With the Senate potentially rescinding authorization, and the ongoing debate of how to say "we were wrong" by Clinton, Edwards, et al. I thought that this would be a good time to actually look at the complete list of who voted against H.J.Res. 114 October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq", who actively dissented even beyond a "Nay" vote, and the original cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.
Here is the whole bloody House report.
As you will see, Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee and Sherrod Brown (even more than Kucinich) could tell both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards something about critical thinking and political courage.
Here is the record of HJ Res 114.
At the time, the big sales job was based on the alleged threat of WMDs. While it is false that "everybody" thought Saddam had them, it is true that Saddam himself was playing a game of bluff and had covered up what had been doing a decade earlier (after which they had been all destroyed). At the time I was with those whose view was to let the inspections continue along with containment/sanctions, but that the priority was to go after Al Queda where they really were not where they weren't (Iraq involvement with Al Queda was a clear cut lie at the time); the need to finish job in Afghanistan; do everything with U.N. and worldwide support, etc.
I always thought that the "Nay" vote by Senator Graham, a centrist Democrat from Florida who was on the Senate Intelligence committee, was the key telltale vote that should have alerted everyone that Iraq had no WMDs.
Here is the U.S. Senate Roll Call on HJ-114 October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM where it passed 77 to 23.
These are the 23 Senators who voted against, including one Republican (Chafee):
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
The day before of course was the House Roll Call vote at 3:05 PM October 10, 20002
Republican Yea=215 Nay=6 Not Voting=2
Democratic Yea=81 Nay=126 Not Voting=1
Independent Nay=1
TOTALS Yea=296 Nay=133 Not Voting=3
All those voting Nay are listed below, with the six Republicans in bold (I am admittedly curious about the stories behind those six):
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan – R
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler – R
Houghton – R
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach – R
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella – R
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul – R
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders - I
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
There is a very interesting section of the record that I have not heard much discussed of late, where three and only three congresspeople put themselves on record as actively dissenting even beyond a simple "Nay" vote:
DISSENTING VIEWS
The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has abused the human rights of Iraqi citizens and has used chemical weapons against its own citizenry. This regime has failed to comply with certain international laws and United Nations resolutions concerning weapons inspections and disarmament, and this non-compliance potentially endangers United States and regional security interests. Nonetheless, we do not believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States or its allies, that evidence has yet been provided that indicates a link between Iraq and al Qaida, that all diplomatic means have been exhausted towards the inspection and disarmament of Iraq's weapons, or that efforts to prevent terrorism would be engaged with the necessary vigilance should the authorization of force in this resolution be unilaterally pursued. Similarly, we have concerns that the cost of an attack on Iraq would further undermine the economic condition of the United States, that attempts to cause regime change in Iraq would result in high casualties for both U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians, and that a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States would inflame tensions in other nations and could increase the threat of terrorism against the United States. We are also opposed to a policy of preemption, as it could encourage other nations to pursue similar military engagements, and absent any defined boundaries or framework for such a policy, would represent a new and significant change in U.S. strategic policy. Therefore, we cannot support the scope and intention of this resolution, and respectfully offer these dissenting views.
This resolution authorizes the unilateral preemptive use of force by the United States without proof of imminent peril. The doctrine of preemption both violates international law, including the United Nations charter, and endangers our own long-term national security interests. The United Nations charter, to which the United States is a signatory and was a principal author, states that a country has an inherent right to self-defense, `if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.' A unilateral first strike by the United States, in the absence of proven imminent danger, would set a potentially disastrous precedent that might then be echoed in conflicts across the globe, such as those between India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, and China and Taiwan. The doctrine of preemption also raises serious questions about where such a policy will stop: will the United States go on to launch unilateral attacks against other countries whose governments we oppose?
The resolution undermines efforts to work with the United Nations to disarm Iraq through inspections and the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. It provides authority to the President to launch unilateral military attacks before United Nations inspections have had any reasonable opportunity to be effective. During the 1990s, U.N. inspectors succeeded in finding and destroying thousands of tons of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and related material, despite the efforts of Saddam Hussein's government to obstruct them.
The objectives of the United States must be to operate within the rule of law and in cooperation with the United Nations and our friends and allies to enhance our own security and the stability of the Persian Gulf region. Iraq's current non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and other U.N. resolutions poses a significant potential risk to our national security and to regional stability, but does not pose a proven imminent threat. Moreover, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 concludes, `the Security Council remains seized of the issue.' The United States should therefore continue to seek to work through the United Nations to disarm Iraq through inspections and other diplomatic measures, rather than resorting to preemptive unilateral military force.
It is accepted that the civilian population of Iraq has suffered under the current leadership and that the infrastructure that supports that population is in poor condition. An attack on Iraq will likely further reduce the condition of the Iraqi populace, and could prove to be a hindrance to the establishment of any future political stability in Iraq. This situation reinforces the need to pursue any action with respect to Iraq through the United Nations. Furthermore, the inevitability of Iraqi civilian casualties in a projected conflict, especially one involving urban warfare, raises further humanitarian arguments in favor of the need to seek a diplomatic resolution.
The financial costs projected for a unilateral attack on Iraq are of great concern, and represent an issue that the Administration has not properly addressed. The Democratic Caucus of the House Budget Committee and Presidential economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey have estimated that such an attack could cost between $100 and $200 billion dollars, while others have estimated that the costs associated with an attack and subsequent political stabilization and nation-building could cost upwards of $300 billion. Simultaneously, our nation is hindered by an economic slowdown that has resulted in increased unemployment, poverty rates, increased need for food stamp and other assistance, and significant losses to retirement accounts. We fear that a unilateral attack on Iraq will increase the daunting economic challenges that our nation faces, will cause negative effects on energy prices, and that it will reduce the government's ability and willingness to fund essential services to unemployed workers, prosecute corporate crime, and continue the global war on terrorism.
Since the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, our nation has been involved in a multilateral effort to eliminate the threats of terrorism and to detain and bring to justice those involved in the attacks. While progress has been made towards that end, the fate of principals such as Osama bin Laden continues to be unknown, and the threat of terrorism continues to exist. There is cause for concern that a unilateral attack on Iraq would reduce American capability to deter terrorism by diluting the military and intelligence community strength applied to that campaign. Further, the multilateral coalition that has engaged in the war against terrorism could erode and lose support were the United States to pursue a preemptive unilateral military option against Iraq. This could increase costs to the United States, increase the threat to American service personnel, and reduce the cooperation that foreign nations have provided to the U.S. in terms of financial, intelligence and military assistance. It has also been posited that a unilateral attack on Iraq could increase terrorist organizational recruitment, permit access to greater financial resources, and further the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States.
An attack on Iraq by the United States absent a United Nations authorization and coalition may also result in political strife in other nations. There are numerous nations that could suffer numerous negative internal consequences from their actual or perceived relationship with the United States, and similarly within other nations that are dealing with internal political challenges. It is essential that the United States be cognizant of the secondary effects of any action taken against Iraq, and be sure that greater conflict is not caused by those actions.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush went to the United Nations calling on that organization to take action to enforce its resolutions and protect international interests in peace and security. We support that call and believe the United Nations must be given a chance to carry out this mission. Therefore, for this reason and those iterated above, we respectfully oppose this resolution authorizing the unilateral use of force and submit our dissenting views.
- Cynthia McKinney
- Barbara Lee
- Sherrod Brown
Sadly, just those three. I don't see any then senators on the list, not even Wellstone. Perhaps that has something to do with congressional process, that senators cannot add dissent to a bill arising from the House? Or maybe a lack of nerve by all the others who at least voted Nay. Anyway, I suggest a Lee-Brown ticket.
By the way, this was after Barbara Lee's amendment to stick with U.N. inspections had failed, gaining only 72 voes:
- H.AMDT.608 to H.J.RES.114 Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] (introduced 10/10/2002) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 10/10/2002 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Lee amendment (A001) Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 72 - 355 (Roll no. 452).
Importantly, here too is the original Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for Iraq War (I have boldened some of the highlights):
H. J. Res 114 would authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate to defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
By itself, the resolution would not authorize any funding for the use of force, nor would it affect direct spending or receipts. While the resolution is a step toward building consensus for the use of force, it also might improve the chances of a diplomatic settlement without the use of force. The resolution would leave the decision to use force to the discretion of the President. Nevertheless, if the President should use the resolution to initiate a war against Iraq, the budgetary effects would be significant.
In an analysis regarding this subject transmitted to the Honorable Kent Conrad and the Honorable John M. Spratt Jr. on September 30, 2002, CBO noted that estimates of the total cost of a military conflict with Iraq and the conflict's aftermath are highly uncertain and depend on many unknown factors including the actual force size deployed, the duration of the conflict, the strategy employed, the number of casualties, the equipment lost, and the need for reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. In that analysis, CBO examined two representative examples out of the many force-level options being discussed in the media and elsewhere.
Under the assumptions incorporated in those examples, CBO estimates that the incremental costs of deploying a force to the Persian Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion and that prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month--although we cannot estimate how long such a war may last. After hostilities end, the costs to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, CBO estimates. Further, the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations would vary from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. The estimates of monthly costs incorporate no assumptions about the duration of the conflict or the occupation.
CBO has no basis for estimating other costs that might be associated with a conflict with Iraq such as the costs for coalition war fighting, reconstruction or foreign aid that the United States might choose to extend after a conflict ends, or assistance to casualties, including those that might result from the enemy's use of weapons of mass destruction.
Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for the national security. CBO has determined that H. J. Res. 114 would fall within that exclusion.
The CBO staff contact is Jo Ann Vines. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Hmmm... 8 billion per month x 12 months per year x 4 years is 384 billion...
So here it is, the Final Full Text as "Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate"
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
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 resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
END
That is the end my friend.