Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr Payne: Mr. Speaker, give the United Nations inspectors a chance. That is what the Lee amendment asks.
What does it do? It sets out the potential threat posed by Iraq. She says that there are dangers and that we must eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. But it gives the United Nations inspectors a process to go through diplomatically. It rejects the idea, though, of a unilateral, preemptive first strike in the absence of a verified imminent threat to the United States.
What it does not do, it does not limit the President's authority if we are in danger of a verified, imminent threat. It does not preclude pursuing other paths such as those proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Let us make it clear, the Lee amendment simply says, let us push for peace, let us destroy those weapons of mass destruction if they are there; and we think they are, but let us give diplomacy a chance. Let us not be preemptive. Let us not use first strike. Let us try to see if, with our power, we can have peace through power.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. Clayton asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. Clayton: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the gentlewoman from California entitled The Alternative to War. It could not be more aptly named. It seeks to commit the United States to fully engaging the diplomatic processes and to work multilaterally through the United Nations to achieve unfettered inspections of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, disarm and, indeed, dismantle.
There is no one in this Chamber who does not believe that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But the President has not made a convincing case that the Hussein regime in Iraq indeed poses an immediate threat. In fact, our own intelligence experts tell us that the most likely threat of the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Iraq would occur if the United States invaded Iraq.
What that suggests is that we should not be authorizing the President to act unilaterally, sending our brave young men and women into harm's way. Indeed, the President has most recently said that war should be the last resort.
This amendment certainly puts peace first and puts war as a last resort. Support this amendment to the resolution.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, it will reward us to read the resolution we are being asked to vote upon. It is self-refuting. This resolution would have this Congress find that Iraq and Saddam Hussein unconditionally accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, their obligation to destroy their chemical and biological weapons. That was unconditional.
The resolution has us find that Iraq unconditionally accepted its obligation not to proceed with the development of nuclear weapons. The resolution has us find that Iraq agreed to immediate and unconditional inspections.
The resolution goes on to have us find that Iraq has failed to comply with these obligations over a period of more than a decade. The resolution has us find that Iraq obstructed the inspectors and ultimately expelled them in 1998.
Finally, the resolution has us find that this noncompliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, including specifically Resolution 687, quote, "endangers U.S. security."
That is the preamble in this resolution. That is the predicate. Then what would the resolution have us do? Pass yet one more U.N. resolution which, by its terms, lacks enforcement. Only a U.N. resolution that lacks enforcement would be acceptable if we were to pass the resolution that is before us.
What have we learned in 11 years? Surely, without at least the threat of military force, we will get exactly the same result that we have had 16 times in a row. There is a cost, indeed a much heavier cost of doing nothing, of temporizing, of adding a 17th, toothless U.N. resolution to the 16 that Saddam Hussein has already violated.
And to the charge that what we are doing is unilateral, we must say, we have already earned the cooperation of Britain, Turkey, Canada, Poland, Romania, Israel, Bulgaria, Australia, Singapore, Japan and others. If we vote to deny the President of the United States the backing of this Congress at this moment and think that then he can win the support of other nations, we are delusional.
All of us must surely hope that the United Nations passes its next resolution, that Saddam Hussein will, this time, finally see reason and disarm. But as the proverb says, He who lives only by hope will die in despair.
My colleagues, let us unite hope with reason and practicality and a willingness to act. Let us defeat this resolution.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. Jackson of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment.
What is our goal? Our goal is to end the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through comprehensive and unfettered inspections and disable their ability to develop or deliver them.
How do we get there? Until the Lee amendment, most suggested, with a military stick. I think a carrot is more likely to succeed.
What carrot? The carrot of lifting economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for comprehensive and unfettered inspections. Offering to lift economic sanctions in exchange for unfettered inspections will rally support within Iraq and among our allies.
This positive incentive to get Iraq to comply has not and is currently not being offered by the Congress of the United States. But until we make this overture and change our policy of only lifting economic sanctions after a regime change, we will not have exhausted all peaceful means and alternatives to force.
Give peace a chance, Mr. Speaker. Nonviolence, negotiations and inspections deserve a chance. Lift economic sanctions on the people of Iraq in exchange for unfettered inspections in Iraq. It will gain support within Iraq and amongst our allies.
I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. Christensen asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment which would give the U.N. inspections process and multilateral diplomacy time and opportunity to work.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. Hinchey: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House without the Lee amendment takes this country and the world on a dangerous and potentially tragic course.
It is so, first of all, because the resolution violates our own Constitution because it devolves war-making authority from the Congress to the executive branch. It also puts us in violation of our commitments to the United Nations.
But fundamentally it puts us on a dangerous and potentially tragic course because if we follow the resolution, if that resolution is prosecuted by the administration and attacks Iraq unilaterally, that action will galvanize the most fundamental, radical elements of Islam.
It strengthens Wahhabism and it will bring to their cause tens of thousands of new recruits who are prepared to wage war against this country in the way it was waged on September 11 of last year. That will be the end result of the passage and prosecution of the resolution, absent the Lee amendment.
We must pass this amendment.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I rise as an educator, a teacher who for 7 years spent my time in the schools of Pennsylvania, someone who desperately does not want to see war occur.
But I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what we are hearing on the other side, there are times when you have to stand up and you have to be bold and you have to lay down a marker.
The reason I ran for public office in the first place was that my hometown of 5,000 people had become overwhelmed by the Pagans motorcycle gang. Sixty-five of them lived in my neighborhood; all of their drug dealing was controlled from my town. If I listened to the other side, maybe to solve the problem, I should have got them all in a circle, held hands and we should have sang Kum Bay Yah. The problem is, the Pagans do not want to sing Kum Bay Yah. The Pagans do not deal in reality. The Pagans were only concerned with harming people and selling their drugs.
Saddam Hussein is a pagan. Saddam Hussein does not want to deal in realistic terms. We need to give the President the authority to rally the world opinion and the U.N. to follow through on not just the inspections but on disarming weapons of mass destruction.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side where were they during the 1990s when 37 times, 37 times, we had evidence of technology being transferred from Russia and China to Iraq and Iran? Where were they when the administration then only imposed sanctions four times? Where were they when nine times we saw chemical and biological technology being transferred into Iraq and Iran and we sat on our hands? Where were they?
Where were they in 1995 when we caught these going from Russia to Iraq? These are guidance systems for missiles, a violation of the NTCR. Because Clinton did not want to embarrass Yeltsin we never imposed the required sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, this did not just happen. This technology has been flowing for years. Now we have Saddam equipped with chemical and biological and potentially nuclear capability. He has missiles which he has now enhanced, the same missile that sent 28 young Americans home in body bags in 1991.
Mr. Speaker, everyone wants peace. No one wants war, but there are times where we have to stand up and we have to lay down a marker and back it up with force just as I had to do as a teacher when I ran for mayor and became mayor of my hometown. The pagans did not want to listen to reason. The pagans did not want to respond to what was in the best interests of the citizens. If I had listened to the other side, somehow I would come together and somehow convince them to change their ways, and that did not happen. We fought them with force and we won, and today my hometown is prospering because the pagans no longer have their residence there.
We have to stand together and show the world with the support of this President that we will stand up to the aggression of Saddam, we will stand up to his use of chemical agents on his people, we will stand up to his potential use of biological weapons, and we will lay the foundation for a more peaceful world where the Iraqi people can enjoy the benefits of a new government.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. Owens asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Owens: Mr. Speaker, this alternative offers a nonviolent and diplomatic way to wage the peace. We should be serious about this process of waging the peace with U.N. inspections. We should not take a bargain basement approach to U.N. inspections. We are willing to talk casually about spending billions of dollars for war. Let us spend what we need to have these U.N. inspections be credible.
I refer my colleagues to Nightline of last night, Wednesday, October 9, where the inspection process was presented in a way which ridiculed it and showed that a handful of inspectors, scientists and college professors were bullied and harassed and we sent the wrong signal to Saddam Hussein about inspections. Let us have inspections, let us pursue the diplomatic and the nonviolent alternative with the same vigor and seriousness that we will pursue a violent alternative.
Let us have full administrative support, full logistical support, transportation, everything the inspectors need to go in and conduct large numbers of inspections all over Iraq at the same time and have a chain of command that goes right to the Security Council.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. Jones of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. Jones of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from California for all of her leadership on this issue.
One of the prior speakers asked where we were in 1991 and pulled out all these examples of what war was all about. I do not know where he was in 1991, but in 1991 I was back being a prosecutor in Cuyahoga County, but had I been here I would have said let us push and continue to push to reach a resolution and a peaceful resolution.
I am not going to down anybody for their religion. I happen to be Baptist. I happen to be a Protestant, but whatever it is people are we all are a part of this world, and in this United States we talk about freedom of religion and our entitlement to be whoever we are, but all of us want peace, and if we are the big bully, if we are the big dog on the street, then we can afford to be the big dog and sit back and say come on to the table, let us use all of our resources.
I question whether or not the United States has, in fact, in many instances, put all of its power to the U.N. to allow the U.N. to be as strong as it should be. Support the Lee amendment.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.
For 40 years our policy was to contain and deter Joseph Stalin and the Soviets, to detain and deter Fidel Castro and the Cubans, to detain and deter and restrain Communist aggression by the Chinese, always without invasion. We were able to detain and deter the Soviets and the Chinese and the Communists in Cuba without invasion, but if we go first strike into Iraq the message to the world and to Putin is he can go into Georgia and chase down the Chechnyan rebels and the message to China is they can go into Taiwan and they can come down harder on Tibet and the message to the Pakistanis and the Indians is they can go into Kashmir, maybe even with their nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, go slow. Mr. President, we need aggressive, unfettered inspections in Iraq, complete, thorough, aggressive, unfettered inspections. Then go back to the United Nations. War should be a last resort.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Lee amendment.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla): The Chair reminds Members to address the Chair in their remarks and not directly the President when addressing the House.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last evening we completed the work on the Defense appropriations bill. That measure is designed to provide the funding whereby America is able to carry forward its responsibility in the world as the force for peace in our world. I am very pleased with the results of that bill, and while we were not discussing this with the other body yesterday, I could not help but from time to time watch the discussions of this measure on the floor.
This resolution is a very, very important statement by the American Congress. It has been crafted by some of the most capable people in both of our bodies, and I want to congratulate the chairman, as well as others who have been so involved.
I could not help but come to the floor as I watched this discussion begin regarding some substitutes for this resolution. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is most important that we reject those alternatives for the resolution is designed simply to give our Commander-in-Chief some flexibility as he goes forward in projecting our responsibilities for peace in the world.
Indeed, there are those who presume that this automatically means a war in Iraq. This resolution does not automatically take us to war. As a matter of fact, it is a tool for the Commander-in-Chief to indeed go forth with those efforts that are most important in terms of our future hopes for peace.
There is little doubt that America focused again upon the importance of our strength as a result of 9/11 just 1 year ago. There is little doubt that the world understands that a strong America is very important for peace.
I would suggest to my colleagues that the one thing that we could do to undermine that strength is to pass a resolution like this one that is before us at this moment. Indeed, my colleagues, there is much discussion about what the Commander-in-Chief has not done. In the past, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that perhaps his advisers were not as good as some would like.
We look at the Vice President, we look at the Secretary of State, we look at the Secretary of Defense. The community not so long ago was amazed at how great their strength might be. Do we presume that they have not been giving advice and counsel to the Commander-in-Chief?
Indeed, I believe they have a plan that will strengthen our ability to be a force in the world for the good.
Resolutions like this will take us exactly in the opposite direction. Let us not by actions today undermine the President's ability to lead.
At the same time, let me say that most of my colleagues know that I am a strong believer in a bipartisan force in this House. Let us not as a result of these votes today have one of our parties be the party working with the President for peace and have the other party be the party of the United Nations.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. George Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment and commend my colleague from California for all of her work on behalf of this peaceful effort to resolve this issue.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. Davis of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. George Miller of California: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that he who lives by the sword shall eventually die by the sword.
The first call that I got this morning was from a woman named Barbara Mullarkey who said, "Danny, vote for peace."
I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment because it gives me the opportunity to vote the will of the people in my Congressional district who do not believe that we have made the case to go to war. The President has all of the flexibility that he needs to protect us. What he does not have is the flexibility to declare war. That flexibility is left to this Congress.
Vote for the Lee amendment. Vote for peace.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. Farr of California: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Lee amendment, and I am really surprised after listening to the debate for the last 17 hours why anybody would attack it. Indeed, the Lee amendment and the Lee resolution is the same as what the President has in his resolution if we see in section 2 where the President urges the support of the United States diplomatic efforts to strictly enforce through the United Nations, to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council in the United Nations, that essentially this is the same thing that the Lee amendment does.
It seems to me that anybody who can support the President's amendment ought to support the Lee amendment. What the Lee amendment does not do is it does not leap before it looks. It says look before we leap into war, and I think the message here is very strong, that if the United States is going to leap into war before it looks. What kind of trust are we going to have with the rest of the arrangements around the world with the agreements we have had on treaties and trade treaties? What is going to happen to people who are traveling in the country? Is anybody going to be able to trust our country because we can say, well, if we do not like something we can go it alone?
It is very wise to support the Lee amendment. It is a good look before we leap.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close?
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla): That is correct.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
My alternative gives the United Nations a chance to do its job while we think through the ramifications of our actions, how many lives would be lost, what will this cost our economy. It provides a very pragmatic opportunity to step back and explain to the American people the implications of authorizing a war. It will give us an opportunity to explain to the American people what our own intelligence agency means, and let me quote this, "Our intelligence agency says should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, the probability would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action."
Our action today could cause a reaction of catastrophic proportions, not only in terms of Saddam Hussein but in the destabilization of the Middle East and the setting of a dangerous precedent.
I plead with my colleagues to oppose this rush to war. It is morally wrong, it is financially irresponsible, and it is not in our national security interest. We must wait, we must ask these questions, we must know what the economic impact is. We must know what this does in terms of the loss of lives of our young men and women.
This is a day that we must urge reflection. We must urge this body to become attentive to the unanswered questions that are out there. If our own intelligence agencies say to us that authorizing the President's resolution to go to war; that is, supporting that effort to wage war, could be a provocative act against our country, that it could destabilize the region, that it could lead to possible terrorist action, that is very terrifying, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the House of Representatives must say no to establishing this dangerous precedent. We must not rush to war. We must give the United Nations time to do its work. Inspections worked in the 1990s. We must use the time that the United Nations needs, use that time for us to think through, to debate, and to be truthful to the American people. They deserve it. We need to be truthful with them as to what the cost of this rush to war would mean.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Lee amendment. This amendment is another abdication of the United States' leadership in the world. It is tantamount to saying that Congress should contract out decisions on national security to foreign governments: Paris, Beijing, Damascus.
The United Nations is not an autonomous authority. It is a place to conduct diplomacy between nations. Our Nation's security and sovereignty are inextricably intertwined. We do not subrogate our sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower, must have a policy of restraint to international conflict management, but we never give up our ability to act unilaterally in the world if we must move into a region to bring stability.
This amendment ties the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. We should never, ever do that. The President has spoken prudently, talking about bilateral action, meaning bringing other nations with us. Those who have been speaking here for the last hour in support of this amendment have been talking as if the United States is somehow wanting to unilaterally march off to war. They use the phrase "give peace a chance."
Mr. Speaker, we are the peaceful Nation. We want to work cooperatively with other nations around the world, and that is what the President is going to do. So when my colleagues say "give peace a chance," it has been 10 years. We have these 16 U.N. resolutions. Let us go back into this regime of the United Nations and weapons inspections. When we look at that, the U.N. was and is hesitant to back up the violations of these 16 U.N. resolutions. Their response has been tepid.
Also, I would ask my colleagues to look with regard to how the inspectors were undermined, as Iraq would appeal directly to the sympathetic Council members and to the Secretary General. Iraq worked consistently to erode the credibility and the positions of these U.N. inspectors over the last 10 years. They would complain to the Security Council, and then the challenges of the claims of the weapons inspectors would suffice. Unfettered access was strictly a myth. Respect for Iraqi concerns relating to national security, sovereignty and dignity took precedence over the findings and destroying of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Effectively, the actions of the Secretary General, when he intervened, made the Iraqis and the inspectors equal in presenting their case before the Security Council.
With regard to Saddam Hussein's motive for having weapons of mass destruction, he believes that they are vital to his power. The regime has two experiences in which it feels its very survival is linked to the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz pointed out that hitting cities deep in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war with long-range missiles and countering human wave attacks with the massive use of chemical munitions saved Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, Baghdad believes that its possession of biological and chemical weapons during the 1991 Gulf War helped deter the United States from marching on to Baghdad.
Now, that is their dimension. That is their understanding. So Saddam will do everything he possibly can to maintain a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. So this thing about give peace a chance, well, we have given peace a chance. The President has also used words of saying that military force will be the means of last resort.
So I think the President has been very clear. We will show the United States has the resolve and power to stand up against Iraq, seek their compliance, force their word in their violations of the cease-fire; but if they do not, then the world will act and disarm Saddam Hussein and change the regime, if necessary, to bring peace and stability to the Middle East as a region.
We should vote down the Lee amendment and support the sovereignty and national dignity of this country.
Ms. Brown of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support today of the Lee substitute, which I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of. I wholeheartedly support the principles of this substitute, and believe they contain a much more humane answer to the grave issue of Iraq.
Like Congresswoman Barbara Lee I urge the United States to re-engage in the diplomatic process of diplomacy. I also would like to urge our country to remain committed to the UN inspector process. I am also in complete agreement with the Lee substitute's premise that there will likely be horrific consequences of our actions if the United States delivers a first strike against Iraq, particularly without the support of the United Nations.
Like Congresswoman Lee and many of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I stand in strong opposition to a unilateral first strike by the U.S. without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States. I would also like to emphasize that I categorically believe that we must not declare war until every diplomatic option is completely exhausted. The Bush Resolution authorizes the potential use of force immediately, long before diplomatic options have been exhausted or even fully explored. Furthermore, a unilateral first-strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Mideast region and undermine the ability of our nation to address unmet domestic priorities.
The President is asking Congress to give him a blank check. And I say today Mr. President, that your account, has come back overdrawn. This blank check gives him too much power. A blank check that forces Congress to waive its constitutional duty to declare war. A blank check that lets the President declare war, and not consult Congress until 48 hours after the attack has begun.
Not only has the President economically taken us to deficit, but there is deficit in his arguments. Why Iraq, and why today??
You know, in my 10 years of serving in Congress, this is the most serious vote I've taken. And I have to say, the Resolution on Iraq the White House drafted is intentionally misleading. It misleads the American public, the international community, and yes, even the United States Congress.
This is a sad day. Almost as sad as it was 627 days ago when the Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the President. You know, the White House talks about dictators, but we haven't done anything to correct what has happened right here in the United States. It amazes me that we question other governments, when in our own country, we did not have a fair election.
I recently traveled to Russia, China, and South Korea, and believe it would be most unfortunate to damage the good will our nation was receiving after September 11th because of the Bush Administration's reckless actions. We are on our own; NO ONE in the international community is behind us.
I have not seen any new information demonstrating that Iraq poses a threat to our country any more now than it did ten years ago, and certainly am without reason to believe we should attack unilaterally, without the support of the U.N.
In fact, recent poll numbers released suggest that many Americans do not support the way the President is handling the situation with Iraq either. Indeed, polls indicates what I imagined all along; namely, that a majority of Americans believe President Bush and Congress are spending too much time discussing Iraq, while neglecting domestic problems like health care and education. Many also said that they did not want the United States to act without support from allies and by a two to one margin, did not want the U.S. to act before U.N. weapons inspectors had an opportunity to enter Iraq and conduct further investigations.
Although the Administration is attempting to convince the American public otherwise, they have shown me little evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. And little evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat to our country.
Iraq's government is not democratic, but neither are many other countries listed on the State Department's terrorist list: like Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan.
I reiterate my opposition to this Resolution, and to this war.
To my colleagues, it is in your hands. I do believe the world has good and evil, and what you are about to do here today, will tilt it in a negative direction. It will set us on a course, and I hope I'm wrong, but it could set us on a course, that our children's children, will pay for. That the entire world will pay for. And that will put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Christensen: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment.
I am particularly supportive of this amendment because it would place the emphasis where it ought to be--which is in multinational diplomacy and within the context of a strong commitment to the U.N. inspection process--in this important campaign to disarm Iraq and protect our allies national security.
Questions have been raised about our ability to do unfettered and complete inspections, and whether or not we were able to find anything that Sadaam Hussein did not want us to find the first time around.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, that if we have not learned from past experience with Iraq, and if we do not have the technology to search out, find and destroy biological or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, then we are also not prepared to go to war with Iraq.
Many of us have spoken over the past week about the dangerous precedent that would be set by the United States employing a unilateral first strike against Iraq. The other grave concern of many which was supported by the recently released CIA report, is that whatever weapons Sadaam had would be deployed in desperate retaliation bringing unimaginable death and destruction to us and our allies.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues. We must not set such a dangerous precedent, or commit our young men and women to an unjustified conflict. We must use our resources to strengthen our economy, and to invest in the needs of people here at home, and devote more effort to creating the kind of society that will increase U.S. moral authority and the respect of our world. And we must not weaken our democracy by ceding our authority to the executive branch.
Vote against H.J. Res. 114, and vote aye on the Lee amendment.
Mr. Blumenauer: Mr. Speaker, this amendment recognizes that diplomacy is an option that is not yet exhausted. The Administration's Resolution makes a number of assertions that are questionable at best; the clauses in this Amendment, on the other hand, are indisputable. Surely, we can get the United Nations to reinstate newly-empowered weapons inspectors, who can keep a step ahead of Baghdad--inspectors that are allowed to inspect Saddam's presidential sites without notice. We must build a coalition of nations with the support of the United Nations, a coalition similar to that formed by the former President Bush.
It is the duty of responsible nations to give a convincing case to the world before embarking on any military action on another country. And the world is not convinced. War is a last resort, and is recognized as such by Democrat and Republican alike. Because we are not yet at that point, I support the Lee amendment.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla): All debate time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms Lee).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Ms Lee: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker pro tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 72, nays 355, not voting 4, as follows:
| Roll No. 452 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--72 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Baldwin | Becerra | Blumenauer | Bonior |
| Brown (FL) | Brown (OH) | Capps | Capuano | Carson (IN) |
| Clayton | Clyburn | Condit | Conyers | Coyne |
| Cummings | Davis (IL) | DeFazio | Delahunt | Doggett |
| Farr | Fattah | Filner | Gutierrez | Hastings (FL) |
| Hilliard | Hinchey | Honda | Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) |
| Johnson, E. B. | Jones (OH) | Kilpatrick | Kucinich | Lee |
| Lewis (GA) | McDermott | McGovern | McKinney | Meek (FL) |
| Meeks (NY) | Millender-McDonald | Miller, George | Morella | Napolitano |
| Oberstar | Owens | Payne | Pelosi | Rahall |
| Rangel | Rivers | Roybal-Allard | Rush | Sabo |
| Sanchez | Sanders | Schakowsky | Scott | Serrano |
| Solis | Stark | Tauscher | Thompson (MS) | Towns |
| Udall (NM) | Velazquez | Waters | Watson (CA) | Watt (NC) |
| Woolsey | Wynn | |||
| NAYS--355 | ||||
| Ackerman | Aderholt | Akin | Allen | Andrews |
| Armey | Baca | Bachus | Baird | Baker |
| Baldacci | Ballenger | Barcia | Barr | Barrett |
| Bartlett | Barton | Bass | Bentsen | Bereuter |
| Berkley | Berman | Berry | Biggert | Bilirakis |
| Bishop | Blagojevich | Blunt | Boehlert | Boehner |
| Bonilla | Bono | Boozman | Borski | Boswell |
| Boucher | Boyd | Brady (PA) | Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) |
| Bryant | Burr | Burton | Buyer | Callahan |
| Calvert | Camp | Cannon | Cantor | Capito |
| Cardin | Carson (OK) | Castle | Chabot | Chambliss |
| Clement | Coble | Collins | Combest | Cooksey |
| Costello | Cox | Cramer | Crane | Crenshaw |
| Crowley | Cubin | Culberson | Cunningham | Davis (CA) |
| Davis (FL) | Davis, Jo Ann | Davis, Tom | Deal | DeGette |
| DeLauro | DeLay | DeMint | Deutsch | Diaz-Balart |
| Dicks | Dingell | Dooley | Doolittle | Doyle |
| Dreier | Duncan | Dunn | Edwards | Ehlers |
| Ehrlich | Emerson | Engel | English | Eshoo |
| Etheridge | Evans | Everett | Ferguson | Flake |
| Fletcher | Foley | Forbes | Ford | Fossella |
| Frank | Frelinghuysen | Frost | Gallegly | Ganske |
| Gekas | Gephardt | Gibbons | Gilchrest | Gillmor |
| Gilman | Gonzalez | Goode | Goodlatte | Gordon |
| Goss | Graham | Granger | Graves | Green (TX) |
| Green (WI) | Greenwood | Grucci | Gutknecht | Hall (TX) |
| Hansen | Harman | Hart | Hastings (WA) | Hayes |
| Hayworth | Hefley | Herger | Hill | Hilleary |
| Hinojosa | Hobson | Hoeffel | Hoekstra | Holden |
| Holt | Hooley | Horn | Hostettler | Houghton |
| Hoyer | Hulshof | Hunter | Hyde | Inslee |
| Isakson | Israel | Issa | Istook | Jefferson |
| Jenkins | John | Johnson (CT) | Johnson (IL) | Johnson, Sam |
| Jones (NC) | Kanjorski | Kaptur | Keller | Kelly |
| Kennedy (MN) | Kennedy (RI) | Kerns | Kildee | Kind (WI) |
| King (NY) | Kingston | Kirk | Kleczka | Knollenberg |
| Kolbe | LaFalce | LaHood | Lampson | Langevin |
| Lantos | Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) | Latham | LaTourette |
| Leach | Levin | Lewis (CA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder |
| Lipinski | LoBiondo | Lofgren | Lowey | Lucas (KY) |
| Lucas (OK) | Luther | Lynch | Maloney (CT) | Maloney (NY) |
| Manzullo | Markey | Mascara | Matheson | Matsui |
| McCarthy (MO) | McCarthy (NY) | McCollum | McCrery | McHugh |
| McInnis | McIntyre | McKeon | McNulty | Meehan |
| Menendez | Mica | Miller, Dan | Miller, Gary | Miller, Jeff |
| Mollohan | Moore | Moran (KS) | Moran (VA) | Murtha |
| Myrick | Nadler | Neal | Nethercutt | Ney |
| Northup | Norwood | Nussle | Obey | Olver |
| Ortiz | Osborne | Ose | Otter | Oxley |
| Pallone | Pascrell | Pastor | Paul | Pence |
| Peterson (MN) | Peterson (PA) | Petri | Phelps | Pickering |
| Pitts | Platts | Pombo | Pomeroy | Portman |
| Price (NC) | Pryce (OH) | Putnam | Quinn | Radanovich |
| Ramstad | Regula | Rehberg | Reyes | Reynolds |
| Riley | Rodriguez | Roemer | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) |
| Rohrabacher | Ros-Lehtinen | Ross | Rothman | Royce |
| Ryan (WI) | Ryun (KS) | Sawyer | Saxton | Schaffer |
| Schiff | Schrock | Sensenbrenner | Sessions | Shadegg |
| Shaw | Shays | Sherman | Sherwood | Shimkus |
| Shows | Shuster | Simmons | Simpson | Skeen |
| Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (MI) | Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) |
| Smith (WA) | Snyder | Souder | Spratt | Stearns |
| Stenholm | Strickland | Stupak | Sullivan | Sununu |
| Sweeney | Tancredo | Tanner | Tauzin | Taylor (MS) |
| Taylor (NC) | Terry | Thomas | Thompson (CA) | Thornberry |
| Thune | Thurman | Tiahrt | Tiberi | Tierney |
| Toomey | Turner | Udall (CO) | Upton | Visclosky |
| Vitter | Walden | Walsh | Wamp | Watkins (OK) |
| Watts (OK) | Waxman | Weiner | Weldon (FL) | Weldon (PA) |
| Weller | Wexler | Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) |
| Wilson (SC) | Wolf | Wu | Young (AK) | Young (FL) |
| NOT VOTING--4 | ||||
| Clay | Roukema | Sandlin | Stump | |
Messrs. Smith of Texas, Keller, Graves, Ms. Cubin, Messrs. Greenwood, Ehlers, Graham, Barton of Texas, Boyd, Dooley of California, Walsh, Watkins of Oklahoma, Nethercutt and Mrs. Myrick changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Wynn changed their vote from "nay" to "yea." So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
