
regimes justifies war, the United States is in for a long, long battle 
against half of the world that is ruled by bloodthirsty dictators.
  The weaknesses of the President's arguments only heighten suspicions 
that the proposed attack on Iraq is intended to divert attention from 
the so-so progress of the genuine war on terrorism and the sputtering 
economy. Still, President Bush is correct to demand that the inspectors 
resume and that inspectors have unimpeded access to all Iraqi sites 
including the so-called presidential palaces. All diplomatic means now 
should be deployed to achieve that end.

                              {time}  2100

  As it stands, Iraq has agreed to readmitting the inspectors, and the 
United Nations is preparing to send them in.
  Sure, the United States and the United Nations have been down this 
road with Saddam before. But, last time, neither Washington nor the 
world community chose to do anything significant about it. There is 
time to give peaceful processes one more try. If, as many expect, 
Saddam intends to block the new inspections, the United States and the 
United Nations will have all the justifications they need for stronger 
measures; and at that point the President would have little problem in 
enlisting the support of the American people and the aid of the 
international community.
  This concludes the editorial. And, Mr. Speaker, I stand today in 
support of the Spratt amendment because I cannot support H.J. Res. 114. 
We may have to eventually use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein, 
but this resolution is too open, too far-reaching. It is wrong. It 
should be rejected.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) be granted an additional 60 
minutes, and that he be permitted to control the time and yield to 
other Members of our body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the second longest serving Democrat in the 
House and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me this time, and I am proud to be 
a part of this discussion tonight.
  Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at 
a time and place of his choosing would set a dangerous precedent and 
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already 
been called a grand diversion of America's political focus as elections 
approach. Worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already 
depleted resources, those that are so desperately needed for the 
pressing problems at home.
  The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war 
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is 
as true of Americans whether in Maine or West Virginia or Texas or 
Michigan, whether they are black, brown or white, young or old, rich or 
poor. The mail and phone calls I have received have been overwhelmingly 
opposed to a preemptive attack against Iraq.
  Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable 
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The 
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged 
from countless briefings with the same question: Where is the beef? 
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions 
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now, nor has 
any member of the Bush administration, the Congress, the intelligence 
community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New 
York and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists. 
Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's complicity, he would 
need no further authorization to retaliate. That is the law. He could 
do so under the resolution we passed only 3 days after al Qaeda's 
infamous attacks.
  What is it we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless ruler 
who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to expand his 
weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We do know 
that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none with a 
range to reach the United States.
  Therefore, the President paints two scenarios:
  The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons 
against Israel, Arab allies, or our deployed forces. But during the 
Gulf War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be 
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his 
destruction as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will 
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's 
launching whatever weapons he may have.
  Now, under the administration's second scenario, Iraq would give 
weapons of destruction to al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. 
But that scenario, too, is not credible.
  Perhaps the most significant intelligence assessment we have was 
revealed publicly only last night and has been raised repeatedly on the 
floor during this debate. The Central Intelligence Agency states that 
Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or biological attacks against the 
United States, and goes on to warn that ``Should Saddam conclude that a 
U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might decide the 
extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons 
of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last 
chance to exact vengeance by taking a number of victims with him.''
  Passage of a resolution authorizing the President to commence war at 
a time and place of his choosing would set dangerous precedents and 
risk unnecessary death. The proposal of this resolution has already 
created a ``grand diversion'' of America's political focus as elections 
approach, and worse, it would create a ``grand diversion'' of our 
already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems 
at home.
  The American people are not bloodthirsty. We never want to go to war, 
unless we have been convinced that it is absolutely necessary. That is 
as true of Americans whether in Maine, West Virginia, Texas or 
Michigan--whether they are black, brown or white; young or old, rich or 
poor. The mail and phone calls I receive have been overwhelmingly 
opposed to a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
  Is war necessary now? We keep coming back to one stubborn irrefutable 
fact: There is no imminent threat to our national security. The 
President has not made the case. Senators and Congressmen have emerged 
from countless briefing with the same question: ``Where's the beef?'' 
There is no compelling evidence that Iraq's capability and intentions 
regarding weapons of mass destruction threaten the U.S. now. Nor has 
any member of the Bush Administration, the Congress or the intelligence 
community shown evidence linking the Al Qaeda attacks last year on New 
York City, and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi 
terrorists. Indeed, if President Bush had such proof of Iraq's 
complicity, he would need no further authorization to retaliate. He 
could do so under the resolution we passed only three days after Al 
Qaeda's infamous attacks.
  What is it that we do now about Iraq? We know Saddam is a ruthless 
ruler who will try to maintain power at all costs and who seeks to 
expand his weapons of destruction. We have known that for some time. We 
do know that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons, but none 
with range to reach the U.S. Therefore, President Bush paints two 
scenarios:
  The first is that Iraq would launch biological or chemical weapons 
against Israel, Arab allies or our deployed forces. But during the Gulf 
War, Saddam did not do so. Why not? Because he knew he would be 
destroyed in retaliation, and we were not then threatening his 
destruction, as President Bush is now doing. Thus, attacking Iraq will 
increase rather than decrease the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's 
launching whatever weapons he does have.

[[Page 19885]]

  Under the Administration's second scenario, Iraq would give weapons 
of destruction to Al Qaeda, who might bring them to our shores. But 
that scenario, too, is not credible. Perhaps the most significant 
intelligence assessment we have is one revealed publicly only last 
night. The CIA states that Iraq is unlikely to initiate chemical or 
biological attack against the U.S., and goes on to warn that, and I 
quote:

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

  In other words, the CIA warns that an attack on Iraq could well 
provoke the very tragedy the President claims he is trying to 
forestall--Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons.
  President Bush and his supporters now cite some ``evidence of 
contacts between Al Qaeda representatives and Baghdad.'' So what? We 
have had high level contracts with North Korea, Afghanistan when the 
Taliban ruled it, and other ruthless despots. That did not mean we were 
allies. The intelligence community has confirmed that Al Qaeda and 
Saddam's secular Baathist regime are enemies. As a religious fanatic, 
Bin Laden has been waging underground war against the secular 
governments of Iraq, Egypt, Syria and the military rulers of other 
Arabic countries. Saddam would be very unlikely to give such dangerous 
weapons to a group of radical terrorists who might see fit to turn them 
against Iraq.
  We are fairly certain that Iraq currently has no nuclear weapons. 
Even with the best luck in obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium, the 
official intelligence estimate is that Iraq will not have them for some 
time. If Iraq must produce its own fissile material, it would take 
three to five years, according to those estimates. In a futile effort 
to mirror the prudent approach of President Kennedy during the Cuban 
Missile Crisis, President Bush recently released satellite photographs 
of buildings, as evidence that Saddam has resumed a nuclear weapons 
development. This is hardly headline news. We knew that he had resumed 
them.
  Another thing we know is that:
  Iraq's vast oil reserves have been a major tool in the 
Administration's pressuring other countries to support our rush to war 
against their better judgment; and
  Those oil reserves will be controlled and allocated by the U.S. if we 
install or bless a new regime in Baghdad.
  These implications are explored in an excellent Washington Post 
article, which I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
immediately following remarks. Let me read just two paragraphs here:

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

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

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

                In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue

                  (By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway)

       A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could 
     open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from 
     Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France 
     and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, 
     according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition.
       Although senior Bush administration officials say they have 
     not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, 
     American and foreign oil companies have already begun 
     maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves 
     of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world 
     outside Saudi Arabia.
       The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of 
     the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations 
     to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western 
     allies for President Bush's call for tough international 
     action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the 
     Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia 
     and China--have international oil companies with major stakes 
     in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
       ``It's pretty straighforward,'' said former CIA director R. 
     James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of 
     forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil 
     companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if 
     they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent 
     government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new 
     government and American companies work closely with them.
       But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it 
     will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
     new Iraqi government to work with them.''
       Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has 
     fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will 
     be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly 
     would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath 
     of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil 
     concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound 
     them out about their intentions.
       Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more 
     than dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, 
     Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to 
     reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, 
     refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. 
     Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. 
     sanctions.
       But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews 
     last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
       ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said 
     Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London 
     office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella

[[Page 19886]]

     organization of opposition groups that is backed by the 
     United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a 
     government in Iraq elected by the people.''
       Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he 
     favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop 
     Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a 
     decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big 
     shot at Iraqi,'' Chalabi said.
       The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position 
     on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change 
     of leadership.
       While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is 
     presenting vast possibilities for multi-national oil giants, 
     it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil 
     market, according to industry analysts.
       Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature 
     and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a 
     member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 
     for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC 
     cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the 
     flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela 
     and Angola.
       While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major 
     financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices 
     that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world 
     markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract 
     foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is 
     because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to 
     unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
       Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil 
     business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But 
     despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil 
     companies, the administration, preoccupied with military 
     planning and making the case about Hussein's potential 
     threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, 
     according to U.S. officials.
       The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State 
     Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a 
     department spokesman said last week. An official with the 
     National Security Council declined to say whether oil had 
     been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had 
     over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir 
     Putin and Western leaders.
       On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-
     day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early 
     October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy 
     summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and 
     American energy companies are expected.
       Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of 
     Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 
     billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow 
     before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to 
     Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the 
     Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get 
     private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made 
     whole'' financially.
       Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week 
     that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met 
     with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged 
     Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's 
     government.
       But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy 
     transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival 
     ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the 
     giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority 
     Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
       Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the 
     United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi 
     oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil 
     companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq 
     since the late 1980s, when relations soured between 
     Washington and Baghdad.
       Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to 
     repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war 
     against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. 
     government studies say the results have been disappointing.
       While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 
     to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern 
     Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. 
     sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless 
     work began immediately.
       Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft 
     reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at 
     the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion 
     Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes 
     opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in 
     Iraq's western desert.
       The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights 
     to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, 
     which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in 
     July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French 
     firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its 
     decision to abide by the sanctions.
       Officials of several major firms said they were taking care 
     to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over 
     how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American 
     oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. 
     There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James 
     Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
       But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with 
     Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and 
     ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry 
     officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that 
     wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and a strong fighter for the environment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to 
grant unilateral authority to the President of the United States for a 
preemptive strike on Iraq. I cannot believe that the Members of this 
body are ceding our constitutional authority to this President. And 
they can give me all the fancy whereases and phrases, and put on the 
fig leafs, and write all the report language they want, but this is a 
blank check. This is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This is a violation 
not only of our Constitution but will lead to a violation of the United 
Nations Charter.
  Wake up, my colleagues. Why would anyone vote to do that? That is not 
our constitutional responsibility. And when we vote on this resolution, 
will America be more safe? No, I think America will be less safe. We 
will dilute the war against terrorism. The destabilization of the area 
will lead to the increased probability of terrorists getting nuclear 
weapons, say, in Pakistan. The al Qaeda are probably cheering the 
passage of this resolution. Now is their chance to get more weapons.
  We should not risk American lives. We should be working with the 
United Nations. We should get the inspectors in there. We should disarm 
Saddam Hussein. And if they cannot do their work, if the U.N. 
authorizes force, we will be a much stronger and efficient force 
working with the United Nations.
  Imminent threat. There is an imminent threat. I will tell my 
colleagues what the imminent threat is, it is our failing economy and 
the rising unemployment. It is kids not getting a quality education. It 
is 401(k)s that are down to zero. It is corporate theft. It is the 
obscene cost of prescription drugs. That is the imminent threat to 
America, Mr. Speaker. That is what we ought to be working on here.
  I have heard all my colleagues on the other side of this issue 
calling us appeasers, those who are going to vote against this 
resolution. We are wishful thinkers. We have our eyes closed. We sit on 
our hands. And, of course, that phrase, the risk of inaction is greater 
than the risk of action.
  No one on this side, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting inaction. Making 
peace is hard work. Just ask Martin Luther King, Jr. Ask Ghandi. Ask 
Norman Mandela. They were not appeasers. They were not inactive. They 
were peacemakers. And they changed the history of this world.
  So let us not hear talk of appeasement. Let us not hear talk that we 
favor inaction. We want action for peace in this world, and we want the 
United States to be part of that action.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a whiff of Vietnam in the air. I had a 
constituent call me and say, ``You know, if you enjoyed Vietnam, you 
are really going to love Iraq.'' The mail is running 10 to 1 against 
this war. Protests have already begun around the Nation and around the 
world.
  I say to the President, of course through the Speaker, that you came 
to office as a uniter, not a divider. Yet we are going round the road 
of division in this Nation. You can see it, you can smell it, you can 
hear it, and we are going to hear more.
  Let us not go down this road, Mr. President. Rethink this policy. A 
country divided over war is not a country that is going to make any 
progress. Let us have a rethinking of this resolution. Let us not vote 
for a preemptive unilateral strike. Let us work through the United 
Nations. Let us become a peacemaking Nation. Let us vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

[[Page 19887]]


  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues of both parties 
and in both Chambers and as the wife of a Vietnam veteran, the national 
debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq and under what 
circumstances has weighed heavily on my mind and my heart. For, 
clearly, sending the young men and women of our Armed Forces into 
harm's way is one of the most serious and far-reaching decisions a 
Member of Congress will ever have to make.
  Like all Americans, I take pride in the fact that we are a peaceful 
Nation but one that will defend itself if needed against real and 
imminent dangers. Like all Americans, I take very seriously our 
responsibilities as the world's global superpower and realize how our 
words and actions can have huge repercussions throughout the world.
  For that reason, I attended meetings and studied the materials 
provided us. I have listened to the administration, my constituents, my 
colleagues on both sides of the issue, both sides of the aisle, and 
both sides of the Congress; and I remain deeply concerned about our 
march to war without a supportive coalition or a clear and moral 
justification.
  Before making a final decision on my vote, I also asked myself, as a 
wife and mother, what would I want our Nation's leaders to do before 
sending my son, my daughter, any loved one to war? While I support our 
President's efforts to keep our Nation and our world safe, I firmly 
believe the President has not made the case for granting him far-
reaching power to declare preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq.
  There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and 
unconscionable dictator with little regard for human life, and there is 
no question that he must be disarmed and removed from power. The facts 
presented thus far, however, do not support the premise that Saddam 
Hussein is an immediate danger to our country.
  It is for that reason that I believe it is in the best interest of 
our Nation and our American troops to make every possible effort now to 
prevent war by exhausting diplomatic efforts, by giving the U.N. 
weapons inspectors the resources and opportunity to perform their work, 
and by establishing a U.N. Security Council multilateral coalition to 
use force, if necessary.

                              {time}  2115

  If that fails, the President can then bring his case to Congress on 
the need for a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. At this time, 
however, a blank check authorization for military force is not 
acceptable.
  I cannot, therefore, in good conscience support the administration's 
request for a near carte blanche authority to wage war when the case to 
do so has not been justified.
  I will, however, support the resolutions of my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The Lee resolution urges Congress to work with the United Nations 
using all peaceful means possible to resolve the issue of Iraqi weapons 
of mass destruction.
  The Spratt resolution includes similar requirements with regards to 
the United Nations but also authorizes the use of force if the U.N. 
efforts fail. The Spratt resolution brings responsibility and 
accountability to our effort to protect our country from Saddam 
Hussein, and it makes the administration and the Congress partners in 
any military action against Iraq.
  The Spratt proposal honors our Nation's fundamental system of checks 
and balances. It makes it possible for me to say to my constituents and 
our Nation's sons and daughters, including my stepson who proudly 
serves in the U.S. Army, I did everything in my power to keep you from 
harm's way.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a 
constitutional expert.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Article I of the United 
States Constitution states that the Congress shall have power to 
declare war. Article II of the Constitution provides that the President 
shall be the Commander-in-Chief. Over the years, these provisions of 
the Constitution have been the subject of a virtually endless tug of 
war between the legislative branch and the executive branch, as well as 
the subject of virtually endless debate among constitutional scholars.
  In general I believe, and many constitutional scholars agree, that 
these two provisions reserve to Congress the sole authority to declare 
war when there is time for Congress to make a deliberative 
determination to invade another country and allow the President, as 
Commander-in-Chief to engage the United States in war only in response 
to an attack upon the United States or its citizens or in the event of 
direct and imminent threat of such an attack.
  I believe the resolution before us today crosses the line, delegating 
to the President the authority our Constitution gives solely to 
Congress. While we most certainly may delegate our authority, to do so 
would, in my opinion, be an abdication of our responsibility as Members 
of Congress.
  If, as the President asserted in his speech to the American people, 
an imminent threat exists, it seems to me that this resolution is 
unnecessary. There is ample precedent for the President to act under 
those circumstances without a declaration of war or of authorization 
from Congress. No such imminent threat has been shown to exist.
  Of course, Saddam Hussein is a thug and probably all the other things 
he has been called in the course of this debate. That, however, does 
not mean that Iraq poses any imminent threat that would justify the 
President proceeding to war without authorization from Congress.
  Further, nothing the President said in his speech and nothing I have 
seen apart from his speech has led me to conclude that we should be 
delegating to the President the authority the Constitution gives to 
Congress, certainly not in the one-step manner in which the resolution 
we are considering would do. Nor do I believe that refusing to give 
that authority over to the President places the United States in any 
imminent danger.
  If the President and the United States fail in their efforts to have 
Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions and if the President fails in his 
efforts to mobilize a coalition of nations in support of the United 
States, I believe that would be the appropriate time for the Congress 
to consider the advisability of declaring war.
  This resolution, instead, requires us to make that decision today by 
delegating the decision to the President without the authority to bring 
it back to us. To do so now, in fact, would put us ahead of the 
President since he insisted in his speech that he had not yet decided 
whether war is necessary.
  Unfortunately, despite the President's assurance, the contents of the 
President's speech left me with the sinking feeling that giving him a 
blank check to invade Iraq without seeking further authorization from 
Congress will virtually assure war. In my opinion, war should always be 
the last resort and in this case will almost certainly increase, not 
decrease, the risk of biological, chemical, or other terrorist 
retaliations. In fact, that is exactly what the CIA told Senator Levin 
in testimony in the Senate.
  We are called upon, as Members of Congress and as citizens of the 
world, to ask ourselves today, where and when would it end? The risks 
are too great to proceed to war without a satisfactory answer to that 
question and without pursuing every conceivable peaceful option short 
of war.
  For these reasons, I will vote against the resolution; and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against it, too.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who attended the 
same alma mater I attended in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to a great deal of confusion tonight. A 
number of my colleagues are convinced that war is the only action; some 
believe it should never be an option; and

[[Page 19888]]

most, I think, join with me and think that it should be an issue of 
last resort.
  Like most of my colleagues, I have received volumes of mail from my 
constituents, and their opinions mirror the confusion which exists in 
this body tonight.
  What troubles me is I have heard members of my party indicate in the 
press that the issue of war with Iraq has sucked the air out of 
Democratic message; and, sadly, I have heard Members on the other side 
of the aisle complain of the same thing.
  The thought that this issue where we are talking about certain 
casualties, Iraqi, American, and those of our coalition partners, that 
those would be used for an advantage by either side in mid-term 
elections is repugnant to me and the people I represent in Ohio.
  When I have an 84-year-old Republican grandmother in Ashtabula, Ohio, 
grab my arm and say, Congressman, we have never attacked another 
sovereign country in our history without first being attacked, I am 
moved.
  When I hear former Prime Minister Netanyahu tell our Committee on 
Government Reform that Israel has dealt with terrorists like Saddam 
Hussein since 1948, and if you do not get him, he will get you, I am 
moved as well.
  At the end of it all, I will say that I have concluded if we were on 
the floor of this House on September 10, 2001, and we knew what we know 
today, every Member in this body, Republican and Democrat, would do 
whatever it took to protect the people of this Republic, and we should 
do that tonight.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and 
an environmentalist.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the issue of war with Iraq. I rise not 
only as a House Member from California, but as a father and about-to-be 
grandfather, and as a person who in his youth responded to a call for 
action by serving in the United States Peace Corps.
  I have to ask myself in casting the votes before us, what is the best 
way to achieve peace in Iraq, not only for its own diverse ethnic 
people living in Iraq, but also for the people in the rest of the 
world?
  The House leadership has adopted a closed rule on the debate so only 
three resolutions can be voted on. I think the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) has the preferred alternative because it speaks to 
the issue of putting all our efforts into working with the world 
community through the United Nations Security Council to get inspectors 
into Iraq. We should let that process run its course before determining 
that it will fail.
  The Lee resolution calls upon the United States to ``work through the 
United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of insuring that Iraq is 
not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as 
resumption of weapons inspectors, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, 
regional arrangements and other peaceful means.''
  The President has done a good job in making the point that the U.N. 
Security Council must resolve the Iraq violation of U.N. resolutions. 
He should have stopped there, using all of the power of the President 
of the United States, the State Department, the Commerce Department, 
and the Department of Defense to help the U.N. inspectors into Iraq but 
not to threaten war. Why? Because, first, according to the U.N. 
Charter, only the U.N. Security Council has the power to enforce U.N. 
resolutions.
  I find it ironic that the President who seems to be committed to 
holding Iraq accountable to the U.N. is requesting an authorization 
that circumvents the Security Council and runs counter to the authority 
of the U.N. Charter.
  Second, the people's House should not give a blank check to declare 
war to the President of the United States. According to Article I 
Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to declare 
war. The President is asking Congress to abrogate its constitutional 
responsibility. The President's resolution authorizes him to use force 
as he determines to be necessary. This is not the responsibility of the 
President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He shall execute as 
determined by Congress.
  The Constitution clearly makes a separation of powers to stop the 
President from going on foreign adventures without the express consent 
of the American people.
  Third, I think leaping into war before we get all of the facts could 
threaten world security, especially our own. Think about it. Striking 
preemptively without gathering sufficient intelligence will put U.S. 
troops in harm's way. We need U.N. inspectors in Iraq to gather 
information.
  How will the U.S. military carry out surgical strikes of Iraq weapons 
depots and laboratories if it does not know where these facilities are? 
We need to know how many weapons Iraq has and what types of weapons. 
Striking before knowing creates an unintended consequence which could 
further threaten the world.

                              {time}  2130

  A preemptive strike will set an extremely damaging precedent to the 
future of international affairs. The U.S. will entirely lose its moral 
authority on preventing conflict. What will we say if Russia moves to 
attack Georgia, if China invades Taiwan, if India or Pakistan makes a 
decisive move into Kashmir? Lastly, a unilateral attack could alienate 
the U.S. from the rest of the world community including our traditional 
allies, our allies in the region, and our new allies in the war against 
terrorism. Far from strengthening the U.N., a unilateral strike before 
the U.N. acts will undermine the international body and lead the world 
to believe that the U.S. views the U.N. as a rubber stamp at best.
  A unilateral attack makes it less likely that the rest of the 
international community will support the U.S. in postconflict 
reconstruction of Iraq. The U.S. will bear most of the costs if not all 
the costs of the war and postwar, and remember the Persian Gulf War 
cost approximately $70 billion. Our allies paid all but $7 billion, 
which the U.S. took responsibility for. This new war against Iraq is 
estimated to cost between 100 and $200 billion. If we go it alone, the 
U.S. will have to pay it all. What will happen to other priorities? 
What will happen to Social Security, to Medicare, to education? Will we 
have enough resources to spend on our domestic priorities?
  Last, let us not forget that the power we have as Members of Congress 
is to cast these important votes from the consent of the people. My 
constituents have responded 5,000 to 24, approximately two to one.
  If one has to vote, let us vote on the side of peace before we vote 
on the side of war.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and a spokesperson for women.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution 
before us. There is a saying in the practice of law that tough cases 
make bad law. I believe that that is also true in the creation of laws 
and history tells us that when we are frightened and angry we are also 
more likely to make bad law.
  I believe we are poised today to approve some very bad law and tread 
on some very important principles as we do it. While I share the 
concerns raised by many of my colleagues regarding the lack of 
substance in the administration's arguments, I am most concerned about 
the damage this proposal would do to our Constitution. James Madison 
wrote: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than 
in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the 
legislature and not to the executive department . . . The trust and the 
temptation would be too great for any one man.''
  The Founding Fathers were explicit that the awesome power to commit 
the United States people and resources to waging of war should lie not 
with a single individual but rather in the collective judgment of the 
Congress. It was the hope of the Founders that reserving this decision 
to Congress would in

[[Page 19889]]

fact make it harder to move the country to war. I applaud that 
sentiment. Historians note that Congress exclusively possesses the 
constitutional power to initiate war, whether declared or undeclared, 
public or private, perfect or imperfect, de jure or defacto, with the 
only exception being the President's power to respond self-defensively 
to sudden direct attack upon the United States. There is no 
constitutionally recognized authorized use of force.
  In the book ``War, Foreign Affairs and Constitutional Power,'' 
Abraham Sofaer points out that the Constitution says Congress shall 
declare war, and it seems unreasonable to contend that the President 
was given the power to make undeclared war. He concludes that nothing 
in the framing or ratification debates gives the President as Commander 
in Chief an undefined reservoir of power to use the military in 
situations unauthorized by Congress.
  The U.S. Constitution requires the expressed declaration of war by 
Congress to execute any military operations in Iraq. Authorizing 
military action is our job, not the President's. We, not he, must 
determine when and if the fearsome power of our country should be 
turned to war. I understand the political and military risks associated 
with sending Americans into harm's way, but fear of public reaction 
does not justify the dereliction of Congress's constitutional duty. 
Similarly, the fact that many Presidents and Congresses over the years 
have engaged in the unconstitutional transfer of war powers does not 
make our obligation any less binding. Congress is not free to amend the 
Constitution through avoidance of its duties, and a President is not 
free to take constitutional power through adverse possession.
  The Congressional Research Service points out that the power to 
commence even limited acts of war against another nation belongs 
exclusively to Congress. We may not shirk this responsibility. We may 
not abdicate it, and we may not pretend it does not exist. We must meet 
our constitutional obligation to decide if or when America will go to 
war, whether our sons and daughters should be put in harm's way, and 
whether the country's purse should be opened to pay a bill as high as 
$200 billion. This decision cannot be handed over to the President. If 
the Founding Fathers had wanted that, they would have explicitly 
provided so in the Constitution. They did not.
  Should the United States go to war with Iraq? I do not believe the 
case has been made to do so. Can the Congress leave it to the President 
to decide whether or not we should attack Iraq? Any such transfer of 
congressional authority to the President is forbidden by the 
Constitution and would move us toward an upset of the delicate balance 
of powers between the Congress and the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to exercise great care as we consider these 
questions. Tough cases can make for very bad law. Let us not let them 
make us trample very good laws that have existed since the dawn of the 
Republic. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a senior member of the House 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are poised today on the brink of armed conflict, not 
knowing what the future may hold but confident in our position and in 
our resolve. We sincerely pray that war is not necessary. We realize 
that it may be. These closing hours and minutes of the 107th Congress 
may be our last chance for true and meaningful debate and deliberation. 
Can we as a reasonable people, supported by the international 
community, avoid the horrors of war, the stench of death, or rather 
does the protection of our country and the belief of the unalienable 
rights of all people, does common human decency require us to press 
forward in the face of certain American casualties?
  Two questions face the American people: Is Iraq's threat imminent? Is 
an unprecedented first strike the proper course to take? On a positive 
note, the President has indicated that approval of the resolution does 
not mean war is imminent or unavoidable. Additionally the U.S. has 
indicated support for a three-pronged resolution: number one, Iraq must 
reveal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction under U.N. 
supervision; two, witnesses must be allowed to be interviewed outside 
of Iraq; and, thirdly, any site the U.N. wants to inspect must be open 
without delay, without preclearance, without restriction, without 
exception. These are reasonable and rational rules that are required to 
maintain international peace. Absent Iraqi compliance, it appears 
necessary to vest in the President the flexibility and authority to 
protect the American public and international community by military 
action if necessary.
  But there is also a responsibility to exhaust all other options prior 
to risking the lives of young American sons and daughters. That is why 
we must use the most powerful military weapon that we have, diplomacy. 
That is why we must use all resources at our disposal to encourage the 
international community to pressure Hussein into compliance. But if all 
reasonable efforts fail, we must answer our duty to ensure the security 
of our country and those that we represent.
  Certainly questions remain. It is particularly important to have a 
clear goal, a clear plan, and a clear exit strategy when American lives 
are at risk. Additionally, the President must address the issue of 
sacrifice. There is no short-term solution to the long-term problem, 
and there will be a cost to be paid in dollars and in American lives 
lost.
  Presently, another cost is being assessed, the cost of waiting, the 
cost of allowing Saddam Hussein to build an international killing 
force, the cost of world instability. As the President has indicated, 
the riskiest of all options is to wait.
  So let us exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Let us make every 
reasonable effort to avoid conflict. But at the end of the day we may 
be called on to make a tremendous sacrifice by using our might to 
preserve what is right. Our cause is clearly just. Our responsibility 
is clear. We will have to walk by faith and not by sight, trusting that 
in the end we will choose the right course.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, there is no matter that comes before this 
Congress that is more serious than whether or not our Nation should 
enter into war. The implications of such a decision are so profound and 
will have worldwide impact. It could jeopardize U.S. relations with 
countries around the world. It would escalate the vulnerability of our 
Nation to a biological and chemical attack. And, of course, its most 
painful and lasting impact would be on the many American families who 
watch their sons and daughters go to war only to never see them again 
and maybe even return with lifetime illnesses.
  This is not a decision that I take lightly. I recognize the gravity 
of it. And this is why I remain concerned about the timing of this 
resolution of the President's effort to send troops into Iraq. I do not 
doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the United States and to the 
world and even to his own people. I echo concerns that we must ensure 
greater security for our people here at home and abroad. But I cannot 
support authorizing our President to send troops in harm's way without 
the support of our allies and concrete compelling evidence of imminent 
or nuclear threats that demand military action. We must eliminate 
weapons of mass destruction and the threat they pose to our Nation and 
others around the world. But unilateral military action against Iraq or 
any other foreign nation is not the most effective short-term strategy 
to accomplish this goal.
  Over 90 percent of the calls that I received in my own district tell 
me that they are opposed to this war. They ask, What is the rush, 
Congresswoman? Why is it that we have to take action so immediate? They 
want to know why we

[[Page 19890]]

cannot wait for the support of the U.N. and our allies. Some of these 
calls have come from my very own veterans in my district, many who have 
already made the ultimate sacrifices through their families, many of 
them who look like me and speak Spanish and are of Hispanic decent. 
They understand the extreme price of war and caution against using 
force without first gathering ally support and using diplomatic means 
to find peace. They also recognize the implications that a war would 
have on our community, and I represent a largely Hispanic community.
  Our military is a volunteer force. Most often it is the people of 
low-income families that answer that call to duty to serve our Nation. 
The young men and women on the frontlines would disproportionately be 
Latino, African American, and people of color. These communities will 
lose so much if the U.S. attacks Iraq.
  I am concerned about the price of the war. It has been estimated that 
the cost of this war against Iraq would be between 100 and $200 
billion. How is the U.S. going to pay for this war? We are always told 
that we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit plan, that we cannot 
extend unemployment insurance to workers laid off after the wake of 
September 11. We need to think about these costs before we rush into a 
war, and we should exhaust tough, rigorous U.N. inspections before 
going into war. We should seek support from the U.N. Security Council. 
As the first President Bush's advisers of Operation Desert Storm have 
warned, by attacking Iraq we give Saddam Hussein both the excuse and 
the incentive to use the biological and chemical weapons that he 
already has.
  I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to give serious 
consideration on this crucial matter.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.

                              {time}  2145

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

                        [From Plato's Republic]

                        The Allegory of the Cave

       And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature 
     is enlightened or unenlightened:, Behold! human beings living 
     in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the 
     light and reaching all along the den; here they have been 
     from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained 
     so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being 
     prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above 
     and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between 
     the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you 
     will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like 
     the screen which marionette players have in front of them, 
     over which they show the puppets.
       I see, he said.
       And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying 
     all sorts of vessels, and statutes and figures of animals 
     made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear 
     over the wall? Some of them are talking, other silent.
       You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange 
     prisoners.
       Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own 
     shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws 
     on the opposite wall of the cave?
       True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows 
     if they were never allowed to move their heads?
       And of the objects which are being carried in like manner 
     they would only see the shadows?
       Yes, he said.
       And if they were able to converse with one another, would 
     they not suppose that they were naming what was actually 
     before them? And suppose further that the prison had an echo 
     which came from the other side, would they not be sure to 
     fancy, when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which 
     they heard came from the passing shadow?
       No question, he replied.
       To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but 
     the shadows of the images.
       That is certain.
       And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if 
     the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At 
     first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly 
     to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards 
     the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will 
     distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of 
     which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then 
     conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was 
     an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to 
     being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he 
     has a clearer vision, what will be his reply?
       And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing 
     and when to the objects as they pass and requiring him to 
     name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that 
     the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects 
     which are now shown to him? Far truer. And if he is compelled 
     to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his 
     eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the 
     objects of vision which he can see, and which he will 
     conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are 
     now being shown to him?
       True, he said.
       And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a 
     steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced 
     into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be 
     pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes 
     will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at 
     all of what are now called realities?
       Not all in a moment, he said.
       He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the 
     upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the 
     reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then 
     the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of 
     the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will 
     see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the 
     light of the sun by day?
       Certainly.
       Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere 
     reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his 
     own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate 
     him as he is.
       Certainly.
       He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the 
     season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in 
     the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all 
     things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to 
     behold?
       Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then 
     reason about it.
       And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom 
     of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that 
     he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
       Certainly, he would.
       And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among 
     themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing 
     shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which 
     followed after, and which were together; and who were 
     therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do 
     you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or 
     envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, 
     Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure 
     anything, rather than think as they do and live after their 
     manner?
       Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything 
     than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable 
     manner.
       Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out 
     of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not 
     be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
       To be sure, he said.
       And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in 
     measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved 
     out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before 
     his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be 
     needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very 
     considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of 
     him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and 
     that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any 
     one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let 
     them only catch the offender, and they would put him to 
     death.
       No question, he said.
       This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear 
     Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the 
     world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you 
     will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards 
     to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world 
     according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have 
     expressed, whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether 
     true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge 
     the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen

[[Page 19891]]

     only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be 
     the universal author of all things beautiful and right, 
     parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible 
     world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the 
     intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who 
     would act rationally either in public or private life must 
     have his eye fixed.
       I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
       Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain 
     to this beautific vision are unwilling to descend to human 
     affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper 
     world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is 
     very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
       Yes, very natural.
       And is there anything surprising in one who passes from 
     divine contemplations to the evil state of man, when they 
     returned to the den they would see much worse than those who 
     had never left it himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while 
     his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to 
     the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts 
     of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows 
     of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the 
     conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute 
     justice?
       Anything but surprising, he replied.
       Any one who has common sense will remember that the 
     bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from 
     two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going 
     into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as 
     much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he 
     sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be 
     too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of 
     man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see 
     because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from 
     darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he 
     will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, 
     and he will pity the other; or, if he has a mind to laugh at 
     the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be 
     more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who 
     returns from above out of the light into the den.
       That, he said, is a very just distinction.
       But then, if I am right, certain professors of education 
     must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge 
     into the soul which was not there before, like sight into 
     blind eyes?
       They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
       Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of 
     learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye 
     was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole 
     body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the 
     movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of 
     becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure 
     the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, 
     or in other words, of the good.
       Very true.
       And must there not be some art which will effect conversion 
     in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the 
     faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been 
     turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the 
     truth?
       Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
       And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to 
     be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not 
     originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and 
     exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else 
     contains a divine element which always remains, and by this 
     conversation is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the 
     other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the 
     narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever 
     rogue, how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the 
     way to this end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen 
     eye-sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is 
     mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?
       Very true, he said.
       But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures 
     in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from 
     those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, 
     like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, 
     and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls 
     upon the things that are below, if, I say, they had been 
     released from these impediments and turned in the opposite 
     direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the 
     truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to 
     now.
       Very likely.
       Yes I said; and there is another thing which is likely, or 
     Neither rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, 
     that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor 
     yet those who never make an end of their education, will be 
     able educated ministers of State; nor the former, because 
     they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all 
     their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, 
     because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, 
     fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands 
     of the blest.
       Very true, he replied.
       Them, I said, the business of us who are the founders of 
     the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that 
     knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of 
     all, they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the 
     good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not 
     allow them to do as they do now.
       What do you mean?
       I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must 
     not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the 
     prisoners in the den, and partake of their labors and honors, 
     whether they are worth having or not.
       But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a 
     worse life, when they might have a better?
       You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention 
     of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in 
     the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in 
     the whole State, and he held the citizens together by 
     persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the 
     State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end 
     he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his 
     instruments in binding up the State.
       True, he said, I had forgotten.
       Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in 
     compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of 
     others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of 
     their class are not obliged to share in the toils of 
     politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their 
     own sweet will, and the government would rather not have 
     them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any 
     gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But 
     we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, 
     kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have 
     educated you far better and more perfectly than they have 
     been educated, and you are better able to share in the double 
     duty. That is why each of you, when his turn comes, must go 
     down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of 
     seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you 
     will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of 
     the den, and you will know what the several images are, and 
     what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and 
     just and good in their truth. And thus our State, which is 
     also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will 
     be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in 
     which men fight with one another about shadows only and are 
     distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is 
     a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which 
     the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best 
     and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are 
     most eager, the worst.
       Quite true, he replied.
       And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take 
     their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to 
     spend the greater part of their time with one another in the 
     heavenly light?
       Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the 
     commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no 
     doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern 
     necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of 
     State.
       Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must 
     contrive for your future rulers another and a better life 
     than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered 
     State; for only in the State which offers this, will they 
     rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in 
     virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. 
     Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, 
     poor and hungering after their own private advantage, 
     thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order 
     there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, 
     and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be 
     the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
       Most true, he replied.
       And the only life which looks down upon the life of 
     political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of 
     any other?
       Indeed, I do not, he said.
       And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? 
     For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will 
     fight.
       No question.
       Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? 
     Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of 
     the state.


                                endNOTES

       If you understand this first distinction, the much more 
     difficult division of the intelligible world will make more 
     sense. Think over this carefully: the visible world, that is, 
     the world you see, has two kinds of visible objects in it. 
     The first kind are shadows and reflections, that is, objects 
     you see but aren't really there but derive from the second 
     type of visible objects, that is, those that you see and are 
     really there. The relation of the visible world to the 
     intelligible world is identical to the relation of the world 
     of reflections to the world of visible things that are real.
       The lower region of the intelligible world corresponds to 
     the upper region in the same way the lower region of the 
     visible world corresponds to the upper region. Think of it 
     this way: the lower region deals only with objects of thought 
     (that are, in part, derived from

[[Page 19892]]

     visible objects), which is why it is part of the intelligible 
     world. There have to be certain first principles (such as the 
     existence of numbers or other mathematical postulates) that 
     are just simply taken without question: these are hypotheses. 
     These first principles, however, derive from other first 
     principles; the higher region of the intelligible world 
     encompasses these first principles.
       So you can see that the lower region derives from the 
     higher region in that the thinking in the lower region 
     derives from the first principles that make up the higher 
     region, just as the mirror reflects a solid object. When one 
     begins to think about first principles (such as, how can you 
     prove that numbers exist at all?) and derives more first 
     principles from them until you reach the one master, first 
     principle upon which all thought is based, you are operating 
     in this higher sphere in intellection. Plato's line is also a 
     hierarchy: the things at the top (first principles) have more 
     truth and more existence; the things at the bottom (the 
     reflections) have almost no truth and barely exist at all.

  He wrote: ``Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing 
from the keen eye of a clever rogue? How eager he is. How clearly his 
paltry soul sees the way to his end. He is the reverse of blind, but 
his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is 
mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.''
  What a perfect description of Saddam Hussein in that allegory for all 
of us, distinguishing from falsehoods and reality of the cave, the 
shadows against the wall, the light behind us, like a puppeteer.
  The record of this murderous regime has been outlined forcefully in 
this body and by our Commander-in-Chief. Saddam has used weapons of 
mass destruction against his own people, he waged war with Iran, he 
invaded Kuwait, and he even murdered his own people in the northern 
part of Iraq.
  Two cities stand out in the northern part of Iraq in 1988, Halabja 
and Goktapa. We all, each and every one of us, need to read the stories 
from both of those towns of innocent people who were massacred, 
massacred.
  The helicopters came over the day before in May, Mr. Speaker, taking 
pictures of the villages. People did not know what they were doing. 
Then, 2 days later, the same helicopters showed up and they dropped out 
of the sky mustard gases, lethal, lethal gases which left animals and 
plants and human beings dead. They did not need sophisticated state-of-
the-art technology to deliver these gases.
  Nothing like it was seen since the Holocaust, nothing came close. We 
need to think about this and who perpetuated these deaths.
  For the last 11 years, he has defied the will of the entire planet, 
as expressed in the resolutions which we have heard over and over the 
last 2 days. Indeed, I know of no thinking person who argues against 
the profound necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology.
  But while we can all agree on the menace he poses and unite in the 
desire to live in a world where he is not a factor, there are still 
critically important lingering questions, questions about the process, 
about the timing and, ultimately, the unilateral nature of preemptive 
war that we seem to be accepting for the first time in the history of 
this great country.
  Is the relative sudden frenzy to eliminate Saddam clouding the 
strategic vision of those who are most vociferous in the support of his 
ouster? My inquiry stems not from any kind of partisan agenda but out 
of a genuine confusion as to why key issues have not fully been 
discussed and debated.
  We spend millions of dollars every day for 10 years protecting the 
no-fly zones in the north and south. The American people have a right 
to know what these actions will cost us. They have every right to know.
  If we endorse this historic shift in our strategy that abandons our 
reliance on deterrence and arms control as the pillars of national 
security, will we open a Pandora's box of preemptive action throughout 
the world? What is our response when it comes?
  If this is our Nation's new policy, then what is to prevent India 
from attacking Pakistan, or Russia from attacking the state of Georgia? 
If they do, what will we say? After war, then what? What happens on day 
three, as Thomas Friedman wrote?
  After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve? We have 
yet to hear any discussion on this. Surely in this great deliberative 
body we should give pause to this critical issue. Surely the 
administration must address this most comprehensively.
  Let us remember, this is not a game of chess. These are our sons, 
these are our daughters who will execute this mission, many of whom may 
not return. Full debate is essential. Anything less is an abdication of 
the oath we all took together.
  We also need to make absolutely certain that whatever is done in Iraq 
does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12 months 
ago, the war on terrorism.
  That said, a great many people predict that the Congress will pass 
the resolution, the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 114, with 
an overwhelming majority. I do not dispute this, nor do I declare my 
opposition, but Congress must ensure that, through this process, no 
matter the duration, we are involved as explicitly as possible under 
article 1, Section 8. We must ensure that we constantly ask the 
appropriate questions and demand the pertinent answers.
  I do believe that it is imperative that the United States speaks with 
one voice to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve 
to protect and defend this greatest of all democracies and the families 
that make it great.
  We all love America, not some more than others. When we leave this 
week, we must remember this: None of us love America more than anyone 
else in this room.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a Vietnam veteran. I served 18 months in uniform in 
that country. As someone who has seen the ugly face of war, I do not 
embrace it as a policy choice, nor is it my first choice, but as a 
choice we sometimes have to make.
  I believe that preparation for war and a demonstration of national 
will to engage in war can be a way to avoid war, and I also believe 
that diplomacy without the threat of military action can be a hollow 
exercise in extreme cases. Right now, we are faced with an extreme 
case.
  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a menace. Our intelligence 
tells the story of brutality, savagery, patterns of aggression, 
deception, and defiance. It shows the danger that Saddam Hussein poses 
to our country, to his region, and to the world. His ouster could bring 
peace and stability, and it could also inflame further violence and 
instability. How we do what we do in this case is as important as what 
we do.
  In dealing with the issue, I have asked myself a question: Does 
Iraq's intent and capability to use weapons of mass destruction pose a 
clear and present danger to the United States, to our allies, or to 
Israel? And based on a reading and hearing of information available to 
me, I believe that the danger to the United States is clear. Whether or 
not it is present is less certain.
  For the continental United States, the danger may be 6 months away or 
it may be 6 years away, depending on a number of variables. For Israel, 
for some of our troops abroad, for our NATO ally Turkey, the danger is 
certainly clear and present.
  Given this assessment, diplomacy and multilateral action are still 
reasonable options to use against Hussein, and they should be 
encouraged. That is why I intend to vote for the Spratt amendment, 
which maintains substantial focus on diplomacy and multilateral action.
  My decision to support this amendment is not an easy one, but the 
stakes in this situation are very high. Over the past year, the 
intelligence community and committees of this Congress have tried to 
connect the dots on the vicious attack that took place on September 11, 
and the challenge for us today is to connect the dots once again but 
before another and potentially more lethal attack.

[[Page 19893]]

  There are risks and consequences if we act; there are risks and 
consequences if we do not act. I lost friends in the Vietnam War, and I 
am reminded of that every time I go down to the Wall. But I lost 
neighbors on September 11, and I am reminded of that every time I see 
the World Trade Center.
  On balance, I feel the greatest risk is through inaction, which is 
why, if the Spratt amendment fails on the floor tomorrow, I intend to 
vote for the bipartisan resolution.
  A vote for the bipartisan resolution is not a vote for war, it is a 
vote for will. It is a statement of national unity that says to Saddam 
Hussein, you are a menace and a bully to your own people and to your 
neighbors. You must disarm. You have exhausted our patience. We will 
join the United Nations and the world community and work with them 
against you in this cause, but, at the 11th hour, we will be prepared 
to act.
  We cannot wait for the smoking gun. A gun smokes only after it has 
been fired, and that may be too late for another American city, our 
troops abroad, a NATO ally, or Israel. When it comes to weapons of mass 
destruction, we must connect the dots before the next attack, not after 
it has occurred.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. 
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a villain and a menace to 
his own people and to the rest of the world. He is a terrible dictator 
who has used chemical weapons in his own country and on other nations. 
He has likely biological weapons and is certainly seeking nuclear 
weapons. He has invaded his neighbors and defied the international 
community. He has worked to destabilize the Middle East in support of 
terrorism. We can all agree he is a threat to international peace and 
security. His own people and the rest of the world would be better off 
if he were not in power.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that the United States is going to use 
military force to reduce or eliminate this threat. It seems likely that 
the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will be sent to the region 
to disarm his regime and possibly remove Hussein from power. If that 
happens, I will support our country men as they do their duty and obey 
the orders of the Commander in Chief. But tomorrow, I will vote against 
the resolution authorizing the use of force now.
  This is a hard decision. It is one of the most important votes that I 
cast. It is a vote of conscience for me, as I trust it is for all 
Members. And my conscience leads me to vote ``no.'' After careful 
consideration, I have determined that the resolution before us does not 
advance our national security. The bottom line is that it authorizes 
the President to launch a unilateral preemptive attack if he so 
chooses. Our national security is not served by such an attack.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the use of force in all circumstances. I 
voted to support military operations in Kosovo, and I stood on this 
floor and supported the President in the operations in Afghanistan. But 
I think an authorization to use force against Iraq before we have 
explored all of our options is premature and potentially dangerous.
  First of all, international support, especially from the U.N., is 
critical. It allows us to share the risks and costs of our operations. 
It lends our efforts legitimacy. Recently, the United Nations has 
regained its focus on Iraq. It is on the verge of restarting 
inspections and international support for a stricter inspection regime 
is growing. The return of the inspectors should be our top priority. 
They can determine the extent of the threat Iraq represents, and their 
findings can help us build international support to check the Iraqi 
regime.
  I will be supporting an alternative that continues those efforts. 
This alternative will only authorize force as a part of U.N. efforts to 
disarm Iraq. A unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq without U.N. 
support may undermine the multilateral war against global terror. It 
could drive a wedge between us and those allies whose support we need.
  In addition, with or without international support, we will have to 
be committed to rebuilding Iraq or we may be left with a state that is 
just as dangerous as the current one or worse we could be dealing with 
a chaotic civil war where we are not sure who has what kind of weapons. 
Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in 
addressing this important issue. This is consistent with its lack of 
attention to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Both are troubling.
  And a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iraq may lead to uprisings in 
the Middle East. Friendly regimes could be threatened by extremists who 
will openly support terrorism. And key moderate Islamic nations, like 
Egypt, Jordan, and the nuclear-armed Pakistan, could be destabilized.
  A U.S. attack would certainly further inflame the cycle of violence 
between Israel and the Palestinians. And I cannot imagine the 
consequences if Iraq were to attack Israel and Israel were to respond 
as Prime Minister Sharon has declared it would.
  An attack on Iraq could lead to the use of the very weapons we want 
to destroy. In an attempt to survive, Saddam Hussein may use all the 
weapons at his disposal against our servicemen and women.
  Finally, a preemptive attack on Iraq turns 50 years of national 
security policy on its head. We have struggled for 5 decades to help 
build a world in which nations do not attack one another without 
specific provocation. In the face of an imminent threat to the U.S., 
with an obvious provocation, a preemptive attack might be justified. 
But I have not seen convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an 
immediate threat.
  There is still time to try to resolve the situation using other tools 
of statecraft, such as diplomacy. The United States would win a war 
against Iraq. But that does not necessarily mean it is a war that 
should be waged at this time. At some point it may be necessary to use 
force. We may have to place our men and women in our Armed Forces in 
harm's way, but that should be the last resort, only after we have 
explored all other means and after other measures have failed.
  For now I do not think the case has been made that force is the only 
option left to us. It is premature to launch a unilateral preemptive 
attack, and it would be premature for us to authorize one. I oppose 
this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to remain silent and our side has held 
their debate because we want to allow full time for those opposed to 
have their word; but sometimes as you listen to a series of words you 
begin to see a pattern. And I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
need to also hear maybe some of the realities that are not being 
mentioned.
  This is not the beginning of a new war. In fact, President Herbert 
Bush, President Clinton, and now President George W. Bush have all, in 
fact, had to make strikes in Iraq to contain this evil dictator. In 
fact, President Clinton has made probably the largest strikes since the 
Gulf War during his administration. And at that time I do not believe 
that we heard in this body something about new preemptive acts of war. 
In fact, what we understood was we had a dictator who continued to use 
his remaining force and the ill-gotten revenues that he is getting from 
his clandestine selling of oil from outside the food program to, in 
fact, intimidate his neighbors and rebuild his weapons of mass 
destruction.
  So as much as I certainly want to yield as much time to my colleagues 
who oppose this, I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, must 
understand that this is by no means a new war. The President is not 
asking for a new war. In fact, what he is asking for is a recognition 
that after 11-plus years of a war which has not ended because this 
dictator has not met his responsibilities, responsibilities he agreed 
with the United Nations to keep, that in

[[Page 19894]]

fact the President has said, our President now has said, I must in fact 
have the tools to be able to go further to get the compliance. And I 
would hope that all of us in this body would very much understand the 
historic context in which I say the war has never ended.
  We are only asking to continue a direction that President Herbert 
Bush started, President Clinton continued, and now President George W. 
Bush has on his desk; and we hold him responsible for our safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether and under 
what considerations we will consider sending our young men and women 
into battle. That is an awesome responsibility, and I have given it 
much thought. I rise to offer my support of the Spratt substitute. It 
is a balanced, very careful approach to a serious problem.
  I stand before you as a father, as a husband, as an American, and as 
an elected representative of the people who live in the 20th 
Congressional District of Texas. Since the terrible attacks of 
September 11, we, as a Nation, have felt a new vulnerability; and we 
set out on a war against terrorism to safeguard our future.
  During this past year, I have listened to my constituents' concerns, 
sharing their fears and consoling those shaken by disruptions and the 
issue of security in our Nation. I offered my full support to the fight 
against terrorism, and I will continue to do so. We must not lose sense 
of the purpose, but we also must not lose our perspective. In recent 
months as the administration has begun to call for a war against Iraq, 
I have spoken with parents, brothers and sisters; and I have read 
heartfelt letters of young and old, and I have met with American men 
and women in uniform who proudly serve this Nation.
  As I visited churches and restaurants, shops and homes throughout the 
San Antonio, South Texas region, I have heard patriotic voices, yet 
voices filled with concern about the war we are today asked to 
authorize. As the administration has tried to make its case for the 
unilateral war against Iraq, I have had many questions. I am troubled 
because many of these questions remain unanswered, even as we debate 
whether or how to put American troops in harm's way.
  We have also heard mixed messages when we heard the Secretary call 
for a cut of 23,000 in the Army while at the same time we have heard 
our generals indicate that we need 40,000 in the Army, 20,000 in the 
Air Force and 8,000 Marines. Those mixed messages have not been 
helpful. But we also do not get the answers to our questions, questions 
such as, Who will pay for this war? We should have a tax bill on this 
House floor to pay for this war. What are our mission goals and our 
exit strategy?
  The other reality is that there has been no dialogue and no real 
thrust in that with terrorism, also, it is a fight of ideology and 
ideas. One thing we are clear about is we know that Saddam Hussein and 
the government he controls brutally, Iraq, are without question a 
danger not only to the United States but also to the world community. 
We know that Saddam Hussein has gone to great lengths to seek, develop, 
and then conceal weapons of mass destruction. I believe I join my 
colleagues here today in stating that we must end Saddam Hussein's 
quest for these terrible weapons.
  The issue before us is how we do so. It is crucial that we as 
representatives of the people translate the concerns about the 
execution of war against Iraq into a concrete plan to ensure the 
congressional representatives have a role in the decision to send our 
troops into harm's way.
  The administration seeks a blank check from the Congress to authorize 
the use of force broadly. But the administration's proposal does not 
encourage multilateral cooperation and also does not anticipate further 
congressional input. The approach offered by the Spratt substitute 
offers a better option. We are today the world's greatest superpower; 
our military might and economic power reach around the globe. Our 
democracy is an example to which other nations aspire. We are a diverse 
Nation united by our love of liberty, our thirst for freedom, and our 
belief in justice and the rule of law.
  That status as a world superpower brings with it great 
responsibilities. Yes, we have the power to go it alone, but I feel 
very strongly that the power to do exactly that would be the wrong 
thing to do. In the case of Iraq, I believe going it alone under the 
circumstances we now face is not the best approach. First, by working 
with the United Nations, we will act not only on our own behalf, but on 
behalf of the world community.
  Let me ask that you support the substitute, the Spratt substitute, 
because it is also the best military option, because that would allow 
us an opportunity to seek out those biological and chemical weapons 
before our soldiers go in. And if they have to go in, at least we will 
identify those areas where they might be able to be hiding, and there 
is no doubt that that would be the best way to go at it.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, our decision to authorize the President to 
commit American men and women to overseas military action is the most 
difficult decision a Member of Congress will ever face.
  Since September 11, 2001, when more than 100 of my constituents were 
killed in the terror attacks on our country, I have felt a new urgency 
to address the dangers to our national security that exist both here in 
the United States and abroad. Our government must act to secure our 
boarders and airways, protect nuclear power plants, safeguard our food 
and water supplies and more.

                              {time}  2215

  We must face up to the very real possibility of a biological, 
chemical or even nuclear attack upon our country and take whatever 
action is necessary to prevent it.
  I have spent a great deal of time, as have my colleagues, in recent 
weeks in classified briefings, with military and intelligence experts; 
and I have also paid close attention to the very real concerns of my 
constituents and even my family. We are living in a world far more 
dangerous today than we have ever known, and I have concluded that we 
must not wait for another terrorist attack before giving the President 
the authority to take the necessary action to protect our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Throughout world history, inaction against tyrants has proven to be 
an ineffective strategy for averting catastrophe. We have every reason 
to believe that Saddam Hussein is continuing to build up his arsenal of 
weapons of mass destruction. He continues to defy the civilized world 
and United Nations Security Council resolutions ordering him to disarm. 
He has shown through brutality toward his own people his willingness to 
use these terrible weapons against innocent people.
  Therefore, I have concluded that Saddam Hussein poses a serious 
danger to United States national security. We must stand up to this 
threat first by pursuing to the fullest all possible diplomatic means 
and then, only if we must, by the use of force.
  As a strong believer in the United Nations, I have a long record of 
support for a robust United States role in the United Nations, and I 
believe that strong United States leadership in the United Nations is 
critical to achieve peace in the world.
  But the United Nations must act. The crisis before us provides an 
important opportunity for the U.N. Security Council to show that there 
are consequences to ignoring the will of the international community. 
Failure to enforce the relevant resolutions will hurt the U.N.'s 
effectiveness as an organization, diminishing a potent force

[[Page 19895]]

for stability around the world. And if all else fails, if we must 
pursue military action, I hope and I pray that the mission is 
successful and short and that it will pave the way to a better day for 
Iraq and the region and result in greater security for Americans here 
at home.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as I take the floor this evening I am 
humbled by the task at hand and the paths that have led us to this 
point.
  When I arrived in Congress last year, I never imagined that we would 
witness cruel attacks on our own soil, that we would lead a war against 
terrorism across the globe or that we would contemplate returning to 
Iraq to address the ongoing threat of Saddam Hussein, all in less than 
2 years. Yet, we did not choose these circumstances. Instead, they 
found us; and it is our responsibility to act in a careful and 
appropriate manner to protect the United States, its people, its allies 
and our ideals.
  Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important 
decisions Congress can make; and as a member of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, I do not take it lightly.
  Last month, I held a listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my 
constituents' concerns about military action in Iraq. I spent many 
hours being briefed in the Committee on Armed Services and in the White 
House by senior administration officials and other experts. From these 
conversations, I have grown increasingly alarmed by the widening body 
of evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to 
the security of the United States.
  His development of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his 
pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations resolutions and 
threatens the stability of the region. His oppression of the Iraqi 
people, including his use of chemical weapons against civilians, 
strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human rights. He 
has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us and our 
allies, even firing on aircraft and enforcing the Iraqi's no-fly zone 
2,500 times since 1991.
  While it may be difficult to imagine what horrors this tyrant is 
planning over 6,000 miles away, I am convinced that the threat is very 
real.
  The question, therefore, becomes how best to deal with this danger. I 
have heard overwhelming concerns from constituents that the United 
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we 
act against Iraq, if we act particularly unilaterally. Equally 
important, I share the concern that we will damage our moral authority 
as the world's sole remaining superpower if we do not proceed 
responsibly.
  For this reason, we must engage the global community in our efforts 
to neutralize the threat of Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United 
Nations and our allies is critical, and I hope that we are collectively 
able to develop a strong mandate for the disarmament of Iraq.
  In his speech Monday night, President Bush pledged to engage the U.N. 
Security Council in drafting a new resolution; and I fully expect him 
to pursue this strategy, not only to establish broader support and 
deeper confidence for our mission but also to protect the integrity of 
the United States. If new weapons inspections do not achieve total 
disarmament, we must not rule out using military action to force 
compliance with U.N. resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive 
capabilities and protect the American people.
  Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with other Nations. 
President Bush stated that we would act with our allies at our side, 
and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that unilateral 
action against Iraq could have dangerous ramifications on the region 
and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. Furthermore, the 
international coalition would also be essential in promoting a new 
government in Iraq, an effort that should be undertaken as seriously as 
the Marshall Plan.
  Tomorrow, I will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require 
cooperation with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible. In 
contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our 
responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to 
our cause. If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support 
the underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security 
Council and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though 
that vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental 
in shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and 
cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued 
commitment to these goals.
  The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain 
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September 
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for 
the promises from a madman.
  We now have the opportunity to improve the safety of our citizens and 
the stability of the Middle East. However, there is a right way and a 
wrong way of approaching this complicated issue. Just as a prosecutor 
must lay out the facts to establish guilt, we must make our case before 
the world community.
  I urge support for the Spratt amendment.
  As I take the floor this afternoon, I am humbled by the task at hand 
and the path that has led us to this point. When I arrived in Congress 
last year, I never imagined that we would witness cruel attacks on our 
soil, that we would lead a war against terrorism across the globe, or 
that we would contemplate returning to Iraq to address the ongoing 
threat of Saddam Hussein--all in less than two years. Yet we did not 
choose these circumstances; instead, they found us, and it is our 
responsibility to act in a careful and appropriate manner to protect 
the United States, its people, its allies, and its ideals.
  Authorizing the use of military force is one of the most important 
decisions Congress can make, and, as a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, I do not take it lightly. Last month, I held a 
listening tour in Rhode Island to understand my constituents' concerns 
about military action in Iraq. I have spent many hours being briefed in 
the Armed Services Committee and at the White House by Administration 
officials and other experts. From these conversations, I have grown 
increasingly alarmed by the widening body of evidence that Saddam 
Hussein poses a grave and expanding threat to the security of the 
United States. His development of biological and chemical weapons, as 
well as his pursuit of nuclear capabilities, flaunts United Nations 
resolutions and threatens the stability of the region. His oppression 
of the Iraqi people, including his use of chemical weapons against 
civilians, strikes at the very core of our belief in protecting human 
rights. He has also made it clear that he will take action to harm us 
and our allies, firing on aircraft enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones 
2,500 times since 1991. And while it may be difficult for some to 
imagine what horrors this tyrant is planning over 6,000 miles away, I 
am convinced that the threat is real.
  The question therefore becomes how best to deal with this danger. I 
have heard overwhelming concern from my constituents that the United 
States could endanger the international coalition against terror if we 
act unilaterally against Iraq. Equally important, I share their concern 
that we will damage our moral authority as the world's sole remaining 
superpower if we do not proceed responsibly. For this reason, we must 
engage the global community in our efforts to neutralize the threat of 
Saddam Hussein. Cooperation with the United Nations and our allies is 
critical, and I hope that we are collectively able to develop a strong 
mandate for the disarmament of Iraq. In his speech on Monday night, 
President Bush pledged to engage the U.N. Security Council in drafting 
a new resolution, and I fully expect him to pursue this strategy, not 
only to establish broader support and deeper confidence for our 
mission, but also to protect the integrity of the United States.
  If new weapons inspections do not achieve total disarmament, we must 
not rule out using military action to force compliance with U.N. 
resolutions, eradicate Iraq's destructive capabilities, and protect the 
American people. Again, such action must be taken in conjunction with 
other nations. President Bush stated we would act ``with allies at our 
side,'' and we must hold him to his promise. We cannot ignore that 
unilateral action against Iraq could

[[Page 19896]]

have dangerous ramifications on the region and America's own efforts in 
the war on terrorism. Furthermore, an international coalition would 
also be essential in promoting a new government in Iraq--an effort that 
should be undertaken as seriously as the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow, I 
will vote for the Spratt amendment, which would require cooperation 
with the United Nations to the greatest extent possible. When 
contemplating a preemptive attack against another nation, it is our 
responsibility to work with our friends and allies and rally them to 
our cause.
  If the Spratt amendment is unsuccessful, I cannot support the 
underlying resolution until we first go to the U.N. Security Council 
and attempt to get a vote authorizing the use of force. Though that 
vote may ultimately fail, the United States has been instrumental in 
shaping the guidelines and agreements that have fostered peace and 
cooperation throughout the world, and we must demonstrate our continued 
commitment to these goals.
  The threat posed by Saddam Hussein is too great for us to remain 
inactive. We cannot sit idly by while the pieces of another September 
11 fall into place. We cannot risk a single American life waiting for 
promises from a madman. We now have the opportunity to improve the 
safety of our citizens and the stability of the Middle East. However, 
there is a right way and a wrong way of approaching this complicated 
issue. Just as a prosecutor must lay out facts to establish guilt, we 
must make our case before the world community. This is the only 
approach to guarantee that our efforts to disarm Iraq will have the 
full force of international support and not undermine our greater war 
against terrorism.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share in this debate and urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I must once again reiterate, although it 
seems rude and people do want to extend and it is difficult to end 
before my colleagues complete their statements, I must insist that we 
take no more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Towns), a leading member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this resolution ignores 
the political realities that are present in a tinderbox like the Middle 
East. It is naive to think that unilateral American action in the 
Middle East will achieve lasting security, but it is downright foolish 
to ignore the United Nations' potential as a partner in eliminating 
Saddam's chokehold on world security.
  This resolution merely pays lip service to any meaningful coalition 
building or endorsement of U.N. findings without establishing an 
international coalition. We leave the fate of the Iraqi people to 
uncertainty and without the hope of meaningful nation building or 
distribution of aid. America cannot achieve this alone or on its own.
  The world is watching us to see how a superpower acts which has 
defeated its dragons and is now confronted by malignant dictators of 
developing powers. Make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussein is a 
dictator who resorts to the most heinous of atrocities to silence his 
opponents.
  As the world's sole superpower, we must be careful that our allies do 
not grow resentful of us. We need to make certain that they are 
included in any sort of action that we as a Nation might decide to 
take. That has not happened, and I must vote no on the resolution.
  Let me close by saying I am concerned as anyone in this Chamber about 
national and international security. I served in the United States 
Army, but I am not convinced that we should put our young people in 
harm's way. We should not do that; and, therefore, I will vote no on 
this resolution and hope that many of my colleagues would join us. This 
is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have struggled with the question of 
whether to give the President the broad authority to take our Nation 
into a full-scale war with Iraq. I have also struggled with the 
question of how to support the President's objectives and also keep 
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution.
  I continue to have grave reservations about acting unilaterally, 
acting without evidence of an imminent threat and acting without 
considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or without a 
commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution 
we are considering today would give the President authority to act 
without adequately addressing these crucial questions.
  Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the President in 
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be 
on that path with us and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage. 
This resolution does not allow Congress to answer these important 
questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the 
President, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power 
and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is 
amended.
  Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to 
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq 
as a part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United 
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the 
costly and difficult nation building that must follow but also to avoid 
compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly in 
the Islamic world.

                              {time}  2230

  As a last resort, it may be necessary for American military forces to 
act without the support of the United Nations Security Council. But 
before we do so, I believe the President should come to Congress for a 
separate authorization. That is what the amendment I offered to the 
Committee on Rules called for.
  My amendment was based on a resolution I introduced, House Joint 
Resolution 118, which would ensure that Congress, not the President, 
makes this awesome decision. Regrettably, my amendment was not made in 
order; so I am glad that tomorrow I will have the opportunity to vote 
for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more consistent with the 
Constitution than the underlying resolution we are being asked to 
support.
  Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on 
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. 
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it 
poses for our global war on terrorism, and the consequences for our 
security in this region, is simply irresponsible, in my view.
  Do not misunderstand. I have no illusions about the duplicity of 
Saddam Hussein or the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Hussein is a 
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of 
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of appeasement towards 
Saddam Hussein. But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein 
is only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's 
threat in the context of broader security goals, including crippling al 
Qaeda and sustaining and building the important global relationships we 
need for the war against terrorism and for solving other critical 
global problems.
  My father, Morris Udall, who was serving in Congress in 1964, came to 
regret his support for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when it became 
clear that it was being used as a substitute for the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress to declare war. I fear that this Congress, a 
generation later, is poised to make a similar mistake. To avoid that, 
we need to reject this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have struggled with the question of 
whether to give the president the broad authority to take our nation 
into a full-scale war against Iraq. I have also struggled with the 
question of how to support the president's objectives and also keep 
faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution. I continue to have grave 
reservations about

[[Page 19897]]

acting unilaterally, acting without evidence of an imminent threat, and 
acting without considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or 
without a commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the 
resolution we are considering today would give the president authority 
to act without adequately addressing these crucial questions.
  Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the president in 
determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be 
on that path with us, and ultimately what kind of war we intend to 
wage. This resolution doesn't allow Congress to answer these important 
questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the 
president, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power 
and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the president told us that voting for 
this resolution would not mean that war was imminent or unavoidable. 
Many of my colleagues draw comfort from the vies that this resolution 
is not necessarily a call to arms. With respect, I find no such 
comfort. This resolution very clearly gives the president authority to 
take us to war.
  I introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 118, which would ensure that 
Congress makes this awesome decision. I also submitted to the Rules 
Committee an amendment based on my resolution. Regrettably, my 
amendment was not made in order. So I am glad that I will have the 
opportunity to vote for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more 
consistent with the Constitution than the underlying resolution we are 
being asked to support.
  Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to 
our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq 
as part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United 
Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the 
costly and difficult nation-building that must follow, but also to 
avoid compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly 
in the Islamic world. As a last resort, it may be necessary for 
American military forces to act without the support of the United 
Nations Security Council, but before we do so, I believe the president 
should come to Congress to ask for a separate authorization.
  Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on 
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. 
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it 
poses for our global war on terror and the consequences for our 
security in the region, is simply irresponsible in my view.
  Don't misunderstand, I have no illusions about the duplicity of 
Saddam Hussein or about the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Huessin is a 
dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of 
disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of international amnesia 
toward Saddam Hussein. That's why I can't support the Lee amendment, 
which I believe does not adequately respond to the urgency of ending 
Saddam Hussein's decade of defiance and eliminating Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction. The Lee amendment seems to rule out military action 
as a last resort, and I don't believe we can or should do that.
  But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is only part 
of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat to the 
context of broader security goals, including crippling Al Qaeda and 
sustaining and building important global relationships we need for the 
war against terrorism and for solving other critical global problems.
  My father was serving in Congress in 1964 when it passed the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution, which led to the eventual deployment of 500,000 
American soldiers in Vietnam and the deaths of 55,000 American 
servicemen and women. My father came to regret his support for that 
resolution when it became clear that it was being used as a substitute 
for the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. I 
fear that this Congress, a generation later, is posed to make a similar 
mistake.
  To avoid that, we need to reject this resolution.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating to our Nation and to the world what 
American democracy is all about, where the duly elected representatives 
of this body have been given an opportunity to share with each 
colleague their best judgment on whether the Congress supports the 
President's request to place the men and women of our armed services in 
harm's way.
  I have no doubt that our President has spent countless hours, perhaps 
even sleepless hours, and probably even thought a thousand times over 
as to whether or not this was the best course of action that our 
country should take at this time and for him to make such an important 
decision that will determine whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen 
are going to be sent into harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad our President does not have the constitutional 
authority to declare war against enemy nations. I am also glad that our 
President does not have the authority under the provisions of our 
Constitution to establish our Nation's armies and navies. That is the 
exclusive authority that has been given specifically to the Congress of 
the United States. Mr. Speaker, I respect our President; but I do not 
worship him, nor is he a king or an emperor. He is our President and is 
subject to the will of the American people.
  My reason for supporting this resolution is that our President is 
properly authorized under the terms of this proposed resolution to seek 
out all diplomatic options, to make sure that there is substantive 
participation from our allies and from other nations in the world to 
confront the serious danger that is now before us and the world with 
the regime currently governed by the dictator Saddam Hussein.
  Another critical factor in this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we 
have not questioned the loyalty and patriotism of each of us or the 
integrity of each of us, of any Member of this body, especially under 
the climate we are now under to make a firm decision whether our Nation 
should commit her military forces against her enemies. I am convinced, 
Mr. Speaker, that sometime tomorrow, if as a result of a final vote by 
this body that vote is not overwhelming in support of the President's 
proposed resolution, that common sense would dictate that our President 
would seriously have to reconsider his position on this matter, go back 
to the drawing board and try again. I would rather deal with some 
bruised egoes in the White House and in the Congress than to end up 
fighting another war like Vietnam.
  Again, in good faith and as a consequence of the deliberative efforts 
of the leadership of both sides of the aisle in this body, a proposed 
resolution has been offered for our consideration. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
make reference to my friend, the Chinese General Sun Tzu, who some 
2,500 years ago made some very astute observations concerning the art 
of warfare, and I hope our Vice President and our leaders in the 
Department of Defense will take heed to General Tzu's advice.
  General Tzu said, ``If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need 
not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the 
enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. But if 
you do not know your enemy nor yourself, you will absolutely lose in 
every battle.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and ask that he be 
permitted to control the rest of that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from American Samoa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the time remaining now on the 
two sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) has 
2 hours and 21 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) now has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I have with me a carefully prepared floor 
statement. It lays out my opposition to the Hastert-Gephardt-Bush 
resolution, although it is a meaningful improvement over the original 
proposal, and my support for the Spratt alternative. I commend it to my 
colleagues, and will place that statement in the Record for reference.
  In truth, it covers ground already well covered, more eloquently and 
with

[[Page 19898]]

deepest conviction, by both supporters and opponents many times in this 
important and serious debate. Instead, because these votes may well be 
my last of real import as a Member of Congress, I would like to share 
with colleagues a very specific thought. It is simple. We all remember 
the warning common from childhood: ``Don't start something you cannot 
finish.''
  I do not mean to suggest that what we are doing here today is 
something we cannot finish. But my father said it a little bit 
differently, more as a matter of advice than childish threat. ``Don't 
start anything you don't know how to finish.'' It is good advice about 
many things. And even though I will not be here to help at the finish 
of what we begin here today, it is good advice here nonetheless.
  Now, I am not talking about war plans. I am confident that they will 
be well and professionally crafted; and, clearly, we should not share 
them with our adversaries. But I am talking about peace plans. We seem 
to have more trouble with them. And we need to make them very clear to 
adversaries and allies alike. It is a powerful tool.
  For the second time in a year, we are talking about making war in 
order to rebuild a nation and its culture. The echo which that recalls 
from 40 years ago is a concern.
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  It reminds me of 1991. And the events of the last year in Afghanistan 
are even more troubling, as rebuilding there hardly proceeds at all. 
And the message that sends to the oppressed people of Iraq and others 
whom we would make our friends throughout the Middle East, that message 
is a real problem.
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  Because this will not be over when the bombs stop falling and the 
ground combat is over and the wounded are cared for and the dead are 
put to rest. It will not begin to be over until we have carried out a 
coherent and clearly stated plan for postwar Iraq. It is the single 
most important message we can send to the people of the region as they 
debate and choose a better future for themselves.
  Middle East analyst Stephen Cohen has remarked, ``We in the West 
cannot have that debate for them, but we can help create the conditions 
for it to happen. America's role is to show the way to incremental 
change, something that is not, presto, instant democracy, or fantasies 
that enlightened despotism will serve our interests. We cannot just go 
on looking at the Arab world as a giant gas station, indifferent to 
what happens inside. Because gas is now leaking and all around people 
are throwing matches.''
  ``Don't start anything you don't know how to finish,'' my father 
said.
  It is an important lesson. It is one that we might have thought the 
President's own father might have said to him. Or maybe not. And that 
is why I say it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress would achieve near unanimity if we 
were voting only on the overall purpose of this resolution, which is to 
eliminate Saddam Hussein's control over weapons of mass destruction. On 
that issue we are as unified as we are in the war against terrorism 
that we launched with the President a year ago. I, and many others, 
believe that the current Iraqi regime poses a long-term threat to the 
community of nations through its ongoing defiance of United Nations 
resolutions prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass 
destruction. But I will not support the resolution before us because it 
provides the President with an open-ended authority that is far too 
broad for the task before us.
  The President is asking for authorization of force even before he 
determines that force is necessary and before we have exhausted our 
other options short of force. Instead, Congress should pass a 
resolution that calls on the President to obtain the support of the 
United Nations and our allies and authorizes him to use force if it is 
so sanctioned by the United Nations. This approach is embodied in the 
Spratt substitute amendment to be offered tomorrow, which I will 
support. If the United Nations fails to take sufficient action, then we 
can pass another resolution of force at that time. But action by the 
United Nations Security Council offers the best chance to reintroduce 
meaningful inspections into Iraq. This would be the best way to resolve 
the threat from Iraq peacefully and without reducing our focus on 
eliminating al Qaeda, which remains the foremost immediate threat to 
America.
  Given Saddam Hussein's record of obstruction over the past eleven 
years, the United Nations should authorize force against Iraq if Iraq 
interferes with the unconditional inspection and dismantling of its 
weapons of mass destruction. However, I cannot support a resolution 
that authorizes unilateral military force in the present circumstances.
  I am concerned that if the U.S. were to act alone it would damage our 
wide international support in the war against terrorism and al Qaeda. 
This war depends on the cooperation of other governments to arrest 
terrorist suspects, monitor terrorist financial transactions, and share 
intelligence. We should not risk the goodwill of the international 
community by acting unilaterally while multilateral options still 
exist.
  I am also concerned that if the U.S. were to act against Iraq without 
the support of the United Nations Security Council, it would set a 
dangerous precedent for other countries who might be tempted to use 
military intervention against the wishes of the international community 
in order to end long-simmering disputes. It is important that our 
policy toward Iraq be guided by our long-standing commitment to the 
principle of collective security, which the United States helped place 
in the Charter of the United Nations.
  Let me close by saying that I believe that Congress and the 
Administration should make it crystal clear before any military action 
is taken that the U.S. will be committed to helping Iraq rebuild after 
a war. The U.S. cannot expect to make a quick exit from Iraq after a 
war. We would have to be committed to a substantial expenditure of time 
and money to revitalize Iraq, and we will need the support of our 
allies to succeed. Doing otherwise would risk leaving behind a 
dangerously unstable country in the Middle East that could be an even 
greater source of danger in the region than the current regime.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
thoughtful comments. I may not agree with all of them, but the 
contribution that he has made in this body will be sorely missed with 
his departure. And I know that I share with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle in knowing that this body will be poorer for not 
having the kind of insight and the kind of caring that we have just 
heard.
  I know this debate has gone on long, but some things are worth going 
on a little longer, and I once again would like to express my 
appreciation for his thoughtful comments.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
also compliment the gentleman from Ohio, who has served this House so 
outstandingly; and we will certainly truly miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), one of the brightest persons in the House, who serves on 
the Committee on Financial Services and who has patiently waited.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time, and thank him as well for having undertaken this 
thankless, but very important, job and has done it well.
  When I listened to the President's speech the other night, I found 
myself in agreement with much of it, but then I find myself in 
disagreement with his conclusion. I think the President made a pretty 
good case for a multilateral approach to making sure that Saddam 
Hussein is disarmed, but that is not what he is asking us to do.
  The President is asking us to authorize a unilateral invasion of Iraq 
to overthrow Saddam Hussein because he is an immoral and evil ruler. I 
wish he were the only immoral and evil ruler in the world. Our job 
would be simpler.
  But I do not see a rationale for a unilateral American invasion to 
overthrow Saddam Hussein that does not apply to a number of other 
governments, some of whom we are allied with. In fact, there will be a 
choice tomorrow for a very well-thought-out proposal that would empower 
the President with the full support of Congress to undertake a serious 
effort to get a multilateral approach, using force if necessary, to 
impose disarmament on Saddam Hussein. It is the resolution that will be 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

[[Page 19899]]

  And the President said, let us have unity, let us have a large 
majority here. He could get, I believe, more than 90 percent, if he 
were willing to throw his support behind a resolution that said let us 
use force in a multilateral context not to overthrow this government, 
because we cannot be in the position of, I think, invading every 
government that fails to meet our moral standards, as much as I believe 
those moral standards to be correct ones. He, instead, will choose a 
more divisive path.
  Why? One reason is that we are told the policy of deterrence will not 
work with Saddam Hussein. We are told that deterrence, which has worked 
with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China and with 
North Korea and with Iran and with other nations, uniquely will not 
work with Iraq because of the nature of Saddam Hussein. The problem 
with the argument that deterrence will not work, that is the policy 
that says the way to keep him from using chemical and biological and, 
ultimately, nuclear weapons, if he gets them, and we should try to stop 
him from getting them, but the way to keep him from doing it is to 
threaten him with overwhelming retaliation.

                              {time}  2245

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

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

                  U.S. Effort Aimed at Iraqi Officers

                           (By Walter Pincus)

       The Pentagon is preparing a campaign aimed at deterring 
     Iraqi officers from firing chemical or biological weapons 
     during a U.S. invasion because intelligence officials believe 
     President Saddam Hussein has given field commanders 
     conditional authority to use the weapons in the event of an 
     attack, according to defense and intelligence officials.
       The effort would include massive leafleting of Iraqi 
     military positions--a tactic used by U.S. forces during the 
     Gulf War in 1991--but also might employ covert techniques 
     that would enable the U.S. message to reach Iraqi commanders, 
     the officials said.
       Final authority to use weapons of mass destruction has 
     resided with Hussein. But the Iraqi president's knowledge 
     that the United States would seek to take down Iraqi command 
     centers and communications systems at the outset of any 
     military strike means he has likely already given authority 
     for firing chemical and biological weapons to his most loyal 
     commanders in the field, the officials said. They said 
     Hussein issued similar orders before the Gulf War.
       As a result, the sources said, the Pentagon plans to appeal 
     directly to these officers not to use the weapons. One of the 
     biggest challenges before military planners is determining 
     which Iraqi military units can be encouraged to defect in the 
     event of a U.S. invasion and how to communicate with them, 
     defense officials have said.
       A British intelligence report released Tuesday by Prime 
     Minister Tony Blair said Iraqis could deploy nerve gas and 
     anthrax weapons on 45 minutes' notice. It also said Hussein 
     may have already delegated authority to order use of such 
     weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican 
     Guard--elite units that control deployed weapons for mass 
     destruction.
       The Pentagon's campaign was signaled recently by Defense 
     Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Testifying before the House 
     Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said, ``Wise Iraqis will 
     not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction].... 
     The United States will make clear at the outset that those 
     who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new 
     Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off.''
       Rumsfeld added that if the order to use chemical or 
     biological weapons were made by Hussein, ``that does not 
     necessarily mean his orders would be carried out. He might 
     not have anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain 
     of command most certainly would have a great deal to lose.''
       A Pentagon official said Rumsfeld's comments ``are at least 
     the start of telling them we are serious.''
       After the Gulf War, coalition force interrogators learned 
     that Hussein had decided ahead of time to give commanders the 
     go-ahead to use chemical weapons if Baghdad's communications 
     were interrupted.
       One administration source said the Iraqi president issued 
     specific orders to use the weapons if ``the allies were 
     winning the ground war and they had crossed a line due west 
     of the city of Al-Amarah,'' which is 200 miles south of 
     Baghdad. Iraqi unit commanders were also told they should 
     employ the weapons against Iranian forces if they crossed the 
     border during the war and moved into Iraq's Maysan Province, 
     where Al-Amarah is located.
       Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were 
     deployed during the war, they were not used. U.S. officials 
     now believe this was because the United States had repeatedly 
     cautioned Iraq before the fighting started that use of such 
     weapons would draw a immediate and possibly overwhelming 
     response that would topple Hussein from power.
       One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade 
     Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical or 
     biological weapons is that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent 
     has been rendered moot by the administration's decision to 
     make removing Hussein the goal of any military action.
       Whether a plan to deter Iraqi commanders from employing the 
     weapons will work is a matter of disagreement among military 
     experts. The Republican Guard units that control the weapons 
     are run by Hussein's most loyal officers.
       They will face a short-term or a long-term problem'' one 
     former senior intelligence official said. ``We may come after 
     them when the fighting is over. But there may be a Saddam 
     loyalist with a gun who is threatening to kill him right away 
     if he doesn't follow orders.''
       Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at the National Defense 
     University, said that in 1991, according to documents found 
     after the war, Hussein had tried to persuade his commanders 
     to use the weapons because they

[[Page 19900]]

     would be killed anyway. Also, Hussein had placed loyalists 
     with the commanders to enforce his wishes. ``The question is, 
     are they still there?'' she said.
       Richard Russell, a CIA area analyst who specialized in Iraq 
     and is now at the National Defense University, said the 
     effort to deter individual commanders ``makes sense as an 
     attempt.'' But he noted that Iraqi operational security was 
     very good in the Gulf War and ``you have to assume it is much 
     better now.''
       After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, U.S. officials 
     talked openly of American forces making preparations for 
     waging combat in a chemical environment. Then-Secretary of 
     State James A. Baker III told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq 
     Aziz that Hussein's government would be endangered if such 
     weapons were used. Then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney 
     hinted that if such an attack took place against Israel, that 
     country might respond with nuclear weapons.
       In the war's aftermath, U.S. intelligence officials learned 
     that Iraq had been deterred from using chemical weapons by 
     the threat of massive retaliation. Iraqi artillery units 
     armed with chemical shells were segregated from the rest of 
     the forces and chemical munitions were never moved to Kuwait 
     and never moved toward the front as coalition forces 
     approached, and in some cases breached, the Iraq-Kuwait 
     border.
                                  ____


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

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

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to keep fairness in this body, I 
believe there are more speakers on the other side of the aisle, and I 
would like to inquire how much longer they would need in order to find 
a way to equalize time?
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we would need a minimum of at least one full 
hour. That would be the least amount of time. It is very difficult to 
predict. We will not let anyone speak over 5 minutes. However, we feel 
an obligation to every Member who was promised the opportunity to 
speak. We want to live up to our obligations, but we will try to move 
it along as quickly as possible.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, certainly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) had every 
intention in making sure that every Member got an opportunity to speak.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 44 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and that he may control that 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep appreciation to the 
gentleman from California, and to the majority, for this very generous 
action. It is not always the norm, and I just want to express my 
appreciation.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and hope it will always 
be the norm on the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the thousands in my 
district who are opposed to an ill-conceived war, I rise in opposition 
to this resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
  Thousands of my constituents have spoken. Families of military 
personnel who reside in my district have spoken. They have all 
emphatically and resoundingly delivered an answer to the question of 
going to war with Iraq; and the answer is, no, no, and no. No against 
the war in Iraq. No against sending their sons and daughters to war for 
yet-unknown reasons. And no to the ignoring of the economic problems 
that still are plaguing our Nation.
  The war that my constituents want us to wage is a war on poverty, a 
war on layoffs, a war on inadequate health care, a war on a lack of 
affordable housing and a war for economic opportunity and fairness.
  Over the last several months, the President has been earnest in his 
efforts to inform the American public of what the risks are of not 
going to war and what they may be. But, to date, he has not convinced 
the people in my district why their sons and their daughters should be 
placed in harm's way.
  If we are going to engage in an honest debate, we owe it to the 
American public to ask the right questions. Questions like: What will 
the number of military and civilian casualties be?

[[Page 19901]]

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

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. Speaker, I question the notion that we must speak with one voice 
because it is the collection of voices that grants us our strength. Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow I will vote ``no'' because House Joint Resolution 114 
is a premature de facto declaration of war that fails to recognize the 
fundamental tenet that leadership involves leading, not merely acting 
alone. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote on the resolution does not 
restrict the President's power to act should an imminent threat arise. 
He already has that authority.
  To conclude, let me say to the servicemen and women, especially those 
living in San Diego who will be called upon to enforce this policy, my 
admiration and respect for you is as strong as ever and it will never 
waiver. Just as you always do your duty to America regardless of how 
you personally feel about a particular mission, so will I do my duty to 
give you the support you need to complete your mission and get home 
safely. Along with my fellow Members of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, I will fight vigorously to get you every tool you need to do 
the job right.
  To my colleagues on the committee and in Congress, I hope you will 
take my opposition to this resolution in the spirit in which it is 
offered, that of doing what I feel must be done to fight and win the 
war on terrorism and empower diplomacy. We may disagree over the 
strategy of addressing the threats posed by Iraq at this time, but we 
are united in the greater goal to free America and the world from the 
threat of terrorism.
  To our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, a warning: do not confuse 
democracy and debate with disunity or disarray. Our voices constitute 
our strength, and the United States of America is united in its 
resolve.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a member of the Committee on Government Reform 
and the Committee on Financial Services, a true leader in this 
government.

[[Page 19902]]


  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that 
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two 
wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The 
question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. 
The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the 
American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more 
harm than good.
  Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported 
that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we 
have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to 
initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' 
Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam 
conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might 
at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other 
words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we 
launch a precipitous invasion.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our 
intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a 
resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go 
forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies 
including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on 
terrorism.
  But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is 
ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-
being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public 
discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over 
the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the 
retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives 
disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today 
has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our 
manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs. 
The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower 
wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?
  Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family 
income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being 
driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on 
the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other 
benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When 
are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues 
that are of such deep concern to Americans?
  Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I 
am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral 
invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this 
resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young 
American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of 
thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a 
caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible 
suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in 
international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned 
about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish 
in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If 
President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against 
any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if 
another country chose to do the same thing?
  Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war 
against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 
11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are 
prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced 
before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National 
Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An 
attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, 
the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
  Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt 
and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term 
American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
  Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended 
consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and 
what role will the U.S. play in an ensuing civil war that could develop 
in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large 
Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by 
extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions 
that remain unanswered.
  If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, 
what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United 
Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. 
inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should 
undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 
and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq 
resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should 
stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
114.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which 
would authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
  The diplomatic and military situation in Iraq without question 
remains one of the most difficult security issues facing the United 
States and the international community. It has only been further 
complicated by the terrorist attacks on our country last year. 
Recently, the President's national security adviser said Saddam Hussein 
has sheltered al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in 
the development of chemical weapons. Also of concern is the revelation 
that there may have been a meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence 
official and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks.
  The administration has stated on numerous occasions that the war on 
terrorism will continue to be fought against all countries that support 
or harbor terrorists. It appears that list must include Iraq.
  Our national security depends on preventing other countries from 
developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has pursued an agenda to 
develop weapons of mass destruction including chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons for many years. Saddam Hussein has already demonstrated 
an unconscionable willingness to use chemical weapons on his own 
people, attacking ethnic Kurds in Northern Iraq. He also used them 
against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's arsenal 
includes several delivery systems, including long-range missiles 
capable of carrying dangerous payloads to our allies in the Middle East 
and Europe, including U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Turkey.
  The United Nations Security Council required Iraq to scrap all 
weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow for 
weapons verification inspections. For the past four years, Iraq has 
prevented representatives of the United Nations from inspecting Iraq's 
weapon facilities. It is clear that the Iraqi government has undermined 
the authority of the United Nations by rebuilding many of its chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapon manufacturing plants.
  Iraq has a history of invading its neighbors and using any and all 
weapons at its disposal against its enemies. A nuclear weapon in the 
hands of Hussein's brutal regime would give him an unacceptable upper 
hand to expand control over the world's petroleum reserves and quite 
possibly give him the leverage he needs to expand the borders of 
tyranny.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not an unlikely possibility that Iraq, as a state-
sponsor of terrorism, would transfer weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorists intent on using them against the United States. September 
11th showed us that America is not immune to terror attacks, and Iraq's 
ties to international terrorist groups are unquestioned.
  I support the President's campaign against any state, including Iraq, 
which is found to support terrorism or seeks to develop weapons of mass 
destruction with the intent of attacking America or its allies. We 
cannot wait for a transparent threat to materialize. The longer we 
wait, the more we risk another unthinkable attack upon our soil. Simply 
put, the

[[Page 19903]]

United States cannot ignore the threat that Iraq poses to our way of 
life and that of our allies.
  Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for years of noncompliance 
with United Nations resolutions. Failure to enforce the resolutions 
weakens the authority of the United Nations itself and sends a message 
to the foes of peace that future disobedience will be objected to 
solely through empty threats and resolutions without teeth.
  I am hopeful that diplomatic efforts may yet succeed, and believe the 
United States must try to work with our allies and the international 
community towards a peaceful solution to our present situation. Every 
Member of Congress weighs this decision carefully, knowing the votes we 
cast may place the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Yet 
if it becomes necessary, we must be certain we do not embark upon a 
Sicilian Expedition. Any use of force should include clear goals. If we 
are to enter into conflict in Iraq, we must plainly establish our 
objectives and follow through on a commitment to purge terror and 
rebuild Iraq into a strong and stable nation.
  Our first priority of any use of force should be to eliminate the 
ability of the Hussein regime to manufacture, distribute, or employ 
weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's goal has always been to obtain a 
weapon of such destructive force, that no other nation would be willing 
to resist his will. It would be fundamentally irresponsible to allow 
Iraq to obtain a weapon that could be used to deter allied forces from 
enforcing the internationally recognized authority of the United 
Nations. Saddam's arsenal of aggression and terror must be completely 
destroyed in order to encourage stability and prevent the proliferation 
of those weapons to other parts of the region. This action must be our 
first goal.
  The second goal, is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq 
has traditionally been a nation of commerce and prosperity, but Hussein 
hoards the resources of his country, starving her citizens into 
submission. His power is sustained by a 25,000-strong Republican Guard 
who, in return for maintaining Saddam's rule, are rewarded with Iraq's 
riches at the expense of her people. Hussein is not only guilty of some 
of the most heinous crimes against humanity, but he rules Iraq like a 
gangster by modeling his authority on the oppressive tyranny of Joseph 
Stalin and frequently and personally executes any who oppose his rule 
or stand in his way. We cannot continue to allow Hussein to cow the 
Iraqi people into living under an umbrella of terror. Hussein's 
sinister methodology of terror, assassination, and execution against 
all who oppose him must end. We must support a regime change.
  Our third objective should include a plan to root out all elements of 
terror within Iraq and bring accountability to the war on terror within 
the borders of Iraq. Hussein's government has proven uncooperative and 
refuses to help in the identification and apprehension of those in 
terror networks. The Hussein regime is unable to control areas within 
Northern Iraq giving terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda free rein to 
operate within Iraq's borders. This stands in stark contrast to the 
other nations in the region who are working with the United States to 
eradicate terrorist networks.
  Finally, the United States and the International Community must 
create a plan to rebuild Iraq and to restore a government that 
represents the interests of Iraqis and is dedicated to reconstructing 
an economy decimated by tyranny. New leadership will give the people of 
Iraq an opportunity to become a responsible member of the international 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush has requested the Congress pass a 
resolution authorizing the use of military force to enforce the United 
Nations' Security Council Resolutions which Iraq continues to defy. We 
must defend the national security interests of the United States. We 
must eliminate the threat posed by Iraqi terror and we must work to 
restore international peace and security to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House 
Joint Resolution 114.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a real spokesperson for justice in this country 
and a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. On September 
11, 2001, our Nation changed. We were traumatized when al Qaeda 
terrorists attacked our Nation, killed nearly 3,000 Americans, wounded 
many others physically, emotionally, and spiritually; destroyed 
families and buildings and disrupted our economy. The President, the 
Congress, and the American people responded quickly, appropriately and 
with courage. All Americans support the war on terrorism, and they want 
homeland security.
  However, terrorism not only changed our psyche; it changed our 
politics. Our politics shifted from hope to fear, and fear now clouds 
our thinking. September 11 and Iraq are two distinct issues. 
Nevertheless, President Bush is trying to take our legitimate fear 
following 9-11 and illegitimately link it to Iraq. The White House and 
some in this body have sought to link al Qaeda and September 11 to 
Iraq. That alleged link underscores the President's position that the 
Iraqi threat is imminent. However, congressional Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence members have said President Bush has 
presented no factual evidence proving that link. Even the President 
separates 9-11 from an imminent Iraqi threat, and here is the proof. 
President Bush sees 9-11 and Iraq as separate because just 2 weeks ago 
on September 24, he lowered the domestic risk of terrorist attacks from 
orange to yellow. He lowered it. If the Iraqi threat were imminent, 
would not the risk of terrorist attacks have at least remained the 
same, at orange, or even elevated and raised to red, a severe risk of 
terrorist attacks? But the President lowered it from orange to yellow.
  Yes, Iraq's threat is real; and in light of 9-11, it is normal for 
Americans to be afraid, but the Iraqi threat is not imminent. We should 
not let it affect our politics over the next 3 weeks. We should not 
vote on the basis of fear of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. We 
must vote our hopes and not our fears. So far this debate has been 
about military sticks, whether, when or under what circumstances to use 
them. But why not try carrots too? Most Americans do not know that the 
United States would not lift economic sanctions on Iraq even if Saddam 
agreed to and fully implemented all U.N. resolutions.
  In 1997 Secretary Albright said the U.S. would only lift sanctions 
when Saddam Hussein was gone, not when Iraq lived up to U.N. 
resolutions. President Clinton stated sanctions will be there until the 
end of time or as long as Hussein lasts. But economic sanctions are 
only hurting the people, making life miserable for the average Iraqi, 
causing an estimated 500,000 deaths, mainly women and children. The 
economic sanctions are not hurting Saddam Hussein. If they were, he 
would not be the threat that the President says he is. Insisting on a 
regime change before lifting economic sanctions goes beyond the legal 
mandate of U.N. policy and is not authorized by any U.N. resolution. We 
need to lure Iraqi compliance with a meaningful economic inducement, 
not merely threaten them with military force. Why does the United 
States not offer to lift economic sanctions in an orderly and 
progressive way in exchange for unfettered and comprehensive 
inspections? Without the carrot of lifting economic sanctions in 
exchange for removing weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi government 
has no incentive to cooperate. Offering to lift economic sanctions in 
exchange for unfettered inspections will gain the support within Iraq 
and among our allies.
  Before there is any authorization for the use of armed force against 
Iraq, we must make sure that all peaceful means containing and 
eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted, 
including offering positive incentives, and the U.S. should lead this 
initiative. This positive incentive to get Saddam Hussein to comply has 
not and is not currently in play. But until we make this overture and 
change the policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime 
change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful alternatives to force.
  We are a Nation united by our Constitution and committed to the rule 
of law. That commitment is now challenged by an outlaw. We must bring 
this outlaw to justice but not become outlaws ourselves. And while our 
attention is focused on a military threat overseas, we are drowning at 
home economically. I believe we can creatively insist on a peaceful 
resolution to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction without an 
invasion and the

[[Page 19904]]

actual use of force. Our military might is unquestioned. Our wisdom, 
our compassion, our commitment to a nonviolent means of resolving 
conflict is not. By that and that alone will move us toward a genuine 
peace, justice and security for all.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I take the threat of 
nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile and aggressive Iraq very 
seriously. On September 11 when my district was attacked, I thanked God 
the terrorists did not have nuclear weapons. We all want to protect 
this Nation. The question before us today is not whether to protect 
America, but how best to do so.
  Saddam Hussein unquestionably poses a real danger. He has 
consistently shown a virulent hostility to the United States and to 
Israel, a willingness to invade other countries without provocation, a 
willingness to use chemical and biological weapons against civilian 
populations, a relentless drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction 
including nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and a reckless 
aggressiveness.

                              {time}  2315

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

                          ____________________