[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E557]]



                    LET US NOT SEND TROOPS TO KOSOVO

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEPHEN HORN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 11, 1999

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I expressed my views on why the 
American military should not be sent to Kosovo.
  The conflict in Kosovo is taking place within a sovereign nation. If 
we are going to go to war with a sovereign nation, we ought to provide 
a declaration of war. That is what the Constitution of the United 
States would have us do. I think all of us in this chamber know that 
Serbian leader Milosevic is a war criminal that should be tried by an 
international tribunal. The issue here today is, by what criteria 
should Congress and the President of the United States judge whether 
American troops should go there?
  When is the success known by American troops sent to Kosovo? The 
President repeatedly broke promises regarding the length of service in 
Bosnia before admitting our troops will be there indefinitely. Are they 
going to spend 50 years in the Balkans around Kosovo to bring peace as 
we have in Korea? Korea was where another Nation invaded South Korea.
  This is the time to ask the President to face up to the tough 
questions and give us the answers to the questions that have been 
submitted to him. I would keep American troops out of Kosovo. I am 
opposed to any bombing of civilians. Any targets should be military in 
nature.
  The President has failed to explain the urgent national interest 
which requires the introduction of U.S. forces into Kosovo. He has 
failed to even attempt a full explanation of this policy to Congress. 
The Constitution has given Congress a clear role to play which the 
President has ignored.
  The Administration argues that if the House votes against authorizing 
its experiments in peacebuilding today, it will undercut ongoing 
negotiations and perhaps even lead to more bloodshed. This is 
insulting. It is the Administration's refusal to consult with Congress 
and its inability to form a strong policy against Serbian aggression 
that has led to the debate today. The Administration has rejected all 
attempts by Congress to assert its Constitutional role on every 
occasion it has put our forces in harm's way without a clear 
explanation of its mission or on what our forces were supposed to 
accomplish. The current objections by the White House are more of the 
same rhetoric from an Executive Branch derisive of consultation with 
Congress.
  The conflict in Kosovo is taking place within a sovereign nation. 
Intervention in Kosovo, even following an agreement forced upon both 
sides, is the intervention in a civil war to mediate between two sides 
which we are trying to force into an agreement that will require our 
forces to uphold.
  By what criteria would the President judge success in this mission 
whereby American troops could be recalled from Kosovo? The President 
repeatedly broke promises regarding the length of service in Bosnia 
before admitting that our troops will be there indefinitely. Once a 
peacekeeping force enters Kosovo to uphold a forced agreement, that 
force will serve indefinitely unless Congress acts to responsibly to 
restrict yet another open-ended commitment to achieve nebulous goals.
  While the House debates the commitment of forces to Kosovo, we are 
also wrestling with the question of funding our armed forces, forces 
stretched thin by multiple commitments around the world. We are 
debating how to protect our nation from missile attack, perhaps from 
missiles improved with stolen American technology. How, then, will 
another open-ended commitment of American forces help American 
security. I have heard the arguments on why American forces must be 
present to make a peacekeeping force work, and while these arguments 
have merit, they also point out the failure of Europe to deal with 
issues in its own backyard.
  Under the agreement being negotiated now, the peacekeeping force 
would attack Serbia if its forces or sympathizers violate the 
agreement, but what would happen if elements of the Kosovo Liberation 
Army violates the agreement? How would the United States with NATO 
punish Kosovar violations?
  The United States presumably has a responsibility to end the 
bloodshed in Kosovo because it is the only nation left with the 
resources to do so. So why, then, is the Administration not seeking to 
put peacekeepers on the ground in Turkey, where thousands of innocent 
Kurds have been killed in Turkey's attempt to destroy the terrorists of 
the PKK? Why have American peacekeepers not been dispatched to Sierra 
Leone, where the killing continues? Why were international peacekeepers 
not part of the Irish or Basque peace agreement? What makes Kosovo 
different?
  Let us keep American Troops out of Kosovo. If lives are to be in 
harm's way, let the European members of NATO handle regional conflicts 
in their own backyard.

                          ____________________