any-well, there were no amendments adopted by the Committeeexcept my amendment; that is right.

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule XXII. Without objection, staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we are considering a resolution that, without a doubt, weighs heavy on everyone's heart.

To cast a vote on whether or not to authorize our President to use military force against an enemy is one the most important responsibilities we have as Members of Congress.

This is not an easy decision. It is a very complex state of affairs that will have foreign policy and national security implications for many years-beyond the service of many Members here today.

So, we must not simply think about today, but we must also think about what the future holds.

With this said, we must look at the big picture.

It is a complex picture, but there are several things we do know for sure.

1) For many years, Saddam Hussein has brutally oppressed his people. He has committed mass murder, mass starvation, and gross violations of human rights.

2) Saddam Hussein has developed chemical and biological weapons with the capability to attack neighboring countries, like Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia-our allies.

3) Saddam has already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and his enemies-we know he is not afraid to use them.

4) Saddam has vowed to use these weapons against anyone or any country that stands in his way, including the U.S., our allies, and even the Shia population in his own country.

5) Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons and is not far from obtaining this capability, and

6) For over a decade, Saddam has routinely disregarded the will of the U.N. and obstructed its weapons inspectors.

I could go on, but the point is clear. Saddam is a tyrant and a madman that poses a direct threat to the United States, our allies, and his own people. His reign of terror must end.

That is why we are here today. And that is why we must pass this resolution today without amendment.

The timing is right. We must give the President the full authority to use force when he deems it is the right time. If now is not the time, then when? When Saddam's launches an attack against the U.S. or one of our allies, or when he provides terrorists with the capability to attack us?

Some have said that the use of military force against Saddam will destabilize the region. But, Saddam has already destabilized the region. Other nations and the vast majority of Arab people in the region do not like Saddam, they fear him. They know what he can do and that he his willing to do it.

They know that Saddam is bent on an imperialist vision that will establish him in history as a "great" man-a conqueror, prophet, and king.

Further, some will say that this authorization will lead to unilateral action. It is my hope that we do not have to act unilaterally, and I believe that when the time is right, we will not have to.

However, let's not forget that we have been acting multilaterally for over the past decade. Yet, today, Saddam has regained his dominance and his power, and the international community has been silent-the U.N. has not enforced its own resolutions. At what point does the security of the American people trump the desire for multilateral action.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution before us in the right action for Congress at the right time. The resolution has been carefully crafted with broad bipartisan support. We should give the President the authority to use the military to protect our national security. We should not wait until we are attacked. We should not wait to see if the President uses military force before we authorize him to do so.

We should be unified behind the strong leadership of the President. We should show Saddam that his days are numbered.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution without amendments and give the President the authority he needs to protect our national security and end the terror of Saddam's regime.

I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL E. ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Today, as a Committee, a Congress, and a country, we face one of the most difficult dilemmas in the human experience. We are considering the question of war. The debate has returned us to the fundamental questions all leaders need to face: when is it time to fight? Is it ever time to fight? And if we fight, how should we do it? Mr. Chairman, these questions need to be addressed, and I appreciate the opportunity we have today to debate this issue.

There are strategic reasons to remove Saddam Hussein. Many critics of the President's position have asked if we have any "proof" of an "imminent threat" from Saddam. Mr. Chairman, we have over 20 years of proof. Since the early 1980's, Saddam has aggressively attempted to develop weapons of mass destruction, from nerve gas, to weaponized anthrax, to nuclear weapons. He has used some of these weapons many times already, against Iranian civilians and soldiers in his decade-long bloodbath with Iran, and against Kurdish villages in 1988. Many Kurds believe he attacked them out of retribution, but also as an experiment for a much larger attack against his true enemy, the United States.

The United Nations weapons inspectors did their best to track down Saddam's "special weapons," as he calls them, but they were unable to locate the most dangerous material. According to Gary Milhollin, the Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, inspectors could not find an estimated four tons of VX nerve gas; 600 tons of ingredients for VX; 3,000 tons of other chemical agents; and at least 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. Inspectors were also not able to dismantle Saddam's nuclear weapons, which were being aggressively developed throughout the seven years of inspections.

When these weapons are combined with Saddam's support for terrorism, the result will be disaster, for us and for our allies. We know that Saddam is at least harboring members of al-Qaeda in his country, if not supporting them altogether. He may not have participated in the planning for the September 11 attacks, but he has gone out of his way to prop up anti-American terrorist regimes that will, if left alone, strike us again.

Saddam may not be planning to use weapons of mass destruction against us next week, but there is no doubt that he intends to attack us and our allies until we either acquiesce to his aggression, or defeat him.

Mr. Chairman, there are also moral reasons for removing Saddam. Since he seized power in 1979 Saddam has built up one of the most brutal, merciless dictatorships in the history of the world. He has embarked on a massive ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds, who he thought were not loyal enough to him in his war against Iran. Aside from his chemical weapons attacks in 1988, Saddam has also attacked Kurds by forcing them into concentration camps and literally starving them to death. He has recently engaged in cultural genocide against the Kurds. Saddam's secret police have been forcing Iraqi Kurds to "correct" their identity documents by claiming that their birth records are false, and that they have always been Arab. If they refuse, they are forced off their property to make room for Arab families. Saddam is trying to erase the Kurdish past, to "cleanse" Iraq of this ethnic group he hates so bitterly. A prominent Iraqi expert, Peter Galbraith, describes Saddam's persecution of the Kurds as "a policy of genocide, a crime of intent, destroying a group whole or in part." Mr. Chairman, this regime is an Orwellian nightmare. It cannot and will not be tolerated in a civilized world.

The rap sheet on Saddam is long and detailed. If the international community applied a three strikes law to the world's tyrants, Saddam Hussein would have struck out long ago. The simple fact is, there are plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq, and very few reasons not to. The going will be tough, particularly after Saddam is gone. But the difficulty of the situation does not necessitate a head-in-the-sand approach to this problem. Saddam will continue to defy any sort of inspections program as long as he is in power. We have a vested interest in seeing the Iraqi people live prosperous lives in a fair and just democracy. It is time to make that happen. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today and I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFF FLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Saddam Hussein poses an immediate and grave threat to the security of American interests and to American lives. We know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction in the form of biological and chemical weapons, and he has made clear his intent to develop nuclear weapons, if he has not already done so.

Saddam Hussein has used such weapons on people in his own country and on his neighbors. He has also defied the United Nations by expelling inspectors who had identified and destroyed some of his arsenal. Saddam's actions have demonstrated a determination to carry on with his program of weapons of mass destruction-and to what end? To carry out attacks against the United States and his other enemies. Our government has a responsibility and duty to take the essential steps to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam against the United States.

As previously mentioned, United Nations and the United States have tried diplomatically to eliminate this threat through weapons inspections. Rather than complying and cooperating with weapons inspectors, Saddam lied to them, limited their access, and eventually, forced them out of Iraq. Diplomacy has failed in the past, and President Bush has clearly outlined the failures in his recent address to the United Nations. The President has urged the United Nations to make another determined, decisive, and effective resolution. If the United Nations, however, cannot eliminate the threat to Americans, then the United States must.

This resolution will authorize President Bush to use military force, if he deems it necessary, to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam. As dangerous as it is to commit military troops to forcefully remove the threat posed by Saddam, the risk of doing nothing is far greater.

Many countries recognize that it is not merely in the United States' interest to remove the threat posed by Saddam, but it is in the world's interest. Saddam is a brutal dictator who has no respect for democracy or human rights. He creates instability and volatility to a region of the world that needs stability and certainty.

Other countries have expressed their concerns with United States action in Iraq. As much as I respect the advice and opinions of those countries, the job of the United States government is to act in the interests of the people of the United States.

It is very much in the interest of the American people to eliminate the threat posed to them by Saddam Hussein. This resolution is absolutely necessary to ensure the future of American democracy, American ideals, and the American way.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The decision to declare war is one of the most important responsibilities our Constitution has charged to us as Members of Congress. As a parent, there is no responsibility that weighs on me more heavily than the decision to send our sons and daughters off to war.

The 650,000 citizens in the Bronx and Queens whom I represent have only just recently started rebuilding their lives from last September eleventh's attack on the World Trade Center, an attack which shattered families, devastated New York's economy, and caused profound changes in the communal and social lives of New York City's many communities.

I have thought long and hard about what this vote means not only for me as a Member of Congress and as a representative of my constituency, but also for what it means to me as a New Yorker.

September 11th changed New York as a City and the United States as a nation. The events of last September altered our nation's priorities. Protecting Social Security and Medicare and extending prescription drug coverage to our nation's senior