[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 17364-17365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCING A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD WORK 
               THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS REGARDING IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 19, 2002

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of America leading a 
strong and sustained diplomatic effort with our partners in the 
international community to confront Saddam Hussein.
  I am proud to join my colleague and friend Barbara Lee--among many 
others--in introducing a resolution expressing the sense of Congress 
that the U.S. work through the United Nations to assure Iraq's 
compliance with UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction 
rather than pursue a unilateral military attack.
  Last week, President Bush finally listened to the wise counsel of the 
American people and engaged the United Nations on Iraq's failure to 
comply with its resolutions. While I applaud the President's effort to 
reach out to our partners in the United Nations, he seriously 
undermined the cause of diplomacy by threatening unilateral action if 
the UN did not meet America's demands for military action. I urge the 
President to heed his own words and allow the United Nations to live up 
to its responsibility to hold Iraq accountable without forcing hostile 
military action that threatens America and the world.
  I strongly question the President's assertion that immediate military 
action is necessary. The evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq is 
not there. The Administration's so-called secret briefings have 
provided Congress with paltry information they could have as easily 
read in the New York Times. Our intelligence agencies will have to 
provide something more compelling than generalized claims that Iraq 
could have some nuclear capability in six months to seven years. They 
don't even know if Iraq even has the capability of striking the United 
States with any weapon at this time.
  Without concrete evidence, I do not want our President to run off 
willy-nilly and risk the lives of America's young men and women. 
Especially, when the President has not shown the resolve to seek the 
evidence to justify such action or to pursue a peaceful solution to the 
situation.
  The President has also ignored the track record of past weapons 
inspectors in Iraq. Between 1991 and 1998, they were successful in 
destroying large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He has 
dismissed Iraq's offer to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq 
unconditionally. Even worse are the statements from the Administration 
that the United States should attack Iraq, even if Saddam Hussein were 
proven to be compliant with existing UN resolutions. As reported by 
today's Washington Post, the Administration is even trying to suppress 
the scientific analysis of government experts who refute their claims 
that equipment sought by Iraq would provide the capability of producing 
nuclear weapons.
  Am I to believe that the President has made waging war with Iraq a 
foregone conclusion? I think Americans deserve more serious 
consideration on the part of our President before we plunge our nation 
into war and risk the lives of their loved ones.
  Should the President compel Congress to go to war, the United States 
risks setting an international precedent that the mere suspicion that a 
nation may soon possess weapons of mass destruction is reason enough to 
preemptively attack them or force a regime change. Who are we to attack 
next? Iran? North Korea? China?
  If we should remove Saddam Hussein from power, we must consider the 
consequences. Secretary Rumsfeld has said it is up to the Iraqi people 
to confront the challenges of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. This would 
likely ignite a civil war between the Shiites, the Kurds, the Turks, 
and other ethnic groups that make up that nation. Do we want these 
warring groups to gain access to chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons, should they exist? Is it worth risking the stability of the 
Middle East or the world?
  Given the need for an extended U.S. presence there, would our 
invasion be worth the price at home? It would likely cost over $60 
billion to deploy our troops and sustain a force of up to 100,000 U.S. 
troops in one year alone. These troops would likely have to stay for up 
to 5-10 years as part of an international peacekeeping force. 
Rebuilding a war torn Iraq would also likely cost roughly $50-100 
billion.

[[Page 17365]]

  With deficit spending already running at over $150 billion this year, 
these military costs would create a monumental budget crisis when we've 
yet to secure basic domestic priorities like a prescription drug 
benefit or shoring up the solvency of Social Security.
  Finally, by acting with the tepid support of the international 
community, protracted U.S. involvement in Iraq could threaten the 
support we have gotten from Middle East countries in our war on 
terrorism. It could easily ignite long-standing discontent among the 
Arab people that would only fuel a more aggressive terrorist offensive 
here in the United States.
  For these reasons, I believe we must proceed wholeheartedly with 
responsible and sustained diplomacy. I am proud to sponsor Barbara 
Lee's resolution that underscores the value and necessity of this 
effort. The President must lead the United Nations to fulfill its 
mission without unnecessary bloodshed. I urge my colleagues to join 
with us to provide him this mandate.

                          ____________________