[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 44 (Friday, March 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2985-S2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 KOSOVO

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I had not thought to address this 
subject, but the opportunity presents itself here and I find that I 
have reactions to this morning's newspaper that I would like to share 
with the Senate.
  There were two things that happened yesterday, both of which are 
reported in this morning's paper. I think they come together with an 
interesting connection. The first one was a briefing held here in this 
building, on the fourth floor, on the issue of Kosovo and what the 
United States is about to do there. Attending that briefing, 
appropriately reported in this morning's paper, were the Secretary of 
State, Secretary of Defense, the President's National Security Adviser 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Basically, they told us 
we are on the brink of going to war; that is, that the United States is 
prepared, with its

[[Page S2986]]

NATO allies, to attack a country within its own borders to resolve a 
dispute among its own people in a way that the United States feels is 
appropriate.
  There are those who have advised us to stay out of a civil war, not 
go in the borders of another sovereign nation in order to resolve the 
dispute within that nation. But let us assume the stakes here are high 
enough to justify disregarding that advice. The second piece of advice 
that we are given is, if you do go into a civil war, pick a side. It is 
not entirely clear to me, from attending the briefing, that we know 
exactly which side we are for and what outcome we want. Because the 
third advice that comes along is, if you are going to go into a civil 
war and you are going to pick a side, make sure it is going to win. 
Again, in the briefing we had yesterday I was not satisfied that those 
four representatives of the administration had demonstrated a 
compelling case.
  But I do not rise to issue a challenge to them on those grounds. 
Instead, I rise because of the connection, as I say, between two 
events: No. 1, a briefing of the Senate of the United States on the eve 
of the United States committing an act of war; and, No. 2, a report as 
to what the President of the United States was doing last night. In 
this morning's newspaper we are told that the President conducted a 
boffo performance before a dinner made up of representatives of the 
press, that he received three standing ovations, and in the Style 
section of the Washington Post we are told some of his best one liners. 
This is why I find such a jarring disconnect between the President 
preparing one liners in the White House for a reporters' dinner and the 
President's advisers talking to the Senate about going to war.
  During the briefing that we had in this building yesterday, prior to 
the United States committing an act of war, we were told that one of 
the reasons we had to go ahead with this action was because we had gone 
so far down the road, in consultation with our allies, it would damage 
our treaty obligations with our allies if we did not proceed. I must 
confess I was offended--indeed, perhaps outraged by that logic--not 
because of what it said about what the administration had done with 
respect to our allies, but because of what it said about what the 
administration had not done with respect to its constitutional 
responsibilities. In the Constitution of the United States, the power 
to declare war is vested in the Congress of the United States. Very 
clearly, very specifically, without equivocation, Congress shall 
declare war.

  We are on the verge of actions that are the equivalent of the United 
States going to war. The justification we are receiving for taking 
those warlike actions is that the administration has made commitments 
to foreign governments. Why is the administration entering into 
conversations, consultations and other relationships with foreign 
governments about going to war and not talking to the Congress of the 
United States about going to war, instead, preparing one liners for a 
dinner with members of the press so the President can get standing 
ovations for his comedic abilities, the President competing with Bob 
Hope and David Letterman, while the United States is on the verge of 
sending its young men and women into harm's way in a situation which, 
according to the President's advisers, will ``take casualties''?
  The phrase, ``we will take casualties,'' is a euphemism to say that 
Americans are going to be killed. They are going to come home in body 
bags, and they will be killed in a war that Congress has not declared. 
They will be killed in a war that takes place because the 
administration has consulted with our allies and is worried about 
embarrassing themselves with our allies but cannot bother to bring 
themselves to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to come to 
the one agency that, under the Constitution, has the authority to 
declare war--that is, the Congress of the United States.
  Indeed, in that briefing we were told that American forces will face 
the most serious challenge militarily that we have faced since the gulf 
war, and some said the most serious air defenses we would face since 
the Second World War. Yet the administration does not bother to talk to 
Congress about this and gain congressional authority for these actions. 
Instead, the administration spends its time talking to our allies.
  Don't make any mistake, I am not objecting to the fact that the 
administration has consulted with our allies. I think that is right and 
proper that we should do that. Don't they have any sense of proportion 
or constitutional responsibility in this White House? Don't they 
understand that the Constitution says Congress has the right to declare 
war, not the President?
  The last time we went into major military confrontation was over the 
gulf war. At that time, the White House was in the hands of a 
Republican President. That Republican President, whom I consider a good 
personal friend and for whom I have the highest affection, was going 
down this same road. He was preparing to take America to war without a 
congressional authorization to do so. There were those in this body who 
stood and said, ``Mr. President, you cannot take us to war without the 
approval of Congress.''
  President Bush and his advisers resisted that logic for a while. 
Interestingly enough, one of the Senators who spoke out most 
vigorously, saying to the President you have no right to take us to war 
without congressional authorization, is now the Secretary of Defense. 
Then-Senator Cohen said repeatedly, to his own administration and his 
own party, you cannot take us to war without congressional 
authorization.
  I am delighted and pleased that ultimately President Bush came to 
realize that truth and that America did not go to war in the gulf 
without congressional authority. President Bush had made all of the 
same kinds of commitments to allies that we now hear that President 
Clinton has made to our NATO allies with respect to Kosovo. It would 
have been enormously embarrassing for President Bush had the Congress 
not approved his action. He risked that embarrassment because he 
recognized his constitutional responsibilities. He came to Congress. 
The vote was close. He ran the risk of losing that vote, but 
ultimately, the Congress approved America's going ahead with the gulf 
war. We went ahead with the gulf war.

  Yes, we did take casualties, but we set a precedent that is in 
concert with the constitutional responsibilities that we all face. 
America could say we went to war with the proper constitutional 
authorization.
  I fear we are on the verge of going to war without the proper 
constitutional authorization. I fear the President of the United 
States, because of his concern--if we can believe what we were told in 
the Capitol briefing yesterday--over our relationship with our allies, 
is not willing to risk his constitutional responsibility to come to 
Congress.
  I wish that instead of perfecting his one liners for the 
correspondents dinner last night, the President had been working on a 
message to Congress. I wish the President of the United States would 
come before a joint session of the Congress and explain to us what 
vital national interests are at stake here and why it is necessary for 
the United States to consider attacking another sovereign nation.
  Obviously, he must feel the reasons are compelling or he would not 
have gone so far down the road as he has already gone. Let him share 
those compelling reasons with the people of the United States. 
Obviously, he feels he has a case to make or he would not have pilots 
standing at the ready to begin bombing. Let him make that case before 
the Congress of the United States. Let him recognize that when he took 
an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
similar to the oath that we took, he cannot ignore the phrase in the 
Constitution that says that Congress has the right to declare war, not 
the President. It could not be clearer.
  The difference in the President's priorities could not be clearer. 
Instead of preparing a message to Congress, he was preparing comedic 
one liners for a correspondents dinner.
  Do my colleagues know what one of those one liners was, Mr. 
President? It is one of the things that offended me the most, reading 
the paper this morning. He referred to the fact that the vote in the 
Senate on the impeachment trial had acquitted him and said, ``If it had 
gone the other way, I wouldn't be here tonight.'' Then the appropriate

[[Page S2987]]

comedic pause, and he said, ``I demand a recount.'' Laughter.
  Mr. President, I suggest, in the strongest terms I can muster, that 
the President should not be making light of the dangers of his 
appearing before a group of correspondents while his administration is 
in the process of preparing to send young Americans to their death. 
Flying over Kosovo with the air defenses that are embedded in those 
mountains firing at you is more dangerous than appearing before a group 
of correspondents who might write nasty columns about you. For the 
President to joke about the hazards of his appearing before that dinner 
on the eve of sending Americans into harm's way, where we are certainly 
going to see some of them come home in body bags, is to me deeply 
offensive.
  Mr. President, I conclude with what is obvious about my position. The 
President of the United States has a constitutional duty before he 
sends Americans to war to come to the Congress of the United States and 
get some form of declaration of war. I believe he will abrogate his 
constitutional duty and violate his oath if he does not do that. 
Without his coming to us and without our adopting constitutionally 
accurate support for his actions, I will vote against everything that 
he proposes to do, against the appropriations.

  I will vote in every way I can to say the President of the United 
States has violated his oath and violated the Constitution if he 
proceeds in the manner that we were informed about in our briefings 
yesterday.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I wish the Presiding Officer a 
good morning.

                          ____________________