CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

SPEECH OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 8, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, these are the letters and e-mails that I have received from my district, about 5,000 of them. These support authorizing the President to launch a preemptive unilateral war on Iraq, 14 of them; and all the rest of them are saying no to war.

These are letters from veterans and teachers, mothers and fathers, Republicans and Democrats. In many different voices they are all saying, ``War is not just another policy option. It must be the very last resort.'' These are serious and thoughtful letters from patriots who are deeply concerned, not only about the security of the United States, but the soul of the United States.

One constituent said, ``Unilateral behavior is not the example we as Americans should display to the rest of the world. We should support and ensure the United Nations resolutions to the fullest. And, if necessary, we should lead in enforcing the United Nations resolutions.''

Many others believe the President has provided no convincing evidence that going to war with Iraq is necessary or is the only option the U.S. has at this time. If the President does have the compelling evidence of imminent threat that my constituents want, he has not shown it to the Congress.

If Saddam is such a grave threat, why has the administration waited until this moment to try to make its case? And why, as recently as 1998, was Halliburton, the company headed by Vice President Cheney, doing business with Iraq and helping them rebuild their oil fields?

Some of my constituents suggest that oil might have something to do with this, and some suggest it has more to do with November 5 than September 11. Many others raise the concerns of the constituent that says, ``There are far too many other things that need to be dealt with in our country today, including health care, the state of the economy, corporate corruption, as well as a host of environmental and international issues, for us to make preemptive war.''

The two things never suggested in these letters are, first, that Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil and merciless dictator, and, second, that the United States should sit back and do nothing to disarm him. Yet the President in his speech dismissed those who oppose a preemptive strike by saying, ``We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world.''

Well, with all due respect, Mr. President, there are no waiters or hopers in this pile or in this Congress. This is not about action versus inaction, and certainly not about appeasement. No one in this Chamber is a Neville Chamberlain.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, who wrote a column called ``Appeasement Myths,'' said, since Desert Storm, ``No one has been appeasing him. On the contrary, we have let Hussein know that if he ever sets one toe across any of his borders, we will stomp him

flatter than a straw hat on the interstate. The policy of containment backed by nuclear deterrent is the same policy the United States employed against the Soviet Union for 40 years with successful results.''

Mr. Speaker, I will include the full article for the RECORD.

A preemptive strike, in my view, puts America and the world in more danger, not less. CIA Director Tenet wrote, ``Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.''

To me, this means Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, would become a target of those attacks, Saddam would likely unleash whatever chemical and biological weapons it may have on Israel, the Middle East would be in flames and the Arab and Muslim world united against the United States and Israel. The careful coalition that the United States assembled to fight what is an imminent threat, the terrorist threat of al Qaeda, would come apart. The United States would be at war, bearing all the costs and all the cleanup, which could take many years alone.

We would be putting our young men and women in uniform, as many as 300,000 of them in harm's way, in the way of very serious harm.

Information provided by the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense raises very serious questions about our ability to adequately protect our troops from chemical and biological weapons. Can we justify sending them off to war with protective suits that may have holes in them when there are viable alternatives?

After World War II, the United States took the lead in creating the United Nations for the purpose of extending the rule of law. We took the lead in creating the United Nations for the purpose of extending the rule of law around the world in order to prevent future wars.

That goal, though too often elusive, is even more compelling today in a shrinking world in which technology makes it possible to virtually destroy the planet. The United States, the undisputed superpower, has the opportunity to use its great strength to lead the nations of the world toward accepting the rule of law; or we can, as the new Bush doctrine spells out, use our power to attack at will those who may in the future pose a threat. This dangerous and contagious idea of preemptive strike will usher in a new century of violence and even catastrophe.

We should vote ``no'' on this resolution granting the President the power to go to war, but we can vote ``yes'' for more appropriate and more sensible options. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) have provided us with resolutions that allow us to address the threat from Iraq without first choosing war.