[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1822-S1825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
  S.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution prohibiting the use of funds for 
military operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and 
Montenegro) unless Congress enacts specific authorization in law for 
the conduct of those operations; read the first time.


  prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in the Federal 
                         Republic of Yugoslavia

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as President Reagan would 
say, ``Here we go again.'' This administration is now on the verge of 
making a commitment of American forces to another 911 humanitarian 
crisis around the world, without the approval of Congress.
  As I stand here today, the United States is poised to launch 
airstrikes against the sovereign nation of Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia. Given the apparent failure of the talks in France regarding 
the issue of the peacekeeping force, there is a real possibility that 
airstrikes may be imminent and that American forces, as part of a NATO 
force, may be committed in Kosovo. I would venture to say that many 
Americans would be hard-pressed to find Kosovo on a map; yet here again 
our sons and daughters are going to be asked to put their lives on the 
line for this administration without approval of their elected 
representatives in Congress, and without any declaration of war.
  Mr. President, this is very, very disturbing. I have spoken out in 
the past against the Bosnia operation. I have spoken out against our 
occupation of

[[Page S1823]]

Haiti. But Kosovo is the last straw for me. Today I am introducing a 
bill to ensure that Congress exercises its constitutional right of 
approval before this administration commits us to an act of war against 
a sovereign nation. If we are going to be taking offensive military 
action, I don't believe there ought to be any troops in any sovereign 
nation unless there is a declaration of war, or at least a specific 
authorization by Congress.
  The resolution I am introducing simply says that there will be no 
troops committed in any force of any kind without a specific 
authorization from the U.S. Congress. I am going to call on my 
colleagues to join me in this effort before we get embroiled in another 
long-term conflict that is not in the United States' interest.
  I want to make a few points about this.
  This administration apparently thinks nothing of committing an act of 
war without congressional approval--they will commit troops first, and 
come to us later and ask for our support.
  On the contrary, when President Bush wanted to repel Iraq from 
Kuwait, he came to the Congress--a Democrat-controlled Congress--and 
Congress authorized him to do that. He came here. He took his chance. 
He did the right thing. But that is not happening now.
  While this body has been wrestling with impeachment proceedings, 
President Clinton's administration has been preparing to wage war.
  I want to repeat that. We were tied down here for almost 2 months 
talking about the impeachment of the President of the United States, 
and while we were doing that, the same President who was nearly removed 
from office was preparing to wage war against a sovereign nation 
without congressional approval. That is absolutely outrageous, and I am 
not going to stand by any longer and be silent about it.
  The administration has crafted a plan to fix the internal problems of 
a sovereign state. And it proceeds, then, to hold a so-called peace 
conference where it threatens to use lethal force against that 
sovereign state if they don't accept the deal. The two parties are not 
even interested in an agreement. They still want to fight. They have 
been fighting in that region of the world for centuries. So we jam an 
agreement down their throats. And here come U.S. forces, again in 
harm's way, with no approval from Congress.
  Before we send our troops to another dangerous part of the world, 
which this President has been prone to do for a long time, we have a 
sacred responsibility to these men and women to consider the risks. We 
did not fight and win the Cold War so that--as the sole remaining 
superpower--we would get bogged down in parts of the world that the 
vast majority of Americans have never heard of.
  Kosovo is as much a part of Yugoslavia as New Hampshire is of the 
United States. We are dictating, under the threat of American military 
action, the internal policy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It 
may be a policy that I despise, that I hate, that I am upset about. But 
do we have that right, without an act of war or some authorization from 
Congress? We may not like it. It may be horrible. But that alone is not 
a reason to go to war. Should we go to war in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia or 
some other nation where some other problems are occurring that we don't 
like? Where do you draw the line?
  The administration tells us we must become involved in the internal 
affairs of a sovereign nation to prevent the spread of this conflict 
into neighboring nations, including perhaps NATO members. This is a 
bogey-man argument. It is meant to scare us into resolving the conflict 
with the American military. This argument is false and it obscures the 
real issue of placing troops at risk in an area of the world where were 
we have no real interest to justify direct intervention. Frankly, I am 
tired of it. I am tired of risking American lives when we do not have 
American interests at stake. The precedent we would be setting by 
intervening in Kosovo is far more dangerous to American interests than 
the small risk that this conflict is going to spread somewhere. What 
other troubled Balkan region will we go to next? Montenegro? Macedonia? 
Where do we stop, Mr. President?
  There was a letter to the Washington Post on February 20, written 
from a gentleman by the name of Alex N. Dragnich. He said:

       We are threatening to bomb the Serbs, not because they have 
     invaded a foreign country but because they refuse to accept 
     an agreement which we have crafted, to resolve a domestic 
     conflict inside Yugoslavia and to permit the entrance of NATO 
     troops to enforce it. . . .

  That is what this is about

       More serious [he says] in the long run will be the 
     precedent we would be creating. Our proposed actions would 
     provide the arguments to justify a power or a combination of 
     powers to invade some country in search of justice for a 
     minority or minorities. This could be some Arab states, 
     perhaps in agreement with Russia, or it could be China 
     seeking to take over Taiwan.

  The administration has created a situation where, no matter how the 
negotiations conclude, our military people will likely be placed at 
risk. Let me correct that--they will be placed at risk. The 
recklessness with which this administration treats our men and women in 
uniform is shameful--shameful. We had to fight in the Senate on this 
floor 2 years ago to get the administration to give them a pay raise. 
We fight on this floor to try to get a national missile defense to 
protect our own Nation--and we still cannot get it. If the parties do 
agree to a foreign military presence, then our troops will be committed 
to peace enforcement for more years than the administration is ready to 
admit; a lot more years than this administration has left in office. 
And they will be in great jeopardy from retaliation, not by one side, 
but by both sides. They will be in the middle of a civil war.

  If the Serbs do not agree, then this administration is prepared to 
send our troops into combat against an aggressive nation that is well 
equipped to defend itself from attack. Let there be no doubt, American 
lives will be endangered. This is not Iraq where everything is out in 
the open. There are SAM sites embedded in mountains. The Serbs have the 
capability to shoot down American aircraft. Remember that.
  We all remember the promises made by the administration about Bosnia. 
They said the troops will be out in a year. It was one year, then 
another year, then another; now it is 3 years, with no end in sight, 
and it's cost $10 billion. Most of the time the President didn't even 
fund the operation; he took it out of funds for the troops, he raided 
their equipment modernization accounts to fund it. One of the primary 
reasons given by the administration, justifying the Bosnia 
intervention, was it would stabilize the region--yet today we are about 
to commit American troops to intervening in a new unstable region, 
Kosovo.
  We field an army, not a Salvation Army. Our military is woefully 
underfunded. We need $125 billion over the next 5 years just to recover 
from where this administration has cut us. There are mounting concerns 
about readiness. Should a crisis emerge that truly does endanger 
America's legitimate interests, what happens? By volunteering to send 
forces to Kosovo, the President is again stretching our military too 
thin. The President is not just risking the lives of soldiers sent to 
the region, but also our troops around the world. And for what?
  Later on today we are going to be debating pay increases and 
retirement benefits for our troops. That is a serious need. The 
operations tempo that we require from our troops is a serious concern 
as well. Yet as we try to help on these problems, the administration 
once again overextends our forces. There are troops that have been in 
three or four hot spots in the last 3 years. Some have been in Bosnia, 
some have been in the Persian Gulf, some have been in Haiti, some have 
been in Korea, and there will probably be a fifth one, Kosovo, for some 
people. How much more can we take?
  The administration says the possible troop commitment for peace 
enforcement in Kosovo is only for 4,000 troops. In the military there 
is the three-times rule. Not only do we commit those 4,000 on the 
ground, but 4,000 more are preparing to go and 4,000 are recovering 
from being deployed there. This 4,000-man operation ties up 12,000 
troops. In truth, a four-times rule is probably more realistic, so it 
is more like 16,000.
  We are already facing serious problems in recruiting, spare parts, 
and

[[Page S1824]]

other results of this high operating tempo. The administration has 
strained the budget of the Defense Department to the limit, and our 
troops are going to be the losers because of it. We simply cannot ask 
our military to do more and more with less. That is what this President 
has continued to do.
  Mr. President, we are 7,000 troops down in recruitment for the U.S. 
Navy. We don't even have enough sailors to man our ships. We are short 
23,000 recruits in the U.S. Army. Spare parts bins are empty in 
military bases all over this country. They cannot repair some 
vehicles-- they are just too old. And yet here is the administration, 
ready to send them into Kosovo.
  In conclusion, throughout the Cold War we fought to protect the 
rights of sovereign nations to conduct themselves according to their 
own laws. We fought World War II over the same thing. In the Gulf War 
we sent American soldiers to war to turn back an unlawful and immoral 
invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait. There was much disagreement 
over that policy, but it was an attack of one sovereign nation on 
another. Now, look at what has happened in just 8 years. Today we find 
our commitment to sovereignty turned on its head.
  Let me issue a warning. The KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army--these 
are not Boy Scouts. Neither is Slobodan Milosevic. This is going to be 
a bloody mess, and we are going to be right in the middle of it. The 
KLA started a war that it cannot finish and now the administration 
wants U.S. pilots serve as its Air Force the American people know what 
we are spending in Bosnia--$4 billion a year and growing, now adding to 
that in Kosovo, and at the same time not yet deploying a missile 
defense system for this country which is imperative for the security of 
our own people and our troops wherever they may be in the world.
  I applaud the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire. I certainly 
hope that we will get a chance to talk about this. I look forward to 
having the leaders in Congress stand up and say, What is the policy; 
how many more times are we going to put troops in harm's way, paid for 
by the taxpayers of America, when there is no exit strategy, there is 
no plan, there is no rotation out, there is no temporariness about 
this. It is open-ended.
  I applaud my colleague from New Hampshire, and I hope that the Senate 
will address this before we have a fait accompli, troops on the ground, 
as we have had in Bosnia in an unending mission, with no strategy, no 
plan and no exit.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                  s. 4

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4, a bill to improve pay and 
retirement equity for members of the Armed Forces; and for other 
purposes.
  At the request of Mr. Bunning, his name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 4, supra.


                                 s. 25

  At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Missouri 
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 25, a bill to provide Coastal 
Impact Assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
Act, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred 
to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the 
outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and 
for other purposes.


                                 s. 26

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 26, a bill entitled the ``Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 1999''.


                                 s. 98

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added 
as cosponsors of S. 98, a bill to authorize appropriations for the 
Surface Transportation Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
2002, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 185

  At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Thomas) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 185, a bill to establish a Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative.


                                 s. 197

  At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 197, a bill to amend the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
cease mineral leasing activity on the outer Continental Shelf seaward 
of a coastal State that has declared a moratorium on mineral 
exploration, development, or production activity in State water.


                                 s. 218

  At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 218, a bill to amend the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide for 
equitable duty treatment for certain wool used in making suits.


                                 s. 258

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 258, a bill to authorize 
additional rounds of base closures and realignments under the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 in 2001 and 2003, and for 
other purposes.


                                 s. 271

  At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr. 
Grassley) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 271, a bill to provide for education flexibility 
partnerships.


                                 s. 274

  At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Abraham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 274, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum taxable 
income for the 15 percent rate bracket.


                                 s. 279

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 279, a bill to amend title 
II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for 
individuals who have attained retirement age.


                                 s. 280

  At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr. 
Grassley) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 280, a bill to provide for education flexibility 
partnerships.


                                 s. 311

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the 
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added as cosponsors of S. 
311, a bill to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial 
Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its 
environs, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 312

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 312, a bill to require 
certain entities that operate homeless shelters to identify and provide 
certain counseling to homeless veterans, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 314

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 314, a bill to provide for a loan 
guarantee program to address the Year 2000 computer problems of small 
business concerns, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 315

  At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the name of the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 315, a bill to amend the 
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to require the President to report to 
Congress on any selective embargo on agricultural commodities, to 
provide a termination date for the embargo, to provide greater 
assurances for contract sanctity, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 346

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of S. 346, a bill to 
amend title

[[Page S1825]]

XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit the recoupment of funds 
recovered by States from one or more tobacco manufacturers.


                                 s. 348

  At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 348, a bill to authorize and 
facilitate a program to enhance training, research and development, 
energy conservation and efficiency, and consumer education in the 
oilheat industry for the benefit of oilheat consumers and the public, 
and for other purposes.


                                 s. 403

  At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 403, a bill to prohibit 
implementation of ``Know Your Customer'' regulations by the Federal 
banking agencies.


                                 s. 427

  At the request of Mr. Abraham, the names of the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Coverdell) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) were added 
as cosponsors of S. 427, a bill to improve congressional deliberation 
on proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes.


                                 s. 433

  At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of S. 433, a bill to 
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 to prohibit 
additional statements and representations relating to alcoholic 
beverages and health, and for other purposes.


                       senate joint resolution 7

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) and the 
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Joint Resolution 7, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget.


                     senate concurrent resolution 5

  At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Shelby), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), and the Senator 
from California (Mrs. Boxer) were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 5, a concurrent resolution expressing 
congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian 
state and urging the President to assert clearly United States 
opposition to such a unilateral declaration of statehood.


                          senate resolution 26

  At the request of Mr. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 
26, a resolution relating to Taiwan's Participation in the World Health 
Organization.


                            amendment no. 6

  At the request of Mr. Cleland, the names of the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 6 proposed to S. 4, a bill to 
improve pay and retirement equity for members of the Armed Forces; and 
for other purposes.

                          ____________________