[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5203-5204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO WAR PENDING IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I came to the House floor because I felt 
that I needed to come down here and speak before this body about my 
opposition to the war that seems to be pending in Iraq.
  I come to the floor today to say that war is not inevitable; that 
this great Nation, whose power and hegemony is not disputed, can assert 
its leadership without the terrible destruction of a preemptive all-out 
war.
  I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the millions and millions 
of everyday people all around the world, including throughout the 
United States, who have expressed so clearly their conviction that a 
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is not the answer.
  I come to pay tribute to the city of Chicago, one of about 100 U.S. 
cities whose elected leaders, responding to their citizens, voted 
``no'' to a preemptive war. In Chicago it was by a vote of 46 to 1.
  We are on the brink of the first war in history started by the United 
States

[[Page 5204]]

against a country that has not threatened violence against the United 
States. We are on the brink of implementing a new policy of preemptive 
war, and ushering in not a new world order but a world of unprecedented 
disorder.
  Let us examine the facts: Iraq is led by a tyrannical dictator, one 
who may have, who probably has, chemical and biological weapons; one 
who violates human rights and oppresses his people; the same tyrannical 
dictator, by the way, who was our ally in the 1980s when Iraq was at 
war with Iran; the same dictator to whom we sent chemical and 
biological materials in the eighties; the same dictator who we now 
charge with using chemical and biological weapons, but at the time, the 
United States refused to support a U.N. resolution condemning Iraq.

                              {time}  1415

  The same Saddam who was in place in 1998 when the Haliburton Company, 
led by Vice President Dick Cheney, was doing business in Iraq. The same 
dictator that has onerous characteristics that can be applied to many 
other countries, many of which we call ally, friends and coalition 
partner. And can be applied to countries like North Korea and Iran, who 
pose an even greater danger to the United States.
  So why Iraq and why now? I stand here today as a patriot and 
particularly resentful, not only for myself, but all of my constituents 
who oppose this war because we deeply love this country. But we believe 
that this war fails to meet the threshold test. Will it make us 
citizens and residents of the United States safer? Will it make the 
Middle East, and of particular concern to me, Israel, safer? Will it 
make the world safer?
  I say the answer is, and I feel in my heart, a resounding no.
  The Central Intelligence Agency reports that Saddam is likely to use 
chemical and biological weapons only if we attack. Saddam and Iraq had 
nothing to do with September 11, or at the time, Osama bin Laden, 
despite desperate attempts by this administration to link them. But an 
attack on Iraq now could meld an unlikely coalition of terrorist 
organizations and fundamental Muslim organizations that will be a real 
threat to the United States and other countries around the globe.
  Most importantly, we have real options to disarm Saddam Hussein. The 
way this debate has been shaped is you are either for all-out war, or 
you are for nothing and that could not be further from the truth.
  Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and no one disagrees with that. And 
we have a structure for doing that. The United Nations was set up for 
that, is ready to do that and with the mighty leadership that the 
United States could exert, can do an even better job to make sure that 
Saddam Hussein who has, in fact, been violating resolutions, will 
comply now with disarmament. We can be part of a large and growing 
coalition of civilized nations who says that in this 21st century, 
where the technology allows for chemical and biological and even 
nuclear weapons to proliferate around the globe, and it will be hard 
given this century and this knowledge to stop that, unless we have a 
coalition of civilized nations that will surround and isolate rogue 
states and rogue nations.
  We should lead in developing that coalition. We do not have to go to 
war now. I say no war on behalf of my constituents and to this 
Congress.

                          ____________________