[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6785-H6786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           QUESTIONING THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY CONCERNING IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the world 
watched with horror the terrorist attack on the United States. Congress 
acted by granting President Bush authority to mount a strong response. 
Congress appropriated money to rebuild New York and the Pentagon and 
roused popular support for the President as we took each step against 
terror. Congress and the President jointly exercised their 
constitutional responsibilities.
  Our efforts required and received the support from the community of 
responsible nations. The strong backing of our allies was a reassuring 
sign that our international partners stood beside us as we faced this 
new danger.
  The President now wants to reposition our efforts from fighting a war 
on terrorism to fighting a war against Saddam Hussein, to reposition 
our longstanding national policy of containment and deterrence to a 
policy of unilateral preemption. Over the last few weeks Members of 
Congress have questioned the President on this change of focus. Sadly, 
some in his party have said that to question the President is 
unpatriotic. I disagree. To question the President sends an unequivocal 
message to those who would attack America that our democratic system is 
alive and well.
  Like many of my colleagues, I held a series of town hall meetings in 
August across my district. Virtually without dissent I heard New 
Mexicans express their strong concerns about a possible war with Iraq. 
From Gallup to Santa Fe to Clovis, it was clear that the overwhelming 
majority were opposed to a unilateral invasion by the United States. 
Some told me they believed the President should involve the Congress in 
a decision to go to war. Others were concerned about getting support 
from our allies around the world. Others were concerned about the rush. 
Not surprisingly, I have continued to hear from my constituents, and 
their questions need to be answered.
  I am pleased that President Bush has taken the initial steps to seek 
the approval of both the Congress and the

[[Page H6786]]

United Nations before engaging in preemptive strikes on Iraq. I firmly 
believe that Congress has a vital role to play and a constitutional 
responsibility to act on matters of national security. However, I also 
believe there are several questions that must be answered before we 
rush into war.
  Was Iraq involved in the September 11 attack on the United States? I 
have seen no evidence that it was. A tough and strong war against 
terrorism in response to September 11 does not reasonably extend to 
launching a war against Iraq. Indeed, attacking Iraq may be a 
distraction from the war against terrorism, not a continuation. Al 
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are natural enemies, not allies. The al Qaeda 
terrorist movement is based on the belief that secular regimes in the 
Arab world are antithetical to the fundamental teachings of Islam.
  Does Iraq pose an immediate and independent threat to the United 
States and our allies? The President has identified the key threat from 
Iraq as its development of weapons of mass destruction and the 
potential for Iraq to transfer these weapons to the terrorist groups it 
sponsors. I agree with this concern. However, what weapons of mass 
destruction does Iraq now have at its disposal? Does Iraq now have the 
capability to deliver and use these weapons against the United States? 
The answer is we do not know. Without reinserting the U.N. weapons 
inspectors, we may never know.
  Why do we not allow the inspections process to take place? Why do we 
not allow the United Nations to work its will? The first resolution the 
President sent to Congress would allow him to use all means he 
determines to be appropriate, including force. Giving the President a 
blank check to act alone will increase the danger of unilateral 
military action by others in the future. It will undermine our broader 
foreign policy goals. It will divert much-needed resources from our 
pressing domestic needs.
  The President has submitted a second draft resolution. Although it is 
an improvement, I still have serious reservations. While I am confident 
that the leadership of both parties can work together to draft a more 
balanced resolution, we need more diplomacy, we need more information, 
and we need more international allies. I have no doubt that our 
military can defeat Saddam Hussein in a war. My doubts lie in what 
happens after we remove Saddam from power. Without the backing of the 
international community and, most importantly, the Arab world, the 
aftermath will be uncertain and precarious.
  Other questions must be answered before we vote. How much will the 
war cost? How many American soldiers will be seriously wounded or lose 
their lives? How many innocent Iraqi civilians will perish?
  I am disheartened that we appear to be following this course. If we 
take politics out of this decision, our voice will be stronger. I 
believe that we should not vote on this before this election. We should 
take politics out of it, and I think if we do that, our message to the 
world will be clearer. The decision is ours.

                          ____________________