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, I do not accept that. And I think it would be a serious error for this Congress to pass a resolution that could be reasonably interpreted as supporting a preemptive attack and regime change against a country in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that that country represented an imminent risk to our country. I don't think that's the case we're dealing with.

JIM DAVIS: Now, the reason this is not simple for me is I do believe, as been said by both Democratic and Republican members of this committee, that we need a credible threat of force to maximize the chances of negotiating a successful disarmament through the United Nations.

One of the things that nobody disagrees about on this committee, one of the few things, is what type of person Saddam Hussein is, to his own people and to us and to anybody in the world. And this is a person that only understands force, unfortunately. And so I do believe that it is important that we consider how we might write a resolution that provides a credible threat of force. And as Congressman Wexler said, we need to think about the implications of voting against that. I would not choose this as the time to vote, but unfortunately, we do not have that choice.

It is important to me that any resolution I would choose to support is painfully clear that the goal here is disarmament. As the Carnegie people have said, ultimately regime change may be the means by which we have to achieve disarmament. But, I think the goal here is disarmament. I think it's very important we continue to work through the U.N. in good faith. I do not think the Bush Administration has taken steps that represent the level of good faith I would have liked. I think it mostly has been a contradiction between different representatives. It depends upon whether the secretary of state has been speaking or members of the defense department.

One of our jobs is to try to arrive at a clear, single voice on this issue. This resolution must be perfectly clear that we should exhaust every conceivable opportunity of the United Nations. We do not need to rush through that, because I do not believe it is an imminent risk and four, should be a last resort.

The last thing I want to say is to urge everybody on the committee to take the time this evening to review the Lugar-Hagel- Biden Proposal. Because I think there may be some things in there that we would like to add by way of amendment tomorrow in this committee to match this resolution more closely to the best things, the most honorable and noble things the president has said as far as what our intentions ought to be as a country in building a coalition and as was said earlier, using force only as our last resort. That's the kind of strength I want to be remembered for, as somebody who was so powerful, they used their force only when they had to and the threat of that force helped us achieve peace.

Those are my views today and I look forward to working with you tomorrow in trying to craft a better resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo?

STATEMENT BY TOM TANCREDO
REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO

TANCREDO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there's very many other issues that I have looked at for as long as I have looked at this one, studied as much as I have studied this one and still feel as conflicted as I do about this one.

I, in a way, envy those of my colleagues who are here and have spoken so adamantly and so passionately in support of one side of this debate or the other. Apparently, they have come to that conclusion in their own mind that their position merits this very, very serious vote that they're going to take.

I do not mind telling you I am still conflicted. I, on the one side of the ledger that we keep as we listen through all of this - or at least I did here - you have to deal with a number of realities. One being that this conflict will increase the threat that exists to the civil liberties in this nation. It will undeniably move us in the direction to reduce the number of civil liberties that I believe all of us feel so strongly about. Certainly, when we are in a fight for our lives, as we are told that this is and I do, to a large extent, believe that that is true.

There will always be this balancing act we have to go through between what is the appropriate balance between individual liberty and collective security. This is a constant dilemma for us all, certainly. Not just on this issue, but many. But, certainly it highlights it when we come to this debate.

There is no way of assuring that the outcome of regime change in Iraq will be definitive in the peace process. There's no way of assuring that. We do not know. There's no one who can say what will happen after Saddam Hussein is gone. What will happen in Iraq? What will happen to the countries surrounding it? What will happen in the Middle East? We do not know and there's absolutely no way of predicting it. We can all hope and guess and hope for the best, but it is no more than that.

We worry. I worry about the establishment of a first strike precedent. This is an enormous change in our foreign policy and our policy as a nation. It is unique. There are many ramifications to this, as has been already, I think, identified by a number of my colleagues here. It's scary stuff. I don't know that all the dots have been connected for me so that we can say absolutely we are convinced that Saddam Hussein, the dot is here, the line goes over here to Al Qaida, over here to the rest of fundamentalist Islam and the threat that that poses to the United States. I don't know that those dots have been connected.

And I'll tell you the other thing that has been and is incredibly disconcerting to me and that is this, that we are placed in a situation where the action we may be about to take in Iraq will also ratchet up the incredible danger we are in in the United States. No one believes Saddam Hussein. No one believes that we will lose on the battlefield of Iraq. No one thinks so. We will win. We will certainly win on the battlefields of Iraq.

The danger is not there so much, it is there certainly, but there is even a greater danger here in the United States because, of course, our borders or porous, because the threat that will be posed to us by an increased activity level in the Middle East can hardly be ignored. How can anyone really believe -- does anyone really believe that there will not be an increased danger to the United States of people who are infiltrating into the country for the purposes of doing us great harm if we go to war in Iraq? Does anybody think that that is not a legitimate concern? And yet, I have not heard a single person mention that on their list of issues to be concerned about, because our borders are still certainly porous.

I have an amendment that I will perhaps offer tomorrow to address this if it is allowed to be offered.

Now all this on the one side of the ledger is juxtaposed against this. Do you believe the president of the United States? Do you believe in the veracity of the president of the United States? And really, almost everything that we've talked about here boils down to that. Do you believe that he would actually put men and women of this country into harm's way for any reason other than he feels in the bottom of his heart that it is absolutely necessary for the security of this nation?

There have been presidents that I would challenge that, for whom the veracity test I think...

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

TANCREDO: May I have 30 seconds?

HYDE: Without objection.

TANCREDO: I will say that in fact, I do believe that this president is truthful in his desire. I believe that what he says is true, that the danger is great and therefore, it probably outweighs everything else, but I'll tell you this, that my vote to go to war, the vote I will take as to whether or not to send somebody else's child to war is whether or not I'm willing to send mine. And that's a higher standard than I can possibly establish for anything else, I do. And so that's why it is a tough, tough vote to take.

HYDE: The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt?

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM DELAHUNT
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS

DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, when this nation was attacked last September 11th, the entire world responded with grief and sympathy and anger. I remember a headline in a French newspaper, La Monde, the next morning, which read that, "Today, We're All Americans." And from that sentiment came an international coalition to defeat terrorism. The cause was just and the evidence certainly was not in dispute. Progress has been made in the year since. You have the war against terrorism is certainly unfinished and the threat remains.

Now, the administration is asking Congress to authorize another war against the fall whose capacity and inclination to threaten the United States remain a matter of guess and conjecture. In a war, whose links to the present one are tenuous at best, for the truth is, Saddam and Al Qaida are natural enemies. One of the goals of Islamist revolutionaries is the destruction of secular Muslim regimes, such as Iraq. Regimes, which, according to their world view, have corrupted Islam and are responsible for its decline.

Now, there's no question that Iraq's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a potential threat to peace and stability. But, if that's our concern, why are we focused only on Iraq? The other two members of the axis of evil club, Iran and North Korea possess equally deadly arsenals and both are considerably further along than Iraq in the development of nuclear devices, as well as the capacity and technology to deliver them.

According to our own intelligence, North Korea already has enough Plutonium to construct one or more nuclear bombs. Now, make no mistake, Saddam Hussein has committed savage atrocities against his own people and ruthless aggression against his neighbors. But, if we are to authorize a preemptive, unilateral, military strike, the evidence should be clear and convincing that Saddam poses such a tangible and imminent threat to our interest that we must act without delay. And that he is prepared to use them in the face of our overwhelming ability and superiority.

For, it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons during the Gulf War. And when informed by Secretary of State Baker, that their use would provoke a devastating American response, he choose not to use them. Indeed, it's possible that the only time Saddam Hussein will unleash his arsenal is when he, himself, is facing annihilation with nothing left to lose. America on the other hand has a great deal to lose.

If our cause is just and the evidence is clear and compelling and there is no alternative, the American people will do what needs to be done. But, before we risk the lives of our soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians, before we divert hundreds of billions of dollars from our own pressing needs, before we risk the moral authority that historically has distinguished America among the family of nations, we must take every reasonable step to resolve this crisis short of war.

Now, President Bush took such a step before the U.N. General Assembly. His speech was a very masterful indictment of Saddam Hussein for his acts of aggression and crimes against humanity. It is my view that while the president has failed to make a convincing case for a preemptive, unilateral, American military strike; he did make a powerful case for bringing Saddam before the International Community to answer for his crimes.

During our debate it is my hope to offer an amendment urging the Security Council to establish a war crimes tribunal against Hussein and other top Iraqi officials. A dually constituted tribunal would be firmly grounded in a core democratic value: the rule of law. It would isolate Saddam and rally other nations to our side, like the Hague tribunal that is now hearing evidence against Milosevic.

It could pave the way for regime change without forcing us into a war. A war crimes tribunal would not only yield justice for Saddam's victims, but also yield a legal and moral rationale based on evidence for appropriate international response.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

HYDE: The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Paul?

STATEMENT BY RON PAUL
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak out in opposition to this resolution. Let me very briefly state what the essence of the whole resolution says and it's in Section 3 and it's 10 pages long, but it's narrowed down to two sentences. We're giving the president the authority to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

In other words, we are transferring the power to declare war to the president. He can declare the war and fight the war when he pleases and that's number one. Number two, equal to number one; enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In this bill that we're working on, they mention United Nations 25 times. They never mention Article I, Section 8,once.

I have three main concerns. One is, first, the merits of the war itself. That's been addressed rather extensively so far. The constitutional process, which I think we have totally neglected. And also, something else that we don't talk about much, but gets us to these places so often and we wonder why we're here and that is the philosophy of our foreign policy.

Lately, in dealing with this resolution we deal with the technical aspects of it. We have long forgotten about what the morally just war was all about defined more than 1,000 years ago. And I don't think this one meets up to this.

It has been stated that we're starting something historically different and I believe we are. We're institutionalizing the concept of preemptive war. We're embarking on something brand new and different. It is not part of our traditions and it's not part of our constitution.

War and a morally just war should be defensive after you've been attacked and aggression has been committed against us. Also, it should be a last resort. Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. It should be the last resort and also the legitimate authority has to be there to institutionalize the war. And I think we come up short with this.

We do not have any evidence that aggression has been committed by Saddam Hussein against us no matter how bad a guy he is and there are a lot of bad guys around the world. There is no clear-cut evidence that there's an imminent threat right now. Even Secretary Powell admits the military of Iraq is much weaker than it was 12 years ago. And so far there is nothing brand new, compared to two months ago, two years ago or even 12 years ago that says that we must send our kids over there to fight this war.

The constitutional process I think has been sadly neglected. It is very clear in the constitution and it's very clear in our history about where this power to wage war or declare war resides. And it resides in the U.S. Congress.

Now, the answer so often that I hear when I raise this is, but we've done it before. Of course we've done it before, but does that make it right? Oh, we have the war powers resolution. That permits war for 60 to 90 days. That is an illegal, unconstitutional transfer of power. If we want the president to make these decisions, the constitution should be amended and it hasn't been and that's what we're doing with this resolution. We're circumventing the constitution to allow the president to make a decision that falls on our shoulders and we're neglecting. And I think we should think about that seriously, because I think it fits into the philosophy of the last 50 or 60 years.

The last half of the last century, we did evolve our foreign policy to the point where now we have become the self-appointed world policeman. We have accepted not the foreign policy of the founders and the foreign policy of the constitution where you have a strong national defense and you defend our country while being friends and trading. But, we've involved ourselves in a tangling alliance and involve ourselves in the internal affairs of so many nations. But, now we have allowed this to happen to the point where we're responsible for everything and yet, the Congress is responsible for nothing.

Congress is there to rubber-stamp what is happening and not only are we derelict in our duty in transferring this power to the president, both the executive branch and the legislative branch are derelict in allowing this power, once again, to be transferred to the United Nations.

We should take this very seriously, because the policy of foreign intervention has a poor record. It hasn't worked very well. I believe because we have avoided the constitution in the way we declare war, we've had so many failures, we don't win wars any more and we should be very cautious to follow the rule of law.

HYDE: The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, is recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT BY GREGORY MEEKS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

MEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, the resolution we are considering today is not only important to our national security, it has implications for how we as a nation relate to the United Nations and indeed, the entire world. Implications, which can either change or reinforce many of the negative perceptions our allies and friends have about our nation; perceptions, which no amount of public diplomacy will change.

Mr. Chairman, the safety of Americans at home and abroad is my top priority and concern. It is why I supported and will continue to support all actions taken by our government to apprehend and to bring to justice all of those involved in the attack against America on September 11th. But, I fear our approval of this resolution will not result in making Americans at home and abroad safer and may even make Americans less safe in an increasingly smaller world.

What I know subsequent to September the 11th is that global cooperation with other countries, countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan and others, that because of that global cooperation, we have caught and arrested various terrorists selves who were hell-bent on destroying America and having another terrorist attack here at home.

I would argue that we're more vulnerable to non-conventional weapons today than we are to conventional weapons today. And I fear if we are vulnerable to these non-conventional weapons, that if we lack global cooperation than therefore, we will be subject to another attack in the near future.

What would we do to our allies? These countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, those countries that have become our allies who have a moderate Islamic government. We would be undermining them and allowing a stronger foothold by the fundamentalist within those governments, thereby given us or putting us and our people in greater threat. That is my belief.

But, the fact of the matter is, this Congress can pass whatever its members want to pass regardless of our international considerations. We've done it before and we're likely to do it again. But, I want all of us to remember just because we democratize and democratically authorize the administration to utilize the most powerful military in the world, does not make it legitimate in the eyes of the international community or under the current rules of international law.

The United States, no more than any other country, does not have the right to use military force to implement any human resolutions on its own. Only the Security Council can make a decision regarding what is needed to implement its own resolutions.

Congress may support the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688, but that does not mean it has the international right to do so. A congressional finding of support for the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688 does not meet the U.N.'s requirement for such action. The United States can unilaterally define what is in the national interest of the U.S. However, just because we have the power, does not mean we have the right to impose our own version of peace and security in a region any more than other nations do.

I truly hope we, as members of Congress, are prepared to address a wide range of issues, which could materialize from this resolution. I hope we are ready to comfort those loved ones who may have friends and family put in harms way to protect us from an unproven imminent threat. I hope we are ready to explain to Americans if they become less safe from the use of force against Iraq why we authorized an action that could reduce the cooperation we are currently receiving from others in the world. I hope we can explain to the world how in the name of peace and our security we authorized a use of force, which potentially could destabilize an already unstable region of the world.

I yield back.

HYDE: The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher?

STATEMENT BY DANA ROHRABACHER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

ROHRABACHER: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

This is a very serious debate. Mr. Paul raised some very important issues, constitutionally. We've had other issues raised, but let me suggest that one thing that I've heard in this debate that disturbs me is the necessity of some of our members to attack the way the president of the United States has handled this situation.

Frankly, I find it to be unconstructive nitpicking by and large what's been said here. The president of the United States has done an excellent job since 9/11 in meeting a very serious challenge to the safety of our people and our country. The president of the United States has dislodged the Taliban from Afghanistan with very few military causalities. He has sent Al Qaida running and into the hinterlands looking behind their back with very few causalities and I think he's done a terrific job since 9/11 and part of his task is to see to the long-term security interest of our country.

Now that we have been alerted to the fact that we can no longer wait, as we did two centuries ago, to be attacked before we look out for the national security interest of our country. The president of the United States has set us on a course to try to eliminate what is a horrible threat to our security and the safety of each and every one of us and our families. And that is, that we have a gangster regime in Iraq, led by a man, a monster who has murdered his own people, who has a blood grudge against the people of the United States.

This man was taken down 12 years ago or a decade ago by American troops and we didn't finish the job. And now, if he gets his chance, he will hurt us and it is ridiculous for anyone to say that we should wait until we are attacked by a man who's trying to get his hands on chemical and biological weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's absurd.

And the president of the United States sees this threat to us and I think that we should tip our hats to him and congratulate him that he's willing to take this kind of guff in order to try to see to the security of our country when it is a very real and recognizable threat.

And yes, it is the same threat we had two years ago. But, what we didn't have two years ago was a recognition by the American people that if we don't act on such threats, that their lives are in danger. So, yes, the president now has the consensus since 9/11. That's why it's different than it was two years ago. That's why we're able to act now. Congratulations to President Bush for leading us in a way that will make us safer when we rid ourselves of this monstrous threat. And it is a monstrous threat.

Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in his hands and Saddam Hussein with rocket technology that can deliver those weapons to the United States or Israel or other parts of the world, that is a threat that we can't wait to see come to fruition. We need to cut it off now and that's what the president of the United States is suggesting. God bless him for it, for his leadership and his courage.

Now, we've heard here -- and by the way, again, we hear nitpicking on the president. He's going to the United Nations that was a demand on the other side of the aisle. Have him go to the United Nations. And I happen to know the United Nations has a lot of cooks and nuts and crooks and despots in the United Nations. I don't care if he goes to the United Nations, but to go out and to meet our colleagues half way, yes, he went to the United Nations. Now, he's come to us. We demanded that he come to some sort of recognition and that is right. Our constitutional system says yes, he has to come to us for approval. That's terrific. He has now come to us. We should not turn him down. He has gone and jumped through hoops to make sure that we can conduct this operation to free ourselves from this threat in a very professional way and as I say, the nitpicking is certainly not appreciated on this side of the aisle and I would hope by many people on that side of the aisle as well.

Let me just suggest this. No one is asking anyone to go to war against Iraq or the Iraqi people. We are talking about liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, this monster who has murdered them, who holds them in an iron grip. They will be dancing in the streets of Baghdad and waving American flags when American troops and their own people come to liberate them. This is a liberation.

And I'd ask an additional 30 seconds to finish my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Without objection.

ROHRABACHER: So, the bottom line is no, we don't want disarmament because Saddam Hussein can rearm just the very next day with the very worst chemical and biological nuclear weapons. What we want is a more peaceful world. What we want is free people in Iraq and none of that will happen and we will not be safe until Saddam is gone. Saddam Hussein has to go if we are to be safe, if the people of Iraq are to be free and our children are to live lives free from the threat of the type of damage that was done to us on 9/11. We should never wait for that to happen again. Thank God President Bush is acting to see that it doesn't. Thank you.

HYDE: The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee?

STATEMENT BY BARBARA LEE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, we are confronting one of the most important questions we face as members of Congress: whether or not to wage war. Now, I am strongly opposed to this resolution, which authorizes a possible first strike against Iraq. Such an action could destabilize the Middle East and set an international precedent that really could come back to haunt us all.

President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations' charter and really our own long-term security interests. We do not have to rush to war. In fact, we really don't need this resolution. If the United States indeed faces an imminent attack from anywhere, the president already has all of the authority in the world to defend our country. The constitution gives the president the power as commander in chief to respond to an imminent attack, as does a larger body of international law, the United Nations' charter in the case of clear and imminent danger.

We have not received proof of clear, present and imminent danger. You've heard that today from many members. President Bush called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities. But, today, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the United States is now opposed to immediately undertaking inspections.

Now, we've been calling for these for months, for years and now we are resisting them. What kind of international cooperation is that? What kind of leadership is that? Now, it really doesn't take leadership to go drop bombs or go to war. It takes real leadership to negotiate and develop peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

So, I call on the United States to assume our responsibilities by working with the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. That is how we protect our country. That is how we ensure our national security.

Now, when Secretary Powell came before this committee I asked him, if Iraq had not responded with an affirmative on the return of the weapons inspectors, what would have been the United States' response and how would our strategy differ from where we are now? Secretary Powell answered that he didn't know that it would have been any different. And in fact, it really didn't matter whether or not Iraq allowed inspectors.

So, I keep asking the question: is our goal the elimination of weapons of mass destruction because they pose a potential danger or is it regime change because we oppose the Iraqi government?

Now, for all of these reasons, I have co-sponsored H-CON Resolution 473, which currently has 35 co-sponsors. This resolution calls on the United States to work with our allies to disarm Iraq through U.N. inspections and other diplomatic means. Those inspections succeeded in destroying thousands of tons of weapons in the 1990's, despite Iraq's attempts at obstruction and they can work again. But, today, we are being asked to authorize the unlimited use of force before inspections have even had a chance to succeed.

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to re-read the statement by the Congressional Black Caucasus, which was unanimously adopted and I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to insert it into the record.

HYDE: Without objection.

LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We recently held our Congressional Black Caucasus weekend and the theme was a voice for global understanding. We adopted this resolution and it says, once again, we oppose a unilateral first strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Every diplomatic option must be exhausted. 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 require a long-term commitment.

There are many questions that remain unanswered. Where is the proof the Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States? What is our objective here, regime change or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction? Where would this doctrine lead our country? How could we strike first and then claim the moral authority to tell China not to do so with Taiwan. What about India and Pakistan? What about Russia and Georgia? Is this the precedent that we want to set?

President Bush said that Iraq, Iran, North Korea, were all members of the so-called axis of evil. Will we attack Iran next, then Korea? Who will come after that? The Bush doctrine of preemption takes away our moral authority in ensuring the conflicts around the world are resolved without using the weapons of war. It sets a new and dangerous precedent. And how does this make American people safer? Are our airports safer today? Are our seaports secure? We'd better be able to answer these questions before we spend $200 billion to create a new regime in Iraq. Remember, weapons of mass destruction were not used on 9/11.

Let me just say that I believe that this path to war, this blank check to authorize a first strike will not restore peace and security. It will inspire hatred and fear and increase instability and insecurity. As General Zinni said, we need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of. The majority of the world as opposed to a unilateral first strike. Our friends and almost all of our...

HYDE: The gentlelady's...

LEE: ... allies ask us not to go down this disastrous path. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.

HYDE: Thank you.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Nick Smith?

STATEMENT BY NICK SMITH
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN

N. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I think we all agree the matter we take up today is of great importance. After more than a decade of deceit though and evasions from the current Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein, the United States and our allies are now brought to the brink of war.

By passing this resolution, we make it clear that the United States will defend itself and our allies against threats from Iraq, including the Iraqi effort to develop weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi support for terrorism. At the same time, the passage of this resolution will put Iraq on notice, I hope for the final time that it must allow comprehensive and unlimited inspections or face the consequences.

H.J. Res. 114 is entirely appropriate, number one, to encourage the United Nations' action and to get the serious attention of Saddam Hussein.

One important point should be emphasized however. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people did not choose to invade their neighbors. That was the work of Saddam Hussein. Nor did the flaunt a dozen U.N. resolutions, commit human rights abuses, fund terrorism or develop weapons of mass destruction. Free Iraqi people would not have done any of those things. The aggression and build up of weapons have happened because the Iraqi government was seized by Saddam Hussein, who has used Iraq and the Iraqi people for his own delusional purposes.

I hope to make it clear today that the United States does not consider the Iraqi people its enemy. In fact, I believe that they will be our allies against Saddam Hussein's regime as the Afghan people were our allies against the Taliban. I plan to offer an amendment today and tomorrow that would make this essential distinction clear in the text of the resolution.

This morning, I, and about a dozen other members, met at the White House with George Tenet, the Director of CIA and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor. They related classified information about what we know about Saddam Hussein's build up of chemical, biological, radiological weapons and the potential for nuclear weapons and the technology and equipment that they've been developing to deliver those weapons. It seems to me that it would be better and I've suggested to the White House to consider declassifying some of this information so the American people understand the threat of some of potential use and aggression of these weapons.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 10 years, Saddam Hussein has been eluding inspectors and continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction. Who thinks that if not for President Bush and his demand for change that the United Nations would be talking about a new tough resolution and consequences if Iraq did not comply. Who thinks that if not for this president and, if you will, a gun to the head of Saddam Hussein, that this person would be starting to suggest that inspectors could come back in.

Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty bully who has already used chemical weapons to kill Iranians and his own people. It has been said that an attack on Iraq could hurt us. That's true. But, it seems obvious that doing nothing and allowing this Iraq dictator to become even more powerful with more weapons could hurt us and our allies more in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I think what this president has done is make the world pay attention to a real threat to our humanity and to our freedom and to our liberty and I would certainly like to thank the chairman also for holding this markup today and look forward to the debate to come.

HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Hoeffel?

STATEMENT BY JOSEPH HOEFFEL
REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA

HOEFFEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for making sure this committee is considering this resolution.

We face a toxic mix in Iraq. Dangerous weapons controlled by a dangerous tyrant. From the beginning of this debate I have been convinced that we must focus our efforts to stop Hussein through the United Nations and through multinational support and that we should focus on the weapons of mass destruction and disarming Hussein.

Clearly we must rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the means of producing future weapons of mass destruction and we must impose a tough monitoring program on that country. If Saddam resists, we must be prepared for what happens the day after regime change inevitably would occur.

Accordingly, I was very concerned about the initial resolution the president sent to Congress. It gave credence to the fear that our country's first step in this crisis would be a preemptive, unilateral, military strike, which I do not and would not support in the absence of a threat of imminent danger to the United States.

The resolution was too broad, did not require the president to work through the United Nations and did not address our plans for the future of Iraq. Since then, the House and the administration on a bipartisan basis have negotiated a compromised resolution, which address many of these concerns.

I solute the president, the speaker and the minority leader for their leadership and I support the resolution.

The president has promised congressional leaders he will exhaust all options at the United Nations before taking military action. At a White House briefing this morning that the prior speaker alluded to the national security adviser and CIA director repeated those assurances.

I urge the president in the strongest terms to adhere to the letter and spirit of this resolution and exhausting the avenues open to us in the United Nations in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. In this challenge we will be strongest when we act multi-nationally. I also call upon the administration to give great thought and commitment to peacekeeping and nation building and those challenges in Iraq in the event of regime change.

There are important unanswered questions regarding post-Saddam events. Will our armed forces become an occupying army that must rule Iraq if no acceptable local government emerges? If a government does form locally, will our forces be needed as peacekeepers? How long will this last in either event and how much will it cost? What kind of rebuilding and redevelopment assistance will we offer?

Frankly, it's long past time for a modern day marshal plan in this part of the world. That marshal plan after World War II involved 14 countries, $13 billion, four years of expenditures and it rebuilt a war-ravaged world. We need to give consideration now to a modern day marshal plan that can address problems that are, frankly, much more serious and much deeper in these parts of the world. If we are serious about establishing a representative and democratic government in Iraq and other trouble spots around the world, we must address the hopelessness that people in many countries face every day. Not just the grinding poverty, not just the lack of opportunity, but day in and day out hopelessness. We must empower people through a new marshal plan and offer them hope. Hope of liberty, hope of opportunity, and hope of self-government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back.

HYDE: Thank you.

Mr. Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia?

STATEMENT BY ERIC CANTOR
REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA

CANTOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to commend you and your leadership on bringing this resolution forward today. And I'd also like to take the opportunity to commend President Bush on providing unparalleled leadership on the issue of protecting America, our people and our institutions.

Before speaking directly to the resolution, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first respond to an earlier statement made by our colleague from Georgia on the other side of the aisle. I think she posed the question: do we have different standards for different countries? My answer is an emphatic yes. Yes, we should support countries that choose democracy, that honor the rights of individuals and protect the basics of human rights. Yes, we should help and support countries, which popularly elect their governments and honor the will of their people.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we must stand up and oppose oppressive, tyrannical regimes, such as that of Saddam Hussein's. We must oppose despots to kill their own people with chemical weapons and attack their neighbors. We must stop dictators whose principal aim is a development of weapons of mass destruction to the peril of the well- being of his own people. We must remove dictators who harbor and support the international terrorist organizations, such as those responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

And on that day, Mr. Chairman, the United States was attacked. Then the war began. And to those of my colleagues posing the question: where is the imminent threat? I ask how many more innocent Americans need to die in order for the threat to be imminent?

We face an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill Americans, including taking their own lives. This enemy could not survive without the state sponsorship it receives from Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the United States. In order to win the war on terror, we must effect regime change in Baghdad.

As we consider the resolution before us, Mr. Chairman, we must consider two fundamental questions. Does Saddam Hussein have the desire to harm the United States of America? And does Saddam Hussein have the ability to carry out that objective?

In answering the first question, we must be mindful that he has aligned his regime with the world's most unsavory characters who continue to seek the destruction of freedom and democracy around the world. He has openly praised the attacks of September 11th, attempted to assassinate a former United States president and directly ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. Our national security requires us to conclude that he aims to threaten the lives of American citizens.

Saddam Hussein is an oppressive tyrant, who with each passing day increases his ability to terrorize the world with the most destructive weapons known to man. He currently has chemical and biological weapons and is actively pursuing a nuclear capability. The accumulation of these weapons is transforming Saddam Hussein from a regional threat into a global menace. Whether we act to prevent him from acquiring such weapons or act to prevent him from using them once he has them, action is required.

Although the United States is a peace-loving nation, there will never be peace and security so long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Effecting a regime change and liberating the people of Iraq is the official policy of the United States government. This resolution gives the president the authorization necessary to address this threat to our national security and carry out that policy.

I applaud President Bush for his leadership in this time of national crisis and wholeheartedly support this resolution. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: Thank you.

Mr. Blumenhauer, the gentleman from Oregon?

STATEMENT BY EARL BLUMENHAUER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON

BLUMENHAUER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate your leadership and commitment to the committee doing its job as we're doing here this evening.

Since becoming a member of Congress, I've been struck by how often there's a gap between the needs and concerns of the public and the ability of Congress to hear and give voice to those needs and concerns. I've talked to dozens of members of Congress from many states, from both parties and without exception; we're all hearing the same reactions. The people at home are asking very hard questions about the wisdom of our past actions. There is to be charitable, little enthusiasm for unilateral American action.

People suspect that part of the instability in the Middle East is the result of our past missteps and miscalculations, giving aide and comfort to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, not thinking it through fully at the front end and then walking away when our attention is diverted or we become fatigued.

People want to know what's the rush? What's changed now? And their skeptical about what appears to be political timing. The responses from constituents who bother to formally contact our offices are overwhelmingly opposed to war with Iraq. Often by ratios of 100 to 1, even 500 to 1. I think the American public has it right. We're not finished with the war on terrorism and this is highly distinct from our ongoing conflict with Iraq.

We're not yet finished in Afghanistan. President Karzai is barely the mayor of Cobble and owes his life to the American Delta Force bodyguards. It is not clear that we or the countries who supported us in Afghanistan are ready to do what it takes to finish the job there.

Indeed, we're not even finished yet in the Balkans. It's been an open secret on Capital Hill that contrary to some of the administration's formal pronouncements there's been much greater caution and skepticism from the leaders in the Pentagon. Former generals have openly declared their concerns before Congress. Some of the voices that have expressed concern and in some instances opposition have been those of distinguished political leaders in both parties, names familiar to the public. Army, Gore, Lugar, Hagel, Kennedy, but there are many more leaders whose voices may not be quite as well known and they are the voices of our colleagues who don't need focus groups and more famous politicians to validate their own deeply held convictions.

My bottom line is that no president deserves a blank check when it comes to waging war. And despite some important additional verbiage, the authorization before us is delegated to the president's unfettered judgment.

Some claim that the strong words of our president got the United Nations engaged. And I think that's probably true. And that is his job and his prerogative. Now, Congress needs to do our job. I am not opposed to the use of force. I've supported it in the past and could do so in the future. However, I don't think this is a situation where either the case has been made or the foundation established. It is terrorism that is the greatest threat to America. Inappropriate action against Iraq right now could actually expose Americans to greater risk.

I urge the leadership and the diverse membership of this committee to (inaudible) go it alone, attack on anyone we deem a threat. A unilateral preemptive strike without direct provocation is both wrong and dangerous, especially when undertaken by the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

If we can't live up to our own principles, how can we expect other countries to obey the rule of law? To respect the integrity of reasonable, strategic, diplomatic and moral position of the United States is not to imply any sympathy for Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime. There is a bipartisan consensus in Congress to work with our allies, not tell them what to do before hand, to use the United Nations, to lay the foundation for a muscular aggressive regime of effective inspections and enforcement of United Nations' resolutions.

Such an approach would be most likely to produce the results the administration wants. It's entirely consistent with where the American public is and based on the most accurate measurement, it is what we actually hear from our citizens when we take the time to listen to them.

This situation in the Middle East is the most volatile it's been in our lifetime. Iraq is but one troubling part of that equation. I hope that this can be the beginning of a new chapter of diplomacy and thoughtful action by the United States and I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lantos in helping us get there.

HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Blumenhauer.

Mr. Flake, the gentleman from Arizona?

STATEMENT BY JEFF FLAKE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA

FLAKE: I thank the chairman for its markup and for allowing all the members the opportunity to speak.

First of all, let me just say that I identify with many of the comments made by Ron Paul. I would feel more comfortable voting for a formal declaration of war. However, that is not what's on the table today. Like it or not, we're in the situation that we're in. Of course, all of us want to avoid war, but not avoid war at all costs. I think we've seen what can happen when we seek to do that.

Now, the scientific world speaks of necessary and sufficient conditions in order to bring about change. This resolution is a necessary condition to bring about change in Iraq, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Only time will tell if this is a sufficient condition. I fear that it will not be. There's nothing that's been done so far with regard to U.N. resolutions and Saddam's unwillingness to abide by them that gives me any confidence that this will be a sufficient condition. That's why this resolution is so important. It puts forward necessary conditions, but also, if those are not sufficient, we give the president the authority to go in and actually use the means of force to bring about our objective.

I applaud the president, the speaker, the minority leader and others who have sought to put this together in a way that it could bring support from the Congress. I urge support of the resolution and yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley?

STATEMENT BY SHELLEY BERKLEY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA

BERKLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing. Much of what I have to say has been said by others and said quite eloquently, but I would appreciate the opportunity to put my thoughts on the record.

Iraq, under the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has been in violation of 16 different United Nations resolutions over the past decade. Resolutions passed to ensure that Iraq dismantle its chemical, biological programs and destroy any remaining weapons of mass destruction.

Ensuring compliance with these U.N. resolutions, which represent the will of the international community, is essential. Iraq has demonstrated its willingness to use these horrific weapons in battle and against its own people. One particularly gruesome example occurred in the late 1980's when Saddam Hussein's military unleashed deadly chemical gas attacks over entire villages in Iraq, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Given Saddam Hussein's 11-year record of defying and misleading the international community, I believe the United States, its allies and the United Nations are justified in their efforts to rid Iraq of biological and chemical weapons.

Month by month, Saddam Hussein increases his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons while he aggressively works to build nuclear weapons. September 11th taught us that there are those who would use any means to harm innocent Americans.

I am increasingly concerned about weapons of mass destruction being transferred from Iraq to terrorists, like Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida network bent on attacking Americans.

The United States should seek to achieve this objective with as little risk to Americans and the Iraqi civilian population as possible. However, we must act, and act decisively to permanently disarm Saddam Hussein, because the cost of lives and misery if we don't act, will be incalculable.

It's not a matter of choosing between war and peace. It's a matter of choosing between war on our terms or war on Saddam Hussein's terms.

Before any action is taken, the president is right in seeking approval of Congress and I appreciate that and applaud that. I commend him for that. Further, it's important that we continue to make every effort to marshal international support.

The changes to the original proposal that have been agreed to by the administration have improved the original resolution. I am mindful of my duty and responsibility on this occasion and I shall be voting in favor of the resolution before us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: I thank the gentlelady.

The gentlelady from the mother of presidents, Virginia, Ms. Davis?

STATEMENT BY JO ANN DAVIS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA

JO ANN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I very rarely give opening statements, but I appreciate the patience to be able to give one on such an important matter.

Let me start by saying that from beginning I've had reservations about this decision and I share the same concerns as my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, with regards to retaliation on our own soil as well as the possibility of the state of Israel. Both I believe to be very strong possibilities.

What we're about to undertake is of monumental proportions and as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and one who represents a very heavy military district, I know all too well the effect that our decision to take military action against Iraq will have on the course of our nation, for decades, I'm afraid. However, we must move forward with this resolution against Iraq for the preservation of our own way of life. We cannot and we shall not and will not live in fear.

This decision will, however, impact the lives of our men and women who serve our nation. We must ensure them that this war will be fought swiftly, with all intents to win, to win decisively and to have a clear exit strategy. I don't take this vote lightly, because I do represent the very men and women who will leave the ports in Virginia to face evil and risk their lives for our freedom.

With all that said, Mr. Chairman, after eight or nine classified and open briefings in the Armed Services Committee and many hearings in this committee, I believe that we must move and we must act and pass this resolution and I believe we must do it now. And for that reason I will be voting yes on this resolution and I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: I thank the gentlelady.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman?

STATEMENT BY BRAD SHERMAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Saddam Hussein has killed hundreds of thousands of people. He's gassed his own people; he's risked his life several times, all in an effort to expand his power. If he had a nuclear weapon he could smuggle it in to an American city, because after all, a nuclear weapon is about the size of a person. He could hide it in an apartment and then could invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia with impunity.

We must prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The question is what resolution will best achieve that goal. I will vote for final passage of whatever resolution this committee finally agrees to, but I hope that we will come up with a different resolution than the one presented by the Chair, although as I say, I will support that if that is the final vote of this markup.

There are two approaches that can be taken to try to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons. One is what I call the Powell-Blair approach, which is to authorize the use of force, only if inspectors are thwarted. The other is what I would call the Cheney or Richard Pearl approach, which is to invade Iraq regardless of whether Saddam will allow unrestricted inspections.

I think this committee and this Congress should choose between these two approaches and authorize one of them. Instead, we have a resolution, which, while it gives some advice to the president, authorizes the president to either use the Powell-Blair approach or the Cheney approach.

Accordingly, I will introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which will differ from the chairman's mark in several respects. First, the whereas clauses will describe only the nuclear threat and other threat of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq poses. It will not mention those U.N. resolutions that call upon Saddam to treat his own people with justice and fairness. That is because we should not give as a reason for the use of force the abuse of human rights by Saddam, which will raise the question in the world, what about other countries that are not democracies or that violate human rights. We must have reasons for the use of force that relate exclusively to the weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the amendment I will put forward will authorize the use of force only if Iraq fails to promptly agree and allow an effective weapons inspection and disarmament program and/or if Iraq interferers with that program after agreeing to it. It will define an effective inspection and disarmament program as requiring immediate, unobstructed and unannounced entry into all facilities, including of course, those so-called presidential palaces.

Finally, the amendment will direct the president to seek a U.N. resolution to achieve these inspections, but it will not condition the president's authority to use force on the U.N.'s action. Because we should not endanger the security of the United States just because we cannot get France or China or Russia to vote for a particular resolution. I hope we go to the U.N. I hope we get the kind of U.N. resolution that Powell is seeking. But, we will have to act as if we have that support from the United Nations, whether we get it or not, unless we are willing to perhaps risk American cities based upon the vote of one of the other members of the Security Council.

As a matter of the technical rules of this committee, I may have to offer this amendment in the nature and substitute in two parts. One part changing the whereas clauses of the chairman's mark and the other, changing the resolved questions or action provisions of the chairman's mark. I hope to be able to present it in the interest of time to present it as a single amendment.

We need to give the president the tools necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. Those tools are to be able to go to the United Nations, to be able to go to Saddam Hussein and say either we will have the most incredibly invasive inspections program or we will use force. That is the approach I think we should take, because it will show the world that while we are anxious to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons, we are also anxious to avoid war.

The approach that I fear might be taken by this administration and one of the two approaches authorized by the chairman's mark would be to invade whether or not Saddam agrees to intrusive inspections. That approach will not have the support that we ought to get from other countries around the world...

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

FLAKE: ... nor will it demonstrate our dedication to peace.

I thank the chairman for his indulgence.

HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green?

STATEMENT BY MARK GREEN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN

GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As one of the last speakers tonight, I'd like to step back a little bit as we look at this resolution. I'd like to begin by thanking the chairman, as so many others have for this markup. I think thanks to this markup and to the hearings that we've had and the briefings that we've had, I can say, Mr. Chairman and members, that we're ready. I think we're ready for this debate today and I think we're ready to make some final decisions.

Now, in the end some of us will vote yea, some of us will vote nay, but despite those differences, I think we can all safely say that we've cast our votes after a full and healthy debate, based firmly on the best, the most complete information that we could possible have.

As so many others have said, we're about to tackle to the most difficult decision that any public official can ever make: the decision to authorize the use of military force. Of course, that's high-sounding language, but what it really means is placing people, young people, our young people in harm's way. It is a decision that weighs on every one of our hearts and one that must be treated with extraordinary caution and care.

I can confidently that I've spent the last three months preparing for this day. I've traveled to the Middle East. I've spoken with military personnel from Marine Corps corporals to Marine generals. I've heard from constituents on both sides of this issue passionately on both sides of this issue. I've been briefed, as other members have, by CIA Director Tenet, by National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice and others. I've read everything I could get my hands on and I've heard from expert after expert at the hearings that have been convened.

Mr. Chairman, like others, I've been in so many ways conflicted, but I can finally say that I feel ready to make some of the difficult decisions that our work will require. I must say, I've been surprised by the number of our colleagues on both sides of this subject who have pledged their votes before even seeing this resolution, before even getting some of the information that I've received that's been offered to us that I think is too important to ignore. This is too serious a matter for knee-jerk reactions and closed minds.

Of course, like everyone, I have my biases I have my leanings. In my view history, both decades old history and fairly recent history, shows the flaws and defects in the policy of appeasement in the face of a dangerous tyrant, a tyrant who clearly has designs on power and empire.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has routinely violated agreements, resolutions and most significantly, human rights. With this resolution it's clear that our committee is not debating peace verses war. I take issue with how some have framed this. I am for peace. We all must stand for peace. The question we debate is how we secure that peace in the long run and how we avoid having a potentially devastating attack or conflict thrust upon us.

The question is what should we do in the face of a gathering storm, a gathering threat? Some, including some here, would put their faith in diplomacy alone. Others of us who would truly like to have faith in diplomacy alone, but we cannot, we dare not ignore the history of the current Iraqi regime.

In any case, the time has come for us as committee members and members of this institution for us to use our preparation, to use our knowledge, and Lord willing, our sound wisdom and judgment to make these tough calls. I know we're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your role in making us ready. I yield back my time.

HYDE: Thank you, sir.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff?

STATEMENT BY ADAM SCHIFF
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address one question that has been central to the debate of Iraq. It is a question that has been raised in one form or another in every concern that has been expressed on the use of force and that is: is the threat to the United States from Iraq imminent enough to warrant an invasion of Iraq?

Part of the difficulty we have all had in answering this question is owned to the fact that the nature of the threat to the United States has changed. As long as we are the world's lone superpower we will never face hostile troops amassing on our borders. We are not likely to find a military colossus bent on world domination threatening our allies in Europe or attacking us in the East.

The threat we now face comes from terrorists and from states that support them. The threat comes from those who cannot be adequately contained and cannot be deterred. Even with the benefit of the hindsight we now possess, with all the intelligence we have gained since September 11th about what we knew before September 11th, we might ask of ourselves then the same question we now ask today. When, prior to September 11th was the threat from Al Qaida imminent enough to warrant an invasion of Afghanistan?

After all, we all knew that Al Qaida was a threat prior to September 11th. We knew that Al Qaida was involved in attacking American interests at home and around the world. We knew the Taliban served as host and sponsor for this terrorist filth.

Were we having this debate on September 10th over a year ago, would we have a judge that the danger from Al Qaida was imminent enough to justify military action? And yet, surely, we need not wait; we cannot wait until 3,000 Americans lie in their grave to decide that the present danger is imminent enough.

There are certain facts in my judgment that are indisputable. First, that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and is developing a nuclear weapons capacity. Second, that an inspection regime in which hundreds of acres of so-called palace grounds are off limits is no inspection regime at all. It is worse than nothing, for it gives the false impression of safety and effectiveness. Third, that Saddam Hussein will never submit to a real inspection regime without the credible threat of force. Fourth, that we cannot continue to allow Saddam Hussein to fire on American pilots. And fifth, that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons program will only grow over time and that in time he will get the atomic bomb.

The narrow question before us today is whether the threat from Iraq is imminent enough to support a resolution authorizing the use of force to compel disarmament if persuasion fails. I believe it is. And I am concerned that the failure of such as resolution at a time when the commander in chief is before the United Nations would be deleterious to our efforts to engage that body.

My support for this resolution must not be taken as an unequivocal endorsement, however, of the administration's handling of Iraq over the last year. It is not. I believe the administration must make every effort to gather support at the U.N. for a rigorous and meaningful inspections program. The administration must not go about this alone or unilaterally, but must redouble its effort to enlist the support of our allies until it is successful, as I believe it can be. The administration must change the nature of its rhetoric, rhetoric which on a host of issues has shown too great a willingness, at times an eagerness, to go it alone on a whole range of issues. A policy and a tone which has made the process of gathering international support much more difficult than it should have been.

I share the concerns expressed by hundreds of my constituents that this country not rush to establish a precedent that every country is justified in unilateral military action against all perceived threats and that the best way to distinguish our actions from other nations considering their own preemptive actions in the future is to persevere in our determination to build international support for international action.

I urge the president to go before the American people, to make the case for international action directly, as did his father. I urge him not to wait until inspections have failed or been thwarted and military action is imminent, but now, to appear before the American people and demonstrate his commitment to make every effort to enlist our allies and the United Nations in an effort to disarm Iraq peacefully, if at all possible.

I urge the administration to share the evidence with the American people of Saddam Hussein's ongoing weapons program as President Kennedy did so graphically in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And finally, I urge the president to demonstrate his commitment to the establishment of democratic institutions in the Iraq of the future.

In the end, our only true path to peace and security lies in the propagation of freedom and democracy around the world. Democracy, not oil, will be the ultimate guarantor of our future.

The germ of terrorism is difficult to eradicate completely. We will never eliminate every last terrorist. But, we can in concert with fellow democracies around the world, change the soil. The administration must embrace a broader vision, one that works to democratize the Middle East, to secure its rebirth and prosperity, a vision comparable in its breath and audacity as the marshal plan at the end of World War II. The circumstances call for nothing less.

As Lincoln once said, as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. Only then, Mr. Chairman, do I believe we can secure our nation. I yield back.

HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

And now, truly, I recognize the next person with great joy, not because she's the last of a long line, but because she always has something instructive to say.

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson?

STATEMENT BY DIANE WATSON
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

WATSON: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate and engage an exchange of views on the new compromised resolution language. You have great patience.

Debate and exchange of views are critical to the democratic process. And perhaps the greatest under pending of democracy is the freedom to question. While it is a forgone conclusion that the resolution will receive the votes to pass, I still have serious reservations about the timing and justification for the use of force against Iraq.

The resolution still gives the president wide authority to act unilaterally and preemptively. A presidential determination section has been added to the new resolution, which requires the president to certify to Congress that all diplomatic options have been exhausted and that the administration's action are consistent with the United States' ongoing war on terrorism.

I believe that the resolution must contain language that specifically calls upon the United Nations to re-impose its inspection system and that the U.S. should consider the options of the use of force preferably with the backing of the United Nations only after all deliberate measures have been taken and only after it has been established that U.N. inspectors have been hindered in their work.

It is only by working through the United Nations that the United States can establish a real justification for the use of force. Preventive or preemptive war, which is still an option for the president, in this resolution, is not sufficient justification. Moreover, it is bad and a dangerous policy. It will only alienate and isolate the United States in the world community and undermine our nation's commitment to international order and the rule of law.

I would also note that recent polls suggest that the American people overwhelming support a war against Iraq with allied backing. However, support among Americans for intervention in Iraq drops off sharply when they are asked to support unilateral action in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution and will vote against it. Not a shred of new evidence has been offered by the administration to demonstrate that Iraq is any more of a threat than it was a year ago.

When I heard the president in his state of the union speech say the axis of evil, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then it brings home that Iraq would be the first invasion, then it will be followed by Iran and then North Korea. So, we set a precedent here.

And I just have to call attention to something I saw in the nation on Monday, September 30th as it was describing a rally here in Washington, D.C. And their mantra was inspections not war. They say there's been enough killing in the past year. Killing a bunch of Iraqis won't help anything. And they also go on to say that the president has made the world less secure by asserting in a new foreign policy doctrine that the United States may strike first against hostile states developing weapons of mass destruction. They further say but we cannot have a world run by preemptive strikes. That would indeed be a world of perpetual war.

So, Mr. Chairman, I heard the word "peace" used too few times and my constituents have come to me and said no war. I have had not one request to go to war against Iraq. I have had multiple requests to discuss a peace initiative. It is time that we start that.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair for your patience.

HYDE: Thank you, gentlelady.

And without objection the committee stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.