to prevent him from acquiring such weapons or act to prevent him from using them once he has them, action is required.

Although the United States is a peace-loving Nation, there will never be peace and security so long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Effecting a regime change and liberating the people of Iraq is the official policy of the United States Government. This resolution gives the President the authorization necessary to address this threat to our national security and carry out that policy.

I applaud President Bush for his leadership in this time of national crisis, and wholeheartedly support this resolution. And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

Mr. Blumenauer, the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your leadership and commitment to the Committee's doing its job, as we are doing here this evening.

Since becoming a Member of Congress, I have been struck by how often there is a gap between the needs and concerns of the public and the ability of Congress to hear and give voice to those needs and concerns. I have talked to dozens of Members of Congress from many States, from both parties, and without exception, we are all hearing the same reactions. The people at home are asking very hard questions about the wisdom of our past actions.

There is, to be charitable, little enthusiasm for unilateral American action. People suspect that part of the instability in the Middle East is the result of our past missteps and miscalculations, giving aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, not thinking it through fully at the front end, and then walking away when our attention is diverted or we become fatigued.

People want to know, what is the rush? What has changed now? And they are skeptical about what appears to be political timing. The responses from constituents who bother to formally contact our offices are overwhelmingly opposed to war with Iraq, often by ratios of 100 to 1, even 500 to 1.

I think the American public has it right; we are not finished with the war on terrorism. And this is highly distinct from our ongoing conflict with Iraq. We are not yet finished in Afghanistan. President Karzai is barely the mayor of Kabul and owes his life to the American Delta Force bodyguards. It is not clear that we or the countries who supported us in Afghanistan are ready to do what it takes to finish the job here.

Indeed, we are not even finished yet in the Balkans.

It has been an open secret on Capitol Hill that contrary to some of the Administration's formal pronouncements, there has been much greater caution and skepticism from the leaders in the Pentagon. Former generals have openly declared their concerns before Congress. Some of the voices that have expressed concern and, in some instances, opposition have been those of distinguished political leaders in both parties, names familiar to the public-Armey, Gore, Lugar, Hagel, Kennedy. But there are many more leaders whose voices may not be quite as well known, and they are the voices of our colleagues who don't need focus groups and more famous politicians to validate their own deeply held convictions.

My bottom line is that no President deserves a blank check when it comes to waging war. And despite some important additional verbiage, the authorization before us is delegated to the President's unfettered judgment.

Some claim that the strong words of our President got the United Nations engaged, and I think that is probably true. And that is his job and his prerogative. Now Congress needs to do our job.

I am not opposed to the use of force. I have supported it in the past and could do so in the future. However, I don't think this is a situation where either the case has been made or the foundation established. It is terrorism that is the greatest threat to America. Inappropriate action against Iraq right now could actually expose Americans to greater risk.

I urge the leadership and the diverse membership of this Committee to be part of a diplomatic solution internationally and to engage honestly with the American public here at home. Congress and the American public have a right to know the costs and consequences before following this path. We should reject the notion of a preemptive, unilateral, go-it-alone attack on anyone we deem a threat.

A unilateral preemptive strike without direct provocation is both wrong and dangerous, especially when undertaken by the most powerful Nation the world has ever seen. If we can't live up to our own principles, how can we expect other countries to obey the rule of law?

To respect the integrity of a reasonable, strategic, diplomatic and moral position of the United States is not to imply any sympathy for Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime. There is a bipartisan consensus in Congress to work with our allies, not tell them what to do beforehand; to use the United Nations to lay the foundation for a muscular, aggressive regime of effective inspections and enforcement of United Nations resolutions. Such an approach will be most likely to produce the results the Administration wants. It is entirely consistent with where the American public is, and based on the most accurate measurement, it is what we actually hear from our citizens when we take the time to listen to them.

The situation in the Middle East is the most volatile it has been in our lifetime. Iraq is but one troubling part of that equation.

I hope that this can be the beginning of a new chapter of diplomacy and thoughtful action by the United States. And I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lantos, in helping us get there.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. Flake, the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman for holding this markup and for allowing all the Members the opportunity to speak.

First of all, let me just say that I identify with many of the comments made by Ron Paul. I would feel more comfortable voting for a formal declaration of war. However, that is not what is on the table today. Like it or not, we are in the situation that we are in.

Of course, all of us want to avoid war, but not avoid war at all costs. I think we have seen what can happen when we seek to do that.

Now, the scientific world speaks of necessary and sufficient conditions in order to bring about change. This resolution is a necessary condition to bring about change in Iraq, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Only time will tell if this is a sufficient condition. I fear that it will not be.

There is nothing that has been done so far with regard to U.N. resolutions and Saddam's unwillingness to abide by them that gives me any confidence that this will be a sufficient condition. That is why this resolution is so important. It puts forward necessary conditions. But also, if those are not sufficient, we give the President the authority to go in and actually use the means of force to bring about our objective.

I applaud the President, Speaker, the Minority Leader and others who have sought to put this together in a way that it could bring support from the Congress. I urge support of the resolution. And yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing. Much of what I have to say has been said by others, and said quite eloquently, but I would appreciate the opportunity to put my thoughts on the record.

Iraq, under the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, has been in violation of 16 different United Nation resolutions over the past decade, resolutions passed to ensure that Iraq dismantle its chemical and biological programs, and destroy any remaining weapons of mass destruction.

Ensuring compliance with these U.N. resolutions, which represent the will of the international community, is essential. Iraq has demonstrated its willingness to use these horrific weapons in battle and against its own people. One particularly gruesome example occurred in the late 1980s when Saddam Hussein's military unleashed deadly chemical gas attacks over entire villages in Iraq, killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

Given Saddam Hussein's 11-year record of defying and misleading the international community, I believe the United States, its allies, and the United Nations are justified in their efforts to rid Iraq of biological and chemical weapons. Month by month, Saddam Hussein increases his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, while he aggressively works to build nuclear weapons.

September 11th taught us that there are those who would use any means to harm innocent Americans. I am increasingly concerned about weapons of mass destruction being transferred from Iraq to terrorists like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, bent on attacking Americans.

The United States should seek to achieve this objective with as little risk to Americans and the Iraqi civilian population as possible. However, we must act, and act decisively, to permanently disarm Saddam Hussein, because the cost of lives and misery if we don't act will be incalculable. It is not a matter of choosing between war and peace. It is a matter of choosing between war on our terms or war on Saddam Hussein's terms.

Before any action is taken, the President is right in seeking approval of Congress, and I appreciate that and applaud that. I com

mend him for that. Further, it is important that we continue to make every effort to marshal international support. The changes to the original proposal, that have been agreed to by the Administration, have improved the original resolution.

I am mindful of my duty and responsibility on this occasion, and I shall be voting in favor of the resolution before us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman HYDE. Thank the gentlelady.

The gentlelady from the Mother of Presidents, Virginia, Ms. Davis.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I very rarely give opening statements, but I appreciate the patience to be able to give one on such an important matter.

Let me start by saying that, from the beginning, I have had reservations about this decision, and I share the same concerns as my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, with regards to retaliation on our own soil, as well as the possibility of the state of Israel. Both I believe to be very, very strong possibilities.

What we are about to undertake is of monumental proportions, and as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and one who represents a very heavy military district, I know all too well the effect that our decision to take military action against Iraq will have on the course of our Nation-for decades, I am afraid. However, we must move forward with this resolution against Iraq for the preservation of our own way of life. We cannot and shall not and will not live in fear.

This decision will, however, impact the lives of the men and women who serve our Nation. We must assure them that this war will be fought swiftly, with all intent to win, to win decisively, and to have a clear exit strategy. I don't take this vote lightly because I do represent the very men and women who will leave the ports in Virginia to face evil and risk their lives for our freedom.

With all that said, Mr. Chairman, after eight or nine classified and open briefings in the Armed Services Committee and many hearings in this Committee, I believe that we must move, and we must act and pass this resolution. I believe we must do it now. And for that reason, I will be voting "yes" on this resolution.

And I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentlelady.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Saddam Hussein has killed hundreds of thousands of people. He has gassed his own people, he has risked his life several times, all in an effort to expand his power. If he had a nuclear weapon, he could smuggle it into an American city, because after all, a nuclear weapon is about the size of a person. He could hide it in an apartment and then could invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia with impunity.

We must prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The question is, what resolution will best achieve that goal?

I will vote for final passage of whatever resolution this Committee finally agrees to, but I hope that we will come up with a

different resolution than the one presented by the Chair, although as I say, I will support that if that is the final vote of this markup. There are two approaches that can be taken to try to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons. One is what I call the Powell-Blair approach, which is to authorize the use of force only if inspectors are thwarted. The other is what I would call the Cheney or Richard Perle approach, which is to invade Iraq regardless of whether Saddam will allow unrestricted inspections.

I think this Committee and this Congress should choose and authorize one of them. Instead, we have a resolution which, while it gives some advice to the President, authorizes the President to either use the Powell-Blair approach or the Cheney approach.

Accordingly, I will introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute which will differ from the Chairman's mark in several respects.

First, the "whereas" clauses will describe only the nuclear threat and threat of other weapons of mass destruction that Iraq poses. It will not mention those U.N. resolutions that call upon Saddam to treat his own people with justice and fairness. That is because we should not give as a reason for the use of force the abuse of human rights by Saddam, which will raise the question in the world, what about other countries that are not democracies or that violate human rights? We must have reasons for the use of force that relate exclusively to the weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the amendment I will put forward will authorize the use of force only if Iraq fails to promptly agree and allow an effective weapons inspection and disarmament program, and-or if Iraq interferes with that program after agreeing to it. It will define an effective inspection and disarmament program as requiring immediate, unobstructed, and unannounced entry into all facilities, including, of course, those so-called "presidential palaces."

Finally, the amendment will direct the President to seek a U.N. resolution to achieve these inspections, but it will not condition the President's authority to use force on the U.N.'s action, because we should not endanger the security of the United States just because we can't get France or China or Russia to vote for a particular resolution.

I hope we go to the U.N. I hope we get the kind of U.N. resolution that Powell is seeking. But we will have to act as if we have that support from the United Nations whether we get it or not, unless we are willing to perhaps risk American cities based upon the vote of one of the other members of the Security Council.

As a matter of the technical rules of this Committee, I may have to offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute in two parts, one part changing the "whereas" clauses of the Chairman's mark, and the other changing the "resolved" questions or action of provisions of the Chairman's mark. I hope to be able to present it—in the interest of time, to present it as a single amendment.

We need to give the President the tools necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. Those tools are to be able to go to the United Nations, to be able to go to Saddam Hussein and say, either we will have the most incredibly invasive inspections program or we will use force. That is the approach I think we should take, because it will show the world that while we