Markup of H. Res. 322

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC

50–112 CC
1998
H. RES. 322

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California

 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
DEBORAH BODLANDER, Professional Staff Member
PARKER H. BRENT, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S

Markup of H. Res. 322, Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should act to resolve the crisis with Iraq in a manner that assures full Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and that peaceful and diplomatic efforts should be pursued, but that if such efforts fail, multilateral military action or unilateral United States military action should be taken

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

APPENDIX
    H. Res. 322, reprint of
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Lantos
MARKUP OF H. RES. 322, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ACT TO RESOLVE THE CRISIS WITH IRAQ IN A MANNER THAT ASSURES DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE AND DELIVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT PEACEFUL AND DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS SHOULD BE PURSUED, BUT THAT IF SUCH EFFORTS FAIL, MULTILATERAL MILITARY ACTION OR, AS A LAST RESORT, UNILATERAL UNITED STATES MILITARY ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session, pursuant to notice, to receive testimony from the Honorable Timothy Wirth, Under Secretary of State, with respect to global climate change issues, and to consider a resolution on the crisis with Iraq that was introduced by Congressman Lantos. I would speak on the resolution when we take it up, and we will have an opportunity to discuss the climate change issue after we dispose of it.
    Are any other Members seeking recognition at this time?
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am confused and I was hoping you could straighten me out. The Commerce-State-Justice bill is coming to the floor without the Republican priority for reform of the United Nations and without the Republican priority for reorganization of the State Department. It was on those bases that the bill that was entered last Congress was vetoed because the Administration didn't like those priorities. Could you explain what is happening?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Mr. Berman. We just had a leadership meeting. There is a measure being worked on at the moment in Rules Committee to present on the floor. It would include authorizations for the State Department, for some of the other issues, the reorganization, and a few of the other issues that we have been very much concerned about that have been left out of yesterday's consideration. And we hope that, when that is presented, we will be able to get both a bipartisan support for the measure.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, does that include the Helms-Biden U.N. package?
    Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman—I am sorry. I was interrupted.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Surely. Does the bill that you said is being worked on and presented to Rules now include the Helms-Biden U.N. package?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes, it is my understanding that it will include the arrearages for the United Nations and some of the reform that we have requested. And I would like to——
    Mr. HAMILTON. I didn't request it. I don't know who did request it. I certainly didn't.
    Chairman GILMAN. Well, many of us have been concerned about it.
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to reclaim my time, that authorization, then, will be considered on the floor today?

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman GILMAN. It is my understanding that the Rules Committee is working on the rule right at this time and it will be presented for early consideration today.
    Mr. BERMAN. And will that authorization include the codification of the Mexico City policy?
    Chairman GILMAN. I will yield to Mr. Smith who has been working on this measure.
    Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
    The language would be the compromise that we have offered, which only includes half of the Mexico City policy that deals with overseas lobbying.
    Mr. BERMAN. I will yield back my time. But just let me make one last comment. So as I understand it, yesterday we appropriated $385 million of family planning money. Today, we will consider an authorization which will include the Republican tendered compromise which was rejected by the Administration on Mexico City, the Republican priority for State Department reorganization, the Republican desires to condition funding for the United Nations on certain reforms all in a bill that will not pass the Senate and will not be signed by the President. Meanwhile, the funding for the population planning goes ahead, and the Commerce-State-Justice bill will be taken up before this authorization bill is ever considered by the Congress or signed into law.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr.——
    Mr. BERMAN. That seems strange to me.
    Mr. SMITH. Well, first of all, we know that the Secretary of State and others very much would like to see the arrearage payments and the International Monetary Fund moved forward. They have made that very clear. The Administration regrettably is so committed—one might say obsessed—with providing overseas abortion lobbying license to organizations that we very heavily subsidized, that they are willing to negate all of the arrearage money, which many conservatives are not for, but would begrudgingly go along with, as well as the $3.5 billion that Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin would like to see go forward for the IMF.

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So we offered what we thought was a true compromise, where many of the conservatives would swallow hard and allow in excess of $4 billion, $4.4 billion, to go forward in exchange for very modest—and I emphasize modest—abortion language. A true compromise.
    As I think everybody knows, the Mexico City policy is made up of two parts, lobbying and performance. We would allow the President to waive the performance of abortion prohibitions for those organizations overseas that are the prime providers of abortion. It was a very, very hard call on the part of pro-life Members, I can assure you. Yet we were willing to give the President half a loaf, if he would just meet us halfway.
    Mr. BERMAN. Just to reclaim my time.
    Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BERMAN. I might say that obsession and the pursuit of virtue, Mr. Smith, I know you know is not necessarily a vice. But, second, at the end of the day, this year's assessment of the United Nations has been appropriated by Commerce-State-Justice. And the measures that we need, not because it is the partisan interests of the Democrats but because to deal with the currency instabilities around the world will be denied. The reorganization of the State Department, the USIA, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and AID will be denied. For those who are promoting the Mexico City policy, they will have achieved nothing. All of this to show the Clinton Administration something. It seems very bizarre.
    Mr. SMITH. Well, there is still some hope, and maybe it is more pessimism than optimism, frankly, that again, with a true compromise on the table, the President may see that there are other voices, perhaps within his own Administration, that believe that giving money to organizations that are the prime lobbying forces in countries around the world isn't what family planning ought to be all about. They claim that this is about contraception. OK.
    As we have argued for years, Mexico City is all about a wall of separation between contraception and abortion. Abortion takes the life of a baby. It is violence against children. And we believe on the pro-life side that there is a way to at least stop this aggressive lobbying that is going on around the world, or at least to mitigate some of its abuses, and still get the money to those organizations that will do just family planning. Regrettably, in the compromise, they can still do abortions.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BERMAN. I understand that, but what you are saying is here are the priorities in 1995, 1996 and 1997. We wanted to reorganize the entire international relations bureaucracy. We wanted to implement reforms and a guide path that the United Nations should take. And in order to show you, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot and deny ourselves the two major reforms that we have had for the last 3 years in the international relations area and go through another year without this Committee doing what it is supposed to be doing.
    Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BERMAN. I yield——
    Mr. SMITH. The defense of children's lives in the developing world is of sufficient priority to many of us that we believe it is the linchpin to unlocking what could be a real golden age of cooperation in the area of foreign policy.
    We will not, however, aid and abet those organizations that are absolutely intent on destroying the pro-life laws in about 100 countries that currently protect their unborn children. If it means an impasse, fine. I can tell you that, on the arrearage money we have an absolute commitment from the Speaker and the Majority Leader. The United Nations will not get one penny in the 105th Congress, nor will the IMF if the President is so committed—I will use that word—to abortion advocacy around the world. Even though Phyllis Oakley will sit there and testify, as she did before my Subcommittee that this Administration does not promote abortion globally, its surrogates do. They pour money into organizations and then have plausible deniability that they are not doing it. These organizations have made no bones about bragging about bringing down right-to-life laws, and they recently succeeded in Cambodia.
    Chairman GILMAN. If Mr. Berman will yield.
    Mr. BERMAN. Sure.

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman GILMAN. We have now taken up about 20 minutes of our time this morning. We have an important resolution before us.
    Mr. BERMAN. Can I yield to my Ranking Member? I have nothing more to say.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me put this spin on it with regard to the U.N. reorganization or payment of the arrears or dues with respect to the United Nations. Mr. Berman, I understand this bill that the Rules Committee may be working on is not an authorization bill but may be an appropriation bill. It is—that is correct. It is a combination. But it is coming on to the floor as an appropriation bill because of procedural advantages.
    Now I think what Members of this Committee ought to be very attuned to is that we in the Committee and the entire House of Representatives have been entirely excluded from consideration of U.N. reform package.
    Mr. Gilman and I held that off at the request of the Administration when we took it up in this Committee because we were told that there was going to be a task force bicameral, bilateral, bipartisan task force. And we did the same thing on the floor of the House. We kept our colleagues in the House of Representatives from voting on the U.N. reform package, all the time being told that the task force was going to take care of it when, in fact, the task force didn't meet but once or maybe twice, and the entire effort to put together a reform U.N. package was handled in negotiations between the Department of State and two or three Senators. And it went through the Senate.
    But this package is being put on to the authorization appropriation bill, having excluded entirely every Member of the House of Representatives from any input at all into U.N. reform. And this Committee has been totally bypassed in that process. And I think that is just an abuse of process that is about as outrageous as anything I have seen in my years in the Congress.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I will oppose that package on that ground alone, although I have some problems with other aspects of it as well. But if we in this Committee do not stand up to fight for the jurisdiction of this Committee on a matter of major importance like U.N. reform, and we let the Administration deal entirely with the appropriators to our exclusion, then we only increase our own irrelevancy here right down the line. And that is exactly what has happened. I don't know whether that has happened by some master plan or malevolence or whatever. I don't make any charges of that sort at all. But I know what the result has been. The result has been——
    Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. That the House of Representatives has been excluded. I yield.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, regular order. We have now spent 25 minutes on this issue. We have heard all of the arguments. I think we have to move on to some serious business.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct, and I think it is time we take up——
    Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield, just briefly?
    Mr. LANTOS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. HAMILTON. If the gentleman means to say that this is not serious business, Mr. Lantos, when you are talking about the jurisdiction of the Committee and our ability to influence the U.N. reform package——
    Mr. LANTOS. That was not the package, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Is a pretty outlandish statement, if I may say so.
    Chairman GILMAN. Let me conclude this discussion with just one remark. I just came from the meeting with leadership, Mr. Hamilton. I raised that very issue of importance of authorization process and how it has been eroded over the years, since 1985, as I recall, when Dante Fascell was still fighting the same battles and making certain the authorization process would be a priority.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We now move on to take up the bill before us. The first issue we take up is H. Res. 322 with respect to crisis with Iraq. The Chair lays the measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title.
    The CLERK. H. Res. 322, a resolution expressing the sense of the House that the United States should act to resolve the crisis with Iraq in a manner that assures full Iraqi compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and that peaceful and diplomatic efforts should be pursued; but that if such efforts fail, multilateral military action or unilateral U.S. military action should be taken.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the clerk will read the operative text and the preamble of the resolution.
    The CLERK. Whereas at the conclusion of the Gulf War the United States——
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the operative text and preamble is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.
    [H. Res. 322 appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. I will speak briefly about the measure and then turn to our good colleague, Mr. Lantos, who has been the sponsor. I want to express my support for the resolution that our colleague, Mr. Lantos, has introduced and to commend him for his forthrightness on the issue of Saddam Hussein.
    I am pleased to cosponsor the bill with Mr. Lantos. The current crisis with Iraq is at core yet another effort by Saddam to evade sanctions and isolate our Nation from its allies. It was decided by the members of the United Nations under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council over 6 years ago that the civilized world would no longer condone Saddam's efforts to threaten the region of the world through chemical, biological, and nuclear means.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Accordingly, UNSCOM was created to uncover and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The sanctions which followed were imposed upon Iraq to ensure its compliance were to remain in place until that capability no longer existed. However, the Iraqi regime has evaded UNSCOM's efforts at every turn, and UNSCOM inspectors had been harassed, intimidated, and deceived on a regular basis.
    It is a testament to UNSCOM's persistence at progress and eliminating Iraq's capabilities have been made over the years, but Saddam's capabilities have not been eliminated. It has become clear that Saddam Hussein's repeated refusal to permit American inspectors from participating in UNSCOM's inspections cannot be allowed to stand. And while all of us support resolving this latest crisis through diplomatic means, Saddam must know that force would be used if necessary to ensure that the U.N. Security Council is going to be complied with.
    The bill expresses the sense of the House supporting the use of force as the last resort to assure the destruction of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction preferably through a multilateral effort. However, the bill advocates unilateral action by our Nation if necessary.
    Saddam must know that our resolve is greater than his and that we will not be swayed by our collective determination to eliminate his capability to create and inflict weapons of mass destruction upon his neighbors in the world. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues' support of the bill.
    I yield to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of the measure.
    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, my resolution could probably be labeled the truth on Iraq resolution. I would like to take a moment to set the framework for this resolution and spell out its main features.
    It was in this room under the chairmanship of Mr. Hamilton several years ago when we listened to the Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East at that time attempt to explain away an appeasement policy toward Iraq, which was self-evident to many of us that it would lead to war. It did lead to war.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It led to war against a country which used poison gas on its own neighbors and used poison gas on its own people. And it ended in ignominious defeat for Saddam Hussein. Some of us at the time argued that the victory was incomplete, and Saddam, in fact, should have been removed from office. Subsequent events clearly demonstrate that that would have been the proper course of action.
    For the last 6 years, as a result of U.N. decisions, a multinational effort has been under way to ferret out Iraq's biological, chemical, nuclear, and missile capabilities. Pending the completion of this task, sanctions have been imposed on Iraq preventing it from selling its oil. Lately, we have made exceptions to this pattern of sanctions by providing Iraq an opportunity to purchase food and medicine.
    It is obvious, that for Saddam Hussein, the opportunity of developing weapons of mass destruction is dramatically more important than obtaining the lifting of sanctions and continuing normal trade in oil. And in recent weeks we have seen an attempt, not only at noncompliance with the U.N. inspection team, but an attempt to split various members of that team by denying U.S. citizens who are part of the U.N. inspection team the opportunity to perform their responsibilities.
    The resolution at the United Nations yesterday, of course, does not solve the problem. Saddam Hussein couldn't care less whether some of his henchmen will have the opportunity of traveling abroad or not traveling abroad.
    My resolution redirects the focus of attention on the real issue. And the real issue basically is very simple. Saddam Hussein has an option of fully complying with the U.N. resolution as he has been advised to do by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and by a unanimous vote of the U.N. Security Council. If he does not do so, it is my considered judgment that military action will have to be taken against Saddam Hussein—sustained, serious, prolonged, and effective action, not pin pricks, until Saddam Hussein complies with the U.N. determination to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and the delivery capability of those weapons of mass destruction.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would prefer to have such multilateral military action be taken under U.N. auspices, but I do not think that we can set the desirability of moving under U.N. auspices as the ultimate test as to whether military action against Saddam Hussein will be undertaken.
    For commercial or other reasons of their own, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, and others may not cooperate or approve of military action under U.N. auspices. Under those circumstances, my resolution calls for multinational military action outside of U.N. auspices. And, if in fact multinational action cannot be arranged, my resolution calls for action by the United States. Therefore, the resolution needs to be viewed as a sequential proposal.
    It is clear that an unequivocal first preference is diplomatic and peaceful action; failing in that, multilateral action under U.N. auspices; failing that, multilateral action outside of the United Nations; and failing that, action by the United States.
    I believe that the 20th century has taught us many times, perhaps most recently in the case of the Persian Gulf War, that appeasement does not lead to acceptable results. The world outside of Iraq is fully capable of teaching that lesson to Saddam Hussein again. I hope it will not be necessary to teach that lesson by military means. If Saddam Hussein is unprepared to learn that lesson except through military means, my resolution calls for military means.
    I thank the Chair.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, let me just make one personal reference, if I may. I think this may be the last Committee meeting at which Mara Rudman will be serving as the chief counsel for the Minority. I just want to express a word of deep appreciation to her. She has been outstanding in that task and has aided our side greatly and I think the work of the Committee greatly. And I wanted just to acknowledge her contribution.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I am so pleased to see Mara on our side of the aisle that I, too, join in commending Mara for her good work. She has always been down in the well with all of our staff members trying to work out some very touchy problems. And we have had good cooperation between staff on both sides. We wish Mara well in the days ahead. Thank you.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for your comments about Mara Rudman.
    I want to say to Tom Lantos that he often comes forward with the initiatives in this Committee that are very important, and he has done so this time as well. And I commend him bringing this resolution forward. I strongly support it. He and the Chairman have explained it very well. I needn't go into it, except to say that I think the priorities are exactly right in this resolution.
    The bottom line is to get full compliance by Saddam Hussein of the resolutions. The Lantos resolution wants to do that, first, through diplomacy; second, through multilateral force, if that becomes necessary; and third, if the first two do not succeed, then military action by the United States. I commend the gentleman. It is an excellent resolution, and I strongly support it.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
    I understand the gentleman from California has an amendment. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. This is basically a technical amendment that strengthens and clarifies the language.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. It is on the Members' desks. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. LANTOS. Chairman, I move that the amendment be considered to be read.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.]
    [The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of——
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. If I could just have one moment of support for Mr. Lantos' amendment. I support Mr. Lantos' amendment. I think that, obviously, we need to speak out now. But just one thought, and that is that we shouldn't have to look at the problems that are coming to us from Iraq as the same type of problems that might be coming to us from a democratic country. The real solution to the problem is the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power. And I would hope that the people of Iraq come to that conclusion sooner than later.
    It is sad that we ended the conflict back in 1990 and 1991 with Saddam Hussein still in power. I think President Bush, probably one of his worst failures, was the fact that we had a war with Iraq and we killed hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands, but at least tens of thousands of people, and they were not our enemies. And yet our enemy, Saddam Hussein, a man who is a vicious dictator who rules his country with an iron fist still is in power. And Iraq is going to continue. And the people of Iraq are going to continue to suffer these problems. And we are going to continue to have these types of confrontations with that regime as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
    And I just hope that, along with passing the Lantos amendment, that we are also trying to pass on to the people of Iraq our condolences for having such a regime that places us at odds with one another. There is absolutely no reason why the people of the United States should be the enemy of the people of Iraq. We should both be actually struggling to build a better world and to have good relations with one another. But, yet, it is only this one man's dictatorship that puts his own people in jeopardy and creates these situations.
    So while I support the Lantos amendment, I just thought that that needed to be expressed. And I am sure that is not at all contradictory to what Mr. Lantos is trying to achieve.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking—Ms. Danner. If the gentlelady will withhold, and if Mr. Lantos will withhold, I have some other speakers. Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution. And, second, I just want to join in congratulating Mr. Lantos for bringing this to the Committee. If Iraq can act with impunity, if it can violate U.N. Security Council resolutions, if it can violate international law, if it can do so because, to some, oil is more important than security, if it can do so because of concerns about the potential harm that Iraq can inflict, then the world is held hostage to Saddam Hussein. And I really don't want my children or America to be held in the grasp of Saddam Hussein waiting for the moment in which he decides to crush those that are within his grasp.
    So while I fervidly hope that the peaceful diplomacy tools that are referred to in the resolution can resolve the present crisis, should we need to act militarily, I do echo some of the other comments that have been made. We should thoroughly complete the job the next time because we should never be in the position that we find ourselves in today—had we acted decisively, we would have taken care of all of the potential harm that Iraq can inflict, not only in the region, but beyond the region. So I very strongly support Mr. Lantos' resolution and ask to be listed as a cosponsor.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to commend my good friend and colleague and draw to the attention of my colleagues on this Committee Mr. Lantos' farsightedness and courage in 1991. I had the privilege to serve with him then. And of all Members of the California delegation who represented districts in the Bay area, it was only Mr. Lantos on his side of the aisle and only I on my side of the aisle who stood up to the crisis then and voted to use force.

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It was harder for you, I think, Mr. Lantos, given the political pressure, and also the fact that I was the only Republican in the Bay area anyway. I was honored to stand with you then and I am honored to stand with you now.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Ms. Danner.
    Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the sponsor?
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
    Ms. DANNER. I noticed that Ron Dellums' name is not on here. And I have high regard for him as Chairman, our now Ranking Member of National Security. I would feel more comfortable if I knew why Ron is not listed.
    Mr. LANTOS. I have equally high regard for my friend, Ron Dellums. This resolution was drafted by me yesterday morning, and we called around to some people whom we asked to cosponsor it. There are 435 Members. And my staff, as the lady's staff, is not large enough to get in touch with everybody. I presume Mr. Dellums is aware of the resolution and I hope he will support it. But I cannot tell you what his position is at the moment.
    Ms. DANNER. I can certainly appreciate the limited number of time that staff have available. However, I would have assumed that one of their very first calls would have and, in my opinion, should have been to Ron Dellums who does serve us as Ranking Member of that Committee, which is very, very much involved, I would think.
    Mr. LANTOS. My staff advises we did call Mr. Dellums, and apparently he was not available.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank all of my colleagues who express support. And let me say that I submitted this resolution because I felt it was necessary for the House of Representatives to speak with a clear, unambiguous voice on this most important issue.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We cannot dance around Saddam Hussein's continuing defiance, obfuscation, and undermining of U.N. authority indefinitely.
    The sanctions against Iraq could have been lifted 5 years ago had there been cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein in facilitating the work of the U.N. inspection team, which had, as its goal, one simple objective: to ascertain whether, in fact, Saddam's capability to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missile methods is eliminated. Once that certification was offered, sanctions would have been lifted. Life would have returned to normalcy in Iraq. And, according to the best estimates, over $100 billion in oil revenues would have flown into Iraq for the purpose of improving the lives of the Iraqi people.
    Now, it was a very naive and mistaken assumption on the part of many who felt that Saddam Hussein was concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, because the welfare of the Iraqi people could have been dramatically improved during the course of the last 5 years if only Saddam Hussein had agreed to cease and desist in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
    You do not need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that the development of weapons of mass destruction is infinitely more important to Saddam Hussein than the welfare of his people. And since the U.N. inspection teams were getting close to uncovering the very things he had been hiding for 6 years, Hussein decided to up the ante, first by attempting to divide the U.N. inspection team, the U.S. citizens from others, and as of this morning calling for the expulsion of U.S. citizens who are part of the U.N. inspection team.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield a moment, I hope you will explain the amendment within your time period.
    Mr. LANTOS. I will, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to place this in perspective.
    The amendment, Mr. Chairman, clarifies and improves the text. The National Security Office in the White House has studied the text and proposed some of the improvements. And they support the legislation. Ranking Member Hamilton made some technical corrections and substantive suggestions, which, in my judgment, strengthened and enhanced and improved the text. There is nothing in the changes proposed which in any sense alters the fundamental thrust of my original resolution. I think these are to be viewed as clarifying and strengthening technical changes.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment by Mr. Lantos?
    If not, the question is on the amendment on the nature of a substitute. As many as in favor, signify in the usual manner.
    As many as opposed, say no.
    The amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, on this, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Mr. HAMILTON. On the amendment?
    Mr. LANTOS. On the resolution.
    Chairman GILMAN. On the resolution, yes. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized to offer a motion.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of this resolution, as amended, on the suspension calendar.
    Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey. As many as in favor of the motion, say aye.
    As many as opposed, say no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on the motion are postponed.
    This concludes a portion of our proceedings, and I now ask Under Secretary Tim Wirth to take his seat, and we will begin our hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other business.]

A P P E N D I X

    Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC