[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6528-6529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 18, 2003

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to question the 
merits of the mission this Administration will soon ask the brave men 
and women of our armed forces to undertake. I am sure that our 
servicemen and women will perform admirably and we all hope they will 
achieve their objectives quickly and with minimal loss of life, but my 
reservations about this approaching war remain as strong today as they 
have ever been.
  Although I agree with the President that we must eliminate the threat 
posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, I still 
believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our 
national interest, to launch a military attack against Iraq now. I 
firmly believe that we could better achieve our objectives in Iraq by 
building a strong international coalition capable of not only winning 
the war, but also capable of winning the peace.
  When thinking about whether or not we should go to war against Iraq, 
I find myself returning repeatedly to one basic question. Will 
American-led military action against Iraq improve the security of the 
American people against the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass 
destruction? I believe the answer is no.
  I remain concerned that an immediate attack on Iraq would 
significantly rise the chance of terrorism here at home, while overseas 
I fear that a cornered Saddam Hussein would release his arsenal of 
chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers 
or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. He could also pass 
them on to terrorists and speed their arrival to American shores. But 
it is not fear of danger to America that gives us pause. Americans are 
brave enough to face danger if necessary. However, there is no evidence 
I have seen either in classified or public briefings that convinces me 
that this war is necessary now.
  Furthermore, even if we prosecute a successful war, which I have no 
doubt our brave men and women in uniform would, I have questions about 
our ability to win the post-war peace. A war and subsequent American 
occupation of Iraq would likely send a destabilizing shockwave 
throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americansim, giving 
rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt 
that we would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that 
the act of extinguishing Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, 
the terrorist threat to the United States. The ensuring anti-American 
sentiment could reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose 
nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, 
I might add, one that America has largely neglected.
  We can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by 
Saddam Hussein, but this Administration has not made a convincing case 
to the world that war is necessary. Instead, it has used aggressive 
rhetoric to wage a diplomatic war on our allies that is straining our 
international relationships and alienating America from the world. 
While I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to 
take action, I do believe that we need their partnership to be 
successful in the long run.
  In order to be successful, we must lead the world community. But 
leadership is not simply about acting boldly--it means bringing along 
others to act boldly with you. We need to disarm and dismantle Saddam's 
arsenal, but we should do so with the support of the world. This 
Administration, however, has failed to

[[Page 6529]]

earn the support of our allies. And so, in place of leadership, we have 
questions and ultimately instability.
  This Administration has yet to explain how military action make 
Americans more safe, not less. It has also failed to explain to the 
American public what our responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam 
Iraq. How will we guarantee the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi 
people? How will we guarantee the success of a democratic transition? 
How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?
  If the President has determined that military action against Iraq is 
necessary, I request that he explain first to a joint session of 
Congress exactly how a war could affect our other international 
interests, what our plan is for achieving a long-term stabilization of 
post-conflict Iraq, and approximately how much military action and 
post-war reconstruction would likely cost. The American people deserve 
to know the answers to these questions.
  Americans are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to advance 
the American ideals of liberty, equality and peace. However, if a war 
is not deemed necessary, if it is not indeed a last resort, then the 
price in dollars and blood is too great.
  Since it now appears that arguments against the war are too late, we 
must turn our attention to working with other countries diplomatically 
and to prosecuting the war as humanely as possible so that we will be 
able to pick up the pieces when the fighting is over.