"to take such further steps as may be required to implement the resolution and to secure peace and security in the region." In view of Saddam Hussein's total disregard of the value of human life and his demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and terrorism to achieve his aims, nobody in Iraq, the Middle East, or the West, including the United States, is safe from his evil designs.

September 11 has demonstrated that we must take resolute action to prevent disasters before they occur. For now our best recourse is to assure that U.N. weapons inspectors return to Iraq and are granted, in the words of the U.N. Security Council resolution,

"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to weapons of mass destruction, related facilities, and documents." The world can no longer live with the possibility that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. This resolution says, in effect, that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to do what he was supposed to have done more than a decade ago; for no one can be in doubt that in current circumstances Saddam represents, as the U.N. resolution says-and our resolution says—

"a mounting threat to the United States, its allies, and international peace and security."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. I will now recognize people to strike the last words. Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. It is seldom that a resolution comes up that I am so wholeheartedly in support of as this one. I must say that it is also seldom that a resolution like this comes up that there was a need to strengthen. I have enjoyed on a bipartisan basis so much cooperation in strengthening this resolution that I do support and support wholeheartedly.

And I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that your opening comments spoke of how this is not a call specifically to change governments in Iraq. But I for one believe that this resolution does speak to it in a historic sense, and it makes it clear that the time, as Mr. Lantos said, is quickly running out. I believe the time should have run out a long time ago, but there is no time like the present to send a final word on the patience of this body. I believe when it is voted on on the floor, the entire body of the House will wholeheartedly support this resolution-it being the last such initiative before we thoroughly throw up our hands and move for the Administration to take the most severe action to free the world of this terrible and corrupt and destructive regime.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman. Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let us be clear what this resolution is not. It is not an authorization for the President to use force against Iraq; it is a cogent articulation of the case against Saddam Hussein who remains a threat to international peace and security.

In the wake of the heinous attacks of September 11th, it is important that we not lose sight of those states that in the past have wanted to do us harm. And, indeed, in the case of Iraq, we have a state that clearly intends to do us harm in the future as well. The point to be made about Iraq is not that the evidence of Iraq's involvement in the September 11th attacks is compelling; thus far it is not. The point to be made is that Iraq is violating the conditions of the cease-fire to which they agreed in 1991. One of those conditions was Iraq's acceptance of,

"immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation," by United Nations weapons inspectors.

Not only has Saddam Hussein violated his surrender agreement by not allowing such inspections, he does not even allow the weapons inspectors into the country.

In recognition of this fact, Congress in 1998 passed Senate Joint Resolution 54, which declared Iraq,

"in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations."

Those circumstances have not changed, and it is about time that our friends on the Security Council recognize that.

Mr. Chairman, we should remember that while Saddam has been ignoring Security Council resolutions, he has not been idle. As the resolution notes,

"A high risk exists that Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction."

We should never forget that Iraq is led by a man who has used these weapons against Iran as well as his own citizens. He has pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Kurds, and he has committed war crimes against the Shiites in southern Iraq. The fate of 600 missing Kuwaitis remains unresolved and Iraq has thus far refused to provide any information as to their fate. This is yet another condition of the cease-fire that Iraq is violating.

There are those who have argued that we should lift the sanctions on Iraq, that these sanctions harm the Iraqi people. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we must be clear and emphatic that only Saddam Hussein hurts the Iraqi people. If he were to abide by the conditions laid out in the U.N. Security Council resolutions, conditions which he accepted and which the international community demanded, the sanctions would be lifted. He lifts them when he keeps his word.

But Saddam Hussein has yet to demonstrate by his conduct that he should be rewarded. Rewarding criminals only leads to more crime. Rewarding tyrants only leads to more tyranny. Rewarding terrorists only leads to more terrorism. We have seen clearly evidence of this in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, September 11th provides us with an opportunity to reinvigorate our policy toward Iraq and to press the international community and our friends on the Security Council to demand that Iraq comply with the conditions of the cease-fire. The resolution before us today sends that message. It also tells Saddam Hussein that the patience of the United States is at an end.

I want to congratulate our colleague, Congressman Graham, as well as our Ranking Member on the Committee, Mr. Lantos, for introducing this resolution, and you yourself, Mr. Chairman, for your statement and for bringing it up in such an expedient fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Houghton, the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, since you are a co-signer of this joint resolution, maybe you could help me on this. I, of course, agree with the sentiments expressed here; no question about that. But rather than being just a paper tiger, I am really not sure what this does. It says the President of the United States and the United Nations should insist. What does that mean? If you insist and they do not respond, what does that mean? Does it mean that then you consider this an act of aggression? Maybe you can help me on this.

Chairman HYDE. Yes. I think it is a statement of policy by the United States Congress, speaking for the American people, that they take seriously the breach of the agreement made at the end of the Gulf War when Saddam, as part of the peace agreement, agreed to have inspectors with unfettered access to where he might be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. He has kicked them out. For 3 years, they are not there. We know he has used them before against his own people, and we are unwilling to let this fall between the cracks. While we are looking for Osama bin Laden through the caves of Afghanistan, over here is Saddam Hussein, doubtless manufacturing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

And so this is bringing attention to it. It is helping to focus Congress, and hopefully the American people, on this very dangerous and, I would say, ticking time bomb. It is not worthless. It is something that expresses the sentiment of Congress, brings it to the attention of our State Department.

There is a resistance of Saddam Hussein that frankly I don't think has gotten the attention it deserves. So this is focusing on a serious problem and saying let us do something about it. We don't tell the State Department, we don't tell the President what to do. That is not the purpose of this. It is to focus attention on a festering dangerous problem.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, I thank the Chairman for that. Again, I agree with the concept here, but it has been my perception that we have insisted before and he has ignored us.

Chairman HYDE. Repetition is the soul of eloquence.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, is this just another in the series of repetitions, or does this mean a little more?

Chairman HYDE. What did you say? I didn't

Mr. HOUGHTON. Is this is just another in a series of insistencies, which

Chairman HYDE. No, I think you are minimizing. This is the lat

est.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Does this mean more?

Chairman HYDE. This is the latest assertion of concern, a growing concern about a growing problem. Attention must be paid. Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. Well, I just want to add slightly to this dialogue, because I think it is an important one that the gentleman from New York has raised. I would just add slightly to this dialogue because it is very important what the gentleman from New York has raised, as well as a prior speaker.

The original language of this bill did include the words "act of aggression." This is not in this resolution and, I think, quite wisely. And I think the Chairman very thoughtfully changed that wording.

And therefore the question is: Why the resolution? And I think the resolution is appropriate because it is designed to reflect increasing concern in the United States, and I think this stands as a very serious warning to parties that ignore the international community that there may be repercussions. What and where they will be, I think, has to be determined in the future.

But it is always unwise to put the cart before the horse. The Constitution of the United States indicates under Article 1 that only Congress has the power to declare war. It is certainly wise, I think precedent-wise and otherwise, to respond to Executive requests rather than to lead in that direction. And so I think that the language of this resolution is very thoughtful, very reasonable, very compelling. But it is a bit unsatisfying, dissatisfying, in the sense that if you say this is very serious and you don't act, that is a dilemma. And so what the United States Congress is basically saying is that we realize there may be other things to follow, but we don't know just what they are going to be because they are rooted in potential actions of the Government of Iraq.

But I think it would be unwise at this time to conclude anything more sternly than that, as dissatisfying as that intellectually can be.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Of course.

Mr. HOUGHTON. This is probably not going to happen, but if I were doing it, I think that I would put this resolution in the hands of the Iraqi Ambassador, whoever it goes to, and say, by a member of the State Department, this is just not another in a series; this really means something. If nothing is done after this act, we are going to take an entirely different approach to it.

Chairman HYDE. Well, I welcome your tactical suggestions and we will relay them to the State Department. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. Thank you, Mr. Leach.

I have three names of people who want to be recognized. They are all Republicans, so I hope nobody thinks I am unleveling the playing field. Mr. Ron Paul.

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak on the substitute. I support the substitute in place in replacement of the original, for obvious reasons. The original bill was really dangerous and outlandish to consider that if someone did not follow a U.N. resolution, it was to be construed as an act of aggression against the United States.

So in the context of this debate, this resolution does have significance, but I am delighted that the author of the amendment clearly stated that this is not to be construed to be giving the President power to invade a country, which the first one did.

So I certainly support the substitute amendment over the original; but then, again on careful consideration, find the substitute just a bit too strong for myself. I am not sure about the purpose of the resolution. From my viewpoint, I think it serves to do great harm. It is jingoistic. It talks about confrontation. It, to me, invites conflict, and it certainly puts way too much emphasis on U.N. resolutions.

What if we dealt with every country that did not obey a U.N. resolution-and we all know which country has had the most resolutions written against it-and they have not been obeyed. So that is not a precedent you want to set, and that can't be the real rea

son.

My strong objection to a resolution like this is because I have a belief that we should always promote peace with a concern for national security and national defense, and at the same time protecting national sovereignty. I see resolutions like this that attack peace, challenge peace, promote war, and really serve no benefit to our national security and undermine our sovereignty.

The Chairman did state that there have been no inspections since 1998. That is not quite true. In 1999, U.N. inspectors went in there and did destroy some poison gases. And in this very year, 2001, the International Atomic Energy Agency was in there, and they wrote a remarkable statement. They said: I am pleased to confirm that between the 20th and 23rd of January 2001, a four-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory or verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently.

So I think sometimes we get one-sided on this, and we should at least look for some balance on this.

Scott Ritter, led the U.N. team. He is not exactly a Ron Paul follower. He led the U.N. team into Iraq on 30 occasions. He was on the television just recently. He said-in terms of military threat, absolutely nothing-when he was asked about whether Iraq was a threat to us. Absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991, in Operation Desert Storm, and hasn't had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We just don't know. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat.

In terms of real national security threats to the United States, no; none. I mean, I have not been to Iraq. Probably not too many of us have. He has been there 30 times under the U.N. inspection team. So I just happen to think that we should look at this somewhat differently.

Mr. PAUL. Why do we not deal with Iraq like we ask everybody else to deal with their problems? We recommend that the Catholics talk with the Protestants. We recommend that Israel talk to the Palestinians. We recommend that all conflicting parties talk to each other. What did we do in 1962 at the height of the Cold War with the threat of the Soviets 90 miles off our shores? We talked to them.