[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10093-H10099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WHEN WILL WE STOP THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, we adjourned regular legislative business, 
or ended regular legislative business, so early that it is in the 
middle of the day. It is only 10 minutes to 1 out in California and 
still the morning in Hawaii, so I am going to take advantage of this 
opportunity and try to keep my good friend from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, 
interested by covering three different topics. The first thing I would 
like to cover is Iraq.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Porter of 
Illinois. There is great suffering going on in northern Iraq. I thought 
that the Kurdish people would maybe reach a period of tranquility here. 
They are one of these sad ethnic groups that spread over three, 
actually four, nations, with the geographic lines changing over the 
past several centuries multiple times. The only Nation that I can think 
of that has been cut up into four different nations like this is the 
once great nation of Armenia, now down to less than a fourth of its 
original size; the first nation as a nation to embrace Christianity in 
the 300's, the fourth century, and now we learn about these Kurdish 
people dividing among themselves, starting to kill one another. We had 
an opportunity here diplomatically to move in after Operation Provide 
Comfort was sent to that area of northern Iraq by President George 
Bush. Secretary of State Jim Baker visited. I recall telling President 
Bush when he called me for the only hospital visit I remember having in 
my life, and I was in the hospital for 3 or 4 days for some surgery, 
and President Bush called me on my birthday, April 3, 1991, and he 
said:
  ``Bob, we need you, get out of there.''
  And I said, ``Can we talk business?''
  And he said, ``What?'' He said, ``In the hospital you want to talk 
business?''
  I said, ``Mr. President, draw a line in the hills. The way you drew a 
line in the sand, draw a line in the mountains.''
  And he said, ``Bob, there are forces in Washington that would like to 
see Iraq spin into at least three different nations.''
  And I said, ``Well, if you'll look at the television, which I have 
been looking at a lot in the last 2 days, you will see that they are 
beating your brains out. Kurdish women are coming into our camps along 
the Turkish-Iraqi northern border with children on their shoulders that 
have already frozen to death.''
  Fortunately with each day it was getting a fourth of a degree warmer, 
and he said, ``Well, we're looking at it.''
  The media then began to just savagely attack President Bush. This is 
within days of the 4-day land war in Iraq ending on the 27th of 
December. Here it was less than 5 weeks later and they are beating his 
brains out. Within a few days he did draw that line in the hills of 
northern Iraq and organized Operation Provide Comfort.
  Well it is hard to believe that 6 years ago this coming March, 5\1/2\ 
years ago now, and the Kurds are still suffering. Iraqi troops in the 
north, as Mr. Porter said, are beating in doors, shooting people. They 
opened up with savage artillery fire a few days ago into Irbil, the so-
called capital of the Kurdish people in the northern area.
  Why Mr. Clinton neglected this area of the world for almost his 
entire first term is beyond me. We do have strategic interests in the 
area because a dictator like Saddam Hussein can just destroy oil prices 
around the world. He was driving faster than anybody believed toward 
nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capability. It remains a fact 
that we were never able to discover a single Iraqi scud missile.
  This last week I have been in Great Britain visiting some of the best 
intelligence sites outside of the United States proper in the world. 
There is a new news center at the RAF base at Moesworth, which was our 
second GLCM base in Great Britain. Fortunately with the dissolution of 
the evil empire out of the Kremlin, we were able to shut down those 
GLCM bases in Sicily and the two in Great Britain and stop the one in 
Germany before it had even gone operational, and we had all of these 
new facilities built for the GLCM, the GLCM missiles in Great Britain, 
and we put in there something that is called the JAC, the Joint 
Analysis Center. I went in there last Thursday, watched in the clearest 
way possible, beyond anything I have ever seen of intelligence 
capability so far,

[[Page H10094]]

watched the buildup of the Iraqi troops. Unless the President has taken 
the course of Jimmy Carter and disregarded his daily intel briefings, 
which Carter did in a few instances, then he could claim ignorance. But 
I have to believe his National Security Council was keeping him briefed 
on this buildup of power, and I managed to evaluate for the third time 
the F-16--excuse me the F-15 E, the strike eagle fighter at Lakenheath, 
which is not only the world's greatest operational fighter but the best 
we have in all of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and flew a simulated 
bombing mission up to Scotland, fought our way through British 
tornadoes electronically defending the area.

  That is just absolutely astounding how you can accomplish a real 
mission all electronically, bomb a target, shoot down aircraft or get 
shot down yourself. We did the shooting now this time, fought our way 
back from aggressor F-15 E's, and as amazing as this system is, the 
strike eagle, constantly updating the software packages in it from the 
time that I first flew it in March 1990, just a few months before 
Saddam Hussein came across the Kuwaiti border, the southern border of 
Iraq, on August 2. In spite of its capabilities, not a single F-15 E 
was able to find in the field a scud missile during the whole course of 
the air war and the 4 days of the ground war in 1991.
  And at Farmborough, the air exposition there, the Russian Su-37 did 
not debut during Monday's open in the Farmborough exposition, but that 
night, as I was walking and looking at some of the Russian equipment on 
the flight line, the Su-17 taxis out. It is a beautiful looking 
aircraft. It still astounds me how a nation so poverty stricken, so 
incapable of making a class radio, a television, a refrigerator, an 
automobile; this is Russia I am speaking of; how they can make a 
fighter this beautiful and capable is beyond me.
  The Su-37 taxis out, it is dusk, its landing lights and all of its 
lighting equipment is on. It makes a match performance takeoff, racks 
it over the orange cones that they set up to have as the line beyond 
which you cannot fly near the crowd. I realized then that they were 
probably putting on a performance for the authorities, the British 
authorities, at Farmborough to show their max demonstration, a flight 
which are not allowed to do in our military because it is so beyond the 
envelope, as pilots say, so on the danger edge.
  If you lose one engine in that two-engine aircraft, it is a definite 
crash, and this Su-37 that is now available for export to countries 
like India, through an arrangement with China, where after the first 
few they would start building an aircraft totally capable of equaling 
the performance of our F-15 E strike eagle. The pilot goes through some 
opening maneuvers, then comes across the field in powered slow flight, 
pulls up or powers up, rather, into perfectly vertical flight and 
expecting to see him do what is called the cobra, which he pushes the 
tail up beyond the vertical and then slowly powers back and recovers. 
Instead he goes through the cobra manuever, flops on its back and does 
what I can only call a snap loop.
  I mean only a biplane, a little tiny highly stressed sports biplane 
can do what this massive, maybe 20-ton aircraft could do, and that is 
pull through and turn on its axis, on the horizontal axis wings in the 
tightest loop--it is not even a loop, a snap loop--and recover and 
power out of it and accelerate.
  The point is the Russians are in the field before we are, even though 
we have done this at our test center at Edwards Air Force Base with 
vectored thrust, where you take the engine nozzles at the rear of the 
aircraft and vary them so that you get this vectored thrust change, 
thereby augmenting in an amazing way the control services, your air 
runs, your elevator and the rudder on the vertical stabilizer.

                              {time}  1600

  The Russians making this airplane available for export means that on 
this floor in the 105th Congress next year we must again protect 
against the shortsighted FR-22 Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics 
Lightning 2, is what I think they will finally nickname the F-22.
  It is amazing how people in this country, with all of the history 
that has taken place just in this century, from the Wright Brothers 
flying at Kittyhawk on December 17, 1903, to this December 17, in 93 
years from a little aircraft that could only be powered 120 feet. That 
is almost the wingspan of one of our new unmanned aerial vehicles, the 
Global Hawk, which I spent the better part of a morning examining in 
its hangar. The first one is due to fly soon down at Teledyne Ryan in 
San Diego. I stole some time away from the convention. This Global Hawk 
can loiter for almost 2 days without a man, bringing this dazzling type 
of data downlinked to our intelligence facilities so we can observe the 
brutal antics of a dictator like Saddam Hussein.
  So here we are in a fast-moving world, all in this the bloodiest 
century in history. We see a dictator bragging that he has outlasted 
George Bush, Brian Mulroney, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand, 
Prime Minister Ohara in Japan. He has outlasted them all, in some cases 
double turnovers like Mulroney to Kim Campbell to now the new, let us 
call it labor liberal government in Ottawa. He is so cocky. He is there 
on television yesterday saying that we will not face him man to man, as 
though we had not cleaned his clock in Desert Storm. He is talking 
about we are hitting him with technology.
  Then, of course, in Tehran, on Tehran radio and television they are 
talking about us, the Great Satan, child pornography, 1.5 million 
abortions a year, runaway divorce, runaway pornography. And now we are 
killing humble Iraqi soldiers, who they killed millions of in their war 
back in the 1980's; that we are doing it with technology that comes in 
out of the night that no one can see. It is just astounding how the 
Clinton administration has rallied the Arab world against us.
  Jordan, who is getting some of our advanced military equipment, will 
not support us in this. Great Britain always stands beside us, but in 
all the French papers today are saying that this is nothing more than a 
cynical election final quarter stunt by Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I criticize the moves 
that Mr. Clinton has made, but I am going to just ask 10 questions 
today that I want the 1 million-plus audience that follows C-Span, 
particularly on a day when we are through with legislative business so 
quickly, I want to ask these questions. If somebody wants to take them 
down, Mr. Speaker, be my guest. I would recommend you call them in to 
the successful talk shows around this country and ask these questions, 
as some of the more important ones come toward the end. Some of them 
people have already thought about.
  Here is the first of the 10: Why was Congress not notified? 
Constitutionally he should get our permission for aggressive activities 
like this. This is not defending the United States. This is not what 
Thomas Jefferson talked about when people yelled at him to use our 
young embryonic Navy to punish the Barbary pirates along the Tripoli 
coast of North Africa.
  Jefferson said very clearly, I can only use our small military and 
our Navy, and there was not much Army at all, in a defensive way if the 
United States, the colonies, the 13 colonies, are attacked. Only then. 
By then it was 14 colonies, the 15th about to become a State. Only with 
these young 15 American States can I use our military, small military 
power defensively. Offensively, like sailing across the Atlantic to the 
Mediterranean and punishing the Barbary pirates, for that I need 
congressional authority.

  And he got it 10 times, through John Adams, his predecessor, through 
Jefferson, through his successor, Madison, up through John Quincy 
Adams. Ten times this Congress, in that Chamber just a few yards away, 
authorized, the Chamber that we were in from 1807 through 1857, and the 
small rooms on the Senate side before that, through the British burning 
it August 24, 1814, 10 times this Congress said, you will, by order, as 
the President, go after the Barbary pirates.
  Now all of a sudden where is that congressional authority? We have a 
scholar at the Library of Congress, professor Lewis Fisher, who has 
written a brilliant book. and I hope next year we have a 2-year, 3-year 
debate, multiple special orders like this with dialog back and forth on 
why we have allowed

[[Page H10095]]

an imperial Presidency to grow through Republicans and Democrats. Now 
we have a President burning up 50 million dollars' worth of cruise 
missiles, sea-launched Tomahawks and air-launched Alcum, 50 million 
dollars' worth with no loss of life on our side.
  But I had a very long commentary with Regis Philbin and Kathie Lee, 
holding up these New York headlines this morning saying ``Victory for 
Clinton, War is Over,'' and Regis flippantly, I am sure he thought 
better of it later, said ``I like wars where nobody dies.'' There is no 
such thing as nobody dying. Peasants, personnel in Iraq who man these 
surface to air sites we destroyed, they are dead. It is their 
misfortune that they live in a country with an evil dictator.
  Mr. Speaker, our official reporters of debate are excellent in 
titling these 5-minute or 1-minute or 60-minute special order speeches. 
If we choose, they will use our title. I would say that the title of 
this first section of my special order would be ``When do we stop the 
imperial Presidency?''
  That is question No. 1. Why was Congress not brought into the 
decision process; subquestion: why were we not even notified, those of 
us on the intelligence committees: Senator Strom Thurmond, chairman of 
Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, both 
ex-Army and Navy officers, chairman of National Security, why was not 
Mr. Spence notified? Why were not the two chairmen, Medal of Honor 
winner Bob Kerrey, Senator from Nebraska, the gentleman from Texas, 
Larry Combest, chairman on our side; why were we not notified of this 
operation?
  No. 2. Why has there been no attack against the actual Iraqi army in 
the North that violated the United Nations amendments and has done the 
killing? The forces in the North are untouched. We attacked targets in 
the South. Is that because they are softer targets? Maybe, because we 
have more air power out of the South? Is it because Turkey will not 
support us in this?
  We have now a fundamentalist government in Turkey. The brilliant lady 
President in Turkey was defeated, so I guess it is that Turkey will not 
let us use Incirlik, the equivalent of Operation Proven Force. I was 
there the day the land war started in Incirlik on February 24.
  Because of a courageous Air Force officer who will not be named, I 
was able to go on a combat mission with a KC-135 out of Dias Tek, right 
over the Iraqi-Turkey border, refueling our F-111's, our 15's, our 
16's. They were going down the very flight we refueled went down to 
Sulaimniya and blew up a nuclear missile facility just on the outskirts 
of Baghdad.

  Incirlik was important. More Iraqi fighters were shot down by our 
fighter pilots who came down from Spangdahlen and Bitburg and 
Shusterburg than were shot down by the fantastic 33rd fighter wing out 
of Eglin Air Force Base, FL. In the North they were the ones that 
captured or shot down the Iraqi fighters fleeing to Iran, where they 
were confiscated anyway, in that peculiar relationship between this 
Persian nation and this Arabic nation, Iran and Iraq, but no punishment 
for the Iraqi army that has done the killing, and is killing today. Or 
it will be morning soon over there, and it will be another day of 
killing, and Clinton is claiming victory here in the United States.
  He did it in the most unseemly way: in the Oval Office, with Vice 
President Gore at his side, not a briefing at the Pentagon, not 
bringing Shalikashvili, our four-star Chairman of the Joint Chiefs into 
his office, but sitting there, for all the world like two aging 
schoolboys, discussing this technological short combat with 44 cruise 
missiles and one F-16 Falcon punishing a surface-to-air site for 
painting them with their radar.
  If the Clinton administration did know of the troop movements before-
hand and failed to act, was the administration then encouraging through 
its nonaction, encouraging this Iraqi attack to counter a growing 
influence in the region by Iran?
  No. 3. Was there some geopolitical reasoning behind this? I rather 
doubt it, but it is a fair question.
  No. 4. If the U.S. actions were a response to the Iraqi attack on one 
of the two major Kurdish factions, why was the no-fly zone not extended 
in the North? Why was the no-fly zone extended in the South? The 
Kurdish cities of Sulaimaniya and Kirkuk, they are both outside of the 
no-fly zone in the North. Now are they going to be the likely targets 
for next week if Saddam Hussein decides that is his course of action? 
Which leads me to other questions later on.
  No. 5. Iraq, as I said from my own intelligence fact-finding in the 
field in Great Britain just these last few days. If Iraq has been 
moving troops to that region for at least half a month, 3 weeks, did 
the Clinton administration warn Iraq that the U.S. was going to respond 
militarily if any attack occurred against the Kurds?
  We could see the artillery pieces lining up. There was almost a 
feeling in Europe that, well, maybe they were not going to do it, it 
was just a show of force. You could see the way the troops were 
deployed they were going to attack Irbil. So where was the warning 
here? Where is the discourse between nations to say to Saddam Hussein, 
if you do that, here is the result? Or is there a suspicion that it was 
politically advantageous to let Saddam Hussein move, and then you have 
a quick little action, and a certain person running for the highest 
elected office in the world suddenly looks decisive? It is more than 
cynicism to analyze that in a fair way.

  No. 6. Why did the administration not respond when Iran recently 
attacked one of the two Kurdish factions, the one backed by Baghdad, 
which led to Iraq's decision to retaliate against the Iranian-backed 
Kurdish faction? Why did we not respond then when the initial fighting 
started a while ago? It was not ever in the press. They were busy at 
the Democratic convention.
  No. 7. Why is our military response only minimal and nonthreatening 
to the Iraqi forces in the North?
  No. 8. Will the United States escalate its response if Iraq attacks 
the aforementioned Sulaimaniya or Kurkuk? Or what if its forces just 
remain in the region? They are still occupying Irbil. There are some 
reports they are pulling out, but not all of their forces.
  They are still occupying what is considered the capital of the 
Kurdish part of Iraq. Irbil is where the two helicopters that were shot 
down April of 1994 in that horrible friendly fire mess where two F-15 
pilots destroyed their careers, they are through flying, got either out 
of the AIr Force or leaving it. One is gone and one is about to leave. 
We shot down two U.N.-controlled H-60 Blackhawks with 13 people on each 
one, and the majority of those people were Americans: a tragedy. Where 
were they heading? Toward Irbil, which is above the no-fly zone. So now 
Saddam Hussein has total control, if he chooses over Sulaimaniya and 
Kirkuk.
  No. 9. What attempts are made to gather allied and other Middle 
Eastern support for further action? This is where former President 
George Bush shined. He brought together not a dozen nations, not 15, 
not two dozen, 28 nations in the allied coalition. He even brought the 
declining Gorbachev on board. It was an amazing feat of diplomacy for 
George Bush and Jim Baker, the Secretary of State, to build this 
coalition. Who is with us? As I mentioned, not the French, not Turkey. 
Just our standby mother country, Great Britain.

                              {time}  1615

  No. 10, and this is the most important question of all: What is the 
next step for our United States? What is our response? What is the 
follow-through? This is what all the thoughtful retired military 
analysts are saying on CNN and the three networks. It is amazing. This 
is the reason, the imperial presidency, that our debate was so 
important today about the Armed Forces Protection Act.
  Now, I have the votes here, and if anybody is just getting home, Mr. 
Speaker, following these two votes today, let me tell our military 
across the world that both the Bartlett amendment, of which I was an 
original cosponsor and helped him get through and get to the floor to 
join the United States Armed Forces Protection Act, the vote on the 
Bartlett amendment was 276 to 130. We only lost 11 Republicans; we 
picked up 65 Democrats, a lot of absentees today because last night and 
today are comeback days from a long district work period, 28 people 
were not voting today, 276 to

[[Page H10096]]

130, but the final passage on Bartlett's amendment was to not have 
American forces wearing the uniforms of other countries, the blue 
beret, sewing on patches.
  I said during the debate that there is nothing wrong with an arm 
band, military policemen put on an arm band, Shore Patrol wear it, take 
it off during off duty; nothing wrong with a temporary arm band.
  When the French went into Rwanda, they did not put on any uniforms. 
They told the warring factions there that if anybody killed a 
Frenchman, they would meet, and the translation is almost perfect, with 
more violence than they had ever conceived of in their lives; and in 
French uniforms, they protected the French force, clearing the way for 
our C-5's, our big Galaxies, to come into Goma and free the people from 
the genocidal slaughter in Rwanda that is now taking place in the 
country next to it in Burundi.
  When we go in with those big C-5's, or C-1's, 41's, we do not paint 
powder blue on the U.S. flag. They know that is the American flag 
coming in there.
  As I said in the debate today, what good did it do in Bosnia on the 
Serbian-Muslim confrontation line to have U.N. forces there trying to 
protect Srebrenica and Zepa, two U.N.-protected sanctuary enclaves and 
that is where some of the worst genocidal slaughters took place. After 
they had taken the weapons away from the U.N. forces with their blue 
helmets and blue berets, the Ukrainians, the Dutch, one of the 
Scandinavia units, took their shoes off of them, took their weapons 
away, took their U.N. blue berets and ground them in the dirt and then 
handcuffed them or tied them to small tactical targets in the area. So 
much for respect for the U.N. regalia that they put over their 
uniforms. Unbelievable.
  So it was important that that pass 276 to 130.
  But final passage, the United States Armed Forces Protection Act 
itself, if we did not have 26 not-voting absentees today, we would have 
passed 300, which is always a huge victory around here. As it is, the 
vote is 299 to 109. We only lost five Republicans this time, and we 
picked up 81 Democrats to say that the United States forces will not be 
put under U.N. command or foreign command, and that means unless there 
is a treaty like NATO, which is approaching its 50th anniversary, where 
we train military maneuvers together several times a year, where the 
officer corps has the same training standards, where the NCO corps 
meets and trains together year in and year out and the treaty with NATO 
was ratified constitutionally in the U.S. Senate, and debated in this, 
the appropriations House, for the funding to satisfy it.
  Clinton's veto last year of the defense authorization bill made this 
legislation that was passed today necessary, and it will be taken up 
soon in the Senate, and I predict it will pass there. Our Congress has 
repeatedly passed measures extending protection to our U.S. troops in 
the field that have been under command in U.N. peacekeeping operations. 
I discussed the Somalia operation.

  Mr. Speaker, I am the last Congressman out of Somalia. I came out of 
there just a few days after the slaughter of our Rangers, the world's 
greatest and I mean, bar none, helicopter regiment in the world, the 
160th Aviation Special Operations regiment up at Fort Campbell, and of 
course our great Delta force where five men were killed, two of them 
won the Medal of Honor, for demanding three times to go down on the 
ground and try to rescue Michael Durrant's crew. At least they rescued 
Warrant Officer Durrant.
  Now, were it not for Clinton's veto of last year's authorization 
bill, we could not even get it in the authorization bill; hence, this 
freestanding legislation. These protections would already be the law of 
the land if he had not demanded that we take out the big three. No U.S. 
under foreign command, no misadventures like Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia 
without congressional constitutional debate and approval or rejection, 
and the third one was no missile defense of America's homeland. Those 
three big geese he took out.
  But when he signed the bill on February 10th in the Rose Garden, what 
did he attack? Bob Dornan's legislation that he had to sign into law, 
honorably discharging people who had contracted in one or two cases 
innocently, not through their own conduct, a philandering husband 
bringing it back to a sergeant wife, but in the other 1,000 cases, by 
breaking the U.S. military code, the uniform code of military justice, 
by the smallest category, putting a dirty needle in their arm, using 
drugs, that is a prima facie case and a zero tolerance military case of 
somebody who should not be on active duty, a tiny little percentage of 
that, a smaller percentage of those who disobeyed their commanders' 
orders not to go to houses of prostitution where the prostitutes were 
100 percent infected with a fatal venereal disease, and the biggest 
category of all, which is a prima facie violation of the UCMJ laws 
against sodomy.
  One thousand people would have been discharged August the 10th if the 
Democrats and a handful of Republicans, who fortunately are retiring 
from the U.S. Senate, demanded that the Dornan language be taken out 
when we passed that continuing appropriations bill back in April, and 
out the law came.
  What I am going to discuss, the point here, is something else that I 
got signed into law, the Bob Dole-Ben Gilman law, the first rewrite 
since 1942 of how we handle American men and women missing in combat 
situations; and now with the recently passed authorization bill, seven 
provisions were gutted out of that law that Clinton signed on February 
10th of this year, 1996, and we will have hearings next week, markup of 
a bill, a freestanding bill just like this, on which I already have a 
record number of cosponsors, including you, Mr. Speaker, because I have 
every Republican in the House, 235 of us, Mr Sanders, our only 
Independent, the gentleman from Vermont, and 30 Democrats bringing on 
more and more every day.
  Then we have to find the vehicle to stop these protections for POW's 
being stripped out of the law before we adjourn here on Friday, the 
27th of this very month.
  So those were important debates today, and it impacts upon what is 
happening in Iraq at this very moment, if Clinton just arbitrarily 
decides to back up the high technology of the missiles with actual 
airmen or Army forces, Special Ops forces on the ground.

   Mr. Speaker, it is important that I point out on the Bartlett 
amendment, that 276 vote was it, the 276 winning vote that Admiral 
Boorda tragically, in a depressed state of mind, made an important 
judgment call and destroyed himself. Yes, threw himself back into God's 
arms. There is never cause for that unless someone is in a deeply 
depressed state, and it appears he was and God will be merciful, but he 
killed himself over $1, or $1.50, a little V, a little Roman number V 
that you put on a Navy commendation medal that says valor was involved 
and that he won it off the coast of Vietnam.
  Whatever slight question there was there, he had taken the V off of 
his ribbons, two commendation ribbons, the year before. Why he would 
have let Newsweek, on a hounding mission, drive him to this desperation 
where he goes to the oldest Navy post in the world, the Navy Yard down 
on the Anacostia River, and shoots himself in the heart, why he would 
do that, I do not know. But it shows him how important medals, ribbons, 
regalia, berets, as I said on the floor, an Army Green Beret, how they 
feel about their green beret.
  Ask British paratroopers how they feel about their red beret, or our 
paratroopers. Ask the Navy Seals, who wear black berets, how they feel 
about their particular main designating uniform, and you will see that 
there is a big difference between an arm band and asking someone to sew 
on a patch over their patch or to wear a belt or a helmet or a beret 
that is the color of the United Nations.
  And get this, I was not able to get the time to put this in the 
Record. You are an ex-Army officer, Mr. Speaker, from Oregon, our 
Speaker pro tem today. Are you aware, and this is in an article from 
the Washington Times, June 26th, by a U.N. official, American official 
at the United Nations, Joe Sills, S-I-L-L-S. He is director of the U.N. 
Information Center right here in the District. He conceded June 27th, 
in an article that he wrote, that U.N. commanders, not U.S., U.N. 
commanders, but all the other U.N. commanders, I do not know about the 
Brits, that

[[Page H10097]]

shockingly, they take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the United 
Nations. An oath of exclusive allegiance to the United Nations, and 
they sign an employment contract with the U.N. that transforms them 
into U.N. military; in other words, U.N. mercenaries.
  That was the situation with the Finnish officer in command, used to 
be a Communist country, when I was visiting there this very week last 
year, and that is the situation that I think the Scandinavian officer 
that is in charge now. There was some controversy between Mr. Dellums 
and myself over my putting two thoughts together on the Constitution. 
Well, I usually carry a Constitution in my pocket, and I wanted to put 
in the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, exactly the words in this 
just amazing document that when you read it, it is so short.
  I faxed this out of a standard almanac and when you take it, it is 
only four pages, two pieces of paper, just seven articles before you 
get to the 10 original articles in the Bill of Rights, the added 
amendments, just 7 amendments in the original articles. And in article 
I is where it delineates the powers of Congress. It is 130 words, only.
  But in article II, the subservient article, it is only 16 words about 
the President being the commander in chief, and here are those very 16 
words: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy 
of the United States. And then there is a comma, followed by 18 more 
words, because we did not have a standing Army, and a very small 
standing Navy, and of the militia of the several States, when called 
into the actual service of the United States.
  And except for emergencies, who calls them into active service? What 
we now would call the Reserves and the National Guard, not militia, we 
do, the Congress.
  So there are the President's 34 words, 16 and 18, involving the 
militia. Here are the key 130 words in the first article of our 
Constitution, section 8, the powers of Congress.

                              {time}  1630

  There are many things about borrowing money, regulating commerce, the 
rule of naturalization, how to coin money, punishment of 
counterfeiting, post offices, all these domestic issues come before the 
following. Here begins the 130 words.
  We start with the 5 words at the beginning, so it is actually 135 
words:
  ``The Congress shall have power,'' colon, and those other things I 
mention, and it comes, ``Shall have power to declare war, grant letters 
of Marque and Reprisal.'' A little 18th century language in there. ``To 
make rules concerning captures on land and water.''
  That means the capture of our people. That means the Congress decides 
when someone is a prisoner of war, not Lyndon Baines Johnson saying 
they are detained by a hostile power. Anyone captured in Southeast 
Asia, therefore, in Loas, in Cambodia and in the north of Vietnam and 
the south, they called our captured people air pirates or war 
criminals, never the dignity of the term prisoner of war, basically not 
right until the very end. But of course once Nixon had come into office 
under Melvin Laird, they were called POW's. Actually once we got rid of 
McNamara with his ignominious and disgraceful resignation on Leap Year 
Day in 1968, the bloodiest month of the war, he walks off the 
battlefield drenched in blood, symbolically, with hundreds of POW's up 
in Hanoi being tortured, at least 12 tortured to death, 100 executed in 
the villages. Once he walked off we started calling them properly, our 
missing, prisoners.
  So to make rules concerning capture on land and water. Here come the 
powerful words that are on a plaque right outside the main door of the 
Armed Services, now the Committee on National Security: ``To raise and 
support armies.'' And then a side though at still to this day for over 
two centuries dictates our budget process. We would all like to have 
some kind of continuity of 2, 3, 5 years on the defense budget but we 
are restrained by this amazing document. ``But no appropriation of 
money to that use''--supporting armies--``shall be for a longer term 
than 2 years.''
  ``To provide and maintain a Navy.'' The reason Navy is singular and 
armies are plural is because we did have different armies fighting in 
the Revolutionary War, George Washington, the South and support for his 
troops but under different command in the Carolinas and Georgia. So 
Navy meant they were only looking at the Atlantic. They could not 
foresee yet a full-time presence, the 6th Fleet in the Med or the 7th 
Fleet in the Pacific. So Navy is singular.
  But to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, that 
is this Congress. That means uniforms, equipment, what type of 
aircraft, what pay, what type of recruiting and how many people will be 
in uniform. That is why when Presidents in both parties stand on their 
high horse about their Defense budget, they propose. We decide what the 
defense structure of our America will be and we will fund it properly.
  Now, it continues, these 135 words: ``To make rules for the 
Government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'' Whether or 
not there will be homosexuals on active duty is not Clinton's call, it 
is the call of this Congress.
  They would not even have a vote on this House floor. The few voices 
for recruiting homosexuals, male and female, no vote in this House. 
They tried to do all that in star chamber, behind the scenes, roll us 
in the conference committees.
  ``To provide for calling forth the militia.'' There it is. Except in 
emergency, a hurricane or something with Governors having their 
proper--I am coming to that--control of the militia, that is, the 
National Guard, but to provide for calling forth the militia, the 
Reserves and the National Guard.

  ``To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel 
invasions.'' That is a repeating of the declaration of war power of 
this Congress over the President, the 16 words, that he is the 
commander when the fighting starts that we declare because you cannot 
have 535 commanders.
  Next. ``To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining of the 
militia.'' When you call up the Guard, we decide what discipline they 
will be under.
  ``And for governing such part of them''--the Reserves--``as may be 
employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States 
respectively''--we are a Federal system--``the appointment of the 
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the 
discipline prescribed by Congress,'' this U.S. Congress. I wanted it on 
the record. The imperial Presidency, out of control once again, must be 
debated finally, this delineation of power, in the 105th Congress. We 
do not have time to do it over the next 3 weeks. We have to pass 12 
spending bills, and as we just heard announced by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], our majority leader, we are going to roll votes on 
Tuesday. So when we come back in Wednesday at noon for voting, there 
goes another week, and then we are down to a few productive days until 
we adjourn on September 27 and the majority leader told me he intends 
to stick to that prediction on the 27th. Now, end of the military 
constitutional part of my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooley). The gentleman from California 
has approximately 14 minutes.
  Mr. DORNAN. That is enough to discuss this tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the new Time magazine. Donald Rumsfeld, 
who served 10 years in this Congress, served well, was appointed as one 
of the youngest Secretaries of Defense, I think the youngest in the 
history of our Nation, by Jerry Ford, although he only got to serve a 
year in that distinguished post. I understand that on Meet the Press 
this weekend--I was, as I said, in Great Britain at an air base--my 
wife tells me that Rumsfeld was asked about the Richard Morris mess and 
that he said, ``It doesn't matter.'' That is what it says on the cover 
of Time: The Morris Mess. He said, ``It doesn't matter.'' He dismissed 
it. Well, I think it does matter. Here is the architect of Clinton's 
comeback based on family values and small issues.
  Clinton stood right below the Speaker, at that second lectern, in his 
State of the Union and said clearly, the era of big Government is over. 
So he had to deal with little things. And he mentioned about three 
dozen in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. 
But we see him dealing

[[Page H10098]]

with little things, mostly involving our future children, his 1 
daughter, my 3 daughters, 2 sons, and 11 grandchildren, God willing, 
this December. I have got a higher stake in this than the Clintons.
  And he talks about school uniforms, which my kids wore, 5 times 8, 
yes, 40 years my children wore school uniforms, not in high school but 
5 children times 8 years of grade school, they wore school uniforms. 
And police uniforms. How many speeches have I made dedicated to our men 
and women wearing blue and Khaki, who put their lives on the line for 
us domestically around this country, to the increasing violence level 
and crime.
  And military. And obviously when I am having breakfast with enlisted 
people and sergeants and lunches and dinners, which is what a lot of us 
do who are on the Armed Services or Committee on National Security 
traveling, when I meet with them, sometimes it is outspoken, sometimes 
it is in just half sentences or half thoughts buried beneath the 
discourse. The morale in our military is better than the morale in our 
Secret Service or our FBI because they are further away, the ones I see 
in the field, from some of the disgraces and scandals that take place 
in this country.
  I will bring a chart to this floor next week showing how many of 
Clinton's associates through all of his political career are dead, in 
jail, disgraced, out of the public eye. It is astounding. I had a 
Democrat who I will not mention tell me in this aisle, just before we 
adjourned in August, that it is dangerous to be a friend of the 
Clintons. You end up either dead or in prison or indicted. That is from 
a Texan, a good man.
  Here is this cover and, I think it creates a problem for our teachers 
across this country. Here are, I cannot call them the Morrises, because 
like Hillary in the first gubernational term from 1979 through January 
1981, Hillary did not use the name Clinton, she used her maiden name, 
and I guess Morris's wife does not use it because it is not in the 
whole article for eight pages. It is Eileen McGann. Dick Morris and 
wife Eileen McGann back home in Connecticut last Friday.

  This is what adultery gets you, the cover of Time magazine. He was on 
last week's Time magazine, a rather handsome picture of Clinton with 
him in a little cutout sitting on his shoulder, like that old Disney 
cartoon of the devil and the angel, and he is sitting there and it says 
``The man who has the President's ear,'' and he is back on the cover of 
Time.
  I asked the Library of Congress, they gave me a guesstimate, going to 
have the figures for me when I get back to my office, I guess, of how 
many Time magazine covers in a 52-week calendar period are devoted to 
human beings, because we have some covers on vitamins, on crime, or 
housing, sometimes a racehorse like Secretariat taking the Triple Crown 
will hit, it will be on Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News. But how many 
people are honored or dishonored with a Time magazine cover? Very few 2 
weeks in a row. You have to be a President or a Prime Minister with a 
war starting to get back-to-back covers. I think Nixon did it for 
unhappy reasons, but here is Dick Morris on the cover of Time magazine 
2 weeks in a row.
  And this cover is not because of an affair with some person that he 
fancied he was in love with at work, away from his lawyer wife Eileen 
McGann in Connecticut, not a one night stand like some weak businessman 
juicing up in a topless bar and betraying his wife. This is a $200-an-
hour call girl, hooker for 10 months on a $500-a-night Democratic 
campaign donation, people who fund the Democratic party.
  My mailing list would collapse, my donations, which is I think the 
best balance of PAC money--2 or 3 percent--to small donations, to 
itemized people, that is $200 or up, I think I have got the best 
balance of anybody in either party in the House--but mine would 
collapse, those small little unitemized donors, if they thought that I 
was living at $500 a night, and that is on the candidate.
  This guy is a consultant and he is eating up Democrat money, big 
chateaubriand meals at night. The basic rate is $440 a night at the 
Jefferson Hotel up on 15th street. That is where he is meeting with 
this call girl, call woman, Reynolds, whatever this prostitute calls 
herself. She was on Hard Copy last night, kids across America watching 
this.
  What does a school teacher do, Mr. Speaker, when they have to explain 
to kids that for high-powered 10-month adultery, your wife will pose 
with you on the cover of Time. And listen to her article here. Of 
course she writes, ``Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.''
  And then it is a 6-page article. ``Even if this destroys me,'' he 
says. Destroys him? He signed a book contract with Random House today, 
Mr. Speaker. How many millions will that involve, publicly giving this 
scandal to the Nation? She ends with these words, McGann: ``I didn't 
want to question him on the details. I thought it would bring further 
hurt.''
  I do not think I believe that. I see you smiling ear to ear. No 
questioning on the details.
  ``It was too soon,'' she said. Oh, the crockery flies later, after 
the book deal is signed. She says, ``Let he who is without sin cast the 
first stone. My advice, that we just had to get past it. I accepted 
Dick's apology. Dick and I talked about the story again that night. He 
was very, very upset.''
  How was she feeling? Was her heart seized with pain, or is this the 
Hillary school, if you can reflect and bask in the glory of the power, 
that you will take these hammer blows and insults.
  ``But he was forlorn. I thought it would be destructive to ask about 
the details and to try and find out what was true.''

                              {time}  1645

  I am sure. As the young people would say, yeah, sure.
  ``On Friday, we had lunch on our little terrace overlooking our 
garden.''
  Oh, how prosaic. How utterly Victorian hypocrisy this all is.
  ``There were these press creatures lurking in the wildlife preserve 
behind our house trying to take pictures.''
  Why would they do that, when you can get a picture of them in their 
dining room, a picture of them in their garde, if you have the Time 
Magazine contract to follow up on last week, and the picture posed, 
these are the dining room curtains, you can see if from the little 
dinner scene. I guess there are no children. How would they be 
devastated in the Morris-McGann household if there were children?
  But she said, ``Our golden retriever named after Disraeli has been 
following Dick around offering him comfort.''
  Oh, the golden retriever is giving his comfort, and she is accepting 
his apologies.
  ``Tomorrow a friend is going to bring us another puppy, which I am 
going to name Bismarck, and we will call him Bizzy.''
  I don't understand the Bismarck connection there. He went down in 
flames.
  ``Maybe that will help. We are going to try to heal. The Random House 
book contract will help.''
  This is pathetic. I will ask you something you already know, Mr. 
Speaker: We had an Air Force three star general leave the command, the 
Southern Command, for one brief adulterous situation, and leave his 
beloved U.S. Air Force in disgrace.
  If this was a CEO of any corporation in America, I think the pressure 
from the stockholders would say it is all over. It happened to DeLorean 
when he was CEO of Pontiac. He lost becoming chairman of General Motors 
over something far less than this. Any military officer I know in 
America, it would be the end of their career.
  But what does he get? A call the next day from the leader of the free 
world, from Hillary Clinton, and from Vice President Al Gore. I wonder 
if they were trying to fend off a Vincent Foster nightmare, to make 
sure he was doing okay, is why they called.
  What is happening to our country, Mr. Speaker? What is going on in 
the United States of America, that we are unable to absorb a scandal 
for the importance that it has, and dismiss all this stuff, as though 
it does not count and it does not reflect upon the highest office in 
the land.
  We are in for a tough 4 years if the Dole-Kemp team cannot catch and 
close the lead and dismiss the self-serving adventure of my friend Ross 
Perot, who I had always considered a patriot for what he had done for 
our POW's and our missing men in particular.
  I do not know what the next 60 or so days are going to bring us, but 
if this country is going to tolerate and glorify this kind of scandal 
at the top, then

[[Page H10099]]

our decline as a civilization is proceeding at a faster collapsing rate 
than I had ever assumed.
  When I would think Richard Morris, who claims to be a Republican, 
would ponder, is what was read in the homily and in the Gospel at 
Lincoln Heath Air Force Base where I went to mass Sunday.
  First it says in the epistle, Peter's letter to the Romans, do not 
conform yourself to this age. Romans 12, verses 1, 2. And then the 
gospel, this last Sunday, Matthew 16, 21 to 27, whoever would save his 
life in this world, will lose it. But whoever loses his life for My 
sake will find it.
  This is Jesus speaking.
  What profit would a man show if he were to gain the whole world and 
ruin himself in the process? Even getting a book contract. What can a 
man offer in exchange for this very self?
  I like the old translation, what does it profit a man to gain the 
whole world and lose his soul?
  The Son of Man will come with His father's glory accompanied by His 
angels, and when He does, he will repay each man according to his 
conduct.
  My advice for the Morrises would be to disappear into a retreat, a 
decent obscurity; forget the lousy book contract, and try and rebuild 
your life again with some dignity.
  For our voters across this country, I would tell them this, and I am 
going to say it over and over in the next 3 weeks with as many special 
orders as I can get: Mr. Speaker, November the 5th is not just an IQ 
test for every voter in this Nation who bothers to go to the polls. It 
is a morality test. If you do not vote for Dole and Kemp, you flunk a 
morality test in this United States of America in the year of our Lord 
1996, and you flunk the IQ test too.

                          ____________________