[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 53 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3835-S3836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE WAR IN KOSOVO

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, President Clinton has just signified 
his intention to ask Congress for additional appropriations of some 
$5.45 billion for military costs involved in the war in Kosovo and some 
$491 million to pay for humanitarian assistance. It is my thought that 
Congress will be receptive to humanitarian aid for the thousands of 
refugees who have been driven from their homes in Kosovo. These 
requests will give us an opportunity to ask some very important 
questions and get some very important information to assess our 
military preparedness and to make the determination as to how much our 
allies are contributing to this effort, which ought to be a joint 
effort.
  We have seen the U.S. military preparedness decline very markedly in 
the past decade and a half. During the Reagan years, in the mid-1980s, 
the defense budget exceeded $300 billion. In 1999 dollars, that would 
be well over $400 billion, might even by close to the $500 million 
mark. But our budget for this year, fiscal year 1999, was $271 billion, 
and according to the President's request, is projected to be slightly 
over $280 billion for fiscal year 2000.
  That raises some very, very important questions as to the adequacy of 
our defense and our ability to deal with a crisis in Kosovo, where we 
are at war, notwithstanding the fact that a declaration has not been 
filed. The Senate of the United States has authorized air strikes in 
our vote of 58 to 41 on March 23, but the House of Representatives has 
not had a correlating move. Constitutionally this is a very, very 
dangerous situation, because only the Congress under our Constitution 
has the authority to declare war. We have seen a constant erosion of 
congressional authority, which is a dangerous sign, in terms of the 
requirements of constitutional law--this is bedrock constitutional 
law--and also in terms of having congressional support, which reflects 
public support, for the military action.
  We have seen this war in Kosovo move ahead. We have seen missile 
strikes, air strikes. The authorization of the Senate was limited in 
the air strikes because of our concern about not putting too many U.S. 
fighting men and women in so-called harm's way. It is rather a 
surprising consequence to find we are in short supply of missiles. We 
have seen the activity in Iraq reduced, according to military reports. 
We know of our commitments around the globe, including South Korea. I 
believe this is an occasion to take a very close look as to the 
adequacy of our military preparations. At this time, we have some 10 
divisions, 20 wings active in reserve, some 13 active wings and some 
256 naval service combatants. This is very limited, compared to the 
power of the United States during the mid-1980s in the Reagan years.
  Of course, it is a different world. It is a world without the 
potential clash of the superpowers--the United States and the Soviet 
Union--but it is still a world with major, major problems.
  When the President comes to Capitol Hill, comes to the Appropriations 
Committee on which I serve, comes to the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee on which I serve, then I think we need to ask some very, 
very hard questions. Those questions turn on whether the United States 
is, realistically, capable of carrying on the kind of a war in which we 
have become engaged in Kosovo. Do we even have sufficient air power to 
carry out our objectives? Do we have sufficient missiles to carry out 
our objectives?
  So far, we have bypassed the issue of ground forces. Some of our 
colleagues have advocated a resolution which would authorize the 
President to use whatever force is needed. I am categorically opposed 
to such a resolution. I do not believe that the Senate and the Congress 
of the United States ought to give the President a blank check, but I 
am prepared to hear whatever it is that the President requests, to 
consider that in the context of our vital national security interests 
and in the context of what we ought to do. But at a time when the 
Congress and the country has been put on notice that the President is 
considering calling up Reserves, we find ourselves in a military 
entanglement, a foreign entanglement and, by all appearances, we are 
ill-equipped to carry out the objectives and the course which the 
President has set out for us.
  We need to know on an updated basis what is happening in Iraq and 
what our commitments are there and what our potential commitments are 
around the world.
  Similarly, we need to know, Madam President, our allies' 
contributions. At a time when the Congress of the United States is 
being called upon to authorize $5.450 billion for the Pentagon, it is 
fair to ask what the contribution is from Great Britain. What is the 
contribution from France? What is the contribution from Germany? What 
is the contribution from the other NATO countries?
  The morning news reports carried the comment that the French are 
opposed to a naval blockade to cut off Yugoslavian oil reserves. That 
is sort of a surprising matter. As General Wesley Clark has noted, why 
are we putting U.S. pilots at risk in bombing Yugoslavian oil 
production at oil refineries if we are not willing to take on a less 
drastic matter of a naval blockade? Certainly a naval blockade is an 
act of war, as the French have been reported to have said, but so are 
missile and air strikes. As we are being asked for almost $6 billion, I 
would be especially interested to know the French contribution, besides 
their naysaying of a naval blockade to stop petroleum from reaching 
Yugoslavia.
  The issue of the relative contribution of the United States and the 
NATO countries has been a longstanding controversy for the 50 years 
that NATO has been in existence. I recall attending my first North 
Atlantic Assembly meeting in Venice shortly after I was elected. It was 
the spring of 1981. The chief topic was burden sharing.
  On the occasions when I have had an opportunity to return to North 
Atlantic Assembly meetings, burden sharing has always been a big 
question. I think it is a fair question for the Congress to ask: What 
is the proportion of burden sharing now in Kosovo, especially when we 
are being asked to ante up an additional $6 billion.
  There is another aspect to our activity in Kosovo which requires an 
answer, and that is, what are we doing with respect to prosecution of 
crimes against humanity in the War Crimes Tribunal, looking toward the 
prospective indictment of President Milosevic. There is an active 
effort at the present time to gather evidence against President 
Milosevic. There is a question as to why it has taken so long. In late 
1992, then-Secretary of State Eagleburger, pretty much branded 
Milosevic a war criminal. There has been constant speculation over the 
course of the past 7 years about why Milosevic was not indicted, along 
with others in the Bosnia and Croatia crimes against humanity.

  We need an answer, Madam President, as to what has happened with 
outstanding key indictments against Mladic and Karadzic with respect to 
what has happened in Bosnia. When a group of Members of the House and 
Senate were briefed by the President last Tuesday, a distinction was 
made between our military activity and collateral ways to have an 
impact on the war in Kosovo, such as through the War Crimes Tribunal.
  There have been major efforts to locate Karadzic. There have also 
been major efforts to locate Mladic who is supposed to be in hiding 
near Belgrade.
  The activities of the War Crimes Tribunal could have a very profound 
effect

[[Page S3836]]

on those committing atrocities as we speak in Kosovo--that that kind of 
conduct is going to be treated in a very severe and tough manner by the 
War Crimes Tribunal. This involves having the War Crimes Tribunal 
follow up on those who have been indicted, like Mladic and Karadzic, 
and it also involves the War Crimes Tribunal acting aggressively to 
gather evidence about Milosevic and any others who may be perpetrating 
crimes against humanity.
  At a time when we are looking for a supplemental appropriation, we 
ought to be as certain as we can be that the War Crimes Tribunal is 
adequately funded. I have had occasion to visit the War Crimes Tribunal 
three times in The Hague and have noted a very serious group of 
dedicated prosecutors, headed by Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour. But 
that contingent has been laboring with insufficient resources. Only 
recently their courtrooms have increased from one to three, and a 
substantial increase in their budget was achieved when the 1999 budget 
was increased from the 1998 level of $68.8 million to slightly more 
than $100 million to take care of the prosecutions in Bosnia and 
Croatia.
  That leaves open the question about what is going to happen with 
respect to the prosecutions in Kosovo. It is vital that efforts be 
ongoing contemporaneously with these atrocities to gather evidence 
while it is fresh. From my own experience as a prosecuting attorney, I 
can say firsthand--gather the evidence while the eyewitnesses are 
available, while the recollections are fresh and while the tangible 
physical evidence is present.
  There may be a necessity--and it is a very unpleasant subject but one 
of the facts of life in Bosnia, Croatia and now Kosovo--that mass 
graves be uncovered for tangible evidence of these atrocities. An 
inquiry today gave me the preliminary bit of advice that there is a 
request for some $5 million for documentation support for the War 
Crimes Tribunal. I have made the request that further information be 
forthcoming so that when the Appropriations Committee considers these 
supplemental matters, that we have in hand the needs of the War Crimes 
Tribunal. This will put all would-be war criminals on notice that these 
matters are going to be very, very vigorously pursued. It would be a 
very, very strong blow for international law and international justice 
to have a War Crimes Tribunal indictment at the earliest possible time 
branding Milosevic a war criminal for all to see. I think that would 
inevitably have a profound effect everywhere, including in Belgrade, 
including in Serbia, including in the Republic of Yugoslavia.
  So, these are questions which I hope we can have answers to in the 
forthcoming days when I do believe my colleagues will be willing to 
share my sense that the fighting men and women need to be supported on 
this $5.45 billion request from the Pentagon and on the almost $500 
million for humanitarian aid. But we need to use this as an occasion to 
find out if we have adequate military strength to carry on the war 
which we have undertaken and to discharge the kind of commitments that 
we have made worldwide. We also need to take a close look at the burden 
sharing with our allies and to make sure that the important work of the 
War Crimes Tribunal is adequately funded.
  In the absence of anyone else on the floor seeking recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________