Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, no one doubts the need to reduce the threat of forest fires after last summer, when our country experienced the second-worst fire season in 50 years. However, H.R. 1904 is not the answer, and, contrary to its name, does little to make our forests healthier. Sections 106 and 107 of this bill make unwise changes to the Federal appeals and judicial review process. Under the guise of expediting fire control programs, the intent of these two sections is clear: to limit public input and to shift the review authority from an independent judiciary toward Federal agencies run by political appointees. Section 106 of this bill would limit the amount of time the public has to file a legal challenge to a mere 15 days, inclusive of holidays and weekend days. Clearly, this time limit is not long enough for someone to grasp and analyze how a project will affect the health of their family and the communities around them. Ironically, this provision could exacerbate the problem it proposes to address. I suspect more people might dash up the courtroom steps and file preemptive lawsuits against projects, since failing to do so closes the door thereafter. Section 106 also attempts to limit the time judges have to review cases and mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. Besides making judges postpone other important cases, like criminal matters, civil rights or terrorism, this provision makes judges subject to constant legislative scrutiny. Section 107 also seeks an unwise change in American legal standards by requiring courts to give unprecedented deference to Federal agency findings when considering whether to grant a restraining order or injunction. This provision would essentially allow the executive branch agencies to decide what is in the public's best interest without taking the concerns of judges or communities into consideration. This so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act is anything but. It is yet another example of the Bush administration rolling back our environmental protections. Now is the time for those who understand how important the environment is for future generations to stand up to this administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, Congress just does not get it. That is exactly what I would be thinking if I was one of the 14,400 workers in my home State of Wisconsin or the 1 million workers nationwide who are unemployed and are about to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits in 2 weeks. I cannot imagine the frustration these workers must feel after months of looking for jobs with little to no success, only to come home after a long day of looking for work to pick up a paper and read that the House of Representatives adjourned after another week of light legislative work without extending unemployment benefits. Earlier this week more than 80 employees at Riverwood International Corporation, a beverage carton plant in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, were told that they were losing their jobs. This is just one example of many companies in Wisconsin that have decided to close their doors for good. Wisconsin had the third highest number of massive layoff claims this past March. Congress should stay here and extend unemployment benefits.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, what are the tests that an economic stimulus package should pass in order for us to conclude that it will be successful? An economic stimulus plan should be fair, should be fast acting, it should be fiscally responsible, like our Democratic plan is. We all know the Republican tax plan does not meet any of these criteria. That is why they have essentially given up claiming that it is a stimulus package. No matter how many gimmicks the Republican tax cut plan uses, the one thing it cannot hide is the fact that this bill predominantly benefits the very wealthy. Like the first Bush tax cut passed in the summer of 2001, it seems custom designed by and primarily for the benefit of the very wealthiest of Americans. Today I would like to show how different people fare under the House Republican budget proposal. I guess it all boils down to who you are and what you do. For example, are you a prize fighter or a firefighter? A prize fighter, like Mike Tyson, had reported earnings of $48 million last year. He stands to gain well over a $100,000 from the House Republican plan. While a firefighter making an average salary of roughly $35,000 will save $332 through the Republican tax cut. $100,000 is the absolute minimum that millionaires will receive from the tax cut passed earlier today. Most will receive a lot more. How will other people fare under the Republican tax cut? Well, again, it depends on who you are. Are you the Terminator or an average exterminator? Arnold Schwarzenegger will gain in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from this tax cut while the average exterminator could save about $452. Yes, it all depends on who you are. Are you a Texas Ranger or a forest ranger? This year Alex Rodriguez will earn $23 million playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers while the typical forest ranger will make a little over $21,000. Alex would scoop up way more than a hundred thousand dollars in tax savings. The forest ranger, he might pocket a little less than $200. Well, are you a recording artist or a tattoo artist? Music artist Britney Spears' tax savings compares quite handsomely with tattoo artist Rene Mezechenko. Rene's tax cut will be around $300. Britney's will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It all depends on who you are. Are you an executive officer or an executive assistant? Jeffrey Barbakow, CEO of Tenent Healthcare made $115,600,000 last year, according to the New York Times. Pamela Taylor, an executive assistant, made $39,000. Pamela's tax cut will be $452. You get the picture. Those who need tax relief the most are getting the least. Congress should stop pandering to the rich special interests and get around to the tasks of putting Americans back to work. Now, I have had a little bit of fun with these pairings, but this is serious business. I represent a lot of people who hold jobs with titles like firefighter, executive assistant, factory worker, store clerk, nurse, and teacher. I also represent a lot of people who have recently lost their jobs in this turbulent economy. None of these folks are calling me on the phone to beg for a dividend tax cut. They are calling me to say put Wisconsin back to work. Put America back to work and do so in a way that is fair, fast acting, and fiscally responsible. That is what the Democratic plan would do.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent. In my home state of Wisconsin, we had the fourth highest number of massive layoffs in the country behind much larger states like California and Texas. Sadly, it seems like many here in Washington have gotten used to these grim statistics; after all, under the economic stewardship of President Bush we've lost close to more than 2.7 million jobs since he took office. We have been losing 73,000 jobs a month, which accounts for President Bush having the worst jobs creation record of any President in U.S. history. We can't count on the stewardship of the Bush administration to get America back to work. It has become clear that this Congress needs to step up and put the task squarely upon its shoulders. This week we have a chance to do this as we take up the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the proposed tax cut. Both of these bills are important in how we not only help people find and maintain jobs, but how we will create new ones. However, I believe we may miss our opportunity to accomplish these goals unless both bills are torn up and rewritten. Today, I would like to specifically talk about the WIA. The WIA was signed into law in 1998 with the intent of cementing the Federal government's commitment in helping states improve their employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs. Before the act was signed into law, states had a fragmented and duplicative number of programs that were meant to help prepare workers for jobs and to assist them in their searches. Since its inception, thousands of displaced workers, veterans, and young adults have taken part in--and relied on--programs implemented by the WIA. The ``one-stop'' system created by WIA has provided them with consolidated services, such as job retraining classes, to get them out of unemployment lines and back onto the payrolls. Title II of the Act has played a critical role in helping adults with low-literacy, basic skill levels and limited English proficiency, by providing them with the training, tools and skills necessary to compete in today's knowledge-driven workforce. The bill before us today takes the progress made over the last four years and stops it in its tracks. The WIA was custom designed to be effective in an economic downturn like the one we are experiencing now. American workers need the WIA strengthened, not scaled back, but that's exactly what the House Republicans want to do. Those who have are unemployed will run out of unemployment insurance benefits in 23 days. The last time we extended unemployment benefits was shortly after Christmas and the holidays--when many people had already run out of benefits. For many families, the restoration of benefits was too little, too late. By not including the extension of unemployment benefits in this bill, we will in all likelihood delay helping workers who need it most. Not only does this diminish the original intent of this legislation, but it's also a slap in the face to the unemployed moms and dads who will to worry if they will be able to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. This is just wrong. The bill today also block grants adult, dislocated worker, and employment service funding streams. In doing so, the bill would eliminate the funding focus for dislocated workers and terminates the existence of the employment service--the very service which connects individuals to jobs. By block granting the money, it also permits Governors to take funds from partner programs such as Adult Education, and Veterans Reemployment and job training programs for individuals with disabilities to fund other state workforce programs or other administrative costs. Governors would be allowed to take any amount of funding from any of these programs. Given the fact that 45 states have budget deficits, I believe the opportunity to use these funds for other purposes will be too tempting of a fruit for Governors not to pick. To make matters worse, the bill removes a civil-rights protection that bans employment discrimination based on religious affiliation. This bill allows organizations receiving funds--taxpayers dollars-- through WIA to discriminate in hiring based on religion. I believe this provision only serves to politicize the debate surrounding this bill and takes away from the debate we should be having, which is that we should be doing everything we can to help any unemployed worker find a job, not making it easier to discriminate against someone because of what they believe. The WIA has played a critical role in coordinating state efforts to find people jobs and provide essential services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. At a time when our President's economic plan continues to fail in creating jobs and putting our economy back on the right track, now is not the time to weaken the WIA. I urge my colleagues to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 1261 and to bring a better bill--one that reflects Congress' commitment to putting Americans back to work-- to the floor.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my constituents and everyone across America to participate in the National Association of Letter Carriers' 11th Annual National Food Drive, which will take place on May 10th of this year. Every year, on the second Saturday of May, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) collects non- perishable goods that generous people have donated to those in need. Those interested in donating should place a non-perishable food item near their mailboxes or bring it to their local post office. All of the donations will be distributed to local food banks, shelters, and pantries to help people in need in the local community. This is a great opportunity to share with people right in our local communities. Over the past ten years, the NALC has collected over half of a billion pounds of food for those less fortunate. In 2002 alone, over 60 million pounds of food was collected. Nearly 1,500 offices of the NALC--in every state in the nation--will be involved in the drive. In fact, it is part of the largest one day food drive in the nation. This is an impressive record. I hope that everyone who is able to participate will contribute what they can, and that this year's food drive will be the most successful ever.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2001, the President and some Members of Congress told the American people that we could afford a $1.6 trillion tax cut that was custom designed by, and primarily for, our wealthiest citizens, and still we would have money left over to shore up Social Security and Medicare, make investments in our education system, so that no child would be left behind. And still, we would have enough money left over beyond that to pay down our national debt. Well, today we know that that was not true. Except for the passage of the tax cut, none of the rest of those things happened. And to make matters worse, the tax cut left no room for unexpected events like the terrorist attacks on September 11 or the economic downturn that our country is still experiencing. Projected surpluses have been replaced by deficits as far as the eye can see. Fast forward 2 years to today and this Congress is debating yet another tax cut. President Bush has made ending double taxation of corporate dividends the centerpiece of his $1.4 trillion package, because he says that this tax is contraindicated by certain economic models. Well, since January of 2001, our country has lost more than 2.3 million jobs, an average of 73,000 jobs per month. And the long-term unemployment level is the same as it was during the recession under the first Bush administration. Now is not the time to have philosophical debates about economic models. Now is the time for this President and Congress to be acting on measures that would truly put America back to work. The President said in an April 15 speech that Congress needed to take quick action on his plan to get the economy back on track. Well, I agree with the President that we must act quickly on a plan; but not the President's plan, because it is not a stimulus plan. His package provides no immediate stimulus and fails to create jobs. Studies predict that in the year 2003, the President's plan would only restore a small number of the jobs recently lost in our economy. Moreover, only about 5.5 percent of the President's plan would go into effect in calendar year 2003, while nearly 80 percent of the plan would be phased in in the future during the years 2005 through 2013. Well, people need jobs now. They cannot wait 2 weeks, let alone 2 years. There is good reason why Americans are not sold on the President's tax cut. They realize that it is cast in the same mold as the first one, which was too much for too few. The President is proposing to accelerate the reduction of the 4 top income tax rates that was part of his original tax package. Well, if you are a policeman, a forest ranger, an average service or retail sector employee, or one of our Nation's 400,000 enlisted servicemen or women, you would receive no tax relief from any sort of acceleration of these marginal tax rates. But consider yourself blessed if you are a professional athlete, for example, playing football, basketball, or hockey. Combined, these particular 4,000 professional athletes would get approximately $240 million in tax relief if this plan were signed into law. The democratic economic stimulus plan is fast-acting, it is fair, and it is fiscally responsible. The entire $136 billion stimulus package would be injected into the economy right away, this year. It would also extend benefits for unemployed Americans whose emergency benefits right now are going to expire on May 31. Most importantly, it would provide tax relief to all Americans. It was designed for average working families, not just the wealthiest investors. Congress just had a 2-week break where most of us could spend extended time meeting with our constituents. I like to ask my colleagues after a recess if their constituents are concerned about the same issues that mine care about in Wisconsin. Most of the time, our constituents' concerns are very similar. That is why it is hard for me to believe now that Congress can fathom this fiscally irresponsible and misguided tax cut. When I have talked to unemployed workers in my district, they certainly have not come up to me pleading for accelerated tax cuts. They have asked how Congress plans to help put them and the rest of America back to work. They have asked for help in getting temporary health care coverage for their kids and their families in case they get sick. My constituents wonder if Medicare is going to be able to provide their parents health care or when their kids grow up, if they will be able to find a job that pays a livable wage. They are worried, and they should be. They should worry, because this budget places tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of job creation for families. They should worry, because this budget adds over $5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. This budget takes our country down the wrong path. While some Members of Congress complain about how long our budget and fiscal process is every year, I believe it is a good thing. It means we still have time to craft a better plan, one that does not put the fiscal health of our economy and the livelihood of our communities and our families and the ability of our children to have a better life in jeopardy. We must tackle that task.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joann Orfan, who has been a tireless civil servant in the great city of Sun Prairie for over twenty years. This spring, much to the regret of the Sun Prairie residents, Mrs. Orfan will be retiring from her post as Mayor. The indelible mark that Joann Orfan has left on the city will be long felt after her tenure as Mayor is over. Joann has described herself as a farm girl from Nebraska who sought to find a city with small town values to settle down in and raise her family. While Sun Prairie is the third largest city in the Second District of Wisconsin, it has been able to retain a friendly, small town appeal. Through her hard work over the last twenty years Sun Prairie continues to be a great place to raise a family. Joann Orfan has served the city in many capacities. She began serving as Mayor in May of 1990 after being a member of the Sun Prairie City Council for sixteen years. While serving on the City Council, she was a leader on the Planning and Zoning Committee. Joann was a charter member of the Prairie Industrial Corporation, a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and has on the Colonial Club Long Range Planning Committee. Each decision she made in these various positions has shaped Sun Prairie into a town that all residents can be proud of. Since October of 2002, Joann Orfan has been confined to a wheelchair as a result of neuropathy in both her legs. With the same spirit, strength and courage that the people of Sun Prairie have seen so many times she has taken on this new challenge. As Joann Orfan retires as Mayor, the people of Sun Prairie will miss her leadership, but Joann's friends and family look forward to spending more time with her. Today, I join Joann Orfan's friends, family, and colleagues in sincerely thanking her for her service to Sun Prairie and its residents.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Michael B. Kitchen, an outstanding business and community leader. On May 17, 2003, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations will bestow upon Mr. Kitchen the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in New York City. The Ellis Island Award honors an immigrant who exemplifies outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional life. Michael Kitchen, a Canadian and United States citizen, has shown through his significant contributions to the greater Madison area that he is richly deserving of this prestigious award. Michael Kitchen has achieved a high level of professional success. After three years as head of the CUMIS Group of Canada, Mr. Kitchen was appointed President and CEO of its subsidiary, CUNA Mutual Group, in 1995. Since Michael Kitchen took over, the organization has achieved dramatic growth in revenue, significant improvement in productivity, and a near doubling of financial strength. Mr. Kitchen's work in this particular field has furthered economic growth not only in the Madison community, but worldwide. Michael Kitchen is firmly committed to furthering the insurance and financial service industry. For more then thirty years he has worked tirelessly to foster the credit union movement. He serves on both the Board of Directors for the American Insurance Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Michael Kitchen has a long record of service to the community. He is on the board of directors for the United Way of Dane County and the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce. Both of these commitments show his strong sense of civic duty as he generously gives of his time and talent. Today, I join the extensive circle of Michael Kitchen's friends and colleagues in offering my sincere congratulations for receiving this honor. Michael Kitchen is one of Wisconsin's best and we are proud to recognize him today.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, and I also want to express my appreciation for the distinguished ranking member for yielding to me this evening. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is the most irresponsible I have seen. Their proposal makes deep cuts in numerous important programs, such as veterans health, as we have heard earlier this evening, and education programs to make way for a tax cut that was custom designed to benefit the very wealthy, a tax cut that would give almost 2 million Wisconsinites less than $100 each. This budget will also add more than $800 billion to our national debt over the next decade. An average family of four would pay $4,500 in taxes this year just to satisfy their portion of the interest on our rising debt. Do not tell my constituents in Fort Atkinson or Beloit, Wisconsin, that deficits do not matter. Deficits are a hidden tax that affects the bottom line of every household. But to make matters worse, the Republican budget fails to address the health care crisis that plagues our cash-strapped States. While the Republican budget impacts a number of important health programs, perhaps one of the most negatively affected is Medicaid. Republicans have proposed cuts totaling nearly $100 billion to Medicaid over the next decade. If enacted, these cuts will be nothing short of devastating to some of America's most vulnerable citizens. Nearly 5 million of our poorest seniors currently rely on Medicaid for nursing home care, prescription drugs, assistance with Medicare out-of-pocket expenses, and other services. An increasing number of seniors will need Medicaid in the coming years as your baby boom generation retires. Republican cuts could leave millions of seniors with nowhere else to turn. Medicaid is also the Nation's single largest payer of children's health care. Combined with the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, Medicaid is the Nation's foremost health care safety net for children. Today, in America, over 6.7 million children lack health insurance. To me, this is simply unacceptable. These children need immediate preventive care and regular medical care to set them on a path to become healthy adults. The proposed Republican cuts would put dangerous obstacles along this path. With States facing record deficits of nearly $80 billion this year alone, now is not the time to pare back the Federal government's commitment to helping States improve the health of their communities with these devastating cuts to Medicaid. Republicans recently buckled under intense pressure from their constituents and restored over $200 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare just hours before the resolution was taken up before this House. While the House-passed budget appears to back away from earlier calls for Medicare cuts, it still requires the Committee on Ways and Means to make undesignated cuts of $62 billion and the Committee on Energy and Commerce to make undesignated cuts of $107 billion over 10 years. And there is absolutely no language in the budget resolution that protects the Medicare program against these cuts within those committees. The cuts to Medicaid and possibly to Medicare to pay for another large tax cut has been justified by Republicans who say it will stimulate the economy. Well, I have talked to small business owners and most have not mentioned dividend tax cuts at all. Instead, they have pleaded for Congress to do something about the high cost of providing health insurance to their employees. They have explained to me that they may not be able to afford coverage for much longer. And when I have talked to unemployed workers, they have not asked me to accelerate tax cuts. Instead, they have asked me how they can afford to maintain health coverage for themselves and their families and how Congress plans to help them put the rest of America back to work. It is my hope that conferees emerge this week with a budget that is better for all Americans, one that makes progress on the difficult challenges that face our Nation, problems like the rising cost of health care, problems like the loss of quality jobs, rather than providing a tax cut that few are asking for and far too few would ever receive. Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who is a champion of health care for all.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dorothy Shannon, one of Wisconsin's most passionate progressive leaders and a model of civic activism. For over 50 years, Dorothy Shannon was on the front line of every Federal and State election in Wisconsin. She was a tireless supporter of progressive causes. Everyone who knew her remembers her fondly and she will be greatly missed. Dorothy Shannon was born in Toledo, OH in 1918. Her father worked for the National Supply Company in charge of the shipping department. But when the great depression hit, he was among the millions of Americans who found themselves without a job. After enduring many hard years, Dorothy was given hope with the election of President Roosevelt. Her father found work with Roosevelt's Public Works Administration turning a landfill into a public park. As the nation listened to Roosevelt's ``fireside chats,'' Dorothy's political fire was kindled. In 1936, Dorothy went to college on another of Roosevelt's creations, a National Youth Administration Scholarship. During World War II she volunteered for the Navy's Women Appointed for Voluntary Emergency Service. After serving our country, she attended graduate school at Yale, where she met Ted Shannon, who would later become her husband. The Shannons moved to Madison in 1950 when Ted found a job with the University of Wisconsin. They played a key role in shaping the modern day Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Even while raising three children, Dorothy never stopped volunteering. Whether marching at a peace rally or attending a League of Women Voters event, she was recognized everywhere as a passionate voice for progressive Democrats. In 2000, she was honored as the oldest delegate to the Democratic National Convention. When I close my eyes, I can see Dorothy Shannon sitting in the front row of nearly every political debate, every community forum, and every Democratic Party event. She cared so deeply about public affairs-- whether they involved local or global issues. If ever there was an embodiment of civic participation, it was Dorothy Shannon.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern Amendment. The war on drugs in Colombia should not receive funding in an emergency supplemental spending bill. Additional funding for Colombia should properly be considered as part of our regular appropriations process for fiscal year 2004. Muddling the important issues at stake in Colombia with an amorphous definition of terrorism and then burying the funding in a bill that is on a fast-track is not the way we should proceed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The balance of my remarks relate to the underlying issue of war in Iraq and this Supplemental Appropriations bill. I am one of the 133 Members of this body who cast a ``no'' vote on the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq last October. I believed then as I do today that alternative means exist to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I believed then as I do today that the world will not be a safer place because of this war. I believed then as I do today that the new Bush doctrine of preemptive military action threatens to further destabilize our world. For those of us who voted against war in Iraq, this is an incredibly painful and difficult time. Many of our constituents are feeling angry and frustrated, powerless and hurt, worried and disappointed. We've been searching for ways to take meaningful steps toward peace, having failed to convince this President, a majority of this Congress and a majority of the American people that war in Iraq is not the right path. When I refer to the phrase ``meaningful steps toward peace,'' I have three very specific goals in mind. First, I deeply believe that the Bush policy of preemptive war must end, here and now. Secondly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for rebuilding strong trusting relationships with the international community because too many of these relationships have been strained and damaged when this administration turned away from pursuit of a diplomatic resolution to this problem. Lastly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for rebuilding Iraq. Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. While never perfect, we were admired for our openness, our charity and our commitment to liberty. Weary of war, we created, supported and enhanced international institutions and agreements to encourage peaceful solutions to world disagreements and conflicts. The United States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are seen by many as a destructive force in the world. I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We should be builders rather than destroyers. A vote against this bill would do nothing to stop this war. If a ``no'' vote would stop the war, that is how I would vote. Rather, I urge Members and citizens to join me in the effort to become constructive as a nation, once again, to become builders, once again. This measure does contain resources to begin the rebuilding process. In light of these considerations, I expect to cast a vote to pass this bill. We must rebuild and restore our relationships with our allies and our friends around the world. Our long term security rests in working cooperatively in a world community with international standards and laws, seeking peaceful solutions to the many challenges we face. We must also rebuild Iraq. We can't back away now. American compassion, generosity and respect in Iraq are the essential first step in restoring trust between the United States and the Islamic world. I said that we must construct and we must build rather than destroy. But, I make one exception to that statement. We must destroy the doctrine of preemption. In fact the policy of preemption must be buried deep beneath the Iraqi desert, never to appear again. It is illegal and wrong and it harms American security far more than it helps. Beyond preemption lies the American way--democracy, diplomacy, cooperation and compassion. Mr. Chairman, peace is not simply the absence of war. The seeds of peace must be planted and nurtured. A peaceful world must be tended. It is my hope that it is the rebirth of our true vision of America, in which we reject the ``got-it-alone'' mentality, reject preemption and endorse the hard work of building and growing a peaceful world.

Ms. BALDWIN

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: 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.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us one of the most irresponsible budgets I have seen. Republicans have made their priorities crystal clear. Their number one priority in this budget is making room for a $1.35 trillion tax cut that will benefit the very wealthiest of Americans. They are doing this at the expense of programs that constitute the very safety net of this country and on the backs of hard-working Americans. This careless Republican budget will have dire ramifications for many. Republicans cut most education programs by 8.3 percent. They reduced the maximum Pell grant award. They do not provide enough money for a meaningful prescription drug benefit. They cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by over $3 billion, and would reduce Medicaid spending by $163 billion. This is irresponsible. To make matters worse, at this very moment, this country is at war. We have nearly a quarter million servicemembers deployed near Iraq. Despite this, Republicans have proposed $14.6 billion in cuts to veterans programs. We must stop neglecting the health care needs of our veterans. We promised to eliminate the VA case backlog that is currently at a point near crisis. We must deliver the quality health care that was promised to those who have served to protect American lives and interests around the world. For far too long, the Federal Government has turned its back on our Nation's veterans and the promises made to them. The cuts proposed in the Republican budget for essential veterans programs are unconscionable. The Democratic alternative addresses the rising demand for veterans health care by providing more funding than the President's budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years, a total of $4.3 billion above the President's budget and $16.2 billion more than the House Republican budget. It is clear that the Republican budget in no way honors our commitment to the health of our veterans. Today's men and women in the service, today's men and women in uniform, today's men and women in Iraq are tomorrow's veterans. Will the promises we made today be empty tomorrow? When the government makes promises to ensure the health of our veterans, it ought to keep them. For that reason, we should vote ``no'' for this Republican budget resolution and ``yes'' for the Democratic alternative.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has been and continues to be a threat to Iraq's neighbors, his own people, and to all peace-loving nations of the world. The United States and the United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by his pursuit of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The world has wisely taken action to proactively address this threat. The issue is not whether Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator or whether or not he is dangerous. He clearly is. The issue is whether a preemptive war is justified now. I believe the answer is no. Iraq is neither an immediate or an imminent threat to the security of the American people. Aggressive inspections and disarmament by the United Nations with the full support of member states can be successful. We have time to work together with the international community to collectively address the threat of Iraq without resorting to war and without endorsing a policy of preemptive attack. Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous leadership in the world as we created international institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably effective. I and many others around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that this administration has taken in the world arena. We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticisms of the U.N. and NATO are heard throughout the world community. We have to recognize that after 9-11, the world came together in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to break up al Qaeda and arrest its leaders, to interrupt the flow of money. It should have been crystal clear that fighting terrorism and protecting American security would require our friends and our allies; cooperation, not confrontation. Yet the administration instead engaged in a single-minded drive to achieve its Iraqi objectives at any cost instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies, by working with the world community. Even if the administration gets what it wants this time, what is the long-term damage to our international relationships? How will it impact our efforts to stop terrorism and protect the security of the American people? I am worried. The people that I represent are very anxious. It seems more and more likely that war is around the corner. What will that war be? Are the American people prepared? The American people are expecting, I think, a smaller conflict than we are walking into, perhaps a Grenada, a Panama or the first Gulf War; quick, hopefully few casualties, troops in and out within weeks or months. I think that this war would be different. After a large ground war to capture the entire country, we will likely occupy Iraq. The Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, estimated that we would need 100,000 troops or more for the occupation. We have no idea how long they would have to stay. Mr. President, we need to hear about your exit strategy, and we need to hear that now. The congressional debate that we had last fall to authorize the use of force against Iraq did not prepare the American people for the ramifications of this war and what this administration truly envisions. I call on this administration to answer the myriad questions that have been posed by numerous Members of Congress on behalf of our constituencies before ground troops are committed. All of Congress and all of America stand by our troops, but we think it is absolutely incumbent upon this administration to answer our questions.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, who among us could tell a person suffering from cancer or Alzheimer's disease, you cannot import the cure that would save your life, and if you do, you will face a 10-year prison sentence? Who could face their families and tell them they could not have the cure because the stem cell treatment that would have saved their loved ones' lives was derived from therapeutic cloning? The wondrous promise held out by the advances in embryonic stem cell research is that we will one day be able to diminish human suffering, heal, treat and, yes, save lives. If you support this bill, and a cure is discovered outside the United States for a devastating disease, would you deny life to our fellow Americans? I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit and against H.R. 534.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jewish Social Services of Madison, which was founded 25 years ago, on February 9, 1978, in Madison, Wisconsin. Jewish Social Services of Madison serves more than 800 individuals and agencies each year, and for a quarter century has served the entire community with its programs for seniors and individuals in need. More than 400 people volunteer each year for Jewish Social Services of Madison. These volunteers help the organization continue its excellent social work, which includes sponsoring the largest weekly nutrition site in the country, offering services with specific attention to cultural and language sensitivity, and providing assistance to refugees and other emigres. The Jewish Social Services of Madison has also been a participating agency of United Way of Dane County for 25 years. This organization has excelled as a professional social work agency since 1978, and has truly provided help where help is needed for a quarter century. Wisconsin is fortunate to be home to such a dedicated organization as Jewish Social Services of Madison. I congratulate Jewish Social Services of Madison on 25 years of extraordinary achievements, and I wish them good luck in the years to come.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the House is finally acting to provide relief to some of the unemployed. This bill will be retroactive to December 28th, so those who had their benefits cut off will receive the remainder of the 13 weeks of benefits that is due to them. The relief will continue until June. It will also allow those who begin to receive their benefits to receive the full 13 weeks in the event that they are unable to find a job. That is good. However, this bill is not complete. This legislation fails to provide benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a job. Why is the leadership forgetting those that need the benefits the most? In Wisconsin, 22,200 people exhausted their unemployment benefits and remained unemployed at the end of December. This bill leaves these people and their families without help. Over one million people across our country have absolutely no recourse and have no assistance whatsoever because their benefits have expired. We are leaving them out in the cold when they need help the most. These unemployment benefits don't just help the unemployed; they also help our economy as recipients will pay for immediate needs such as housing, utilities and food. Economists have said that every dollar spent on unemployment generates $2.15 in economic stimulus. Offering assistance to those whose benefits have already expired would help these families and our economy. They are paying for basic necessities with their benefits. They are trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, this bill is offering to help some of the unemployed, but not the thousands of Wisconsin families who have been without a paycheck for ten months or more. I am glad we are providing the relief included in this bill, but we have to do more. We must help those who continue to look for work in our weak economy. And we should do it today.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Paul B. Higginbotham, a Dane County Circuit Court Judge for the past 8 years, for his continued service to the people of Wisconsin. Paul Higginbotham is a 29-year resident of Dane County and a former small business owner. Throughout his life he has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public service. As a Circuit Court Judge, he presided over some of the most significant cases in recent history, including the case challenging the Milwaukee private school voucher program, which ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to his work on the Circuit Court, Paul was the city of Madison's first Municipal Judge. He was also a successful attorney who worked for a diverse group of law firms, focusing particularly on the areas of civil rights, family law, criminal defense, and housing. Between 1993 and 1994 he served as the Acting Executive Director of the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission. From 1988 to 1992, Paul was the Dane County Minority Affairs Coordinator in the County Executive's Office, where his advocacy ensured our government would reflect the rich diversity of the community. He has also served as a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin Law School and as a staff attorney for the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. Judge Higginbotham has also been an active community member in the greater Madison area, benefiting numerous community service organizations. He currently serves on the United Way Foundation Board of Trustees and is involved with both the Collaborative Management Team and the Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management Program. In the past, he has served as a Vice-President of the Madison Mutual Housing Association Board of Directors, a trustee of the Greater Madison Housing Foundation, as well as an Executive Committee Member of the NAACP. He was also a Commissioner of the Dane County Housing Authority, President of WORT Radio, co-chair of the Grant Allocations Board of the Wisconsin Community Fund, and Private Sector Review Committee Member of Madison Area Technical College. Wisconsin is fortunate to have a public servant with the commitment, passion, and integrity of Paul Higginbotham. As the Wisconsin Community Fund honors Paul Higginbotham, I am proud to join them in thanking him for his dedication and service to the community.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Stephen Braunginn, President and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Madison for his work in the community. As a leader in the Urban League movement and in the Madison area community, Mr. Braunginn has focused on the continuing struggle for equal opportunity for all with a special focus on African Americans, other people of color, those with disabilities and the disadvantaged. Prior to working with the Urban League, Steve served as the Deputy Director for the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources for over four years. He was the first Director of Multicultural Affairs and Special Interest Groups for the Wisconsin Alumni Association at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also an educator, having taught in the Madison Schools for six years, working with students with learning disabilities and the gifted and talented. He served as a leader on the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) where he was also the leader of Teachers for a Free South Africa. In addition, Steve became active in developing a middle school for South Madison. When he was a teacher at Cherokee Middle School, he served on the Urban League Board of Directors, where he later became chair, serving for two years. During his tenure on the Urban League Board, Steve was selected to serve on the Madison School's South Madison Advisory Committee, which eventually developed the framework for Madison Middle School 2000 which later became James C. Wright Middle School. Steve served on the Dane County Board of Supervisors for six years. During this time he chaired the Personnel and Finance Committee and the Dane County Human Services Board. He has been on many community commissions, served numerous organizations, and has also received a variety of awards for his service to the Madison area community. As the Wisconsin Community Fund honors Steve Braunginn, I am proud to join them in thanking him for his dedication and service to the community.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Terry, as a fellow Madisonian and a fellow Wisconsinite, you have made us very proud. Terry reminds me of what is great about the people of Wisconsin. We are actively involved in our democracy and government, and we have an outstanding work ethic. Wisconsinites understand what it means to serve their country; and Terry Morris has done so impeccably, in both his capacity as assistant tally clerk and as chief tally clerk. He has been a good friend to me in our frequent reminiscences about Wisconsin and Madison. I will miss you very much. Terry, thank you so very much for your service to this House and this Nation. You make Wisconsin proud. You make all of us proud. Best wishes in your retirement.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. David C. Fordham of Baraboo, Wisconsin, who is just concluding his career of more than 37 years of federal service. Mr. Fordham has served as Commander's Representative at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant near Baraboo since 1976, with more than 31 years of service at Badger. His early positions at Badger included supervisory chemical engineer and contracting officer's representative. His achievements and awards have been numerous, including recognition annually for nearly the last decade with the Exceptional Performance Award and his award this year of the Superior Civilian Service Award. Prior to the closure of the Badger plant, Mr. Fordham worked tirelessly to ensure that Army industrial installation at Badger was modernized and fully prepared to meet its role as the Army's only backup source for munitions propellant and smokeless powder. However, Mr. Fordham's impact at the Badger plant over his many years of service has gone far beyond his critical role in ensuring the plant's readiness. He also ensured numerous energy conservation improvements, significant improvements in plant safety, and the resolution of numerous complex environmental remediation issues. In more recent years, with the Army's declaration of the Badger plant as excess, Mr. Fordham has worked closely with federal, state, and local officials, community organizations, and concerned citizens, voluntarily attending countless public meetings--often until late into the night--in an advisory capacity on issues regarding reuse and cleanup of the plant. Mr. Fordham's deep personal relationship with the plant, its employees past and present, its history, and his concern for its future has been clearly evident as my staff and I have worked closely with him on issues regarding Badger. Shortly after I was sworn into federal office, I had the pleasure of an in-depth tour of the Badger plant led by Mr. Fordham, who shared from this unparalleled knowledge of the plant. Again this year, despite his ill health, Mr. Fordham made it a point to brief my entire staff and me during our visit to Badger, as he highlighted issues of critical importance regarding the plant. Since our first meeting, I have been deeply impressed by Mr. Fordham's continually increasing willingness to be of assistance that has far exceeded the requirements of his official duties, including his work to identify and prepare for the remediation of numerous sites on the Badger plant. Dave Fordham has played multiple crucial roles at Badger and in the surrounding community, and his impact will be left for generations to come. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with Dave Fordham. On behalf of a grateful nation, I offer him our gratitude for his accomplishments, has service, and his unwavering commitment to duty and community. I appreciate the opportunity to recognize and commend Mr. David Fordham here today.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Carl Thompson, who served as an advocate for Progressive values in the Wisconsin State Legislature for 32 years. Mr. Thompson was the youngest delegate to the 1934 founding convention of the Progressive Party, and eventually led the Wisconsin Progressive Party into the newly reformed modern Democratic Party. After the Progressives took over the Democratic Party, they chose Carl as their first candidate for governor in 1948, and again in 1950. As a proponent of public financing of campaigns and keeping money out of politics, he ran for governor with only $10,000. His opponent spent 16 times as much, but Carl still received 45 percent of the vote. As a State Legislator from Stoughton, he was a crusader for Progressive ideals. I admire his tireless efforts fighting for civil rights, women's rights, and for speaking for those who so often are not heard. Many of Wisconsin's laws we take for granted today, Carl brought to the attention of the State Legislature, even though they may have been unpopular at the time. His colleagues will tell you that they have considerable respect for him because he was not afraid to challenge the establishment. Carl's leadership in the State Assembly and State Senate from 1952- 1984 has left Wisconsin with a strong Progressive tradition. While his contemporaries left Wisconsin to go to Washington as Senators and Congressmen, he felt it was important to stay at home to fight for his causes in the conservative State Senate. He should be remembered for the positive impact he had as a founder of the modern Democratic Party of Wisconsin and the legacy that he has left for the people of Wisconsin.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Wisconsin State Journal, which was founded in Madison, Wisconsin 150 years ago in 1852. The daily Wisconsin State Journal, which we celebrate today, evolved from an afternoon weekly called The Madison Express. The Madison Express covered stories directly related to a young and isolated frontier town, Madison, at a time when area wolves decimating local pig populations dominated the early paper's headlines. It was a dedication to providing exemplary local coverage that ensured the survival of the weekly edition and eventually led to a broader daily newspaper that connected a developing, city with the world. Through the years, both The Madison Express and then the Wisconsin State Journal were able to survive the competition of over 80 competing local newspapers. Today, the Wisconsin State Journal is a thriving metropolitan newspaper that maintains a balanced focus on both the wider world and the local developments of the Madison area and Wisconsin. The newspaper currently has a circulation of over 110,000 households in a territory spanning 17 counties. In recognition of its quality, the Wisconsin State Journal has received an impressive seven Lee Awards for excellence in journalism and five Inland Press Awards for community service and public affairs reporting. The newspaper has shown its commitment to the area through its community involvement. The Wisconsin State Journal originally conceived and now leads the Schools of Hope project, a broad, community-driven program that has helped improve the reading scores of area students. Congratulations on 150 great years.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution to authorize the President of the United States to go to war with Iraq in a unilateral first strike. It is clear that Saddam Hussein has been and continues to be a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to all peace-loving nations. The United States and the United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by his pursuit of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The very existence of these types of weapons in our world is exceedingly dangerous. They are dangerous in the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but they are also dangerous stockpiled in the former Soviet Union. They are dangerous even in our own stockpiles. Control and destruction of weapons of mass destruction are essential to our national security and to world security. The world has wisely taken action to proactively address this threat, and I am proud that the United States has been a leader in addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Right now, the United States is spending $1 billion per year to prevent the proliferation of these weapons, but we must do more. The question before the world today and the Congress of the United States is, what steps do we take to ensure that Iraq does not use weapons of mass destruction? The President has indicated a willingness to work together with the United Nations to renew international inspections and the disarmament process. We must let this process begin, and we must do everything we can to ensure that it succeeds. In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, in which case the President, as Commander-in-Chief, already has the legal authority to respond, but in the absence of an imminent threat, working with our allies and other nations to address this threat is the appropriate way to proceed. The administration's skepticism about Iraq's agreement to allow weapons inspectors without conditions is understandable. However, we must allow weapons inspections a chance to proceed before concluding that they have failed. The world community is with us in demanding inspections and disarmament. Establishing an inspection process that is complete, thorough and comprehensive can be done, but it will require resources and it will require our determination and it will require the active cooperation of our allies and the world community. War against Iraq should not be our first choice but rather our very, very last resort. The United States has many tools, I mean many tools, to address the threats of weapons of mass destruction. Absent an imminent threat, we must exhaust our other tools before hauling out the machinery of death and destruction, and there are alternatives between doing nothing and declaring war. It is our responsibility to address the threat to the safety of Americans and our allies from Iraq. Nothing is of greater concern to a Member of Congress than the health and safety of our citizens. A military first strike on Iraq, absent the support of the international community, may be more dangerous to our citizens than using means short of war. War against Iraq could further destabilize the Middle East. War against Iraq could make it more likely that weapons of mass destruction are used on our civilians. War against Iraq could endanger our allies in the region. War against Iraq could reinforce anti-American extremism and terrorism recruitment. It is absolutely essential to weigh these costs of war, also. The President's case for war emphasizes the potential threat from Iraq, while minimizing the dangers inherent in military action targeted at a regime change. War is far from risk free. In fact it may be far more dangerous an option to American security. A rat backed into a corner will fight, not surrender. If Saddam Hussein has no other option, he is more likely to use weapons than under our current containment policy. He could use them against American troops. He could use them against Israel. He could use them against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He may even decide that, with nothing to lose, why not give them the weapons to anti-American terrorists. Madam Speaker, we should be very aware that Iraq's neighbors are not clamoring for us to attack. They understand the danger of war with Iraq. An attack on Iraq would likely be perceived by some as an attack on Islam, generating more anti-Americanism and encouraging radical fundamentalism. The precedent set by a go-it-alone first strike would shape the future of this century. Is that how we will approach the nearly 30 other countries that possess or are developing the 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 they see as threats? Madam Speaker, issues of war and peace are never easy. The decision we will make will shape our century. I do not know what the future will bring. However, I firmly believe that we must pursue diplomacy and every other tool first. War with Iraq now is not the answer. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution to authorize the President of the United States to unilaterally go to war with Iraq. It is clear that Saddam Hussein has been and continues to be a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to all peace-loving nations of the world. The United States and United Nations have recognized the dangers posed by his pursuit of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The very existence of these types of weapons in our world is exceedingly dangerous. They are dangerous in the hand of a dictator like Saddam Hussein. They are also dangerous stockpiled in the former Soviet Union. And they are dangerous even in our stockpiles. Control and destruction of weapons of mass destruction are essential to our national security and world security. The world has wisely taken action to proactively address this threat. I am proud that the United States has been a leader in addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Right now the United States is only spending $1 billion per year to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. We must do more. The question before the world today and the Congress of the United States is: what steps do we take to ensure that Iraq does not use weapons of mass destruction? The President has indicated a willingness to work together with the United Nations to renew international inspections and the disarmament process. We must let this process begin. And do everything we can to make sure it succeeds. In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States (in which case the President already has the necessary legal authority as Commander-in-Chief to respond) . . . in the absence of that imminent threat, working with our allies and other nations to address this threat is the appropriate way to proceed. The Administration's skepticism about Iraq's agreement to allow weapons inspectors without conditions is understandable. However, we must allow weapons inspection a chance to proceed befor concluding they have failed. The world community is with us in demanding inspections and disarmament--we should do all we can to make them effective. Establishing an inspection process that is complete, thorough and comprehensive can be done. It will require resources. It will require determination. And it will require the active cooperation of our allies and the world community. War against Iraq should not be our first choice, but rather our last resort. The United States has many tools to use to address the threats of weapons of mass destruction. Absent an imminent threat, we must exhaust our other tools before hauling out the machinery of death and destruction. And there are alternatives between doing nothing and declaring war. The President has articulated his case against Iraq by citing the danger posed by its weapons on mass destruction. He has envisioned a Middle East dominated by a nuclear-armed Iraq, bullying its neighbors, blackmailing the region, threatening the United States, and arming terrorists. I believe the United States and the United Nations should take actions to prevent this nightmare scenario from occurring. It is our responsibility to address the threat to the safety of Americans and our allies from Iraq. Nothing is of greater concern to a Member of Congress than the health and safety of our citizens. A military first strike attack on Iraq, absent the support of the international community, may be more dangerous to our citizens than means short of war. War against Iraq could further destabilize the Middle East. War against Iraq could make it more likely that weapons of mass destruction are used on civilians. War against Iraq could endanger our allies in the region, like Israel and Turkey. War against Iraq could reinforce anti-American, extremism and terrorist recruitment. It is absolutely imperative to weigh these costs of war against the threat. The President's case for war emphasizes the potential threat from Iraq, while minimizing the dangers inherent in military action targeted at a regime change. War is far from risk free. In fact, it may be a far more dangerous option. A rat backed into a corner will fight, not surrender. If Saddam Hussein has no other option, he is more likely to use these weapons than under our current containment policy. He would use them against American troops. He would use them against Israel. He would use them against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He may decide that with nothing to lose, why not give the weapons to anti-American terrorists. Madam Speaker, we should be very aware that Iraq's neighbors are not clamoring for us to attack. They understand the danger of war with Iraq. An attack on Iraq would likely be perceived by some as an attack on Islam, generating more anti-Americanism and encourage radical fundamentalists. In addition to the military dangers posed by an invasion of Iraq, we must consider the post-war challenges. Rebuilding Iraq will be a major challenge that will take many years and a great deal of money. There is no history of democratic government in Iraq. The Iraqi opposition is disorganized and divided, despite U.S. efforts to pull them together. The economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions. If we look at previous wars and occupations that the United States has undertaken, success has meant an extended commitment of time, resources and American forces. We did successfully rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II. It has been an unqualified success. Yet more than fifty years later, we still maintain military forces on their soil and in their defense. Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? If we don't, will Kurdish separatists declare a new state, destabilizing our NATO ally Turkey? Will Turkey react? If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq? We cannot know what will happen in a post-war Iraq, but all of the good outcomes clearly require a substantial U.S. commitment, far more than any other in the region, even Afghanistan. International law is clear in reserving for a sovereign nation the right to self-defense. It is also generally accepted that this right of self-defense extends to a preemptive attack in the case of an imminent threat. Thus, should Iraq pose an imminent threat to the United States, we would be justified in taking preemptive action. The President has not made the case that an imminent threat exists. Instead, he has made a much broader and more troubling argument: that we are unlikely to ever have enough evidence of an imminent attack from Iraq and therefore must act now. The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is that it blurs the standard of evidence required to justify a preemptive attack under international law, undermining the ability of the world community to maintain peace and security. The precedent set by a go-it-alone first strike would shape the future of this century. Is that 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 they see as threats? Absent an imminent threat, it is imperative that we build a strong case for taking preemptive action against Iraq. The standard of evidence must be high, not low. The best way to build a convincing case is to work with the world community to build that case. Coercive weapons inspections will help us build that case in two ways. If Saddam Hussein cooperates, even reluctantly, we will know far more about his weapons capability and the threat. We will also be able to disarm him of all that we find. If Saddam Hussein refuses to cooperate, or undermines the work of the inspectors, the world will be more willing to accept a military solution. A coercive inspections effort over the next several months will strengthen our ability to deal with the threat. The President should be commended for going to the United Nations last month to urge a resumption of the inspections. We should work with our allies and other nations to implement a strong inspections program. The goal of these inspections should be to find all weapons of mass destruction and disarm Iraq. I believe that the United Nations Security Council would support a strong inspections program that meets the goals articulated by the President. I believe it is a mistake to demand that the Security Council authorize the use of force now, just as I believe the U.S. Congress should not authorize the use of force today. We should move forward as quickly as possible with unconditional inspections. Authorizing the use of force to enforce these inspections and disarm Iraq should come after our diplomatic efforts have been attempted and found to fail. They may fail. But they also may succeed. And they are more likely to if it is a united world against Saddam Hussein instead of the United States and Britain on our own. Madam Speaker, issues of war and peace are never easy. The decision we make will shape this century. I do not know what the future will bring. However, I firmly believe that we must pursue diplomacy and every other tool first. War with Iraq now is not the answer.