[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1664-E1665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF SHOULD DECIDE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. CORRINE BROWN

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 19, 1996

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago the House considered 
and passed H.R. 3308, the U.S. Armed Forces Protection Act, a misnomer, 
which I strongly opposed. I

[[Page E1665]]

voted against this measure as a matter of upholding the intent of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  The Constitution established Congress and the Presidency with equal 
powers in the area of military affairs. Congress is responsible for 
raising and maintaining forces and legislating policy. The President, 
as Commander in Chief, is responsible for setting up the chain of 
command within our forces and executing congressional policy.
  As a Member of the House of Representatives, I am aware of Congress' 
need to protect its powers. However, I believe it is also my duty to 
acknowledge the President's role under the Constitution as Commander in 
Chief.
  This measure, which originated in the flawed Contract With America, 
is a partisan attempt by the Republican majority to selectively use 
congressional prerogatives. American Presidents have directed U.S. 
forces to serve in allied forces since the Revolutionary War. Examples 
include World War I, World War II, NATO operations, and Operation 
Desert Storm.
  Under H.R. 3308, in 1990 President Bush would have been prevented 
from sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to contain Saddam Hussein. 
H.R. 3308 specifically limits the powers of the Commander in Chief to 
direct U.S. forces and, therefore, it is unconstitutional. I believe 
the American President, regardless of political party affiliation, 
should decide when, where, and how to deploy U.S. military forces.
  Secretary of Defense Perry and Attorney General Reno have stated that 
H.R. 3308 is unconstitutional. In a letter to House Minority Leader 
Gephardt, Secretary Perry wrote, ``I believe that H.R. 3308 is both 
operationally unjustified and unconstitutional.''
  In terms of operations, H.R. 3308 is a misnomer because, if enacted 
as law, it will in fact endanger the lives of American military men and 
women by preventing our forces from wearing protective United Nations 
identification insignia.

  The UN insignia in question are blue helments and blue shoulder 
patches designed to enable American forces, as well as others, to 
recognize friendly forces. Insignia are a proven method of protecting 
our soldiers' lives. They are worn to ensure the safety of our men and 
women. They help prevent friendly fire and make it possible to impose a 
recognized force on enemies.
  Furthermore, the United Nation has established rules for protecting 
its forces by punishing those enemies who are against UN forces. These 
punishments can only be used to protect Americans who are fired upon 
while wearing UN insignia.
  On this important issue of wearing insignia, all American military 
men and women must follow the commands of our Commander in Chief. 
Discipline is key to maintaining order in our services and, ultimately, 
to protecting our national security.
  Only one American soldier has been court-martialed over the issue of 
wearing UN insignia. Thousands of American men and women have obeyed 
their President and served in multinational commands wearing U.S. 
uniforms and Allied forces insignia. These American military personnel 
have always retained their ultimate allegiance to the United States of 
America, while wearing UN or NATO insignia.
  Americans serving in multinational commands have always followed the 
directions of the American President, from Allied operations in World 
War II, to the United Nations Command established for the Korean war, 
the Desert Storm Coalition in the Persian Gulf war, and multiple NATO 
operations, including the present NATO Implementation Force [IFOR] in 
Bosnia.
  During these operations, command of our military men and women has 
ultimately resided with the President as our Commander in Chief and our 
military leaders in the Department of Defense.
  Finally, Presidential Decision Directive 25, a classified directive 
issued early in the Clinton administration, established steps to allay 
concern over U.S. troops under UN control. A declassified summary of 
this directive states:

       The President retains and will never relinquish command 
     authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the 
     President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under 
     the operational control of a competent UN commander for 
     specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council 
     [the UN security agency over whose decisions the U.S. has 
     veto power]. The greater the U.S. military role, the less 
     likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN 
     commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. 
     forces. Any large scale mission that is likely to involve 
     combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and 
     operational control or through competent regional 
     organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.
       There is nothing new about this Administration's policy 
     regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. U.S. 
     military personnel have participated in UN peace operations 
     since 1948.

  For all of these reasons, I strongly believe H.R. 3308 should not 
become law. Since the House has already passed this bill, I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to oppose this measure. And, if this 
irresponsible legislation does pass the Senate, I support President 
Clinton's pledge to veto it.

                          ____________________