is perpetual because it was not declared. We half-heartedly committed, we had the restraints of the United Nations, we did not go for the right reasons, and we didn't win. Therefore, we didn't do the job that should have been done in 1990 if we had declared war. The same thing could have been said about Korea and Vietnam. It is time we address the process just as emphatically as we address the pros and cons of whether this country should go to war. Now, let me quote from James Madison. Madison said in 1798:

"The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

We have now just carelessly over the years, and today once again, easily given this up.

You say, no, this doesn't necessarily mean that, and we have done if before. We have allowed our Presidents to do this. But if the President can go to war, this is the permission that we are giving.

It is interesting to note that in the United Nations Charter, you do not have a provision that says well, when you want to declare war, here you come, and these are the procedures. When the United Nations gets involved, we are always declaring the use of force for peace. But it gets difficult and it gets muddied, and it is murky under today's conditions because there is no war going on in Iraq. Yet we have not exhausted the vehicle of negotiations and other things that could be done.

So, this is why, unfortunately, I have very little faith and confidence this will be the solution to solve the problem in Iraq and the Middle East. As a matter of fact, if that happens, this is a dramatic reversal of 60 years of history. It is not going to happen.

We have not dealt with the unintended consequences, what we are dealing with today in the sense that the wars continue, but the unintended consequences. And I disagree with the previous speaker who said that this resolution is not dealing with preemptive strikes. That is what the whole thing is about, allowing the President the authority to do a preemptive strike against a nation that has not committed aggression against us. This is the whole issue. So I would say that this is the time that we ought to not only think about the issue of the pros and cons of war, but the issue of how much of our sovereignty we give away to the United Nations and how many restraints will be placed on us, not only now as we try to satisfy everybody in the United Nations, but later on as well. It was said we didn't finish the war in 1990 because of the resolution not permitting us to do this, and therefore it wasn't done, but we were following the rules. Of course, that is why you needif you commit the country and commit the young people and commit the taxpayer to war-you need to call it war.

So those of you who are for war, vote for this. Those who are opposed to it should vote against the war, because we don't believe it is necessary to go to war right now. If you are honest with yourself, this is what you should do. Otherwise you are perpetuating a

fraud on the American people, perpetuating a system that has not worked, perpetuating a system that ends too often in chaos.

I just don't think that is good. I really don't. I think we should think about this very carefully and make sure that we follow the process as well as our best judgments on war.

Some have argued that in this case what you are saying is we would tie the hands of the President. We would tie the hands of the President. Well, that sounds a little strong. But you know what? That is what was intended in the Constitution. That is what Madison is talking about, tying the hands of one person to make the decision to go to war. Therefore, I think-I want and desire so much to think more seriously, because if there a declaration of war, we will fight to win it and it won't drag on and be endless and lead to another one.

We don't know what is going to happen. There may be an attack on Taiwan, and India may move, and who knows what may come of this? It certainly will not solidify our support in an Arab world that is very antagonistic to us and numbers over 1 billion people. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DELAHUNT. Will the gentleman yield?

If the gentleman will yield, much of what you say truly resonates, because I do concur. I do believe this is about a doctrine of preemption. I think we all feel uneasy about it. I am not denying that inherent in a Nation State, if there is a real clear, convincing threat, that that doctrine does not apply. I think it should apply. But what concerns me is that the standards that are being set by the underlying resolution here are so low that it could very well create a new concept in the international order that, as you described, will give other states, the most obvious examples being India and Pakistan, the right to say to the international community we are going to launch a nuclear strike, when it ought not to be an option.

I mean, there are many rogue nations, if you will. We have discussed them here today: Iran, North Korea. There is a long litany of nations that possess weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. PAUL. Excuse me, if I might. I would like to reserve a few minutes of my time. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. You have 3 seconds left, Mr. Paul.

Mr. PAUL. I allow you to finish my time. Mr. Chairman, you were watching closely.

Chairman HYDE. Yes, with great interest. Are you through?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield.

Chairman HYDE. All right. The Chair yields himself the 10 minutes in opposition to this.

It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one. Letters of mark and reprisal are others. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.

The problem with a declaration of war is that is a formal step taken by a nation. And when you do that, you kick in other laws. Enemy aliens-people suddenly become who are of German extraction or Saudi extraction, depending on whom you are declaring war against, suddenly become enemy aliens. Trading with the enemy

becomes effective. Therefore, if a country is trading with your enemy, they are your enemy.

Most importantly and psychologically, if you declare war, if we had declared war on Vietnam, China would have had to declare war on us, and then the Soviet Union, not to be outdone fraternally, would have had to declare war on us. And you start a chain of events. That is the last thing you want to do. You want to isolate these conflicts. You don't want them to metastasize.

Declaration of war metastasizes conflict.

Insurance policies are invalidated in time of war. There are so many consequences, criminal statutes. So there are laws affecting military personnel in time of war and in time of peace.

Now, the Congress always has the last word in war and peace because we control the purse strings. We could introduce a bill and rush it through that would say no funds appropriated herein may be used to pay for an expedition to France or to the Caribbean. Congress always has the last word because we control the purse strings. But now this resolution we are dealing with today does not declare war. It does not approach war. War may never happen. If we mean what we say and we say what we mean and we have a reasonably tough posture, we may avoid war.

Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. We know you have tried to have inspections work. We have tried the U.N., they have been made a fool of for 11 years now. The League of Nations was muscular compared to the U.N. That is the situation we are in now.

So to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore because it has the effect of pyramiding when what you want to do is to isolate.

So with great respect for the gentleman's knowledge of political science, I suggest this is inappropriate, and I would hope it would be defeated.

Mr. Green wants to say something.

Mr. GREEN. In many ways, our colleague Dr. Paul is the constitutional conscience of the House, and I appreciate it. But one thing I wanted not to leave unchallenged.

He said in his remarks that Iraq is a country which has committed no acts of aggression against the U.S. There are many people who would disagree with that, not the least of whom would be the pilots in the no-fly zone, who are routinely fired upon. I think we have to be a little bit careful in our remarks.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you handled, as you always do, the issue perfectly, but I would like to just add a footnote. I have great affection for my friend from Texas, but I detect a touch of frivolity and mischief in his amendment, because I do not believe-I do not believe he is serious about this amendment, not only because of all the reasons you have cited, but because the resolution we are considering is aimed at avoiding war. It is geared to having unfettered, unlimited, foolproof inspections, and not a war.

The possibility of using force is the only mechanism of potentially persuading Saddam Hussein to allow inspections, to have the destruction of weapons of mass destruction be brought about by nonviolent means. So I think, while at one level it is a frivolous proposal, which I strongly urge my colleagues to reject, at a more profound level, it totally misunderstands or deliberately misinterprets the underlying resolution.

It is our hope that we can move to inspections which will achieve the goal of finding and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction without a single shot being fired. That is my earnest hope, that is the earnest hope of, I take it, all of us who support the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I think a formal declaration of war, as opposed to an authorization to use force should Iraq not disarm, is going to have consequences under domestic law, but it is also going to have consequences under international law. And I think for those of us here in Congress we have got to contemplate the fact that it is going to have the effect of transferring power, conferring power to the President and to the Attorney General and to the Pentagon that they cannot otherwise exercise. One of those powers is going to be the power to wiretap, notwithstanding what we do in Congress, once there is a declaration of war, they are automatically going to be able to wiretap.

Another concern would be what we would do to insurance contracts, because once you have a declaration of war, you bring into effect an exclusionary clause in the contracts that are out there. I think also you have to consider the fact that we are moving away from our joint objective here, which is to leverage Iraq to disarm, to have a credible threat against that regime, the threat of use of force. And instead we are abandoning that, if we go with a formal declaration of war, we then take on these international and domestic changes under our Constitution.

And I wanted to ask the author if he contemplated those changes. Should we actually pass this initiative? What do we do about them?

Mr. PAUL. Would the gentleman yield?

Yes, I certainly did. But that emphasizes and makes my point how serious this is, because you are ignoring how serious war is. And then we know that is what we are talking about here today. No matter what you call it, we are talking about a resolution that permits the President to wage war.

Mr. ROYCE. It permits the President to wage war, and the reason we are going through this exercise is to present a credible threat to the Iraqi regime so that they do disarm.

And you move us off of that strategy on a completely different track, a completely different track with this particular amendment. And that is why I oppose the amendment.

I thank you.

Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, nay.

In the opinion of the Chair

Mr. PAUL. I ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman HYDE. If the gentleman wants a recorded vote, he can

have one. Call the roll.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gilman votes no.

Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes no.

Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes no.