[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 36 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has been 
and continues to be a threat to Iraq's neighbors, his own people, and 
to all peace-loving nations of the world. The United States and the 
United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by his pursuit of 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The world has wisely taken 
action to proactively address this threat.
  The issue is not whether Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator or 
whether or not he is dangerous. He clearly is. The issue is whether a 
preemptive war is justified now. I believe the answer is no. Iraq is 
neither an immediate or an imminent threat to the security of the 
American people. Aggressive inspections and disarmament by the United 
Nations with the full support of member states can be successful. We 
have time to work together with the international community to 
collectively address the threat of Iraq without resorting to war and 
without endorsing a policy of preemptive attack.
  Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed 
tremendous leadership in the world as we created international 
institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to 
sustain and maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world 
where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While 
never perfect, this system of international institutions has been 
remarkably effective. I and many others around the world are shocked 
and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that this 
administration has taken in the world arena. We must recognize the 
consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the 
International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, and our 
own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our 
criticisms of the U.N. and NATO are heard throughout the world 
community.
  We have to recognize that after 9-11, the world came together in 
solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to 
break up al Qaeda and arrest its leaders, to interrupt the flow of 
money. It should have been crystal clear that fighting terrorism and 
protecting American security would require our friends and our allies; 
cooperation, not confrontation. Yet the administration instead engaged 
in a single-minded drive to achieve its Iraqi objectives at any cost 
instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our 
allies, by working with the world community. Even if the administration 
gets what it wants this time, what is the long-term damage to our 
international relationships? How will it impact our efforts to stop 
terrorism and protect the security of the American people?
  I am worried. The people that I represent are very anxious. It seems 
more and more likely that war is around the corner. What will that war 
be? Are the American people prepared? The American people are 
expecting, I think, a smaller conflict than we are walking into, 
perhaps a Grenada, a Panama or the first Gulf War; quick, hopefully few 
casualties, troops in and out within weeks or months. I think that this 
war would be different. After a large ground war to capture the entire 
country, we will likely occupy Iraq. The Army Chief of Staff, General 
Shinseki, estimated that we would need 100,000 troops or more for the 
occupation. We have no idea how long they would have to stay. Mr. 
President, we need to hear about your exit strategy, and we need to 
hear that now.
  The congressional debate that we had last fall to authorize the use 
of force against Iraq did not prepare the American people for the 
ramifications of this war and what this administration truly envisions. 
I call on this administration to answer the myriad questions that have 
been posed by numerous Members of Congress on behalf of our 
constituencies before ground troops are committed. All of Congress and 
all of America stand by our troops, but we think it is absolutely 
incumbent upon this administration to answer our questions.

                          ____________________