MARKUP OF H. J. RES. 114 - DRAFT
A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
THE USE OF UNITED STATES'
ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ

HEARING BEFORE THE
HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

October 2, 2002

HYDE: The committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, I now call up House Joint Resolution 114, "Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq," for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. It is the intention of the chair to recognize members to make opening statements on the resolution tonight. I do not intend to recognize anyone for the purpose of offering an amendment, and accordingly, I do not anticipate any votes in the committee this evening.

The chair will now recognize members to strike the last word on the pending -- I'm sorry, the chair will recognize Ranking Member Tom Lantos to strike the last word.

STATEMENT BY TOM LANTOS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

LANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first commend you for calling today's markup of this historic resolution. You have insisted, with my full support, that our committee's prerogatives be respected, and I think every member of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, deeply appreciate it. I know we will have a lively and spirited debate, both today and tomorrow.

I also support your decision to allow every member to make an opening statement.

The question of authorizing use of force against Iraq is one of the most important issues that members of Congress will vote for, and I think every member must be given a full opportunity to express his views.

Let me also say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that not only every member of this committee, but every member of Congress, in both the House and the Senate, is viewed by me as a patriot whose views are fully entitled to respectful listening, and I deeply deplore some recent statements questioning the loyalty of some members of Congress because of their views. This is a democracy where the widest diversion of views prevails. Our ability to express our views freely and openly and without anybody questioning our loyalty or patriotism is critical.

The compromise resolution we are considering today is the product of true patriotism and statesmanship shown by the bipartisan leadership. In particular, I applaud the Democratic leader, Gephardt, for the pivotal role he played in shaping and indeed dramatically strengthening the original resolution which was before us. And I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strongly supporting this resolution as crafted and agreed to by the bipartisan leadership.

Mr. Chairman, Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, both the ones he possesses and the ones he is in the process of developing, pose an intolerable military threat to the United States, to our friends and to our allies, to Iraq's neighbors, and indeed to the Iraqi people.

In 1981, our ally Israel spotted the growing danger posed by Saddam Hussein and attacked Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reaction. Had that action not been taken and Saddam Hussein had been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, the United States and our coalition partners would have undoubtedly faced a horrendously difficult decision 10 years ago.

LANTOS: Had we gone to war, we would have suffered vastly more casualties than was in fact the case during the Gulf War. Or conceivably, if Saddam's possession of nuclear weapons would have prevented military action, we would now see Saddam Hussein controlling the oil resources, not only of Iraq, but also Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich sheikdoms of the Gulf. He would be controlling well over half of the oil resources of the world.

With Iraq again on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, we again must take action. Such action is necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein of making a mockery of the United Nations, of the United States and, indeed, the entire international community.

Enough is enough. Saddam Hussein had 11 years to live up to the commitments he assumed after his defeat in the Persian Gulf War. He now must be stopped before he continues developing his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or before those weapons fall into the hands of terrorists who might be targeting the United States. There is little time to lose.

Now is the time, Mr. Chairman, for the United States to confront this challenge and to seize this opportunity. It is also the time for the United Nations to rise to the occasion and to live up to its founders' expectations by enforcing the resolutions Saddam Hussein has systematically flouted.

LANTOS: I call upon Russia, China and France and, indeed, all members of the U.N. Security Council to join the United Kingdom and the United States in compelling Iraq's compliance with its assumed obligations.

If we are convinced of Saddam's intention to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, we must disarm him before he becomes stronger and before he becomes a full-fledged nuclear power. Postponing this painful action will only increase the danger and increase the price of the inevitable bloodshed.

Saddam's dictatorship, Mr. Chairman, is the antithesis of democracy we desire and we must promote in the Middle East. If Saddam is removed from power, we must ensure that his regime is gradually replaced by a democratic order. We cannot be content to see Saddamism without Saddam. A democratic Iraq surely would change the Middle East strategic calculus and would send a powerful message of deep hope to Arabs throughout the region living currently under authoritarian regimes.

Mr. Chairman, I fervently hope that Saddam can be disarmed through the inspection process which may commence in a few weeks. And I earnestly pray that war can be avoided.

I am among the handful of members of this committee, and indeed of this Congress, who experienced the horrors of both ground war and air war for protracted periods of time. I know all too well the painful human cost of war which must be avoided.

But I am also aware of the unbearable costs of the price of appeasement, because the price of appeasement is greater destruction, greater suffering and an infinitely greater loss of innocent life.

LANTOS: Had Hitler's regime been taken out in a timely fashion, the 51 million innocent people who lost their lives during the Second World War would have been able to finish their normal life cycles.

Mr. Chairman, if we appease Saddam Hussein, we will stand humiliated before both humanity and history.

We are all deeply committed, on this committee and in this Congress, to protecting the U.S. national security interests, to promoting peace worldwide and to authorizing the use of armed force in pursuit of these ends only as the very last resort. All among us weigh our words and cast our votes in these momentous days in accordance with the dictates of our conscience. And we are therefore deserving of each other's respect.

It is in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I (inaudible) this debate and look forward to the views of all of my colleagues.

HYDE: I thank you, Mr. Lantos.

The chair is going to request, since it is my intention that everybody have an opportunity to make an opening statement, that the time constraints of five minutes be respected. And if you watch up at the desk, you see a yellow light, then you could try to bring your remarks to a close. I do not mean this remark as a correction for Mr. Lantos, because he is the ranking Democrat, and he speaks for his party as well as himself. But we have many hours of opening statements if everybody uses their five minutes.

HYDE: And so I would respectfully ask you to be mindful of time constraints.

Mr. Gilman?

STATEMENT BY BEN GILMAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will heed your admonition.

And I commend Chairman Hyde for bringing this historic resolution before our committee today in such a timely manner.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I fully support the president in his efforts to demand Iraqi compliance with the previously adopted U.N. resolutions.

Since expelling U.N. inspectors from Iraq, Saddam Hussein has had four years to rebuild and rearm his country's weapon stockpiles. It's imperative that a united front take his threats seriously and take preventive action against a tyranny of the Iraqi government to disarm before any events of September 11th are repeated.

By not taking decisive action to require Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions relevant to his programs aimed at developing weapons of mass destruction risks perverse political and legal consequences. It would suggest that an outlaw state has only to engage in a diplomatic war of attrition to be able to be released from its legal obligations and be freed from the threat of military action to enforce compliance with international law.

Saddam's continued breaches of these resolutions constitutes a real threat to our nation and to other nations in that region and to our interests in that part of the world, a threat that we must no longer ignore.

If Saddam is allowed to retain and expand his possession of weapons of mass destruction, of chemical and biological weapons, even if they're unable to threaten the U.S. by conventional means, will make it exceedingly difficult to respond to future acts of Iraqi aggression.

In the same manner that we respond to Saddam Hussein's continued threats we must be fully committed to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified, democratic state.

(CROSSTALK)

HYDE: The committee will come to order. The committee will come to order.

(APPLAUSE)

HYDE: The committee will stand in recess until the police restore order. I ask the police to restore order.

(RECESS)

HYDE: The committee will be in order.

And Mr. Gilman, you will finish your statement.

GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the same manner that we respond to Saddam Hussein's continued threats...

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I move we lock the doors at this moment.

(UNKNOWN): No, no, no, no.

Ben, you've upstaged by a cheap T-shirt.

HYDE: The committee will -- this is a very serious matter, and I would appreciate order in the committee room. Let Mr. Gilman finish his important statement.

GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the same manner that we respond to Saddam Hussein's continued threats, we must be fully committed to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified democratic state in the event that a military strike topples Saddam Hussein.

And I want to thank my colleagues for their patience.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret we had the interruption.

HYDE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Berman of California?

STATEMENT BY HOWARD BERMAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a prepared opening statement, but I just wanted to make a -- just talk a little bit, a couple of points.

It's probably no surprise that I'm a supporter of this resolution. Ironically, to the extent there is a chance that the issue of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction can be dealt with and can be disarmed without the use of force, I believe, somewhat counterintuitively and ironically, that it comes from a strong, bipartisan, bicameral show of support for providing this administration with the authorization contained in this resolution.

Because, whatever people want to say, the fact is the issue of meaningful, comprehensive inspections, on demand, unfettered, unlimited by Saddam's continuous evasions, denials and lies, has not been on the world's agenda or on the Security Council agenda until such time as this issue has risen to this level.

BERMAN: And I believe that we should play this card out all the way.

I am skeptical that his disarmament can come through inspections. But like Mr. Gephardt has said and like the president is now saying, I think it is right to exercise all diplomatic options first.

I just want to make a couple of points. One is, I truly believe that Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is worse than we know. He has more than we can prove. He is closer to achieving what he wants than we think. And the reason I say that is, every time this has occurred in the past, we have learned that.

I will never forget that our own briefings from our own intelligence agencies in the late '80s and 1990 indicated that at best Saddam had a primitive nuclear weapons program that was years away from fruition. And it wasn't until after the Gulf War, there are inspectors, somewhat serendipitously, learned and discovered clear evidence that he was within six months to one year from having nuclear weapons.

So I go into this believing, perhaps as an article of faith, but based on past indications, that he has worse than we know of.

I think we are headed to a confrontation with him on this issue if we cannot deal with it through the inspection regime sooner or later. And I believe for America and for the world and for the Iraqi people, the cost in life and in devastation and in destruction and in economic costs will be less dealing with it sooner than procrastinating and postponing it until later. And I think that also should factor into our thinking in terms of timing.

And to my Democratic colleagues in the House who are struggling with this issue, there's only -- I'd like to make a couple of points very specifically addressed to you. We talk now about preemptive strikes and unilateral action.

BERMAN: But it wasn't but a few years ago that we were asked to give authorization for air strikes in Kosovo against the Yugoslav regime, notwithstanding the fact that there was no U.N. Security Council resolution and could not be one, for the Russians were sure to veto it, and notwithstanding the fact that the national security threat to us there, such as it was, was clearly less than what Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction represents to the region and to us now; a country's, Iraq, led by a war criminal even more brutal than Milosevic, with far greater U.N. security interests and far greater threats to the stability of the international system than was posed there.

But we Democrats overwhelmingly voted for that authorization to use force at that time.

The second point in this area that I want to make is that...

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

BERMAN: All right.

HYDE: If you want another few seconds...

BERMAN: Thirty seconds just to make, if I may.

HYDE: Sure.

BERMAN: ... to make the point, talk to the Clinton administration security people, Jim Steinberg (ph), deputy director of the NSA, Richard Holbrooke, U.N. ambassador, and probably the secretary of state if Florida had turned out differently, Martin Indyk, the author of the dual-containment strategy and assistant secretary for Near East affairs, Ken Pollock (ph), the Iraqi specialist at the NSC working in implementing the containment policies, Walter Slocum (ph), deputy secretary of the Department of Defense.

Nearly every one of the Clinton administration people directly involved in Iraq policy, State Department, NSC or Defense Department, thinks that this is the right decision. A yes vote on this authorization, both to maximize our chances of pursuing a successful diplomatic policy through the Security Council or, in the alternative, to deal with something that we have to deal with.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: The gentleman for Iowa, Mr. Leach?

STATEMENT BY JIM LEACH
REPRESENTATIVE FROM IOWA

LEACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEACH: As all members know, this resolution involves a difficult set of decisions that neither the Congress nor the executive can duck. And anyone who's not conflicted in their judgments isn't thinking seriously.

For myself, I have enormous regard for the president and great respect for his foreign policy advisers, but I have come to the conclusion that this resolution misfits the times and the circumstances. There may be a case for regime change, but not for war against Iraq and its people.

Because time is brief I'd like to emphasize three points.

First, given the events of 9/11, a doctrine of preemption has a modicum of legitimacy. But the greater our power the more important it is to use it with restraint, otherwise it will be seen as hubristic with a strong prospect of counterproductive ramifications. Engaging in war the wrong way can too easily jeopardize the underlying conflict against terrorism and undercut core American values and leadership around the world.

Two, there are many so-called end-game elements that have not been adequately addressed. They range from the dilemma of street combat, to problems of post-war government -- governance, to worldwide Muslim reaction.

Three, and most profoundly, this resolution is based on a misunderstanding of modern science as it applies to weapons of war.

The assumption is that there is a compelling case to preempt a nuclear weapons program. But what is underestimated is the volume and the danger of the biological agents Saddam possesses and the nature of his likely response to outside aggression.

The tactical assumption is that Saddam will be on the defensive with an American-British attack. But the likelihood is that, as troubling as end-game problems are, the beginning conflict issues may be the most difficult ever confronted in the region and possibly in all of modern warfare.

When a cornered tyrant is confronted with a use-or-lose option with weapons of mass destruction, and is isolated in the Arab world unless he launches a jihad against Israel, it is not hard to imagine what he will choose.

Israel has never faced a greater challenge to its survival. The likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents, will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq.

In the Gulf War, Saddam launch some 40 Scud missiles against Israel, none with biological agents. Today he has mobile labs, tons of such agents and an assortment of means to deliver them.

LEACH: It is true that his stockpiles could be larger in years to come, but members must understand that the difference between a few and a few hundred tons of anthrax or plagues may not be quantum. These are living organisms that can multiply. They endanger the region and potentially the planet.

We used to have a doctrine of MAD, mutually assured destruction, between the United States and the USSR. No one seriously contemplated aggression because of the consequences.

Today, for the first time in human history, we have a doctrine of mutually assured destruction between two smaller countries, Iraq and Israel, one with biological weapons, the other nuclear. The problem is that British and American intervention could easily trigger an Iraqi biological attack on Israel, which could be met by a nuclear response.

Not only would we be the potential precipitating actor, but our troops could be caught in cross-winds and crossfire. This is a circumstance we should back from.

Thank you.

HYDE: Mr. Ackerman, the gentleman from New York?

STATEMENT BY GARY ACKERMAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

ACKERMAN: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of Iraq, there's really no question about any of the facts that the president has cited in making the case for urgent action against the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime. Only the deliberately obtuse can doubt that Saddam Hussein is a murderous, rapacious dictator with an addiction to aggression and a long record of gross miscalculations.

Since seizing power and killing all of his domestic rivals, Saddam has spent the entirety of his rule committing acts of gross, unprovoked aggression, preparing for war or brutalizing his own countrymen. There is also no question about Iraq's appetite for weapons of mass destruction.

The single question we must answer, the single decision from which all other decisions will naturally descend, is what to do about this threat. It is grave. It is immediate and it will not satisfactorily resolve itself without action.

We cannot simply hope that Saddam will be deterred. He has shown himself to be an inveterate and dangerous gambler.

We cannot simply hope that Saddam will not share weapons of mass destruction technology with terrorists. We all know Al Qaida elements have already been at work soliciting Iraqi aid in this field.

We cannot simply hope that U.N. inspectors will root out Saddam's weapons of terror. We know he has defeated inspections for 10 years and is prepared to risk his regime to preserve them.

ACKERMAN: Mr. Chairman, hope is not a plan, nor is hope a method that we can depend upon to ensure our national security.

I believe that we all want a nonviolent resolution to this problem. I believe that authorizing the president to use force, if necessary, is the best way to preserve that option. But if we must use force, then the central issue to my mind is how to secure the greatest and broadest international endorsement for our proposed course of action.

Mr. Chairman, since World War II the United States, on the basis of broad, bipartisan consensus, has been leading the world through the creation of system of international security based on shared norms and institutions. The international order our nation has established and sustained since the presidencies of Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, the so-called Pax Americana, has succeeded for decades because it has been perceived internationally as legitimate and not just self- interested; the peace of the Americans, not the peace for the Americans.

The idea that we are all in this together has enabled our country to lead for decades without any significant backlash. The key questions that remain are about the international order and our relationship with the rest of the world.

The president's speech to the U.N. seemed to be the first public step in our effort to build a coalition. I hope it will not be the last. A preventive war devoid of any sort of international consensus is not a precedent that we want to establish. Our nation used to refer to that kind of project as aggression. Like it or not, we will need the international community when and if the time comes for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Beyond Iraq, we continue to need international support for the war on terror. We cannot scorn international concerns and reservations without lasting harm to our larger and longer-term objectives.

While I'm prepared to endorse the president's request for authorization to use force to respond to the threat posed by Iraq, I continue to have grave reservations about the administration's complete failure to explain what an unsupported war on Iraq will do to our efforts to establish a stable global order. I continue to have grave concerns about the administration's complete failure to explain how an unsupported war in Iraq will advance international cooperation in the war on terror. And I continue to have grave concerns about the administration's complete failure to explain how we will help restore a post-Saddam Iraq to the family of nations.

I have grave concerns about those who claim the flag which enwraps them as their exclusive province, seeking to hold patriotism and nationalism as theirs alone in an attempt to inoculate themselves against criticism and to stifle debate. Those are tactics and tools of Saddam Hussein. And if we adopt them, he wins.

Mr. Chairman, I will support the resolution, but I fear that defeating Iraq and deposing Saddam are likely to be orders of magnitude easier than repairing a potential breach in the international perception about our nation's intentions and values.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Thank you.

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton?

STATEMENT BY DAN BURTON
REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA

BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think anybody in the Congress wants war. But, you know, if history doesn't teach us anything, it teaches us that appeasement, as Mr. Lantos said, simply doesn't work.

Winston Churchill, prior to World War II, was a lone voice in the wilderness talking about the threats that faced them, and nobody listened. And as a result, war ensued, Hitler wasn't stopped short of moving into Poland and moving throughout Europe, and 50 million people died.

And I don't know that that's going to be the case in this particular situation, but the fact of the matter is, you know, Saddam Hussein does have chemical and biological weapons. Maybe not as many as he'll have in a few years, but he has them. How many does it take? How much does it take to kill a bunch of people? How much does it take to kill more people than September 11th did?

Do we wait? What if we wait and he does develop a nuclear weapon shortly and he does use it and he does kill a lot of people, 50,000, 10,000, 5,000, or uses biological and chemical weapons? What do we say to our kids and grandkids after those things have happened? "Why didn't you do something, Dad? Grandpa, why didn't you do something before that happened?"

In my opinion, we have to preempt this sort of things from happening. We have to send a very strong message to Saddam Hussein and to all the terrorists and would-be terrorists in the world that there's going to be a terrible price to pay if you start using terrorist tactics throughout this world. And I think that that's a signal that we have to send very quickly.

Now, when we talk about Israel, as one of my colleagues just did, I just got back from Israel. I talked to Shimon Peres, the foreign minister. I talked to Benjamin Netanyahu and others, as members of our CODEL did. And the Likud and Labor Parties all agree that they have to do something now.

BURTON: They're passing out gas masks and they've asked us to give them inoculations against the kinds of diseases that they might face. So they know what the threat is. They're right next door.

But the one thing that they say they can't wait on is for Iraq and Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons. Because once he does that, they have no defense, and they'll be destroyed if he launches at them with a nuclear device.

So Israel's on board, and they're the ones that's threatened first, as my colleague just said. They know what the threat is. And they know what has to be done.

And it's my opinion that if we want to stop the terrorist activity in this world, if we want to send a very strong signal, then we must act, and we must act quickly.

These centrifuges -- according to the intelligence people I talked to in Israel, the centrifuges that they use to develop nuclear weapons are no larger than a refrigerator. Iraq's a big country. You could hide these things all over the place. And so, if you send these inspectors in there, the chances are they'll never find them if they get there and do have the ability to look around.

Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on his people in his own country, in the people in countries right next to him, and he'll use anything at his disposal if we let him. It's my opinion that we have to act and act quickly. And that's why I support this resolution.

HYDE: The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega?

STATEMENT BY ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
REPRESENTATIVE FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this meeting or hearing to mark-up the proposed resolution to determine whether the Congress will grant the president the authority to utilize military forces if necessary to protect our national security as well as the security of the Middle Eastern region.

I submit the proposal or revised resolution now before our committee for consideration is indeed an improvement from that proposed previously by the administration.

And I certainly want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, for making emphasis of the fact that each one of us here, as members of the committee, are never to question the integrity and the patriotism of each of us in terms of whatever decisions that we will make as a member of this committee regarding this resolution. But out of our own personal consciences that we will make that decision, but never question the patriotism of anyone here in this committee.

Mr. Chairman, when Secretary Powell appeared before our committee about a week ago, I raised a couple of questions with Secretary Powell. One, if and when the time comes that the United States will declare war against Saddam Hussein, will the president or the administration take all necessary military action to win this war and nothing less? Secretary Powell's response was a firm yes.

Mr. Chairman, for those of us who served in Vietnam, I don't want another Vietnam with half-baked plannings and policies where enemy soldiers can shoot at you, but you can not shoot back. I also asked Secretary Powell if our nation is prepared to take up additional responsibility with the consequences of a post-Iraq takeover, where millions of refugees from Iraq are going to severely impact the social and economic conditions of other Arab nations, let alone the tremendous costs that will be borne presumably primarily by our own nation. Secretary Powell's response was again yes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa has just shared with us the same concerns that I also have. I do not believe that our ability to have a preemptive strike capability is going to prevent Saddam Hussein from releasing the horrors of all of the biological and chemical -- tons of biological and chemical agents that he has in his possession.

I'm torn of what we did in Vietnam, and I'm torn again at what we're going to do -- we're about to do, if we do it, against Iraq. I am torn at what will happen to the good citizens of Israel. And again, as the gentleman from Iowa has shared with us this afternoon, the losers of this war are going to be Israel and Iraq -- the people of Israel and Iraq.

I want to say that I do support the resolution. Reluctantly I support the resolution. I feel that we need to move forward with this action that is committed. But at the same time, I want to share with the members of this committee my concerns. And I sincerely hope to God that we will be able to resolve those problems that I have raised.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?

STATEMENT BY ELTON GALLEGLY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

GALLEGLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support this resolution. I want to commend Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt for working in a bipartisan manner with the White House to develop what I believe to be a very strong resolution.

I also want to commend you and Mr. Lantos for scheduling this markup which will allow this committee to carry out its rightful role in shaping United States foreign policy.

GALLEGLY: September the 11th has tragically taught us the price of not acting when faced with clear and present danger. And there should be no doubt that today we face a clear and present danger in the form of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of Saddam Hussein.

We know after the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, Iraq unequivocally agreed to eliminate its nuclear, biological and chemical weapon programs and agreed to allow international weapons inspectors to ensure that be accomplished.

But as we all know, Iraq has willfully, and in direct violation of its own agreements, thwarted over and over again the efforts of the inspectors to find and destroy these weapons.

This can only mean one thing: Saddam intends to hold on to these weapons and use them at the appropriate time and in the manner he deems necessary.

As early as 1998, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a letter to the Security Council stated, "No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq's refusal to honor its commitments under the Security Council resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction constituted a threat."

That remains even more true today in the light of new efforts of global terrorism. Today the threat to the national security of the United States and to international peace and security continues to grow.

It is especially serious because we know that Saddam supports terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, and he could very well be working with those agents this very moment as we speak; working with them with the expertise to use chemical and biological weapons against the U.S. and others.

In 1991, in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, I led a group of our colleagues in the House in introducing a resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use all necessary means to force Iraq from Kuwait. There were dissenters who felt we should not go to war. But in the end we were proven right.

In 1998, I strongly supported the House resolution which declared Iraq to be in breach of its international obligations and which urged the president to take appropriate actions to bring Iraq into compliance.

But significant penalties for non-compliance were not invoked, so here we are back again confronting the same serious issue and with not an inch of change in his attitude or actions.

Mr. Chairman, this time around we must have an absolute commitment not to allow Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons anymore. But the enforcement of Security Council resolutions this time must include significant penalties for non-compliance which are immediate and automatic.

The resolution we are debating today is forceful in that we again give the president the authority to use whatever means, including force, to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

But this resolution is balanced in that it encourages the president to pursue diplomatic avenues to achieve international support for enforcing U.N. Mandates and it provides an important role for the U.S. Congress.

I believe the gravity of this issue mandates that we act now to give the president the tools he should have to deal with this threat. The potential terror that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman present to the world must be addressed and must be addressed decisively.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez?

STATEMENT BY ROBERT MENENDEZ
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY

MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as one with a particularly strident aversion to the abuses of dictators of any stripe or ideology I have thought long and hard about this resolution. But I am seriously troubled by the administration's, in my view, inability, whether in public or in private, to give this Congress and the American people what is the casus belli here, what is the compelling reason why now, this time, this moment the United States, maybe very well unilaterally, should go to war in Iraq.

I listened to the distinguished secretary of state before this committee last week make serious statements as the president did before the United Nations. Those statements were all about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's violation of United Nations resolutions in the past.

And yes, those statements are true. But they were true when President Bush took office nearly two years ago, and they were true prior to President Bush taking office.

Now this is not about, I would hope, avenging the potential risk against, you know, a former president's life. This is about sending young men and women into harm's way. This is about making a compelling case as to why the national interests of the United States, the national security of the United States, right now has an imminent, clear and present danger against it.

To talk about all the resolutions that have been violated in the past does not make the compelling case right now.

Does Saddam Hussein buy biological and chemical weapons? Yes.

Did he have them two years ago when President Bush took office? Yes.

Did he have them before that? Yes.

Does he seek nuclear weapons? Yes.

Does he have it? At this point, from everything I've heard, no.

Did he want it two years ago? Yes.

Was he trying to accomplish it? Yes.

Do we have any sense now that he has a plan to strike against us as a country or our interests abroad, to our embassies or our troops or our allies? Not that I have seen.

And so why did all of a sudden in September Iraq become and Saddam Hussein become the central concentration of this administration?

After September 11th, who did we pursue? We pursued Osama bin Laden and we pursued Al Qaida. They were the number one threat to the national security of the United States. I remember President Bush said "Wanted: dead or alive, Osama bin Laden."

We don't even know what's happened to him. And Al Qaida, we don't even hear anymore about the fight against that effort, which I think is very important. And I think that is a clear and present and imminent danger to the security of the United States, yet we hear nothing about that.

We are talking about a series of issues here which we have not had answers to. What is -- if you're talking about regime change, which is what this administration continuously says, that means removing Saddam Hussein, not just merely his chemical and biological weapons. And when you've told him that up front, he's more likely to use his chemical and biological weapons against our troops and our allies, which he did not do in the Gulf War.

What is our post-Saddam view? What is our plans? I asked the secretary of state that. He didn't have an answer for that.

With Kurds and Shi'ites, how long are we going to be in Iraq? And what's the cost? A couple of hundred billion dollars. And what's the exit strategy, which I've often heard many of my colleagues cite in the past when President Clinton had military initiatives. What's the exit strategy? I haven't even heard what that exit strategy is.

And when and if they fire against Israel -- this administration in Israel has spoken quite differently than the past. What are the consequences there on the rest of the Middle East? What's the consequences to Musharraf in Pakistan? Can he withstand it? And if not, you have fundamentalists having access to nuclear weapons.

And where is our ability to keep an international effort in this regard, both in the fight against Al Qaida and then in the fight for disarming Saddam Hussein?

None of these questions have been answered. There has been no clear and compelling evidence presented to this committee or to members in private that I have seen in intelligence briefings to say that something is different today than it was two years ago when President Bush took office or before that.

MENENDEZ: So I really have concerns of how did this become suddenly the imminent threat to the United States? And how do we continue to prosecute a war in an economy that is down the tubes, in which you need the money to defend yourself at home and abroad?

And finally, Mr. Chairman, if, God forbid, that we get involved in this endeavor without serious answers to these questions and something else happens in the world -- I know we're the greatest superpower, the only superpower left in the world, but we are not omnipotent. And having the ability to face some other challenge in the world at the same time that we are pursuing Al Qaida and the same time we're pursuing Saddam Hussein and without answers to these questions I think makes a very compelling case not to be pursuing this course of action at this time. Doesn't mean it can't be had at another time when a compelling case is made. But I don't see it happening at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: The gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen?

STATEMENT BY ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am proud to support this resolution. And why now? Our world changed after September 11th. I think it's an easy explanation. And this is a comprehensive measure which addresses our immediate short- term concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, our long-term priorities of assisting and facilitating regime change in Iraq, and our overall imperative to defend our nation and to protect the American people by acting in accordance with our national security interests.

Much has been read and heard lately accusing the president and his administration of exaggerating or deceiving the American people on the status of Iraq's nuclear program. However, the British dossier detailed also Iraq's capabilities. And the former deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection team was quoted on Friday, September 27th as saying that the Bush administration is, quote, "in the ball park", end quote, with it's estimate on when Iraq might possess nuclear weapons, which is fairly soon.

The U.S. concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is not a new phenomenon. As the resolution before us underscores, in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security. And it urged the president to, quote, "take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations," end quote.

The situation in the last four years has deteriorated. There should, therefore, be no question on the compelling need to act on these grounds.

The resolution before us also relates to the goals delineated by the president regarding regime change in Iraq. It does so by referencing the Iraq Liberation Act and the U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq's repression of its civilian population.

Why should the U.S. support opposition forces in Iraq and help facilitate transition to democratic rule in the country to replace the oppressive Hussein regime? Because democratic governments do not target their neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. Democracies do not threaten, nor seek to destabilize neighboring countries because democracies are adverse to terror. They place a high value on human life and the dignity of man. Because we should help the Iraqi people free themselves from the subjugation and the shackles of oppression of the Hussein regime.

Regime change in Iraq is also a compelling U.S. national security interest and one which adheres to our country's principles and our commitment to help those who are suffering the most heinous abuses under totalitarian rule.

The resolution provides extensive history on the president's authority to use military action against Iraq, substantiated further by U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to cease its threatening activities. The actual authorization uses the same language as the use of force resolution which passed overwhelmingly a year ago.

This is a carefully crafted resolution and I urge my colleagues to render their full support to it.

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Thank you.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne?

STATEMENT BY DONALD PAYNE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY

PAYNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Over the past few weeks, America has commenced debating the situation in Iraq earnestly. We're offering opinions from numerous perspectives, collecting input from constituents, conferring with fellow countries at the United Nations, and even having members of Congress visit Iraq firsthand.

Through this very involved process, one typical of America, we are carefully developing informed public policy regarding what the United States should do with respect to Iraq. By design, we seek a policy process that is inclusive and well reasoned.

Throughout this process, however, Americans are in agreement about the need to contain terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I think we all agree with that.

Several important points have been made this past week that bear mentioning. I think former Vice President Gore opened up the whole situation when he started to question the timing, started to question whether we were totally on the right track, started to question whether this regime change, first strike is where our nation ought to be.

And I think since then, he's opened up where other persons have now stepped forth. Senator Kennedy stated that Al Qaida offers a threat more imminent than Iraq. And we wanted, as has been mentioned, Osama bin Laden dead or alive. "We're going to smoke him out. We're going to find him. We're going to bomb him. We're going to get him." And we're still looking for him.

The senator also underscored that our first objective should be to get U.N. inspectors back to the task without conditions. As Senator Kennedy said, "Only when all responsible alternatives are exhausted should we discuss military action, which poses the risk of spurring a larger conflict in the Middle East." Further, Senator Kennedy correctly observed one's view on how to handle the Iraqi situation and that it should not reflect on one's loyalty to the United States by virtue of the position that that person takes, which I think disgraceful was alluded to with some U.S. senators, many of them disabled veterans several -- a week or so ago.

Senator Dodd noted that, "international cooperation is necessary to counter terrorism. This cooperation should not be diminished by our unwillingness to address Iraq through multilateral channels."

Senator Feinstein questioned the immediacy of the threat posed by Iraq and argued that there was time to build support within the international community.

Representatives McDermott and Bonior are so seized with the matter that they are in Iraq to gain the perspective that only an in- country view can provide. There presence is reinforcing the importance to the United States of unrestricted, unfettered weapon inspections.

Senator Breaux observed that with American so divided on this issue, a strong burden remains on the Bush administration to demonstrate the need for military action to address the threat posed by Iraq.

PAYNE: All of these opinions and observations bear testimony to the belief that the United States should confront the evidence on Iraq directly, and should make a decision based on that information that we have.

The Congressional Black Caucus said last weekend unanimously that we oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and immediate, imminent threat of attack on the United States.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war, every diplomatic option must be exhausted, and a unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Middle East region and undermine the ability of our nation to address unmet domestic priorities.

Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would require long-term commitments.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to very carefully weigh this amendment and in conclusion we must keep our eyes on the main objective. This calls for cooperation, communication, consensus and careful calculation. I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: Thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Ballenger?

STATEMENT BY CASS BALLENGER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA

BALLENGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there are very few of us here that were around, a couple of white-haired guys like you and me, can remember a fellow named Adolf Hitler. A lot of people in those days were talking about "Was he a threat? You know, no he's not very dangerous, we don't need to worry about him."

And then all of a sudden he decided he wanted Alsace-Lorraine, and he took it. And everybody said "Well, you know, those are mostly Germans anyhow, so it's really not that big a deal."

And so a little while later he took Austria, and everybody said, "Well, you know, those were really just Germans, too. They all speak the same language, so there's nothing bad there."

And then he took the Sudetenlands of Czechoslovakia, and everybody said, "Well, you know, those are mostly Germans, too, so we shouldn't worry a great deal about that."

And then he took Czechoslovakia, and there was a gathering at that time to make some kind of decision -- international decision of some sort, and a fellow named Chamberlain, who happened to be the prime minister of Great Britain, he and his umbrella went to Hitler and they sat down and they discussed it and he came back with a statement that we had made a settlement that was going to bring us peace in our time.

Most of these folks here are too young to even have been around at that. And I don't know how long it was after that but he decided he wanted Poland, and so he and Russia cut up Poland and 51 million people died, and some of them were my classmates in school.

I don't know, truthfully speaking, how many people could have been saved if Britain and France had shown the leaderships that they -- and their position at that time was somewhat similar to our position to our position at this time -- if they'd shown the leadership that was necessary and they had been willing to stop him at Alsace-Lorraine. Obviously 51 million people would not have been killed.

And this resolution that we have we hope that would be we are assisted by the United Nations, we hope to give them a little bit of a backbone to be willing to speak and step out.

I personally am going to vote for this resolution, but also I have a great deal of worry. I have grandchildren, that happen to be boys, that happen to be the proper age that would bring forth the possibility they could be involved in this. So it is a big decision to make. But many is the time that because we have been so lacking in leadership in this world that a lot of people have been killed before somebody really decided to do something substantial about it.

And so thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. Brown of Ohio?

STATEMENT BY SHERROD BROWN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I remain extremely concerned about the direction this administration is taking our nation. From the Kyoto Treaty to the International Criminal Court to the ABM Treaty, the Bush administration has shown its willingness to go it alone. This is a distressing trend that may have tragic consequences if applied to Iraq.

I believe, as all my colleagues do, that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to peace, unless he readmits United Nations inspectors to root out weapons of mass destruction: aggressive, comprehensive, thorough inspections. We must exhaust every option to achieve our goals by diplomatic means before we consider military action.

President Bush has stated that, "If the U.N. will not stop Iraq, we will do it on our own."

For years our policy in this country has been one of containment, of deterrence, of collective security, of diplomacy. We contained and we deterred Stalin and the Soviets for decades, we have contained and deterred Castro and the Cubans for 40 years, we have contained and deterred China in its communist expansionist tendencies for five decades.

Now this president, who lost the popular vote, wants to radically change our decades-old foreign policy, our foreign policy from containment and deterrence and collective security and diplomacy to a policy of preemptive strikes.

What does that tell the world? Does it embolden Russia to attack Georgia to better deal with Chechnya? Does it set an international precedent for China to go into Taiwan, or to deal even more harshly with Tibet? Does it embolden New Delhi to go to Kashmir?

BROWN: Does it embolden Pakistan to go to Kashmir? Two countries with nuclear weapons, both emboldened by the example of the United States in preemptive strikes and where that might lead the world.

The whole point of the Security Council's existence is to prevent member states, including veto-wielding permanent members, perhaps especially veto-wielding permanent members, from launching unilateral unprovoked war.

Resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, called explicitly for countries cooperating with the exiled Kuwaiti royals to create a coalition to use force. No country has a unilateral right to decide that Iraq has not complied with U.N. requirements, let alone what the U.N. response should be.

A couple of weeks ago, three retired four-star generals testified in the Senate, stating that attacking Iraq without a U.N. resolution supporting military action could limit aid from our allies, could energize recruiting for Al Qaida. One general actually said it would super-charge Al Qaida recruiting and undermine our war on terrorism.

They then ask the question, what happens if we win? Or what happens after we win? Because I think all of us figure that we would if we commit our troops and our military firepower to this venture.

If we are unilaterally attacking Iraq, it means we must unilaterally rebuild Iraq. Do we have the political commitment in this country for 10 years of rebuilding? Do we plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year for 10 years to rebuild that country?

Can we, at the same time, wage our war on terrorism as we use many of our resources and many of our soldiers and many of our civilians in Iraq rebuilding those -- that country?

Those are difficult questions, as my friend, Mr. Menendez asked difficult questions. Those are questions to which we need answers.

I asked the president and this Congress and this committee to slow down, to bring in the United Nations, to do aggressive, complete, thorough inspections and then make our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

. . .

STATEMENT BY CYNTHIA McKINNEY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA

The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McKinney?

MCKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I share the same revulsion that many others have toward Saddam Hussein. We all know that he's brutal and that his regime has terrorized the Iraqi people and peoples of nearby countries. But there was a time not so long ago when, despite all of this, we chose to allow him to be our friend. There was a time when we supplied him with chemical weapons and with military technologies.

If our nation really cared about Iraq's neighbors, we would never have supplied him the military arsenal that we did. And if we really cared about his people, we would have done something to alleviate the suffering of the Kurds, who for years have been brutalized by the Iraqi military. If we cared about the Iraqi people, we would have done something to lift the burdens imposed on them by the U.N. sanctions, which to date have claimed in excess of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children.

But the truth is, we didn't really care about any of that suffering. Madeleine Albright even said the price of 500,000 dead children was worth it. Now however, we claim to care.

Now, Saddam Hussein has just become another name on a long list of other tyrants who we once aided and abetted but who now we oppose. But what to do?

In the past, other tyrants that we've grown tired of were assassinated, like Jonas Savimbi, or charged with war crimes, like Slobodan Milosevic, or forced from power through U.S.-backed uprisings, like Mobutu Sese Seko.

President Bush is confronted with the what-to-do question. He appears to be choosing war to get rid of this tyrant. And, of course, he has to justify it. That's the public relations part of this question. The words "Gulf of Tonkin" have echoed around Washington this last month. But many people concerned that the Bush administration is now manufacturing an international crisis in order to launch a preemptive military strike against Saddam Hussein.

In 1964, there were some courageous members of this House who knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a political ruse being used by the Johnson administration in order to justify the United States going to war in Vietnam. For their courage to speak out and resist, they suffered a tidal wave of public ridicule.

But we now know that they were right and that the Vietnam War was a monumental mistake that cost the lives of some 60,000 brave young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. And still, we have many Americans and Vietnamese who suffer the health effects of Agent Orange and other toxins faced on the battlefield. And all across the American and European landscape today, veterans still suffer from Gulf War Syndrome and exposure to depleted uranium.

Will we let this president create yet another generation of veterans to whom we will break our promises? I see too many of these veterans sleeping on our streets. The president can see them too if he would just look. They sleep on the sidewalks, the benches, the heating vents just across the street from the White House.

Mr. Chairman, do we give the president the green light to go to war on Iraq based on evidence which many weapons experts believe to be exaggerated? Are we now turning a blind eye to another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident? Shouldn't we trust the legal and diplomatic means of the United Nations?

Do we give the president the green light to go to war in Iraq because it has refused to comply with U.N. Security Council weapons inspections resolutions at the same time, Israel refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions with respect to the occupied territories? Do we have different standards for different countries, Mr. Chairman?

If the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Gulf of Tonkin taught us anything, they've taught us the dangers of choosing the military option over diplomatic and legal alternatives. The current terrorist crisis confronting our nation is so much bigger and more complicated than this call for war in Iraq.

MCKINNEY: Should we miscalculate our military actions in Iraq, we could cause many American service men and women to lose their lives. Needless to say, we could also cause untold numbers of Iraqis to be killed or injured.

Worse still, instead of solving the current threat of terrorism against us, going to war in Iraq might well make things far worse for us both at home and abroad.

I hope and pray that we choose our options very carefully.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: I thank the gentlelady.

Gentleman from California, Mr. Royce?

STATEMENT BY ED ROYCE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

ROYCE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to thank you and I want to thank the Democratic leadership as well for its bipartisan work in preparing this resolution. I also want to thank you for the committee work on the Iraqi threat and on the terrorist threat to our country in general. And I believe that those hearings have been of great service to the American people.

And I think when we discuss what is different about Iraq, I think the thing that drives our intent to engage on this issue and to do something about a weapons system is the fact that here we're talking about smallpox. We're talking about nuclear capabilities. We're talking about waiting for someone who's building a delivery system with missiles that have greater and greater capacity over time.

I thought I'd just take a minute and discuss some of the dissenting arguments. And I'd like to start with the argument made by some that we don't have a right to attack Iraq; that it's a sovereign state. And it seems to me that Saddam Hussein long ago, by his actions, declared war on the United States. And I think that's expressed in this resolution, in the sense that this is a regime that attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, and it is a regime that aids and harbors terrorist organizations, terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and security of American citizens.

It has long been shooting at U.S. and British planes that patrol the no-fly zone over Iraq. In that sense, the Gulf War has never ended.

And I guess to me, most importantly, when you talk to the weapons inspectors they say the strategic goal of Iraq is one thing: to develop nuclear weapons, to develop weapons of mass destruction and to get a delivery capability.

Now that's what's different about Iraq.

Also, I think few argue that the state system gives a dictator carte blanche to make war on his own people. It is justified to act against tyranny in cases where action can be effective. It is mandatory to act when such a tyranny poses a grave threat to our national security, as it does in Iraq.

And to me it is strange that some of the organizations that are the most aggressive proponents of promoting human rights abroad -- and I applaud them for that. They are proponents of intervening to defend human rights with force. But at this time, some of those same organizations are the most vocal in opposing this Iraqi intervention to defend the security of the American people.

While the hurdle must be high, the use of force can be justified on several grounds. And certainly an effort to defang an avowed enemy working quickly to develop weapons of mass destruction is one such justification. I would say that Iraq threat mandates us to act. And I can't for the life of me imagine why we would wait while he works on his missile delivery systems.

Lastly, the last argument is, why now? Why should we act now? Is Saddam an imminent threat? Well, last week in a hearing in this committee, one of our witnesses, former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, responded to a question that I asked him. And his response was, "Saddam could have his first nuclear weapon within a few months of the time he has 40 pounds of highly enriched uranium." And he went on to point out that there are poorly guarded enriched uranium facilities in Africa.

Now, I chair the Africa Subcommittee. And I can tell you that unfortunately there are many in Africa who would sell most anything for $5 million, and that is the street price -- as there are in Central Asia, as there are many shady characters worldwide. And there is one individual with the cash and with the intent upon obtaining that enriched uranium.

And so I think President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, put it best when she said, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I don't want the smoking gun to be some suitcase bomb.

And after we've acted, let me say, it will be incumbent upon our country to stay the course to see that the new Iraq no longer threatens us. And that means ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction.

HYDE: Gentleman's time is expired.

ROYCE: If I could ask for 30 seconds.

It also means seeing that Iraq is a successful state. And this is our current challenge in Afghanistan. Helping to give these two countries a chance for stability and a decent government will require a substantial U.S. commitment.

ROYCE: And given the threat to our security that these countries pose, we must make that investment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Thank you.

Before I recognize Mr. Wexler, I want to make a unanimous consent request, which has been cleared with Mr. Lantos and he supports it. Due to the importance of this measure, and taking into consideration the necessity of members needing to carefully review any amendments and consider their implications, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to the pending resolution be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Is there any objection?

If not, so ordered.

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.

STATEMENT BY ROBERT WEXLER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq because I strongly support the policy of regime change and disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Since the Gulf War, the threats posed by Saddam Hussein have not dissipated. They have only increased, making it all the more clear that we should have gotten rid of him in 1991.

In the past decade, Saddam has demonstrated his contempt for the international community, hostility toward the United States, intent to develop weapons of mass destruction and an unbridled willingness to use them. Given his despicable track record of aggression, including the use of chemical weapons against his own people, there is no reason to believe that he would not use biological, chemical or nuclear warfare in the future.

Unfortunately, it has become painstakingly clear that Saddam Hussein represents the epicenter of hostility and conflict throughout the entire Middle East. There is no doubt in my mind that the world would be safer without him.

I would not, however, want my support for this resolution to be misconstrued as an endorsement of the manner in which the president has conducted our foreign policy in Iraq. I am heartened that steps have been taken to revise the original resolution submitted by the president to Congress that addressed the concerns of the American people, including many of my constituents in Florida, who have time and again expressed their profound reservations concerning the president's rush to engage military action in Iraq.

I share the deep misgivings of many Americans that President Bush has shown poor leadership in forcing Congress to accept an unprecedented plan for unilateral preemptive military action that could potentially jeopardize America's international prestige, undermine our success in the war against terror and upset the stability of the entire world.

While engagement is clearly in the best interest of the security of the United States, I believe that American unilateral action is a grave mistake. Just as we have united the world in the war against terror, President Bush must make every attempt to build support in the United Nations and among our allies for regime change in Iraq.

Ultimately, we will best achieve our goals in Iraq, not through division and alienation, not through threats, but rather through determined diplomacy and some good old-fashioned American humbleness. This has been America's legacy, not unilateral engagement. And I would argue we owe it to our future children, our future generations to continue along this path.

Following the changes to the resolution presented by the House leadership this morning, it is clear that Congress has taken significant steps to unify the nation. Finally, we have incorporated language in the resolution that narrows the scope of military authorization to Iraq and ensures that military force is the last resort. These changes, which were originally dismissed by the president as irrelevant to our mission of a regime change in Iraq, represent the will of the American people for their government to proceed with caution and pragmatism, two elements that have been ominously missing from the president's demeanor and policy toward Iraq.

As I stated earlier, I will vote for this resolution before the committee today, in part because the absolute truth is the president has handcuffed us.

For all the people who contacted me to express their reservations about supporting the president, imagine what would happen if the Congress actually voted no, if we actually turned the president down. President Bush would be extremely weak. In the places in the world where America needs the most credibility, in the Arab world, in the Far East, in Iran, in Sudan, we would be weakest. We would be crippled. America wouldn't be able to do anything constructive with respect to the war against terror.

So I'm voting yes on this resolution tonight as an American, not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, because I think ultimately the box that the president has put us has forced us to do one thing and one thing only: vote in the national security interest of the United States, which means regime change in Iraq, which means disarmament of Iraq.

But on behalf of the extraordinary history of the United States of America, I would beg President Bush not to look at this vote tonight, assuming he gets a good support here, presuming that a number of Democrats will vote for this, for him not to think that this is an endorsement of unbridled use of military force. It is not.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: The gentleman from New York, Mr. King?

STATEMENT BY PETE KING
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me, at the outset, commend you and Mr. Lantos and the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives for working so closely with the president to bring about this resolution.

Let me also commend President Bush and his administration for the tremendous leadership they have shown in turning around a policy of inaction and malaise which allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in this position for so long.

I also want to commend the president for having the courage and the foresight to realize that America's interests should always be first, even when if it involves preemption, such as when Israel launched a preemptive attack against Iraq 20 years ago. And thank God they did. Such as President Kennedy when he actually brought about an act of war and instituted a blockade against Cuba against missiles which were not operational and posed no immediate threat to the United States.

KING: Yet President Kennedy had the foresight and the courage to realize that America must take strong action, even if it's not always popular with certain elements of the media or certain opinion-makers who think that America should always follow rather than lead.

I also, Mr. Chairman, must say that it's not often that I turn to The Washington Post for advice or for direction, but I think their editorial today entitled "A Shallow Disagreement" really sets forth the debate and sets forth the parameters of the debate very clearly.

It makes reference to certain speeches that were made in recent weeks being critical of President Bush's policy. And The Washington Post, again certainly no friend of President Bush, says "The one striking feature" -- and we heard some of this this evening -- "one striking feature of the criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy is the absence of suggested alternatives."

It says that the critics of President Bush, these leading Democrats, argued in effect that the president to do exactly what he's doing, only don't do it now or not so fast.

And it points out that this paradoxical position is the logical outcome of a decade of failure in dealing with Iraq. "President Bush," the editorial goes on to say, "has simply insisted that the United States and the United Nations act on long-accepted conclusions about Saddam Hussein. Critics both here and abroad tend to respond by reconfirming the principles while arguing that the old policy of head- in-the-sand neglect is preferable."

Mr. Chairman, we've had too much head-in-the-sand policy toward Iraq over the previous eight, nine, 10 years. The fact is that the critics have no other course to offer.

They talk about process, they talk about style. The fact is we are only at a position right now with the U.N. Security Council even considering a resolution -- they're only doing that because of the leadership that President Bush has shown.

The fact is thank God we do have people who can reach across party lines, people such as Senator Lieberman, who said very clearly that we can conduct a war against Al Qaida, a war which is going very well, a war which is going far better than critics said it would a year ago, and also carry out, if we have to, attacks against Saddam Hussein. America is strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And thank God we have a president who's bringing this together, thank God we have members of this House and the Senate who are willing to put aside partisan differences and stand with the president and vote for this resolution.

But I would say that if we do vote for the resolution and we do go forward, it's not enough to do it reluctantly, because we have to assume that any war -- there's no such thing as an easy war; that any war can be difficult and it can be difficult times, it's not going to serve any purpose to go into this, sort of, grudgingly and then if things go bad or we have some rough moments say "Well, I told you this wasn't the right way to do it."

If we're going to go in, we have to go in. We're going to vote for this resolution, we have to vote for it. We have to stand with the president, we have to stand with our armed forces, and we can't be making excuses before we go in, we can't be critical of a process, we have to support the goal, we have to support the end.

And the end is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. If that involves a regime change then we have to do it.

In 1998 this Congress voted for a regime change. President Bush believes that words have meaning. If that resolution's going to mean anything, if a policy's going to mean anything, we have to go forward. We can't be bound by those in other parts of the world who wouldn't agree.

The Europeans wanted to take no action against Bosnia, I gave President Clinton credit at the time for taking the action, for forcing the Europeans to act in Bosnia and Kosovo. If we waited for other countries to finish their debating, to circulate petitions and resolutions through the European Parliament, nothing would ever get done.

We have to assert leadership. President Bush is doing that. I'm proud to support him, and am especially proud to support this resolution this evening.

HYDE: The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel?

STATEMENT BY ELIOT ENGEL
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

ENGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say at the outset that I was here in 1991. I guess a majority of the members of this committee were not here in 1991 when we debated the Persian Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm.

In 1991, I supported giving then-President Bush the authorization and I will support the current President Bush in what he's trying to do today and will vote for the resolution.

I must say in all honesty, though, I feel less comfortable today than I did in 1991.

Saddam Hussein is a terrible guy, it's been said by a lot of our colleagues. He has weapons of mass destruction. And regime change, disarmament, whatever it is, he deserves it; the world will be much better off without him. And that's why we really need to support this resolution in ensuring that he complies with the U.N. resolutions and everything that he needs to do.

I must tell you for me, after September 11th, as a New Yorker, the equation changed. The old Cold War deterrence and containment philosophies I believe no longer apply.

We have to be proactive, and if preemption is something we need to do then we need to do it. I agree that we have to do what's in our best interest, for our nation, for our nation's survival, for the survival of our allies, for the survival of the world.

But if indeed our main thrust, as well as it should be, is in fighting terrorism and in fighting Al Qaida and those who would conduct terrorism, then it seems to me that, frankly, there are other regimes in the Middle East that have -- that are far more dangerous in terms of supporting terrorism than Iraq. Iran and Syria are two that come to mind, and I have some questions as to how Iraq got pushed to the top of the list.

I also have some questions, frankly, about the timing. I have heard, I have read, we've been briefed, I really question at this time why it's right now that's so important, why not three months ago, why not three months from now, why not six months from now. I haven't really seen anything specific that would tell us that right at this moment we need to do this.

Having said that though, and I think it's important to put all the reservations up front, I think it would be a monumental mistake if this Congress were not to support the president in this.

I think it's very important that we show a united front and we say to these dictators, to the people that have weapons of mass destruction, people that flaunt U.N. resolutions and are a danger to us and our allies, that we will not tolerate it, and that we're not going to sit back and let it continue.

It was a mistake in 1991, frankly, not to finish the job. I said so then, I'll say it now. But we can't let mistakes drive our policy. What we need to drive our policy is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction and terror are diminished.

ENGEL: And again, I want to emphasize that after September 11th, the equation changed. And I think that in our interests, whether it's in Kosovo, whether it's fighting terrorism, whether it's ensuring -- I make no apologies for the United States doing what's in our best interest to protect our citizens and to protect the world.

And so I will support this resolution. But I think that those of us in Congress that are elected by our constituents have an absolute right to ask hard and tough questions. I support this resolution. I won't support a blank check. And I think this resolution strikes the right balance.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chavez?

STATEMENT BY REP. CHAVEZ
REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO

CHAVEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I get into the gist of my statement, I'd like -- I think we should not let go unchallenged one of the allegations of our soon to be former colleague, who alleged that the United States is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. It's a totally bogus allegation. And we've heard this allegation before.

The deaths of any Iraqi children are the responsibility, the fault of one person. And that's Saddam Hussein. It's Saddam Hussein who has used the available resources of Iraq for building more and more palaces, under which there may well be facilities that are making weapons of mass destruction or storing them; of using those resources for the Iraqi military, specifically the Republican Guard, living a lavish lifestyle for him and his cronies.

This knee-jerk reaction by some to blame America first is, in my view, disgusting.

The resolution itself deserves our support. I intend to support this resolution. It clearly lays out the case for the use of United States armed forces against the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.

President Bush has stated that Saddam's continued reign poses an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States and that a change in regimes is essential.

The president's position, I believe, is logical and it's prudent. By all accounts, the immediate threat posed by Iraq's possession, creation and/or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a substantial one. The president's request for congressional authorization to eliminate the threat is entirely appropriate.

Saddam has already used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people. He has launched an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurdish people, killing thousands of civilians. He's invaded Kuwait. And he's conducted an unprovoked missile attack on Israel.

All the while, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world community. He has made a mockery of the United Nations resolution. And has repeatedly rejected the pleas of the United States and others to comply with the agreements he made when the United States ceased military action against Iraq back in 1991.

Following his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to eliminate his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and to end his support of international terrorism. He has done none of those things.

We know that Iraq has worked to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction programs since international weapons inspectors were thrown out back in '98. We know that Saddam would like to acquire nuclear strike capability. And many of us believe that, given that capability, he would no doubt use it against his enemies, including, and perhaps especially, the United States, for which he has shown nothing but disdain.

We also know that the Iraqi regime continues to serve as a supporter and sponsor of international terrorism, and that members of Al Qaida, the terrorist group responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans on September 11th, are known to be in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, of course, praised those attacks on innocent people.

We know that Iraqi military forces continue to fire upon American and British military aircraft as they seek to enforce the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. The Pentagon notifies us today that since April of '91, Iraq has fired on our coalition aircraft some 2,500 times, 406 times this year and 67 times in the last two weeks.

As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, the Middle East remains a potential powder keg and countless innocent people throughout the world face imminent danger.

Saddam has had ample opportunity to comply with the United Nations resolutions and rejoin the world community. He has chosen instead to remain an international outlaw who poses a grave threat to civilization. It is time for him to go.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this resolution by my colleagues in this committee and on the floor. And I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Davis?

STATEMENT BY JIM DAVIS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

JIM DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct my comments to the members of the committee as opposed to a public statement.

I am reserving judgment on how I will vote on the resolution tomorrow. But I want to comment on two sides to this that I see.

I agree with what Congressman Wexler said. I have been very disturbed at the way the president and his representatives have handled this. And I detect, from talking to both Democratic and Republican members of this committee, that that is a broad and persistent concern.

All of us want the president to succeed in this situation because if the president does not succeed, we do not succeed as a country.

The original argument that was presented was that there was additional information that supported the assertion that there was an imminent risk to this country associated with Saddam Hussein. I reject that argument. I waited for the additional information. It has not come. I do not believe it exists.

I think what is a truer statement is that the Bush administration has arrived at a well-intentioned judgment that the standard by which the existing information we've had for some time should be -- it should be judged by a different standard since 9/11.

The speech the president gave in West Point, when he described a new doctrine of preemptive attacks on other countries based on a standard of grave and gathering danger,