[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

                                  
