[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 107 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6923-H6925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINDING GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ IN BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54) finding the Government of Iraq 
in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 54

       Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on 
     February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-
     fire were specified in United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 
     requires that international economic sanctions remain in 
     place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass 
     destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes 
     unconditionally never to resume such activities;
       Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations 
     Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of 
     Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the 
     Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to 
     locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems, 
     subsystems or material from Iraq;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, 
     adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a 
     long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;
       Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full 
     extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made 
     false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM 
     regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed 
     weapons inspections for seven years;
       Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International 
     Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and 
     misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in UN Security Council 
     Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in ``material breach'' 
     of its obligations under United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM inspectors access 
     to a site storing nuclear equipment;
       Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected 
     plans to install long-term monitoring equipment and cameras 
     called for in UN resolutions, resulting in a Security Council 
     Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared 
     that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' of its 
     obligations;
       Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the 
     installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply 
     with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other 
     proscribed weapons, resulting the Security Council 
     Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992, which reiterated 
     that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' and noted a 
     ``further material breach'' on account of Iraq's failure to 
     allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment;
       Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors 
     access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a 
     Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, 
     which declared that Iraq was in ``material and unacceptable 
     breach'' of its obligations under UN resolutions;
       Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq 
     violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface to air 
     missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in 
     internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied 
     landing rights to a plane carrying UN weapons inspectors, 
     resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of 
     January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq was in an 
     ``unacceptable and material breach'' of its obligations under 
     UN resolutions;
       Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security 
     Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, 
     reaffirmed the previous finding of material breach, followed 
     on January 13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17 
     with an allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;
       Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's 
     installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting 
     in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 
     1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a ``material 
     and unacceptable breach'';
       Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end 
     cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not 
     ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30 
     miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal 
     from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with 
     UNSCOM;
       Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security 
     Council that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons 
     program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of biological 
     weapons material resulting in the Security Council's renewal 
     of sanctions against Iraq;
       Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale 
     biological weapons program, but denied weaponization of 
     biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end 
     cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's 
     renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
       Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred 
     UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and 
     weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a 
     Presidential Statement condemning ``clear violations by Iraq 
     of previous Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'';
       Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred 
     weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which 
     the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1060, noting the ``clear violation on United 
     Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'' and 
     in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a 
     Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's ``gross violation of 
     obligations'';
       Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in 
     Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and 
     Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council 
     briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 986, the UN oil for food plan;
       Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from 
     removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis, 
     resulting in a Security Council presidential statement which 
     ``deplore[d]'' Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;
       Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in 
     southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     670, banning international flights, resulting in a Security 
     Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of ``specific 
     consultation'' with the Council;
       Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board 
     UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections, 
     endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, 
     resulting in a UN Security Council presidential statement 
     demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 1997, 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 threatened 
     sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these 
     interferences;
       Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection 
     mission, an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged 
     in photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the 
     October 23, 1997, adoption of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi 
     officials responsible for non-compliance with UN resolutions;
       Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would 
     no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to 
     conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing 
     Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot 
     down U.S. U-2 surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM, 
     resulting in a United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     1137 on November 12, 1997, which imposed the travel ban on 
     Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified ``further 
     measures'';
       Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled U.S. inspectors 
     from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its 
     remaining inspectors and resulting in a United Nations 
     Security Council presidential statement demanding Iraq revoke 
     the expulsion;
       Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American 
     Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for 
     three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, resulting in 
     the adoption of a United Nations Security Council 
     presidential statement deploring Iraq's decision to bar the 
     team as a clear violation of all applicable resolutions;
       Whereas despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi 
     President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi 
     Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with 
     UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation 
     of the agreement with Annan would have the ``severest 
     consequences'' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively 
     conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide misinformation 
     and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;
       Whereas on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler 
     presented information to the UN Security Council indicating 
     clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to information 
     provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX; and
       Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction 
     programs threaten vital United States interests and 
     international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations, and therefore the President is 
     urged 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6924]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  S.J. Res. 54 is the Senate companion of H.J. Res. 125 which Speaker 
Gingrich and I introduced on June 25, 1998.
  We introduced our resolution in response to the mounting evidence 
that Iraq continues to defy the decisions of the United Nations 
Security Council with regard to its weapons of mass destruction.
  The most recent example is the revelation in late June that Iraq has 
placed VX poison gas into missile warheads. That fact was established 
by lab testing in our Nation of missile warhead fragments which U.N. 
inspectors found in Iraq. This evidence proves that Iraq remains in 
violation of its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 
to disclose and eliminate its weapons of mass destruction programs and 
capabilities. It also demonstrates that Iraq continues even now to 
misrepresent to the United Nations and to the world about the history 
of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
  There is nothing new about this, however. Iraq's record of continued 
evasion and obstruction of U.N. resolutions is spelled out in the 28 
``whereas'' clauses contained in our measure.
  It quickly becomes apparent, from these 28-some clauses, that there 
has been a continuous and uninterrupted pattern of Iraqi noncompliance 
with Security Council resolutions going back as far as 1991. This 
problem emphatically has not been resolved by the agreement put 
together by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan just last February.
  My colleagues will recall that earlier this year the Clinton 
Administration was on the verge of using military force to compel 
Saddam Hussein to comply with his international obligations. That 
threat was withdrawn after Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and came back 
with Saddam Hussein's promises of better behavior by Iraq for the 
future.
  It now turns out that those promises were not even worth the paper 
they were printed on. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, 
is in Iraq today, this very day, meeting with Iraqi officials about 
what they must do to comply with U.N. resolutions. It is apparent from 
news reports coming out of Iraq this morning that Saddam Hussein 
continues to resist international inspections and to reject his 
obligations under pertinent Security Council resolutions.
  The purpose of S.J. Res. 54 is to draw attention to the fact that 
Saddam Hussein's behavior has not improved and that he remains in 
material and unacceptable breach of his international obligations. The 
international community cannot continue to look the other way.
  S.J. Res. 54 is both timely and unassailable in its facts. It 
incorporates changes to the original text of H.J. Res. 125 that were 
negotiated among the interested members of the Committee on 
International Relations.

                              {time}  1515

  And it is not opposed by the Clinton administration. Accordingly, I 
urge my colleagues to fully support S.J. Res. 54.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 54. All of us in this 
Chamber recognize that we have a very serious problem with Iraq. It 
will likely become more serious in the months to come. Iraq is 
violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, it is engaging in 
unacceptable behavior, and it is certainly appropriate that Congress go 
on the record to express its strong objection to Iraq's conduct.
  The administration, as I understand it, welcomes the support of 
Congress for actions that the President may have to take to get Iraq to 
comply with its international obligations. The administration, however, 
is concerned about the foreign policy implications of the President 
signing a joint resolution stating that Iraq is in material breach of 
its international obligations. Taking such a unilateral position 
strains U.S. relations with other U.N. Security Council members and 
jeopardizes a solid U.N. Security Council front against Iraq.
  I do have three concerns with the resolve clause. First, I share the 
administration's concern over the statement that the government of Iraq 
is in material and unacceptable breach of its international 
obligations.
  My problem with this formulation is that, as I understand it, most 
Security Council members take the position that only the Council can 
make a finding of material breach of Security Council resolutions. This 
is not a determination that the United States alone can or should make. 
There are implications to making such a statement.
  For one thing, our U.N. Security Council colleagues will interpret 
this resolution as the United States getting ahead of the rest of the 
Council. If we make a unilateral determination of material breach, we 
make it more difficult to win international support for the use of 
force against Iraq.
  For another, a finding of material breach is a clear signal that the 
Security Council is prepared to support the use of force to bring Iraq 
into compliance with Security Council resolutions.
  In January 1993, President Bush carried out a series of successful 
military strikes against Iraq shortly after the U.N. Security Council 
formally found Iraq in material breach.
  I think our message would be stronger if we used our own words, such 
as ``grave violations,'' and not use the words ``material breach,'' 
words that signal in the U.N. support for immediate military action.
  Second, and building on my concerns with the first part of the 
resolve clause, the resolution broadly urges the President of the 
United States to take appropriate action.
  My problem with this part of the resolve clause is the Congress 
identifies a serious problem, expresses its displeasure and then punts.
  I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
to find compromise language here. He, like I, was uncomfortable with 
the original language urging the President to act accordingly. He 
narrowed and, I think, somewhat improved the resolve clause. But it 
still falls short of Congress fulfilling its legitimate and important 
role in foreign policy because it provides no meaningful guidance to 
the executive.
  The resolution would have been much improved if we called on the 
President to consult with Congress prior to using force rather than 
handing him a blank check and taking ourselves essentially out of the 
picture in case of future action in the Gulf.
  Third, the process for considering this joint resolution does not 
measure up to the importance of the matter at hand. This resolution 
goes to the heart of the most important problem that government must 
address, the commitment of military forces abroad. Yet, we are debating 
it under a suspension of the rules, which we generally avoid when 
considering bills that merit serious and extensive debate.
  No one here would dispute that Iraq has violated its international 
obligations. The recitation of Iraq's misconduct in this resolution is 
an important contribution. It is appropriate and worthwhile to spell 
out the record of Iraqi failure to comply with U.N. resolutions.
  This resolution has merit in its expression of political support for 
Presidential action. The President should get support here for taking 
prudent and necessary action to protect U.S. interests in the Gulf. But 
this detailed condemnation of Iraq is followed by a policy statement 
that is simply astonishing in its vagueness.
  This resolution is an absolutely classic example of how Congress 
deals with foreign policy. We complain, we point out the problem, we 
offer no solution, and we shift the entire burden to the President of 
the United States.
  Congress is a coequal branch of government. We have an equal voice 
under the Constitution to set the direction of American foreign policy. 
But in this resolution we do not measure up to our constitutional 
responsibilities. In effect, we say, ``Mr. President, this is a very 
big problem, you go figure it out.''

[[Page H6925]]

  This resolution endorses the use of force, but it states no objective 
for the use of force. We create trouble for ourselves when we are 
imprecise about policy and about the use of force and when we fail to 
articulate what we believe policy should be based on specific facts and 
specific objectives.
  It would be better, I think, for the Congress to call on the 
President here to consult with Congress prior to using force. We would 
know at that time, and we do not know now, what circumstances require 
use of U.S. military forces in the Gulf. We would fulfill our role as a 
coequal branch of government if we leave authorization for such time. I 
understand this is not an authorization bill.
  I am uncomfortable voting for this resolution, principally because I 
think it does not measure up to the way a responsible Congress should 
engage in foreign policy making. I am even less comfortable, however, 
voting against it.
  I do not want to go on record against the use of force, first, 
because I think we are going to come up to this point again with Iraq 
in the months ahead; second, because of the egregious violations of the 
U.N. Security Council resolutions by Iraq and its pattern of avoidance 
and duplicity; and, third, because a vote against the resolution 
suggests that we are not prepared to use force against Iraq, and I 
think that would be unwise. Therefore, I will support the resolution 
with the reservations I have suggested.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and, 
in closing, I just want to remind our colleagues to let us concentrate 
on the fact that the government of Iraq's actions are unacceptable and 
a material breach of their obligations and, accordingly, this measure 
before us with regard to Iraq's continuing programs of building up 
weapons of mass destruction threaten our own vital interests and we 
should be supporting the measure.
  I urge a supporting vote for S.J. Res. 54.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution, Senate Joint 
Resolution 54.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________