Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1) Introduction of H.Res 574 and H.J.Res 114

[Page: H7178]
---

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   H. Res. 574

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

    SEC. 2. It shall be in order for the Majority Leader or his designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader, to move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended. Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.

    SEC. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 114 pursuant to the first section of this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker either on the same legislative day or on the next legislative day.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

   (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule that provides for 20 hours of debate on the resolution as well as providing for two Democratic substitutes. The rule also provides that after consultation with the minority leader, the majority leader may extend debate to ensure that all Members have an opportunity to speak on this important issue. Just as in 1991, every single Member will have a chance to be heard.

   The rules makes in order two substitute amendments, two Democratic substitutes to be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), as well as providing for one motion to recommit.

   Mr. Speaker, at this moment the people's House begins debate on one of the most difficult questions we will ever face. I rise today in strong support of the resolution authorizing the President to take action to address the very troubling issue of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. No Member of this body should ever be too eager to send our military into harm's way. Nor should we ever consider taking such an action without a strong and vigorous debate. At the end of the day, however, I am pleased that we have come up with a bipartisan resolution to prove once again that partisanship ends at the water's edge.

   I am a strong supporter of international cooperation, working with our friends and allies and the United Nations. However, in matters of national security, multinational cooperation and coalition-building are tools that help us to achieve our most precious national interests. We cannot be beholden to any institution whose interests may not coincide with our own.

   Obviously, we would all be gratified to have the full and unconditional support of the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been working tirelessly for months to garner that support up in New York. But as the Government of the United States, it is our primary responsibility to provide for the safety and security of our citizens, both at home and abroad. That is why I support this resolution which will in fact strengthen our hand at the United Nations and demonstrate that this government is united in its determination

[Page: H7179]

   Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein oppresses his people, flaunts the will of the international community, has committed genocide, and pursues weapons of mass destruction that will dramatically alter the status of his country in the international system.

   For 12 years he has blatantly ignored the Security Council resolutions he previously agreed to. When the inspectors were conducting their inspections with Iraq, they were constantly impeded. The time for ineffective inspections, with conditions set by this Stalinist dictator, has passed. Iraq has received chance after chance, only to continue to obstruct and deny. The time for chances is over. Only unconditional and unfettered inspections with total disarmament of Iraq's cache of weapons of mass destruction are acceptable.

   So far, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proved unwilling to back its words with actions. As Saddam's primary enemy, it falls to the President and this Congress to protect the American people from this mass murderer. Saddam Hussein presents a clear and immediate threat to the safety of American citizens and our interests overseas. We know he has produced such deadly gases as VX and sarin, along with anthrax. We know he has over 30,000 delivery vehicles for such biological and chemical agents, and we know he has scuds capable of reaching our forces stationed in the Gulf and our NATO allies in Turkey.

   Perhaps more frightening, we know that Iraq is actively seeking to reestablish its nuclear weapons program and has reportedly been seeking uranium to achieve that goal, and the track record shows that his ability to inflict harm has always been underestimated. Given the level of technical expertise that Iraq developed prior to the Gulf War, it would take them months, not years, to develop a nuclear device once they obtained the proper materials.

   There are those who argue that Saddam Hussein, a man who has started two wars in 2 decades, can be contained and managed. Let me remind the Nation of Saddam Hussein's record in power. He sponsors terrorist groups that have killed American citizens. He routinely pays the families of suicide bombers while he lets his own citizens starve. He has executed thousands of Iraqis a year and combats dissent by publicly removing the tongues of his critics. He has engaged in ethnic cleansing utilizing chemical weapons that have killed over 5,000 Kurds, and he has completely destroyed entire towns he felt were disloyal. He has committed genocide and other crimes against humanity and deserves to be held accountable.

   The United States held the moral high ground in ending Slobodan Milosevic's reign of terror, and Saddam has reigned too long.

   Further, I disagree with those who argue that we should not undertake this action because it is preemptive. Authorizing the President to effectively address this situation is not preemptive. This is a response to those heinous acts I have just outlined. With every U.N. resolution Iraq ignores, it threatens international peace. Unless and until Iraq complies fully with the inspections, a standard it has never met, there remains ample justification for taking action to defend the security of our Nation. Iraq is a nation that publicly states that it has every intention of cooperating with the international community, but continues to try to shoot down our brave pilots enforcing the no-fly zones.

   History has not been kind to the governments that have acceded to the wishes of brutal dictators in the hopes of staving off conflicts. The security of the future depends on the resolve we show here today. As we learned on September 11, delaying our response to security threats can have devastating consequences. It is incumbent upon all of us to demonstrate to the world's dictators they cannot hide behind false cooperation and that our Nation will not be cowed from protecting our citizens for fear of political or military difficulty.

   Mr. Speaker, our security comes first. I cannot help but think of Abraham Lincoln's words 137 years ago when he said: ``The struggle of today is not altogether for today. It is for a vast future also.''

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, today we begin a historic debate here in the House of Representatives. It will continue for 3 days, and every Member will have the opportunity to be heard. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that Congress must consider matters of war and peace, so we have studied the issue seriously. Within the Democratic Caucus, Members have received numerous briefings from Republicans as well as Democrats and outside experts as well as those inside the administration and asked probing questions over the past few weeks and months.

   I expect that this debate will be as robust as it is serious. It should come as no surprise that many sincere people in the administration, in Congress, and among the public have varying views about how best to deal with Saddam Hussein; and it should come as no surprise that there is no party position on an issue of this gravity.

   In 1991, I was in the minority of my own party when I voted to authorize the first President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. Now, 11 years later, the situation is different; and I expect that more Democrats will authorize the second President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to end the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

   Mr. Speaker, I disagree with those who assume that the opposition's part is to automatically oppose the administration. When it comes to national security, the public expects Democrats and Republicans to lay down our partisan swords and try to work out a consensus.

[Time: 10:30]

   We may differ in some areas, but those differences should be based on principle, not on party labels. The three resolutions on the House floor meet that standard. They have the support of thoughtful Members of both parties who have struggled sincerely to devise what they believe is the best approach to protecting America and our vital interests in the world.

   Mr. Speaker, our lively and honest discussion this week, and I expect it will be very lively, should not be mistaken for a lack of resolve. On both sides of the aisle there is general consensus that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the security and stability of the world, and there is an overwhelming bipartisan commitment to ending that threat.

   Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Saddam's outlaw regime poses a serious threat to the United States, our allies, and the rest of the world. Between 1991 and 1998, weapons inspectors found and destroyed significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons, despite Iraq's protestations that none existed. Since then, Saddam Hussein has continued his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as well as his hostilities to the United States and our interests.

   I am pleased that Democratic and Republican leaders, working with the administration, have agreed to the compromise resolution H.J. Res. 114 that is on the House floor this week. The President has accepted many important Democratic changes to his original resolution. As a result, it has been significantly improved and America's position against Saddam Hussein has been strengthened.

   The compromise resolution strikes a good balance between using a multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend our interests. It strongly supports the efforts of Secretary of State Colin Powell to build an international coalition through the United Nations against Saddam Hussein; and if diplomatic efforts fail, it requires the President to report back to Congress before beginning military action.

   There are other important changes. While the original White House draft would have authorized military action in the region, this compromise focuses on Iraq specifically. It also requires the President to comply with the War Powers Act and its regular procedures for consulting with, and reporting to, Congress. Moreover, this resolution requires the President to ensure the war

[Page: H7180]

   Since September 11, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to wage the war on terror, and it is critical that the administration not forget its commitment to bring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice.

   Finally, this resolution forces the administration to report to Congress on their planning for the reconstruction, peacekeeping, and other activities that will be necessary after a military conflict with Iraq. Winning the peace is as important as winning the war, and we insist that the administration prepare the American people for the long-term commitment needed to restore peace and stability to Iraq and the Middle East.

   All in all, Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan compromise is a substantial improvement on the White House's original draft. Just as importantly, it will help build broad support in the international community as well as here at home for ending the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. That is critical because this is not an easy job. I remain hopeful that international diplomatic pressure will allow a strong, unfettered inspections regime to disarm Saddam Hussein, and I believe that the strong signal that Congress sends with this resolution will increase our diplomatic leverage.

   But I am also not naive. Given Saddam's history, we must be prepared for the possibility of a military confrontation with Iraq. The United States has the finest fighting force in the world, and I am confident that if we are forced to fight Saddam Hussein our troops will defeat him overwhelmingly. But war is not something to be taken lightly, and it requires the full support of the American people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, Democrats insisted that the President seek congressional authorization before taking action against Saddam Hussein; and it is why Democratic leaders reached out to the White House to craft a bipartisan resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, this is a deadly serious matter, and I have tremendous respect for many of those who differ with me on it. After all, men and women who love their country can disagree on the best way to protect our country. Nonetheless, I believe that the best way to end Saddam Hussein's threat is to meet it head on, and I believe that the compromise resolution represents a sensible and responsible approach to protecting America and the world against Saddam Hussein. I expect it will pass with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support it deserves.

   In closing, let me make one more point. Before this is over we may be asking families across the Nation to make tremendous sacrifices. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops may have to put their lives on the line.

   I have no doubt that the men and women of the military can secure America's interests abroad, but as these brave Americans do their job, I hope this Congress will finally do its job and address the deepening economic uncertainty that threatens our security here at home. After all, Iraq is not the only issue in America today. As we speak, unemployment and the poverty rate erupt, while the stock market and 401(K) plans are down. Every day Americans across the country have to deal with economic security as well as national security. It is time this Congress followed their example.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the Republican members of the Committee on Rules are going to be standing today in strong support of this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House.

   (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the United States against Iraq.

   In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important issue. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today.

   Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a debate of historic proportions; and, once the debate has concluded, we must give an answer to our President who has asked the Congress to unite with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush and cast my vote in support of H.J. Res. 114.

   Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has authorized the use of force through legislation 11 times and has declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will cast on this legislation will be among the most profound of our careers. Yet a careful review of the evidence that President Bush has put before the country, the United Nations, and the world makes it clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable choice.

   Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein poses in the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be our preferred tool. Yet what has been going on for the last 11 years if not that? The failures of the United Nations' actions are well known. Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a different destination?

   The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes it clear to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the consequences of those failures.

   The fundamental question before us today is: Will the United States of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid the world of this growing menace?

   What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end we seek, a world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power. The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and, yes, North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass destruction visit upon them.

   It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and freedom in the world. I see no reason now to answer this call with a message of timidity or caution.

   I urge my colleagues to join with me so that Congress can speak with a clear voice and support the President for peace throughout the world.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying, H.J. Res. 114, which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the United States against Iraq.

   In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important issue. I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. DREIER, for his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today.

   Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a debate of historic proportions. And, once the debate has concluded, we must give an answer to our President, who has asked the Congress to untie with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush, and cast my vote in support of H.J. Res. 114.

   Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has authorized the use of force, through legislation, 11 times, and has declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will cast on this legislation will be among the most

[Page: H7181]

   Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein poses to the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be our preferred tool. Yet, what has been going on for the last 11 years if not that? The failures of United Nations actions are well known. Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a different destination?

   The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes clear to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United

   Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the consequences of those failures.

   The fundamental question before us today is: will the United States of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid the world of this growing menace?

   What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end we seek. A world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power.

   The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical, and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass destruction visit upon them.

   It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and freedom for the world. I see no reason to now answer this call with a message of timidity or caution.

   Passing this resolution with a broad, bi-partisan majority gives the U.S. Congress the opportunity to bring a troubled world together under the flag of freedom, a flag that has been unseen in much of the Middle East for too many generations.

   I ask my colleagues to join with me, so that the Congress may speak in one clear voice, to answer the President's call for peace throughout the world, to remove those who seek to harm not only their own people, but everyone who believes in liberty and justice, and to bring freedom to the people of Iraq--by any means necessary.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

   Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, although I wish more of the substitute amendments had been made in order.

   More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to House Joint Resolution 114, the resolution on Iraq.

   I have great respect for the President and for all my colleagues who disagree with me on this vote of conscience, but I must dissent. Simply put, the resolution on Iraq grants authority for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq. It grants the President the right to go to war with Iraq tomorrow, without the support of any other nation and absent the support of the UN Security Council.

   A little over a year ago, I voted to support the President when he asked for authorization to use force against those who attacked us on September 11. I believe that campaign remains the number one priority for our foreign, military and intelligence policy.

   In Afghanistan we are still engaged militarily, hunting down the surviving al Qaeda leadership and its network of supporters. That work is far from over. There is a desperate need for more resources to rebuild Afghanistan and restore democratic government. The U.S. and the international community cannot, must not fail Afghanistan again.

   Our work to take down al Qaeda's international organization and financial network is also far from over, and it requires the continuing assistance of the international community.

   Some argue that we have the resources to do it all, to wage a war against terrorism, to unilaterally invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq, and not compromise our troops deployed around the world. But why, when we can and should work with other nations to disarm Iraq, when our allies can share the cost?

   The President was right to challenge the U.N. Security Council to carry out its mandate to disarm Iraq and ensure that it can no longer stockpile, develop, produce or use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. We must now work to ensure that the U.N. Security Council meets its responsibilities. If we get inspectors back into Iraq, then once again we will destroy Saddam's weapons. This time we must ensure that he remains disarmed.

   I am not asking that we stand by or stand down. If Iraq continues to obstruct inspections, then the Security Council must approve coercive inspections or a broader military intervention. But we are not yet at that point, and this Congress should not approve immediate and unilateral U.S. action without the sanction of international law or the support of our allies.

   I have no doubt that we can defeat Iraq, but I have heard nothing, nothing in the shifting rhetoric and rationale supporting unilateral action against Iraq to make me confident that the consequences of such an invasion have been fully considered. There is no genuine plan of who and what would come after Saddam Hussein, or the requirements of an occupation force to hold and protect Iraq from internal and external enemies, or the resources needed to rebuild Iraq and who would provide them, or the impact of invasion on Iraq's neighbors or on popular feeling throughout the world, let alone the impact of achieving peace in the Middle East.

   If we take unilateral action outside the authority of the U.N. and without the direct involvement of our allies, invoking our new policy of preemptive strike, are we not setting a dangerous precedent for other nations? More than any other country, the U.S. has spent the past half century building a body of international law, rules of engagement, and multilateral institutions to guard against this very thing, nations taking matters into their own hands and deciding to fix what is wrong with the world as they see fit.

   As the world's greatest military power, it is our first responsibility to build consensus, create coalitions, and move international bodies to protect and provide for our collective security. It should not be ``Plan B.''

   People throughout my district have asked me, why are we going to war in Iraq? Veterans and seniors, students and CEOs have expressed their deep concern. They hate Saddam and recognize, as I do, that he is a brutal dictator, but they do not think we should go it alone.

   When I vote whether to send our brave young men and women into harm's way, I must be absolutely sure that I can face their fathers and mothers, their husbands, wives, and children and tell them we have no other choice; war is the only option. And I simply cannot do that yet.

   Last September, I voted for force. It was necessary. It was right. It was clearly in defense of our Nation. But today I must dissent.

[Time: 10:45]

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, continuing with our colleagues on the Committee on Rules, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a true patriot and my great friend.

   Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, we can engage in no more important task than this, debating whether to authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United States. This task is difficult, but the issue before us is fundamentally clear.

   After it was expelled from Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to end its production forever of weapons of mass destruction. Despite that requirement set forth by the international community by means of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq has at this time a usable chemical and biological weapons capability, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents.

   As recently declassified intelligence reports have made clear, Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive rage of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles. Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and in breach of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Uranium has been sought by Iraq

[Page: H7182]

   Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons with command, control, and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military is able to deploy these mobile units within 45 minutes of a decision to do so. Iraq has learned lessons from previous U.N. weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the possible return of inspectors.

   Despite having lost the war in 1991 and despite being required by the U.N. to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and to acquiesce to free and open inspections by the U.N. to verify his compliance with the world community's requirements that he not possess those weapons, Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

   What seems inconceivable to me is that we did not have this debate in this forum 4 years ago. But in reality, only the Commander in Chief can really lead in the field of national security.

   Some say we should wait until we find a smoking gun with regard to nuclear weapons. As my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), said last night in the Committee on Rules, that smoking gun would be a smoking city, and having to mourn 3 million innocent civilians instead of 3,000.

   Regime change in Iraq is a strategic necessity. It cannot be postponed because time is not on the side of the United States and the international community. The world community should have removed Saddam from power when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors 4 years ago. Saddam must be removed before he has a single nuclear bomb and before he has the means to deliver his other weapons of mass destruction on a large scale.

   The long-term cost in blood and tears of allowing Saddam to strengthen his position would be much higher than the cost of any action to remove him now.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has begun a historic debate on the most serious topic that we have ever considered by this body, the question of whether to go to war. The Constitution states explicitly that Congress shall have the power to declare war. This great and terrible power is vested not in the individual of the President, but in the collective will of the electorate as embodied by its representatives. Members can cast no more weighty vote than this.

   That said, Mr. Speaker, every bone in my body is telling me that the American people do not want this conflict, nor do they believe this resolution is warranted at this present time. The voices are drowned out by the drumbeat for war emanating from Washington. These voices are not confident that the body has asked the tough questions. They are not confident that the shifting rationales for the invasion are anything but a war in search of a justification.

   In the last 2 months alone, more than 1,100 people have called or written my office expressing intense disapproval of any U.S. military action against Iraq. That contrasts with 15 who support it. These voices are not an anomaly. Members from both sides of the aisle are hearing them. I believe more and more that they represent the majority of the Nation.

   Like most of my colleagues, I have thought and reflected at length on this vote. It is never an easy decision for a Member of Congress to make lightly. I would like to share with my colleagues and constituents the issues and questions that have led me to oppose this resolution as written and not to send young Americans into harm's way.

   First I want to discuss the source of Iraq's bioweapons. Saddam Hussein is not a new threat for the United States. Since he took power in 1979, Hussein has committed a laundry list of human rights abuses, despotic acts and crimes against the global community. In 1990, this Chamber voted to empower the President to wage war against Iraq in order to free Kuwait and in order to preserve stability in the Middle East. Yet the policy by the United States has not always been clear.

   Most people do not know that during the early 1980s the Reagan administration, followed by the first Bush administration, backed Iraq in its war against Iran on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   At that time, the Commerce Department of the United States approved a series of exports to the Iraqi Government of substances that will now sound familiar to many Americans. The administration allowed Iraq to receive biological samples of anthrax, the bacteria that makes botulinum toxin, the germs that cause gas gangrene, and West Nile virus, among others. Sure, he has biological weapons. We gave them to him.

   Clearly one must address Iraq and its arsenal, but we can go forward without alienating our friends and allies within the region. Indeed, our allies are critical to winning the war on terror, on which we have already embarked, just as they were an important part of the 1991 coalition that led to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Moreover, our allies financed that conflict.

   I am deeply troubled by the administration's unwillingness to address the long-term strategy of Iraq. The President has failed to articulate any plan for dealing with the future of Iraq if and when Saddam Hussein is removed. Is Saddam's removal the final goal? Or will the United States be expected to engage in the reconstruction of Iraq?

   Will our country be involved in overhauling their political institutions, the Iraqi economy, or its infrastructure? What if our invasion sparks more terror and a wider war in the Middle East? Are the American people ready to make these commitments?

   Why do we think that rank-and-file Muslims in the Middle East will support America in a war with Iraq, as they did in the early '90s? With millions of Muslims watching death and destruction on television, blaming the United States, is our strategy really one that will stabilize that region?

   None of these questions have been addressed publicly by the President, and we should not vote to authorize any President to initiate an open-ended conflict with so many unanswered questions.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, why now? What has changed? Saddam Hussein has been a threat in the region since he invaded Kuwait 12 years ago, and yet we left him alone. He has not ever cooperated basically with the United Nations since shortly after the 1991 cease-fire when the Security Council demanded that Iraq cooperate with weapons inspectors. He has not fully cooperated in more than 10 years; and as President Bush has noted, it has been 4 years since a U.N. inspector has been allowed inside Iraq.

   So if nothing has changed in the past 4 years, why are we going after Iraq now? If there are new developments and concerns, why does the administration not share them with us?

   The emotional and financial costs of any such action can be felt for a generation or more. In a time when our economy is reeling, when our stock market is spiralling, when the safety nets such as Social Security and Medicaid that have sustained our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens are threatened, this body needs to take a hard look at what this Nation's priorities are and why we are undertaking this and ask again, Why now?

   Mr. Speaker, I vote against this resolution with a heavy heart, but I am fortunate that there will be a resolution we can support by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) which does all the following things we have talked about, making sure that diplomacy and all other avenues have been explored before we make this extraordinary decision.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to one comment made by my friend from Rochester.

   Mr. Speaker, it is very true that during the 1980s the United States did in fact provide biological materials to Iraq, but I should say it was done with the best of intentions, with the goal of trying to help the Iraqi people through fighting malaria and other diseases.

   Now, it is very apparent, we have learned, Mr. Speaker, that fertilizer request could be utilized to create a bomb, as we found in Oklahoma City several years ago. The challenge that we have is in dealing with the intentions of Saddam Hussein, and that is the question that we face right here.

[Page: H7183]

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a very hard-working, thoughtful member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

   Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, each of us comes to Congress for the first time with hopes and dreams of what lies ahead while we serve as Members of this great institution. But surely none of us here today and none who came before us could possibly have wished for the terrible choice facing us at the conclusion of this debate. And make no mistake, it is indeed the most terrible of choices.

   For, one way or another, once we vote, lives will be lost. That will be the case whether military action against Saddam Hussein is authorized or not. And it goes without saying that none of us takes such a Hobson's choice lightly.

   Whether we like it or not, a choice must be made, and made without delay. The imminent nature of the threat facing America and the world means that not to decide is to decide.

   We all know too much about the plans that Saddam Hussein has made for those of us that love freedom and about his ongoing preparations to carry out those deadly plans.

   Simply put, this is a man who must be stopped. To those who oppose military action in Iraq, we can only ask if we do not stop Saddam, who will?

   Some say the case is yet to be made that military action is warranted. To them I say, the record is clear and unambiguous, as even the brief remarks highlighted to the Nation by President Bush last night made clear. That debate, Mr. Speaker, is over.

   Others say we must wait for the United Nations or for the active support of a broad coalition of nations. To them I say, protecting American citizens from the likes of Saddam Hussein is America's responsibility and no one else's. After all, protecting the American people from foreign enemies is the first and most critical function of our Federal Government. It is the very reason the Federal Government was established by our Founding Fathers.

   We cannot be the world's police force, but there are times when we must stand forcefully against threats to peace, both here and abroad. But far more important, we must never fail to protect the lives of American citizens, citizens who are at risk today from the attacks by the agents of Saddam Hussein.

   So if we must go it alone, let us not shrink from that duty. We know our troops will not shrink from theirs.

   But we should not assume, Mr. Speaker, that because some nations have yet to endorse this vital mission that we will be forced to carry this burden alone. Consider for a moment our experience in Kosovo. For the record, I voted against that military action. I did so because I was not convinced that the crisis in the Balkans threatened our American security, and I opposed military action there because I felt it was Europe's problem; and if the Europeans were not willing to support our efforts, it would be wrong to send young American men and women into harm's way on their behalf. But when my side lost that debate, I supported the President, because that is what we do in this country.

   In hindsight, however, I believe it was correct to undertake that mission in the Balkans, which is now rightly considered a success.

   I believe experience demonstrates that sometimes what the world wants from America is for America to lead. When the United States did what was right by moving militarily to stop the genocide in Kosovo, the Europeans fell into line and stood up for freedom. They continue to do so today. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same thing will happen if we act resolutely to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

   Once we act, freedom-loving nations everywhere will welcome the chance to rid this world of this deadly menace, but only American leadership will ensure that he is removed once and for all.

   Protect American lives, end Saddam's reign of terror and send a message of hope that will echo around the world by supporting this rule and the underlying resolution and giving the President the authority he needs to do what is right.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

[Time: 11:00]

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying resolution. The resolution presented to Congress by the administration gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a U.N. resolution. It authorizes the President to use U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions, even without the United Nations' request for it. In other words, America would be going it alone, and we would be stuck alone.

   This is a violation, this resolution, of Chapter VII of the U.N. charter which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the U.N. Security Council alone.

   My esteemed colleague, who is the chairman of the committee, quoted Abraham Lincoln. I, too, would like to quote Abraham Lincoln. ``With malice towards none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.'' Lincoln spoke of principles of unity, not only unity in this Nation but unity in the world, and Lincoln's prayer was for unity.

   At the beginning of this new century, our prayer should be for a world united by international law, for a world as an interconnected world. That prayer is already being answered. Changes in transportation and communication and trade have brought the world together.

   Wherever the world is divided, let the world community work together to heal those divisions. Where global security is threatened, let the global community respond. No nation should be above international law. All nations must confirm international law. All nations should seek to bring back into the international community any nation which sets itself apart.

   Inspections should occur in Iraq, through the United Nations, and the inspections should be unfettered and they should eliminate any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to the extent that they exist. But the argument to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq if they exist should not be a license to destroy the people of Iraq. Let our concerns about weapons of mass destruction cause America to lead the way toward destruction of all weapons of mass destruction anywhere and everywhere in the world.

   I would say, Mr. Speaker, that of nations that possess, pursue, or are capable of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, there are 17 nations pursuing nuclear; 20 nations that have biological weapons capability or are seeking them; 26 nations that have chemical weapons capability or are seeking those capabilities; 16 nations that have missile capabilities or are seeking them. Are we to suddenly declare war on the world?

   Now, we know about Saddam Hussein and that he does not respect the law. There is no question about that. But the question which the resolution that we will be voting on in the next few days poses is whether we, the United States, respect international law and whether we will act preemptively and whether we will uphold the United Nations, the Security Council, and the principles of our own Constitution.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Springfield, New York (Mr. Reynolds), my very good friend.

   (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on the Iraq issue.

   Mr. Speaker, today we begin an important and serious debate. The decision of whether we commit America's military and America's servicemen and women to a confrontation with a sovereign nation is not something to be taken lightly. I applaud our President and this Congress for ensuring that we begin this debate well-informed and well-prepared.

   As the President has said in his radio address to the Nation on Saturday, ``The United States does not desire military conflict because we know the awful nature of war.'' But ``If the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.''

   Mr. Speaker, 16 times the world has come together to stop Saddam Hussein from threatening our peace, stability, and security; and 16 times this madman and murderer has ignored the will

[Page: H7184]

   Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons on his own people. Each day he comes closer to developing even deadlier weapons and more effective and longer-range delivery systems. Do we really want to see what these weapons are capable of before we force their destruction?

   Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Saddam Hussein to open his borders for inspection anytime, anywhere. It is time for Iraq and its regime to destroy those weapons of mass destruction. ``Delay, indecision, and inaction,'' as President Bush said, ``are not options for America.''

   I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

   Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The rule is a fair rule, and I rise in support of it. I simply want to address a few of the comments of my friends and colleagues who have spoken before me.

   The gentleman from Massachusetts and others, the gentleman from Ohio, argue that this is a resolution authorizing the unilateral use of force, and that is why they are against it. Literally, they are correct. A strict reading of the resolution makes that clear. However, it fails to put into context what we are trying to do.

   Everyone knows that multilateral is better than unilateral. Everyone knows that approval by the Security Council for the use of force is better than not having approval for the use of force by the Security Council. It is the passage of this resolution, the strong statement by the Congress of the United States that we stand with the administration in the effort to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, that maximizes the diplomatic and political chances of achieving the broadest possible multilateral support for a meaningful disarming resolution out of the United Nations, another resolution and, if necessary, and it may very well be, the right to use force on a multilateral basis.

   We will have allies, and we will go to the U.N. Our effectiveness there is directly related to the extent to which we here today speak strongly in favor of this course of action, and that is why I support the resolution.

   I do have to take issue with my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. We did not do what we did in the 1980s up through 1990 because we were trying to help the Iraqi people. We did not take Iraq off the list of countries supporting terrorism even though Abu Nidal was based there and was involved in terrorist activities using Iraqi passports and diplomatic pouches, bombing and killing civilians all over the Middle East because we wanted to help the Iraqi people. We did not provide dual-use equipment which had military as well as nonmilitary uses, including precursors to biological weapons, because we wanted to help the Iraqi people. We did not encourage our allies to send arms to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War because we wanted to help the Iraqi people.

   We made a strategic and foolish decision that Saddam Hussein was someone we could work with, that we wanted to tilt to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and President Bush the first acknowledged his error and many others have acknowledged the errors of those policies during the 1980s.

   So I think, as we come to terms with the past and what we have done wrong, we should acknowledge where our policies were wrong. Now that does not lead us to the conclusion that, because we had the wrong policies at one time, we do not take the decisive action we need to take now, but I think it is very important in the context of what is going to be a long debate that we stick to the historical record.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply respond to my very good friend with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. That is, it is very clear that we need to focus on the fact that it is the intent of the recipient of this capability, and it would have been wonderful if the biological capability that had been transferred to Iraq would have been used to deal with the problem of malaria and other diseases there. That is my point.

   What I am trying to say is that Saddam Hussein is the one who has posed the threat here. His use of this biological and chemical capability is what poses a very serious threat to the United States and to the rest of the civilized world.

   Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), another hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and our very good friend.

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on this resolution. I rise in strong support of the rule which will allow this body and the American people the opportunity to engage in over 20 hours of debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

   I would like also to take a moment to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their efforts to put this country ahead of any other consideration.

   Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that we begin this debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force against another nation to protect freedom, the freedom of all Americans, the freedom of Iraq, the freedom of people all around the world. This is the freedom to be safe from fear, to be safe from oppression, and to be safe from hate. It is a choice that none of us wishes to make, but it is a choice that has been made for us.

   The President made his case to the American people last night and to anybody able to hear his speech. Unfortunately, the major networks chose not to carry it, so anyone whose local affiliates carried it or who have cable were able to hear his impassioned plea. But anyone who could hear his speech knows that this President does not want to lead us into war, but little has changed since he identified the threat from Iraq in his January State of the Union address. Iraq continues to pose a serious and imminent threat from its development of weapons of mass destruction and the obvious potential for Iraq to transfer these weapons to terrorist groups, terrorist groups that, like Saddam Hussein, hate the United States of America.

   There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and, under his leadership, Iraq is a dangerous nation. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. They are among those who have suffered the most under this regime; and, like the Afghanistan people when liberated from al Qaeda, the Iraqi people will rejoice if liberated from Saddam Hussein and his regime of terror.

   By acting today, we move to protect the American people. We do not abandon diplomacy, and we seek international support. However, we do serve notice to the Iraqi regime and, indeed, the world that the United States will defend itself against all threats.

   As we move forward, we keep in mind that the goal of any decision with regard to Iraq must be disarmament. Saddam's arsenal of terror must be dismantled, and time may not be on our side. Each day we wait, each day we put off acting, each day we are led astray by idle delays puts us closer to real risk.

   Iraq's claim that they are now suddenly willing to allow inspectors back in is extremely dubious. We have been down this road before. To achieve real assurance that Iraq is disarmed and cannot threaten our national security, more serious action may need to be taken.

   For the last year, we have waged a war against extremism, against hate, and against terror. Today's resolution will give our President the tools he needs to continue and to win this fight. I urge my colleagues to support this rule to allow us to enter into this full and open debate.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that one does not have to be a microbiologist, as I am, to know that we do

[Page: H7185]

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

   (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to offer my deepest sympathy to the young Marine that lost his life in Kuwait this morning; and to the brave men and women who serve our United States military and protect our freedom around the world, I offer my deepest appreciation.

   The debate we begin this week is really a question of life or death. It is the most serious debate we have had in this Congress since the Vietnam War which saw 56,000 body bags come home to loved ones in America, and the Gulf War. That is why I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) that this is not a partisan issue, it is not Democrats or Republicans, it is simply Americans. I hope that those of us who come to the floor to express a differing opinion will be respected for being patriots, the same as any of our colleagues.

[Time: 11:15]

   The bill of particulars against Mr. Saddam Hussein is not new. It has been going on for a long period of time. That is why it seems that this resolution is premature; and in particular, it seems that we should have allowed 15 of the resolutions offered by thoughtful Members of Congress who wanted to be able to deliberate so the American people could know all of the facts. I believe they should have been made in order, all of our thoughts.

   Nothing in the present resolution on the floor prevents a unilateral preemptive strike, which is in violation of international law.

   Finally, as we begin this debate, as I hope to engage in the debate on a factual basis, nothing in the resolution prevents or allows or encourages the President of the United States to follow the Constitution and to come to this Congress for a separate, freestanding vote to declare war against Iraq.

   That should be the question that the American people ask, whether or not, under the three branches of government and the Constitution, we are following the law: an actual declaration of war against Iraq.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), another hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   Mr. Speaker, today the House begins debate on House Joint Resolution 114 to authorize use of the force of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. This is a serious debate that needs to take place.

   Mr. Speaker, I want Members to know that I support this resolution, and I support the President of the United States in what he is doing. But today we are here to debate the rule and to talk about what we are going to do as we debate the topic. I support this rule, I support what we are doing.

   Mr. Speaker, if we dig deep within this resolution, we will see two important things.

   Number one, August 14, 1998, Public Law 105-235, Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction program threatened the United States and its allies; and, point number two, inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq on October 31, 1998, almost 4 years ago. The Iraqis have indicated through their administration, through the constant threat against the United States, that they intend to harm the United States and its interests around the globe. This is the same regime that attempted to assassinate former President Bush in 1993.

   Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in now is the support of the United States against enemies around the globe. Our foreign policy had to change on September 11 when we were attacked. I believe that what President Bush is doing now is to make sure that America will no longer be held hostage, will no longer allow a nation state, any nation state, to threaten the United States and get away with it.

   It is time that we support our President. The process that has been laid out before the American people and to the United Nations is one that we can understand, that we can support.

   I believe this President is well balanced, is articulate, and last night spoke with great favor towards the Nation of the United States that wants peace, not war, but that we will not allow ourselves to be pushed around.

   Mr. Speaker, I support House Joint Resolution 114 and this rule, which is for peace, but making sure that peace through strength will be achieved through supporting our President. I intend to vote ``aye'' on the rule and ``aye'' on the resolution.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I particularly want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for approving and bringing to the floor the separate substitute, which is supported by the following Members as it went to the Committee on Rules: the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

   Mr. Speaker, the separate substitute reflects four fundamental principles:

   First, our mission should be clear: disarming Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction;

   Second, it includes a sense of Congress supporting tough new, rigorous U.N. inspections;

   Third, it authorizes the use of force if sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council; and

   Fourth, it establishes a separate fast track congressional authorization of force if U.N. action is insufficient.

   In other words, the separate substitute authorizes the use of force today through the United Nations, but it provides no blank check now for unilateral military action. Why does it do that? Because if the U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, there is a far higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim nations and swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists. Our fundamental concern has to be to deal with the terrorist threat represented by al Qaeda and other international organizations.

   Regardless of how Members vote on final passage, voting for the separate substitute is an important way to voice concern that the U.S. should work through the U.N. Security Council first and unilaterally only as a last resort. If unilateral action is necessary, Congress should have a vote on that issue.

   We cannot fulfill our historic role if we end our consideration of this matter this week. We need to be more than the President's megaphone. We need additional consideration when the President has decided to use unilateral force and when he can tell us what it is he has in mind.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 1 minute.

   Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President somewhat vaguely announced the right policy for this country: to invade Iraq only if unrestricted inspections are not available. This gives us a chance to disarm Iraq without war; but if war becomes necessary, at least the fact that we struggled to avoid it will minimize foreign opposition.

   Unfortunately, the Resolution before us is far more vague than the President's speech. It allows for an invasion even if Saddam completely capitulates on the issue of inspections. Unfortunately, the Rule does not make in order a resolution limited to the President's rhetoric. So if we want to authorize force if inspections are not allowed, the Rule requires us to give the President a blank check.

   On a completely different issue, I would like to point out that during the

[Page: H7186]

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and obviously the resolution, as well. It is very clear we were talking about the issue of biological weapons. The United States of America does not traffic in biological weapons, and the attack that has been launched by many on the other side against President Bush No. 41 is an unfair one.

   We see much dual-use technology which, unfortunately, has been used in a wrong way. But the question that we need to address is the intent of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our stability, to the entire world. None of us is enthused about the prospect of going to war; but we face one of the most difficult issues we possibly can as Members of the people's House, that is, are we going to provide this President of the United States the support that he wants and deserves to proceed in defending the United States of America and our interests?

   Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time, and I think back to a debate that took place in the middle of the Civil War. John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which `thinks nothing worth a war' is worse.''

   Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to realize how tough this is; but the United States of America is a very unique Nation, and we stand for freedom throughout the world. It is important for us to stand up now. Vote ``yes'' for this rule, and vote in favor of the resolution.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

   The previous question was ordered.

   The resolution was agreed to.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

END

2) Continued Consideration of H.Res 114

[Page: H7268]
---

   Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, but in his other life he was a nuclear physicist and a person who certainly knows the danger of weapons of mass destruction.

   Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me this time.

   Madam Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. ``Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? ``Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?''

   His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security?

   I will vote ``no'' on this resolution.

   It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Asian region, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency.

   I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature and more likely contrary to our national interests, the national interests of the United States, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now.

   As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would a unilateral American military attack against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will a unilateral military attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world? In other words, will it make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.

   Why should we undertake actions that make more likely the very thing we want to prevent?

   Madam Speaker, I also believe that the reaction to such a unilateral act would irrevocably weaken the international coalition we have built to fight terrorism across the globe. Yes, Iraq is one of the major threats facing international order, but it is by no means the only dangerous one. We cannot allow our contempt for the Hussein regime to detract us from achieving our long-term security goals.

[Page: H7269]

   Now, while I have no doubt that our military would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, we risk inflaming rather than diminishing the terrorist threat to the United States. We are adding a likely threat to our security.

   The administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is an immediate threat to American security, and it has simply failed to explain to the American people what would be the costs and what would be our responsibilities in a post-Saddam Iraq.

   This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine, a dangerous, unwise doctrine.

   I believe that by taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. I believe that we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein not by taking unilateral military action. I believe that if we consult actively with our allies in the region, in NATO, in the U.N. Security Council, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run.

   Madam Speaker, we can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last recourse.

   Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), an active member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, not as some would mistakenly say in strong support of war but, rather, as history will proclaim, in strong support of an America free from the fear of terrorism.

   Today, this House finds itself debating at one of the most significant crossroads in our fight against terrorism, as we ask why we must now focus our attention on the most powerful terrorist in the world, Saddam Hussein.

   I ask this question of those who would have us close our eyes and sit on our hands: Can we afford to wait any longer?

   Since September 11, 2001, the United States has worked to ensure that future attacks on our soil do not occur. We did not choose that fight. We did not choose to have thousands of innocent victims perish in brutal attacks. But we now have to win this fight against all of those who would seek to use force against the American people. It is no longer enough to punish evil after it has destroyed innocent lives. We must fight to ensure that evil does not succeed and protect the innocent as well as punish the guilty. Such a threat lies in Saddam Hussein if he is not disarmed and ousted as leader of his regime in Iraq.

   Madam Speaker, the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia is home to many servicemen and women. They are not statistics, they are not numbers, they are my friends, my neighbors, and members of my church. But, Madam Speaker, they are ready to remove the Iraqi leader who seeks to destroy the freedoms that we as Americans hold dear.

   The President addressed last night, and I think it is important to reiterate today, that we have a duty to act now to prevent a first strike attack by Iraq. Procrastination will only increase the threat that terrorist agents will once again cross over into our borders. But why now? Because over the past 11 years, the international community agreed on 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. Because the world witnessed what an unchecked Saddam Hussein was capable of doing, and the world has waited while Saddam Hussein has violated each and every resolution that the United Nations has put forward.

   To those who today cry, wait, wait, wait, I ask, if we have waited over 11 years for Saddam to fully disarm his chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of inspectors, how much longer should we wait? If we have waited 11 years for Saddam to disarm all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, how much longer should we wait?

[Time: 21:15]

   If we have waited 11 years for Saddam to agree to not use, develop, construct, or acquire any weapons of mass destruction, how much longer should we wait?

   If we have waited 8 years for Saddam to agree not to enhance military capability in southern Iraq, how much longer should we wait?

   If we have waited 6 years for Saddam to report shipments of dual-purpose items related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA, how much longer should we wait?

   And if we have waited 5 years for Saddam to give immediate, unfettered access to the Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview, how much longer should we wait?

   And if we have waited 4 years for Saddam to reinstate U.N. weapons inspectors to have full and unrestricted access to weapons production facilities, how much longer should we wait?

   Madam Speaker, we have waited long enough. We cannot wait until Saddam completes reconstruction of his weapons factories. We cannot wait until we are allowed to read the certificate of occupancy posted on the walls of these facilities, announcing more fear and terror to the free world. We cannot wait until he has nuclear capabilities. We cannot wait for history to repeat itself while trying to appease yet another unchecked dictator.

   Now is the time to act. Now is the time to fulfill our obligation to protect the American people. Now is the time to pass this resolution.

   Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a person who has personally gone in harm's way in the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, so he knows the devastation of war.

   Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, as one of the 435 Members of this House, I have found this issue facing us for the last several weeks and months just one of those visceral, gut issues that just tears us up.

   I have my space shuttle tie on this morning. I got up this morning and wore it because the space shuttle is way there, and right now every 90 minutes they are looking at this magnificent globe and they are seeing this beautiful Earth. We are down here debating about the ugliness; they are up there seeing the beauty. It tears me up, and I know it tears up all Americans as we are debating this.

   I have to take some reaction with the previous speaker. Just because I disagree with the resolution on the floor does not mean I have my eyes closed, and it does not mean I am sitting on my hands. It may mean that I have a different and better approach, and we would do better to listen to each other than to accuse folks of being blinded and somehow not seeing the world as it is.

   The very process that we have set up here, in which we divide time between yes and no and yes and no, I think there are a lot of people in this House that have a lot of questions, and a lot of questions are being asked by people who are already staking out a position. Even those of us who have decided have a lot of questions about what is happening.

   We all want to be loyal to our President. That is not an issue. I know that my Republican friends have had their leadership come and say, we have to be loyal to our President. He is all our President. We all want him to do well. The issue is, how can we best help our President, George W. Bush, do well?

   I will tell the Members one thing, overstatements do not help. Comparing, on one side, Saddam Hussein or Iraq to Nazi Germany, or on the other side comparing Saddam Hussein to Vietnam, they do not help. This is a peculiar situation facing the world now, and we had better deal with it, recognizing it is a peculiar situation never before faced in the world.

   We all have proof Saddam is a bad guy; that is not the issue. The issue is,

[Page: H7270]

   One thing that I have done, as a lot of Members have in the last few months, is try to spend time with as many military officers as I can. A lot of them are retired. There are a lot of doubts being expressed by people who have retired from the military.

   The Philadelphia Enquirer has a story today: ``Officials' Private Doubts on Iraq War. Some military intelligence and diplomatic sources say hawks are overstating the danger that Baghdad poses,'' talking about doubts being expressed by those in the military.

   We still have a couple of days left. I would encourage the Members who are still asking those questions to take the time to sit down with retired military or even their close friends within the military and just say, in complete and honest candor, what do you think? Maybe that will help resolve some of those questions.

   The United Nations, those of us who think that the United Nations would be helpful in this process are not turning over the national security to the United Nations, but it is a different fact situation for this Congress and for the American people if we go alone or if we go with the United Nations.

   That is not an unreasonable question to ask: Is it different if the United States goes alone? Is it different if the United States does it with the United Nations? I am one of those who thinks that we would be much stronger in the future if we go with the United Nations. It does not mean I am turning over the national security to the United Nations.

   Is there anything wrong with the Congress deciding this very specific fact situation several weeks or months from now if the President decides we are going to have to go alone in this business without the United Nations? That is a different fact situation than if the United Nations is behind us. It does not mean we are turning over the national security to the U.N.

   Resentment. I do not know how we can predict these future events, but the resentment of the Arab world, I just talked with General Zinni a few days ago, is as great as he has ever seen. If we mishandle the situation, it will be even greater. I would encourage Members to be analyzing this situation: What do our words and actions do for the next few years with our relationships with Arab countries?

   I think our number one strategic goal and interest in the Middle East is to solve the security issues for the Israelis and Palestinians, even if it means 40,000 or 50,000 U.S. troops stationed there for years. What best helps that situation to be resolved? I think a lot of Members are saying that taking out Saddam Hussein may help, but we can sure come up with scenarios that it may not help guarantee the security of Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state.

   The commitment to rebuild, I was talking to one of my colleagues in Arkansas, talking about our commitment to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. He said we have never fulfilled our commitment to rebuild the Delta after the Civil War. Why do we think we may actually follow through with our commitment to rebuild Iraq and rebuild democracy in Iraq? It is a very important issue.

   Probably the overriding issue for me is war should only be used as a last resort. So the overriding question for me, in addition to what best helps reduce the risks of something happening to Americans, is have we reached the point where this is the last resort? I do not think we have reached that point.

   The President said last night that we may not have to go to war. Those of us who very much are loyal to our President are saying, Mr. President, you would get a bigger vote for your resolution if you would say, first let me try it at the United Nations. If I am not successful, then I will come back to you, because then I would know that war unilaterally for America is the last resort. But we are not at that point today.

   The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has offered an amendment with several of us that I think resolves a lot of these issues. It will get a bigger vote, if it was the base resolution, it would have a larger vote if the President would support it than the underlying resolution. It would send a strong signal to the international community.

   It would say to the President, if you get the U.N. behind you in a way that you find satisfactory, you are authorized to use force; however, if you are not successful, please come back and let the Congress analyze the fact situation representing the American people at that time, and let us together decide what is best with the authorization of force in this very difficult world that we face today.

   Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who care so much about these issues.

   Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

   Madam Speaker, I do feel compelled to respond to one point that my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, made. We need to make clear that the leadership and the President have not come to any Members of the body and asked them to support him as a matter of loyalty or for anything else.

   There are 435 Members of this body who will each come to their own decision on the justness and the rightness of this cause, and each of us will vote as a matter of conscience as individuals; and the President and leadership have not twisted our arms, or even asked us to do anything otherwise.

• [Begin Insert]

   Madam Speaker, the President has asked the Congress for the authority to use force against Iraq. This week the Congress will consider a resolution giving him that authority. I will be voting in favor of the Joint Resolution.

   There is a very high standard and a narrow set of circumstances that would cause me to vote to authorize the use of force other than in self-defense against an armed attack against the United States or its allies.

   Over the last month, I have listened to briefings and testimony, reviewed evidence, read reports and sought out independent experts to ask questions about Iraq and its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. I believe that, if left unchecked, it is likely that Saddam Hussein will cause these weapons to be used against the American people. The effect of such an attack would be devastating. We cannot wait for him to strike first.

   The evidence that Iraq has and is further developing weapons of mass destruction is convincing. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and anthrax. We believe he may have other deadly diseases he is making into weapons. Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons again.

   Saddam Hussein's intent is more difficult to discern. I believe the evidence of his ultimate intent to use these weapons or cause them to be used against the American people is strong enough that we cannot afford to ignore it. Iraq is developing missiles that can hit neighboring states and is building unmanned aerial vehicles to spread chemical and biological agents. I am concerned that Iraq is exploring ways to use these aerial vehicles for missions targeting the United States.

   Saddam's aggressiveness, hatred of the United States and willingness to use chemical weapons is clearly established. Iraq has invaded its neighbors and has used chemical weapons against its own people. He is a brutal dictator and a tyrant. Being a brutal tyrant does not justify the use of force by America; the world has plenty of tyrants. But his past behavior provides context and credence to the assessment of his intent.

   We are a moral people. We do not covet anyone else's territory or resources. We do not seek to destroy other civilizations or involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other states. The decision to authorize the use of force in advance of any attack is a grave one which I do not take lightly.

   One of the defining characteristics of international relations in the twentieth century was the steadily declining legitimacy of the use of force by states other than in self-defense. This trend enhanced the stability and order of the system of sovereign states that has developed since the sixteenth century.

   At the zenith of our military power, wielding enormous political, economic and social influence, America must not squander our moral authority by yielding to the temptation to justify using our military power preemptively other than in highly unusual circumstances. While the current threat posed by Iraq meets that high standard, we should be careful to acknowledge just how high the standard is. Otherwise, our rhetoric and actions could be used

[Page: H7271]

   I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends to use those weapons against Americans.

   We should not go to war because another country represses its own minorities. Repression of minorities is a widespread human rights violation. We should not go to war because another country has failed to account for missing prisoners of war, as disdainful as that is. We should not go to war because another country simply possesses weapons of mass destruction. There are at least 12 states that already posses nuclear weapons, including some of our allies as well as former adversaries. Possession of these weapons alone is insufficient justification. We should not go to war because a country is trading outside of a sanctions regime.

   Iraq is doing all of these things. But the set of circumstances that justifies this authorization to use force is very narrow and is related to Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program and Saddam's intent to use those weapons against Americans.

   There is no objection to wait for him to strike first. We have a limited right of anticipatory self-defense and we must exercise it in this case. We cannot make a clear statement about the imminence of the threat from Saddam nor is it likely we would ever be able to until it was too late. In that sense, the threats of the twenty-first century are unlike those of the past. With these weapons, imminence is imperceptible and the risk of inaction is incalculable.

   The joint resolution supports the President's diplomatic efforts to build a coalition to confront Iraq. Iraq has defied resolutions of the UN Security Council with impunity. The President was right to go to the UN and make the case for action against Iraq. In some respects, this current crisis is a test of the UN's continued relevance. If the UN is not willing to act collectively, we will have to build a coalition of states outside of the UN to act. This is, without doubt, a turning point for the United Nations as an institution.

   Our top foreign policy priority must be to win the war on terrorism. There are ninety-plus states cooperating in that effort--for the most part involving their law enforcement and intelligence services. By building international support for any action against Iraq we can minimize the possibility that any of those states will distance themselves from this cooperation. Perhaps more importantly for the long term, military action against Iraq is bound to stir opposition among some in the Middle East. It will be easier to manage resentment if we build a coalition of states, including states in the Gulf Region.

   While much of our attention has been focused on whether we should confront Iraq, in making my decision to support this resolution, I have also considered whether we can. Over the last year our military forces have been at increased operational tempo fighting a war in Afghanistan and defending the homeland. While Saddam's forces are considerably smaller than they were during the Gulf War, so are ours. I have been repeatedly assured by our military commanders and our civilian defense leadership that we have the forces, munitions, logistics, communications systems, spare parts, and the people it will take to prevail. They are trained and combat readiness levels are restored or being restored.

   I have also been assured that our military strategy will be tied to our political objective. I opposed the use of force in Kosovo because we had a military strategy that used limited air power to achieve a largely humanitarian mission to prevent door-to-door ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I have been assured that we will act with the full power of the U.S. military, giving them the force necessary to win and come home again.

   The Congress authorizes the President to use force if all other means fail. We do not command the military or instruct the diplomats. I hope that, faced with the military might of a united coalition led by the United States, Saddam will choose to end his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and disarm. I hope this will not require military action, but it may.

   People who have served in uniform are often the most reluctant to go to war--and I am no exception to that general rule. We know the risks; we know the limitations; and we know many of the likely participants. There are great risks in this potential action. But those risks will not diminish over time. And there are also great risks of inaction.

   We did not choose this challenge. But faced with it, we cannot turn away.

• [End Insert]

   Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

   Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her leadership tonight; and at this time I would like, as one of the newest Members of Congress and the most junior member of the Committee on Armed Services, to join in support of this bipartisan resolution.

   I am here tonight with a number of different perspectives. The first is that I am a military parent. Additionally, I am a member of the Army National Guard. Also, I am a desert war trainee and a Member of Congress.

   The most important role that I have tonight is that I am a military parent. I am very proud that I have three sons in the military. My oldest son, Alan, is a first lieutenant in the field artillery of the Army National Guard in South Carolina. He has just returned from advanced training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

   Additionally, I am very proud of my son, Addison, Jr., who is a Naval Academy graduate and an ensign in the U.S. Navy, and he is currently at USUMS, the uniformed services university medical school here at Bethesda, Maryland.

   Finally, I have another son, Julian, who is a junior at Clemson University, which is in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). He is a member of the Army ROTC, and his heritage is extremely significant to me. His grandfather, Julian Dusenbury, was awarded the Naval Cross for his service at Okinawa in the seizure of Shuri Castle.

   Finally, I am here also as a member of the National Guard. I am the only Member of Congress who is serving currently in the National Guard, and I am very proud of the people that I serve and work with. I know that they are trained and they are competent and they are dedicated to protecting America.

   I am here as a person who, 2 years ago, and I may have the most recent desert war training, served at Fort Irwin in California, the Mojave Desert, at the National Training Center in a rotation. I know that the American military is trained and ready for military service.

   As a Member of Congress, I know, Madam Speaker, that today we are discussing one of the most important decisions that we as United States Representatives will ever face. The question before us is whether or not to support the bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of American military force against Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi regime as part of the continuing war on terrorism.

   There is no doubt that each of us brings different perspectives to this debate, and for good reason. This is the people's House of Representatives; and, therefore, we should reflect the different people across this great country.

   In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a brutal dictator in possession of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and aggressively, according to the British Prime Minister, seeking nuclear capabilities. He has shown his willingness to use these weapons even against his own people.

   Saddam has continually harbored and supported known terrorist organizations, including members of the al Qaeda, the terrorist group linked to the murderous attacks on September 11 in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

   Saddam has also attempted to assassinate a U.S. President and fired thousands of attacks against American and British Air Forces in the no-fly zones of Iraq.

   In his own country, Saddam Hussein has carried on one of the most cruel and barbaric regimes in the world, murdering political enemies, raping the wives of his foes, and torturing their children.

   So what are we to do about this madman? Saddam Hussein is an enemy of the United States. This is a Stalin and a Hitler who has the capability of murder of thousands of innocent American men, women, and children, and who supports and harbors terrorists.

   In history, there have been some enemies of freedom and liberty that respect nothing but the threat of superior military force. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime is such a threat. America has become the target because America is the world's symbol of freedom, liberty, and democracy. As one of America's great Presidents, Ronald Reagan, showed us in the Cold War, peace is achieved through strength, as he achieved victory in the Cold War.

[Page: H7272]

   While I have no desire to see my children sent to war, we may be left with no other choice. I can assure the Members that as a member of the military, as a military parent, that the American military is ready and willing to answer the call to preserve freedom and liberty for generations to come, and to stop the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the innocent lives of the American public.

[Time: 21:30]

   Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

   Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a fighter for human rights.

   (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, when September 11, 2001, happened, I was in New York City. And as the enormity of what terrorism could do to my city hit me, I was stunned. Then I wept with all of those innocent people who were simply doing their jobs and living their lives when one moment of hate lost their lives. There has, however, not been any conclusive evidence that links al Qaeda to those responsible for the tragedy with Iraq.

   Some question whether those who oppose this resolution are forgetting those who died on September 11. Some question our patriotism. Though I should not have to affirm my patriotism, I say simply that I love my country, I love my city of New York, and I am not afraid to deal with those who attacked it. It is the most basic of our purposes as a national government to defend our Nation. But here we speak of a different matter.

   If our ultimate goal is to disarm Iraq and all chemical and biological weapons, how does giving our President this right to go to war accomplish that goal? Would not working with the U.N. to implement a program of rigorous inspections move us closer to our goal?

   This new doctrine announced by the President that the U.S. has the right to engage in a preemptive strike, which he seeks to implement through this resolution, frightens me and establishes a troubling precedent. This is a doctrine better left unused. It contravenes a half century of developed international law of which the U.S. has been a champion. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion means that India and Pakistan, for instance, nations with nuclear weapons and a history of conflict, may no longer feel bound by the limitations on the use of force that have been agreed to by the family of nations. The U.N. would become irrelevant, and the checks and balances that membership in the U.N. places on its members states will no longer apply.

   Even if we have strike and successfully defeat Iraq militarily, will this make our Nation a safer place to live?

   The administration often talks about regime change in Iraq and the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet in 1991 we decided against regime change because of concern of the overall stability of the region. What has happened since that time that has changed the goals of military action?

   As a Nation we need to plan and think beyond what passage of this resolution and a military victory would mean. The U.S. would need to expend at least the next 10 years involved in occupation, reconstruction and rebuilding. That is the point that no one seems to talk about, the fact that after we defeat Saddam Hussein we have to stay in Iraq, some experts say, at least for 10 years.

   One point also that surprises me that very few people, if any, bring up is, has anyone told us how we will defend Israel when Saddam Hussein and his madness, against the wall, decides to attack Israel? Those of us who support the State of Israel know that that is not part of this discussion at all.

   The last point that I would like to make is that we should, in our expending a lot of energy in trying to reach out to young Arab men and women, to tell them, to show them that we are not their enemy. By attacking an Arab country when even our allies in the Arab world do not support us will only, in my opinion, grow the hatred against this country. At the expense of sounding ridiculous, it could be said that it would be an increase in al Qaeda membership.

   We were founded on the principles of justice and strong morality. We have to be careful now that as we take and embark on this road we do not hurt ourselves while we try to help ourselves.

   We embarked on a war against terrorism. Now we are being told that attacking Iraq is part of that war. Yet Osama bin Laden, from all accounts, is still alive; and there is still work that has to be done.

   This is by far the most difficult vote that anyone can take. But I end this speech tonight as I began it and as I spoke 11 or 12 years ago. We have to be careful. We have to know what we are doing, and we have to know the severity of our actions. I will vote against this resolution because I cannot agree with the course that our great Nation is embarking on, one that brings the threat of war closer and the goal of peace further away.

   Madam Speaker, it is our children we will be sending to war. It is the people of Iraq we will engage in a war. We should think and think. And, Mr. President, I suspect that you will get the support of this Congress. Use this power wisely.

   Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), another member of the Committee on Armed Services and an officer in the Naval Reserve and a veteran of Northern Watch as well as Kosovo.

   (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, 140 years ago a gentleman from Illinois wrote the following:

   ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with this occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and we shall save our country.

   ``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

   ``We say we are for Union. The world will not forget we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.

   ``We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. Other means may succeed. This could fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous and just, a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.''

   Abraham Lincoln wrote those words on the eve of his most important decision. The occasion before us here is also drenched in significance.

   I am often asked whether I am a dove or a hawk on the question of Iraq. I prefer to be an owl, one who approaches this with steady, firm judgment.

   I believe we must deal with the enforcement of the United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm as part of an international coalition. Diplomatic efforts must be our primary effort, with a use of armed force only as a last resort.

   Along well-settled principles of constitutional and international law, the United States may declare war only with the formal approval of the Congress; and we should try to endeavor to operate with the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

   As a veteran myself, I believe that making the decision between war and peace is the most sacred duty of the Congress. Many people who never saw war are quick to urge military actions. Veterans can report with firsthand experience that waging war is a cruel and blunt instrument to be used only by a free people as their last choice. In my own experience, war has taught me to be the best friend of our State Department, a place where diplomacy is always the preferred course of action.

   I used to work in the State Department, and I applaud Secretary of State Colin Powell in his efforts to build a large coalition of like-minded nations

[Page: H7273]

   In reviewing of the reports of the United Nations, our allies and respected human rights groups, it is clear that the Iraqi regime represents a growing present danger to the United States and its allies and its own people. Given its proximity to Iraq, our allies in Israel probably face the greatest danger. I believe that the disarmament of Iraq is important to the security of the United States but is vital to the security of our allies in Israel.

   In my judgment, the existence of Israel hangs on the success or failure of the U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq. This is why the government of Israel, like Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, so strongly supports our goal. It is clear that this steadfast, concentrated action by the international community is needed to reduce the danger to the United States and our allies.

   While some say that inspections against a government determined to conceal its weapons are certain to fail, I disagree. Unlike the inspectors that we sent into post-war Germany after World War I or even Iraq, a new Security Council resolution could lay out clear rules granting free, unescorted and unannounced access by inspectors to Iraqi programs.

   In my work on this issue, I joined with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a representative of the opposite party, to form an Iraq working group here in the House where we have convened many meetings with U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraqis and administration officials to learn more about this issue. Our meetings with the U.N. inspectors have been some of the most fruitful.

   Dr. David Kay, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector, reported that if he were to return to Iraq he would need a new Security Council resolution with two major changes: one, complete access to all sites, including presidential sites and Northern Iraq, which were denied to previous U.N. inspectors; and, two, the power to grant permanent asylum to any scientist or their families who could be taken out of Iraq and debriefed on the weapons of mass destruction program that employed them.

   Dr. Kay reported that President Bush, Sr., and President Clinton both denied him the authority to force access to key sites and failed to grant him the power to bring any Iraqi and their families. He reported to our working group that, with these two changes granted under a new Security Council resolution, he would be willing to return to Iraq and carry out the will of the United Nations to disarm the government.

   We have had several conversations with the National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, and members of our United Nations Mission in New York who report that, without the credible threat of force, Secretary of State Powell has little chance for passing the kind of Security Council resolution that Dr. Kay outlined would be needed to peacefully disarm Iraq.

   I am encouraged that this resolution before the House has the support of senior Democratic and Republican leaders. It underscores the consideration of this issue should be without partisan rancor or advantage, and we should not consider this measure as partisans but as Americans.

   This resolution offers the best hope for a new U.N. Security Council resolution to rewrite the rules of inspection to make them more effective. Secretary Powell has asked for this resolution to pass the Congress to give him the tools he needs for U.N. support, and I voted to give him that support.

   As a veteran, I see any potential military action first through the eyes of young men and women who volunteered to wear the uniform and would carry out the mission. As I have detailed here, I believe that this resolution unlocks the door for more effective inspections. We must use the opportunities we have to take non-military action through the U.N. to determine if unrestricted inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program can take place. If these inspections succeed, we will have accomplished our objectives without loss of life. And if they fail, it will rally international support against an isolated Iraq, making any more decisive action quicker and more likely to succeed.

• [Begin Insert]

   Madam Speaker, 140 years ago, a gentleman from Illinois wrote the following passage--one that applies to the question now before this House:

   ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and we shall save our country.

   Fellow citizens we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

   We say we are for Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We--even we here--hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.

   We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.''

   Abraham Lincoln wrote those words on the eve of his most important decision of the Civil War. The occasion before us here is also drenched in historical significance.

   I am often asked if I am a ``Dove'' or ``Hawk'' on the question of Iraq. I prefer to be an ``Owl''--one who approaches this with a steady, firm judgment.

   I believe that we must deal with the enforcement of the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution requiring Iraq to disarm as part of an international coalition. Diplomatic efforts must be our primary effort, with a use of armed force only as a last resort. Along well-settled principles of Constitutional and International Law, the United States may declare war only with the formal approval of the Congress and should try to endeavor to operate with the approval of the UN Security Council.

   As a veteran myself, I believe that making the decision between war and peace to be the most sacred duty of the Congress. Many people who never saw war are quick to urge military action. Veterans can report with first-hand experience that waging war is a cruel and blunt instrument to

   be used only by a free people as their last choice. In my own experience, war taught me to be the best friend of our State Department--a place where diplomacy is always the preferred course of action. I used to work in the State Department and I applaud Secretary of State Colin Powell in his efforts to build a large coalition of like-minded nations to enforce the will of the Security Council.

   With regard to military force, our founding fathers debated the proper place for the power to make war at the Constitutional Convention and feared it most in a new democracy. They specifically rejected proposals to give such a power to the President and directed that only the elected representatives of the American people in our Congress could declare war. For most of our history, Presidents followed the restrictions of the Constitution when going to war. In the 1950s and 1960s, we deviated from the clear requirements of the Constitution to our profound detriment. I believe that it is far worse to send our uniformed men and women into a conflict the American people do not support than to never send them at all.

   In recent years, Presidents Bush and Clinton returned to our historic, constitutional practice of Congress voting before sending uniformed Americans into harm's way. Congress voted on U.S. military actions in Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo prior to deployment. As a military officer involved in each of these campaigns, I can report that the long congressional debate and formal approval of our missions made a difference improving our morale and clarity of purpose. The Administration should follow these precedents and obtain congressional sanction to engage in military action against Iraq. Congress must approve any military action against Iraq before it happens. Without such formal approval, no action should be taken.

   When the United States and our allies emerged victorious after the Second World War, we remade the ineffective League of Nations into a more effective United Nations. Under the charter of the UN, all member states are required by international law to abide by the decisions of the UN's Security Council. By the terms of the UN Charter, permanent members of the Security Council--the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain--retain the power to veto any proposed action by the Council. While the Council has not always been able to take decisive action, it has moved on many occasions to enforce the will of the international community in Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo.

[Page: H7274]

   President Bush's decision to seek approval by the UN Security Council to enforce its previously-passed resolutions underscores a fundamental political and military requirement for the United States military to build allied support and to isolate any potential opponent of the international community. By acting under a UN resolution, U.S. armed forces could join as part of a broad coalition opposing an enemy that has little to no international support. For this key reason, the resolution clearly outlines that the United States should try to act with approval of the UN in dealing with Iraq.

   The decision to go to war is the most important decision that I can make as a representative in Congress. As a veteran, I see any potential military action first through the eyes of the young men and women who volunteered to wear the uniform and would carry out such a mission. We must use the opportunities we have to take non-military action through the UN to determine if unrestricted inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can take place. If these inspections succeed, we will have accomplished our objectives without loss of life. If they fail, it will rally international support against an isolated foe, making any more decisive action quicker and much more likely to succeed.

   When we look at the situation in Iraq, we should not take military action until two basic questions are answered:

   1. Does Iraq Present a Clear and Present Danger to the United States and Our Allies?

   2. Will Non-military Action by the International Community Achieve Our Objectives?

   So, does Iraq present a clear and present danger?

   With regard to Iraq, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 686 in March of 1991 requiring Iraq to release all prisoners of war, return Kuwaiti property and pay damages. To date, the UN reports that Iraq failed to return 609 prisoners from 14 UN member states, including one American pilot. Iraq also holds over 5,000 Iranian POWs. In total, the respected human rights group Amnesty International reports that Iraq failed to account for 16,000 people held in its custody. The UN staff reported to the Security Council on this issue that ``no progress [has been] made on return .....'' Iraq also failed to return Kuwaiti military equipment and items from its state archives.

   In April of 1991, the Security Council passed Resolution 687. The resolution required Iraq to ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' all ``chemical and biological weapons.'' The resolution also required Iraq to ``unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons usable material'' or construct ``any research, development or manufacturing facilities.'' Finally, the resolution also required Iraq to ``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.

   Despite the requirement not to possess chemical and biological weapons, UN staff reported that Iraq lied to the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) in 1995 after Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told of the dictator's still-thriving biological and chemical

   weapons programs. Iraq then admitted it produced thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin for use with Scud missile warheads, aerial bombs and artillery. UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq concealed its biological weapons program and failed to account for three tons of growth material for biological agents. The UN also reported that Iraq failed to account for 15,000 artillery rockets filled with nerve gas and 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

   In January 2001, our Defense Department reported that Iraq converted Czech L-29 jets into chemical and biological delivery vehicles. Iraq also modified a second jet for use as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (AUV) to spray chemical and biological weapons. We have evidence that Iraq has built a third unmanned aerial vehicle that is much smaller than the larger jets. There are reports that this smaller AUV is the intended final vehicle for use delivering chemical and biological weapons in a way that would not be detected on radar. There is compelling further eviden