Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern in my opposition to this resolution, because I have such high regard for my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who just spoke in favor of the resolution. But I have read the resolution carefully, and I think this is a step backward in all of our actions. It really restricts, rather than broadens, the use of force against Iraq that already is authorized under current law.

Section 3 is even narrower than Public Law 102-1, which already authorizes the United States to use force to restore international peace and security. We are already authorized to stop Iraq from supporting terrorism. We are already authorized to prevent Iraq from threatening its neighbors. We have already authorized the United States to protect Iraq's own civilian population.

I believe you can read this resolution clearly. All of those things would no longer be authorized. I think you cannot even continue to enforce the no-fly zone under this resolution.

Section 3 would require the United States to wait for the United Nations Security Council to act before the President could take action to protect our national security interests against the dangers of weapons of mass destruction posed by Iraq. Even the United Nations Security Council approval of section 3 would not authorize the United States to act. We would have to have United Nations action, and then we would have to have a second vote in this Congress.

The vote in the Congress is restricted by the substitute.

This is a step backward. It sends a muddy signal about our resolve. It completely replaces the Gephardt-Hastert resolution that is before us, and really postpones a critical question to another day.

We have put this question off too long already. This resolution asks us to put it off yet longer. I encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting this Spratt substitute resolution and moving forward to pass the Hastert-Gephardt resolution later today.