[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1260-H1279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE U.S. ARMED FORCES FROM BOSNIA-
                              HERZEGOVINA

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, March 12, 1998, I call up the concurrent resolution 
(H.Con.Res. 227) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of 
the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The concurrent resolution is 
considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 227 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 227

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM THE 
                   REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Congress has the sole power to declare war under 
     article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
       (2) A state of war has not been declared to exist with 
     respect to the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (3) A specific authorization for the use of United States 
     Armed Forces with respect to the situation in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been enacted.
       (4) The situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War 
     Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities 
     or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is 
     clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United 
     States Armed Forces have been introduced.
       (b) Removal of Armed Forces.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of 
     the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress 
     hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed 
     Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina by June 
     30, 1998 (unless the President requests and the Congress 
     authorizes a later date), except for a limited number of 
     members of the Armed Forces sufficient only to protect United 
     States diplomatic facilities and citizens, and noncombatant 
     personnel to advise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) Commander in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
     and unless and until a declaration of war or specific 
     authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has 
     been enacted.
       (c) Declaration of Policy.--The requirement to remove 
     United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina under subsection (b) does not necessarily reflect 
     any disagreement with the purposes or accomplishments of such 
     Armed Forces, nor does it constitute any judgment of how the 
     Congress would vote, if given the opportunity to do so, on 
     either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for 
     the use of such Armed Forces.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, March 12, 1998, amendment No. 1 printed in the Congressional 
Record of that day is adopted.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 227, as modified, is as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 227

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM THE 
                   REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Congress has the sole power to declare war under 
     article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
       (2) A state of war has not been declared to exist with 
     respect to the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (3) A specific authorization for the use of United States 
     Armed Forces with respect to the situation in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been enacted.
       (4) The situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)(1) of the War 
     Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(1)), either hostilities 
     or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is 
     clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United 
     States Armed Forces have been introduced.
       (b) Removal of Armed Forces.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs 
     the President to remove United States Armed Forces from the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina not later than 60 days 
     after the date on which a final judgment is entered by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction determining the 
     constitutional validity of this concurrent resolution, unless 
     a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use 
     of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.
       (2) Exception.--The requirement to remove United States 
     Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     under paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to--
       (A) a limited number of members of the Armed Forces 
     sufficient only to protect United States diplomatic 
     facilities and citizens; or
       (B) noncombatant personnel to advise the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO) Commander in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (c) Declaration of Policy.--The requirement to remove 
     United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina under subsection (b) does not necessarily reflect 
     any disagreement with the purposes or accomplishments of such 
     Armed Forces, nor does it constitute any judgment of how the 
     Congress would vote, if given the opportunity to do so, on 
     either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for 
     the use of such Armed Forces.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
will control 60 minutes and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution of the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). Although I 
understand and am sympathetic to the gentleman's efforts to assert the 
prerogatives concerning the war-making authority vested in the Congress 
by the U.S. Constitution, I believe for reasons of both policy and 
procedure that this measure is not the manner in which we should 
endeavor to uphold those prerogatives. On policy grounds, this 
resolution would send an untimely signal that this House no longer 
supports the Dayton peace agreement for Bosnia, an agreement that is 
now just showing signs of succeeding.
  In the past few months, we have seen the glimmerings of success in 
regenerating a stable civil society in all of Bosnia. War criminals are 
voluntarily turning themselves in, and there is a new, more moderate 
government of the Bosnian Serbs that actually wants to cooperate with 
implementing the peace plan. Restructuring and reforming of the police 
in both the Bosnian-Croat Federation and the Republic of Srpska is 
proceeding. Moreover we have expended in excess of $7 billion to 
implement our peace plan in Bosnia. Withdrawal at this stage would 
place that considerable investment at risk, with no guarantee that we 
would not be called upon in the future to once again introduce our 
forces if the conflict reignites.
  On procedural grounds, far from restoring congressional authority to 
declare war, this resolution would take the authority and place it in 
the hands

[[Page H1261]]

of the court. The resolution provides no recourse for the Congress to 
reconsider the requirement for the withdrawal of our Armed Forces, 
absent adoption of an authorization. We can have no way of knowing what 
the situation may be on the ground in Bosnia, in this country or 
elsewhere in the world that could have a bearing on the withdrawal of 
our troops from Bosnia when and if the courts eventually rule on the 
constitutionality of this measure. Moreover, it provides no latitude to 
the Commander in Chief for an orderly and safe withdrawal that might 
require more time than the 60 days stipulated.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the neighboring region of 
Kosovo in southern Serbia is experiencing an upsurge of violence and 
new instability. Decisive action by the international community stopped 
any more massacres like the one that claimed the lives of hundreds in 
Srebrenica. Now we are told at least 80 persons, including 22 women and 
children, have been killed in recent days in Kosovo by Serbian police. 
This resolution could undercut our efforts to stop the bloodshed there 
by calling into question our national resolve.
  I understand the gentleman is concerned about how this resolution 
will be perceived here in the Congress. He is also concerned how it 
will be seen in the Supreme Court. I am concerned how it will be seen 
in Sarajevo, in the Serb capital of Banja Luka or the war criminal 
capital of Pale. Passage of this resolution now could be interpreted as 
a vote of no confidence in our Bosnia policy. It could send confusing 
signals about our national resolve to persevere to friend and foe 
alike, and it would pull the rug out from under our troops and 
commanders who are out there in the field and who justly take pride in 
what they have been accomplishing in Bosnia.
  I regret that we are now facing a clash between asserting 
congressional prerogative on the question of war-making and sound 
policy. For the reasons just stated, our Committee on International 
Relations, Mr. Speaker, voted by a convincing margin to disapprove this 
resolution. Given the progress made towards peace and the position of 
our troops in the field, I urge our House to support good policy and to 
oppose H. Con. Res. 227.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the resolution carries the following 
explicit language: What we do today, and I quote, ``does not 
necessarily reflect any disagreement with the purposes or 
accomplishments of such Armed Forces, nor does it constitute any 
judgment of how the Congress would vote, if given the opportunity to do 
so, on either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the 
use of such Armed Forces,'' end quote.
  My friend and distinguished colleague who has just spoken, therefore, 
presents, I believe, an inaccurate reflection of what this resolution 
does. It does not take a position on the advisability or not of being 
in Bosnia, but it does assert, and strongly so, that it is the right 
and it is the obligation of the Congress of the United States to say 
yes or no before United States troops are engaged in hostilities 
overseas.

                              {time}  1200

  What has happened is this: The President put troops into Bosnia in 
December of 1995. He did not obtain the approval of Congress in 
advance. He should have. And that would be true whether he was a 
Democrat or a Republican. It is the obligation of Congress to approve 
the use of United States troops overseas.
  Now, of course, I recognize that, in the context of an emergency, it 
is the right of the President, his duty, to respond to an attack upon 
the United States or upon its Armed Forces. But this is not the 
situation in Bosnia. There has been plenty of time for the President to 
bring the matter to Congress and ask for our approval.
  Some of my colleagues will vote yes if we have the opportunity to 
vote. Some will vote no. That debate is not today's debate. Today's 
debate is that it is our responsibility to vote. For all of us who call 
ourselves members of the generation touched by Vietnam, surely we will 
remember that the War Powers Resolution under which I bring this motion 
today was passed to prevent presidents from putting United States 
troops in hostilities overseas without the approval of the people's 
representatives, and the War Powers Resolution says that one may not 
assume that approval from any appropriation bill, and one may not 
assume that approval from any treaty. One must come to the Congress and 
obtain that explicit approval.
  Some argue that, well, maybe the President should have submitted this 
for congressional approval at the time that he inserted troops, but now 
time has passed and it would send the wrong signal to require a vote in 
Congress right now. How can it be that the usurpation of a right as of 
December, 1995, suddenly becomes a grant of the right because we have 
not stood up and asserted our constitutional obligation? If it was 
incumbent upon the President to ask our permission before he put the 
troops in, it is still incumbent upon him to do so.
  Others argue that, well, maybe I am right in this resolution, but 
Kosovo presents an opportunity now that is so dangerous we might be 
sending the wrong signal. Well, it is precisely for that reason that we 
should take the matter here and debate it, so that if we support using 
troops there, it will be clear we do.
  In the Committee on International Relations last week, the ambassador 
of the United States to this most troubled region, Robert Gelbard, 
testified that the administration was not ruling out any options in 
Kosovo; and he answered that question specifically in the context of 
the use of American forces. Accordingly, we may very well find 
ourselves with troops in Kosovo without having had the issue debated 
and approved here in advance.
  Why is it so important to approve in advance? Because if we do not, 
we are stuck with the situation of American troops already overseas. 
And very few Members are able to say, well, now that they are overseas, 
let us change our policy. That is why the Constitution requires the 
vote to be up front.
  The War Powers Resolution gives us the opportunity to give the 
President 60 days, after which it must come to Congress if he has 
inserted troops into hostilities or into a situation where hostilities 
are reasonably likely to be expected.
  Mr. Speaker, I pity in this debate somebody who has to maintain that 
there are no hostilities in Bosnia. In our deliberations in the 
Committee on International Relations, no member advanced that argument. 
I doubt that argument will be able to be sustained. Nevertheless, some 
have suggested that; and to them I would urge them to look at the 
phrase ``hostilities'' and then look at the reason for having this 
provision in law.
  The phrase ``hostilities'' is in the War Powers Resolution explicitly 
to cover cases even where there have not been shots fired, and I quote 
from the House Committee report: `` `Hostilities' also encompasses a 
state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired, but where 
there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict.''
  Mr. Speaker, that clearly is the situation today. The administration, 
I think, ought to admit as much regarding Kosovo where they say, no 
option, including the use of American troops, is being ruled out.
  The House Report continues: `` `Imminent hostilities' denotes a 
situation in which there is a clear potential, either for such a state 
of confrontation or for actual armed conflict.''
  Do we have a clear potential for a state of confrontation? Of course 
we do. To say otherwise is to mince words. To say otherwise is to 
prevaricate; to say otherwise is to strain the language to avoid the 
obligation that it is the Congress that must approve the use of force 
overseas.
  Some argue, there has not been a large-scale attack on United States 
troops. Well, let me just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that 
United States troops in Bosnia have been shot at, have been wounded, 
have died in Bosnia. And in the report to the bill as it came out of 
the Committee on International Relations, there is a documented list, 
to which I might refer later in debate, as to all of these incidents 
where American troops have been

[[Page H1262]]

shot at, have been wounded, have died. Tell the families of those 
servicemen and women that there are no hostilities in Bosnia. I do not 
think anyone can.
  The argument is next advanced that perhaps it is the situation that 
hostilities existed when we put troops into Bosnia but hostilities no 
longer exist, because we have so successfully put an end to the 
confrontation there. The War Powers Resolution and our constitutional 
obligation is nevertheless implicated.
  The Under Secretary of Defense, in his letter to our committee, 
mentioned a likely resumption of hostilities if we did not keep our 
troops there. The Secretary of State's designee, the Acting Assistant 
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, in her letter to Chairman 
Gilman refers once again to the possible recurrence of war, of genocide 
if our troops are not kept there. All these are legitimate arguments, 
when we have the opportunity to vote on it, but they completely 
undercut the argument that there are no hostilities in Bosnia or no 
likelihood or probability of such hostilities.

  There are other indications of hostilities as well, but one 
additional fundamental argument. Imagine the danger of taking the 
interpretation that, in order to have hostilities, one must have 
American soldiers killed in action in higher numbers than they already 
have been. What a dangerous interpretation of this law. If that is what 
it takes, then we give an incentive to an enemy of the United States to 
kill more Americans so as to create the opportunity for a vote. That is 
why we should have had the vote in December of 1995, before American 
troops were put at risk.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of proving the existence of the use of 
force, I note the fact that the administration, the Defense Department, 
pays a hostile fire premium to soldiers. We call it combat pay, but the 
technical term is ``hostile fire pay,'' and they have been paying that 
to our soldiers in Bosnia from the start. It is very hard for the 
administration to argue that there are no hostilities in Bosnia.
  So what do we do today? Today we say, it is for Congress to assert 
its constitutional obligation. It is wrong to continue to let this 
obligation and authority atrophy.
  The question arises, will we be pulling our troops out in a dangerous 
fashion; will we be pulling them out in the middle of a difficult time; 
as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Chairman 
of the committee intimated? No. This resolution allows the matter to go 
to court. People of goodwill have debated the constitutionality of the 
War Powers Resolution. If it is constitutional, let us prove that it 
is. If it is unconstitutional, let us prove that instead; and then let 
us reconstruct what there might be in place of this vehicle.
  As it is now, we have the worst of all possible situations. The 
President uses force, and the Congress gives up its constitutional 
obligation to approve or disapprove, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the 
greatest tragedy of all.
  I recur to the Members of this body who have been touched by the 
Vietnam experience, and that, I think, includes all of us. Did we not 
promise that this shall never happen again? Did we not say that next 
time we will get the approval of the people's representatives before we 
put United States troops into hostilities overseas? We have let that 
obligation drop from our fingers for too long. Today is our chance to 
restore that duty and our honor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hamilton) has 30 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleague from California (Mr. 
Campbell), but I ask him the question of do we need any more Kosovos? 
This is a question of protecting lives.
  I have been to Bosnia, and I understand the pain of the people who 
are trying to survive. The War Powers Act has never been utilized; and 
frankly, I think the irony of this vote may send it to the courts and 
the courts rule it unconstitutional. But the real question is whether 
or not we want the courts to run our foreign policy, or do we want the 
right kinds of decisions to be made on behalf of the people in the 
Balkans who need the peacekeeping troops who have been there to provide 
peace. This legislation, frankly, makes no sense; and it adds to the 
disruptiveness of the process of a foreign policy of which our allies 
can count on.
  Let us not show ourselves as wimps. Let us show ourselves as friends. 
Let us understand that we are keeping peace, that our military 
personnel are in peace, that the dangers of loss of life has been 
diminished and that the people in the Balkans need us. Do we need say 
anymore?
  I hope my colleagues will defeat this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution. 
Everyone on the floor of the House knows that we have American troops 
defending the peace in Bosnia.
  Why would we want to put those troops in harms way by passing a 
resolution that would send a clear message that we do not support their 
presence there?
  Why would we want to send a message that we no longer support the 
Dayton Peace Accords?
  Now is not the time to test the War Powers Act with the lives of our 
troops. The enemies of peace are watching us today and there is no 
reason to give them any other signal than our continued support and 
commitment to maintaining the peace in Bosnia.
  The recent venture by the brutal Serbian police action should be 
enough of a warning signal. These forces are just waiting for us to 
show any sign of weakness so they can take advantage of the situation 
in Bosnia.
  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, this resolution makes 
no sense at all. The separation of powers never gives the right of our 
courts to decide matters of foreign policy. Courts have declined to do 
anything like this over and over again.
  So, for reasons of both policy and procedure, I am strongly opposed 
to this resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. I believe that it is legally incorrect. I believe it is 
strategically a mistake, and I believe morally it ought to be rejected.
  I, of course, was one of those who believed strongly that the United 
States and its allies ought to act decisively in the Balkans, 
particularly in Bosnia. I urged, as my colleagues will recall, the 
unilateral lifting of the arms embargo so that peoples under siege 
could defend themselves. I believe that was the morally correct and 
legally correct position.
  This resolution I believe is legally wrong because, contrary to the 
arguments of my friend from California (Mr. Campbell), who maintains 
that we are in the midst of hostilities, I would suggest that any 
person deployed anyplace in the world is subject to hostilities. We 
have tragically lost men and women in uniform as the result of 
terrorist acts or some other act in places of the world that clearly 
hostilities did not exist, Japan being an example, West Germany being 
another.
  I believe that, strategically, the adoption of this resolution would 
be a significant and unfortunate mistake. The deployment of U.S. troops 
and allied troops in Bosnia was pursuant to an agreement, the Dayton 
Accords, in which all parties to the conflict agreed to accept United 
States and allied troops for the purposes of peacekeeping, not for the 
purposes of projecting themselves into hostilities. So that even if one 
adopts the argument that 5(c) of the War Powers Act is sustainable, one 
should reject the presumption that it applies in this instance.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unfortunate resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote in favor 
of this resolution. Let me say, first, that I think the predictions of 
chaos and

[[Page H1263]]

gloom are mistaken. If we were to vote this resolution and begin an 
orderly process of involving the courts and requiring this Congress to 
face up to its responsibilities, nothing would happen precipitously. We 
would have plenty of time to deal with it.

                              {time}  1215

  I am voting for the resolution for a couple of reasons. First of all, 
I have consistently, since being here, taken the position that the 
President of the United States should not commit significant troop 
levels for prolonged periods of time without congressional approval. 
That is whether I agree with the specific commitment or not.
  A lot changed for me in 1992. 1992 was a good year electorally, but 
it did not change my constitutional view that the President ought not 
to be making these commitments. To respond to emergencies is one thing, 
but a long-term commitment is another. It does seem to me that we ought 
to have congressional approval. I believe that with regard to Iraq, I 
would support military action against Iraq if they violate the 
agreement they made recently, but I do think it ought to come here 
first.
  I have a particular reason for supporting this. It is really made 
clear in the letter from my leaders and colleagues on the Democratic 
side. It said, ``Third,'' the third reason for voting no, ``If U.S. 
troops leave Bosnia, our allies will leave. There will be no NATO force 
in Bosnia without us.'' That is intolerable.
  That is what I find most attractive about this. We have got to put an 
end to the greatest welfare program in the history of the world. That 
is the welfare program whereby the wealthy nations of Western Europe, 
prosperous, strong, and facing no enemy, continue to be heavily 
subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States.
  If you lose your job in Germany or France or Italy tomorrow, you do 
not lose your health care. People in our districts who lose their jobs 
will lose their health care, in many cases. We just saw a reference to 
a bill, we tried our best to change it, that is not working, because 
people are priced out of the market.
  How come those countries can afford to provide health care to people 
who lose their jobs and we cannot? Because we do them the enormous 
favor of paying their military budgets. It made sense for the United 
States in the late forties to go to the aid of a weak and poor Europe 
facing a Communist threat. Today Europe is strong, the Communist threat 
has disappeared, and the only constant is that we continue to spend 
tens of billions of dollars on their defense.
  I accept our responsibility in South Korea, I accept our 
responsibility in Iraq, but why, what is written that says if we leave, 
they have to leave? Can Europe do nothing by itself? Are Germany and 
England and France and Spain and Norway and Belgium and Denmark, with a 
little help from Luxembourg, are they not all capable of keeping some 
troops in Bosnia, Bosnia, which is so close to them?
  We are going to be asked very shortly, in a supplemental 
appropriation, to cut funds for important American domestic programs to 
pay for those troops in Bosnia. They will not be making those cuts in 
Germany and England. By the way, when it comes to people in need, I am 
for it. I am going to vote for the IMF, if we can work out the right 
conditions. I want American money to go to help alleviate distress 
overseas. But I am not prepared to have the United States taxpayer 
continue to subsidize the nations of Western Europe, and encouraging in 
them the greatest sense of welfare dependency we have.
  We cut funds to American welfare recipients because they should be 
out on their own. So should Western Europe. I simply want to repudiate 
this notion, if U.S. troops leave Bosnia our allies will leave. Why? 
What is this, follow the leader? Simon says? Yes, it is true, probably 
in the short term, because we are the great enablers of European 
dependency. We are the ones who in fact allow the wealthy and powerful 
collection of nations that consist of Western Europe to act as if they 
were incapable of doing anything on their own. If we do not in fact 
take a lead, that is what will continue to happen.
  I am in favor of a continued presence in Bosnia, but it ought to be 
European. We will be in South Korea without the Europeans. We will do 
Iraq mostly alone. But the Europeans ought to do Europe.
  The fact is that what this resolution aims at is an intolerable 
status quo, a status quo in which the American people, taxpayers, are 
being asked to pay an undue burden. By the way, I am not suggesting 
that the answer is that Europe has to greatly increase its military.
  My conservative friends have made a very good important point: When a 
good is free, people will take more of it than they need. As long as 
the American taxpayer will extend for free to the Europeans the 
services of the American defense establishment, the Europeans will 
claim more of it than they need. They are threatened by no one. They 
have a responsibility. We will meet our worldwide responsibilities.
  I hope we will vote for this resolution, in fact to repudiate the 
third point in what my leaders have said. There is no reason at all why 
the United States should have to spend billions of dollars which we 
will soon be taking from our own domestic needs to subsidize Western 
Europe.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from 
Missouri.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this House 
concurrent resolution. I guess it is the small town country lawyer 
coming out in me, but to begin with, this is legally wrong.
  Under the original War Powers Act a concurrent resolution was 
required. Subsequent to that there was a Chadha decision in 1983 that 
says you cannot do it without a joint resolution, that gives a 
President the opportunity to agree or disagree. Subsequent to the 
Chadha decision there was a statute that was all-encompassing, 
including this statute, the War Powers Act that requires a joint 
resolution. Consequently, this being an attempt to pass a concurrent 
resolution at best is moot.
  That in and of itself is enough reason to oppose it. But it should be 
opposed for other reasons, for policy reasons, for practical reasons as 
well. The policy implications of adoption of this resolution are clear. 
Adoption of this resolution by this House would send the wrong message, 
a very wrong message, to our troops in Bosnia, of whom I am so very 
proud, to our allies and friends helping us in Bosnia, and third, to 
friends and foes alike around the world.
  First, our troops would view the adoption of this resolution as 
telling them that despite their efforts, which have been successful in 
bringing peace to Bosnia, we made a mistake. My views on our efforts in 
Bosnia have evolved over the last 3 years to reluctant support, and I 
do support it.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops are doing a magnificent job. I have had the 
opportunity to visit with them just a few weeks ago in Bosnia, and I 
tell you that they know what they are doing, they know that it is a 
success, and they are proud of the fact that they are there bringing 
peace to that troubled corner of the world. I thank them for what they 
are doing.
  Second, our allies and friends in Bosnia would wonder why this 
Congress is taking this action when now we made not only substantial 
progress in this effort, but we are near real success. Since we have 
become directly involved in Bosnia through our diplomatic efforts 3 
years ago, the war in Bosnia has stopped.
  We are in Bosnia there with allies and friends. Thirty-eight other 
countries are involved with us. Those combined forces make a 
substantial contribution to this joint effort. The other nations are 
contributing about 75 percent of the military forces, and the current 
stabilization force is a successful effort. About 85 percent of the 
funds for economic reconstruction are being supplied by our European 
and other allies. I say this to remind my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who was talking about them not paying their 
fair share. Mr. Speaker, they are.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be sending the wrong message to friends and foes 
alike. They would view the adoption of this resolution as a sign that 
the

[[Page H1264]]

United States is rethinking its role as leader in the world. Mr. 
Speaker, we are the leader of this free world. We have stepped up to 
the plate. We are there batting a thousand. We must continue that in 
Bosnia.
  The role as leader on the world stage is so very important. It has 
been said, and they will say so, our allies from Europe will say so, 
that they could not do it by themselves. Remember, they were there with 
UNPROFOR and that did not work, and it took American leadership to go 
in with the IFOR and now the SFOR.
  Were this to be adopted, the credibility of this country, the 
credibility of our leadership would be undermined drastically. Europe 
continues to be of vital interest to the United States. On two 
occasions earlier in this century our country fought wars to keep the 
Old World from falling under the domination of hostile powers. From 
1945 until 1989 we found ourselves involved in another struggle, the 
Cold War, which compelled us to keep some 300,000 troops in Europe 
until that conflict ended in 1989.
  Now for the third time in this century we are trying to secure an 
enduring peace, because if we are able to do this, the rest of Europe 
will follow and there will be a peaceful Europe, under the leadership 
and because of the leadership of the United States of America.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I rise in strong support of the resolution he is presenting 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about some of the issues that have been 
discussed earlier today and it is not about the merits of the War 
Powers Act. That will be decided ultimately by the courts. What I mean 
by that is the constitutionality. This is not about preventing the 
President, if he would choose to do so, to withdraw our forces from the 
Balkans and from Bosnia in a smooth fashion, and transfer those 
responsibilities to Europeans.
  We are certainly not voting today on the performance of our troops. 
They are doing an outstanding job, as they are assigned, in Bosnia. In 
fact, I have just returned from Bosnia and can report that our forces 
have achieved their military goals.
  But political success is another story. Political success is many 
years away. This is not a secret. I think everyone knows that the 
President's promises of quick success were not grounded in reality. The 
question before us today is does America, does America have a national 
interest in Bosnia that justifies a long-term, expensive military 
commitment.
  The costs of this commitment are real and extend far beyond the 
billions of dollars that we have to appropriate in the upcoming 
supplemental bill. They include the young soldier that I met from east 
Texas on the trip to Bosnia who told me that his wife is about to leave 
him because he has been overdeployed too many months, too many times 
overseas during the last 2\1/2\ years. His family is falling apart. It 
was a gut-wrenching moment when he had to confess that before several 
other troops during a lunch we had with the troops at Camp McGovern.
  Others told me about the necessities they have for pay raises and 
health care needs. When I go back home I talk to veterans of World War 
II, Korea, and Vietnam who say that they cannot even get to see a 
doctor anymore, because there is not enough money in the budget back 
home to pay for their medical needs.
  So what we are making is a choice here between spending money and 
endangering our troops' lives overseas on questionable social 
engineering projects, or choosing to spend that money on keeping our 
military strong.
  A lot of people out there do not realize that our military is not 
even what it was during the Gulf War. We cannot sustain another effort 
like that because of our overdeployment. We are spread too thin. Our 
troops' morale in some cases is already in question. We do not have a 
national interest in Bosnia that justifies this cost in other areas of 
our military operations, or in perhaps some other areas that we may 
have to cut back on in social spending that my colleague, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, alluded to earlier on.

                              {time}  1230

  He was very eloquent in his remarks about the commitment of Europe in 
this project. Why can we not, after leading the peacekeeping mission in 
the first place, now be able to turn over this project to our European 
friends? Why has not the administration worked the phones and tried to 
get the leaders of countries in Europe to say, when we have done so 
much, we have got things established here, why can we not turn it over 
to you now? After all, it is in your own backyard.
  The bottom line is we are having to make tough choices today, and let 
us not think that because of the wonderful things we have accomplished 
so far in Bosnia that we are somehow doing more than propping up a 
house of cards that could fall apart once we leave. We cannot make 
everyone in Bosnia love each other. We cannot solve problems that have 
existed for generations there. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
resolution to end this deployment. It would be criminal to do 
otherwise.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me the time. As a member of the Committee on International 
Relations, we had the opportunity to vote on the Campbell resolution 
just this past week. I was real pleased that the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), as well as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), as well 
as Members we have heard from, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), ranking Democrat on the Committee on National Security, all 
are in total agreement and opposed to the Campbell resolution.
  I had the opportunity to travel with the Committee on National 
Security, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), to Bosnia. I will 
tell my colleagues, it was enlightening to me. I had so many of the 
people that live in that troubled area come up to me and thank America 
for being a part, for bringing peace in the area. If it was not for the 
United States, we would not have peace in the Bosnian area now. 
Remember those terrible pictures, remember the television scenes of the 
rape and pillage and destruction in that area and how quickly we 
forget. It was the United States of America, the Dayton Accord, that 
showed the leadership and the vision to bring about peace.
  I asked the rank and file members, our soldiers, not the colonels and 
the generals, but the soldiers, I said, do you think we should stay 
there after June 30 of this year? Without exception they replied, 
Congressman, I am homesick, I miss my family, I miss my friends, but we 
ought to stay in Bosnia after June 30, or everything we have done will 
be unraveled. We do not need to do that.
  That is where World War I started, and how quickly we forget that, 
too. I am proud of the United States. I am proud of our leadership. I 
am proud of our soldiers. I am proud that they are making a difference. 
I think this particular resolution on legal grounds as well as on 
policy grounds is not in our best interest.
  Vote against the Campbell resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, this is not easy for me. This is not easy for 
me because I have covered the waterfront like the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on this issue. We had a good discussion at a 
hearing this morning with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Wes 
Clark. I thought it was a very productive hearing the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) held with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) of the Committee on National Security.
  It was some time ago the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale), we brought some 
resolutions to the floor, three of them. As a matter of fact, the first 
one that we brought with regard to Bosnia was we do not like where the 
Dayton Accord is going.

[[Page H1265]]

 We heard a lot of the discussions coming out of Dayton, and what was 
happening was that the President got the parties to the table, and 
there was some sort of anxiety to get something on the paper and to use 
U.S. ground forces to separate the warring factions. So they were 
anxious to do that. But the House stepped forward with a vote of 315 
Members that said, wait a minute, do not use U.S. ground forces to 
separate the parties. Focus, force the parties to focus on the real 
reasons they are killing each other. That is how we will move to cure. 
That is what was the vote of this House.
  But there really was not the close coordination and cooperation 
between the House and the administration because they went and did as 
they pleased. And they used U.S. ground troops to separate the warring 
factions. When you do that without permitting the parties to focus on 
why they are killing each other, it will require generations to cure. 
And there is where we have ourselves today.
  The military, I have heard the speakers, they are right, the troops 
are wonderful. The morale is high. They meet their deadlines. They are 
doing real missions, and they are proud of their efforts. We should be 
proud of them. But the civil implementation of Dayton lagged very far 
behind. The special Ambassador that we have today in that position over 
the last 9 months has made leaps and bounds in progress. He needs our 
support.
  Now, it is awkward for me to be standing here saying this, but when 
you go to Bosnia and you see this effort, all of us must endorse an 
enduring peace in Bosnia. The ultimate question is by whom? I believe 
the United States as a sole remaining superpower has a responsibility 
to quiet and ensure regional stability. But when you have then civil 
wars within a region that pose no threat to destabilize a region, then 
we need to rely upon our regional allies. Aha, there is the debate.
  I do not believe, as the last Speaker or the Vice President or the 
President says, we had to be in Bosnia because Bosnia had the potential 
of destabilizing Europe. That is false. We do not have the same dynamic 
of the Hungarian Empire. The emotion of saying, well, that is where two 
wars started does not move me. I think it is important for us to place 
great stressors on our European allies to play a greater role, but 
where we are today is when the President has stepped forward and he has 
said that with regard to the civil implementation process in Bosnia, we 
will set real benchmarks for success, I will share with the House that 
I am working with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and we 
will bring a resolution to the floor that these will be benchmarks with 
specificity. They will neither be vague nor ambiguous. And we will also 
give some dates certain to move that process along, because we do not 
want to be in Bosnia for the next 15 to 20 years. I think that is the 
intent of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I agree with 
him.
  I also voted with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) a few years 
back to repeal the War Powers Act. You say, well, how can you then vote 
against the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) today? Well, 
because I do not like using the backdrop for what he has done here. I 
do not like the backdrop on Bosnia.
  I gave the commitment to the President that, yes, I am your critic, 
but I am your constructive critic. I want to help you get out of the 
box from which we are presently in. You see because when I was in 
Bosnia, I did not see evidence of where a true self-sustaining peace 
was at hand. That is hard for me to say. The United States is presently 
caught. We are in a box. If the United States, if we leave, the parties 
will likely, with likely probability, return to bloodshed. Therefore, 
the U.S. forces remaining, we provide the reassurance to the people, 
and at the same time we provide cover to the elected leaders who move 
slowly and call for patience.
  Changing the dynamic in Bosnia is extraordinarily important because 
the leaders in Bosnia of the Croats, the Muslims and the Serbs were 
also the present war leaders. These individuals focus on their 
differences, what separates them, rather than that which could bring 
them together in commonality.
  The elections this fall will be very important. So what we hope to do 
not only is in changing this dynamic, but when we set these, when we 
set real benchmarks to measure success, it is also matched with troop 
reductions that we then move to an over-the-horizon position. That is 
where we want to take this.
  So, reluctantly, I have to come to the floor and oppose the gentleman 
from California's measure. It is not easy for me to do that, given how 
I feel on the War Powers Act, and I wanted to share that with you.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for his statement, for his sound reasoning, and for his courage 
in his comments today. The troops have no better friend than the 
gentleman from Indiana. I know, not just those in Bosnia, but those 
across the world appreciate his efforts on their behalf.
  What the gentleman from Indiana says is so true about American 
leadership and necessity for us being there. As he pointed out, I have 
rethought my position. I agree with him. I think he is right. I think 
we should continue on.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate is not over whether American troops should be 
in Bosnia or not, the debate is on a resolution which says Congress 
should decide whether they should be there or not. Otherwise we are a 
debating society. That is all we are.
  The President does what he wants. We can talk about it, but we have 
no power. That is wrong. It is constitutionally wrong. It is wrong for 
the respect we owe our troops in Bosnia.
  The American Legion supports this resolution, Mr. Speaker. They do 
because they believe, and I quote, that ``the administration must now 
decide on the extent of the future mission in Bosnia and explain to the 
American people and Congress how many forces will be needed, what their 
security missions will be, and for how long will they be deployed,'' 
end quote.
  Our debate will at some point, God willing, be on whether we should 
be in Bosnia or not. All we debate today is whether it is the duty of 
the Congress to give that approval in advance, and whether the 
President, not having obtained that approval in advance, must now seek 
that. It is patriotic, and it is responsible to the soldiers under fire 
in hostilities that we do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time. I certainly respect people on both sides of 
this argument, certainly the ranking member of the Committee on 
National Security and the gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, that just spoke.
  I am a member of the Committee on National Security myself. I hear 
all these arguments, but they are arguments on policy, they are not 
arguments on Constitution; they are not arguments on law, they are not 
arguments on the procedure that James Madison and our Founding Fathers 
gave to us over 220 years ago on how we were going to run a war, how we 
were going to send troops across the world.
  James Madison wrote in the early 18th century that the Founders 
intentionally vested the instruments of war-making capability in the 
hands of the legislative branch because they knew, the Founders 
recognized, that the executive branch would be the most prone to war 
and be the most prone to sending troops across the world.
  Look what has happened now. We have more troops in more places across 
the world than at any time in the history of this Republic. We are 
giving them less to work with. They have been well-founded.
  Somebody said this was about us being wimps or about protecting lives 
or waving the flag or supporting the troops. Those arguments are all 
red herrings. The fact is that indefinite mission creep, the type we 
have seen over the past few years, without congressional consent will 
do violence to the Constitution and do violence to the ideals of 
Madison and of Jefferson and of our other founders.

[[Page H1266]]

  Back in 1995, the President promised 1 year, and then we were 
promised another. Now it is indefinite. For those people that do want 
to argue policy and say, well, gee, we need to let this go on without 
congressional consent, I am reminded of testimony by a U.N. General to 
the Committee on National Security from Canada back in 1995 before we 
went in there. He said, you Americans think you are going to tidy this 
up in a year or two with one or two divisions. He said, you have no 
idea what you are doing.
  The fact is, he explained about how he was responsible for seeing 
what war crimes had been committed. He said one morning he went and he 
saw where Muslims, women and children, had been slaughtered and thrown 
off the roadside. A Serb came up to him, and he said, ``it serves them 
right.'' The U.N. General said, ``it serves them right?'' For what? For 
what?

                              {time}  1245

  And the Serb responded, ``Because of what they did to us in the 17th 
century.'' This U.N. general looked at us, laughed, and he said, ``And 
you silly Americans think that you are going to get this resolved in a 
year or two.'' We are not.
  And it is not about whether I believe we should be in Bosnia or not, 
it is about whether we in this Congress are going to face up to the 
constitutional obligations that James Madison and our Founding Fathers 
gave to us over 220 years ago. And if we are not willing to do that, 
then we are going to find ourselves here next year and the next year 
and the next year; and I think that is unfortunate.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have had the chance to go to 
Bosnia; and I can say that there is a myth that exists that says that 
people just cannot get along with each; they just hate each other and 
are going to kill each other. That is not true.
  There is leadership in that area which drilled hostilities and which 
made it possible for conditions of war to erupt. It is not that there 
is something in the hearts of those people that they cannot get along. 
Those people are us. We are those people.
  I met with widows in Srebrenica, whose husbands were thrown into a 
ditch after they were shot, who are still asking the question about 
why; and who still hold out a hand of friendship and brotherhood with 
people who they have been told are enemies.
  We have to realize there is no imperative here for war. There is an 
imperative for peace as long as the United States is involved with the 
34 other nations which exist to help keep peace.
  Now we have heard from sources here today. Let me quote a few 
sources.
  General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. He says, if 
this resolution passes, it will say to our troops and to everyone else 
that being there was a mistake; we did not really mean it when we sent 
our troops to Bosnia. He says, it would undercut all our efforts in 
Bosnia if this resolution passes.
  General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, 
pulling U.S. forces out of Bosnia would cripple the mission at a 
critical time when we are achieving success in that troubled country.
  I met with the widows. I saw places destroyed as a result of this 
war. But I also saw a people who are struggling to rebuild. I saw a 
nation which has hope because the United States of America has stood by 
its commitment for freedom and justice, because the United States of 
America, a leader of 34 nations, has said that we are not going to let 
genocide exist anywhere in the world.
  We know that over 50 years ago there was genocide. We know that it 
occurred in Europe as a result of nationalism, religious and racial 
hatred. We know that there was an attempt to make an area ethnically 
pure.
  We also know the international community a few years ago stood by 
silently as more than two million people were displaced. The 
international community stood by silently when there was two million 
people displaced and 200,000 human beings killed.
  Now we are in a role of leadership. Now we are in a role where our 
troops are doing a job. We are in a role where we are a leader among 
nations, and we are keepers of the peace. That is our mission, and that 
is our role. Let us keep the peace. Let us reject this resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time and for bringing this legislation before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this issue nearly 1\1/2\ 
years after the promised withdrawal date of December, 1996. That 
withdrawal date was then extended to June of 1997. Later, the 
withdrawal date was extended to June of 1998. Recently, the withdrawal 
deadline was completely eliminated; and U.S. troops are now apparently 
permanently stationed in Bosnia.
  I want to make it clear at the outset that I will do everything 
necessary to support our troops, and I commend them for their actions 
in Bosnia. However, I believe the best way to support our troops is to 
bring them home.
  During the initial debate surrounding the deployment of troops to 
Bosnia, this Congress went on record in opposition to the deployment, 
stopping just short of complete denial of funds. Regrettably, the 
President committed troops anyway; and our concerns have been realized.
  In December of 1997, I came to this floor to oppose the deployment of 
troops in Bosnia. I opposed it because the President had failed 
completely to specify the mission of our deployment and what vital 
United States' interests were threatened. I felt the mission had little 
chance, given the lack of clearly stated or understood objectives.
  In my speech, I stated that we have learned through sad experience 
that it is easy to rush troops into an area of contention, but it is 
extremely difficult to solve the problems once we get there and even 
more difficult to get out in a timely and honorable way. Mr. Speaker, 
that has indeed become the reality in Bosnia.
  The President failed completely to outline the goals that our 
military had to achieve before they could safely leave. A well-defined 
exit strategy, based on achievement of a set of tactical goals, has 
been lacking from the start. Now the President, after repeatedly 
breaking his promises regarding the withdrawal, has extended the 
deployment permanently.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution today is a simple one. It states that the 
President must receive an authorization from Congress or must withdraw 
the troops from Bosnia. Furthermore, under the War Powers Act, the 
Congress must authorize any extended deployment when troops are subject 
to hostilities.
  I know that no one is going to argue that American troops are not 
facing hostilities in that region. Coalition soldiers have been killed, 
and American troops are properly receiving combat pay because of the 
deployment. Combat pay is deserved because of the hostilities that 
exist, but that pay determines that the War Powers Resolution must 
apply and that continued deployment is dependent upon a specific 
authorization from Congress.
  In closing, I want to again commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) for the legislation and urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I feel sends 
the wrong signal about our mission in Bosnia today. It sends the wrong 
signal to the hard-liners in that country, the wrong signals to the 
people in Bosnia, who are facing crucial national elections this 
September.
  A few weeks ago I, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
and four of my colleagues, had a chance to go over and visit Bosnia on 
a fact-finding mission. What I saw there, the mission being pursued and 
the men and women in American uniform performing that mission, made me 
proud. Except for the day when my younger brother returned home from 
the Gulf War, I have never felt more proud to be an American.

[[Page H1267]]

  By all accounts, this peacekeeping policy in Bosnia has been an 
unqualified success. The Dayton Peace Accord is working; NATO is 
working; the killing has stopped; the genocide, stopped; ethnic 
cleansing and rapes, stopped; economic development is taking root; 
democratic institutions are being created; and the children of Bosnia 
are laughing and playing outside again, all because of our involvement. 
This, in essence, is the best of America.
  Our bipartisan delegation drafted a statement of our findings which I 
would like to insert into the Record at the appropriate time.
  Now is not the time to turn Bosnia over to the hard-liners again; and 
I, for one, do not intend to surrender the children on the streets of 
Sarajevo to the snipers again. I urge my colleagues to support the 
mission and the people of Bosnia. Support our troops in Bosnia. Oppose 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the document referred to earlier is submitted, as 
follows:

                      Observations and Conclusions

   (By Representative Roger Wicker, Representative Saxby Chambliss, 
Lindsey Graham, Representative Gil Gutknecht, Representative Ron Kind, 
                    Representative Dennis Kucinich)

       1. The delegation wishes to acknowledge the impressive 
     professionalism and dedication of U.S. service personnel 
     serving on the ground in Bosnia and supporting Operation 
     Joint Guard from deployment sites in Hungary and Italy. It 
     was clear that U.S. military forces are performing their 
     mission in an exemplary fashion. They are being asked to do 
     more with less and are responding admirably. The American 
     people can be proud of the way their armed forces--active 
     duty, reserve, and national guard components--have risen to 
     the challenge of ensuring a peaceful, secure, and stable 
     environment in Bosnia. All Americans owe these soldiers, 
     sailors, airmen, and marines a debt of gratitude.
       2. We have been informed that U.S. force levels in Bosnia 
     are likely to be reduced from the current 8,500 to 6,900. We 
     are concerned that a lower troop level may lead to increased 
     risk, given the potential for violence directed against or 
     involving U.S. troops as they execute their missions. We 
     believe that an appropriate level of forces in Bosnia must be 
     based on a sound military assessment of the risks and not on 
     any political considerations. Force protection must be a top 
     priority. Increasing the risk to U.S. forces is not an 
     acceptable policy option. At a minimum, we recommend that 
     U.S. force levels not be reduced until after the September 
     1998 elections are held and a review of the security 
     situation is conducted. We feel that progress in Bosnia 
     should be judged by the achievement of specific milestones 
     and that any troop reduction should be tied to the 
     achievement of these milestones.
       3. Prior to the elections in December 1997, which brought 
     to power more moderate leadership within the Republika 
     Srpska, hard-line Bosnian Serbs in power demonstrated an 
     unwillingness to comply with the terms of the Dayton 
     Agreement. As a result, the overwhelming bulk of Western 
     economic aid has flowed to the Muslim-Croat dominated 
     Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The recently elected 
     moderate government within the Republika Srpska lacks the 
     financial resources to function effectively, raising concerns 
     about the government's political viability. We were advised 
     by our military and diplomatic leadership that $5 million in 
     U.S. assistance to the new Republika Srpska government is 
     essential, as part of a $20 to 30 million dollar 
     international assistance package, to demonstrate our 
     commitment to the long-term viability of the new government 
     until it begins generating sufficient revenues on its own. We 
     strongly support appropriation of this $5 million in 
     assistance. Compared to the $2 to 3 billion dollars invested 
     annually in support of the military operation, $5 million is 
     a relatively small price to pay to ensure the stability of 
     the new, reform-minded Republika Srpska government. However, 
     we also believe that any U.S. assistance of this nature 
     should not be funded from Department of Defense accounts.
       4. Among the more pressing needs within Bosnia is the 
     establishment of an economic infrastructure that will give 
     the Bosnian people sense of hope and the prospect of a 
     brighter economic future. Without a productive economy, we 
     believe there is little chance for a lasting peace.
       5. The need for a continued American troop presence on the 
     ground in Bosnia was stressed by U.S. military commanders, 
     political officials, diplomats, and the Bosnian people with 
     whom we met. There is a widespread conviction that U.S. 
     troops are essential to preventing a resumption of war. 
     Having seen the situation in Bosnia first hand, it is clear 
     to us that the presence of American forces is necessary.
       6. The September 1998 Bosnian elections will be a watershed 
     in determining whether Bosnia moves forward or backward. 
     Until then, we believe that the United States should actively 
     continue to support the process of Dayton implementation. 
     Given the effort already expended, it would be foolish to 
     change our political, diplomatic, or military policy in 
     Bosnia before the September elections have taken place. 
     However, we do not believe that the U.S. commitment can be 
     open-ended. SFOR will provide important support to the Office 
     of the High Representative in its efforts to create the 
     climate for a fair election. Notwithstanding our observations 
     of the role in peace being played by U.S. troops, we are 
     concerned about the annual exercise of funding our 
     peacekeeping operations in Bosnia by means of supplemental 
     appropriations. We encourage the Administration to pursue 
     means by which such contingencies can, at least to some 
     degree, be funded other than at the cost of other important 
     national priorities.
       7. We are convinced the United States has a vital interest 
     in the stability of Central Europe. The United States is the 
     undisputed leader of the Free World. This role carries with 
     it responsibilities, and among these is participating in 
     efforts to ensure Europe's stability. However, it is our 
     desire that the future of Bosnia ultimately be determined by 
     the Bosnian people themselves.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the 
gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.
  This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we 
should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this 
same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when 
it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not 
be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.
  The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy 
has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. 
Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have 
the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to 
tell other people what to do.
  Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to 
then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. 
So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, 
debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they 
have given to an imperial presidency.
  Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of 
Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it 
was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward 
towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do 
something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the 
arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.
  Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that 
responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him 
to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies 
that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am 
concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then 
assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it 
has not even been for national security reasons.
  The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the 
administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to 
express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should 
have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so 
critical.
  Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as 
some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as 
some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have 
the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in 
harm's way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we 
are vulnerable.
  We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to 
the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and 
the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our 
national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who 
is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume 
this responsibility.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell my friend from 
California (Mr. Campbell) that, had this vote been taken 1 year ago 
today, I would have voted with him.

[[Page H1268]]

  In October, I went to Bosnia, after doing everything I could to keep 
our troops from going there both under a Republican and a Democratic 
President. I went to Bosnia with a bad attitude and a notebook looking 
for kids to tell me that we should not be there, and I spoke with 
hundreds of them. Not one said we should not be there.
  See, we are asked to put our political lives on the line. Those kids 
are putting their lives on the line. They think they should be there.
  Should Congress vote every time troops are deployed? Absolutely. But 
that is not what this resolution is about. This resolution is pulling 
the plug on the most successful American military venture in the 
history of our country.
  Are we somehow disappointed that there was not a body count; that 
there were not thousands of Xs killed; that our smart bombs did not 
blow up bridges? I can assure my colleagues that I, as a congressman, 
am not in the least bit disappointed that I did not have to write 
letters of condolences to the moms and the dads and the spouses and the 
kids because we did not lose anybody.
  This is one of the greatest victories in American military history, 
and we won it almost without firing a shot. Every one of the 
established goals they have accomplished. Not because of me, but 
because of guys like Walter Yates, Master Sergeant Taylor, PFC Rhodes 
from Ocean Springs, Mississippi. They did their job, and we ought to be 
proud of them.

                              {time}  1300

  I am not going to pull the plug and see to it that those things that 
they have accomplished are for naught. Some people come to this floor 
and say, well, we are building four-bedroom, three-bath houses with 
swimming pools for these people. Go to Brcko. Do you know what their 
idea of peace is? Peace is being able to walk into the front yard to a 
circle of bricks 6 feet deep that they throw a bucket down and get 
their water; and every night they get on their knees and pray to their 
god in gratitude that that night they will not be raped, they will not 
be tortured, their husband will not be drug off, and just maybe their 
kids who had to flee four or five years ago can come home.
  Our troops have done a magnificent job. We should support them. We 
should defeat this resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. If the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) would stay on the floor just 
for a moment. I am pleased that he would have voted in favor of my 
resolution one year ago.
  What has happened to the Constitution of the United States during the 
last year, Mr. Speaker? If it was our obligation one year ago to say 
yea or nay, it remains our obligation to say yea or nay. On the policy 
itself, if it is a good one, we should vote yea at this time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, correct me, but my 
colleague's resolution says that they should withdraw within 60 days. 
It is not a question whether or not they should be there. He is 
mandating that they would withdraw. I am not going to do that. I am not 
going to pull the plug on those kids.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  I am so pleased that my friend from Mississippi has raised this at 
this point. The wording of the resolution is critically different from 
what he just told this body, in good faith, I am sure. My resolution 
says that the troops must come home unless the President obtains the 
approval of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United 
States, unless he obtains that approval; and they are not to come home 
until 60 days after a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a 
final judgment that we are proceeding in a constitutional manner.
  So it is not correct that we are pulling the plug. We are pulling the 
plug only if the President does not ask us for permission.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment for a 
couple of different reasons, but the first reason I rise in support is 
this simple document called the Constitution.
  What is interesting about this document, I am not a lawyer, I am not 
a legal expert, but what is interesting about the Constitution is it 
was written in layman's terms. And when I look here in section 8 and I 
read that it is the Congress that shall have the power to declare war, 
to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain the Navy, et 
cetera, it seems to me crystal clear that the Founding Fathers, for 
some odd reason, wanted the Congress to be involved in the event of 
war.
  Now why is that? War is a very messy thing. We have 435 folks over 
here, we have 100 folks over on the Senate side; it is hard to get 
agreement on anything. Why would they want us to be involved in that 
messy process? And I think the reason, quite simply, is the reason of 
accountability.
  How many of my colleagues have seen the President of the United 
States in the local grocery store shopping for a gallon of milk? I 
mean, maybe if it is some weird press opportunity he is there, but it 
is not a normal occurrence. And yet, 435 folks clear outside of here 
every weekend and go back to their Congressional districts. And in fact 
it was just last Friday that I, along with my five-year-old boy 
Marshall, went to the Harris Teeter on East Bay Street in Charleston, 
South Carolina, to get a gallon of milk; and it was there that three 
folks came up to me and said, you know, Mark, this bothers me about x, 
y, and z, three different issues that were of concern to folks at home.
  What the Founding Fathers wanted, the reason they had it here, was 
they wanted accountability. When body bags come back from a war, they 
do not come to Washington, D.C. They go to Tulsa, Oklahoma. They go to 
Topeka, Kansas. They go to Savannah, Georgia. They go to a lot of 
different places that are represented by the 435 districts in this 
body.
  So what I would ask as we contemplate this resolution is that we 
think about not only the accountability that the Founding Fathers 
intended but also on how this has been a reasonable and tested idea.
  The War Powers Act came out of a democratically controlled Congress; 
and what it said was that through this learning experience called the 
Vietnam War, at the end of 60 days, or possibly 90 days with an 
override, but 60 days it is this body that ought to decide on things 
like war.
  Without further ado, I rise in support of this amendment. Again, we 
have had a lot of discussion on Bosnia and on leadership. This would do 
nothing to Bosnia. It would do nothing to our status as a world leader. 
But what it would do is preserve this thing called the Constitution and 
making sure that the President comes here to check out things like war.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the comments of the 
gentleman from South Carolina and earlier the gentleman from Florida, 
who talked about our constitutional obligation. Because I think when we 
examine this closely, and I say this with tremendous respect for both 
the sincerity and the principle, not to mention the legal acumen of the 
sponsor of this resolution, but this is a laughable way to claim we are 
fulfilling our constitutional obligations, really laughable.
  This resolution is pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers 
Resolution, as I understand it. 5(c) says, ``notwithstanding subsection 
(b),'' which is the report triggering action language, ``at any time 
that the United States armed forces are engaged in hostilities . . . 
without a declaration of war,'' there is not one here, and I will 
concede generally and I will concede for this purpose that we are in 
hostilities in Bosnia, ``without a declaration of war, without specific 
statutory authorization,'' and we have no specific statutory 
authorization, I do not consider an appropriation to be a substitute 
for that, ``such forces shall be removed by the President if the 
Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.''
  If the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) had offered a 
resolution

[[Page H1269]]

under expedited procedures to test the meaning of the War Powers Act 
and whether or not a court would uphold it in the best possible 
circumstances, which is what he claims he is trying to do, he would 
have offered a resolution to pull the forces out now. He shirked from 
that, even though that is his true feeling, he acknowledged such in the 
Committee on International Relations, and instead has put forth this 
fancy-dancy thing that responds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) by saying, I am not asking for them to come out; I am simply 
asking for a resolution that says that after we test this resolution, 
if we do not let them stay in, they will then come out.
  There should be a resolution right in front of us now testing our 
constitutional obligations, what our view is on this issue, are we for 
or against this particular intervention and it should be done. They 
have the expedited procedures we have which they say they are asking 
for. This resolution does not do it. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 4 
minutes.
  I find myself in an awkward situation here. I think the War Powers 
Act is unconstitutional. I think it is a bad law. I thought so when 
Ronald Reagan was President, not so my friends over there. They thought 
it was a great idea. When George Bush was President, I still thought it 
was not a great idea. But so many Members over there, at least some of 
the more mature, the ones with graying hair, thought it was a great 
idea. But today they do not think it is such a great idea.
  Now Congress would like to finesse this whole question of troops in 
Bosnia. If something goes wrong, nobody asked us. So the troops are 
there. They probably should be there. For how long, I am not sure. But 
we have this War Powers Act, which, in my judgment, is an invasion of 
the constitutional power of the Commander in Chief.
  But, on the other hand, it is a way to get Congress to face up to its 
responsibility as to whether or not we should put our troops in harm's 
way. So in a way, inartfully however it is drafted, it does strike a 
chord in favor of the involvement of Congress in the decision, the very 
dangerous decision, of committing troops.
  So, as far as I am concerned, there has been a double standard on 
this issue, just as there is on the independent counsel laws. So many 
people loved the law when the Republicans were in the White House and 
now they find it fraught with flaws. So we have the War Powers Act, 
which was a wonderful thing as long as it put restraints on Ronald 
Reagan and George Bush. But now that we have another occupant of the 
White House, why, it is shot through with flaws and it is unwise.
  So look, it is the law. We have sworn to uphold the law. We have 
taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. And so, as long as it is the 
law, the other principle at play here is we should enforce it, we 
should obey it. As long as we ignore it, we are weakening the very 
fabric of our laws. And so much as I do not like the law, it is the 
law.
  And since we have not repealed it, and June 7, 1995, I lost here on 
the floor 201 to 217 ``no'' to repeal the act, and some of my friends 
over there who are defending it today voted against me and gave me no 
help in repealing what I think is a bad law. So we have the law. And 
today I intend to uphold the law because it is on the books and it is 
one way to involve Congress in this very important decision.
  So I thank and I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
for bringing this forward. Otherwise, this very important and 
controversial law would just be ignored, and I think that is not 
exactly adhering to our sworn duties.
  So my colleagues are making us face up to a tough question. It is on 
the books it is the law. As much as I do not like the law and as much 
as I would like it repealed, it is not repealed. They will not let it 
be repealed. So let us enforce the law and hope for the best.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of our policy committee.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me the time.
  I rise in opposition to the resolution offered by my good friend and 
colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), but not because 
I lack any respect for his legal acumen for the policies, which are 
very serious, that he raises or for his punctilious avoidance of the 
question of President Clinton's Bosnia policy. The resolution itself 
makes it very clear that is not what this is about.
  Section 1(c) says, ``The requirement to remove United States armed 
forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not necessarily 
reflect any disagreement with the purposes or accomplishments of such 
armed forces.'' What is under discussion here is not whether troops 
should be in Bosnia, according to the resolution itself, but rather the 
War Powers Resolution.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the words spoken by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, just a 
moment ago that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. I too 
have been on the floor trying to repeal it for some years. I too have 
opposed it through the tenure of both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents. And of course, as we all know, the War Powers Resolution 
has been every day since it was first passed declared unconstitutional 
by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon.
  The War Powers Resolution, paradoxically, weakens both the Congress 
and the executive branch. Here is how it weakens Congress. Under 
article I, section 8, clauses 1, 11, and 14, Congress has the power 
``to provide for the common defense, to declare war,'' and to ``make 
rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.''
  The appropriations clause, article I, section 9, clause 7, grants the 
Congress the power of the purse, which we could use here very 
effectively if we wish to oppose the President's Bosnia policy. That 
power obviously extends to the fields of foreign affairs and defense. 
So too does Article I, section 8, clause 12, which explicitly empowers 
Congress ``to raise and support armies.''
  As Justice Jackson stated in the Steel Seizure case, ``The President 
has no monopoly of `war powers,' whatever they are.'' But the War 
Powers Resolution, with its 60-day grace period, purports to give the 
President carte blanche to make war for a full 2 months without 
congressional authorization. That subverts the Constitution.

                              {time}  1315

  Here is how the War Powers Resolution weakens the President: The 
vesting clause, Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, 
unambiguously grants the President the totality of, quote, the 
executive power. Section 2 provides that, quote, the President shall be 
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. For centuries, American 
Presidents have relied on these grants of authority to use our Armed 
Forces in a host of contexts without prior congressional action, such 
as responding to attacks on or threats to American forces, citizens or 
property; or when secrecy or surprise are essential; or when the 
urgency and immediacy of a military response leaves no opportunity for 
congressional action.
  But the War Powers Resolution purports to shrink these historic, 
inherent Presidential powers to just one circumstance, a direct attack 
on the United States, or our forces. This is a distortion of our 
Constitution. It ignores the entire course of our constitutional 
history. If it were correct, then Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, 
Grant, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower are all law-breakers.
  No American President of either party, including President Clinton, 
has ever recognized this perversion of our constitutional order. None 
has even pretended to follow its terms.
  The resolution offered today offends the Constitution not merely in 
the ways I have just outlined, but in an entirely novel manner, by 
linking the forced withdrawal of U.S. forces to a decision on its own 
constitutionality by a Federal court. Federal judges and Federal courts 
ought not to be in charge of troop deployment decisions.

[[Page H1270]]

  In addition to violating Article I governing Congress and Article II 
governing the President, this resolution violates Article III governing 
the judiciary as well, because as the Supreme Court established over 
two centuries ago in Hayburn's Case, under our Constitution Congress 
may not impose on a Federal court duties that are repugnant to the 
judicial function.
  For these reasons, while I wish to compliment the gentleman from 
California, I urge a vote against this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Mr. Campbell's resolution on 
Bosnia, which comes to the Floor pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
  Many of us have long been troubled by the substance of the 
President's unfocused, hand-to-mouth policy in Bosnia. The deployment 
occurred in the absence of a national consensus or even a broad 
national debate, because of an abject failure of presidential 
leadership. President Clinton failed to consult Congress or the 
American people prior to ordering the deployment, and thereby failed to 
build the requisite public support before sending 20,000 American 
soldiers in harm's way. That is why in October 1995 strongly supported 
H. Res. 247, which called on the President to obtain congressional 
authorization before deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia--a process that 
would necessarily have resulted in the sort of broad national 
discussion that should precede such operations. Such a debate would 
also have required the President to articulate the mission he was 
ordering our troops to undertake--something he has yet to do. And it 
might well have avoided the ignominious process whereby the President 
twice broke commitments to the American people concerning the length of 
the deployment. As it is, the President's open-ended commitment of 
forces in Bosnia is undermining U.S. military readiness around the 
world in the present, and diverting resources needed to protect U.S. 
security in the future. In my view, the President's Bosnia policy is an 
abject failure, and the way in which he arrived at it is a case study 
in how not to conduct foreign affairs.
  But the merits of the President's Bosnia policy is not the subject of 
this Resolution, as the Resolution itself makes clear. Section 1(c) 
states categorically that ``[t]he requirement to remove United States 
Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina * * * does not 
necessarily reflect any disagreement with the purposes or 
accomplishments of such Armed Forces; nor does it constitute any 
judgment of how the Congress would vote, if given the opportunity to do 
so, on either a declaration of war or a specific authorization for the 
use of such Armed Forces.'' And the dissenting views added by the 
Resolution's sponsor to the International Relations Committee's 
unfavorable report explain that ``[t]he style of section 5(c) [the part 
of the War Powers Resolution pursuant to which this Resolution is 
offered] requires that the concurrent resolution call for the removal 
of troops. If it did not do that, it couldn't be called a 5(c) 
concurrent resolution. However, [the Resolution] is otherwise entirely 
neutral on whether the policy of the United States should be to have 
armed forces in Bosnia under the present circumstances or not.'' 
Whatever else the vote is today, it is not a vote on the President's 
Bosnia's policy.
  In addition to my concerns about the substance of the President's 
policy, I share the concerns felt by many of my colleagues about the 
constitutional implications of the President's repeated decisions to 
commit U.S. forces to areas of conflict without the assent of 
Congress--not just in Bosnia, but in Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia. I 
believe that this constitutional concern is at the core of my 
colleague's Resolution, and I should add that I greatly respect his 
legal acumen.
  But the War Powers Resolution, under which this Resolution is 
offered, is not the way to address any of these policy and 
constitutional issues. It is itself a symptom of the current confusion 
over the constitutional roles of the President and Congress in the 
field of foreign affairs. And it is worse than useless as a tool for 
addressing either flawed policy or usurpation of constitutional 
responsibility.
  The War Powers Resolution is now, and has been every day since the 
moment it passed, unconstitutional. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, 
Carter, Ford, and Nixon have all opposed the Resolution. It 
paradoxically weakens both the President and the Congress. In time of 
crisis it increases the risk of war. And it offends two centuries of 
constitutional history.
  Here is how it weakens the Congress: Article I, section 8, clauses 1, 
11, and 14 of the Constitution give to Congress the power to ``provide 
for the common defense,'' to ``declare war,'' and to ``make Rules for 
the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.'' And the 
Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, grants Congress 
the power of the purse--a power that extends to the fields of foreign 
affairs and defense. So too does Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, which 
explicitly empowers Congress to ``raise and support Armies.'' As 
Justice Jackson stated in the Steel Seizure Case, ``[The President] has 
no monopoly of `war powers,' whatever they are. While Congress cannot 
deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only 
Congress can provide him an army and navy to command.''

  But the War Powers Resolution, with its 60-day grace period, purports 
to give the President ``carte blanche'' to make war for a full two 
months without congressional authorization--a statutory easement across 
the Constitution.
  Here is how it weakens the President: the Vesting Clause--Article II, 
section 1 of the Constitution--unambiguously grants the President the 
totality of ``the executive power.'' Section 2 provides that ``The 
President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. * * *'' For 
centuries, American Presidents have relied on these grants of authority 
to use our armed forces in a host of contexts, without prior 
congressional action: such as responding to attacks on, or threats to, 
American forces, citizens, or property; or when secrecy or surprise are 
essential; or where the necessity for immediate military response left 
no opportunity for congressional action. But the War Powers Resolution 
purports to shrink these historic, inherent presidential powers to just 
one circumstance--a direct attack on the United States, or our forces.
  This is a distortion of our Constitution. It ignores the entire 
course of our constitutional history. If it were correct, then 
Presidents Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and 
Eisenhower were all lawbreakers. No American President of either party, 
including President Clinton, has ever recognized this perversion of our 
constitutional order; none has even pretended to follow its terms.
  The War Powers Resolution claims to force an end to hostilities in 60 
days, unless Congress has affirmatively acted. This unwise and 
inflexible rule has emboldened our enemies abroad to doubt our resolve. 
It has tempted them to think that America's staying power in any 
conflict was limited to 60 days. It is ironic that a measure, designed 
to minimize the use of force, vastly magnified the risks of war.
  And the War Powers Resolution illegitimately pretends to allow 
Congress by simple concurrent resolution to compel the President to 
break off military action. That is a flatly unconstitutional 
legislative veto, as the Supreme Court made clear a decade and a half 
ago in Chadha v. INS.
  This resolution offered by Mr. Campbell is just such a concurrent 
resolution pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. Whatever one might 
think of the continued deployment of American troops in Bosnia, Mr. 
Campbell's concurrent resolution represents just such an 
unconstitutional legislative veto. Indeed, it offends the Constitution 
not merely in the ways I have described above, but in an entirely novel 
manner--by linking the forced withdrawal of U.S. forces to a decision 
on its own constitutionality by a federal court. Thus, in addition to 
violating Article I, governing Congress, and Article II, governing the 
President, this Resolution violates Article III, governing the 
judiciary, as well. As the Supreme Court established over two centuries 
ago in Hayburn's Case, under our Constitution Congress may not impose 
on a federal court duties that are repugnant to the judicial function. 
I believe it would be difficult to imagine a duty more repugnant to the 
judicial function than the exercise of Congress' war powers and the 
President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to determine when and if 
American troops are withdrawn from what the proponents of this 
Resolution insist is a theatre of war.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members may be tempted to support 
Mr. Campbell's Resolution today precisely because they agree with me 
that both the War Powers Resolution and this Resolution are 
unconstitutional, in the hope that we can use this legislation to gain 
a definitive judicial decision that the War Powers Resolution is 
unconstitutional. That hope is unavailing.
  No federal court either would or should entertain such a lawsuit. 
Judge Bork and Justice Scalia have long maintained that Members of 
Congress have no independent standing in court to challenge 
enfringements of our prerogatives. And just last year the Supreme Court 
agreed with them when it refused to hear a congressional challenge to 
the line-item-veto statute. Moreover, a dispute between the political 
branches over war and foreign affairs powers is the quintessence of a 
non-justiciable political question. The War Powers Resolution already 
distorts the constitutional authority of both Congress and the 
President. I would be sorry to see it become the vehicle for the 
judiciary, as well, to usurp non-judicial functions.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I wish to reiterate my respect for the great 
legal ability of my distinguished colleague from California, and for 
the extraordinarily serious legal and policy concerns that animate his 
Resolution. Since I

[[Page H1271]]

share his concerns, I wish I could support his Resolution. But the 
Framers of the Constitution ordained a very different process when 
Congress seeks to correct errors of policy and vindicate its 
constitutional prerogatives.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep respect to the 
gentleman from California for bringing this before the House.
  I agree with him that we ought to face up to our constitutional 
responsibilities, and that would incline me to support him. I agree 
with him that we need to challenge the constitutionality one way or 
another of the War Powers Resolution. That would incline me to support 
him.
  However, believing that the War Powers Resolution is a constitutional 
abomination, I hate to invoke it in order to challenge it, and that 
leads me to oppose him.
  If it were valid, I believe that his resolution is misplaced in 
relying on section (4)(a)(1); that the facts that we have before us are 
much more a (4)(a)(2) set of facts, that is, deployment with combat 
equipment, and that does not permit his resolution under 5(c), and that 
leads me to oppose him.
  Finally, I believe the administration's policy is a good policy with 
worthy purposes that is making a positive difference, and that also 
leads me to oppose him.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the debate 
here today. The debate has been on constitutional principles. It has 
been enlightening for me as a freshman Member. But I rise in support of 
this resolution. I rise in support of this resolution because I am 
persuaded by the argument that we should remove this law from the books 
if we are not going to enforce it. I also believe that if we remove 
this law from the books, we need to find other ways to assert the 
responsibility of the Congress in making these decisions.
  The decisions like the decision we are talking about today is, of 
course, I believe, a decision not about policy, but a decision about 
principle and a decision about the congressional involvement in that 
principle. Beyond that, even the facts of this case do not relate to 
imminent threat to Americans, to immediate decisions that have to be 
made by the President. The Cold War is over. The allocation of 
responsibility, the abdication of responsibility to the President that 
may have been well understood during the 50 years of the Cold War no 
longer serve that purpose. This is clearly not a decision created by 
approaching the nuclear precipice. This is not a decision that one 
person has to make in the middle of the night. This is not a decision 
that needs to be made without the Congress taking part of the 
responsibility.
  We probably should give some credit to the President for being 
willing to shoulder the entire responsibility if we abdicate our 
responsibility, but we should stand up for the responsibility that we 
have been sworn to uphold, the responsibility to be involved in a 
decision to commit American troops in harm's way.
  I urge that we vote for this resolution. The debate on the policy 
clearly comes later. We can argue many things about that policy. Very 
few Members of this Congress want to withdraw funding from American 
troops. We have to deal with the policy, not with the appropriation. I 
urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This is not a 
true vote on the merits of the War Powers Act, nor is it a product of 
thoughtful and open debate about U.S. policy in Bosnia. It gambles with 
the effectiveness of the NATO mission and with the safety of our troops 
under the guise of testing the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.
  If passed, this bill would signal a weakened congressional resolve to 
support U.S. forces as they work to maintain the fragile Bosnian peace. 
We all know this is a sensitive time in the Balkans, and we know that 
SFOR is a linchpin of stability in a region where ethnic tensions are 
running high. Families torn apart by the Bosnian war are just beginning 
the delicate task of resuming their lives and attempting to return to 
their old homes. Meanwhile, tensions continue to mount between the 
Serbian Government and ethnic Albanians in nearby Kosovo. Now more than 
ever the United States must signal its strong partnership in NATO's 
existing presence in the Balkans.
  This bill would undermine SFOR's stabilizing effect on the Balkan 
region with a message that Congress does not support this mission 
despite SFOR's very real peaceful impact. At this extremely tenuous 
time, the bill would turn foreign policy over to the courts, which 
would be charged with determining the constitutionality of the 
resolution. In the interim, the future of Bosnia and of our forces in 
SFOR would hang in the balance. This is not the way to debate the War 
Powers Act.
  The committee with jurisdiction over this issue and the expertise to 
assess its impact has recommended that this resolution not pass. Let us 
act responsibly for our brave men and women in Bosnia. Let us complete 
our mission. Let us defeat this resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it all comes down to this. Those people 
who are supporting the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) believe that the President of the United States should not be 
able to send our troops all over the world in open-ended commitments 
unless Congress has some vote on it. The people who are opposing the 
Campbell amendment have the opposite opinion.
  Let us note that this conflict that we are talking about today was a 
long time in coming. For years, many of us in this body shouted to the 
heavens to try to end what was an immoral arms embargo which prevented 
the victims of aggression in the Balkans from defending themselves. 
Those people who maintained this embargo which left the aggressors with 
all the weapons, those are the same people who now say and told us and 
came to us, ``We have to send U.S. troops.''
  They got what they wanted. What they wanted was not victims being 
able to defend themselves, helped by the United States to defend 
themselves, but instead American troops committed on the ground in what 
is an endless commitment and an endless drain on our resources.
  American troops, committed to the Balkans, sets a precedent. That 
means they can be sent everywhere in order to solve all the problems in 
all the trouble spots, that our troops are now subservient to 
international interests rather than to national interests. That is what 
we are seeing, an evolution in the policy.
  I think that policy is wrong. The United States of America, and we as 
Americans, should be proud to stand up for what is in our interest, and 
we will lead the world to a better way by supporting those people in 
the Balkans and elsewhere to enable them to defend themselves, not to 
send our troops over to be cannon fodder, not to substitute American 
lives for the lives of local people, local victims who are opposing 
aggression. Yes, we oppose that aggression, but that does not mean we 
have to send our boys all over the world to give their lives or to put 
their lives on the line.
  Our country faces a future where our troops may well be deployed, 
because the Cold War is over now, all over the world. The Campbell 
resolution says, let us take another look at that. If a President is 
going to do that, he has to come to Congress. There has to be a check 
in the system. That should be, and that is a logical check.
  Yes, the War Powers Act requires us to do something within 60 days or 
bring the troops out. That makes sense to me. I am not opposed to the 
War Powers Act. During the Cold War, there was some question about it, 
but even then, 60 days, we have already had our troops in Bosnia for 
going on 2\1/2\ years. We were told that they were going to be out of 
there in 1 year. It has been going on 2\1/2\ years. We have spent $8 
billion. Where is that money coming from? It is coming out of the 
readiness of our troops, it is coming out of our ability to defend 
ourselves, out of our ability to function throughout the rest

[[Page H1272]]

of the world, putting our troops in danger at the same time, and for 
what?
  I sit on the Committee on International Relations. We asked the 
leaders, the people who are overseeing this operation, ``When can we 
pull our troops out?'' What was the answer? The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) heard it as well as I did. ``We don't know when we're 
going to be able to pull these troops out. We don't know.'' It could go 
on for 5 years. It could go on for 10 years. We could hear these same 
arguments 10 years from now after spending $20 billion or $30 billion. 
This is not in the interest of the people of the United States of 
America.
  Yes, it is in our interest to support those who are struggling for 
peace and freedom and liberty in other parts of the world, but we do so 
by enabling them, empowering them to do it for themselves, not to send 
our troops everywhere in the world. There are other trouble spots. We 
have heard today, our troops have done a magnificent job in stopping 
the rape, the murder, the mayhem. That is happening all over Africa, in 
vast stretches of Asia. Does everywhere when these atrocities are being 
committed mean American troops must go there? Absolutely not. When we 
do, we send a message to the people of the world: ``Count on Uncle 
Sammy. Count on the United States. Don't do it yourself.'' To Europe: 
``Don't spend your own money. The Americans are going to be willing to 
do it.'' I say we stand up for our national interests and not expend 
our Treasury. Vote for the Campbell resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
this resolution.
  I had an opportunity back on December 21 to visit Bosnia with the 
President. I, like the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), was 
very skeptical when I went. But after being there for a very short 
period of time and after we landed, to see thousands and thousands of 
Bosnians standing up with signs, having stood up all night in the cold, 
saying, thank you for giving us our lives for Christmas, thank you for 
saving our lives, thank you for giving us an opportunity to live, it 
made me look at this from a whole different perspective.
  I do not question the intentions of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell). I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. But I 
question whether the timing of the resolution, if this is the right 
timing. When I talked to those young people just as the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) did, over and over again I heard them say that 
we are so proud that we are here and we are doing something to make a 
difference. Eight thousand people, saving a country from a holocaust, 
and that was very, very significant to me. When we met with the various 
leaders of Bosnia, they, too, expressed the same appreciation.
  My question merely goes to the whole timing of this. I do not want to 
say to those young people at this point, send any kind of signal that 
we are not 100 percent behind them. But the thing that touched me 
probably more than anything else was when I asked a young man from 
Alabama, a young soldier, ``Why is it so important that you are here?''

                              {time}  1330

  He pulled out a little piece of paper, and he scribbled Reverend 
Martin Niemollar's words, and it said, ``When Hitler attacked the Jews, 
I was not a Jew; therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler 
attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic; and, therefore, I was not 
concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and industrialists, I 
was not a member of the unions; and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler 
attacked me and the Protestant Church; and there was nobody left to be 
concerned.''
  I urge all Members of the House to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come to a crossroads in American history. We 
have reached a point in our history where we have an opportunity this 
afternoon to carefully clarify the constitutional powers and the 
separate roles of the executive branch and the legislative branch as it 
regards the formation of our Nation's foreign policy, especially as it 
concerns the deployment of the United States military internationally.
  I commend the efforts of my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) 
for bringing this resolution forward to begin the debate on the proper 
use of military force by the President of this Nation.
  Like others in this body, I have grown steadily uncomfortable with 
the blatant disregard the executive branch has displayed for the 
Congress in creating foreign policy in general and with the use of 
military force specifically.
  The case of the U.S. deployment of forces in Bosnia perfectly 
illustrates the disregard the administration has shown for Congress.
  The powers of Congress were eroded by the executive branch with a 
decade-long struggle against the evils of communism. I also agree that, 
to achieve victory in the Cold War, it was necessary for these 
Presidents to have a more commanding role in foreign affairs.
  However, Mr. Speaker, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 
collapse of the Eastern Bloc, we have the ability to redefine what the 
framers of our Constitution truly had in mind regarding the powers of 
Congress. The Founders believed that it was a proper role of Congress 
to prevent the President from entangling our Nation endlessly in 
foreign situations. The Founders gave us that ability by giving 
Congress the power to declare war. The role of Congress regarding troop 
deployment was further enhanced by the adoption of the War Powers Act.
  The power of Congress has been harmed by this administration's 
current policy regarding the U.S. deployment in Bosnia. The President 
committed U.S. troops to Bosnia in December of 1995 as part of the NATO 
peacekeeping force to enforce the Dayton Peace Accord. At that moment, 
the President stated, ``The mission will be precisely defined with 
clear, realistic goals that can be achieved in a definite period of 
time. This mission should take about 1 year.''
  Well, even before a year had expired, the President announced that he 
would be extending the U.S. commitment for another 18 months, again 
without the authorization or approval by Congress. The President 
conveniently notified the American public of this after the 
Presidential election in 1996.
  Congress created last year a deadline of June 30, 1998, to end our 
deployment in Bosnia unless U.S. presence in the region was in our 
national security interests. Again, the President has extended our 
commitment without once again seeking congressional approval or 
authorization and without even defining at this point how Bosnia 
affects U.S. national security interests. The United States military is 
not the private army of the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H. Con. Res. 
227 to put congressional oversight on the use of military deployments 
in its proper and constitutional context.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, though called a resolution, this is a sign 
of irresolution. We have 7,000 to 8,000 troops stationed around Tuzla 
and Brcko. I visited them last month, and let me tell my colleagues, 
the work is not easy, and the living is not either. But in the best 
tradition of our GIs, they are doing their duty. Go there and my 
colleagues will see that progress has been made. It can be seen; it can 
be measured.
  This is not the time to tell our troops that we doubt their mission, 
to tell our allies that we are rethinking our role, or to tell our 
adversaries to lay back and wait because we may be leaving sooner than 
they thought.
  Even as the strategy for testing the constitutionality of the War 
Powers Resolution, this is the wrong move for us to make. If the court 
were to hold the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional, we would be 
left empty-handed, deprived of the one useful tool we have to require 
the President to include us when he gets ready to send our troops into 
a foreign zone. If we were to repeal

[[Page H1273]]

it or let the courts nullify it, we would have nothing to put in its 
place.
  If my colleagues want to do something about it, if we disagree with 
it, come up with a better bill. Let us pass the process and take it to 
the President with the War Powers Resolution still in force, and those 
circumstances will stand a far better chance of changing the law and 
keeping an institutional arrangement where we have a rightful role in 
deciding when and whether our troops are sent into harm's way.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) and all of the people who are debating here today. This, 
in my opinion, is perhaps the most important debate we have had so far 
this year. I want to congratulate all of the participants on both sides 
of this issue.
  This is a tough vote. This is an important vote. It is particularly 
tough for me because, just a few weeks ago, I was in Bosnia; and like 
our colleague from Mississippi, I went there with a bad attitude. I 
happened to believe that the mission in Bosnia was just a big waste and 
that we were spending all of this money and at the end of the mission 
we would be no better off than we were when we started.
  But I must say that my attitude was changed, and when I saw what was 
happening over there, when I began to learn about the situation in 
Bosnia, I came to the conclusion that, frankly, we need to have our 
troops in Bosnia, that if it were not for the Americans, the truth of 
the matter is things would begin to collapse. It is only the Americans 
that can bring order out of the chaos over there.
  Frankly, we have a situation where the Germans do not trust the 
French; the French do not trust the English. It is almost as if Europe 
were some form of dysfunctional family with 16 different nations 
speaking 12 different languages, and the only Nation that they all 
trust is the United States. So it is important that the United States 
have a presence and provide the leadership in Bosnia.
  However, that is not the debate we are having here today. The debate 
here today is whether or not Congress should have something to say 
about long-term deployments of American troops, whether it be in Bosnia 
or in Africa, Mogadishu, you name the place. Since we have adopted this 
policy of Congress sort of abdicating its constitutional 
responsibility, the experts tell us we have had something like 20 
different deployments in just the last 6 years. I think we all know 
that that is wrong.
  It is interesting. I find myself listening to the debates and some of 
the great arguments here today, but I think I agree perhaps more with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) than anybody else. If we 
have an up-or-down vote on whether or not we should maintain an 
American presence in Bosnia, I will vote for it. I now believe that it 
is important that we have a presence there.
  These are the tectonic plates of Europe. This is where Asia, Europe 
and the Middle East come together; and it is where World War I began. 
Perhaps that is not going to happen again, but it seems to me it is 
worth a small investment of American resources and troops to make 
certain that we maintain that peace, but the Congress should have 
something to say about it.
  So I congratulate my friend from California (Mr. Campbell) for 
bringing this resolution forward. I am going to vote for it, even 
though I believe that we need to keep our troops there at least through 
September, and perhaps even longer.
  But the President ought to have to come back to the Congress and he 
ought to have to go to the American people and explain why it is 
important that America provide that leadership in Europe and elsewhere 
around the world and get the approval of Congress before we make these 
long-term and expensive commitments.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a choice here today; and the choice is whether 
we are going to denigrate the Congress to a debating society to deal 
with some theoretical issues about the power structure between the 
executive and the legislative or are we going to deal with the real 
lives of people on the ground who have suffered, I believe, long 
enough.
  If the Congress is serious about exercising its war powers, then it 
ought to move to bring the troops out of there immediately, and the 20 
other countries where American troops are today preventing death and 
destruction, preventing the kind of carnage we saw for all too long 
without any worldwide action in Bosnia.
  My parents are survivors of the Holocaust, and one of the things that 
I think troubled me more than anything else were all of the great 
conferences that went on debating the niceties of international 
diplomacy.
  In a sense, if this Congress wanted to take an action against Bosnia, 
against our presence there that has ended the death of children and 
women on a daily basis, then we should have voted to pull the troops 
out.
  In some ways, this resolution does more damage than simply getting 
out of there, because what happens now is, there are folks, obviously, 
in the former Yugoslavian Republic that do not want to see progress 
made. Well, this tells them, if we wait long enough, maybe we will get 
the Americans out. Maybe our own parliamentary niceties will prevent us 
from continuing to lead the world.
  God, I wish that we could depend on the Europeans to do it on their 
own. I wish that Europe was responsible enough here in dealing with 
terrorism or any other major international issue. The sad fact of the 
matter is, if the United States does not step forward, none of those 
countries step forward.
  As was stated several times on the floor, in this Balkan area, two 
world wars broke out. We would have thought that the British, the 
French, the English, the Germans and others would have stepped forward 
before the killing went wild. They did not until we acted. And if we 
pass this bill today, we will pay the price, and we will have the 
burden of the deaths to come.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said by several Members of trips that 
they have made to Bosnia. I, too, have made several trips there. In 
fact, I made two just this last December, two trips within 8 days.
  I was totally surprised by the attitude of our soldiers upon my first 
arrival in Bosnia, about how positive they were about what they were 
doing and why they are there. I was totally set back, I was not 
expecting this, and I thought to myself, why do they feel this way?
  I thought back to 1995 when we were in there, in December of 1995, 
prior to any of the soldiers being deployed, and all of this 
destruction that was very visible. I knew by that destruction that 
there had to be some terrible war that had taken place there just in 
recent times, just recent months. But then, when I was there in 
December of 1997, there were people in the streets, guns were silent. I 
knew peace had arrived, and it was due to the United States soldiers 
and the other peacekeeping forces who were there.
  During lunch I asked several of the soldiers, if they had an 
opportunity to tell the President of the United States one thing about 
Bosnia, what would they say? They listed three things. They told me of 
three things.
  First, they recommended that the President look at the deployment, 
the length of the deployment, the time that the soldiers are being 
deployed there, the frequency of deployment. Some 52 percent of active 
duty component soldiers in Bosnia at that time were there on their 
second mission, and this was just 2 years into the mission.
  Then they said, define the mission, tell us what our goals are, what 
we are trying to accomplish. We cannot be policemen of the world 
forever.
  Mr. Speaker, now to the resolution that is before us. I am going to 
vote to support this resolution, not that I would require or vote to 
withdraw soldiers from Bosnia. Because they themselves told me the 
story of why they are there and how proud they are of what they are 
doing. But to reinforce their requests: Define the mission.
  I think it is well stated in the letter from the American Legion that 
this

[[Page H1274]]

will encourage the administration to define the mission, establish 
goals of this mission, establish benchmarks for this mission, what we 
are attempting to accomplish, what time frame we should be there to 
help accomplish these benchmarks, and how are we going to help the 
Bosnian people establish a new republic, a true democracy that includes 
all three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and, 
most of all importance, the judicial that is lacking in Bosnia and 
other nations that we have peacekeeping forces in.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago Bosnia was torn by civil war, 
and we all witnessed, tragically, death, rape, hunger, fear, despair, 
regularly reading it in our newspapers, seeing it on television 
screens. These were the tragic realities of daily life before we joined 
our allies to stop this carnage.
  Three years later the people of Bosnia are rebuilding their lives, 
children are going to school again, communities are beginning to heal. 
Tears of sadness are giving way to hope. It has been a remarkable 
transformation, and much of the credit is due to the peacemakers, to 
the people who brought peace, and to the soldiers, many of them our 
soldiers, who made this possible.
  Their courage and their sacrifice and their commitment to peace and 
democracy are making a critical difference in the daily lives of 
millions of people, and they know it, and we know it. Most importantly, 
the people of Bosnia know it. But their work, Mr. Speaker, is not over. 
The roots of peace are just beginning to take hold. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the Campbell resolution to withdraw our troops 
from Bosnia.
  At its core, this resolution is a sneak attack on a peace policy that 
is working, a sneak attack on a peace policy that this Congress 
supports. Instead of pushing for a straightforward debate about our 
role in Bosnia, the Campbell resolution would effectively send 
decisions of war and peace to the courts, where it does not belong.
  This resolution also tells our troops in Bosnia that their courage 
and sacrifice really does not mean as much as we said it meant, and 
that their work has really not been as successful as we see it is. This 
resolution tells the rest of the world that the United States is not 
really committed to international leadership, even in the cause of 
peace. This resolution tells the warmakers who circle like hungry 
jackals that if they only wait a little longer, they can ravage the 
innocent one more time.
  We see them at work in Kosovo. They have not changed. They are there. 
They are waiting. Now is not the time to abandon the path to peace. Now 
is not the time to call our troops home. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding time to me, and I thank as well the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States is performing a noble mission in 
Bosnia. We are using our military strength to build bridges for peace, 
for tolerance, for understanding, for respect among peoples. The 
Balkans has a long history of bloodshed, of ethnic division. We are 
changing that. We are changing the course of world history. We are 
doing it in a noble and heroic manner. We are giving every military 
personnel over there reason to be proud that they represent this 
country and its principles.
  We do have a role there. We have a responsibility there, largely 
because we are looked to as not only the most powerful country 
economically, politically, militarily, but also the most principled 
country. We care about other people, about human rights. That's why the 
peace-loving people of the Balkans have turned to us to save them from 
unprincipled leaders and from what seemed to be an inevitable history 
of ethnic conflict. And that is why we must respond as we have.
  I agree that this is a very important issue to debate. But if we were 
to look back on some of the arguments that have been raised, that this 
is not our affair, that we ought not to be involved, many of them sound 
eerily similar to the arguments that were raised before we got into 
World War II. We got in because we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. We 
should have gotten in earlier. We could have and should have saved 
millions of people from the genocide that occurred there.
  Now we are not involved in a war. What we are involved in is 
peacekeeping, but it is preventing genocide. It is trying to unite 
people against fascism and destructive nationalism. It is doing the 
right thing. We should be proud of this, not trying to undermine the 
President, not trying to undermine a foreign policy that makes sense 
and that saves lives. The courage that we show today will make us the 
leaders of tomorrow. As we move into the 21st century, our guiding 
principles of tolerance and mutual respect among all peoples that will 
guide the world to a brighter century of inclusiveness, of democracy, 
of free enterprise of human nobility.
  That is what we stand for in Bosnia. That is why we need to maintain 
our policy in Bosnia. That is why we must vote to defeat this 
resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time 
remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hamilton).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) is 
recognized for 6\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, 
House Resolution 227. I do so with great respect for my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  He is right about a good many things here. He is certainly right when 
he wants the Congress to act to authorize troops. He is certainly right 
when he wants the Congress to play an important role whenever we put 
troops into dangerous places. He is certainly right when he argues that 
there has been, over a period of time, an erosion of congressional 
power ceded to the President on the very difficult warmaking issues. So 
it is with some reluctance that I will vote against his resolution, but 
I do so, really, for two reasons. One is a reason of policy, and 
second, a reason of process.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) directs the President to remove troops 60 days after a final 
judgment by a court. Regardless of the legal arguments, and I must say, 
I have been impressed with the manner in which my colleagues have 
argued the legal arguments this afternoon. I think on both sides they 
have done it very, very well, indeed.
  But regardless of the legal consequences, this resolution, as a 
practical matter, is going to be seen as a vote with respect to policy, 
whether or not the troops should come home. Now I know that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) objects to that, and he cites 
that ``unless'' clause in his resolution, but I really do not think 
that it is correct to think that the Congress will at one moment direct 
the removal of troops and then turn right around and authorize those 
troops.
  I think this resolution directs the President of the United States to 
remove U.S. forces from Bosnia. I think that would be a huge mistake. 
But more important than what I think about it, I think it is worthwhile 
to hear the words of our military commanders.
  General Wesley Clark, of course, is the NATO commander. He was asked 
on Capitol Hill, I think today, what happens if the Campbell resolution 
passes? Let me quote from him directly: ``If we were to come out of the 
Bosnia mission now, for whatever reason, it would lead to a disastrous 
loss of U.S. influence and credibility across the board.''
  Let me quote him again: ``We would undercut all our efforts in 
Bosnia.'' He is not arguing a legal point here, he is simply saying if 
the resolution passes.

[[Page H1275]]

  Then he says this: ``Right now our troop morale in Bosnia is high. 
The troops would be devastated by such a vote.''
  Now, we can talk all we want in this Chamber about supporting the 
troops, and I know those remarks are all very well-intentioned. But let 
us pay some attention to our top commander in the field. The impact of 
an aye vote for the Campbell resolution, according to the commander of 
our troops, is that it would devastate the troops. I do not think any 
Member wants to do that.
  Likewise, General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I quote him: 
``Pulling U.S. forces out of Bosnia would cripple the mission at a 
critical time when we are achieving success in that troubled country. A 
U.S. withdrawal would send the wrong signals to our NATO allies, and 
the wrong signals to those who wish our efforts ill. Beyond that, U.S. 
leadership within the alliance with suffer a severe blow.''
  So there is not any doubt, I think, from the top commanders how they 
feel about this resolution. That feeling is shared by the Secretary of 
State and the Secretary of Defense, who have written to us on behalf of 
the administration strongly opposing this resolution.
  This resolution, as others have argued, would hurt the peace process. 
It risks the resumption of war. It sends exactly the wrong signal at 
exactly the wrong time, both to our allies and to the parties opposed 
to peace in Bosnia. It risks the impressive accomplishments which have 
been cited here: An end to the fighting, the demobilization of all 
sides, the elections that have occurred, the restructuring and 
retraining of police, and the progress in arresting war criminals. We 
have had a lot of progress as a policy matter in Bosnia. To pull the 
troops out or to signal that the troops would be coming out at this 
time is exactly the wrong thing, I think, to do.
  The second argument that I would make is a process argument. This 
resolution hands over United States foreign policy to the courts. This 
resolution gives a Federal judge the power to decide whether to 
withdraw U.S. troops in Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, without any consultation with the Commander in Chief, 
without any consultation to the Congress, a Federal judge could simply 
order the removal of these troops. It creates tremendous uncertainty. 
It is impossible to know when a troop withdrawal would be required, 
because we do not know if, we do not know when, we do not know how the 
courts would rule on the resolution. A judgment could come in a matter 
of days, weeks, or it could be stretched out over a period of months or 
even years because of the appeal process, and all of the time a sword 
of Damocles would hang over the U.S. troop presence in Bosnia. That is 
not the way a great power conducts its foreign policy.
  The Campbell resolution invites the court to make the great decisions 
on American foreign policy. It is not the way to conduct American 
foreign policy, and there is an alternative way of doing it, which my 
colleagues have described, through authorizations, through limitations 
on funding, through a direct attack on the War Powers Resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the resolution.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, how sad it is that we have let the power that the 
Framers of the Constitution gave to us slip through our hands. How sad 
it is that ever since the Second World War the Congress has allowed 
Presidents to go to war and just follow. This way we have political 
freedom to criticize if the war goes poorly, and take credit if the war 
goes well, but we have not fulfilled our constitutional obligation. How 
sad it is that today on the floor I have heard colleagues suggest that 
we should continue in that regrettable disregard of our constitutional 
obligation.
  It is no surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that the President and those 
who report to him do not like this resolution. With all due respect for 
my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton), for whom I have the highest respect, it is those whom he was 
quoting.
  How about those who have served, who now comprise the American 
Legion, who have served overseas, who have fought under this flag, who 
today ask us to support this resolution. And why? Because they believe 
it is the constitutional right of every soldier, airman, airwoman, 
marine and sailor, to have the approval of Congress before their lives 
are put into jeopardy.
  The American Legion says they believe the administration must now 
decide on the extent of the future mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and 
explain to the American people and Congress how many forces will be 
needed and what their security missions will be, and for how long they 
will be deployed.
  What does the resolution say? The resolution says that the President 
has to give this issue to Congress. If the Congress approves, then our 
troops continue with no change at all. Of all the arguments made on the 
floor today, Mr. Speaker, the most specious is that this resolution 
suddenly pulls the plug on our troops. It does not.

                              {time}  1400

  If the President is capable of convincing 50 percent of the House and 
50 percent of the Senate, we should stay in Bosnia. And if he cannot, 
then he should not be able to send troops overseas--because it is our 
responsibility to give him that authority.
  What about this argument that we are putting the matter in the hands 
of the court? This is also a specious argument. What the resolution 
does is require the President to withdraw troops unless he has obtained 
the approval of the Congress. If he does, then those troops stay. 
Rather than put in a specific date, (because I was advised by Members 
of the leadership on both sides of the aisle that a date was something 
with which there would be difficulty), I said, look, this will be 
litigated anyway, so the date should be set 60 days after a court has 
finally ruled on the constitutionality of what we do here.
  This is not giving the policy judgment to the courts. No court will 
decide whether we should be in Bosnia or not. We decide whether we 
should put troops in force overseas. By the grace of God and by the 
words of our Constitution, we decide. It is not given to the courts. If 
this is an unconstitutional resolution, then I withdraw, of course. And 
because of that, this resolution will have no effect until a court has 
ruled that what we do today is constitutional. No court will rule 
whether it is advisable. That is an empty argument and a wrong 
argument.
  Many have argued, today that this is a good policy that we are 
following. It may well be. But I refer them to the profound truth that 
it is a policy that we should decide before we put troops in, and that 
that has not changed by the President having ignored that obligation 
for better than 2 years.
  Professor John Hart Ely is an expert in this field. He has written 
extensively. I quote from his book, War and Responsibility, the Lessons 
and Aftermath of Vietnam, where he teaches, ``The power to declare war 
was constitutionally vested in Congress. The debates and early practice 
established that this meant that all wars, big or small, declared in so 
many words or not, (most were not, even then), had to be legislatively 
authorized.''
  Here is the timing of this resolution. After this resolution is 
upheld as a constitutional matter, the President has the chance to 
bring this matter to Congress. If we approve, the troops stay. But if 
we do not approve, they should never have been there.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the colleagues who have 
participated in this debate today. With only one exception, no one 
tried to defend the indefensible proposition that there are no 
hostilities in Bosnia. I am proud of my colleagues for not attempting 
to hang their opposition to this resolution on that sophistry. There 
are hostilities in Bosnia. Our troops are at risk.
  I am also proud of those who support our policy in Bosnia and also 
support this resolution. I particularly make reference to our good 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud as well of those who still serve in this 
Congress and who in 1990 brought a lawsuit in order to assert the 
constitutional obligation at issue today. When President Bush was 
building up troops in the Persian Gulf, these Members of Congress had 
the courage to go to court and say, not without our prior approval. I 
cite

[[Page H1276]]

them with honor: the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentlemen from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and (Mr. Rangel), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr.  McDermott), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.  Markey), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  There are those who say they hate to invoke the War Powers Resolution 
as a means of testing it. How else can I test it? There are those who 
say they hate to raise this issue at this time. When is there a better 
time? When is there a better time than when American troops are at 
risk?
  I have done all I can, Mr. Speaker. I cannot let this power slip 
through our hands. To me this is the most sacred duty I have undertaken 
when I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States 
on this floor when I became a Member of Congress in 1989 and when I 
again took that oath last year. I take the action I do today on behalf 
of Lieutenant Shawn Watts, the first American to be wounded in Bosnia I 
take this action today on behalf of Private First Class Floyd Bright, 
the first American soldier to be killed in Bosnia. I take this action 
on behalf of my classmates who died in Vietnam, and on behalf of all of 
them and all of us who said we shall never allow this again, I ask for 
an aye vote.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I come this afternoon before this House as a voice of experience and 
as a voice of experience on two fronts: First, as a former veteran that 
served in Vietnam, and to tell my colleagues that the resolution that 
we are considering this afternoon can have devastating impact on our 
troops. There was nothing that was more devastating to our morale in 
Vietnam than to have the kind of turmoil and the kinds of arguments 
during that unfortunate era for our country than to engage in the kinds 
of dialogue unfortunately that we are engaged in this afternoon all 
over again.
  The other point of experience that I raise this afternoon for my 
colleagues is one of the experience of having been in Bosnia in January 
and seeing the results of the presence of American troops having a very 
positive impact on the ability of that region to celebrate peace. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against resolution 227.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a high regard and respect for what the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) is trying to accomplish with regard to his 
resolution. I do agree with him that our forces should not be sent into 
any country like Bosnia without the approval of Congress. This 
extensive debate has been, I think, invaluable as we consider the 
merits of the congressional war powers issue.
  But the reality we face today is that our forces have been in Bosnia 
for now 2\1/2\ years. Our Nation has invested $7 billion to try to 
bring peace to that nation, and the situation there is looking much 
better right now than it has many years. If we in the Congress were to 
force the President to withdraw forces from Bosnia in the near future, 
the likelihood is that the Civil War there would resume, and our $7 
billion investment would be squandered, and as a political matter the 
Congress would be blamed.
  The resolution the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) initially 
introduced and which we considered in our Committee on International 
Relations was very simple. It ordered the President to withdraw forces 
from Bosnia by June 30, 1998, unless Congress authorized a later date. 
But the resolution that we are about to vote on has been modified to 
provide a different trigger for withdrawing our forces, I quote, 
``Sixty days after the date on which a final judgment is entered by a 
court of competent jurisdiction determining the constitutional validity 
of this concurrent resolution.''
  I do not fault the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for 
trying to pick up support for his resolution by shifting responsibility 
for pulling the trigger from the Congress to the courts, but I would be 
shocked if the courts would have the courage to set a firm withdrawal 
date when the Congress has been demonstrating its own reluctance to do 
so.
  We need to ask ourselves what happens if the courts fail to act. What 
happens if the Campbell resolution is thrown out of court for lack of 
standing, or if 3 years from now the Supreme Court rules that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell)'s case is a nonjusticiable 
political question? And what happens if the trigger of the revised 
resolution offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is 
never pulled by the courts? I think that what would happen in that case 
is that we will have essentially authorized a permanent U.S. military 
presence in Bosnia.
  Let me restate my argument to those Members who may be tempted to 
vote for the Campbell resolution because they want to get our forces 
out of Bosnia. Please do not vote for a resolution containing a trigger 
that is unlikely ever to be pulled. If the Congress asserts itself with 
regard to Bosnia by demanding that the President withdraw forces 60 
days after an event that will probably never happen, we are essentially 
telling the President he can stay there indefinitely. I think it is far 
better to remain silent than to try to set a withdrawal date that may 
not arrive for many years, and that may never arrive at all.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to conclude a thorough and I believe 
constructive debate on the resolution of the gentleman from California 
that will allow the courts to determine whether our troops should 
remain in Bosnia. Although the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
has insisted that this is a matter that concerns the legalities and 
constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, I respectfully disagree 
with my colleague.
  Perhaps in law school classrooms that argument might have some merit, 
but in the real world, the vote we are about to exercise concerns our 
Nation's policy in Bosnia.
  I urge my colleagues, let us not deceive ourselves about the 
consequences with our allies in Europe, with our foes, and especially 
among our troops who have done and continue to do an outstanding job in 
Bosnia, that the adoption of this resolution will have.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) pointed 
out, General Wesley Clark, our Supreme Allied Commander, has said this 
resolution would only confuse our troops by saying, after 2 years, we 
are now changing our minds.
  We are at a critical juncture in deciding what role our Nation will 
play in global affairs. The Senate at present is debating whether new 
members from the former Warsaw Pact should be admitted into the North 
Atlantic Alliance.
  The countries of Europe, particularly those of Central and Eastern 
Europe, look to our Nation for leadership. Forces that oppose that 
leadership are now watching closely for signs of weakness and any 
wavering on our part. Our Secretaries of Defense and State have 
informed the Speaker of their strong opposition to this measure.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to defeat this measure. 
Let us not undermine our Nation's credibility. Do not call into 
question the steadfastness of our purpose. I urge my colleagues not to 
undermine the morale of our young men and women who have served and who 
now serve in Bosnia. Let us not cede our authority on deployment of 
U.S. Armed Forces to the United States courts.
  Senator Bob Dole said it best when he said, it is the fourth quarter, 
and we are ahead by two touchdowns. Let us not pull our team off the 
field.
  Please vote no on H. Con. Res. 227.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, while I rise today in opposition 
to this resolution, I want to clearly state my desire to bring our 
soldiers home from the former Yugoslavia.
  I am deeply concerned whenever our troops are sent into harms way, 
especially when the mission takes them to foreign shores. We

[[Page H1277]]

must offer the highest respect for the sacrifices that those soldiers, 
our sons and daughters, are willing to make to protect our nation and 
maintain our role as the leader of the free world. Furthermore, we 
should commend them for the remarkable achievements that they have made 
in the former Yugoslavia.
  This resolution, unfortunately, does just the opposite. By pulling 
our troops out of Bosnia, just as the Dayton Accords and the 
peacekeeping mission is beginning to take effect, would send a message 
that we do not think that our troops are playing a critical role in 
keeping the peace in that region. It would also indicate to nations 
across the globe that the United States is unwilling to help implement 
the foreign policy agreements that it is involved in crafting.
  If the United States withdraws its troops, our allies are certain to 
follow. And without a strong international presence in the region, 
hostilities in Bosnia will inevitably resume. How can we stand by and 
watch this tenuous peace deteriorate, nullifying the extensive efforts 
of our soldiers and the diplomatic achievements of the past several 
years? The fact of the matter is that the President has a plan to 
reduce the number of troops in Bosnia and, as much as I want to bring 
the remainder home immediately, I truly believe that this would be 
irresponsible.
  Additionally, this resolution would relegate vital foreign policy 
decisions to the courts. While some Constitutional questions regarding 
the War Powers Act remain unclear in the view of many of my colleagues, 
Congress must not delegate its responsibility to decide on whether or 
not to continue a particular peacekeeping mission. This resolution 
shirks our duties as elected representatives.
  I cannot support a resolution that is both irresponsible, weak on 
U.S. foreign policy, and inhumane to the people of Bosnia. Thus, I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 227. While I commend my colleague from California 
for his commitment to this issue, I believe that this resolution has 
highly negative consequences for U.S. policy in Bosnia and does not 
provide the legal clarity on the constitutionality of the War Powers 
Act that the sponsor seeks.
  This resolution harms U.S. policy in several ways. It directs the 
President to withdraw U.S. forces from Bosnia. By doing so, we would be 
sending a strong political message to countries throughout the world 
and would undermine the President's ability to keep U.S. troops in 
Bosnia. In addition, this resolution hurts the peace process in Bosnia 
and risks the resumption of war by sending the wrong signal at the 
wrong time both to our allies and the parties in Bosnia opposed to 
peace, who are only waiting for us to leave.
  Withdrawal of U.S. troops would put at risk the impressive 
accomplishments in Bosnia, including the end to the fighting, 
demobilization of armies on all sides, the election of local 
governments and the formation of multi-ethnic governments, among 
others.
  By passing the resolution, Congress will send the confusing and 
unfortunate message that the United States does not have the resolve to 
stick by the peace process in Bosnia. Furthermore, passage of this 
resolution, just as we are beginning to see progress in Bosnia, would 
have a devastating impact and would risk the possibility of the 
resumption of war.
  The War Powers Resolution, in my opinion, is designed for Congress to 
address this issue when we are in the early stages of engaging our 
troops in hostilities. I do not believe that this applies to Bosnia for 
two reasons. First, we are in the middle of a mission in Bosnia which 
has long been planned, designed and implemented, and secondly, this is 
a peacekeeping mission. This is not the time to address the 
constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. We should do that at a 
time when the President is considering engaging our armed forces in a 
hostile situation.
  We will have the opportunity in the near future to take a stand on 
our troops in Bosnia through consideration of a Supplemental 
Appropriations Bill. Now is not the appropriate time to take this 
policy stand.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against House Concurrent 
Resolution 227.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 227 even as I 
acknowledge the good work our soldiers have accomplished in Bosnia. I 
spent several days in that war-torn region a week ago meeting with the 
various parties and visiting with our troops. And while the morale of 
our soldiers remains high, I don't think it is fair to them or to the 
American people to extend our mission in Bosnia indefinitely without 
Congressional approval.
  In December 1995, the President told Congress that the mission in 
Bosnia would last ``about one year.'' By November 1996, he had decided 
that the mission would be extended until June 1998. And now, somewhat 
disingenuously, the President has told us in the supplemental request 
that while ``I do not propose a fixed end-date for this presence, it is 
by no means open-ended.'' What does this statement mean?
  To me, it means that Congress will be expected to continue 
appropriating billions of dollars for a deployment that we have never 
authorized. The arguments raised in opposition to this resolution today 
have focused on the negative strategic implications that passage of 
this resolution would entail. But our first obligation in this body 
must be to uphold our Constitutional responsibilities, and it is 
imperative that we play the foreign policy role clarified by the War 
Powers Resolution. Congress must have a voice in this seemingly endless 
deployment.
  I look back to the warning that Secretary Perry offered in testimony 
in November 1995. He said then that: ``we must not be drawn into a 
posture of indefinite garrison.'' I fear that we are approaching a 
position of indefinite garrison, without Congress ever authorizing this 
deployment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution--to support this 
resolution is not to condemn the mission in Bosnia, it is simply to 
reassert our Constitutional duty.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 227, directing the President to remove US Armed 
Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within 60 days 
unless Congress enacts a declaration of war of specifically authorizes 
the use of Armed Forces in Bosnia. At the outset, let me state that I 
agree fully that Congress should play a role in critical foreign policy 
decision-making, especially when the utilization of our Armed Forces is 
under consideration. As a matter of record, let me clearly note that I 
also had serious questions regarding those U.S. policies toward Bosnia-
Herzegovina which led to the Dayton Agreement and the subsequent 
deployment of U.S. troops there. This was an issue I followed closely 
from my position as the Chairman of the Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, and as Chairman of the International Relations 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
  Though skeptical of the original context and mandate of the post 
Dayton deployment, Mr. Speaker, the United States has committed to help 
secure and ensure an environment for the effective implementation of 
the Dayton Agreement. As a matter of policy, I believe the continued 
presence of the troops remains a prerequisite for that objective, and 
now is not the time to raise any doubt about the United States' support 
for the mission. With respect to the well-intentioned resolution before 
the House today--introduced and defended by my good friends Congressman 
Campbell and Congressman Hyde--I must oppose the measure for the 
following reasons:
  1. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the troops are there. The 
possibility of their withdrawal by June of this year has hung like a 
think fog over Bosnia-Herzegovina, compounding the international 
community's tenuous resolve and halting progress as a result. The 
question of a post-SFOR renewal of fighting and even a division of 
Bosnia-Herzegovina has loomed large. The President's March 3rd 
notification of the U.S. intention to stay--this time without setting a 
date certain for their withdrawal--has made a stable peace much more 
likely. U.S. policy has become much more assertive, as the creation of 
a more stable and lasting peace is a prerequisite for departure of the 
forces. Persons indicted for war crimes are being captured and are 
even surrendering themselves. More displaced men, women and families 
have sought to return to their original homes. The Bosnian Serbs are 
beginning to envision a brighter future with political moderates 
instead of nationalists. Unfortunately, the pace of progress remains 
slow--too slow--but if the troops were withdrawn during this critical 
period or if doubt of our commitment to the Mission were interjected, I 
am convinced progress would cease.

  2. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that passage of this resolution at 
this time would, without a doubt, send the wrong signal. Despite the 
other objectives of the proponents of the measure, threatening 
withdrawal before the situation is stable would be seen by those on the 
ground as a sign of weakness. As made clear in the Helsinki 
Commission's hearing on the repression and violence in Kosovo conducted 
earlier today, the deadly assaults in Kosovo in recent weeks are a 
stark reminder of Slobodan Milosevic's inclination to violence and the 
volatility of the region.
  3. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration this 
afternoon is more than a statement on the need for congressional 
authorization for troop deployments abroad. I believe that is why the 
International Relations Committee last week ordered the resolution 
reported unfavorably. Advocates of the measure have indicated that they 
are really seeking to withdraw the troops from Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, if 
so, we need to seriously consider the consequences of a premature 
withdrawal. Regardless of the extent to which we

[[Page H1278]]

had reservations about Dayton or even opposed the Administration's 
decision to deploy in the first place, the reality is that the Congress 
would--as it should-- hold responsibility for the consequences of a 
premature withdrawal.
  The United States, in my view, has a national interest at stake in 
Bosnia's future and the success of the Dayton Agreement. In Bosnia, a 
few political leaders who desire more political power seek to convince 
the world that division of the country is inevitable. If we let them 
succeed, there will be consequences in the region and there will be a 
definite impact on the viability of a NATO which is now successfully 
reshaping itself for the post-Cold War era. Finally, premature 
withdrawal of the forces in Bosnia whittles away even further the moral 
content of our foreign policy--the promotion of human rights and 
representative government.
  In conclusion, the Clinton Administration--and the Bush 
Administration before--has made major blunders in responding to the 
aggression and genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unfortunately, I feel 
the passage of this resolution would only make the situation worse at a 
time when the possibility of a success is finally on the horizon.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that U.S. troops should come 
home from Bosnia as soon as possible, but I must vote against this 
resolution.
  I have been a skeptic about our role in Bosnia from the beginning. 
Like many of my colleagues, I have been to Bosnia and witnessed 
firsthand the remarkable job which our troops are doing there. We 
should all be very proud of their success and of their morale and of 
their desire to leave Bosnia better equipped to work out their 
differences in a peaceful manner. The performance and attitude of our 
young men and women in a difficult situation should remind us all how 
fortunate this nation has been and is to have such people willing to 
fight and die for our country.
  Yet, I do not believe that vital U.S. national interests are at stake 
in Bosnia. I believe this deployment has lasted too long, straining the 
ability of our short-changed military to cover other essential bases. 
Last year, I cosponsored H.R. 1172, preventing the use of funds to keep 
troops in Bosnia after a date certain. Furthermore, I voted for 
amendments that would have cut off funding on December 31, 1997, and 
June 30, 1998. I believe we should end our deployment in Bosnia and 
turn it over to those who do have a vital stake in the outcome, the 
Europeans.
  But, despite my strong desire to end our deployment in Bosnia, I 
cannot vote for this resolution. I have long believed that the War 
Powers Act is unconstitutional, and I cannot invoke an unconstitutional 
act, even to accomplish a goal I support.
  The history of the War Powers Act is well-known. Passed over a 
weakened President Nixon's veto in 1973, its supporters hoped to 
procedurally avoid another Vietnam.
  Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act says Congress can force the 
President to remove U.S. forces by passing a concurrent resolution 
requiring their removal. The Supreme Court's 1983 Chadha decision 
struck down a legislative provision of another law which did not 
require the signature of the President. Most scholars and observers 
believe that section 5(c) is also unconstitutional because it would 
require the President to remove troops by a concurrent resolution, 
which does not have to be signed by the President.
  I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional on broader 
grounds as well. The Constitution gives the President the power of 
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and Federalist Paper No. 23 
makes it clear that ``authorities essential to the care of the common 
defense . . . ought to exist without limitation: Because it is 
impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national 
exigencies, or the corresponding extent and variety of the means which 
may be necessary to satisfy them.'' Federalist No. 74 says, ``Of all 
the cares or concerns of government the direction of war most 
peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of 
power by a single hand.''
  That is not to say Congress is helpless. It can stop funding, which 
it should do in this case.
  While it is tempting to correct a mistake by the President using the 
War Powers Act, we should not indulge that temptation when it disrupts 
the balance of powers essential to our Constitution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, March 12, 1998, the 
previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution, as modified.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution, as modified.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 225, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 58]

                               YEAS--193

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield

                               NAYS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Ford
     Fox
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer

[[Page H1279]]


     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Davis (IL)
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hefner
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     McDade
     Parker
     Poshard
     Schiff
     Stupak
     Tierney

                              {time}  1431

  Mr. ORTIZ and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________