[House Report 109-526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-526
======================================================================
REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THEIR
POSSESSION RELATING TO STRATEGIES AND PLANS EITHER DESIGNED TO CAUSE
REGIME CHANGE IN OR FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN
_______
June 23, 2006.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted the
following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 846]
The Committee on International Relations, to whom was
referred the resolution (H. Res. 846) requesting the President
and directing the Secretary of State to provide to the House of
Representatives certain documents in their possession relating
to strategies and plans either designed to cause regime change
in or for the use of military force against Iran, having
considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
House Resolution 846 requests the President and directs the
Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives
not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of the
resolution all documents, including planning documents,
electronic mail records, minutes, memoranda, and advisory legal
opinions in the possession of the President or Secretary of
State, respectively, relating to strategies and plans either
designed to cause regime change in or for the use of military
force against Iran.
BACKGROUND
House Resolution 846 is a resolution of inquiry, which
pursuant to rule XIII, clause 7 of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, directs the Committee to act on the resolution
within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge
the Committee is in order. H. Res. 846 was introduced and
referred to the Committee on International Relations on May 25,
2006. The Committee held a markup session on June 21, 2006, and
ordered H. Res. 846 reported adversely.
Under the Rules and Precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is one of the methods used by the House to obtain
information from the executive branch. According to Deschler's
Procedure it is a ``simple resolution making a direct request
or demand of the President or the head of an executive
department to furnish the House of Representatives with
specific factual information in the possession of the executive
branch.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Deschler's Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.,
vol. 7, ch. 24, section 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2006, Rep. Barbara Lee of California introduced
H. Res. 846. Rep. Lee's resolution seeks all documents,
including planning documents, electronic mail records, minutes,
memoranda, and advisory legal opinions in the possession of the
President or Secretary of State, respectively, relating to
strategies, and plans either designed to cause regime change in
or for the use of military force against Iran.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\H. Res. 846, 109th Cong. (May 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has now reported thirteen resolutions of
inquiry. This particular resolution of inquiry comes at a
critical time in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, when a
peaceful solution to the crisis surrounding Iran's attempts to
gain nuclear weapons might be attainable. Adoption of H. Res.
846 by the House could divert focus and possibly undermine the
Administration's diplomatic efforts to secure a peaceful
agreement with Iran. Conscious of this background, the
Committee voted to report the resolution of inquiry adversely.
In recent years, Iran has aggressively pursued development
of its nuclear program in the face of vocal opposition by the
international community. With the accession of Mahmoud
Amadinejad as president in 2005, we have seen an increase both
in the pace of Iran's work on its nuclear program and in the
inflammatory, confrontational rhetoric of Iran's leader.
Nonetheless, the Bush Administration has continued to pursue a
peaceful resolution through the use of diplomatic channels.
This emphasis on diplomacy can be seen in numerous
noteworthy efforts. Over the past three years, the
Administration has encouraged France, the United Kingdom and
Germany (``the EU-3'') in their diplomatic negotiations with
Iran. The Administration has supported Russia in its proposal
to enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil. In addition, the
Administration has actively sought a United Nations Security
Council Resolution aimed at limiting Iran's ability to produce
weapons of mass destruction through non-military, punitive
measures.
In May of this year, the President offered to join
diplomatic talks with Iran, signaling a major shift in U.S.
policy and underscoring the Administration's commitment to a
diplomatic solution. As a result, representatives of the United
States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany submitted a
proposal to Iran that would require Iran to suspend its nuclear
activities. Iran has not yet formally responded to the package,
but stated that the proposal created a ``positive atmosphere''
and was ``a step forward.''
In this positive and productive atmosphere of diplomacy, it
would be counterproductive to demand documents on contingency
military plans from the Executive Branch. While news stories
surfaced in April that the Administration was studying a
possible military attack on Iran, President Bush immediately
dismissed these reports as ``wild speculation.'' Contingency
military plans exist for countless possible situations but are
highly classified because their release would risk American
lives and military effectiveness if they were ever needed. The
Administration has given absolutely no indication that military
strikes or actions to facilitate a regime change are presently
being considered. In contrast, the Administration's commitment
to a diplomatic solution is evident.
Given the classified nature of the documents being
requested and this crucial time in diplomatic negotiations with
Iran, the Committee voted to report H. Res. 846 adversely.
HEARINGS
The Committee did not hold hearings on H. Res. 846.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On June 21, 2006, the Full Committee marked up the
resolution, H. Res. 846, pursuant to notice, in open session.
The Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution
adversely to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
The Committee held no oversight activities under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
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 resolution in article I, section 1 of the Constitution.
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE
I am disappointed that this Committee chose to vote to
order this resolution of inquiry reported adversely.
My resolution would have simply requested the President to
provide all information including documents, emails, minutes,
memos, and advisory legal opinions relating to strategies,
options, and plans either designed to cause regime change in
Iran or for the use of military force against Iran.
At the outset, let me just set the record straight: as a
long-time advocate for nuclear nonproliferation, I am concerned
about the threat a nuclear Iran poses to not only the middle
east, but also the world. Iran must be held accountable to
international standards.
However, even as the unnecessary war in Iraq continues,
along with a number of my colleagues, constituents, and
Americans across the country I remain concerned that this
administration may be taking steps to prepare a preemptive
military strike against Iran.
The May 31 announcement that the Bush administration will
join with the EU+3, China, and Russia in negotiations with Iran
is a significant development. It is a step in the right
direction. As Jessica Mathews, president of the non-partisan
Carnegie Endowment has observed, joining in the negotiations
and focusing on non-proliferation over regime change is crucial
to the process.
A policy of regime change must be off the table if
diplomatic negotiations are to succeed.
At the same time, the administration's participation in
negotiations must not end our vigilance.
Frankly, we should all be concerned about the statements
and actions that the administration is making given our
experience in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The parallels are
eerily similar.
Recent reports of the increase in reconnaissance, special
operations in Iran and enlistment of the Iranian dissidents and
opposition groups all remarkably mirror the march to a
preemptive war against Iraq in 2003.
Let me give you a few examples:
Much like the incursions in July of 2002 with predator
drones into Iraq, there have been reports of predator drones in
Iran beginning in the spring of 2005.
According to retired Air force Colonel Sam Gardiner, there
have been reports of special operations like that of Operation
Southern Focus which reportedly struck 400 targets in Iraq
beginning in July 2002. Similarly, there have been reports of
special operations with Azeri, Kurdish and MEK support
beginning last summer. All this is without congressional
authorization, and presumably, oversight.
On the home front, similar to the White House Iraq Group
which was formed with the express purpose of marketing the war
in Iraq to Americans, there have been recent reports of the
Iraq-Syria Operations Group being formed. For what purpose?
This resolution of inquiry would have helped provide these
answers.
Finally, and most disturbingly, the President's National
Security Strategy, released in March of this year restates this
administration's commitment to wage preemptive war.
Recent events on the diplomatic front, while encouraging
must not dull us into complacency and lead us to shirk away
from our constitutional obligation--the duty to conduct
oversight.
It is important for us as members of Congress--especially
those of us on this committee--to ensure that every diplomatic
option is employed to disarm Iran.
Diplomacy is not simply a checkbox we mark off on the way
to war.
We must get at the facts and get at the truth.
Barbara Lee.