Liberated Text's: Authorization of Force

---

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla): Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 574, proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore: When proceedings were postponed on the legislative day of Wednesday, October 9, 2002, all time for debate on the joint resolution, as amended, under section 1 of House Resolution 574 had expired.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 107-724.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 1 Offered by Ms. Lee Ms. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Speaker pro tempore: The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by Ms. Lee:

Strike the preamble and insert in lieu thereof the matter preceding the resolved clause, below, and strike the text and insert in lieu thereof the matter following the resolved clause, below:

Whereas on April 6, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq accepted the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) bringing a formal cease-fire into effect;

Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto", and "all ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and related major parts and repair and production facilities";

Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;

Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the creation of a United Nations special commission to "carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical, and missile capabilities" and to assist and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of all nuclear-related items and in developing a plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance;

Whereas United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) between 1991 and 1998 successfully uncovered and destroyed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, nuclear weapons research and development facilities, and Scud missiles, despite the fact that the Government of Iraq sought to obstruct their work in numerous ways;

Whereas in 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq and have not returned since;

Whereas Iraq is not in compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, and additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, and this noncompliance violates international law and Iraq's ceasefire obligations and potentially endangers United States and regional security interests;

Whereas the true extent of Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by such development to the United States and allies in the region are unknown and cannot be known without inspections;

Whereas the United Nations was established for the purpose of preventing war and resolving disputes between nations through peaceful means, including "by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional arrangements, or other peaceful means";

Whereas the United Nations remains seized of this matter;

Whereas the President has called upon the United Nations to take responsibility to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the United Nations under existing United Nations Security Council resolutions;

Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of thousands of people at risk, including members of the United States armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and civilian populations in neighboring countries;

Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001;

Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may also undermine United States diplomatic relations with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with many other allies;

Whereas a preemptive unilateral United States first strike could both set a dangerous international precedent and significantly weaken the United Nations as an institution; and

Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral United States military action against Iraq and subsequent occupation may be significant in terms of United States casualties, the cost to the United States treasury, and harm to United States diplomatic relations with other countries: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentlewoman from California (Ms Lee) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms Lee).

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international relations in the 21st century.

Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war.

Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic options.

My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections and enhanced containment.

It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term consequences for the United States of codifying the President's announced doctrine of preemption.

The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them.

We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its people, we do not need this resolution.

If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter.

Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires sober thought and careful reflection.

President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia?

I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for peace in the region.

Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we move into the 21st century.

As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process.

In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance technology on the border to detect such materials.

As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials.

All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success.

What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice.

During the Cold War, the words "first strike" filled us with fear. They still should.

I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority.

We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work.

What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack.

I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.

It does not foreclose any future options.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin who has just been hit by a freight train.

Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children of Iraq. He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that support them.

In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq, including three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape.

On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across broad areas.

While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and the world does nothing.

So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With conciliation and negotiation.

For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up.

The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security Council veto by Russia, China or France.

The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a goal.

The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity, enough fraud, enough deception. Enough.

I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

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

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DeFazio: Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive, effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not hide it.

These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility.

Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of- the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is wrong.

Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Linder: I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. We have done that. They say, let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that.

Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise to uphold the rule of law and to protect the peace-loving people of the world actually has meaning.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Ms. Kilpatrick: I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and as a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment asks what the American people want. They want us to work through the United Nations, work through that process, and I want to report and you all know the United Nations has said yes, we will work with you, we will go in, we will have unfettered inspections and we will work and come back. It is not an "if" kind of situation, it is an "is." And the "is" is that the American people want the United Nations involved and they want the inspections to go forward and at a date determined to come back and report. Our CIA, our intelligence agency, has reported to this Congress and this Nation that there is no imminent threat that Saddam Hussein will attack America. He does not have the capability. Let the U.N. process work, and that is what the Lee amendment asks.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Oberstar: Mr. Speaker, our Constitution entrusts to Congress alone the power to declare war, a power we should invoke with great care on evidence of a clear and present danger to our country.

President Bush has asked Congress to cede that power to him to be wielded against Iraq at a time of his choosing, with or without United Nations support, in a unilateral, preemptive strike of his own determination of the level of threat Iraq poses to our national security.

I will not surrender our constitutional authority. I will not vote for the committee resolution which confers upon the President fast- track war-making power. The President should first win U.N. Security Council approval of a new, more rigorous round of arms inspections in Iraq.

If Iraq resists the international inspectors and the mandated inspections fail, the President should then obtain a Security Council authorization of force, as was done in 1990, following which he should ask Congress for approval to wage war against Iraq. The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California respects the Constitution and the American people and will give renewed diplomacy a chance.

The Committee Resolution grants the President a new foreign policy and national security tool that charts us on a fundamental departure from historic U.S. foreign policy toward a dangerous precedent of first strike military authority for future Presidents. Once established, this resolution has enormous global consequences and will set the standard for other nations to attack preemptively, without restraint.

This policy is contrary to our entire national tradition. The United States did not pursue a policy of first strike military authority against the Soviet Union during the Cold War when the Soviets had nuclear weapons directed at U.S. cities and military targets. Nor did the United States strike first against Iraq in 1990-1991.

For most U.S. citizens, the real threat to the nation is our deteriorating domestic security: unemployment, the loss of retirement income, access to affordable prescription drugs, and corporate misfeasance and malfeasance that are eroding workers' retirement and health care security.

Our domestic economy is in serious decline. Congress and the President should, as our top priority, mobilize investments in infrastructure and job training to put the unemployed back to work. We have to mount new strategies to counter unfairly-traded imports that undermine our national security through loss of jobs and income.

Earlier this year, the President made important recommendations in this Section 201 Steel Remedy plan. Since then, however, he has backtracked, granting numerous exemptions to allow significant subsidized steel imports to pour into our nation undermining our domestic steel and iron ore industries. These are essential national security issues.

Our national security begins with domestic security, expressed in a living wage, job security, livable communities, investments in education, health care, and transportation that will ensure a better future for our nation.

The Administration's obsession with Iraq has deflected our national energies from the need to shore up domestic security. We must not allow the pursuit of terrorists at home and abroad, nor vigilance over the threat from Iraq divert our attention from critically urgent domestic priorities.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Honda: I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lee amendment. In effect, the Lee amendment says that if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we must work to seek and destroy these weapons with our allies in the United Nations.

The amendment further indicates that we will not provide our stamp of approval for a unilateral, preemptive strike unless the administration can verify an imminent threat to our Nation.

Why should we change our national policy from being defenders of freedom and democracy to that of first-strike aggressors?

This amendment does not prevent the President from performing his constitutional duties. He is still the commander in chief of this great Nation. However, it is our constitutional duty to declare war. We must not delegate our authority to declare war to the executive branch.

Support the Lee amendment.

Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Green of Wisconsin: I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the authority of this amendment and the preceding speakers, I really believe that adopting this amendment would be worse for America than taking no action at all. Adopting this amendment would sanction and legitimize the shameful gamesmanship that Saddam Hussein has shown for 11 years. Saddam views diplomacy without force as his personal game without rules.

We cannot, we dare not ignore his history.

Remember, the world builds an Oil for Food program and Saddam Hussein turns it into a way to rebuild his military and to amass personal wealth. The world builds a no-fly zone to protect innocents from Iraqi aggression. Yet Iraqi forces have fired on coalition planes hundreds of times this year alone.

The world demands and Saddam agrees to destroy his biological and chemical weapons. Yet every objective observer says he still has them and he is building more.

The world demands and Iraq agrees to bring in international weapons inspectors, but when they arrive, they are told that thousands of buildings are off limits. They are delayed, they are hassled until they go home in frustration.

Finally, Saddam declares with a smile that he does not support terrorism. Yet every day, including today, we learn more and more about the training, the resources, the protection that Saddam gives al Qaeda and others.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, with its ambiguous references to negotiation and resumption of weapons inspections, would continue that game. In fact, it would have this House legitimize that game.

The gentlewoman from California speaks of the dangers of war, and she is right. War is very dangerous. But the last 11 years have shown that giving Saddam Hussein diplomatic cover to build weaponry, terrible weaponry, is even more dangerous.

There is a middle path: diplomacy with teeth. It is the underlying resolution that I support. Let us show that we have learned our lessons. As many have said here today and yesterday, and will say later today, the American people are watching what we do. So is the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, so is Saddam Hussein. Let us show Saddam Hussein that the games are over. They will go on no more.

Let us vote against and reject the Lee amendment.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, we should support the Lee amendment by giving unfettered, unconditional support for U.N. inspections for disarmament.

Our government has a history of undermining the United Nations and has been particularly bad regarding Iraq. In 1990, we bribed and threatened and punished the Security Council to force a vote endorsing our war. We bribed poor countries with cheap Saudi oil. We bribed China with diplomatic rehabilitation and new development aid.

And we told Yemen, the only Arab country on the Council, that its vote against our war would be "the most expensive vote you ever cast." And then we punished Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, with a cutoff of our entire $70 million aid package.

As we try to impose our war again on a reluctant United Nations, I fear that the Yemen precedent is being recalled at the U.N. today. I hope that our friends and our allies who might be considering a different approach in the U.N. will not be intimidated by our unilateral abuse of this multilateral institution.

The President can always call us back, if he is ready. He says he is not ready. He says war is not imminent. So why are we giving him such an order?

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from The Guardian entitled "The U.S. Has Been Seeking to Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past 8 Years."

From the Guardian, Oct. 8, 2002
The U.S. Has Been Seeking To Prevent a Resolution of the Iraq Crisis for the Past Eight Years
(By George Monbiot)

There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds.

Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely that "the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war" and "we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands". Mr. Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.

On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was preparing "a major air campaign and land invasion" to "topple President Saddam Hussein". The talks immediately collapsed.

Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re- entering the country. The US Airforce launched bombing raids on Basra, in southern Iraq, destroying a radar system. As the Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding he inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to let the UN back in. The State Department immediately announced, with more candor than elegance, that it would "go into thwart mode".

It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion. The decision about which sites should be "inspected" would no longer be made buy the UN alone, but also by "any permanent member of the security council", such as the United States. The people inspecting these sites could also be chosen by the US, and they would enjoy "unrestricted rights to free, unrestricted and immediate movement" within Iraq, "including unrestricted access to presidential sites". They would be permitted to establish "regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq", where they would be "accompanied . . . by sufficient U.S. security forces to protect them". They would have the right to declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and "ground and air transit corridors". They would be allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up "encrypted communication" networks and to seize "any equipment" they choose to lay hands on.

The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the U.N. team in 1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector Scott Ritter maintain that the weapons inspectors were joined that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the U.N.'s special access to collect information and encourage the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.

As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the U.S. has been undermining disarmament for years. The U.N.'s principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the security council's resolution 687, which promised that economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state, unilaterally withdrew this promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to comply. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.

The U.S. government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On October 30, 1998, the U.N. rejected a new U.N. proposal by again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the following day, the Iraqi government announced that it would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they completed around 300 operations.

On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of the report recorded that over the past month "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation", but his well-publicized conclusion was that "no progress" has been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On December 15, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. warned him that his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled out, and on the following day the U.S. started bombing Iraq.

From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow U.N. inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His organization had not been involved in the messy business of 1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and complete the job the U.N. had almost finished. The U.S. responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal.The other member states agreed to depose him only after the United States threatened to destroy the organization if he stayed. Now Hans Blinx, the head of the new U.N. inspectorate, may also be feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after an hour-long meeting with U.S. officials, he agreed with the Americans that there should be no inspections until a new resolution had been approved.

For the past eight years the U.S., with Britain's help, appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the crisis in Iraq. It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the peaceful means have been averted.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Ms. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution for several reasons.

First, it retains Congress' constitutional authority and obligation to publicly act on any commitment of American troops or resources to military action. Unlike the other two resolutions before us, it does not endow the President with powers that do not exist in the Constitution.

Secondly, it promotes a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It repudiates the administration's recently announced preemptive doctrine, which would change the United States from a worldwide defender of democracy into a first-strike aggressor on the world stage.

Lastly and most importantly, it does not preclude any further action by Congress, should circumstances change, despite the hand-wringing that has gone on about our inability to deal with future instances.

Of course, the President is free to come back and ask the Congress for action. This is best of the three resolutions before us, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I have been very disappointed with a number of my colleagues who have suggested to me that the Lee amendment is not viable. I submit to them that they must not have read what the Lee amendment says.

It simply says that we resolve that the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other peaceful means.

This is a peace resolution, a desire to do everything that is reasonably possible through peaceful means before we resort to what is really an unviable option, and that unviable option is war.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to this resolution.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding time and express the reason that I come to this floor because it is with a heavy heart. I remind my colleagues, as I know all of them are very conscious of, it is a question of life and death. That is why I rise to support the Lee amendment, because I believe it does not preclude the constitutional duties that this Congress has, and that is the singular duty to declare war.

Might I note in her amendment that she specifically notes that Iraq is not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolution. She acknowledges that the additional United Nations resolutions on inspections, that they are in noncompliance and that they violate international law. Iraq cease-fire obligations potentially endanger the United States and regional security interests.

We know the dangers of Iraq. But what we also say to this body is that the President of the United States has every authority to be able to protect the United States upon the basis of imminent danger, of immediate danger. But what the President does not have, what we are seeking to do is to give him authority for a first strike without the constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war. I rise to support the Lee amendment.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. Woolsey asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment because it recognizes that in this time of crisis we have the opportunity to pursue a new vision for the world. This vision affirms the character of our Nation and refutes mistaken attempts to use violence to bring about peace. We have been down that road before. It is time to choose a new way. My constituents understand this. They are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. In fact, they wish I had more than one vote today.

A woman from Santa Rosa wrote to a local paper asking, and I quote, what would war with Iraq accomplish? U.S. aggression would only create more homeless and victimized refugees, more hatred of the United States by the rest of the world, and the death of our sons and daughters in the military. She continues: Violence only creates more violence. The United States is the greatest, the most powerful country in the world. We have the opportunity to be leaders of peace.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Lee resolution and oppose authorizing force in Iraq.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr Filmer: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is a woman of courage, a woman of peace. We thank her for her leadership.

I heard the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, earlier worry about our status as a sovereign Nation if this motion passes. This is a motion which makes our sovereign Nation safer. In the 21st century, the wars against terrorism, those wars require and will require international cooperation. We cannot go it alone in the 21st century. We cannot go it alone in a war against terrorism. We must have the world community with us.

We will be less safe if we do not pass this resolution. America will be less safe if we pass the resolution that the President wants. We dilute our war against terrorism, we increase the possibility of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. The al Qaeda I would think would be cheering the passage of the underlying resolution because the instability of the area, for example, in Pakistan would more likely give them a nuclear weapon. Let us work with the international community. Let us work with the United Nations. Let us follow the path of peace. Let us support the Lee amendment.

Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr Lantos: I want to thank my friend, chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my friend and colleague from California for her active and valuable contribution to the work of the Committee on International Relations and to the work of this House. I appreciate the views of my colleague from California and I share her view that we must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein, and we all agree that war can be only our very last resort. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before us supports the diplomatic process at the United Nations and it requires the President to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war. Our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is working nonstop at the United Nations to move towards a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of this crisis, and I fully support Secretary Powell's efforts.

However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our diplomacy will achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of Damocles hangs over its head. Our joint bipartisan resolution represents that statement of resolve.

I am also concerned that my friend's amendment disregards the very serious threat posed by Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism, clearly a serious danger to the security and safety of the United States.

I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached with the White House is approaching a final decision in both the House and the Senate. Our chances of obtaining the support of friends and allies will be dramatically increased by our show of decisiveness and unity in this House. This is not the time to unravel an agreement that is on the verge of ratification. It is for these and many other reasons that I regretfully and respectfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr Stark: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the resolution, the amendment by my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the gentlewoman from California. The reason we should support her amendment is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence that any thinking person could give that says we are in any danger from Saddam Hussein today. You are in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince Georges County that we cannot find.

If you vote against the Lee substitute, you are automatically sentencing, some of you old men who have never been in service or never worn a uniform like the last speaker, thousands of Americans to sure death. You know that the President wants blood. He wants to go to war. That is why we are going through this. And so you are giving an inexperienced, desperate young man in the White House the execution lever to kill thousands of Americans. Some of you did that and you could look at the 50,000 names on the wall down on the Mall. And is Vietnam still in business? The last time I looked. Don't do it again. Support the Lee amendment.

Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr Kingston: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wanted to say there is a curious suggestion here that the people in the U.N. care more about American citizens than their own representatives. That seems to be a theme that I am hearing over and over again. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as we debate this, there is also a second suggestion, that this resolution today, well thought of, well debated not just during the course of the summer and the previous months but in fact going back to 1990, that this is something new, that suddenly we have decided that Iraq is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional action on Iraq goes back to 1990, to the 101st Congress, the 102nd Congress, 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and now 107th, and there are resolutions after resolutions of instruction, of threat, of demands against Iraq and the people because of the repression they had. That is just the United States Congress, Mr. Speaker. Then let us go to the U.N. itself.

Keep in mind America is a sovereign Nation. Unlike the supporters of this amendment, I do not believe that we need to have the U.N.'s permission to defend our own national interests. That is what nations do. We cannot get mad at Germany or France if they do not stand up for something that is not in their national interest. But I do not think the U.N. should interfere with something that is in our national interest, because this attack, this terrorist attack that we are suffering from, 9-11, happened in the United States of America.

But, Mr. Speaker, let us also think about Kosovo. This Congress agreed for President Clinton to bomb Kosovo because of repression of the Muslim population by the largely Christian population, and we in America sided with the Muslims. And President Clinton, I do not know how the supporters of this amendment voted on that, but he did not sit around and say, "I'd like to take some action in Kosovo. Gee whiz, what would the U.N. say?" I did not hear that cry and hue from the supporters of this amendment at that time. But if we were to go to the U.N., going back to U.N. Resolution 660, violated; U.N. Resolution 678 on November 1990; Resolution 686 in March 1991; Resolution 687, April 1991; Resolution 688, April 1991; Resolution 707, August 15, 1991; October 11, 1991, Resolution 715.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. I would like to submit these for the Record. But the reality is that the U.N. has been calling for Iraq to act and to comply and to discontinue certain activities which they have flagrantly ignored. It is not time to go back to the U.N. for one more resolution. If the U.N. was going to act, they would have done it. They have had countless opportunities since 1991.

Mr. Speaker, we have not had weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998. The minimum agreement here between the hawks and the doves, if you will, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is near nuclear capability. The minimum agreement is they are anti-American, they are dangerous, they are a barbaric regime. The minimum agreement, they have violated 16 U.N. resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now, not waiting on the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: