[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7336-S7337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
go into executive session to consider calendar No. 563, the nomination 
of Christopher Hill; that the Senate proceed to a vote on the 
nomination, and following the vote, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate immediately return to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nomination was considered and confirmed, as follows:

       Christopher Robert Hill, of Rhode Island, a Career Member 
     of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be 
     Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
     States of America to the former Yugoslav Republic of 
     Macedonia.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I announce for the benefit of the Senate 
that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, votes in the 
negative on the confirmation of Mr. Hill, and I ask that his statement 
be placed in the Record at this point as if read.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for several months, I have tried to get 
a straight answer from the administration on the legal justification 
for the deployment of United States troops under United Nations' 
command in Macedonia. While the soldiers have a mission, I do not 
believe they have a clear, legal mandate.
  The question of our involvement in Macedonia was first brought to my 
attention by Ron Ray, a constituent of mine who is representing Michael 
New. Apparently, Michael New asked his commanding officer to provide 
some explanation as to why an American Army specialist was being asked 
to wear a U.N. uniform and deploy to Macedonia under the U.N. flag.
  In a recent hearing with Ambassador Madeliene Albright, usually one 
of the more plain spoken members of the President's foreign policy 
team, we reviewed the procedures for deploying American troops under 
the U.N. flag. She offered the view that while there were clear 
guidelines defining chapter VII deployments, using chapter VI to 
justify a mission had evolved as a matter of U.N. custom and tradition.
  Since 1948, 27 peace operations have been authorized by the U.N. 
Security Council. In addition to being authorized by a specific chapter 
of the U.N. Charter, U.S. troop deployments must be authorized 
consistent with U.S. legal requirements spelled out in the United 
Nations Participation Act.
  In July 1993, President Clinton wrote the Congress stating,

       U.N. Security Council Resolution 795 established the 
     UNPROFOR Macedonia mission under a chapter VI of the U.N. 
     Charter and UNPROFOR Macedonia is a peacekeeking force under 
     chapter VI of the Charter.

  But this assertion is not substantiated by the record of resolutions 
and reports passed by the United Nations.
  Between 1991 and the end of 1995, the United Nations passed 97 
Security Council resolutions related to the former Yugoslavia. In 
addition, 13 reports were issued by to U.N. Secretary General relative 
to the mandate of the UNPROFOR Macedonia operation. None of these 
resolutions or reports mention a chapter VI mandate for Macedonia. In 
fact, there are 27 resolutions which specifically refer to UNPROFOR, 
which includes Macedonia, as chapter

[[Page S7337]]

VII. It is worth pointing to just one of these resolutions which states 
that the U.N. Security Council was:

       Determined to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its 
     freedom of movement for all its missions (i.e. Macedonia) and 
     to these ends was acting under chapter VII of the charter of 
     the United Nations.

  In spite of the record, the administration continues to insist that 
Macedonia is a chapter VI operation. When I asked them to document this 
determination, I was provided the following guidance by the Acting 
Assistant Secretary of State:

       The U.N. Charter authority underlying the mandate of a U.N. 
     peace operation depends on an interpretation of the relevant 
     resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. As a matter of 
     tradition, the Security Council explicitly refers to a 
     ``chapter VII'' when it authorizes an enforcement operation 
     under that chapter. The absence of a reference to chapter VII 
     in a resolution authorizing or establishing a peacekeeping 
     operation thus indicates that the operation is not considered 
     by the Security Council to be an enforcement operation. 
     Neither does the Security Council refer explicitly to 
     ``chapter VI'' in its resolutions pertaining to peacekeeping 
     operations. This practice evolved over time as a means for 
     the Security Council to develop practical responses to 
     problems without unnecessarily invoking the full panoply of 
     provisions regarding the use of force under chapter VII, and 
     without triggering other Charter provisions that might impede 
     Member States on the Security Council if chapter VI were 
     referenced.

  In essence, what this explanation means is U.S. troops can be 
deployed in harm's way as a matter of U.N. tradition rather than U.S. 
law. It means U.S. soldiers are deployed in a combat zone with an 
absence of reference to the actual legal mandate because the U.N. 
Security Council does not want to refer explicitly to chapter VI due to 
a reluctance to inconvenience Member states on the Security Council.
  Mr. President, let me try to add a little clarity to just what the 
Acting Assistant Secretary means when stating the administration does 
not want to invoke a panoply of provisions regarding the use of force. 
In simple English, when a chapter VII mission is authorized by the 
United Nations, U.S. law requires the operation to be approved by the 
Congress. In simple terms, the State Department is using a chapter VI 
designation to avoid having to come to the Congress to justify the 
financial and military burden the United States has assumed in 
Macedonia.
  What the State Department calls a panoply of provisions problem, I 
call surrendering U.S. interests to U.N. command. This is not the first 
time Congress has been circumvented. I had hoped the administration had 
learned from our experience in Somalia. I had hoped the tragic loss of 
life would help the President understand the value and importance of a 
full congressional debate and approval of the merits of deploying 
American soldiers overseas into hostile conditions. Apparently, the 
lesson is lost on this administration. When the United Nations calls, 
we send our young men and women to serve.
  Mr. President, I have taken the time to review the circumstances of 
our military involvement in Macedonia, in order to explain my vote 
against Chris Hill, the President's nominee to be our Ambassador. While 
I have no objection to Mr. Hill personally, I intend to vote against 
his nomination as a matter of principle--to express my strong 
opposition to what I view as an unjustified U.N. mission with a 
questionable legal mandate that is risking the lives of American 
soldiers.
  I understand that a majority of members expressed their desire to 
move forward with this and several other nominations, and that the 
majority leader would like to accommodate these requests. I very much 
appreciate his offering those of us who oppose the administration's 
continued blind pursuit of a misguided U.N. agenda the opportunity to 
express our opposition through this vote.

                          ____________________