This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Posted: 8:42 AM- Mr. Bishop of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding me this time.

I suppose I speak to you here and declare it first a nonconflict of interest. I was not here on this floor when the original resolution to approve the use of force was made; therefore, I took as my role and responsibility when I came in here to make sure that we did everything in our power to make sure that our policy objectives were indeed followed through and successful.

You know, in the other Chamber, in the original House floor there is a beautiful sculpture sitting up there which is a clock made out of a chariot. The clock is actually the wheel, then there is a chariot. And in that chariot is the muse of history with this tablet in hand writing down what we do on the people's floor, the subject and our actions in history.

Perhaps it is good that that still stays out those doors and down the hallways and is not here today, because when the muse of history records what we are doing today and yesterday and tomorrow, and maybe Friday, that history is going to be written with an element of contempt.

There are some people who have opposed this war from the very beginning; they still oppose it now; and I give them credit to their commitment to consistency, although I don't necessarily agree with their decision. Some of those have also criticized this resolution as also being too weak of a resolution, for indeed the resolution today is a nonbinding resolution. By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing, but allows us all to make statements for media consumption and allows some of those who made the original vote to use force the ability to shirk the responsibility of that particular action.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity of going back to Baltimore and watching a play, ``Wicked." And in the play, the main character, the male lead, Fiero, is in love with Elphaba. And she tries to distance herself from him by saying, ``Yeah, but you're thoughtless and shallow." And Fiero says, ``I know, but I am a deep shallow." This resolution is a deep shallow. It may have words aimed at the White House and the White House action, but regardless of those words, when history is written the finger of accusation will not point to the executive branch, who has been consistent, it is going to point back here to Congress, to our actions.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of the declaration of war. Instead, we passed a resolution approving force. With a war declaration, there is a commitment to action and to ultimate goals. A resolution of force implies something less, and it allows Members of Congress who did that to say, yes, I agreed with force but I didn't expect it to be used this way. Or, I wasn't really that serious. Or I didn't expect it to be anything more than a little war taking place. It is a process that allows you to be deeply shallow.

This resolution may clear the conscience of some people, it may put political distance between others, but it does noting for soldiers, it does nothing towards a U.S. victory, to benefit this country, or to improve the body politic. Our words, our actions, our votes will be looked on in history with contempt, for they are indeed in this issue deeply shallow.

In conclusion, I would like to describe the good that will come from this resolution for our Armed Forces.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Mr. Speaker, with disdain of the process of this flawed message that is so limited in its scope it does nothing to help those Members on either side of the aisle explain their nuances of their belief or this situation.