Donald Payne

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and a spokesperson for children.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a leader in the battle against this resolution, and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce dealing with trade energy and air quality.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, longest serving Democrat in the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a leader on health issues.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). She is the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business, a spokesperson for women and minority businesses.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and a teacher for over 50 years. This is the gentlewoman's last term, and we appreciate her service to our country.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, who has done a great job not only regarding foreign operations, but also for her State of Michigan.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, commend both sides on this very important issue and the manner in which this discussion has moved forward for close to 12 hours. From about 1 p.m. to 1 a.m. on yesterday we had all views expressed, and that is really what makes this a great House, and that is what makes this a great country. That is what makes me proud and privileged to be a part of this institution. I would like to certainly commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) who has conducted himself with tremendous leadership, a true gentleman from Illinois who has shown his leadership in so many capacities. During the 14 years I have been in Congress, this is certainly one of the most important issues that I have been involved in, and it will be a very important vote. I would also like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), because all of us feel proud of what he has done to make our Nation a stronger place, and it is great to have heroes in our body. Also, let me commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) who continues his eloquence, his vision. He is one of the most expressive persons that I know in the House, and, for that, this place is a better place. Let me say that I would like to briefly share with my colleagues a front page article in today's Washington Post which states that unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Saddam Hussein is ``unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' This was contained in a report provided by intelligence agencies to senators last week. If a U.S.-led attack could not be stopped, Saddam might launch a chemical/biological counterattack, the analysts forewarned. The report said that Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorism in conducting a war, in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. This appears to suggest that an attack on Iraq could trigger the very thing that our President has said that he is trying to prevent, the use of chemical or biological weapons by Hussein. In view of this report, the policy of a preemptive strike is troublesome. Haste in attacking Iraq would place untold numbers of people in harm's way. In Ecclesiastes it says that there is a season for all things; there is a time to laugh and a time to cry, a time to plan and a time to pluck up that which has been planted, a time of peace and a time of war. The question before us is whether this is a time for peace or a time for war. The question is whether we can continue to use diplomacy, whether we have exhausted all means to try to have peace, whether we have maximized the use of the United Nations and other international agencies. Let us give peace a chance. Let us try to get our inspectors in, identify weapons of mass destruction, have them destroyed and then move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) a very key leader in our Democratic Caucus, a person who has served her people in Connecticut so well, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has been a very active Member on this resolution.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus. (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a senior member of the Committee on International Relations and vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), ranking member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Chief Deputy Democratic Whip. The gentleman from Georgia has personally been terrorized and has been a man of peace for so many years.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a leader of that delegation, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and a long-time voice for justice.

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the voice of the boisterous and a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for equally dividing his time. Mr. Speaker, this signal from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), although he very strongly supports this resolution, and we have heard his eloquence as he has, in so many instances done, and his position is clear, and given the respect that we have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a survivor of the Holocaust, a person who stands for fairness, that he would yield 50 percent of his time so other voices could be heard is simply another example of the character of the gentleman from California. With that, I thank him. Mr. Speaker, we have a very difficult decision to make here. We will be watched by the world. I think that the strength of America is that people can have different opinions. In my opinion, that does not weaken our cause. We come out as strong as Americans with our diversity. We are the most diverse Nation in the world, and we are the strongest; so I think that it is important that dissenting voices be heard. First of all, let me say from the outset that I oppose a unilateral first-strike attack by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on our soil. The President's resolution does not prove that the United States is in imminent danger of attack, and we in Congress have received no evidence of such an imminent and immediate threat. If the United States is in fact in danger of immediate attack, the President already has the authority under the Constitution, the War Powers Act, the United Nations Charter, and international law to defend our Nation. A unilateral first strike would be codified in this resolution. The fact that it could set an example for potential conflicts between India and Pakistan, between Russia and Georgia, between China and Taiwan, and many other corners of the world is something that we have to be concerned about. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. House Joint Resolution 114 is not a declaration of war, but it is a blank check to use force without moral or political authority of the declaration of war that, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did on December 8 to begin World War II. Every diplomatic option must be exhausted. This resolution authorizes the potential use of force immediately, long before diplomatic options can be exhausted or even fully explored. Other governments, including France and Russia, have proposed a two- step process in which the world community renews vigorous and unfettered inspections. This resolution, however, is a one-step process. Rather than letting the United Nations do its work to seek out and destroy weapons through inspections, it places immediate force on the table. A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, result in substantial loss of life, destabilize the Middle East region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities. The President's resolution authorizes all of these outcomes by authorizing and codifying the doctrine of preemption. This resolution can unleash all these consequences: destabilization of the Middle East; casualties among U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens; a huge cost, estimated at between $100 and $200 billion; and a question about our own domestic priorities, with such a cost looming over our heads. Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would require a long-term commitment. Experts tell us that the United States might have to remain in Iraq for a decade. Such a commitment would drain resources for critical domestic and international priorities. Failure to make such a commitment would leave another post-intervention disaster scene. We still have the commitment that we were making to Afghanistan, where we said we would rebuild schools and we would repair roads and we would build water treatment plants to bring water out for the people there. We have been unable to do that in Afghanistan; however, now we are moving to Iraq. Many have even suggested that Iran is more of a threat to us than Iraq. They are more advanced in their weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, is our next attack on Iran; after Afghanistan, Iraq and then Iran? So many people have spoken recently, and we have heard many calls from our constituents. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion. Vice President Al Gore began it several weeks ago when he raised a question on the first resolution that was proposed by the President. We heard Senator Kennedy state that al Qaeda offers a threat he believes more imminent than Iraq. The Senator also underscored that our first objectives should be to get U.N. inspectors back to the task without conditions. Only when all responsible alternatives are exhausted should we discuss military action, which poses the risk of spurring a larger conflict in the Middle East. Furthermore, Senator Kennedy correctly observed one's view on how to handle the situation in Iraq is not a reflection of one's loyalty to the United States. Senator Dodd noted that international cooperation is necessary to counter terrorism. This cooperation should not be diminished by our unwillingness to address Iraq through multinational channels. Senator Feinstein questioned the immediacy of the threat posed by Iraq and argued that there was time to build support within the international community. Our own Representatives, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), went to Iraq to see firsthand. They support unfettered, unrestricted weapons restrictions and said, let us give that an opportunity. Senator Breaux observed that ``with America so divided on this issue, a strong burden remains on the administration to demonstrate the need for military action to address the threat posed by Iraq.'' Last night, Senator Byrd had strong observations about this and questioned whether at this time it is a time for us to move into the Iraq situation possibly unilaterally. All of these opinions and observations bear testimony to the belief that the United States should confront the evidence on Iraq directly and should make decisions based from a broad base. I concur with many others who believe that we must work cooperatively with the United Nations, both to foster collective action and to reinforce the strength and sanctity of the United Nations Security Council. I strongly believe that unfettered inspections must resume promptly in Iraq and that Iraq must allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to carry out their responsibilities. This and a full range of diplomatic efforts need to take place before we can conclude that military action is warranted. Therefore, in conclusion, we must keep our eyes on the main objective, that of countering terrorism and working with others to ensure that this world will be a better place tomorrow for our children than it is today. This calls for cooperation, communication, consensus, and careful calculation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a person who has put in a tremendous amount of time and effort in this very important matter.