[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 19646-19647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING A PRELIMINARY AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 7, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks since the 
president's speech to the United Nations, I have taken time to listen 
to Coloradans and to discuss with military leaders and other 
experienced voices the threat posed by Iraq. This has been a difficult, 
even soul-searching time for all Americans, and I have taken my 
responsibility very seriously because I deeply believe that this vote 
will be among the most important I cast in Congress.
  The U.S. Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the 
Congress, and if we are on the path to war, I believe this Congress has 
the grave responsibility to join with the president in determining 
whether this path will be short or long, who will be on that path with 
us, and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage.
  After deep reflection and after listening to those whose experience 
and judgment in matters of war and peace I respect most, particularly 
those in the military, I have come to these conclusions about the path 
to war:
  We should only go to war as a last resort and after all diplomatic 
efforts have been exhausted, and I take some comfort that President 
Bush apparently agrees with this view.
  Unless there is new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent 
threat to our national security, I believe we should only go to war 
against Iraq as part of a broad international coalition authorized by 
the United Nations.
  America can go it alone, and should go it alone where we believe an 
attack is imminent, but that is not the case with Iraq. In this case, I 
believe we need the United Nations with us--not so much to win the war 
and topple Saddam Hussein, but to secure the peace and take 
responsibility for the costly and difficult nation-building that must 
follow.
  Some say that after 9-11 we cannot afford not to attack Iraq on our 
own. I say that after 9-11 we should only attack in concert with the 
international community. Why? Because a preemptive, go-it-alone attack 
could seriously compromise our efforts to combat global terrorism, 
particularly in the Islamic world.
  Saddam Hussein is a dangerous tyrant and I fully support the goal of 
disarming him. I have no illusions about the duplicity of this man nor 
the depth of his cruelty. The world would be safer and breathe easier 
if he were removed.
  Getting the job done and doing it in a way that protects American 
interests, American values, and American lives is what concerns me 
most. Moreover, I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is 
only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat 
in the context of other security goals, including winning our war 
against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in particular.
  I have indicated that I cannot support the Congressional Resolution 
on Iraq that has been reported by the International Relations 
Committee. This resolution would not meet what I believe to be the 
solemn responsibility of Congress to declare, authorize, and define 
war, particularly on a full-scale, preemptive basis.
  The current resolution concerns me most because it shortens the path 
to war. Worse, it vests total discretion with the president to 
determine how fast we run this path. This path to war is far too 
complicated and the consequences far too dangerous for Congress to 
delegate this responsibility to one man.
  I believe this path to war should be slower-paced and involve more 
check-points--check points that include the participation by Congress.
  These are the check-points I think should mark any path to war with 
Iraq:
  1. We must secure a tough new resolution from the United Nations 
Security Council that establishes a timetable for the destruction of 
Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. This will 
strengthen the president's hand.
  2. If we secure the full support of the United Nations, I believe the 
UN must join us in deploying a robust and even coercive inspection and 
disarmament program against Iraq, backed up by a multinational force 
that America would lead.
  3. If we fail to secure the support of the United Nations and 
unfettered inspections are not begun, I believe we must cripple Saddam 
Hussein's ability to acquire and deploy weapons of mass destruction. At 
that juncture, military force may indeed be necessary as a last resort. 
But before America launches a massive operation of the kind we saw in 
the 1991 Gulf War, however, I believe the president should come to 
Congress to ask for a separate authorization of war.
  Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on 
the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. 
Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it 
poses for our global war on terror and the consequences for our 
security in the region, is simply irresponsible in my view.
  More important, Congress needs to share responsibility for the 
decision to go to war on this scale. We cannot simply wish the 
president the best and wash our hands of the awesome responsibility to 
send thousands of American men and women to war.
  The last time we did so, in 1964, when Congress passed the Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution, my father was serving in Congress. The Gulf of 
Tonkin Resolution, like the one we are now debating, was designed to 
strengthen the president's hand in dealing with an international 
crisis. It led to the eventual deployment of 500,000 American soldiers 
in Vietnam, and the deaths of 55,000 American servicemen and women. My 
father came to regret his support for that resolution when it became 
clear that it was being used as a substitute for the Constitutional 
responsibility of Congress to declare war.
  My father was an early and outspoken critic of that war, and I know 
he came to believe that Congress made a terrible mistake when it passed 
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Let not this Congress, a generation 
later make a similar and tragic mistake.

[[Page 19647]]

  The resolution I am offering specifies key questions that should be 
answered before we send thousands of American soldiers into harm's way. 
It would also establish the legitimacy of American military action as a 
last resort because we would have clearly exhausted all other means to 
eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Finally, it would 
preserve the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress to declare 
war.
  The resolution I offer today is intended to avoid the mistakes of the 
past, while still allowing us to accomplish the important task of 
ridding the world of the dangers posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

                          ____________________