We do not have to rush to war. In fact, we really don't 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 to defend our country. The Constitution gives the President the power, as commander in chief, to respond to an imminent attack, as does a larger body of international law, the United Nations charter, in the case of clear and imminent danger.

We have not received proof of clear, present, and imminent danger. You have heard that today from many Members. President Bush called on the United Nations to assume its responsibilities, but today Secretary of State Colin Powell, he announced that the United States is now opposed to immediately undertaking inspections.

Now, we have been calling for these for months, for years, and now we are resisting them. What kind of international cooperation is that? What kind of leadership is that?

Now, it really doesn't take leadership to go drop bombs or go to war. It takes real leadership to negotiate and develop peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

So 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. That is how we protect our country. That is how we ensure our national security.

Now, when Secretary Powell came before this Committee, I asked him, If Iraq had not responded with an affirmative on the return of the weapons inspectors, what would have been the United States' response, and how would our strategy differ from where we are now? Secretary Powell answered that he didn't know that it would have been any different, and in fact, it didn't really matter whether or not Iraq allowed inspectors.

So I keep asking the question, is our goal the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction because they pose a potential danger, or is it regime change because we oppose the Iraqi Government? Now, for all of these reasons, I have cosponsored H.Con. Resolution 473 which currently has 35 cosponsors. This resolution calls on the United States to work with our allies to disarm Iraq through U.N. inspections and other diplomatic means.

Those inspections succeeded in destroying thousands of tons of weapons in the 1990s despite Iraq's attempts at obstruction, and they can work again. But today we are being asked to authorize the unlimited use of force before inspections have even had a chance to succeed.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reread the statement by the Congressional Black Caucus, which was unanimously adopted; and I would like to ask for unanimous consent to insert it into the record.

[The information referred to was not submitted.]

Chairman HYDE. Without objection.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We recently held our Congressional Black Caucus weekend, and the theme was a voice for global understanding. We adopted this resolution, and it says, once again:

"We oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.

"Only Congress has the authority to declare a war.
"Every diplomatic option must be exhausted.

"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.

"Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and require a long-term commit

ment.

There are many questions that remain unanswered. Where is the proof that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States? What is our objective here, regime change or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction? What would this doctrine-where would this lead our country? How could we strike first and then claim the moral authority to tell China not to do so with Taiwan? What about India and Pakistan? What about Russia and Georgia? Is this the precedent that we want to set?

President Bush said that Iraq, Iran, North Korea were all members of the so-called "axis of evil." Will we attack Iran next, then North Korea? Who will come after that?

The Bush doctrine of preemption takes away our moral authority in ensuring that conflicts around the world are resolved without using the weapons of war. It sets a new and dangerous precedent. And how does this make American people safer? Are our airports safer today? Are our seaports secure?

We had better be able to answer these questions before we spend $200 billion to create a new regime in Iraq. Remember, weapons of mass destruction were not used on 9/11.

So let me just say, I believe that this path to war, this blank check to authorize a first strike will not restore peace and security. It will inspire hatred and fear and increase instability and insecurity. As General Zinni said, we need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of. The majority of the world is opposed to a unilateral first strike. Our friends and almost all of our allies

Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady's

Ms. LEE [continuing]. Ask us not to go down this disastrous path. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Nick Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I think we all agree that the matter we take up today is of great importance. After more than a decade of deceit, though, and evasions from the current Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein, the United States and our allies are now brought to the brink of war. By passing this resolution, we make it clear that the United States will defend itself and our allies against threats from Iraq, including Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi support for terrorism.

At the same time, the passage of this resolution will put Iraq on notice, I hope for the final time, that it must allow comprehensive

and unlimited inspections or face the consequence. H.J. Res. 114 is entirely appropriate, number one, to encourage the United Nations' action and to get the serious attention of Saddam Hussein.

One important point should be emphasized, however. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people did not choose to invade their neighbors; that was the work of Saddam Hussein. Nor did they flaunt a dozen U.N. resolutions, commit human rights abuses, fund terrorism, or develop weapons of mass destruction. A pre-Iraqi people would not have done any of those things. The aggression and buildup of weapons have happened because the Iraqi Government was seized by Saddam Hussein, who has used Iraq and the Iraqi people for his own delusional purposes.

I hope to make it clear today that the United States does not consider the Iraqi people its enemy. In fact, I believe that they will be our allies against Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Afghan people were our allies against the Taliban.

I plan to offer an amendment today and tomorrow that would make this essential distinction clear in the text of the resolution. This morning, I and about a dozen other Members met at the White House with George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. They related classified information about what we know about Saddam Hussein's buildup of chemical, biological, radiological weapons and the potential for nuclear weapons, and the technology and equipment that they have been developing to deliver those weapons. It seems to me that it would be better, and I have suggested to the White House, to consider declassifying some of this information, so the American people understand the threat if some of this-of the potential use and aggression of these weapons.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 10 years Saddam Hussein has been eluding inspectors and continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction. Who thinks, if not for President Bush and his demand for change, that the United Nations would be talking about a new, tough resolution and consequence if Iraq did not comply? Who thinks, if not for this President and, if you will, a gun to the head of Saddam Hussein, that this person would be starting to suggest that inspectors could come back in?

Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty bully who has already used chemical weapons to kill Iranians and his own people.

It has been said that an attack on Iraq could hurt us. That is true. But it seems obvious that doing nothing and allowing this Iraq dictator to become even more powerful with more weapons could hurt us and our allies more in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I think what this President has done is make the world pay attention to a real threat to our humanity and to our freedom and to our liberty, and I would certainly like to thank the Chairman also for holding this markup today.

I look forward to the debate to come.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Hoeffel.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for making sure this Committee is considering this resolution.

We face a toxic mix in Iraq of dangerous weapons controlled by a dangerous tyrant. From the beginning of this debate, I have been

convinced that we must focus our efforts to stop Hussein through the United Nations and through multinational support, and that we should focus on the weapons of mass destruction and disarming Hussein.

Clearly, we must rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the means of producing future weapons of mass destruction, and we must impose a tough monitoring program on that country. If Saddam resists, we must be prepared for what happens the day after regime change inevitably would occur.

Accordingly, I was very concerned about the initial resolution that the President sent to Congress. It gave credence to the fear that our country's first step in this crisis would be a preemptive unilateral military strike, which I do not and would not support in the absence of a threat of imminent danger to the United States. The resolution was too broad, did not require the President to work through the United Nations, and did not address our plans for the future of Iraq.

Since then, the House and the Administration, on a bipartisan basis, have negotiated a compromise resolution which addressed many of these concerns. I salute the President, the Speaker, and the Minority Leader for their leadership; and I support the resolution.

The President has promised congressional leaders he will exhaust all options at the United Nations before taking military action. At a White House briefing this morning, that the prior speaker alluded to, the National Security Adviser and CIA Director repeated those assurances. I urge the President, in the strongest terms, to adhere to the letter and spirit of this resolution in exhausting the avenues open to us in the United Nations in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. In this challenge, we will be strongest when we act multinationally.

I also call upon the Administration to give great thought and commitment to peacekeeping and nation-building and those challenges in Iraq in the event of regime change. There are important, important unanswered questions regarding post-Saddam events. Will our Armed Forces become an occupying army that must rule Iraq if no acceptable local government emerges? If a government does form locally, will our forces be needed as peacekeepers? How long will this last, in either event, and how much will it cost? What kind of rebuilding and redeveloping assistance will we offer?

Frankly, it is long past time for a modern-day Marshall Plan in this part of the world. That Marshall Plan, after World War II, involved 14 countries, $13 billion, 4 years of expenditures. And it rebuilt a war-ravaged world. We need to give consideration now to a modern-day Marshall Plan that can address problems that are, frankly, much more serious and much deeper in these parts of the world.

If we are serious about establishing a representative and democratic government in Iraq and other troubled spots around the world, we must address the hopelessness that people in many countries face every day, not just the grinding poverty, not just the lack of opportunity, but day-in-and-day-out hopelessness. We must empower people through a new Marshall Plan and offer them hopehope of liberty, hope of opportunity, hope of self-government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

Mr. Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend you for your leadership on bringing this resolution forward today. And I would also like to take the opportunity to commend President Bush on providing unparalleled leadership on the issue of protecting America, our people, and our institutions.

Before speaking directly to the resolution, Mr. Chairman, I would like to first respond to an earlier statement made by our colleague from Georgia on the other side of the aisle. I think she posed the question, Do we have different standards for different countries? My answer is an emphatic "yes." Yes, we should support countries that choose democracy, that honor the rights of individuals and protect the basics of human rights. Yes, we should help and support countries which popularly elect their governments and honor the will of their people.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we must stand up and oppose oppressive, tyrannical regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein. We must oppose despots who kill their own people with chemical weapons and attack their neighbors. We must stop dictators whose principal aim is the development of weapons of mass destruction to the peril of the well-being of his own people. We must remove dictators who harbor and support international terrorist organizations such as those responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

And on that day, Mr. Chairman, the United States was attacked; then the war began.

And to those of my colleagues posing the question, where is the imminent threat, I ask, how many more innocent Americans need to die in order for the threat to be imminent? We face an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill Americans, including taking their own lives. This enemy could not survive without the state sponsorship it receives from Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the United States. In order to win the war on terror, we must effect regime change in Baghdad.

As we consider the resolution before us, Mr. Chairman, we must consider two fundamental questions: Does Saddam Hussein have the desire to harm the United States of America? And, does Saddam Hussein have the ability to carry out that objective?

In answering the first question, we must be mindful that he has aligned his regime with the world's most unsavory characters, who continue to seek the destruction of freedom and democracy around the world. We has openly praised the attacks of September 11th, attempted to assassinate a former United States President, and directly ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. Our national security requires us to conclude that he aims to threaten the lives of American citizens.

Saddam Hussein is an oppressive tyrant who, with each passing day, increases his ability to terrorize the world with the most destructive weapons known to man. He currently has chemical and biological weapons and is actively pursuing a nuclear capability. The accumulation of these weapons is transforming Saddam Hussein from a regional threat into a global menace. Whether we act