CNS - October 7-11, 2002 - Page 6 - Congressional Record Weekly Update

			Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page

ARCHIVED MATERIAL

This page is no longer being reviewed/updated. Content is likely very out of date.

Congressional Record Weekly Update

October 7-11, 2002

Page 6

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

***************************
HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE
***************************

3) Consideration of H.Res 114, Authorization to Use Force against Iraq
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 574, I call up the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.

The text of House Joint Resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 114

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

[Page: H7190]

the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all

relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the amendment to the preamble and the amendment to the text printed in the joint resolution are adopted.

The text of House Joint Resolution 114, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 574, is as follows:

H.J. Res. 114

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons

[Page: H7191]

of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, after 17 hours of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendments printed in those House Report 107-724. Amendments in the report may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be read, and shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent.

[Time: 12:15]

After the conclusion of consideration of the amendments printed in the report, there shall be a final period of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, which shall not exceed 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee of International Relations.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 8 1/2 hours of debate on the joint resolution.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the joint resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, on September 11 those who hate freedom tried to silence the

[Page: H7192]

voices of the American people as represented by this body. But free men cannot be silenced; and so once again today, as we have almost every day since September 11, we gather in this Chamber to do the people's business.

There is no more grave responsibility that we undertake as Members of this House than the protection of our Nation and the lives of our men and women who serve that Nation in our armed services.

So today and tomorrow and on Thursday, we will as free men should, passionately, but peacefully, debate what is best for America and for our freedom-loving allies around the world. We will do in this place what the ``Butcher of Baghdad'' and the remnants of the al Qaeda hiding in bombed-out caves in far-flung places around the world hate the most, we will exercise democracy; and we will show the world how free men and women behave.

I rise in support of this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

This resolution authorizes the President to use necessary and appropriate military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to defend the national security interests of the United States and to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein has routinely ignored over the last decade. We take this step knowing that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people, to Iraq's neighbors, and to the civilized world at large.

On September 11, 2001, this Nation changed utterly. On that fateful morning, Americans woke up with the usual expectations: go to work, provide for the family, feed the children, live the American dream. Firemen, stockbrokers, custodians, police officers, office workers, all started their day, perhaps with a cup of coffee, perhaps hurrying to get to work on time.

But those plans were shattered when planes hit the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and while attempting to strike this very building and silence the voices of democracy in this very Chamber were thwarted by brave passengers over the skies of Pennsylvania. All of us lost our innocence that day.

Before September 11, we all believed that the troubles that infected the rest of the world could not impact us. We lived in a splendid isolation, protected by two vast oceans. Before that fateful day, war and disorder were distant rumblings from a far-off land. But on September 11, that distant rumbling hit New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We have a sacred duty to do all that we can to ensure that what happened on September 11 never happens in America again.

Some may question the connection between Iraq and those terrorists who hijacked those planes. There is no doubt that Iraq supports and harbors those terrorists who wish harm to the United States. Is there a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? The President thinks so; and based upon what I have seen, I think so also. Should we wait until we are attacked again before finding out for sure; or should we do all that we can to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime before they provide al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction?

Just a year ago, this Capitol building was attacked when someone mailed anthrax-laden letters to Members of Congress. We have never found the perpetrator. Was that a terrorist attack? Undoubtedly. Was it connected to al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein? We do not know. But it serves as a wake-up call to all Americans. Why do we not take the biological and chemical weapons away from this regime before we find out for sure?

For those Members who are worried about the doctrine

of preemption, let me say this is not a new conflict with Iraq. Our planes which have been patrolling the no-fly zone since the end of the Persian Gulf War pursuant to U.N. resolutions have been fired upon by the Iraqi military hundreds of times.

This conflict is ongoing, but now it has become critical that we take the next step. We know Saddam Hussein is a bad actor. We know what he did to the people of Kuwait when he invaded there. We know what he did to his neighbors in Iran when he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. We know that he gassed his own people, including women and children, to put down a rebellion. For those who argue that we must build a consensus with the United Nations, let me say that we are taking an effective action here in this Chamber to perhaps help the U.N. do what is right in their own chamber.

Earlier this century, fascist regimes in Italy and Germany routinely ignored the dictates of the League of Nations. Both Mussolini and Hitler built up their armies, invaded their neighbors and oppressed their citizens, all in the face of an ineffective League of Nations.

If the United Nations is to have relevance in the 21st Century, we must not let it go the way of the League of Nations. We must give the United Nations the backbone it needs to enforce its own resolutions. But if the U.N. refuses to save itself, and more importantly the security of its member states and the cause of peace in this world, we must take all appropriate action to protect ourselves.

Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. We must not let evil triumph. We must do something. We must pass this resolution, support the President of the United States as he works to disarm Saddam Hussein, and win the war against terrorism.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be yielded to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and that he be allowed to further allocate that time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is about to ask that the time allotted to the Democratic side of the aisle be divided equally between those Members who are in favor of the resolution and those Members who are opposed to the resolution.

This is a motion that I fully and enthusiastically support, but I would like to make the observation that while there are Members on the other side of the aisle who are opposed to the resolution, no similar request has been made to divide that time equally. If no request is made to divide that half of the time which is allotted to the debate for this resolution, then it will develop that we will have a debate dominated by those who favor the resolution because three-quarters of the time will be allocated to those Members who favor the resolution, and only one-fourth will be allocated to those who oppose the resolution.

It seems to me that this situation is inherently unfair. Therefore, I would request that the majority party also divide the time allotted to them so that half of that time may be distributed among Members who are opposed to the resolution. In that way we will have a fairer debate.

If we enter this debate with three-quarters of the time distributed to one side and only one-fourth to the other, it is obvious that the weight of the debate will be unfair going in, and that those who oppose the resolution will be facing a stacked deck. That is not appropriate or in keeping with the traditions of this House.

Now, I know a rule was passed earlier in the day, and perhaps it may have been more appropriate to make this statement or something similar to it at that time. Nevertheless, that time has now lapsed. This is the only time that is available to raise this issue and to make this request, which I make in all earnestness and all seriousness.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a resolution, the result of which is likely to cause the deaths of unknown numbers of unknown people should it prevail. This is the most serious matter that can be addressed by the Members of this free and open body. Therefore, it seems to me that this debate ought to be conducted in a free and open manner.

Allocating the time, and I believe that this is a very short time which has been allocated for this debate, it should be much longer, but given the fact that we have only this short amount of time, that time ought to be divided equally so that those people who are opposed to the resolution will have the opportunity to make their case in the same amount of time as those people who favor the resolution.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[Page: H7193]

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman's statement because it makes a very good point about fairness.

Prior to the writing of the rule, I did make some requests about getting some time because as a Republican, I have strong constitutional reservations about what we are doing, and I think they are worthwhile hearing. That was turned down. It was not written into the rule; and of course the amendment that I offered that may have offered an opportunity for me to make these constitutional points, that also was declined. But I have been informed today that I would be allowed 3 minutes to make the case for the Constitution.

I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing this up, and I hope our leadership will reconsider and allow Republicans on this side to have a fair share of the time, as the Democrats are doing.

[Time: 12:30]

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

I earnestly thank the gentleman for his efforts made today. It seems to me that the rejection of the gentleman's efforts constitutes a mistake on the part of the people who made that decision. His voice ought to have been heard. He ought to have been listened to when he asked for a proper allocation of time. He ought to have been listened to when he asked for the opportunity to present an amendment on this resolution. He was not. We now have an opportunity to rectify those mistakes.

Furthermore, the allocation of 3 minutes to defend the Constitution of the United States seems to me to be wholly inadequate and unworthy of this body. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly request that the request of the gentleman who just spoke be recognized by the majority party in this House, that fairness be honored by the majority in this House, and that they divide the time that has been given to them so that those people who are opposed to this resolution, earnestly and devoutly opposed to it, will have an equal time to express that devotion and earnestness in opposition to this resolution as those who favor it. I make that request.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is my intention to yield time to every Republican who asks for it, regardless of what side they are on. I will not discriminate between people who are for it or against it. If they are Republicans and they want time, we will give it to him or her so long as we have time; and we will allocate it as fairly as we possibly can.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that. But I would just like to make the observation that, while the gentleman's offer is made sincerely and I respect him, as I always do, and everything he says on this floor and everything that he does, I think that he is not providing the opportunity that many people in this House earnestly desire and I think the people of this country earnestly desire, and that is a fair and open exchange on the merits of this resolution.

I ask, how can we have a fair and open exchange on the merits of this resolution when those who are opposed to the resolution, regardless of what party they may belong to, are not provided the opportunity to make their case? They are only given a fourth of the opportunity, while those who favor the opposition are given three-fourths. This is inherently an unfair circumstance.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) makes a very valid point. It was my understanding by the resolution that each Member was guaranteed 5 minutes. I am not sure if I heard the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) correctly, but my understanding is that he reported 3 minutes.

I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) I think it is extremely important in this debate that even 5 minutes may not be long enough to discuss the issues of life and death. I believe the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has made a very valid point about sharing of the time, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for sharing the time.

I add my plea to the request that if we have to stay here into the weekend that this is such a vital discussion that there should be no limit and no limit on the amount of time and certainly we should equate the interests of the people of the United States with the interests of Members of the United States to be able to debate the issues of life and death in the full force and view of the American people, and it should not be limited, and certainly 3 minutes is not adequate.

I would ask that the gentleman's request and his reservation be, if the Members will, judged and judged appropriately and approved that we share the time for this enormous decision that we have to make.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me these arguments should have been made when the rule was debated. The rule has been adopted. There was testimony before the Committee on Rules. I do not know that these folks were there making the same arguments, but to make it now comes rather late in the proceedings. We will be as fair as we possibly can, but the rule has been adopted. It does not address itself at all to how much time certain Members will have depending on their attitudes towards this resolution. This concern comes too late. The rule has been adopted by voice vote.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and I thank the Chair for his forbearance and I ask an opportunity to go on for no more than another 2 minutes.

I appreciate what the gentleman said, and I recognize his sincerity. However, I believe that the House has made a mistake and that we have the opportunity now to correct that mistake and that people of goodwill recognizing the mistake will do so. That is, step forward honestly, forthrightly and correct the mistake that has been made in the context of the rule. We need to debate this issue fairly and openly, and it seems to me and I think it would seem to any fair-minded person, not just the Members of this House but any fair-minded American, that it is not possible to have a fair and open and equitable debate when the time has been so misallocated, three-quarters of it given to those who favor the resolution and a quarter for those who oppose.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about how we manage our time on this side of the aisle, but I would point out to him as a matter of fairness that the manner proposed and being followed by the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations is the only fair way to apportion time on this side of the aisle.

If, for example, the preponderance of the speakers on this side of the aisle are in favor of the resolution, to give half of the time to those in opposition of the resolution would be grossly unfair to those who favor the resolution and would have only a small portion of time with which they could express their point of view relative to a very large amount of time that perhaps 10 percent of those on this side of the aisle might choose to exercise. So the chairman of the committee is absolutely right to reserve the time.

I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his decision to apportion the time on his side of the aisle because there may be greater division over there. But the gentleman should yield to this side of the aisle to determine how we will apportion our time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I understand what the

[Page: H7194]

gentleman is saying, and I appreciate it, but again I appeal to the House because I believe a mistake has been made.

A small amount of time, in my view too small amount of time, has been allocated to this debate. This is a matter of such utmost seriousness which involves issues of life and death as well as the interpretation of this body of the United States Constitution and the division of powers between the executive and legislative branches, so much so that to provide such a small amount of time is unreasonable and unwarranted in this case. We have the opportunity to provide as much time as we want. We do not have to limit this debate to 2 days. We can give it much more time than that. In that context, again, it seems to me that if we are going to have a fair and open exchange of views on this issue, it is essential that those people who are in opposition to the resolution have as much time as those who are in favor of it.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to suggest to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, should the allotted time be insufficient to deal with this issue, in the event some Members feel that they have not had an opportunity to express their views, I want to serve notice that I will request under unanimous consent to extend the debate.

I think this is a significant historic debate. No Member of this body should be deprived of the opportunity to express his views. So I want to assure my colleague that, should the initially allotted time to both sides prove insufficient, it is the intention of this gentleman to request additional time so that every Member will have an opportunity to express his or her views.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate that sentiment on the part of the gentleman. I know that he is sincere. However, if that procedure is to be adopted, we ought to have a vote on it now. Now is the time to make that decision, because I do not know that at some point in the future the gentleman may change his mind or at some point in the future he may not be recognized or some other event might intervene between now and then. I think that that decision ought to be made now.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that a decision should be made now. We do not know whether the allotted time is sufficient or not. If the allotted time is not sufficient, I can assure the gentleman I will not change my mind and I will request an extension of time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the House's attention to section 2 of the rule which says, ``It shall be in order for the majority leader or his designee, after consultation with the minority leader, to move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended. Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.''

So this extension of time is provided for in the rule, which has already been adopted, and if and when the occasion arises I will do everything in my power to facilitate extending the time so nobody is muzzled or gagged in this Chamber.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiment, and it is not my belief that it is the intention of the leadership of this House to muzzle any individual Member. My point is that we are debating an issue of such profound seriousness with such vital life and death implications, both for individual human beings, Americans, Iraqis and others, as well as the life of the Constitution of this country that we ought to do this in the most open and fairest way; and it is my contention that the rule governing this debate is neither open nor fair under those circumstances.

It is further my contention that this body possesses the ability to change that rule and to provide the Members of this House with an opportunity to engage in free and open and unfettered debate on an issue which is the most critical that one may contemplate as a citizen of this country and as a Member of this House.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, could we ask for regular order on this?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is the gentleman asking for regular order?

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) that 4 1/4 hours of his time be allocated to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a Parliamentary inquiry. I want to ask if it is appropriate to request an extension of the time allotted for this debate in accordance with the rules.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recognize the managers of the joint resolution as assigned by the special order adopted by the House for that purpose at this time.

The gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS) is recognized on his time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have any problem on our side of the aisle. I have asked unanimous consent to yield half of the time I control to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) who, during the deliberations of the Committee on International Relations, voted no on the resolution; and he is the highest-ranking Member on the Democratic side to vote in such a manner. We are perfectly satisfied with time allocation on this side.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to restate my position for the record. I believe that the House is proceeding improperly. I believe that the allocation of time is wrong, unfortunate and does not provide for an equitable debate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend?

Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) yield at this point in time to the gentleman from New York?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we now need to proceed with the debate. I do not yield.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.

[Time: 12:45]

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

Mr. Speaker, today we begin a great debate, whether to grant our President the authority to use armed force against the threat posed to our Nation by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

All of us who engage in this debate are patriots. All of us are deeply committed to safeguarding our national security, to promoting peace, and to waging war only as the very last resort. All of us weigh our words and cast our vote in accordance with the dictates of our conscience; and we are, therefore, deserving of each other's respect.

Some argue that the outcome of this debate is predetermined. It is not. Although the language of this joint resolution may undergo little change and its passage is all but assured, the level of support it will command is far from certain.

Will this debate demonstrate to the world this Nation's steadfast resolve, or our lingering doubts? Will it solidify our national unity, or expose national divisions? The answers to these crucial questions are far from predetermined.

It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in strong support of this historic resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

In managing this debate with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE), I am committed not only to passing this joint resolution, but to securing for it the broadest possible support; for I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is through a strong show of support for this joint resolution that war can best be avoided.

Against such an implacable foe as Saddam Hussein, peace can only be achieved through strength, the strength of conviction as much as the strength of arms. It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our resolve and of our ability that peace becomes possible.

The strategic importance of this vote is undeniable, Mr. Speaker. We do not

[Page: H7195]

have the luxury of considering this issue in splendid isolation. The whole world is watching, and it will measure the resolve of the United States by the outcome of this debate. Let the People's house seize this opportunity to lead.

Mr. Speaker, in debating this issue, I am haunted by history. As a young man resisting the Nazis in my native Hungary during the Second World War, I experienced firsthand the ravages of both air and ground war. The murderous shriek of dive bombers, the thunderous rumbling of panzers still reverberate in my memory. I know all too well the painful human costs of war, the lives lost, the families broken, the homes destroyed, the dreams shattered. I abhor war in the way only a survivor and the grandfather of 17 can.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the costs of war are great, the costs of inaction and appeasement are greater still. Had the United States and its allies confronted Hitler earlier, had we acted sooner to stymie his evil designs, the 51 million lives needlessly lost during that war could have been saved. Just as leaders and diplomats who appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938 stand humiliated before history, so will we if we appease Saddam Hussein today.

To grasp the consequences of our choice, I urge my colleagues to consider two futures: first, imagine a future in which Iraq continues to build its arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Wielding such weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein not only assures his own survival, but rises to preeminence in the Arab world. Within Iraq, Saddam intensifies his brutal repression of the Iraqi people and crushes all internal opposition.

Beyond Iraq, Saddam Hussein seizes new territory, intimidates his neighbors into submission, and blackmails the United States and our allies. At the same time, terrorists sharing his anti-American hatred find refuge and resources under his wing.

Now, I ask my colleagues to imagine a different future based on the alternative that Saddam Hussein is disarmed, is discredited, and falls from power. With strong material and moral support from the United States and the entire international community, Iraq could emerge as a beachhead of democracy and a beacon of hope in the Arab world. The Iraqi people are freed from the yoke of repression and Baghdad reclaims its greatness as a center of enlightened learning. And the Middle East emerges from the dark shadows of Saddamism.

The choice is clear, Mr. Speaker. We must not allow Saddam's forces of repression to triumph over the forces of liberation. We must not allow tyranny to triumph over freedom. We must not allow fear to triumph over hope.

Although the choice is clear, Mr. Speaker, the course we may be forced to take is not easy. Despite our best efforts, the United States may be forced to act without the unanimous consent of the international community. Let me remind ourselves that in 1981 the Israelis attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Although the strike was condemned by contemporaries, it is now applauded by history.

If Congress provides only tepid support for this joint resolution, fear may indeed triumph over hope. Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly seize upon U.S. indecision to divide the international community, to evade inspectors and to continue his deceptions while pursuing his clandestine weapons programs unabated. Weakness in the face of this mounting threat only plays into Saddam Hussein's grand strategy.

Many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear that the President seeks to implement a new and untested doctrine of military intervention in Iraq. They fear that a dangerous precedent will be set should we authorize the use of force. I disagree.

It is not the application of the doctrine of preemption we are considering here. We are dedicating U.S. power and prestige to upholding, not challenging, international law. We are devoting our efforts to strengthening, not weakening, the international system. Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are the international outlaws breaking their obligations while suppressing their own people.

Others of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear the implications of the United States acting without the blessing of the United Nations. But let us recall 1998, when we were confronted with a similar challenge to the international order, but the United Nations remained divided. To prevent genocide in Kosovo and strategic instability in the Balkans, President Clinton led the United States and our NATO allies to victory against Milosevic.

Today the people of Kosovo live in peace, Serbia holds democratic elections, and in the Hague, Milosevic stands on trial for war crimes.

Mr. Speaker, for many of the same reasons our Nation acted in Kosovo, today we must act in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Iraqi people is a crime against humanity. His stubborn defiance of the United Nations is an affront to the civilized world, and his diabolical drive to develop weapons of mass destruction is a danger to the United States and to world peace.

Let us be clear. We seek to preserve peace, not to provoke war; we seek to maintain international order, not to disrupt it. In doing so, we seek the support of our friends and allies.

I support the President's decision to challenge the United Nations to enforce the Security Council resolutions Iraq has flagrantly and repeatedly violated. If the U.N. seizes this opportunity, it could prove to be its finest hour. The joint resolution before us is the best assurance that the international community may indeed rise to this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein represents the antithesis of freedom and is the principal antagonist in a struggle unfolding in the Middle East; and the United States, I believe, is destined to be a principal protagonist in this struggle. The great debate we begin today represents the opening act of a drama that promises to define the 21st century.

Each of us was elected to engage in just such a debate. Only in a democracy are the people, through their chosen representatives, entrusted with their own security. Only in a democracy must the protectors answer to those they protect. Only in a democracy must the Commander in Chief come to Congress in exercising military power. Debating war and peace as we do this day is the essence of democracy.

Many different views will be heard during the course of our debate. Let no one, Saddam Hussein especially, confuse debate with disunity. The ability to debate freely, but unite ultimately, is the hallmark of democracy. It is a source of strength, not of weakness.

Mr. Speaker, in debating this joint resolution, I urge all of my colleagues to consider the consequences of our decision. They will be felt far beyond the confines of this Chamber. Should we unite in strong opposition to Saddam Hussein, history will reward us. If we fail to do so, history will haunt us. A future of hope, or a future of fear hangs in the balance. I am confident that we shall make the right choice.

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

[Time: 13:00]

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who did not give an opening statement but rather contributed to the literature of freedom, a remarkable statement and worth keeping.

Sixty-six years ago, on March 7, 1936, a brutal dictator who had terrorized his own people and instigated religious and ethnic persecutions on a massive scale declared his aggressive intent against his neighbors in a stream of gutter writings dating back a decade and a half and rearmed his country in defiance of solemn treaty obligations. He then flagrantly violated yet another international obligation by militarily reoccupying a portion of his country that had been demilitarized by international agreement.

His democratic neighbors said nothing.

Free men around the world did nothing, except protest weakly. The dictator, who may have been mad but who was certainly no fool, took those empty words of protest as further signs of the free world's weakness and fear.

The League of Nations did nothing.

Nine years and more than 40 million deaths later, the price of failing to confront aggression before the bombs started raining down on Europe had become horrendously clear. Hitler had

[Page: H7196]

been allowed to turn Europe into a slaughterhouse because free men had failed to stop him before he set loose the greatest war in human history. That the Holocaust was permitted to occur stands as a permanent reproach to the civilized world.

Millions of innocents died because the free world lacked the will and the courage to face a brutal dictator's manifestly aggressive intentions, his burgeoning weapons capabilities, and his gross violations of international law.

Does this scenario, does this failure to recognize that evil intentions plus destructive capability plus unscrupulous wickedness equals clear and present danger, sound familiar? It should. And not from the history books, but from the morning newspaper.

We are faced today with a situation whose analogies to 1936 seem all too clear. An aggressive dictator has once again willfully and repeatedly defied the basic norms of international law. Having terrorized his own people into submission, Saddam Hussein has rearmed his country and feverishly sought weapons of mass destruction. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that he wants those weapons for anything but aggression. Does any sane person looking at this man's record over the past 2 decades imagine that he will be deterred by reason or by moral suasion?

We have spent more than a decade trying, without any success, to enforce Saddam's pledges to disarm. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried sanctions. We have tried inspections. We have established no-fly zones. We have run out of options.

In 1980, he attacked Iran and initiated a decade of warfare that killed and wounded over 1 million people, a conflict that included his use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait and imposed a brutal occupation on that country, laying waste to everything within reach when his forces were finally driven out. He has indiscriminately used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in his own country, and he has slaughtered any who dared oppose him.

Given this record, there can be no doubt that, once armed with weapons of even greater destructive power, he will have little reluctance to use them.

In a world of modern technology, the first strike might well be the last strike. If those who flew hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had nuclear bombs instead of airplanes as weapons, do we doubt they would use them? We would then be mourning 3 million deaths, not 3,000.

Permitted to acquire and deploy even more lethal weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein will use those weapons; and he will use them against us and against our allies. Some of us demand a smoking gun before we will approve the use of force. We may well get a smoking city like Hiroshima in place of a gun.

He must not be allowed to gain those nuclear capabilities. We cannot afford another reoccupation of the Rhineland, another gross failure to enforce the basic norms of international order, this time, in a world of weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, because the world simply cannot permit this man to obtain usable weapons of mass destruction.

If the international community is so feeble as not to see that this man's threat to peace, justice, and freedom must be confronted boldly and decisively, then the United States and those allies who will stand with us must do the job for our own safety's sake and in defense of the minimum conditions that make a civilized world possible.

The menace posed by Saddam is undeniable, but we are confronted with an even greater danger. Despite clear and repeated warnings, it appears much of the world does not understand that we have entered a wholly new and increasingly perilous era, one with new and harsher rules.

Through repeated usage, the term ``weapons of mass destruction'' has become almost banal, but the unimaginable destructive power these represent requires our constant focus and the determination to do what we must to defend ourselves.

The problem is not merely that a murderous tyrant such as Saddam may be in possession of these weapons. In the aftermath of September 11, we must accept that he has been joined by many others of an even more fanatical purpose. Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence. Their possession of weapons of mass destruction must be equated with a certainty that these will be used against us.

We cannot shield ourselves with hope. We must not guess the world into annihilation.

For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render our actions.

I believe that is the wrong debate. We all agree that these are desirable things, and we should do all in our power to secure them. I believe the President and his administration have done and are doing just that.

But the real question, the one which should occupy us, is one of far greater consequence: On whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours, or do we share it with others? Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others?

I believe there is only one answer. We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves with our friends and allies, if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we condition our faith on the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail.

For more than half a century, whatever safety and security has existed in this world has been there largely because America has been unafraid to act against threats and to act alone, if necessary. The perception that we are resolved to do so has prevented many assaults on that security and continues to do so today.

On many occasions we have been joined in our efforts by our friends and allies; and, more rarely, we have enjoyed the world's approval. But often we have not, and still we acted.

If we are to have a chance of averting conflict in Iraq, a simple resolve on our part will not be sufficient. For the great danger we face with Saddam is ambiguity.

Saddam has often miscalculated in the past. His flawed judgments have resulted in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. For that reason, any ambiguity regarding our course of action and our determination to act alone if need be risks yet another miscalculation on his part and a false grant of safety to call our bluff.

Vigorous debate in our deliberations is not only desirable, it is essential. The question before us demands it. But the result of that debate cannot be to condition our actions on the approval of others, for we might wait and wait and wait for an approval that may never come.

We must remember our debate here today is not for ourselves alone and that our audience is not confined to this Chamber. The world is watching. The allies are watching. Our enemies are watching. Saddam is watching.

They are looking for signs of indecision in our resolve, searching for a fatal sign of weakness that will come from binding ourselves to act only in concert with others. The voice of indecision would cut through any wording in which we might attempt to secrete it, however artfully phrased and cleverly contrived we might render it.

We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger confronting us. All of our choices are difficult, but our only real option is to act.

Over a century ago, in another conflict, Abraham Lincoln said, ``We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.''

A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only because we were there to rescue her. But there is no one to rescue us.

[Page: H7197]

We cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If we are not prepared to defend ourselves and to defend ourselves alone, if need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakeably resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to be purchased, no refuge to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President. I do so not simply because he is a good, honest, intelligent man who happens to be the leader of my party. I support the President because he is right, strategically, politically, and morally right. In the autumn years of my long life, I do not intend to see the free world repeat the errors it made when I was a teenager, errors that extracted an unfathomable cost in blood and treasure. I do not believe my country wants to be a party to appeasement.

We cannot defend America, we cannot build a world of peace, order, justice, and freedom by hope alone. The statesmen of the 1930s tried to secure the peace by hopes alone. They failed, and the results are with us still. We cannot repeat their failure. We must not. History will not forgive us another failure of imagination and will.

I propose there is a reason why you are here today and I am here today. That is because providence has burdened us with the terrible decision of what is best for America. I propose what is best for America is to support our President.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his powerful and brilliantly reasoned statement.

[Time: 13:15]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be allocated to my good friend and our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and that he may be permitted to control that time and yield it to others.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

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

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

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for equally dividing his time.

Mr. Speaker, this signal from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), although he very strongly supports this resolution, and we have heard his eloquence as he has, in so many instances done, and his position is clear, and given the respect that we have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a survivor of the Holocaust, a person who stands for fairness, that he would yield 50 percent of his time so other voices could be heard is simply another example of the character of the gentleman from California. With that, I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very difficult decision to make here. We will be watched by the world. I think that the strength of America is that people can have different opinions. In my opinion, that does not weaken our cause. We come out as strong as Americans with our diversity. We are the most diverse Nation in the world, and we are the strongest; so I think that it is important that dissenting voices be heard.

First of all, let me say from the outset that I oppose a unilateral first-strike attack by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on our soil. The President's resolution does not prove that the United States is in imminent danger of attack, and we in Congress have received no evidence of such an imminent and immediate threat.

If the United States is in fact in danger of immediate attack, the President already has the authority under the Constitution, the War Powers Act, the United Nations Charter, and international law to defend our Nation.

A unilateral first strike would be codified in this resolution. The fact that it could set an example for potential conflicts between India and Pakistan, between Russia and Georgia, between China and Taiwan, and many other corners of the world is something that we have to be concerned about.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. House Joint Resolution 114 is not a declaration of war, but it is a blank check to use force without moral or political authority of the declaration of war that, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did on December 8 to begin World War II.

Every diplomatic option must be exhausted. This resolution authorizes the potential use of force immediately, long before diplomatic options can be exhausted or even fully explored.

Other governments, including France and Russia, have proposed a two-step process in which the world community renews vigorous and unfettered inspections. This resolution, however, is a one-step process. Rather than letting the United Nations do its work to seek out and destroy weapons through inspections, it places immediate force on the table.

A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Middle East region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities. The President's resolution authorizes all of these outcomes by authorizing and codifying the doctrine of preemption.

This resolution can unleash all these consequences: destabilization of the Middle East; casualties among U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens; a huge cost, estimated at between $100 and $200 billion; and a question about our own domestic priorities, with such a cost looming over our heads.

Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would require a long-term commitment. Experts tell us that the United

States might have to remain in Iraq for a decade. Such a commitment would drain resources for critical domestic and international priorities. Failure to make such a commitment would leave another post-intervention disaster scene.

We still have the commitment that we were making to Afghanistan, where we said we would rebuild schools and we would repair roads and we would build water treatment plants to bring water out for the people there. We have been unable to do that in Afghanistan; however, now we are moving to Iraq.

Many have even suggested that Iran is more of a threat to us than Iraq. They are more advanced in their weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, is our next attack on Iran; after Afghanistan, Iraq and then Iran?

So many people have spoken recently, and we have heard many calls from our constituents. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion. Vice President Al Gore began it several weeks ago when he raised a question on the first resolution that was proposed by the President.

We heard Senator Kennedy state that al Qaeda offers a threat he believes more imminent than Iraq. The Senator also underscored that our first objectives should be to get U.N. inspectors back to the task without conditions. Only when all responsible alternatives are exhausted should we discuss military action, which poses the risk of spurring a larger conflict in the Middle East. Furthermore, Senator Kennedy correctly observed one's view on how to handle the situation in Iraq is not a reflection of one's loyalty to the United States.

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

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

Our own Representatives, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), went to Iraq to see firsthand. They support unfettered, unrestricted weapons restrictions and said, let us give that an opportunity.

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

[Page: H7198]

Last night, Senator Byrd had strong observations about this and questioned whether at this time it is a time for us to move into the Iraq situation possibly unilaterally.

All of these opinions and observations bear testimony to the belief that the United States should confront the evidence on Iraq directly and should make decisions based from a broad base. I concur with many others who believe that we must work cooperatively with the United Nations, both to foster collective action and to reinforce the strength and sanctity of the United Nations Security Council.

I strongly believe that unfettered inspections must resume promptly in Iraq and that Iraq must allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to carry out their responsibilities. This and a full range of diplomatic efforts need to take place before we can conclude that military action is warranted.

Therefore, in conclusion, we must keep our eyes on the main objective, that of countering terrorism and working with others to ensure that this world will be a better place tomorrow for our children than it is today. This calls for cooperation, communication, consensus, and careful calculation.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that, in this debate or any other, it is inappropriate to refer to individual Senators, except as provided in clause 1 of rule XVII.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the threats posed by Saddam Hussein are real. As President Bush forcefully said last night, we refuse to live in fear.

Only a few of us can remember the threat posed by an evil man a few generations back, a man by the name of Adolph Hitler. A lot of us in those days were discussing whether Hitler was a real threat. No, he is not very dangerous, they said. We do not need to worry about him.

All of a sudden, he wanted Alsace-Lorraine, and he took it. The world said, They are mostly Germans, so it is really not a big deal. A little while later he took Austria. Everyone said, you know, They are Germans, too. Then he took Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Again, the world said, They are mostly Germans, as well. We should not worry a great deal about that.

Then Hitler took Czechoslovakia. A fellow named Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, joined the world leaders and created a settlement which Chamberlain declared would bring peace in our time.

Not long afterwards, Hitler decided that he wanted Poland, so he and Stalin cut up Poland. As a result, 51 million people died throughout the war, and some of them were my classmates. I do not know how many people could have been saved if Britain and France had shown the leadership that it was necessary to stop Hitler at the Alsace-Lorraine, but I am sure it would be a lot less than 51 million.

I do know this: we are in a similar position today, and we need to show the leadership that was lacking in World War II. I hope we are assisted by the United Nations in these actions. I hope that this resolution will give the U.N. a backbone to step up and speak out.

While I will vote for this resolution, I also have a personal problem and a great deal to worry about. I have grandchildren who are young men, bringing forth the possibility that they could become involved in this potential conflict; so I have not arrived at this decision without a great deal of thought.

Many times, because we have been lacking in leadership in this world, millions of people have been killed before someone decided to take preemptive action. We must and we will support President Bush in his request of this Congress to give him the authorization to use force.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we face a toxic mix in Iraq: dangerous weapons controlled by a dangerous tyrant. From the beginning of this national debate, I have felt strongly that we must act through the United Nations, in concert with our allies, and with multinational support, and focus on the weapons of mass destruction and disarming Hussein.

Clearly, we must rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction and the means of producing new weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam resists and regime change thus occurs, we must be prepared for what happens next, the very next day.

Accordingly, I oppose the initial resolution the President sent to the Congress. It gave credence to the fear that we would, as a first step, act in a preemptive unilateral military strike, which I would not support and do not support in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States. That resolution was too broad, did not require the President to work through the U.N., and did not address our plans for the future of Iraq.

Since then, the House and the administration, in a bipartisan manner, have negotiated a compromise resolution that addresses many of those issues. I support the resolution now. It strikes a good balance between urging a multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend our citizens.

The President has promised congressional leaders he will exhaust all options at the U.N. before taking military action. At a White House briefing I attended last week, the National Security Adviser and the CIA Director made the same assurances.

The resolution, even with this balancing and moderating language, still represents a grant of broad military authority to the President, broad authority for the President to wage war. The question is, Do we trust the President's judgment to use this authority wisely? This President came to office without much background in foreign policy and without much apparent interest in foreign policy. The President's initial steps in foreign relations were an isolating brand of unilateralism that told the world that America would thrive if we acted alone in our own interests.

Then came 9-11 and the President changed his policies, and I am glad he did. In the war on terror, the President resolutely has led this country, skillfully assembled the international coalition against terror, and has made necessary and appropriate use of America's military power.

[Time: 13:30]

Presidential historians argue and teach that presidents grow fond of foreign and military exercise of power because they can more readily make things happen than in the domestic arena, and I think this President is no different. President Bush has clearly come to relish the exercise of American power on the world stage, and he deserves the strong public and congressional support generated to date by his policies against terror. I hope and pray the President also understands and respects the need for restraint in the use of America's awesome military power. I hope his judgments will be sound.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President in the strongest terms to adhere to the letter and spirit of this resolution in exhausting all diplomatic options in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. But the use of American military power alone will not meet all of our challenges. We must be prepared for the challenges of nation building, prepared for challenges of peacekeeping. We must be prepared for the redevelopment of Iraq and other trouble spots around the world where people not just have to deal with the grinding poverty and the lack of day-to-day opportunity but they have to deal with day-in, day-out sense of hopelessness.

We must consider the demand for a new, modern-day Marshall Plan to address the development needs, the food and educational needs, the hope that people must have to lead to democracy and self-government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 114, an important historic

[Page: H7199]

resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The distinguished chairman of our House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we thank him for his leadership in bringing this critical resolution before the House today. I also want to express our appreciation to the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his staunch support of this resolution.

Since expelling U.N. inspectors from Iraq, Saddam Hussein has had 4 years in which to rebuild and rearm his country's weapons stock piles. It is imperative that the united front takes this threat seriously and takes preventive action against the tyranny of the Iraqi government to disarm before any of the events of September 11 are repeated. Accordingly, I fully support President Bush's ongoing efforts to demand Iraqi compliance with all previously adopted U.N. resolutions.

Saddam's continued breaches of these U.N. resolutions constitutes a real threat to our Nation and to our interest in the region, a threat that we can no longer ignore. Yet, in the same fashion that we have responded to Saddam Hussein's continued threats, we must be fully committed to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified and a democratic state in the event of a military strike that topples Saddam Hussein.

President Bush has characterized Iraq as part of an ``axis of evil'' and has identified the key threat from Iraq as its development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential for Iraq to transfer those elements to terrorists.

We all know that Iraq has worked to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction programs in the 4 years since the U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. We know, too, that Saddam is using mobile facilities to hide biological weapons research and even had placed underground some weapons of mass destruction; and there is a growing belief that in a few more years Iraq is going to be able to develop a nuclear weapon, if not sooner.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own people, the Kurds, and against Iraq's neighbors in Iran. Moreover, Iraq did not hesitate in 1991 to send Scud missiles to strike at the very heart of Israel. Even if U.N. weapons inspectors return to Iraq, there are no assurances that Iraq is going to become free of weapons of mass destruction. The threat to our Nation's national security interest remains and, hence, this legislative need to provide President Bush with a maximum amount of flexibility to respond to this crisis.

In summation, no other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein's record of waging aggressive war against its neighbors; of pursuing weapons of mass destruction; of using weapons of mass destruction against its own people and other nations; of launching ballistic missiles at its neighbors; of brutalizing and torturing its own citizens; of harboring terrorist networks; of engaging in terrorist acts, including assassination of foreign officials; of violating his international commitments; of lying and cheating and hiding weapons of mass destruction programs; of deceiving and defying the express will of the United Nations over and over again.

As our President has noted in his recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly recently, ``In one place, in one regime, we will find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms.''

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to lend their full support to H.J. Res. 114, authorizing the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq.

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

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

Our Nation faces a monumental decision, one that could drastically change our lives, harm our national security, and one that could forever shatter the fragile stability that we have carefully rebuilt since September 11.

Thomas Jefferson once said, ``War is an instrument entirely inefficient towards redressing wrong and multiplies, instead of indemnifying, losses.'' Multiplies, instead of indemnifying, losses.

We are told this war, this invasion of Iraq, will right the wrongs that Saddam Hussein has created. We are told that this war will help end the evils of terrorism. And we are told that this war will bring peace and regional stability to the Middle East.

I do not share that view.

We have to be cognizant of what this war will unleash upon the world. I have never in my 30 years of public life and 26 years of serving here seen the world community so fragile. It is a tinderbox, and a hair trigger waiting to go off could unleash the violence that we all seek to avoid.

I am not ready to alter the course that we have taken since our founding to embrace the preemptive strike doctrine. If we strike first, what kind of message does that send to the tinderboxes of Pakistan and India, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea? Are we prepared to strike first in Iran, in North Korea? Where does it end? The broader global implications will be grave.

Second, I am not ready to act unilaterally and in potential defiance of the United Nations Security Council. Because, by going it alone, what signal do we issue by tossing aside diplomacy? What sirens do we set off by ignoring the rest of the world?

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends.'' And yet here we are thrown headlong into a decision that could cost thousands and thousands of American men and women their lives, could put our personnel in embassies all over the globe in harm's way, in danger, could unleash another round, another decade of untold suffering among innocent Iraqis, and we are told that we have no other choice.

By rushing into war, we alone will bear the burden of seeing this conflict to its blood end, most likely in the streets of Bagdad among innocent families and U.S. troops engaged in door-to-door combat. By rushing into war, we alone will be responsible for splintering the international coalition that has been built to fight the imminent threat posed by the terrorists, al Qaeda. And by rushing into war we alone will fuel far more extremist passions against the United States, a whole new generation of terrorists bent on our demise.

It will strain our military. It will cost us tens and tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will erode any cooperation from Arab and Muslim nations in tracking down and neutralizing the remaining al Qaeda cells.

Instead of fighting a war against terrorism, we will have the potential instead of fighting the war against a quarter of the world. I am not ready to support a resolution that could take American people down that road. The sabers continue to rattle, the war drums pound louder every day, and it is quite clear that many people here believe that preparing for war ensures that it will truly happen.

I know that, as we talk of the enemy and of war, it is not popular to talk of the suffering of the other side. Our enemy here is Saddam Hussein and his brutal regimes, not the Iraqi people. Little discussion is being devoted to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, a challenge that the American people will understand eventually and a challenge that we have a moral responsibility to deal with, regardless of victory.

No one wants to talk about that. No one wants to put a price tag on it, but it is there. And while we may not know about it in this country, I assure you that the people in the Arab world know about it, the people in Central Asia know about it.

They know about the 500,000 children who have died prematurely since the end of the war because of U.S. sanctions. They know of the 50,000 children who die prematurely each year because of sanctions. They understand because of depleted uranium attached to the bombs that we dropped on Iraq during the last war the leukemia rate and the cancer rate and the lymphoma rate of 10- and 12- and 13-year-old children have increased 100 to 120 percent.

I saw those children not a week ago in hospitals. I talked to those mothers who cannot feed their children because of the protein deficiency in their diet which has caused 25 percent of the children born in Iraq to have low birth weight. I have talked to doctors who have delivered babies who have said to me, The mothers used to say to me

[Page: H7200]

when the child was born, is it a male or a female? Now they say to me, Is it normal or abnormal?

The costs are already been horrendous, and the question we have to ask ourselves is, is there not another way? I believe there is. Vote against this resolution.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Appeasement does not work. The chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), spoke just a few minutes ago and he talked about what happened in the 1930s and how 40 to 50 million people died because of appeasement.

Nobody wants war. But what my colleagues failed to mention, the previous speaker, is that we are at war now, right now. Has anyone forgotten that we lost over 3,000 people on September 11 last year? There are al Qaeda cells and terrorist cells in the United States and around the world that want to do us ill.

Saddam Hussein is part of that terrorist network. We all know that. He has used chemical weapons on his own people, chemical weapons on the people next to him, killing tens of thousands of people. He has used Scud missiles. He has violated every U.N. agreement he has signed, and he has been shooting at our airplanes in a no-fly zone. Does anyone doubt his intentions?

Now, what are we to do about that? Are we to wait for another attack on America where maybe 10 or 20,000 or hundreds of thousands of Americans might die? Or do we take preemptive action?

I think if everybody thought very seriously about this, they would realize that we have to preempt Saddam Hussein and the terrorist network that he is a part of.

[Time: 13:45]

Do we preempt him or do we react? Do we react after the fact, after we lose 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 or 100,000 people?

Our responsibility in this Chamber and in this government is to protect American citizens, to protect our democracy, our freedoms and our rights; and if we do not take the right actions now, we will suffer the consequences later.

Let me just tell my colleagues, we have a chance now to avoid more carnage in America; and the only way to do it is to send a very strong signal to the terrorist network around the world that we mean business, that we are not going to appease them, and if they mess with us, we are going to take them out; and the first target ought to be, and I believe if President Bush has his way will be, Saddam Hussein.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Until September 11, we knew what the dangers were, but we chose to ignore them. We knew Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and had biological weapons. We knew that al Qaeda had killed hundreds at our embassies in east Africa. We knew of these dangers, and we did not act.

On September 11, the dangers did not change. America changed. We now look seriously at these threats, and we know that our victory in the Cold War does not immunize us from future danger.

Saddam Hussein has killed hundreds of thousands. He has gassed his own people. He has risked his own life many times, all in an effort to expand his power.

If he had nuclear weapons, he could smuggle one into the United States--after all a nuclear weapon is about the size of a person--hide it in an apartment building in some American city, and prove to us that he had it hidden there. Saddam could then blackmail America into inaction, as he invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, et cetera. We would then never be able to quench Saddam's lust for additional power, and his imitators would be spawned as they, too, would seek nuclear weapons in an effort to become regional viceroys.

There are two approaches for dealing with this threat. One, associated often with the Vice President, is to invade now, no matter what. This approach has a legalistic version that says we must invade Iraq unless it immediately complies with all U.N. resolutions, including the resolutions that say Iraq should stop oppressing its own people. I do not think Saddam Hussein is going to morph into Mother Theresa; and if that is what it would take to prevent an invasion, we might as well invade now.

The other approach is not to focus on every U.N. resolution, but instead to demand robust inspections to make sure Saddam does not develop weapons of mass destruction.

Neither of these approaches is perfect, but I would point out that the invade-now approach has a number of flaws, including the fact that even if we achieve regime change today, 10 years from now we may be faced with another hostile regime in Baghdad, a Ba'thist regime or Ayatollah-led regime. War is not the perfect answer and I must admit that inspections are not perfect either.

I would have preferred a resolution similar to one I put forward in the International Relations Committee that garnered the support of the vast majority of Democrats on that Committee. That resolution would authorize the use of force only if Saddam interferes with a robust inspections program, only if, for example, he continues to try to lock the inspectors out of his presidential palaces.

We will not get the opportunity to vote for such a resolution, but we got the next best thing. Last night the President said he wanted to disarm Iraq without war, if possible. He said he would propose to the United Nations a resolution demanding a robust program of inspections, and effectively promised the world that if we got those inspections, we would not invade.

So this is where we stand today. Only one question is before us now. Will this resolution, when it comes to final passage, pass with 325 votes or 375 votes? That is important to the world because if America looks divided, Saddam may ``call our bluff.'' In 1991, the resolution authorizing the use of force just barely squeaked by each House. Saddam was misled. Saddam defied us and refused to withdraw from Kuwait, and war became necessary.

France, Russia, and China will take America more seriously if we look unified. And that is why I call on all my colleages, because all of us desperately want to avoid war, to vote for this resolution, because if we look unified, Saddam is more likely to capitulate on the issue of inspectors.

We cannot expect foreign tyrants to understand our political system; and in the next month, they will hear the most violent and loud political clashes on pharmaceutical costs and Social Security. Let us help Saddam understand the resolve of America. Let us pass this resolution by an overwhelming margin.

Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) the chairman of our Subcommittee on International Relations and Operations.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, a year ago we stood in this Chamber trying to recover from the shock that no longer were U.S. interests threatened by terrorists; but the United States itself, our people, our way of life, our very existence was the target of terrorists. We were awakened and disbelief turned to a commitment, a commitment that we would work together as one Nation, one government, and take every appropriate and necessary action to prevent another day like September 11, 2001.

We afforded the President the resources and the broad support to ensure a swift, effective and successful campaign against a global terrorist network that killed thousands of our citizens on that fateful day a year ago.

That campaign was built on the impression, the understanding that our military objectives must also have a political objective, a requirement that was underscored by Secretary of State Colin Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and so it was that we not only dismantled the al Qaeda operations inside Afghanistan, but also helped the Afghan people free themselves from the oppression of the

[Page: H7201]

Taliban regime, thereby diminishing future threats from Afghanistan by helping democracy to finally take root.

What we are authorizing the President today and the resolution that is before us, Madam Speaker, is not much different than what we afforded him a year ago. We steadfastly supported this effort a year ago as the debris of the World Trade Center continued to burn. Now that time has passed, the smoke has cleared, the fires have subsided. Let us not waiver in our commitment to destroy the terrorist network. Let us not waiver in our commitment to the safety and welfare of the American people.

A year ago we were surprised. Today, we have the opportunity to destroy the enemy's capabilities before they can be used against us. As President Bush so carefully articulated last night, Saddam Hussein's regime trained al Qaeda operatives in bombmaking, harbors these terrorists and provides medical treatment in Baghdad to some of its senior leadership. Saddam Hussein is not far from developing and acquiring the means to strike the United States, our friends and our allies with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, if we do not act now, when?

Saddam Hussein's regime is pursuing unmanned aircraft to deliver chemical and biological weapons. The United Nations weapons inspectors and the U.S. intelligence community concluded a few years ago, based upon intelligence reporting statements by Iraqi defectors and the Iraqi Government's own admission, that Iraq had a more extensive prohibited biological weapons program than previously admitted, including the weaponization of these deadly biological agents. The Iraqi regime has dozens of ballistic missiles and is working to extend their range in violations of United Nations restriction.

The former deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection team for Iraq and the dossier on Iraq's capabilities prepared by the British Government, both of these sources support the Bush administration's assertion that Iraq is at the threshold of possessing nuclear weapons. Satellite imagery has revealed that Saddam Hussein's regime is actively rebuilding its nuclear infrastructure and working to develop and acquire enriched uranium. Thus, if we do not address the problem now here today, will it be a better time when the Iraqi regime is stronger and its weapons programs are even more advanced?

The Iraqi regime has ordered the use of chemical weapons against its own people. It has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, ordering the extermination of between 50,000 and 100,000 people and the destruction of over 4,000 villages.

As former President Ronald Reagan once said: ``We have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth. If we fail, at least let our children, and our children's children, say of us, we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.''

Let us all do what we can to protect our Nation and the American people. Let us vote ``yes'' on this resolution today, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader in peace and humanitarian issues.

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, let me just thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for yielding me time and for his leadership on this issue and on so many other issues of such critical importance to our world community.

I also would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for his fairness in ensuring that democracy prevails, even during this very critical and important debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution authorizing a unilateral first strike against Iraq. Such an action could destabilize the Middle East and set an international precedent that could come back to haunt us all.

President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law. It violates the United Nations charter and our own long-term security interests. It forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them. We do not need to rush to war.

Furthermore, this resolution is not a declaration of war. In fact, we do not need this resolution. If the United States indeed faces an imminent attack from anywhere, the President already has all of the authority in the world for our defense.

President Bush called on the United Nations to enforce its resolutions, but here we are today voting to go to war before the United Nations has even had a chance to implement inspections. What kind of international cooperation is that? What kind of leadership is that? It does not take leadership to go drop bombs and go to war. It takes real leadership to negotiate and to develop peaceful resolutions to our security needs.

The President has called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities. I call on the United States to assume our responsibilities by working with the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

[Time: 14:00]

I keep asking the question: Is our goal the elimination of weapons of mass destruction because they pose a potential danger, or is it regime change because we oppose the Iraqi government? We still do not have the answer to that question.

For all of these reasons and more, on Thursday, I will offer the Lee amendment to H.J. Res. 114, incorporating my legislation, H. Con. Res. 473, currently supported by 37 Members of the House. This amendment calls on the United States to work with allies to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic means.

Those inspections succeeded in destroying thousands of tons of weapons in the 1990s, despite Iraq's attempts at destruction, and they can work again. It was a search and destroy mission.

Now, today, as we face this vote, there are many questions that remain unanswered. Where is the proof that Iraq poses an imminent, clear, and present danger to the United States? What is our objective here, regime change or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction? Where would this doctrine of preemption lead our country? How could we be the first and then claim the moral authority to tell others not to do so? Is this the precedent that we want to set for India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and others?

How does all of this make the American people safer? Are our airports safer today? Are our seaports secure? What happens to the economic security of our country and our unmet domestic needs, given the enormous amount of money, upwards of $100 to $200 billion, that this war will cost us? And how many of our brave young men and women will be put in harm's way?

Going to war would result in substantial loss of life. We better be able to answer these questions before we spend $200 billion plus to create a new regime in Iraq.

Now, remember, we all have to focus on the fact that it was not weapons of mass destruction used on 9/11. This blank check to authorize a first strike would not restore peace and security. I am convinced that it will inspire hatred and fear and increase instability and insecurity.

There have been those who have questioned the patriotism of opposition and have claimed that those calling for war have a monopoly on this virtue. Yet I believe, like many, that it is our patriotic duty to seek each and every nonmilitary solution to eliminating the weapons of mass destruction. Containment, deterrence and disarmament should be our goal. That has been and continues to be the American way.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally wrong, financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national security interests. We have options, and we have an obligation to pursue them.

Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a senior member of our Committee on International Relations.

Mr. KING. I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding me this time; and, Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. In doing so, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the bipartisan leadership of this House for coming together and forging a compromise which will give the President of the United States the power he needs in

[Page: H7202]

standing up to oppression and in standing up to a tyrant who has weapons of mass instruction.

I also want to give special regard to President Bush for the leadership he has demonstrated in bringing this matter to this moment today, because without his leadership we would still be caught up in the double-talk and moral hypocrisy which constitutes so much of the diplomacy in the world today.

So many countries choose to look the other way. So many countries just hope that somehow this problem will go away. But President Bush has brought this issue to the forefront; and because of that we are here today to take what I believe will be a very strong and manifest decision to destroy oppression, to eliminate a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein if he does not comply with the U.N. resolutions which have been passed to date.

More important than that, Madam Speaker, I believe President Bush deserves credit for asserting the fact that the United States is the world leader. Yes, the United States is going to the United Nations, and we should go to the United Nations, but at the end of the day we cannot be bound by some morally opaque decisions made by countries who do not share our values.

If the Security Council does stand with us, fine, and that is all to the better. Let us remember, when President Clinton was President, back in 1999, the U.N. Security Council would not give approval to attack Serbia because of what they were doing in Kosovo, but President Clinton went forward and led an attack, which I supported and which now has brought stability to Kosovo and, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, has brought Milosevic to the international criminal court. So this is the type of action that must be taken.

I have tried to listen carefully to those who are opposed, and I just cannot figure out really what the substance of their argument is. They say we should use more diplomacy. We have tried diplomacy for 11 years. They say that somehow the policy up to now has worked. Well, it has not worked because Saddam Hussein has more weapons of mass destruction now than he had before. He has constantly flouted and violated resolution after resolution.

The fact is, we saw on September 11 what happens if we are caught unaware. We have no excuses this time. We know the weapons that Saddam Hussein has. We know that Saddam Hussein will use those weapons if given the opportunity.

Another argument that is used is somehow that we should carry out the war on terrorism before we go after Iraq, before we take action against Iraq. To me, the two are intertwined and connected. You cannot have one without the other. These are people who work in collusion. They work in the same league. There is no doubt about that.

We are also told that if somehow we go forward we will lose allies in the war against terrorism. I am not aware of one country, whether it be in the Arab world or whether in Europe, which is backing away from supporting us in the war against terrorism because of our policy on Iraq.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, there is no alternative. We must go forward.

Let me just say, in conclusion, that I respect those who have honest differences, and I acknowledge that. I would just say, though, if this resolution does pass and does pass by a large vote, that once that has been done we should stand together and speak with one voice and send the world a united message that the people of the United States and the Congress of the United States stand behind the President of the United States in taking the action that he will take pursuant to this resolution.

I would also ask all those who vote for the resolution to not do so in any way grudgingly but to give it their fullest and total support. There is no such thing as an easy war. If there are tough days ahead and rough days ahead, not to use that as an opportunity to somehow back away. If we go ahead, we are in this for the long haul. We are in it until we succeed. We owe that to the men and women of our Armed Forces. We owe that to the people of the world and to the people of our country who look to us for guidance and direction and for leadership.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), my good friend and colleague, a leader in the field of national security.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of this resolution because it puts our country back on the right track of working with the United Nations to disarm Iraq.

The passage of this congressional resolution in support of efforts to disarm Iraq will not provide President Bush with open-ended authority. In fact, Congress and the President's hard work is just beginning. The United States has a responsibility, as the world's only superpower, to set the standard for international behavior. We must consider every peaceful alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to force.

With this resolution, Congress is making clear that our first priority is building an international coalition through the United Nations. If the President decides that diplomatic efforts have failed, he must inform Congress and explain his reasoning. If the United States engages in military action, the President must provide continual updates to Congress regarding the status of the war. The President will also be required to declare that any military action against Iraq will not hamper our ongoing efforts on the war on terrorism.

I also expect the President to provide clear plans for military engagement that explain our military strategy, detail where our troops will be based, report to Congress on his efforts to secure international assistance, protect us against simultaneous threats from other parts of the world, and define plans for Iraq after Saddam.

While I am firmly committed to using diplomacy first and our military only if we must, I cannot ignore Saddam Hussein's track record of disdain for international law. With everything we know about his aggressive pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, it would be irresponsible not to at least make plans for what we may need to do in order to counter the threat that he poses.

If the President follows congressional intent and builds a successful international coalition to address the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he will not only improve our national security and that of our alli