Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California. I certainly do not mean to offend her. She is one of the very good Members of the House Committee on International Relations, but I think her amendment suffers from terminal anemia. It is like slipping someone an aspirin who has just been hit by a freight train. Let us review Saddam Hussein's pattern of lawlessness. He is employing the vast wealth of his country and a legion of capable scientists and technicians to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at the expense of food and medicine for the women and children of Iraq. He invades neighboring countries, and continues his support for some of the world's most notorious terrorists and the groups that support them. In the mid 1990s, U.N. inspectors unearthed detailed drawings for constructing a nuclear device. In 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency began dismantling nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq, including three uranium enrichment plants. Over the past decade, he subjected tens of thousands of political opponents to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, starvation, mutilation and rape. On Monday night, President Bush announced that Saddam possesses a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. While Saddam repeatedly violates the myriad of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 1991, the world watches, the world waits and the world does nothing. So how do supporters of the Lee substitute propose to respond to Saddam's continuing affront to international law and norms? With conciliation and negotiation. For 11 years, the international community has attempted to do just that. Weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1998. During the 7 years inspectors were permitted in the country, their efforts were undermined by Iraqi coercion and cover-up. The gentlewoman is certainly correct that the United States should work to build an international consensus to ferret out and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And as we speak, the Bush administration is engaging the United Nations to employ arms to force Saddam to comply with Security Council resolutions. But in the last analysis, the security of the United States cannot be held hostage to a failure by the United Nations to act because of a threat of a Security Council veto by Russia, China or France. The Lee substitute essentially advocates the futile policies of the previous decade and fails to recognize the United States as a sovereign Nation with an absolute right of self-defense, a right clearly recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Without a strongly worded Congressional resolution that gives the President the flexibility he needs, the Iraqi regime will have no incentive to comply with existing or new U.N. resolutions. Only clear and direct action of this Congress will send the essential message to the United Nations that the current stalemate must end. Only resolute action by this Congress can ensure the peace that all of us claim as a goal. The Lee substitute is a well-intentioned but perilous receipt for inaction, based on wishful thinking, and that is what makes it so dangerous. We have had more than a decade of obfuscation by Saddam Hussein. At what point do the United States and the international community say enough? Enough lies, enough evasions, enough duplicity, enough fraud, enough deception. Enough. I think the time has now come. I urge a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my intention to yield time to every Republican who asks for it, regardless of what side they are on. I will not discriminate between people who are for it or against it. If they are Republicans and they want time, we will give it to him or her so long as we have time; and we will allocate it as fairly as we possibly can.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me these arguments should have been made when the rule was debated. The rule has been adopted. There was testimony before the Committee on Rules. I do not know that these folks were there making the same arguments, but to make it now comes rather late in the proceedings. We will be as fair as we possibly can, but the rule has been adopted. It does not address itself at all to how much time certain Members will have depending on their attitudes towards this resolution. This concern comes too late. The rule has been adopted by voice vote.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 574, I call up the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the joint resolution under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the House's attention to section 2 of the rule which says, ``It shall be in order for the majority leader or his designee, after consultation with the minority leader, to move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended. Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.'' So this extension of time is provided for in the rule, which has already been adopted, and if and when the occasion arises I will do everything in my power to facilitate extending the time so nobody is muzzled or gagged in this Chamber.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who did not give an opening statement but rather contributed to the literature of freedom, a remarkable statement and worth keeping. Sixty-six years ago, on March 7, 1936, a brutal dictator who had terrorized his own people and instigated religious and ethnic persecutions on a massive scale declared his aggressive intent against his neighbors in a stream of gutter writings dating back a decade and a half and rearmed his country in defiance of solemn treaty obligations. He then flagrantly violated yet another international obligation by militarily reoccupying a portion of his country that had been demilitarized by international agreement. His democratic neighbors said nothing. Free men around the world did nothing, except protest weakly. The dictator, who may have been mad but who was certainly no fool, took those empty words of protest as further signs of the free world's weakness and fear. The League of Nations did nothing. Nine years and more than 40 million deaths later, the price of failing to confront aggression before the bombs started raining down on Europe had become horrendously clear. Hitler had been allowed to turn Europe into a slaughterhouse because free men had failed to stop him before he set loose the greatest war in human history. That the Holocaust was permitted to occur stands as a permanent reproach to the civilized world. Millions of innocents died because the free world lacked the will and the courage to face a brutal dictator's manifestly aggressive intentions, his burgeoning weapons capabilities, and his gross violations of international law. Does this scenario, does this failure to recognize that evil intentions plus destructive capability plus unscrupulous wickedness equals clear and present danger, sound familiar? It should. And not from the history books, but from the morning newspaper. We are faced today with a situation whose analogies to 1936 seem all too clear. An aggressive dictator has once again willfully and repeatedly defied the basic norms of international law. Having terrorized his own people into submission, Saddam Hussein has rearmed his country and feverishly sought weapons of mass destruction. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that he wants those weapons for anything but aggression. Does any sane person looking at this man's record over the past 2 decades imagine that he will be deterred by reason or by moral suasion? We have spent more than a decade trying, without any success, to enforce Saddam's pledges to disarm. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried sanctions. We have tried inspections. We have established no-fly zones. We have run out of options. In 1980, he attacked Iran and initiated a decade of warfare that killed and wounded over 1 million people, a conflict that included his use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait and imposed a brutal occupation on that country, laying waste to everything within reach when his forces were finally driven out. He has indiscriminately used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in his own country, and he has slaughtered any who dared oppose him. Given this record, there can be no doubt that, once armed with weapons of even greater destructive power, he will have little reluctance to use them. In a world of modern technology, the first strike might well be the last strike. If those who flew hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had nuclear bombs instead of airplanes as weapons, do we doubt they would use them? We would then be mourning 3 million deaths, not 3,000. Permitted to acquire and deploy even more lethal weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein will use those weapons; and he will use them against us and against our allies. Some of us demand a smoking gun before we will approve the use of force. We may well get a smoking city like Hiroshima in place of a gun. He must not be allowed to gain those nuclear capabilities. We cannot afford another reoccupation of the Rhineland, another gross failure to enforce the basic norms of international order, this time, in a world of weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, because the world simply cannot permit this man to obtain usable weapons of mass destruction. If the international community is so feeble as not to see that this man's threat to peace, justice, and freedom must be confronted boldly and decisively, then the United States and those allies who will stand with us must do the job for our own safety's sake and in defense of the minimum conditions that make a civilized world possible. The menace posed by Saddam is undeniable, but we are confronted with an even greater danger. Despite clear and repeated warnings, it appears much of the world does not understand that we have entered a wholly new and increasingly perilous era, one with new and harsher rules. Through repeated usage, the term ``weapons of mass destruction'' has become almost banal, but the unimaginable destructive power these represent requires our constant focus and the determination to do what we must to defend ourselves. The problem is not merely that a murderous tyrant such as Saddam may be in possession of these weapons. In the aftermath of September 11, we must accept that he has been joined by many others of an even more fanatical purpose. Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence. Their possession of weapons of mass destruction must be equated with a certainty that these will be used against us. We cannot shield ourselves with hope. We must not guess the world into annihilation. For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render our actions. I believe that is the wrong debate. We all agree that these are desirable things, and we should do all in our power to secure them. I believe the President and his administration have done and are doing just that. But the real question, the one which should occupy us, is one of far greater consequence: On whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours, or do we share it with others? Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others? I believe there is only one answer. We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves with our friends and allies, if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we condition our faith on the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail. For more than half a century, whatever safety and security has existed in this world has been there largely because America has been unafraid to act against threats and to act alone, if necessary. The perception that we are resolved to do so has prevented many assaults on that security and continues to do so today. On many occasions we have been joined in our efforts by our friends and allies; and, more rarely, we have enjoyed the world's approval. But often we have not, and still we acted. If we are to have a chance of averting conflict in Iraq, a simple resolve on our part will not be sufficient. For the great danger we face with Saddam is ambiguity. Saddam has often miscalculated in the past. His flawed judgments have resulted in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. For that reason, any ambiguity regarding our course of action and our determination to act alone if need be risks yet another miscalculation on his part and a false grant of safety to call our bluff. Vigorous debate in our deliberations is not only desirable, it is essential. The question before us demands it. But the result of that debate cannot be to condition our actions on the approval of others, for we might wait and wait and wait for an approval that may never come. We must remember our debate here today is not for ourselves alone and that our audience is not confined to this Chamber. The world is watching. The allies are watching. Our enemies are watching. Saddam is watching. They are looking for signs of indecision in our resolve, searching for a fatal sign of weakness that will come from binding ourselves to act only in concert with others. The voice of indecision would cut through any wording in which we might attempt to secrete it, however artfully phrased and cleverly contrived we might render it. We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger confronting us. All of our choices are difficult, but our only real option is to act. Over a century ago, in another conflict, Abraham Lincoln said, ``We cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.'' A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only because we were there to rescue her. But there is no one to rescue us. We cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If we are not prepared to defend ourselves and to defend ourselves alone, if need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakeably resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to be purchased, no refuge to be found. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President. I do so not simply because he is a good, honest, intelligent man who happens to be the leader of my party. I support the President because he is right, strategically, politically, and morally right. In the autumn years of my long life, I do not intend to see the free world repeat the errors it made when I was a teenager, errors that extracted an unfathomable cost in blood and treasure. I do not believe my country wants to be a party to appeasement. We cannot defend America, we cannot build a world of peace, order, justice, and freedom by hope alone. The statesmen of the 1930s tried to secure the peace by hopes alone. They failed, and the results are with us still. We cannot repeat their failure. We must not. History will not forgive us another failure of imagination and will. I propose there is a reason why you are here today and I am here today. That is because providence has burdened us with the terrible decision of what is best for America. I propose what is best for America is to support our President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, I strongly support adoption of the conference report. I am particularly pleased that the conference report authorizes $10,732,000 and an additional six full-time employees in fiscal year 2003 for the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the Department of Justice. CRS is an extraordinarily important office whose many accomplishments have been too little noticed. It has the statutory responsibility to assist communities around the United States, and particularly minority communities, in preventing violence and resolving conflicts arising from racial and ethnic tensions and to develop the capacity of such communities to address these conflicts without external assistance. They do a wonderful job and we are fortunate to have them. The increased authorization provided by this section and the additional full-time employees will support the expansion of the Community Relations Service's efforts to address heightened tension and potential for conflict in many communities in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. I am also pleased that the conference report creates a Violence Against Women Office with the Department of Justice. The Office will be headed by a Director who reports directly to the Attorney General and has final authority over all grants, cooperative agreements and contracts awarded by the Office. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference committee wisely decided not to include a Senate provision would have exempted federal government lawyers from the responsibility to follow the same ethnical rules that bind other lawyers. The Senate provision was not only unnecessary, but would have been counterproductive to the goal of truly professional law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This comprehensive foreign policy legislation will give the President and the Secretary of State the tools they need to conduct a foreign policy that strengthens the security of the United States, protects American interests and promotes American values. Mr. Speaker, it is traditional that in matters of foreign policy the Congress leaves the President and the Secretary of State some flexibility. This legislation respects that tradition, but it also sets limits, both on the amounts that may be spent and on the purposes for which they may be used. It identifies foreign policy priorities and it requires that Congress be kept informed. Mr. Speaker, this conference report reaffirms and strengthens the authority of the U.S. officials to combat terrorism and to protect our embassies and the people who work in them. It also reaffirms and strengthens the United States' commitment to the survival of Israel and to a just peace in the Middle East, to United Nations reform, to the continued existence of a democratic Taiwan, and to religious freedom and other fundamental human rights. To be specific, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enhance our national security by authorizing $1.6 billion for security at our embassies and other United States missions abroad and by providing new law enforcement authorities for the diplomatic security agents who are charged with the protection of these missions. It will also authorize new counterterrorism assistance to countries that are helping us in this global struggle, and provide new authorities for the State Department's Bureau of Verification and Compliance, which monitors compliance by foreign governments with arms control agreements in order to stop the flow of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and to rogue regimes. The conference report also reaffirms and strengthens our commitment to freedom and democracy by setting aside funds for enhanced human rights monitoring, extending the life of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, providing for enhanced U.S. diplomatic efforts to promote human rights in Tibet and Vietnam, and requiring State Department officials to work for reform of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights whose membership now includes some of the world's worst human rights violators. This legislation would also complete the process of United Nations budget reform which we began several years ago under which the U.S. dues to the U.N. will be lowered from 25 percent to 22 percent of the total. Our contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations will also be reduced through the end of fiscal year 2004 and thereafter will be capped at 25 percent. In addition, 15 provisions promote sound financial and management practices at the U.N. and its affiliated agencies. The conference report will strengthen our bilateral relationship with important allies, such as Israel and Taiwan. It not only provides enhanced antiterrorism assistance for Israel but also contains provisions to spur compliance with existing U.S. law recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The conference report also includes the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002, which requires the President to determine whether the Palestinian Authority is complying with its commitments under international agreements, including the renunciation of terrorism and violence, and to report to Congress on what actions will be taken in the event of noncompliance. The legislation also authorizes the transfer to Taiwan of four Kidd class destroyers, as requested by the Bush administration, and requires that Taiwan be treated for purposes of military assistance as though it had been designated as a major non-NATO ally. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill contains important provisions to protect a variety of other vital American interests. For instance, it requires a plan from the State Department for improving the recruitment of veterans into the Foreign Service, as well as a report on steps taken by the U.S. Agency for International Development to ensure that the bidding procession is fair to small businesses in the United States. The legislation will require senior State Department officials in the law enforcement bureau to have some experience with law enforcement and/or international counternarcotics efforts, and it will require the State Department to report to Congress on foreign governments that refuse to extradite criminals for prosecution in the United States or to comply with the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, as well as on joint cooperative efforts to eradicate opium in Colombia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation. I would like the record to show what a pleasure it was to work with the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), whose cooperation and vision has added greatly to the end product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the learned gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 483) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1648, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.