[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9193-H9194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA REQUIRES AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard news of horrible
massacres of ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces in Kosovo: women,
children, the elderly all shot in cold blood. The same reports say that
these massacres may now spur NATO to take military action.
As terrible as these events are, I want to remind my colleagues that
under our Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to decide
whether
[[Page H9194]]
America goes to war, even a limited war. It may well be that if this
body voted on military action against Yugoslavia, we would support it
overwhelmingly.
But there is no doubt in my mind that attacks by U.S. forces, whether
under NATO or not, against a sovereign nation, even if it is
Milosevic's Yugoslavia, constitute an act of war. Actions NATO may
decide to take with absolutely no congressional involvement could lead
to an expensive, perhaps lengthy involvement which, most importantly,
puts American lives at risk.
There are legitimate policy questions Congress should ask about the
kind of military involvement NATO is contemplating. Would air strikes
do any good? Against what kind of targets? If air strikes do not make
Milosevic stop, are we willing to send in ground forces in a shooting
war into the mountains of Kosovo?
We may be over the Vietnam syndrome, but that conflict, in which I
served, should remind us of one critical lesson for any military
involvement: that we should secure the Nation's understanding and
support before major military action is taken. That is what military
officers learned from Vietnam, and that support is best assured when
Congress debates and votes.
The framers of the Constitution vested the war power in Congress for
very good reason: Both as a check against precipitous action by a
President and as a way to be sure that the American people, through
their elected representatives, have been consulted before the Nation
goes to war.
The framers placed the war power in Congress because they saw it as
an essential part of our democracy, reflecting the fact that it is the
people's lives and funds that are put at risk. They expressly rejected
the idea that this kind of power should be entrusted to a single
individual, the President.
Some people object that the Constitution is inconvenient in this
respect, that there is something wrong with taking the relatively small
amount of time that would be needed to secure Congress' approval. The
situation in Kosovo has been worsening for months. The President has
had plenty of time to seek authorization from Congress for military
action, and he still has time to do so.
Our participation in NATO does not supersede Congress' role in
deciding about war. In fact, Congress conditioned U.S. participation in
NATO on the requirement that it retain its constitutional prerogatives.
This point was underscored by then Secretary of State Dean Acheson at
the time the North Atlantic Treaty was ratified, who said,
The treaty does not mean that the United States would
automatically be at war, even if one of the other signatory
nations were the victim of an armed attack. Under our
Constitution, the Congress alone has the power to declare
war.
Congress' war power is one of its most important and most basic
responsibilities. The American people have a right to expect Congress
to do its job. As my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell), mentioned a few minutes ago, he and I have drafted a letter
to our colleagues urging signature on a letter to the President of the
United States that the President respect that exclusive power in
Congress and have the authority of Congress before military action may
be taken against Yugoslavia.
____________________