[House Report 107-721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-721
======================================================================
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
_______
October 7, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.J. Res. 114]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on International Relations, to whom was
referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) authorizing the
use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the joint resolution do pass.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
The Amendments................................................... 2
Background and Purpose........................................... 4
Additional Matters............................................... 10
Hearings......................................................... 37
Committee Consideration.......................................... 37
Votes of the Committee........................................... 37
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 39
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 39
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 40
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 41
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 41
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 41
New Advisory Committees.......................................... 43
Congressional Accountability Act................................. 43
Federal Mandates................................................. 43
Dissenting Views................................................. 45
The Amendments
The amendments strike all after the resolving clause and
strike the preamble and insert a new resolving clause and
preamble which appear in italic type in the reported joint
resolution.
The following shows the preamble and the text of the
reported joint resolution:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal
occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to
liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of
the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions
relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United
Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally
agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to
end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq
had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological
weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development
program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than
intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted
to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which
finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31,
1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital
United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq
to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in
accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in
the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi
citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and
by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and
its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility
toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by
attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on
many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored
the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ
those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its
Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,
and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States
and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the
United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel
Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and
security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its
civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations
operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to
use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council
Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security
Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and
677'';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports
the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization
of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that
Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to
the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the
sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States
to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common
challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,''
while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action
will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism
and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with
its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its
obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security
Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security
interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism
that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced,
including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism
through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President
to take the necessary actions 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all
appropriate actions 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action
in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the
United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding
Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the
reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-
148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report
to the Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting
the requirements of section 3 of such Resolution.
Background and Purpose
SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION
On September 12, 2002, President George W. Bush
characterized the Iraqi regime as ``a grave and gathering
danger'' in his speech before the United Nations General
Assembly. The Committee agrees with this characterization, and
recommends, as provided in House Joint Resolution 114, that the
President be authorized to address that danger by using
military force against Iraq under certain circumstances.
The Committee hopes that the use of military force can be
avoided. It believes, however, that providing the President
with the authority he needs to use force is the best way to
avoid its use. A signal of our Nation's seriousness of purpose
and its willingness to use force may yet persuade Iraq to meet
its international obligations, and is the best way to persuade
members of the Security Council and others in the international
community to join us in bringing pressure on Iraq or, if
required, in using armed force against it.
House Joint Resolution 114 contains a preamble setting out
important milestones in the recent Iraqi defiance of
international law and other matters relating to the United
States response to it and to the realities of our global war on
terrorism.
The Joint Resolution's operative paragraphs----
(a) express Congressional support for the President's
efforts to strictly enforce United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq and the hope of the
Congress that the United Nations Security Council will
be able to obtain Iraq's compliance with them;
(b) provide authority for the President to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to
be necessary and appropriate to (1) defend the national
security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant
United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding
Iraq;
(c) require that prior to the exercise of authority
to use armed force or as soon as feasible (but no later
than 48 hours) thereafter, the President shall make
available to the Speaker and the President pro tempore
of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by
the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States
against Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq and (2) using that
authority is consistent with the United States and
countries continuing to take the necessary actions
against international terrorists, including those
responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
United States;
(d) conform the provisions of the Joint Resolution
with related provisions of the War Power Resolution by
providing that the relevant section is intended to
constitute the specific statutory authorization
required by the War Powers Resolution and provide that
nothing in the Joint Resolution supercedes any
provision of the War Powers Resolution; and
(e) require reports every 60 days on matters related
to the joint resolution, including the status of
planning for a post-conflict Iraq.
IRAQ'S RECORD: 1990 THROUGH 1998
In 1990, in response to Iraq's war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and
enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to
Iraq.
Congress, in the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Pub. L. 102-1), authorized the
President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677''.
After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which
Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism. The Iraqi government also agreed to
completely disclose its programs, past and present, relating to
the production and development of weapons of mass destruction
and the means to deliver them. Iraq did not comply with those
agreements. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as
being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution,'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the
peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,''
and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to
achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution
688''.
The efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the
discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons
and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much
closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated. For example, after the
defection of two of Saddam's sons-in-law, UNSCOM discovered
significant, previously-unknown, weapons development programs.
The two men were persuaded to return to Iraq, after which they
were summarily killed.
Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the 1991
ceasefire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons
inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which
finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on
October 31, 1998.
In 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons
of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States
interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq
to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and
relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations'' (Pub. L. 105-
235). The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of
the United States to support efforts to remove from power the
current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime. The Act also authorized
funds for the democratic opposition.
THE CURRENT THREAT IN PERSPECTIVE
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States and international peace and
security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among
other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant
chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring
terrorist organizations. The continuing threat posed by Iraq is
the motivation for the Committee's favorable action on H.J.
Res. 114.
Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal
repression of its civilian population thereby threatening
international peace and security in the region, by refusing to
release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens
wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman,
and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq
from Kuwait.
The question of the use of weapons of mass destruction is
critical. The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction
against other nations and its own people. For example, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians of Iraq at
Halabja (March 16, 1988), and against Iran during the Iran-Iraq
War of the 1980's.
The current Iraqi regime clearly sees itself as being at
war with the United States, and has engaged in hostile acts
toward our Nation. The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated
its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the
United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate
former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait.
Moreover, although United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991 led to the creation of ``no-fly
zones'' over sections of Iraq, Iraq has engaged in numerous
attacks on United States and Coalition aircraft enforcing it.
Since 2000, Iraqi forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots
1,600 times. American and British pilots have been fired on at
least 67 times since September 18th, when Saddam promised to
``allow the return of the United Nations inspectors without
conditions.''
Iraq also aids terrorists who have attacked the United
States and its allies, including terrorists who use weapons of
mass destruction. The Administration has concluded that members
of al Qaida, a terrorist organization that committed the
attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and other
attacks, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq also continues to aid
and harbor other international terrorist organizations,
including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
American citizens, such as the Mujhedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Palestinian Liberation
Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO).
The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations. The current Iraqi government's demonstrated
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction,
the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those
weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States
or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists
who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would
result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to
defend itself.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to
meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the
necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable''. The President's speech before the United Nations
and a supporting report, entitled A Decade of Deception and
Defiance, are reproduced under Additional Matters in this
report.
ACTION AGAINST IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
The use of force against Iraq may be a required part of the
war on terror. The Committee expects that the President will
continue to work against terror on all fronts even as we expand
our efforts to deal with the Iraqi regime. The United States is
determined to prosecute the war on terrorism; Iraq's ongoing
support for international terrorist groups combined with its
development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation
of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United
Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in
the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including
through the use of force if necessary.
Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions
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, or harbored such persons or
organizations.
IS THIS RESOLUTION NEEDED?
The Committee believes that the President has authority
under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and
prevent acts of international terrorism against the United
States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Pub. L. 107-40). Some
may disagree with the need to provide additional authority to
deal with Iraq by means of this joint resolution. The Committee
submits that while there have been attempts in the past decade
to revise or repeal the War Powers Resolution this is not the
time to resolve that issue. This resolution ``moves the ball''
in neither direction on the question of the President's War
Powers, but conforms to recent precedent.
IRAQ'S GEOSTRATEGIC IMPORTANCE
It is in the national security interest of the United
States to restore international peace and security to the
Persian Gulf region, which is threatened at this time primarily
by the actions of the current Iraqi regime. The people of the
Persian Gulf region deserve to live in peace. They should not
be bullied by the likes of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the
crucial flows of energy from the Persian Gulf are not only
important to the United States but to every major economy in
the world--our trading partners and allies. A serious
disruption of energy supplies could well plunge the world into
economic chaos. Even if the United States conserved energy or
somehow otherwise avoided the direct effects of energy flow
disruptions, our trading partners would suffer from economic
depression. We would be stuck with agricultural and
manufactured goods we could not sell; tourism would dry up; few
would seek the benefits of our service industries. For these
reasons, safeguarding the free flow of energy supplies has been
recognized as a vital national security concern of the United
States for scores of years.
OTHER MATTERS
The Committee emphasizes that the people and Government of
the United States have no quarrel with the Iraqi people but,
rather, with the Iraqi regime and its policies. Neither the
people and Government of the United States nor the world
community will be satisfied with a cosmetic change at the top
of the regime resulting in the replacement of Saddam Hussein by
a similarly bloody-minded relative or general. The people and
Government of the United States hope that the Iraqi people will
achieve in the near future a full measure of human rights and
that Iraq will take is rightful place in the world. This matter
was brought to the Committee's attention during markup by Mr.
Smith of Michigan.
The Committee has supported and will continue to support
legislation aimed at bringing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen
to justice in a specially-constituted, United Nations Security
Council-sponsored, ad hoc international criminal tribunal,
similar to the one sponsored to deal with the Former Republic
of Yugoslavia. The Committee believes that Saddam should be
held to account for his many horrific, crimes. If, however, the
people of Iraq propose, through a democratic mechanism, another
approach to address the acts of who aided Saddam's regime, the
international community should consider their proposal
seriously. This matter was helpfully brought to the Committee's
attention during markup by Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts.
The Committee emphasizes its approval of the President's
decision to seek United Nations Security Council approval of a
robust inspection and disarmament force prior to the use of
United States Armed Forces; this matter was included in the
introduced resolution. Helpful additional language on this
point was proposed by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and received
favorable discussion during the markup but the language was
withdrawn as an unnecessary complication to the delicate
balance that had been reached on the underlying text.
In the course of the Committee's consideration Mr. Sherman
of California offered an amendment, which was defeated, to
remove certain provisions from the joint resolution and recast
it as being aimed solely at the removal of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. In the Committee's view, Mr. Sherman's
amendment was a well-thought out, carefully crafted, and on the
whole an excellent attempt to deal with the issue. However, it
was the view of the Committee that the underlying joint
resolution represented the best approach.
Additional Matters
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
New York, New York
September 12, 2002
10:39 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President,
distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one
year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my
country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world.
Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible
morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other
lives, without illusion and without fear.
We've accomplished much in the last year--in Afghanistan
and beyond. We have much yet to do--in Afghanistan and beyond.
Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against
global terror, and the people of the United States are
grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a
world war--the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping
old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members
resolved that the peace of the world must never again be
destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the
United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of
Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our
resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of
deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives,
we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by
all, and to a system of security defended by all.
Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.
Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent
poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our
responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with
the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up
lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to
bring medical care where it is desperately needed.
As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United
States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has
been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission
to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.
Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts--
ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not
inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for
either side without freedom for both sides. America stands
committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living
side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other
people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their
interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue
to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities
as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
Above all, our principles and our security are challenged
today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of
morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the
attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive
intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many
nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are
plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their
war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that
terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an
outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a
massive scale.
In one place--in one regime--we find all these dangers, in
their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of
aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation.
And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to
seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein
been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the
peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was
stopped--by the might of coalition forces and the will of the
United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator
accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him
and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every
one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United
Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge--by
his deceptions, and by his cruelties--Saddam Hussein has made
the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the
Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people,
including the systematic repression of minorities--which the
Council said, threatened international peace and security in
the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that
Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human
rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens
of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have
been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary
execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock,
starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front
of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents--
and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the
apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686
and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait
and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise.
Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for
this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian,
Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals
remain unaccounted for--more than 600 people. One American
pilot is among them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687,
demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and
permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's
regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security
Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support
terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran,
Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are
targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the
Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's
government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th.
And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known
to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop
developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range
missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying
with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this
fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no
biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons
program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to
producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other
deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial
bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq
has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents
it declared, and has failed to account for more than three
metric tons of material that could be used to produce
biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving
facilities that were used for the production of biological
weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely
maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents,
and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities
capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally
admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the
Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in
Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than
1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information
about its nuclear program--weapons design, procurement logs,
experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and
documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable
nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical
infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made
several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to
enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire
fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon
within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported
numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear
scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite
for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with
ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at
testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building
more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death
throughout the region.
In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed
economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained
after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security
Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil
revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this
program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology
and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's
people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to
build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his
country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he
bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi
citizens.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and
unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself
of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq
broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading,
and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation
entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security
Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime
cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious
violations of its obligations. The Security Council again
renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring
Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security
Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing
flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling
Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand
was renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the
last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi
regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of
secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder
even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that
he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the
facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a
grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope
against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to
bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a
reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than
patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil
for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But
Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to
develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be
completely certain he has a--nuclear weapons is when, God
forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do
everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the
authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq
has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of
defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United
Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council
resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without
consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its
founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want
the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and
successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most
important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those
resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi
regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us,
by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and
unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all
weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all
related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end
all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states
are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution
of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds,
Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council
resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or
account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown.
It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return
stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the
invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international
efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security
Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end
all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will
accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to
ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the
benefit of the Iraqi people.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness
and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of
the United Nations helping to build a government that
represents all Iraqis--a government based on respect for human
rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised
elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people;
they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the
Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic
goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all
nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through
cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the
world with mass murder. The United States supports political
and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
We can harbor no illusions--and that's important today to
remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in
1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of
every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish
villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40
Iraqi villages.
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet
our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the
world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to
account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the
necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States
should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be
enforced--the just demands of peace and security will be met--
or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its
legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in
the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in
brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and
dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East
to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain
unstable--the region will remain unstable, with little hope of
freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With
every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying
the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that
regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply
these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of
September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this
danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of
Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a
democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring
reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by
their example that honest government, and respect for women,
and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the
Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of
the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set
before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world
of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers
gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the
permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by
choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And,
delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make
that stand, as well.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 11:04 A.M. EDT
Hearings
The Committee on September 19, 2002, held two hearings on
United States Policy Toward Iraq. Testimony was received from
United States Secretary of State, the Honorable Colin L.
Powell; The Honorable Richard Perle, Resident Scholar at
American Enterprise Institute; The Honorable R. James Woolsey,
Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton; The Honorable Jessica
Tuchman Mathews, President of Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace; and, General Charles G. Boyd, U.S. Air
Force (Ret.) and President and Chief Executive Officer of
Business Executives for National Security. On September 25, the
Committee held a classified briefing by the Honorable Paul D.
Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, on U.S. policy toward
Iraq.
The Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia has heard
testimony concerning Iraq on several occasions during the 107th
Congress.
Committee Consideration
H.J. Res. 114 was introduced on October 2, 2003, by
Representative Dennis J. Hastert, the Speaker of the House, and
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the Democratic Leader, and
referred to the Committee on International Relations. On
October 2, 2002, and October 3, 2002, the Committee met in open
session and ordered favorably reported the joint resolution
H.J. Res.114 with amendments to the preamble and resolving
clause which were non-substantive, technical, conforming or
clarifying, by a recorded vote of 31 to 11, a quorum being
present.
Votes of the Committee
Clause (3)(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the results of each record vote
on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of
those voting for or against, be printed in the Committee
report.
Description of Amendment, Motion, Order, or Other Proposition:
Vote 1: Sherman amendment in the nature of a substitute
inserting a new preamble, striking portions of the preamble
other than those dealing with weapons of mass destruction and
Iraq's hostility toward the United States, and modifies the
operative language to condition the use of force on a
certification by the President that the government of Iraq has
failed, after October 31, 2002, to agree to a robust weapons
inspection and disarmament program, or after October 31, 2002,
representatives of the Government of Iraq have ``prevented or
hindered'' such a program. The amendment defined the program
and directed the President to seek approval by the Security
Council of such a program in Iraq. The amendment was defeated
by a rollcall vote of 15 ayes to 31 noes.
Voting yes: Paul, Payne, Menendez, Brown, Hilliard,
Sherman, Davis (FL), Delahunt, Meeks, Crowley, Hoeffel,
Blumenauer, Napolitano, Schiff and Watson.
Voting no: Gilman, Leach, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Ros-Lehtinen, Ballenger, Royce, King, Chabot,
Houghton, McHugh, Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Issa, Cantor,
Flake, Kerns, Davis (VA), Green, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman,
Faleomavaega, Wexler, Engel, Lee, Berkley and Hyde.
Vote 2: Smith (MI) amendment making replacing the word
``Iraq'' on certain instances where it occurred in the preamble
and instead using ``the current Iraqi regime'' or a similar
phrase. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 18
ayes to 26 noes.
Voting yes: Leach, Bereuter, Tancredo, Paul, Smith (MI),
Payne, Menendez, McKinney, Hilliard, Davis (FL), Delahunt,
Meeks, Lee, Hoeffel, Blumenauer, Berkley, Napolitano and
Watson.
Voting no: Gilman, Smith (NJ), Burton, Gallegly, Ros-
Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Chabot,
Houghton, McHugh, Pitts, Issa, Flake, Kerns, Davis (VA), Green,
Lantos, Berman, Ackerman, Faleomavaega, Engel, Crowley, Schiff
and Hyde.
Vote 3: Lee amendments en bloc proposing that the United
States work through the United Nations and utilize peaceful
means to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not developing weapons
of mass destruction. They assert that war would risk thousands
of lives, may undermine cooperative international efforts to
reduce terrorism, and may undermine U.S. diplomatic relations
with Arab and Muslim countries and with other allies. The
amendments also asserts that pre-emptive unilateral action by
the United States would set a dangerous precedent and weaken
the U.N. as an institution. The amendments were defeated by a
rollcall vote of 11 ayes and 34 noes.
Voting yes: Paul, Payne, Brown, McKinney, Hilliard,
Delahunt, Meeks, Lee, Blumenauer, Napolitano and Watson.
Voting no: Gilman, Leach, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Ros-Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King,
Chabot, Houghton, McHugh, Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Cantor,
Flake, Kerns, Davis (VA), Green, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman,
Faleomavaega, Sherman, Davis (FL), Engel, Crowley, Hoeffel,
Berkley, Schiff and Hyde.
Vote 4: Paul amendments en bloc which substitutes a
declaration of war on Iraq, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of
the Constitution. The amendments were defeated by a rollcall
vote of 0 ayes and 41 noes.
Voting no: Gilman, Leach, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Gallegly,
Ballenger, Royce, King, Chabot, Houghton, McHugh, Tancredo,
Paul, Pitts, Cantor, Flake, Kerns, Davis (VA), Green, Lantos,
Berman, Ackerman, Faleomavaega, Payne, Menendez, Brown,
Hilliard, Sherman, Wexler, Davis (FL), Engel, Delahunt, Meeks,
Lee, Hoeffel, Blumenauer, Berkley, Napolitano, Schiff, Watson
and Hyde.
Vote 5: An amendment by Mr. Davis of Florida clarified that
the resolution authorizes the use of military force only for
the purpose of securing the dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction. Emphasizes the importance of international
support and the United Nations Security Council by encouraging
the President to exhaust his diplomatic efforts at the United
Nations, reserving the right to act unilaterally if the United
Nations fails to approve a new resolution requiring the
dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in a timely
fashion. It called on the President to seek a new United
Nations resolution to enforce inspections. If the United
Nations does not act, the amendment would require the President
to make a formal declaration that Iraq's threat is so grave as
to warrant unilateral military action by the United States. The
amendment raises the standard for justification of going to war
by raising the risk assessment from ``continuing'' to
``grave.'' The amendments were defeated by a rollcall vote of
16 ayes and 26 noes.
Voting yes: Bereuter, Paul, Payne, Menendez, Brown,
Hilliard, Sherman, Wexler, Davis (FL), Delahunt, Meeks,
Crowley, Hoeffel, Blumenauer, Napolitano and Schiff.
Voting no: Gilman, Leach, Smith (NJ), Gallegly, Ros-
Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Chabot, McHugh,
Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Issa, Cantor, Flake, Kerns, Davis
(VA), Green, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman, Engel, Berkley and Hyde.
Vote 6: Brown amendment requiring that the President report
to Congress prior to using United States Armed Forces. The
report should include cost estimates, analysis of the impact on
the United States economy, a commitment plan, details of
international support, and an analysis of the stability of Iraq
and its region. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote
of 12 ayes and 28 noes.
Voting yes: Paul, Payne, Menendez, Brown, Hilliard, Wexler,
Davis (FL), Delahunt, Crowley, Hoeffel, Blumenauer and
Napolitano.
Voting no: Gilman, Leach, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Ros-Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, Chabot, McHugh,
Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Issa, Cantor, Flake, Kerns, Davis
(VA), Green, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel, Berkley,
Schiff and Hyde.
Vote 7: Motion to favorably report H. J. Res. 114 to the
House, as amended. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall
vote of 31 ayes and 11 noes.
Voting yes: Gilman, Bereuter, Smith (NJ), Burton, Ros-
Lehtinen, Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, King, Chabot, McHugh,
Tancredo, Smith (MI), Pitts, Issa, Cantor, Flake, Kerns, Davis
(VA), Green, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Wexler, Davis
(FL), Engel, Hoeffel, Berkley, Schiff and Hyde.
Voting no: Leach, Paul, Payne, Menendez, Brown, McKinney,
Hilliard, Delahunt, Meeks, Blumenauer and Napolitano.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.J. Res. 114, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2002.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on International Relations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H. J. Res. 114, the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jo Ann Vines,
who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable Tom Lantos,
Ranking Democratic Member.
H. J. Res. 114--Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002
H. J. Res 114 would authorize the President to use the
armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary
and appropriate to defend the United States against the threat
posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
By itself, the resolution would not authorize any funding
for the use of force, nor would it affect direct spending or
receipts. While the resolution is a step toward building
consensus for the use of force, it also might improve the
chances of a diplomatic settlement without the use of force.
The resolution would leave the decision to use force to the
discretion of the President. Nevertheless, if the President
should use the resolution to initiate a war against Iraq, the
budgetary effects would be significant.
In an analysis regarding this subject transmitted to the
Honorable Kent Conrad and the Honorable John M. Spratt Jr. on
September 30, 2002, CBO noted that estimates of the total cost
of a military conflict with Iraq and the conflict's aftermath
are highly uncertain and depend on many unknown factors
including the actual force size deployed, the duration of the
conflict, the strategy employed, the number of casualties, the
equipment lost, and the need for reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure. In that analysis, CBO examined two
representative examples out of the many force-level options
being discussed in the media and elsewhere.
Under the assumptions incorporated in those examples, CBO
estimates that the incremental costs of deploying a force to
the Persian Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion
and that prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9
billion a month--although we cannot estimate how long such a
war may last. After hostilities end, the costs to return U.S.
forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and
$7 billion, CBO estimates. Further, the incremental cost of an
occupation following combat operations would vary from about $1
billion to $4 billion a month. The estimates of monthly costs
incorporate no assumptions about the duration of the conflict
or the occupation.
CBO has no basis for estimating other costs that might be
associated with a conflict with Iraq such as the costs for
coalition war fighting, reconstruction or foreign aid that the
United States might choose to extend after a conflict ends, or
assistance to casualties, including those that might result
from the enemy's use of weapons of mass destruction.
Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from
the application of that act any legislative provisions that are
necessary for the national security. CBO has determined that H.
J. Res. 114 would fall within that exclusion.
The CBO staff contact is Jo Ann Vines, who can be reached
at 226-2840. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
Congress is determined to vigorously pursue the war against
terrorism through the provision of authorities requested by the
President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists, terrorist organizations, and nations that plan,
authorize, or commit terrorism, or harbor other terrorists or
terrorist organizations, such as Iraq. Iraq's ongoing support
for international terrorist groups, combined with its continued
development of weapons of mass destruction and prohibited
ballistic missiles and direct violation of other international
obligations, makes it clear that it is in the national security
interests of the United States to defend against the continued
threat posed by the current Iraqi regime and to restore
international peace and security to the region, even through
the use of United States Armed Forces, if necessary.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 18 of the
Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short Title.
This section provides that the joint resolution may be
cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002.''
Section 2. Support for United States Diplomatic Efforts.
This section states that Congress supports the efforts of
President Bush to strictly enforce, through the United Nations
Security Council, all Security Council resolutions adopted
prior to the enactment of this Act addressing the threats posed
by Iraq, or adopted afterward to further enforce the earlier
resolutions. It also states Congressional support for the
President's efforts to obtain prompt and decisive action by the
Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of
delay, evasion and noncompliance, and promptly and strictly
complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq. The Committee hopes that the United Nations
Security Council will be able to ensure that the current Iraqi
regime abides by its obligations to end its development of
weapons of mass destruction, ends its development of prohibited
ballistic missiles, ends its commission of and support for
international terrorism, and otherwise complies with its
international obligations.
Section 3. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
Subsection (a) authorizes the President to use United
States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq. This section makes clear that
United States Armed Forces may have to be used to address the
continuing threat posed by the Iraqi regime, which primarily
consists of its continued possession, development and
acquisition of chemical and biological weapons, and prohibited
ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, and its continued support
for and harboring of international terrorists.
Subsection (b) requires that prior to the exercise of the
authority under subsection (a) or as soon thereafter as may be
feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such
authority, the President shall make available to the Speaker of
the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate a two-
part determination. First, the President must certify that
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq, or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq. Second, the President must certify
that using United States Armed Forces against Iraq is
consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions 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, or harbored such persons or organizations.
These Presidential determinations are only required, however,
if the President deploys the Armed Forces for the actual use of
force and not for other non-hostile situations such as
peacekeeping exercises.
The Committee is concerned that military action against
Iraq may affect the current war against terrorism, al Qaida and
other terrorist groups and believes it is important that U.S.
action against Iraq not prevent the United States and other
countries from continuing the actions necessary to combat
international terrorism.
Subsection (c) makes clear that this resolution is intended
to constitute specific authorization within the meaning of
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148),
and that nothing in this section supercedes any requirement of
the War Powers Resolution.
Section 4. Reports to Congress.
Subsection (a) provides that at least once every 60 days,
the President submit to the Congress a report on matters
relevant to this joint resolution, including but not limited to
actions taken pursuant to the exercise of the authority granted
in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are
expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including efforts described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Once we embark on military
action, the Committee believes that there needs to be in place
contingency plans for the actions that may need to be taken
once armed hostilities have ceased. The President should
consider and report on what degree of commitment of U.S. forces
may be required in the aftermath of a conflict with Iraq, the
degree to which other countries could share that burden, and
how to support Iraq's transition to democracy, including what
humanitarian assistance for the Iraqi people may be required,
the provision of democracy transition assistance to Iraqi
parties and movements with democratic goals, and by developing
a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by the
current Iraqi regime.
Subsections (b) and (c) provide that to the extent that the
report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) coincides with the
reports required by Section 3 of the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) or
the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), and the report
submitted pursuant to subsection (a) includes all the
information required by the provisions of such law, a single,
consolidated report may be submitted rather than the two or
even three reports that may be required to be submitted within
days of each other.
New Advisory Committees
H.J. Res. 114 does not establish or authorize any new
advisory committees.
Congressional Accountability Act
H.J. Res. 114 does not apply to the legislative branch.
Federal Mandates
H.J. Res. 114 provides no Federal mandates.
Dissenting Views
The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has abused the human
rights of Iraqi citizens and has used chemical weapons against
its own citizenry. This regime has failed to comply with
certain international laws and United Nations resolutions
concerning weapons inspections and disarmament, and this non-
compliance potentially endangers United States and regional
security interests. Nonetheless, we do not believe that Iraq
poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States
or its allies, that evidence has yet been provided that
indicates a link between Iraq and al Qaida, that all diplomatic
means have been exhausted towards the inspection and
disarmament of Iraq's weapons, or that efforts to prevent
terrorism would be engaged with the necessary vigilance should
the authorization of force in this resolution be unilaterally
pursued. Similarly, we have concerns that the cost of an attack
on Iraq would further undermine the economic condition of the
United States, that attempts to cause regime change in Iraq
would result in high casualties for both U.S. military
personnel and Iraqi civilians, and that a unilateral attack on
Iraq by the United States would inflame tensions in other
nations and could increase the threat of terrorism against the
United States. We are also opposed to a policy of preemption,
as it could encourage other nations to pursue similar military
engagements, and absent any defined boundaries or framework for
such a policy, would represent a new and significant change in
U.S. strategic policy. Therefore, we cannot support the scope
and intention of this resolution, and respectfully offer these
dissenting views.
This resolution authorizes the unilateral preemptive use of
force by the United States without proof of imminent peril. The
doctrine of preemption both violates international law,
including the United Nations charter, and endangers our own
long-term national security interests. The United Nations
charter, to which the United States is a signatory and was a
principal author, states that a country has an inherent right
to self-defense, ``if an armed attack occurs against a member
of the United Nations.'' A unilateral first strike by the
United States, in the absence of proven imminent danger, would
set a potentially disastrous precedent that might then be
echoed in conflicts across the globe, such as those between
India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, and China and Taiwan.
The doctrine of preemption also raises serious questions about
where such a policy will stop: will the United States go on to
launch unilateral attacks against other countries whose
governments we oppose?
The resolution undermines efforts to work with the United
Nations to disarm Iraq through inspections and the destruction
of weapons of mass destruction. It provides authority to the
President to launch unilateral military attacks before United
Nations inspections have had any reasonable opportunity to be
effective. During the 1990s, U.N. inspectors succeeded in
finding and destroying thousands of tons of Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction and related material, despite the efforts of
Saddam Hussein's government to obstruct them.
The objectives of the United States must be to operate
within the rule of law and in cooperation with the United
Nations and our friends and allies to enhance our own security
and the stability of the Persian Gulf region. Iraq's current
non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and
other U.N. resolutions poses a significant potential risk to
our national security and to regional stability, but does not
pose a proven imminent threat. Moreover, U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687 concludes, ``the Security Council remains seized
of the issue.'' The United States should therefore continue to
seek to work through the United Nations to disarm Iraq through
inspections and other diplomatic measures, rather than
resorting to preemptive unilateral military force.
It is accepted that the civilian population of Iraq has
suffered under the current leadership and that the
infrastructure that supports that population is in poor
condition. An attack on Iraq will likely further reduce the
condition of the Iraqi populace, and could prove to be a
hindrance to the establishment of any future political
stability in Iraq. This situation reinforces the need to pursue
any action with respect to Iraq through the United Nations.
Furthermore, the inevitability of Iraqi civilian casualties in
a projected conflict, especially one involving urban warfare,
raises further humanitarian arguments in favor of the need to
seek a diplomatic resolution.
The financial costs projected for a unilateral attack on
Iraq are of great concern, and represent an issue that the
Administration has not properly addressed. The Democratic
Caucus of the House Budget Committee and Presidential economic
advisor Lawrence Lindsey have estimated that such an attack
could cost between $100 and $200 billion dollars, while others
have estimated that the costs associated with an attack and
subsequent political stabilization and nation-building could
cost upwards of $300 billion. Simultaneously, our nation is
hindered by an economic slowdown that has resulted in increased
unemployment, poverty rates, increased need for food stamp and
other assistance, and significant losses to retirement
accounts. We fear that a unilateral attack on Iraq will
increase the daunting economic challenges that our nation
faces, will cause negative effects on energy prices, and that
it will reduce the government's ability and willingness to fund
essential services to unemployed workers, prosecute corporate
crime, and continue the global war on terrorism.
Since the attacks on the United States of September 11,
2001, our nation has been involved in a multilateral effort to
eliminate the threats of terrorism and to detain and bring to
justice those involved in the attacks. While progress has been
made towards that end, the fate of principals such as Osama bin
Laden continues to be unknown, and the threat of terrorism
continues to exist. There is cause for concern that a
unilateral attack on Iraq would reduce American capability to
deter terrorism by diluting the military and intelligence
community strength applied to that campaign. Further, the
multilateral coalition that has engaged in the war against
terrorism could erode and lose support were the United States
to pursue a preemptive unilateral military option against Iraq.
This could increase costs to the United States, increase the
threat to American service personnel, and reduce the
cooperation that foreign nations have provided to the U.S. in
terms of financial, intelligence and military assistance. It
has also been posited that a unilateral attack on Iraq could
increase terrorist organizational recruitment, permit access to
greater financial resources, and further the threat of
terrorist attacks against the United States.
An attack on Iraq by the United States absent a United
Nations authorization and coalition may also result in
political strife in other nations. There are numerous nations
that could suffer numerous negative internal consequences from
their actual or perceived relationship with the United States,
and similarly within other nations that are dealing with
internal political challenges. It is essential that the United
States be cognizant of the secondary effects of any action
taken against Iraq, and be sure that greater conflict is not
caused by those actions.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush went to the United
Nations calling on that organization to take action to enforce
its resolutions and protect international interests in peace
and security. We support that call and believe the United
Nations must be given a chance to carry out this mission.
Therefore, for this reason and those iterated above, we
respectfully oppose this resolution authorizing the unilateral
use of force and submit our dissenting views.
Cynthia McKinney
Barbara Lee
Sherrod Brown