The germ of terrorism is difficult to eradicate completely. We will never eliminate every last terrorist. But we can, in concert with fellow democracies around the world, change the soil. The Administration must embrace a broader vision, one that works to democratize the Middle East, to secure its rebirth and prosperity, a vision comparable in its breadth and audacity as the Marshall Plan at the of World War II.

The circumstances call for nothing less. As Lincoln once said, as our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. Only then, Mr. Chairman, do I believe we can secure our Nation.

I vield back.

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. And now, truly I recognize the next person with great joy, not because she is the last of a long line, but because she always has something instructive to say. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate and engage an exchange of views on the new compromise resolution language. You have great patience.

Debate and exchange of views are critical to the democratic process. And perhaps the greatest underpinning of democracy is the freedom to question. While it is a foregone conclusion that the resolution will receive the votes to pass, I still have serious reservations about the timing and justification for the use of force against Iraq.

The resolution still gives the President wide authority to act unilaterally and preemptively. A presidential determination section has been added to the new resolution, which requires the President to certify to Congress that all diplomatic options have been exhausted and that the Administration's actions are consistent with the United States' ongoing war on terrorism.

I believe that the resolution must contain language that specifically calls upon the United Nations to reimpose its inspection system, and that the U.S. should consider the options of the use of force, preferably with the backing of the United Nations, only after all deliberate measures have been taken, and only after it has been established that the U.N. inspectors have been hindered in their work.

It is only by working through the United Nations that the United States can establish a real justification for the use of force. Preventative or preemptive war, which is still an option for the President in this resolution, is not sufficient justification. Moreover, it is bad and a dangerous policy. It will only alienate and isolate the United States in the world community, and undermine our Nation's commitment to international order and the rule of law.

I would also note that recent pools suggest that the American people overwhelming support a war against Iraq with allied backing. However, support among Americans for intervention in Iraq drops off sharply when they are asked to support unilateral action in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution and will vote against it. Not a shred of new evidence has been offered by the Administration to demonstrate that Iraq is any more of a threat than it was a year ago. When I heard the President in his State of the

Union speech say the axis of evil, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then it brings home that Iraq would be the first invasion, then it will be followed by Iran, and then North Korea.

So we set a precedent here. And I just have to call attention to something that I saw in the Nation on Monday September 30th, as it was describing a rally here in Washington, DC, and their mantra was inspections, not war, and they say there has been enough killing in the past year. Killing a bunch of Iraqis won't help anything. And they also go on to say that the President has made the world less secure by asserting, in a new foreign policy doctrine, that the United States may strike first against hostile states developing weapons of mass destruction.

They further say, but we cannot have a world run by preemptive strikes. That would indeed be a world of perpetual war.

So, Mr. Chairman, I heard the word "peace" used too few times, and my constituents have come to me and said no war. I have had not one request to go to war against Iraq. I have had multiple requests to discuss a peace initiative. It is time that we start that. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman for your patience.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, gentlelady. And without objection, the Committee stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 8:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY

FORCE AGAINST IRAQ

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

WASHINGTON, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order.

Yesterday we began consideration of H.J. Res. 114, authorization for use of military force against Iraq. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes himself to strike the last word. [The resolution, H.J. Res. 114, follows:]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among