[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 26, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E585-E586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SUPPORT AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF 
       THE ARMED FORCES PARTICIPATING IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 20, 2003

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, men and women in our armed forces are 
engaged in battle in Iraq. These volunteers pledged their lives to 
protect and defend the United States of America.
  No words can express the gratitude that I have for their willingness 
to sacrifice and to risk their lives in a foreign land, far from home. 
No words can express the compassion and empathy I have for their 
families and friends, who must carry on with their lives while worrying 
about their loved ones. Our country must always recognize and honor the 
loyalty, courage, and commitment of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines. I do so today and every day that they are in harm's way.
  It is not only our regular military forces who are engaged in this 
war. National Guard and Reserve units from every state in the union 
have been called to active duty to serve our country. They have left 
their jobs and their homes, their husbands and wives, their daughters 
and sons. They join a long American tradition of citizen soldiers. From 
the Revolutionary War's Minute Men to the Doughboy's of World War I, 
from Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders to Vietnam's Green Berets, 
Americans have answered the call to serve. I am thankful for their 
courage and sacrifice.
  Honoring our men and women in uniform is absolutely the right thing 
to do. This Congress must recognize and praise our fellow citizens who 
are placing their lives on the line. It is for this reason that I voted 
in favor of H. Con. Res. 104. I completely agree with the main message 
of the resolution: ``unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation 
. . . to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with 
excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and to the families of the United 
States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are 
providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in 
military operations in Iraq.''
  I do have significant reservations about other language contained in 
the resolution, particularly language in the preamble. I strongly 
disagree with the section of the resolution that notes the President's 
notice to Congress that ``reliance by the United States on further 
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately 
protect the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all 
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' 
In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, working with 
our allies and other nations to address this threat is the 
appropriate way to proceed. While the Administration made efforts to 
engage the world in support of weapons inspections, they did not 
exhaust means short of war, prior to commencing military action.

  I do not support the concept of preemptive military action, without 
an imminent threat to our national security and American lives. The 
Administration's preemption doctrine sets a dangerous precedent, and 
dramatically lowers the threshold for the use of military force. Is a 
first strike how we will approach the nearly 30 other countries that 
possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction or the means to 
deliver them? And how will we speak with any moral authority to other 
sovereign nations who seek to take things into their own hands against 
other states?
  I also disagree with the President's linkage of war in Iraq to the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. The Administration has failed to 
establish this linkage with any convincing evidence. It is wrong to 
continue to cloud this critical distinction in the minds of the 
American people. It also undermines our nation's credibility in the 
world. I reject the assertion in the resolution's preamble that the 
``use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary 
ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against 
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those 
nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, 
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Majority chose to 
politicize this resolution in support of the troops. This should have 
been a clean resolution that focused solely on our deep appreciation 
for our men and women in uniform and their families. Such a resolution 
would have commanded a unanimous vote of this House, showing our 
national unity, and conveyed to our troops our unequivocal support for 
them.
  I voted in favor of the resolution, despite my fundamental 
disagreement with these extraneous provisions, because I felt it was 
more important to stand in solidarity with our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines. My vote is not an endorsement of any other 
sentiments contained within the resolution, nor should it be construed 
that way.
  I continue to believe that war is not the answer to the threat of 
Saddam Hussein. I have taken an oath to protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. I cannot, and will not, simply 
delegate the responsibility to the President of the United States. As a 
Member of Congress, I have a responsibility to review the conduct of 
the war, engage in the policy debate, and cast my vote in the best 
interests of my constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, some will say that questioning the Administration in a 
time of war is unpatriotic and dangerous to the war effort. My oath 
compels me to disagree. A democratic country must always have a debate, 
must always have questions raised, and Congress must never become a 
rubber stamp.
  I am not the first patriotic American to believe this, and I will not 
be the last. I would like to quote a man known as ``Mr. Republican'' 
when he served honorably in the U.S. Senate for many, many years. 
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio understood that maintaining democracy in 
time of war requires debate. Two weeks after the attack on Pearl 
Harbor, on December 19, 1941, he said:


[[Page E586]]


       Of course that criticism should not give any information to 
     the enemy. But too many people desire to suppress criticism 
     simply because they think that it will give some comfort to 
     the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that 
     comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they 
     are welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, because the 
     maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do 
     the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it 
     will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might 
     otherwise occur.

  I fervently hope for a short military engagement, minimal civilian 
casualties, and the safe return of American men and women in uniform. 
Over the past several months, I have heard from thousands of people 
from throughout my district concerning the situation in Iraq. Nearly 
everyone expressed their concerns about the uncertainties of a pre-
emptive war with Iraq. It is my belief that, before young American men 
and women are sent to fight in any war, we should work with the 
international community to exhaust every alternative short of war. Now 
that war has begun, all Americans--those who favored military action 
and those who favored alternative approaches--think of our troops and 
wish for their quick victory and safe return.
  Our work as citizens and policy makers does not stop with this 
expression of our support for the troops. The start of war does not end 
the debate and it does not end the dissent. It is imperative that the 
President and our nation not only honor our commitment to rebuild Iraq 
following the war, but also rebuild our relations with the nations of 
this world so that we might once again work closely together to avoid 
war and maintain peace in solving global challenges.

                          ____________________