19–006

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

2

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; 

3

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 

4

(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 sigVerDate 0ct 02 2002 16:48 Oct 07, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR721.XXX HR721
5

nal 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 

6

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-inlaw, 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 weapVerDate 0ct 02 2002 16:48 Oct 07, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR721.XXX HR721
7

ons 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 

8

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, 

9

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 Councilsponsored, 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 wellthought 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.

10

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 

11

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 

12

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 

13

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. 

14

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 

15

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

16


iraq0001.eps
17


iraq0002.eps
18


iraq0003.eps
19


iraq0004.eps
20


iraq0005.eps
21


iraq0006.eps
22


iraq0007.eps
23


iraq0008.eps
24


iraq0009.eps
25


iraq0010.eps
26


iraq0011.eps
27


iraq0012.eps
28


iraq0013.eps
29


iraq0014.eps
30


iraq0015.eps
31


iraq0016.eps
32


iraq0017.eps
33


iraq0018.eps
34


iraq0019.eps
35


iraq0020.eps
36


iraq0021.eps
37

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, 

38

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 

39

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, RosLehtinen, 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. 

40

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 forcelevel 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 

41

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 

42

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 

43

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. 

(45)

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 inspecVerDate 0ct 02 2002 16:48 Oct 07, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR721.XXX HR721
46

tions 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, 

47

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

Æ