programs, and agreed to allow international weapons inspectors to ensure that that be accomplished. But, as we all know, Iraq has willfully and in direct violation of its own agreements, thwarted over and over again the efforts of the U.N. inspectors to find and destroy these weapons. This can only mean one thing: Saddam intends to hold onto these weapons and use them at the appropriate time and in the manner he deems necessary.

As early as 1998, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a letter to the Security Council, stated,

"No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq's refusal to honor its commitments under the Security Council resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat."

That remains even more true today in light of the new efforts of global terrorism.

Today, the threat to the national security of the United States and to international peace and security continues to grow. It is especially serious because we know that Saddam supports terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda; and he could very well be working with their agents this very moment, as we speak, developing the expertise to use chemical and biological weapons against the U.S. and others.

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

In 1998, I strongly supported the House resolution which declared Iraq to be in breach of its international obligations and which urged the President to take appropriate actions to bring Iraq into compliance. But significant penalties for noncompliance were not invoked. So here we are, back again, confronting the same serious issue, and with not an inch of change in Saddam's attitude or actions.

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

The resolution we are debating today is forceful in that we again give the President the authority to use whatever means necessary, including force, to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. But this resolution is balanced in that it encourages the President to pursue diplomatic avenues to achieve international support for enforcing U.N. mandates. And, it provides an important role for the U.S. Congress.

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

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

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menen

dez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

I listened to the distinguished Secretary of State before this Committee last week make a series of statements, as the President did before the United Nations. Those statements were all about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's violation of the United Nation's resolutions in the past.

And, yes, those statements are true. But they were true when President Bush took office nearly 2 years ago, and they were true prior to President Bush taking office.

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

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

Does Saddam Hussein have biological and chemical weapons? Yes. Did he have them 2 years ago when President Bush took office? Yes. Did he have them before that? Yes.

Does he seek nuclear weapons? Yes. Does he have it at this point? From everything that I have heard, no. Did he want it 2 years ago? Yes. Was he trying to accomplish it? Yes.

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

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

After September 11th, who did we pursue? We pursued Osama bin Laden, and we pursued al-Qaeda. They were the number one threat to the national security of the United States. I remember President Bush said, "Wanted, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden." We don't even know what has happened to him.

And al-Qaeda, we don't even hear anymore about the fight against that effort, which I think is very important, and I think that is a clear and present and imminent danger to the security of the United States. Yet we hear nothing about that.

We are talking about a series of issues here which we have not had answers to. If you are talking about regime change, which is what this Administration continually says, that means removing Saddam Hussein, not just merely his chemical and biological weapons. And when you have told him that upfront, he is more likely

to use his chemical and biological weapons against our troops and our allies, which he did not do in the Gulf War.

What is our post-Saddam view? What are our plans?

I asked the Secretary of State that. He didn't have an answer for that. With Kurds and Shi'ites, how long are we going to be in Iraq? And what is the cost, a couple of hundred billion dollars? And what is the exit strategy, which I have often heard many of my colleagues cite in the past when President Clinton had military initiatives? What is the exit strategy. I haven't even heard what that exit strategy is.

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

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

None of these questions have been answered. There has been no clear and compelling evidence presented to this Committee, or to Members in private-in intelligence briefings-to say that something is different today than it was 2 years ago when President Bush took office, or before that.

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

And finally, Mr. Chairman, if, God forbid that we get involved in this endeavor without serious answers to these questions and something else happens in the world, I know we are the greatest superpower, the only superpower left in the world, but we are not omnipotent. How will we have the ability to face some other challenge in the world at the same time that we are pursing al-Qaeda and the same time that we are pursuing Saddam Hussein? Without answers to these questions, I think makes a very compelling case not to be pursuing this course of action at this time.

It doesn't mean it can't be had at another time when a compelling case is made, but I don't see it happening at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ileana RosLehtinen.

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

Much has been heard and read lately accusing the President and his Administration of exaggerating or deceiving the American people on the status of Iraq's nuclear program. However, the British

dossier detailed also Iraq's capabilities, and the former Deputy Chairman of the U.N. inspection team was quoted on Friday, September 27, as saying that the Bush Administration is, quote, in the ballpark, end quote, with its estimate on when Iraq might possess nuclear weapons, which is fairly soon.

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

The situation in the last 4 years has deteriorated. There should therefore be no question on the compelling need to act on these grounds.

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

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

Regime change in Iraq is also a compelling U.S. national security interest and one which adheres to our country's principles and our commitment to help those who are suffering the most heinous abuses under totalitarian rule. The resolution provides extensive history on the President's authority to use military action against Iraq, substantiated further by U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to cease its threatening activities. The actual authorization uses the same language as the use of force resolution which passed overwhelmingly a year ago.

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

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

man.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Over the past few weeks, America has commenced debating the situation in Iraq earnestly. We were offering opinions from numerous perspectives, collecting input from constituents, conferring with fellow countries at the United Nations and even having Members of Congress visit Iraq firsthand. Through this very involved process, one typical of America, we are carefully developing informed public policy regarding what the United States should do with respect to Iraq. By design, we seek a policy process that is inclusive and well-reasoned.

Throughout this process, however, Americans are in agreement about the need to contain terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I think we all agree with that. Several important points have been made this past week that bear mentioning. I think former Vice President Gore opened up the whole situation when he started to question the timing, started to question whether we were totally on the right track, started to question whether this regime change first strike is where our Nation ought to be. And I think since then, he has opened it up where other persons now stepped forth.

Senator Kennedy stated that al-Qaeda offers a threat more imminent than Iraq and we wanted, as has been mentioned, Osama bin Laden dead or alive. We are going to smoke him out, we are going to find him, we are going to bomb him, we are going to get him and we are still looking for him. The Senator also underscored that our first objective should be to get U.N. inspectors back to the task, without conditions, as Senator Kennedy said. Only when all responsible alternatives are exhausted should we discuss military action, which poses the risk of spurring a larger conflict in the Middle East.

Further, Senator Kennedy correctly observed one's view on how to handle the Iraqi situation and that it should not reflect on one's loyalty to the United States by virtue of the position that that person takes, which I think "disgraceful" was alluded to with some U.S. Senators, many of them disabled veterans, a week or so ago.

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

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

Representatives McDermott and Bonoir are so seized with the matter they are in Iraq to gain the perspective that only an incountry view can provide. Their presence is reinforcing the importance to the United States of unrestricted, unfettered weapons inspection.

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

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

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

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