Mr. Reid: Following Senator Schumer is Senator Specter. Senator Schumer is here and I ask unanimous consent that he be next in order.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. Schumer: Mr. President, I am honored to be part of this historic debate. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent debate. I have listened to a great deal of it. This is how the Senate ought to work and ought to be. This is a fine day for the Senate.
Today we are faced with the most solemn decision a lawmaker can make: whether or not to authorize the use of military force. I approach this decision with caution, deliberation, and seriousness.
As is our tradition, there has been a great debate on this issue over the last 2 months. We have discussed multiple strategies for dealing with Saddam Hussein, and advanced many arguments for and against the use of military force. Some of these remain under consideration, others have been wisely tabled.
For example, the President's original plan of not consulting Congress or the United Nations has thankfully been abandoned.
In considering our next step, I have spent considerable time listening to experts, attending briefings, talking with constituents, and even praying to arrive at a sound conclusion.
I believe that there are two points--one on each side, standing in equipoise--that focus my attention, and that embody the tension felt by all of us.
On the one hand, going to war is the most serious, even awesome decision--awesome in the biblical sense of angels trembling before God--that a lawmaker is called on to make.
Invasion means that thousands of our sons and daughters, the flowers of their generation, will be put in immediate harm's way should we invade.
I have an 18-year-old daughter, who along with her sister is the joy of my life. When I think of thousands of young people her age who have volunteered to serve, and of the previous generations of Americans who have willingly laid down their lives in past wars, and to whom we are eternally grateful, I am filled with awe and dread.
Poised against the solemnity of war is the fact that a major, if not the primary function of government is to secure the safety of its people--to protect the citizenry from threats, both foreign and domestic.
Discharging this responsibility is the very essence of a state and, if a real danger exists, the government has a solemn obligation to protect its citizenry.
These two looming issues push and pull against one another and yield the ultimate question we debate today` Does Saddam Hussein threaten the citizenry of America to the point that we must now consider the unthinkable option of authorizing war in order to protect ourselves?
Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community.
While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States.
If our other efforts to thwart the threat posed by Hussein do not work, is war justified? If justified, how long can we leave Hussein alone before we need to act?
The struggle for these answers come in a brand new context. Our's is a brave new post 9/11 world, a time and place where things are different and more dangerous than before, much as we wish they weren't.
Those who would use terror--or those who would aid and abet that terror--pose a new danger to every one of us living in the United States, whether in midtown Manhattan or the wheat fields of Kansas.
I have seen firsthand the devastation that comes from being unprepared and unprotected. On September 12, I peered into the dark and smoky crater at the World Trade Center with horror, an image that still burns in my memory. I have met with the families of victims and heard about their losses, and shed tears over the evil and mendacity of our enemies.
I know it is my solemn obligation to do everything I can to ensure that my city, State, and country never again endure such an atrocity. Yet, at the same time, I know that war must be our last resort.
When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical or nuclear--and that he might just be made enough to do it--I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next 5 or even 3 years.
I say this with caution and worry. But I have searched my mind and my soul and cannot escape this conclusion: Saddam Hussein left unfettered will at some point create such a danger to our lives that we cannot afford to leave him be.
In the post 9/11 world, inaction is not an option: at some point, Hussein must be de-fanged.
The question is how and when?
Do we mobilize our military for battle? Do we take pains to ensure that other possible options are exhausted first? I say yes to both-- proceed on parallel tracks: prepared for the worst and work toward, and pray for, the best; empower the President to act to protect our national security but hope it will not be necessary.
Let me first address the question of how by making three points.
One, we must certainly try less costly, less ultimate options before we choose the last resort, war.
Our first option must be working with our allies at the United Nations to secure a strict resolution that will compel Saddam Hussein to disarm and submit to unlimited and unrestricted inspections.
The administration believes a unified Congress that authorizes the President to wage war will importune the United Nations to take the kind of vigorous and unified action that has eluded that body for the last 11 years: real inspections, real sanctions, real threats of military force. I hope and pray they are right.
Let me repeat: inspections and sanctions backed by the threat of military force. These must come first. These are the reasons to favor this resolution.
And if after exhausting these options, Saddam Hussein remains a threat, I believe other nations will support and follow us as we pursue the last option, war.
Working cooperatively with our allies in the United Nations must be a paramount priority for us all. We need their help not simply to force effective disarmament in Iraq; they are also key players in an historic fight--the war on terror.
They provide us with intelligence to protect ourselves from future attack; they permit us to pursue our enemies in foreign lands so that our foes know that they have no haven from justice; and they cooperate to help us choke off terrorists' financial support.
Without their help and co-operation, the war on terror would be much more difficult to wage. Therefore, their support for our efforts on Iraq is essential for our safety as a nation.
This new resolution puts far more emphasis on international cooperation first and is a substantial improvement over what the President originally proposed.
Unfortunately, time and again, Hussein has shown that the only language he understands is the language of power. By empowering the President to use force, we will send a message to both Hussein and the nations of the world that the threat of force is real and that we are serious about disarming him.
Without this possibility, Hussein will never allow inspections, and the probability of more terror and horror will increase. A determined U.N., backed by the possibility of force, may finally convince Saddam Hussein to submit to the real inspections he has evaded for the last 11 years.
Second, should we go to war, the President must see to it that we don't lose vigilance in other aspects of the war on terror, apart form Iraq, both abroad and at home.
Al-Qaida and other groups will continue to target our citizens; we must not let down our guard. Countries like Syria and Iran will continue to aid and abet terrorists; we must keep a watchful eye.
The President and the Secretary of Defense have assured us that, if war become necessary, our military can launch a successful invasion of Iraq without compromising these efforts.
In addition, if there is a war in Iraq, we must not let it diminish our efforts to make our homeland more secure--our airports, sea ports, rail lines, nuclear facilities, and our communications infrastructure all remain unacceptably vulnerable.
I have been quite critical of the administration on this point and again urge them to refocus their efforts. We are about to spend billions of dollars to reduce threats abroad; we should spend a similar amount to safeguard ourselves at home.
Third, the President must begin to pay attention to our economy. Up to this point, he has failed to do so. The American people are particularly nervous about our economic future and the prospect of war only deepens these fears. The President and Congress must address this issue immediately.
People must have secure, family-supporting jobs, access to quality health care, and the ability to pay for necessities like college tuition and prescription drugs. Our epoque of prosperity has quickly given way to an era of uncertainty.
I believe we can reverse that trend. Our Nation is big enough and strong enough to secure our safety abroad and increase our prosperity at home. I urge the President to pay equal attention to both causes, which he has not done up to now.
As I have discussed, I believe at some point we will have to confront Saddam Hussein. We should coordinate with our allies in the United Nations; maintain focus on terrorist threats at home and abroad; and make a concerted effort to revive our economy.
That is how our Government can secure the safety of its people.
The second question is when to act. Evidence suggests that we probably have some time before the growing threat posed by Saddam Hussein would require military action. If I were President, I would not go to war now. My next step would be, as ours must be, to explore fully the compelling force of a determined United Nations.
Given the President's recent statements of support for action through the U.N.; if he were to invade Iraq now after passage of the resolution, he would have completely misled Congress and the American people.
As he said in Cincinnati on Monday.
Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make demands of the civilized world mean something.
I will, therefore, take the President at his word and do my very best to hold him to it.
I realize the resolution before us would allow the President to act sooner than that. If I had drafted the resolution, it would surely have been different. However, if each of us insisted on our own resolution, we would have 535 resolutions, each with one vote, no concensus--only paralysis.
In our post 9/11 world, there are no good choices, only less bad ones. As we move toward final passage, the choice before us is this resolution--imperfect as it is--or none at all.
Saddam Hussein, his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the will he has shown to use them, makes the non-at-all option unacceptable.
So I will vote for this resolution. More than anything else we can do, this resolution will show Hussein and nay naysayers in the United Nations that we are serious about this war on terrorism. We understand the challenges of this brave new world and we are prepared to meet them.
We do not want to send our sons and daughters to war, yet we can never again find ourselves unprepared: the risks are far too great.
Certainly action--any type of action--poses real danger and must be taken with great caution and concern. But sometimes doing nothing is riskier than acting. This is one of those moments.
Therefore, I will cautiously cast my vote for the Lieberman resolution. I pray that we shall not have to use the awesome authority it grants.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Specter: Mr. President, it cannot be repeated too often in the Chamber of the Senate, the gravity of the action which we are about to take. The House of Representatives has already considered and passed a similar resolution. For some time now it has been apparent the die has been cast.
Of all of the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to Congress, the authority and responsibility to declare war is the most important. This will be the second most important vote which I will have cast in the 22 years I have had the privilege of serving in the Senate. The other vote was the authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 1991. Now, the same situation confronts us because, albeit by 20/20 hindsight, we did not finish the job in 1991.
The question is: What course of action would be most likely to avoid violence--that is, an attack on the United States or other peaceful countries, or an attack on Iraq? The most desirable objective would be to achieve the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with the commitments which Iraq made at the conclusion of the Gulf War: to disarm; not to produce chemical or biological weapons, which Iraq has violated; and not to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq has been doing its utmost to create nuclear weapons.
The coalition, which was formed in 1991 by then-President Bush, is the preferable way to go at the present time. We know Saddam Hussein is cruel, repressive, and evil. There are hardly sufficient adjectives in the lexicon to adequately describe his vicious character. That has long since been recognized and was the point of a resolution which this Senator introduced on March 3, 1998, to constitute a war crimes tribunal and to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal because he had violated the basic laws against humanity. He had engaged in reprehensible conduct. That resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 93 to 0 on March 13, 1998.
Rather than take time to delineate all of his acts of barbarism and cruelty, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this resolution be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my presentation.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. Specter: Mr. President, all the rules have changed since September 11 of last year. We now know that in the United States, we are no longer invulnerable to attack by outside powers. The breadth of the Atlantic and the Pacific no longer protect us. We learned a very bitter lesson on September 11 that has to be taken into account in our current conduct.
By 20/20 hindsight, it is apparent that we should have acted against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida long before September 11. Osama bin Laden was under indictment for killing Americans in Mogadishu in 1993. Osama bin Laden was later indicted for the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. We knew Osama bin Laden was implicated in the terrorism against the destroyer USS Cole. We knew Osama bin Laden had carried on a worldwide jihad aimed at the United States, and we have not yet determined the full extent of our knowledge of bin Laden. However, it is my personal view, having served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the 104th Congress, that had we put all of the so-called dots together on one screen, we would have had a virtual blueprint as to what al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden would do.
Now we have the risk as to what to do about Saddam Hussein and what to do about Iraq. There is considerable unrest in the United States today about whatever course of action we take.
In a series of town meetings for the last 3 months, I have had many constituents say to me: Why does the United States want to start a war? The United States has never started a war in the past. The United States has only finished wars. Certainly were it not for the experience on September 11 last year, I think we would not have considered preemptive action. However, the authorities and international law do contemplate action where there is a threat--a significant threat.
Hugo Grotius, considered the father of international law, said in his 1925 book "The Law of War and Peace" that a nation may use self- defense in anticipation of attack when there is "present danger." He said, "It is lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill."
There is no doubt that there is present danger. Is Saddam Hussein preparing to attack the United States or other peace-loving nations? There is a real question as to why he would amass chemical weapons in great quantity, biological weapons in great quantity, delivery systems capable of reaching the United States, and search for nuclear weapons which we are not sure of, but he may be very close.
Another foremost authority on international law, Elihu Root, said in 1914 that international law did not require a nation to wait to use force in self-defense until it is too late to protect itself.
This is the essential legal backdrop where we must consider what should be done. There are a number of alternatives we can take.
First, we can do nothing--no resolution, no action--and simply let Saddam Hussein continue to flout his commitments made to the United Nations. However, my view is, after a lot of careful deliberation, analysis, and study, that the risk of inaction is worse than the risk of action. There are major risks in action.
We have to consider what losses there will be on United States personnel, British personnel, or whoever may join us. We have to consider the risk to Israel, which is in the neighborhood of Iraq. Iraq is still at war with Israel. During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, some 39 Scud missiles were rained down on Israel. While they have a missile defense system, it is not adequate to protect the whole nation. Notwithstanding that, Prime Minister Sharon has made public announcements that he endorses United States military action against Iraq.
The risks of not doing anything may subject the United States to a repeat of September 11, which could be even more cataclysmic. We continue to worry about al-Qaida, which has shown a ruthless disregard for human life and the most barbaric kind of conduct. The risks with Saddam Hussein are comparable.
Then how do we approach the matter to have the best likelihood of producing the kind of coalition put together by President Bush in 1991? President Bush, in 1991, was able to motivate the Arab world to move against Saddam Hussein, as well as the traditional allies.
I gave very careful consideration to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, where he proposed that we ought to grant the President authority to use force, but only after a United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force.
The advantage of the Levin amendment was that we would have multilateral action, very much like the Gulf War in 1991. The disadvantage would be that we would be subject to the veto of Russia, China, or even France, and that ultimately the United States would be ceding a considerable quantum of national sovereignty if we gave up our right to decide what course of conduct we should take, which is in our national interest.
I carefully considered an amendment which had been prepared and circulated by Senator Lugar and Senator Biden. That resolution emphasized that the President should exhaust all possible means for an international coalition. However, if the President found it impossible to organize an international coalition and believed that the interests of the United States were threatened, in self-defense the President could act on his own or in conjunction with Great Britain. However, the President would not have to await U.N. action.
It would seem to me the proposal of Senator Biden and Senator Lugar was the best idea, and I had agreed to cosponsor that resolution or an amendment offered which contained the essence of that resolution.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Biden-Lugar resolution be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Stabenow): Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. Specter: When Senator Biden and Senator Lugar decided not to offer that amendment, I decided to offer it myself. I was surprised that the Biden-Lugar amendment was not offered before 1 o'clock yesterday, which was the deadline. I worked with the Parliamentarian to structure a procedure to offer this as a second-degree amendment, and for reasons which were detailed in an earlier speech on the Senate floor, a unanimous consent agreement, in my absence, was entered into, and the pending first-degree amendments, to which this would have been amended, were withdrawn.
I do not want to get too much into the arcane details of our Senate procedure, but I was foreclosed from offering that amendment, and I think it is very unfortunate the Senate did not have an opportunity to consider the Biden-Lugar amendment. I am not sanguine to say it would have been enacted, but, on a matter of this importance, I felt very strongly that procedural rules should not bar the Senate from consideration, especially when those procedural rules had been complied with until, as I say, the unanimous consent agreement, in my absence, in effect, pulled the rug out from under me.
I am concerned that the scope of the present resolution goes a little far in authorizing the President to use "all means that he determines to be appropriate," which is a subjective test, contrasted with the 1991 authorization which said the President was authorized to use force in order to implement Security Council resolutions. It is too late in the day to press that distinction, but I think it is important to note.
Similarly, I think it is important to note the potential historical impact of the pending resolution which, in effect, delegates to the President the authority to declare war.
Make no mistake about it, this resolution for the use of force is the equivalent of a declaration of war, and Congress has the authority to declare war. However, we are saying in effect that the President may decide at some future time whether war should be declared.
In an earlier presentation on the Senate floor, I detailed, to substantial extent, the considerations and concerns I had about the constitutionality of that kind of a delegation of power.
So, in sum, we are faced with a tough decision for the first time in the history of this country to use preemptive action. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.
It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France's veto.
So I do believe, of all the alternatives, giving the President this power without conditioning it on previous UN resolutions is the best way to get the United Nations to act to enforce the obligations which Iraq has to the United Nations, running since 1991, which have been in desperate breach.
So I do intend to vote for the pending resolution. I supported the amendment by Senator Byrd to the effect that nothing in this resolution should be deemed to impede or affect the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war. Ordinarily you would not think a statute or a resolution would jeopardize constitutional authority, which is paramount, but I am concerned about the issue of erosion, and that is why I supported Senator Byrd in the amendment that nothing in this resolution should undercut the authority of Congress to declare war.
On this solemn occasion, when it appears now highly likely--or perhaps more accurately, virtually certain--that this resolution will be enacted by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that we are on a very difficult course, it is hoped that the tremendous power of the United States, in conjunction with other countries, will be sufficient to bring Saddam Hussein to his senses, if he has any, that he ought to submit to inspections. If he does not submit to inspections, then it is confirmation that he, in fact, has something to hide and there is something really at risk.
So among the very many complex considerations, it is my considered judgment the adoption of this resolution is the best course for our country.
I yield the floor.
Whereas the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was convened to try individuals for crimes against international law committed during World War II;
Whereas the Nuremberg tribunal provision which held that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced" is as valid today as it was in 1946;
Whereas, on August 2, 1990, and without provocation, Iraq initiated a war of aggression against the sovereign state of Kuwait;
Whereas the Charter of the United Nations imposes on its members the obligations to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state";
Whereas the leaders of the Government of Iraq, a country which is a member of the United Nations, did violate this provision of the United Nations Charter;
Whereas the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (the Fourth Geneva Convention) imposes certain obligations upon a belligerent State, occupying another country by force of arms, in order to protect the civilian population of the occupied territory from some of the ravages of the conflict;
Whereas both Iraq and Kuwait are parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention;
Whereas the public testimony of witnesses and victims has indicated that Iraqi officials violated Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by their inhumane treatment and acts of violence against the Kuwaiti civilian population;
Whereas the public testimony of witnesses and victims has indicated that Iraqi officials violated Articles 31 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by subjecting Kuwait civilians to physical coercion, suffering and extermination in order to obtain information;
Whereas, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, from January 18, 1991, to February 25, 1991, Iraq did fire 39 missiles on Israel in 18 separate attacks with the intent of making it a party to war and with the intent of killing or injuring innocent civilians, killing 2 persons directly, killing 12 people indirectly (through heart attacks, improper use of gas masks, choking), and injuring more than 200 persons;
Whereas Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that persons committing "grave breaches" are to be apprehended and subjected to trial;
Whereas, on several occasions, the United Nations Security Council has found Iraq's treatment of Kuwaiti civilians to be in violation of international law;
Whereas, in Revolution 665, adopted on August 25, 1990, the United Nations Security Council deplored "the loss of innocent life stemming from the Iraq invasion of Kuwait";
Whereas, in Revolution 670, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 25, 1990, it condemned further "the treatment by Iraqi forces on Kuwait nationals and reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to Kuwait";
Whereas, in Resolution 674, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iraq cease mistreating and oppressing Kuwaiti nationals in violation of the Convention and reminded Iraq that it would be liable for any damage or injury suffered by Kuwaiti nationals due to Iraq's invasion and illegal occupation;
Whereas Iraq is a party to the Prisoners of War Convention and there is evidence and testimony that during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq violated articles of the Convention by its physical and psychological abuse of military and civilian POW's including members of the international press;
Whereas Iraq has committed deliberate and calculated crimes of environmental terrorism, inflicting grave risk to the health and well-being of innocent civilians in the region by its willful ignition of 732 Kuwaiti oil wells in January and February, 1991:
Whereas President Clinton found "compelling evidence" that the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an operation to assassinate former President George Bush in April 1993 when he visited Kuwait;
Whereas Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials have systematically attempted to destroy the Kurdish population in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons against civilian Kurds, campaigns in 1987-88 which resulted in the disappearance of more than 182,000 persons and the destruction of more than 4,000 villages, the placement of more than 10 million landmines in Iraqi Kurdistan, and ethnic cleansing in the city of Kirkuk;
Whereas the Republic of Iraq is a signatory to international agreements including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the POW Convention, and is obligated to comply with these international agreements;
Whereas section 8 of Resolution 687 of the United Nations Security Council, adopted on April 3, 1991, requires Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities;
Whereas Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq have persistently and flagrantly violated the terms of Resolution 687 with respect to elimination of weapons of mass destruction and inspections by international supervisors;
Whereas there is good reason to believe that Iraq continues to have stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, missiles capable of transporting such agents, and the capacity to produce such weapons of mass destruction, putting the international community at risk;
Whereas, on February 22, 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 808 establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused of violations of international law in the former Yugoslavia;
Whereas, on November 8, 1994, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 955 establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused of the commission of violations of international law in Rwanda;
Whereas more than 70 individuals have faced indictments handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, leading in the first trial to the sentencing of a Serb jailer to 20 years in prison;
Whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has indicted 31 individuals, with three trials occurring at present and 27 individuals in custody;
Whereas the United States has to date spent more than $24 million for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and more than $20 million for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda;
Whereas officials such as former President George Bush, Vice President Al Gore, General Normal Schwarzkopf and others have labeled Saddam Hussein a war criminal and called for his indictment;
Whereas a failure to try and punish leaders and other persons for crimes, against international law establishes a dangerous precedent and negatively impacts the value of deterrence to future illegal acts;
Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That the President should--
(1) call for the creation of a commission under the auspices of the United Nations to establish an international record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials;
(2) call for the United Nations to form an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other violations of international law; and
(3) upon the creation of such an international criminal tribunal, week the reprogramming of necessary funds to support the efforts of the tribunal, including the gathering of evidence necessary to indict, prosecute and imprison Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials.
Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act.
Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction program"), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "prohibited ballistic missile program"), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter.
Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687;
Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program;
Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988;
Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism;
Whereas Iraq's failure to comply with its international obligations to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using weapons of mass destruction, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military response by the international community, led by the United States: Now, therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."
(a) Authorization for the Use of Force.--The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces--
(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or
(2) in the exercise of individual or collective self- defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.
(b) Requirement for Determination That Use of Force is Necessary.--Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution that after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or
(2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).
(a) Consultation.--The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.
(b) Initial Report.--
(1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information--
(A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq;
(B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparaing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and
(C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.
(2) Classification of report.-- The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form.
(c) Subsequent Reports.--Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.
(a) Specific Statutory Authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(b) Applicability of Other Requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
