[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 54 (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3939-S3942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Kerry):
  S.J. Res. 20. A joint resolution concerning the deployment of the 
United States Armed Forces to the Kosovo region in Yugoslavia; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


  concerning the deployment of the united states armed forces to the 
                      kosovo region in yugoslavia

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution cosponsored 
by Senators Biden, Cochran, Hagel, Lieberman, Lugar, Dodd and Robb.
  Before I go into my statement, I will mention that the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars today will be issuing a statement regarding their support 
for this resolution. The Veterans of Foreign Wars statement will read:

       The United States, acting as a part of the NATO alliance, 
     should use a full range of force in an overwhelming and 
     decisive manner to meet its objectives.

  I think it is important to note that this resolution would be 
supported by those American veterans who have fought in foreign wars.
  As my colleagues know, I am concerned that the force the United 
States and our NATO allies have employed against Serbia, gradually 
escalating airstrikes, is insufficient to achieve our political 
objectives there, which are the removal of the Serb military and 
security forces from Kosovo, the return of the refugees to their homes, 
and the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force.
  I hope this resolution, should it be adopted, will encourage the 
administration and our allies to find the courage and resolve to 
prosecute this war in the manner most likely to result in its early end 
and successful conclusion. In other words, I hope this resolution will 
make clear Congress' support for adopting our means to secure our ends 
rather than the reverse. But that is not our central purpose today. Our 
central purpose is to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities, 
responsibilities that we have thus far evaded.
  Many of my colleagues oppose this war and would prefer that the 
United States immediately withdraw from a Balkan conflict which they 
judge to be a quagmire so far removed from America's interests that the 
cost of victory cannot be justified. I disagree, but I respect their 
opinion as honest and honorable. I believe that they would welcome the 
opportunity to express their opposition by the means available to 
Congress.
  Those of us who support this intervention and those who may have had 
reservations about either its necessity or its initial direction but 
are now committed to winning it should also welcome this resolution as 
the instrument for doing our duty, as we have called on so many fine 
young Americans to do their duty at the risk of their lives. If those 
who oppose this war and any widening of it prevail, so be it. The 
President will pursue his present course as authorized by earlier 
congressional resolutions until its failure demands we settle on Mr. 
Milosevic's terms.
  Those of our colleagues who feel that course is preferable to the 
price that would be incurred by fully prosecuting this war can rightly 
claim that they followed the demands of conscience and Constitution, 
but they must also be accountable to the country and the world for 
whatever negative consequences ensue from our failure. Should those of 
us who want to use all necessary force to win this war prevail, then we 
must accept the responsibility for the losses incurred in its 
prosecution. That is the only honorable course.
  But no matter which view any Senator holds, should this resolution be 
adopted at the end of a thorough debate, all Members of Congress should 
then unite to support the early and complete accomplishment of our 
mission in Kosovo.
  Silence and equivocation will not unburden us of our responsibility 
to support or oppose the war. I do not recommend lightly the course I 
have called on the President to pursue. I know, as should any one who 
votes for this resolution, that if Americans die in a land war with 
Serbia, we will bear a considerable share of the blame for their loss. 
We are as accountable to their families as the President must be.
  But I would rather face that sad burden than hide from my conscience 
because I sought an ambiguous political position to seek shelter 
behind. Nor could I easily bear the dishonor of having known that my 
country's interests demanded a course of action, but avoided taking it 
because the costs of defending them were substantial, as were its 
attendant political risks.
  Congress, no less than the administration, must show the resolve and 
confidence of a superpower whose cause is just and imperative. Let us 
all, President and Senator alike, show the courage of our convictions 
in this critical hour. Let us declare ourselves in support of or 
opposition to this war, and the many sacrifices it will entail. Our 
duty demands it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from 
Mississippi may consume.

[[Page S3940]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, in introducing this 
resolution. It seems to me very important at this juncture that the 
Senate express itself on the subject of our obligation to use whatever 
force is available to our alliance in NATO to win the conflict quickly 
and decisively and not to be a party to dragging it out unnecessarily 
by telling our adversary what military actions we will not use in the 
conflict.
  It seems to me that an appropriate analogy to the administration's 
strategy is someone who gets himself into a fight, a boxing match, and 
says, ``I am just going to use a left jab in this match, I am never 
going to use the right hand.'' No one would do that with any 
expectation of being successful in that conflict, in that encounter. It 
seems to me that that is exactly what the United States has been doing, 
and it has been a mistake.
  This resolution suggests by its clear language that the President of 
the United States is authorized to use all necessary force and other 
means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United 
States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia.
  It also spells out in the resolution what those objectives are. It 
suggests that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia withdraw its forces 
from Kosovo, permitting the ethnic Albanians to return to their homes 
and the establishment of a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Those are our 
objectives.
  To accomplish that, we must convince Milosevic that we are very 
serious that this war will be waged with all necessary force unless he 
surrenders his efforts to intimidate, kill, and otherwise terrify this 
region of Europe, and that he stop this military action, and stop it 
now, or he is going to suffer the most serious military consequences.

  That is the message he should get from the NATO alliance and from the 
U.S. leadership. That is what the Senate is saying by adopting this 
resolution. And I hope the Senate will adopt this resolution.
  It is unfortunate that we are involved in this military action. It is 
very unpleasant. It is not something that any of us would have wished 
to have occurred. We do have to recognize, though, that our NATO allies 
are very actively involved in this conflict as well. Great Britain, 
France, Germany, and Italy are all taking--and others--very active 
roles in the prosecution of this military conflict to achieve the goals 
that are recited in this resolution. It is an honorable course of 
action to stop the killing and to stop the atrocities and restore 
stability in this region of Europe.
  The NATO alliance was begun on the premise that Europe should be 
free, with an opportunity for people to live their lives in freedom, 
without threat from military intimidation or harm. The alliance has 
decided that this is an appropriate means for achieving that goal, 
waging a conflict against a person who has proven to be totally 
disrespectful of human rights, of the right to life, of the right to 
live in peace with his neighbors. We can no longer tolerate this under 
any circumstances.
  So the NATO alliance is involved. And I am hopeful that the Senate 
will spell out our views on this issue at the earliest possible time.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Connecticut 
for allowing me to proceed. I will be relatively brief. Unfortunately, 
I think we are going to have an awful lot to say on this issue for some 
time to come.
  I thank Senator McCain. Several weeks ago, Senator McCain and I were 
on one of these national shows talking about this issue, and we spoke 
to one another after the show. We agreed on three things--and some of 
my colleagues assembled here on the floor have reached the same 
conclusions. First, that the President of the United States, if he were 
to decide to use ground troops, would need congressional authorization. 
Second, that we and the President should not ever take anything off the 
table once we are in a war, in order to be able to successfully 
prosecute that war. And third, that we consider a resolution that talks 
about the use of ground force.
  Senator McCain had a better idea. He said, ``Joe, why don't we do a 
resolution that suggests the President use whatever means are at his 
disposal in order to meet the objectives that are stated in the 
resolution?'' So we came back after the recess with the intention of 
introducing a resolution. We spoke with the Democratic and Republican 
leadership here in the Senate. We met with the President in a 
bipartisan group. And we concluded that it was not the time to press 
for passage of the resolution. But it is time to lay it before the 
American people and before the Congress.
  This is a joint resolution. If passed, it would meet the 
constitutional requirement of the war clause in the U.S. Constitution. 
That is the equivalent of a declaration of war.
  From a constitutional standpoint, in order to use ground forces, I am 
of the view--and I expect my colleagues will be of the view, whether 
they do or do not support ground forces, now or in the future--that the 
Congress should be involved in that decision under our Constitution.
  So speaking for myself, my first and foremost reason for being the 
original cosponsor of this amendment with my friend, John McCain, is 
that I believe it is constitutionally required.
  Second, I believe very strongly that we should not make an 
international commitment and then withhold the use of any means at our 
disposal to reach our publicly stated objectives. This resolution will 
allow us, as a nation and as an alliance, to fulfill our commitments.
  So I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. We will have 
disagreements, as you will hear as this debate goes forward, as to 
whether or not the President and NATO have appropriately prosecuted 
this action thus far. I am not suggesting that all of us agree. But 
that will be part of a debate that takes place here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I, for one, do not have the military experience of John McCain; few 
in America do. I would not attempt to second-guess whether the military 
has the capacity to accomplish the objectives as stated by NATO solely 
through the use of air power.
  There are men on the floor like Senator Hagel--a war hero himself, a 
Vietnam veteran--who are better equipped to determine whether or not 
the military is accurately telling us what they can do. I am prepared 
to accept for the moment that the military does have that capacity.
  Thus my sponsorship of this resolution is not for the purpose of 
making the case that the President and NATO should use ground troops at 
this moment. Instead, I think the President should be authorized to use 
those troops, if necessary, in order to prosecute successfully the NATO 
goals in the Balkans. We must have the flexibility to respond to one of 
the most serious crises of this century in the Balkans.
  I just got back from Macedonia and Albania with Ted Stevens and 
others. I noticed most people in Europe are not using the phrase 
``conflict'' anymore; it is a war. This is a war. We should not kid 
each other about it. This is a war. The fact that there have, thank 
God, not been any American casualties yet, the fact that ``only'' three 
Americans have been captured, does not mean this is not a war. This is 
a war. And to successfully prosecute our aims, people are going to die, 
including Americans. I think it is almost unbelievable to think that we 
will meet the objectives stated by NATO without the loss of a single 
American life.
  So this is a war, and it is testing Europe and the alliance in a way 
that we have not faced since the end of World War II. However we choose 
to label it, this is a war in the Balkans, a war that is being 
conducted by a war criminal named Slobodan Milosevic, who has caused 
the greatest human catastrophe in Europe since World War II. At stake 
are the lives of millions of displaced persons and refugees, the 
stability of southeastern Europe, and the future of NATO itself.
  Our goals must be the safe and secure return of all Kosovars to their 
homes; the withdrawal of all Yugoslav and

[[Page S3941]]

Serbian Army, police, and paramilitary forces from Kosovo; and 
permitting the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force in 
Kosovo, either through a permissive environment or--my phrase--a 
practically permissible environment, one in which we could go in and 
the military of Milosevic could not stop us.
  With the stakes this high, we must give the President the necessary 
means to achieve our goals. The Constitution, as I said, requires that 
Congress consider giving such authorization. I have trust and 
confidence in our military leaders when they say that, at least for the 
moment, they do not need ground forces to achieve our goals. 
Nonetheless, they should have the authorization to use all military 
tools should they conclude otherwise. This resolution would provide 
that authorization.
  This resolution also authorizes the President to use other means, 
which encompasses diplomacy as well as arms. I hope, of course, that a 
diplomatic solution will be possible without the use of ground forces, 
but only if the diplomatic solution achieves all of our stated goals.
  Finally, through this resolution, we are putting Slobodan Milosevic 
on notice that the United States and NATO allies are deadly serious 
about doing what it takes to compel him to withdraw his vicious ethnic-
cleansers, gang rapists, recently pardoned criminals, ski-masked thugs, 
and his now corrupted regular army troops from Kosovo.
  So, let me conclude by saying once again that there will be plenty of 
time to debate whether or not NATO should have had a full-blown plan on 
the table for the use of ground forces. I suggest to my colleagues, as 
I suggested at the NAC in Brussels this past Sunday, that if we had 
done that, there is overwhelming evidence that several of our allies 
would not have gone along with even airstrikes.
  I remind everyone who is listening that the good news is that we are 
an alliance. The bad news is, we are an alliance. An alliance requires 
consensus. I respectfully suggest that as hard as it was for the 
Senators on this floor to convince our colleagues that air power made 
sense in the first instance, can you imagine what it would have been 
like if we were standing on the floor today authorizing the President 
to use all force necessary without 18 other NATO nations agreeing?

  I respectfully suggest that Democrats and Republicans alike would 
come to the floor and say: It is not our business alone. We should only 
do this in conjunction with NATO.
  So, there is a delicate balancing act, not unlike what Dwight 
Eisenhower had to deal with in World War II with the French and the 
British and others. The delicate balancing act involves keeping the 
alliance together and at the same time not diminishing the capacity to 
achieve the alliance's ends.
  The message I would like to see sent to Belgrade today is that 
America is united, the United States Congress is united, and American 
citizens are prepared to use whatever force is necessary to stop him. I 
would also send a message to our allies that we are resolved and we 
expect them to stay resolved to achieve NATO's stated objectives. If we 
fail to achieve our stated objectives, I believe that NATO loses its 
credibility as a credible peacekeeping alternative and a defensive 
organization in Europe. If that occurs, I believe you will see a 
repetition of this war in Serbia, in Macedonia, in Albania, in 
Montenegro, and other parts of the Balkans.
  Much is at stake. We should not kid the American people. American 
lives will be lost as this continues. But America's strategic interests 
and American lives in the long run will be saved if we resolutely 
pursue the NATO objectives.
  Mr. President, I again thank my friend from Connecticut. I am proud 
to join with the Senators on the floor here today, for whom I have deep 
respect. I realize they have put aside their political considerations 
in order to pursue this effort. I compliment them for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend 
from Nebraska for yielding time to me.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor and to the decision to cosponsor 
this resolution with a deep sense of seriousness and purpose. These are 
fateful, historic and very consequential matters that we are discussing 
and engaged in today.
  Great nations such as this one, and great alliances such as NATO, do 
not remain great if they do not uphold their principles and keep their 
promises. That has always been true, of course, but it seems powerfully 
so today, as we prepare to welcome NATO and much of the rest of the 
world to Washington this week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of 
this great alliance.
  We are being tested. This alliance and this Nation are being tested 
in ways that a few months ago we never could have imagined would have 
been the case as we prepared for this commemoration. So it becomes now, 
in its way, less an unlimited celebration and more a renewal of 
commitment to the principles which animated and necessitated the 
organization of NATO 50 years ago. We are called on today to uphold 
those principles, the principles of a free and secure transatlantic 
community. We must keep the promises we have made in support of those 
principles. NATO must prevail in the Balkans, in Kosovo.
  Thugs, renegade regimes and power-hungry maniacs everywhere in the 
world are watching our actions in the Balkans and gauging our resolve. 
They must receive an unequivocal message. They must understand that 
they violate our principles, they ignore our promises and threats at 
their peril.
  That is the context in which I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, 
to stand by our national and alliance principles, to keep our promises 
and to send an unequivocal message to Milosevic and all the other thugs 
of the world: You cannot defy forces united for common decency and 
humanity; you cannot ignore our promises and threats. We will not end 
the 20th century standing idle, allowing a murderous tyrant to mar all 
that we together have accomplished in Europe and in this transatlantic 
community over the last five decades.
  Mr. President, I was privileged to go, almost 2 weeks ago now, to 
Europe with Secretary Cohen on a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of 
Congress. I brought home with me a heightened respect for the military 
machine that we and NATO--particularly in the United States--have 
developed. It is awesome in its capability and power, and our service 
men and women are, without a doubt, the best trained and the most 
committed that any nation has ever produced. I say that to say, as a 
matter of confidence, that no matter what it takes, they will prevail 
over Milosevic.
  I still believe that the current air campaign, which is being very 
effectively implemented, can succeed in achieving our goals in this 
conflict. That, of course, depends on the test of wills that is going 
on now and on the test of sanity that is going on now. If there is any 
sanity in an enlightened national self-interest left in the higher 
counsels of government in Belgrade, they will stop the NATO air 
bombardment of their country by accepting NATO's terms and restoring 
peace.
  However, it would be irresponsible not to plan for other military 
options that may be necessary to defeat this enemy. Not only should all 
options remain on the table, but all options must be adequately 
analyzed and readied.
  In the case of ground forces, which will take weeks to deploy should 
they be necessary, we should begin now to plan for the logistics of 
such a mission and to ensure that appropriate personnel are adequately 
trained.
  I say again what I have said before, I hope and pray that NATO ground 
forces are not needed. I hope common sense, sanity will prevail in the 
government in Belgrade, but it would be irresponsible not to prepare 
NATO's forces now for their potential deployment, and it would be 
similarly irresponsible, I believe, for Congress, in these 
circumstances, not to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, 
under article I, section 2 of our Constitution, to take whatever 
actions are necessary to achieve the noble objectives we have set out 
for ourselves in the Balkans by defeating Milosevic. That is what this 
resolution does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  In the last week or so, several countries and others have offered 
proposals for seeking a negotiated cease-fire.

[[Page S3942]]

 While we all pray for peace in the Balkans, I think it is important 
that the peace be a principled peace. NATO has clearly stated 
objectives, and we can settle for nothing less than the attainment of 
those reasonable objectives.
  They are quite simply that the Serbian invaders, the military and 
paramilitary forces that have wreaked havoc, bloodshed, and terror on 
the Kosovar Albanians be withdrawn from Kosovo; that the Kosovars be 
allowed to return, to be able to do no more than we take for granted 
every day of our lives in the U.S., which is to live in peace and 
freedom in their homes and villages; and that there be an international 
peacekeeping force to monitor that peace that we will have achieved.
  If we agree on the worth and the justice of those objectives, we--
NATO, the United States--must be prepared to do whatever is necessary 
to achieve those objectives. To negotiate half a victory, which is no 
victory, to claim that we have achieved military objectives without 
achieving the principled objectives that motivated our involvement, 
would effectively be a devastating defeat, not just for the human 
rights of the people of Kosovo, but for NATO and the United States.

  By introducing this resolution today, we begin a very serious and 
fateful debate. Today is just the beginning of it. It must, because of 
the seriousness of all that is involved here, engage not just the 
executive branch of our Government and the Members of Congress of both 
parties and both Houses, but the American people as well.
  I come back to the bottom line in concluding. I am convinced that we 
are engaged in a noble mission with our allies in the Balkans, which 
goes to the heart of international security, European security and 
American security, but also goes to the heart of our principles as a 
nation.
  I close, if I may, with a prayer that God will be with all those who 
are fighting in the Balkans today for freedom and human rights and 
soften the hearts of our opposition so that the additional force that 
the Commander in Chief would be authorized to deploy, if this 
resolution passes, will not be necessary. But if it is, let this 
resolution stand, introduced as it is today by a bipartisan group of 
Members of the Senate, let this resolution stand for the clear 
statement that we will stand together as long as necessary to achieve 
the principles we cherish in the Balkans, as well as the security that 
we require.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield to my friend and colleague from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I join with my colleagues this morning in introducing 
this joint resolution because it is the right thing to do, it is the 
responsible thing to do.
  Our military efforts and our political will must be consistent with 
and commensurate with our military and political objectives. That is 
the essence of what this debate is about.
  I happen to believe that the Balkans are in the national security 
interests of this country for many reasons: Our relationship with NATO, 
the stability of Central and Eastern Europe; the next ring out is the 
stability of the Baltics, central Asia, Turkey. So in my mind it is 
rather clear that we do have a national security interest here.
  What this resolution is about is cutting through the fog of who is to 
blame, the miscalculation, mistakes up/down. That must be set aside. 
What we need to remember is that we are engaged in a war. We must stay 
focused on this commitment and have the resolution and the will to 
achieve the purpose which we began a month ago.
  Wars--political, military calculations are imperfect. If we believe--
and I do; I believe our 18 NATO allies do believe --that this is the 
right thing to do, then we must commit ourselves to achieving this most 
important objective. That means the American people must first 
understand what our national security interests are, the Congress must 
lead with the President, and we must be unified to accomplish this 
goal.
  Surely, one of the lessons of Vietnam was that not only are long, 
confusing wars not sustainable in democracies, but we also learned, as 
Colin Powell laid out very clearly the last time that we dispatched our 
military might, that the doctrine of military force is very simple: 
Maximum amount of power, minimum amount of time.
  Time is not on our side here, Mr. President. Time is not on our side. 
The longer this goes without a resolution, the more difficult it will 
become and the more likely it will be that the resolution, the outcome, 
will be some kind of a half-baked deal that will resolve nothing; so as 
we began this noble effort, we will end with no nobility and no 
achievement as to making the world better and more stable and more 
secure.
  This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is far beyond that. I 
think that is well represented by the bipartisanship of this 
resolution. There is another consequence that flows from what we are 
now engaged in, and that is how we will respond to future security 
challenges. And just as important as that link is how others around the 
world will measure our response, measure our will, measure our 
commitment to doing the right thing.
  History has taught us very clearly that when you defer the tough 
decisions, things do not get better; they get worse. And the more you 
try and appease the Milosevics of the world, things get worse, more 
people die, more commitment must be made later. That is surely a lesson 
of history.
  The time is now past whether we are committed to do this or not. That 
debate was a month ago. What we must do now is come together in a 
unified effort to win this, to achieve our political and military 
goals, stop the slaughter, stop the butchery, allow the people of 
Kosovo to go back into their homes, maintain the stability of that part 
of the world, and allow for a political resolution to develop--not one 
that we dictate, not one that NATO dictates, but the people of the 
Balkans.
  My colleagues this morning have referred to the outer rings of 
consequences here, the outer rings of instability. I believe that if 
this effort is not successful, not only are you destabilizing Central 
and Eastern Europe, you are taking away the opportunities those nations 
of Central and Eastern Europe have now, and the former republics of the 
Socialist Soviet Republic, for a chance to develop a democracy and 
individual liberties and a free market system, because you have 
destabilized the area for no other reason than you have brought a 
million refugees, displaced persons, into that part of the world where 
those nations and the infrastructures of those nations cannot possibly 
deal with that and, hence, destabilizing the very infrastructure we are 
trying to help.
  There are so many, many consequences that are attached to this one 
effort. I hope this resolution makes very clear, on a bipartisan basis, 
what we, as a Nation, as a member of NATO, as a member of the civilized 
world have at stake here and why it is important that we win this war. 
And I call it a war because it is a war.
  I hope that the President of the United States will provide the kind 
of leadership that this Nation is going to need to connect the national 
security interests not just at the immediate time in that part of the 
world, but for our long-term national security interests not just in 
that part of the world, but all parts of the world. The President must 
lead. If the President wishes to come to the Congress and ask for a 
declaration of war, that should be entertained and debated and 
carefully considered.
  The time for nibbling around the edges here is gone. And we not only 
do a great disservice to the men and women that we asked to fight this 
war, but to our democracy and all of the civilized world if we do not 
do the right thing. History will judge us harshly, as it should, if we 
allow this to continue, what is going on in the Balkans today, and do 
not stop it.

                          ____________________