[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2376-H2385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1569, H. CON. RES. 82, H. J. RES.
44, AND S. CON. RES. 21, MEASURES REGARDING U.S. MILITARY ACTION
AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 151
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to debate the deployment of United States
Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for one hour equally divided and
controlled among the chairmen and ranking minority members of
the Committees on International Relations and Armed Services.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of the
question of consideration to consider in the House the bill
(H.R. 1569) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense from being used for the deployment of
ground elements of the United States Armed Forces in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is
specifically authorized by law. The bill shall be considered
as read for amendment. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 3. After disposition of H.R. 1569, it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order or the
question of consideration to consider in the House the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 82) directing the
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from their
positions in connection with the present operations against
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The concurrent resolution
shall be considered as read for amendment. The concurrent
resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on International Relations. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent
resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 4. After disposition of H. Con. Res. 82, it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order or the
question of consideration to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 44) declaring a state of war between
the United States and the Government of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. The joint resolution shall be considered as
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. After disposition of H.J. Res. 44, it shall be in
order on the same legislative day without intervention of the
question of consideration to consider in the House the
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) authorizing the
President of the United States to conduct military air
operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), if called up by
Representative Gejdenson of Connecticut or his designee. The
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for
amendment. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption
without intervening motion.
Sec. 6. The provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the War
Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1545-46) shall not apply during
the remainder of the One Hundred Sixth Congress to a measure
introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War Powers Resolution
(50 U.S.C. 1544) with respect to Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall)
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time
yielded will be for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 151 provides for the consideration
of four separate measures relating to the deployment of U.S. Armed
Forces in the Republic of Yugoslavia, each under a closed amendment
process with 1 hour of debate. The first measure made in order by the
rule is H.R. 1569 which prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense from being used for the deployment of ground
elements of the U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia unless that deployment
is authorized by law. Debate time on H.R. 1569 will be controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
[[Page H2377]]
The next two resolutions made in order by the rule were introduced by
my friend from Campbell, California (Mr. Campbell) and reported
unfavorably yesterday by the Committee on International Relations. Both
resolutions, H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44, have a unique procedural
status under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Without this rule, both
Campbell resolutions will become the pending business of the House
today as a result of having been reported by the Committee on
International Relations. Motions to proceed to consideration of the
resolutions would be privileged, and the resolutions would not be
subject to general debate but would be subject to an open but clearly
unfocused amendment process.
As a result, this rule structures the consideration of these measures
in accordance with the War Powers Resolution while providing for a
full, fair and focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the
introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia.
Debate time on both of these resolutions will be controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations.
The fourth resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we make in order with this
rule is S.Con.Res. 21, authorizing the President to conduct military
air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. This resolution
may only be called up by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson)
or his designee. Debate time on S.Con.Res. 21 will be controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations.
Prior to consideration of these four measures, the rule provides for
1 hour of debate on measures relating to the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, equally divided and controlled among the chairmen and
ranking minority members of the Committee on International Relations
and the Committee on Armed Services.
Finally, the rule provides that provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the
War Powers Resolution shall not apply during the remainder of the 106th
Congress to a measure introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War
Powers Resolution with respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when Americans are engaged in armed conflict, the
House of Representatives is invariably faced with important and very
difficult questions. That is the responsibility handed to us by our
Nation's forefathers when they crafted democracy's most enduring and
enlightened document, our Constitution. Today is such a day. President
Clinton has directed our Armed Forces to join our NATO allies in a
battle against the forces of Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic.
It is a fight to preserve civilized society in a corner of Europe that
has been wracked by atrocities, violence and Civil War on a scale
unseen in Europe since the Second World War.
The United States is not the world's policeman. The American people
know too well that we cannot intervene in every civil war. We cannot
stop every act of brutality. We cannot keep the peace and protect
democracy all on our own. But that is not what is going on today in the
Balkans.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of the world's
civilized and democratic nations, is engaged in military action in
Yugoslavia. When the President, the Commander in Chief, made the
decision a month ago that it was in our national interest to lead NATO
in this effort, America became a full participant in that undertaking.
Our pilots are risking their lives every single day.
Whether or not in hindsight that was the right decision is a question
for presidential historians. This really is not about whether we agreed
with the President at the time either. Today the overriding question
is: What policy best protects and advances our national interests?
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly and unequivocally
establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief. The
deployment and direction of the armed forces is his job. In fact, since
my first day of service in this legislative body, it has been my view
that the direction of our foreign policy and national security is the
President's first and foremost responsibility. Everything else comes
after that.
Although I have had some doubts about the President's original policy
in Kosovo, I believe that the facts on the ground have overtaken those
concerns. Now we must win. We must achieve the goals that the President
set out to achieve when he committed our forces to battle. The price of
failure is simply too great. American prestige and power, two of the
most positive forces of good in the world today, must not be abandoned
on the field of battle.
Mr. Speaker, vacillation and hesitancy in the face of this challenge
to the leadership of the United States and NATO, a challenge undertaken
by a gang of thugs in Belgrade and their brutal underlings in Kosovo
will severely undermine our Nation's ability to stand up and defend
clear American interests across the globe. If that happens, we lose.
The American people lose. Freedom loses.
Mr. Speaker, as the House undertakes this important debate, I will
focus on doing what is best for our national interests and for the
American service men and women doing their jobs with bravery and
commitment. First and foremost I believe that means opposing
micromanagement of our foreign and military policy. We know we cannot
engage in combat by committee. One of the most serious objections to
the conduct of the Kosovo campaign thus far has been the fact that too
many people, in particular too many political leaders, have been
involved in this effort. I do not support adding to that problem. The
President is constitutionally charged with leading and winning this
campaign. He must do it, and we must stand behind him so that he can.
I urge support of this rule which provides for, as I said, a full,
fair and very focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the
introduction of U.S. armed forces in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the
time. As my colleague from California has explained, this rule provides
for the consideration of four different measures dealing with U.S.
troops in Yugoslavia. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Committee on International Relations and Armed Services.
For each measure, this rule provides an additional hour of debate.
Under the rule, none of the measures may be amended on the House
floor. Furthermore, the rule prohibits consideration of any other
measure with respect to Yugoslavia brought up under the War Powers Act
for the remainder of the 106th Congress.
The purpose of considering these four resolutions is to give Congress
a role in the decisions affecting U.S. military actions against
Yugoslavian President Milosevic and his reign of terror directed
against the Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo.
The rule was approved by the Committee on Rules late last night on a
straight partisan vote with Democrats against it, and I strongly oppose
the rule, and I ask for its defeat.
The first measure called up under the rule H.R. 1569 prohibits the
use of funds for deploying ground troops in Yugoslavia without
additional congressional authorization. This measure raises numerous
legal and military questions. In a worst case scenario, this resolution
would result in the Federal courts defining what operations are legal
in Yugoslavia. The measure was only introduced yesterday, and it had no
hearings and no committee consideration. If passed by the Congress, it
would certainly face a presidential veto.
The second measure, House Concurrent Resolution 82, calls for the
immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in Yugoslavia. On a bipartisan vote
of 30 to 19 the Committee on International Relations recommended
against passing the bill. The committee report said that this
resolution would have severe consequences for U.S. national security
and severe repercussions with the North Atlantic Alliance. It stands
little chance of passage on the House
[[Page H2378]]
floor. Enactment of this measure would undermine the President, our
military forces and destroy any hope that our air campaign against the
Serbs would have a positive outcome.
The third measure, H.J. Resolution 44, declares war against
Yugoslavia. The Committee on International Relations unanimously
recommended against this resolution. The legislation is intended to
clear up the legal question of whether or not the U.S. is at war.
Unfortunately, this resolution does more harm than good at this point.
In fact, the report of the Committee on International Relations warned
it could actually strengthen Milosevic politically. This measure also
does not stand any chance of surviving a presidential veto.
Lastly, the rule makes in order S. Con. Resolution 21 authorizing the
President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes
against Yugoslavia. This bill passed the Senate with bipartisan
backing.
Considering a declaration of war is one of the most solemn duties of
Congress under this Constitution. Only 11 times before in our Nation's
history has Congress ever formally declared war. This rule mocks the
dignity of that responsibility. What we have here is a grab bag of
conflicting, contradicting and confusing resolutions about the war in
Yugoslavia which stand little chance of enactment, and proceeding in
this fashion is an embarrassment to the United States, to our
President, to the men and women in our Armed Forces and to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, what would it say if none of these resolutions pass, or
some of them pass, or if they all pass but are vetoed? The only signal
that can possibly result from this rule is that our Nation is confused
and hesitant. That certainly is not the message we want to send to our
NATO allies, nor is it the signal we want to send to our troops.
{time} 1045
It is not the signal we want to send to the American people. Indeed,
Congress does have a role in going to war, but finding that role at the
end of the 10th century in an era of modern warfare is difficult, and
this rule does not find it.
Under the War Powers Act, both H. Con. Resolution 82 and H.J.
Resolution 44 would be amendable on the House floor, but this rule
prohibits amendments to all four resolutions.
Furthermore, the rule prohibits any further resolutions about
Yugoslavia to be brought up in the 106th Congress under the expedited
procedures of the War Powers Act. This is a terribly restrictive
clause, that nullifies a key part of the War Powers Act. It reduces the
ability of each House Member to participate in the decisions about this
war.
At a hearing before the Committee on Rules yesterday, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell), the author of two of these resolutions
before us today, urged the committee to remove this provision. The
expedited procedures are everything, the gentleman said.
I appreciate the Republican Committee on Rules majority granting a
full five hours of debate time to these measures. Still, the cause of
democracy is not served by this restrictive rule. Under the War Powers
Act, the House is required to consider H. Con. Resolution 82 and H.J.
Resolution 44, so I have no issue with their consideration under the
House rules. However, bundling these four measures together makes the
House look weak and indecisive.
I agree with the backers of these bills that Congress should not,
cannot, be left out of the loop on vital decisions of war, but this
rule is a clumsy, ineffective way to participate. The only way to get
our voice heard is through careful, deliberate and bipartisan measures.
The American people are hurting for leadership from Congress. They
want us to work together. Painful experience with controversial issues
in the recent past should have taught the House that bipartisanship is
the only way to reach the American people.
This rule will not increase the role of Congress in the decision to
make war. It will only further undermine our ability to be taken
seriously. I urge the defeat of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend, the gentleman from Newport News, Virginia (Mr. Bateman),
one of the great champions of our Nation's national security.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is certainly I suspect the most sorrowful day in my
now 17 years in this body. It is a solemn day.
We are here because of the circumstances of what I think has been a
very, very poor implementation of a national security policy, founded
on good intentions, but run amuck in the execution and the failure to
appreciate all of the consequences that would ensue from the way we
sought the objectives, all of which we would endorse, but we are indeed
here.
I am speaking in debate time on the rule; not so much in objection to
its technical terms, but for the fact that it does not leave an
alternative that I feel is logical and supportable given the incredible
mess in which we find ourselves. But the one thing we cannot deny is
the fact that we are in the mess.
I have urged for weeks that the president, our Commander in Chief,
come to the Congress and lay out in whatever terms he chose in support
of a resolution framed by the White House, to ask for the authorization
of the actions and of the objectives that he was pursuing, with great
intention and expectation on my part that I would have voted for them.
He has not chosen to do that. Yet I think very clearly it is
incumbent upon the Congress as part of its obligation to the people who
wear our uniform in the military that we let them know that the
Congress has authorized what they are doing or what they may be asked
to do and that we state the objectives pursuant to which they do it.
None of the resolutions before us today do that.
I cannot possibly vote for either of the Campbell resolutions. I
cannot vote for an alternative that says it is all right to continue,
bomb, bomb, bomb, without restriction or reservation, but, my goodness
gracious, we cannot possibly contemplate the use of ground forces, even
though I think that is a bad idea. But it is an even worse idea, when
no one is proposing to do it anyway, to announce to your potential
enemy, your real enemy, you are not going to do it.
The reverse of that is what we do basically in the Senate joint
resolution passed, you may recall, the day before the bombing began. It
did not seem to me to be a good idea then. I do not think it has
improved since.
There are things we need to say and we need to do. I think this rule
ought to make in order something that, when in effect, enunciates on
behalf of the Congress the kind of policies incorporated in the
statement of the gentleman who chairs the Committee on Rules, which was
a very eloquent statement of why we are involved, what the stakes are,
and what we as a Nation ought to be doing together to see that our
objectives prevail. I wish the rule and debate was going to make that
possible.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost), a very important member of the Committee on
Rules and Chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost) is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this is a fatally flawed rule which should be
defeated for a variety of reasons, and I want to touch on those as
briefly as possible.
First, it denies the opportunity for any Member of this House during
the next 18 months to bring up anything else under the War Powers Act,
no matter what happens. We tried to eliminate that in the Committee on
Rules, but the majority insisted on that provision.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say to my friend that
it does not prevent a Member from having an opportunity to offer a
resolution. It simply moves under standard
[[Page H2379]]
procedures without going through the expedited process.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) said yesterday, giving the preferred
position, the status of a privileged resolution to go to the floor, is
everything, so you have denied everything by precluding this to come as
privileged resolution for the next 18 months.
Secondly, only 5 hours of debate time were permitted. When we did the
Persian Gulf resolution, we debated that virtually all night, as you
remember.
Third, and most importantly, this rule puts in a preferred position
the Goodling resolution, which is enormously and dangerously flawed.
I want to read from the Goodling resolution: ``None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be
obligated or expended for the deployment of ground elements of the
United States Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless
such deployment is specifically authorized by law enacted after the
enactment of this act.'' Then it talks about a limited exception to
rescue our personnel.
I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in the
committee a series of questions. I first asked the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), does this preclude the use of Apache
helicopters to go in and destroy tanks, with the Apaches being operated
by our Army? The gentleman first said yes, it precludes it, and then he
changed his mind and said no, it does not preclude it.
Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) another
question. I said, for sake of argument, let us say we have Special
Forces in Kosovo right now acting as forward observers to direct our
bombing attacks and who are also working with the refugees trying to
rescue refugees. Would this require the immediate removal of our
Special Forces in Kosovo if they are there for those purposes? The
gentleman's answer was yes.
Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), how
could this be? How could we have these conflicting provisions? He then
said in the Committee on Rules, well, he did not draft this. I said,
this has your name on it. He said yes, but I did not draft it, and I
cannot fully explain it.
I find this to be a very unfortunate situation. We have a resolution
that was drafted by some members of the other party, handed to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), which he cannot fully
defend, which will create a situation where our commander on the
ground, General Clark, will have to think, do I have to go to a Federal
Court, do I have to seek a ruling from a Federal judge, before I make
any decision in the next few days?
This will hamstring our troops in the field and hamstring our
President. This rule sets up in a preferred position a resolution that
should not be passed by this House, and this rule should be rejected.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend
from Surfside Beach, Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose the rule, and I do this
hesitantly, because it is difficult to write fair rules and I generally
support the rules. But today I have to oppose this rule, mainly because
we are going to be debating war, a declaration of war, and a full hour
is not adequate to debate an issue of that magnitude. I know there was
an attempt to provide for a lot of debate today, but, for instance, on
the one issue of declaration of war, only one hour was given; that is
just not enough.
The other reason is that it does preclude a House Resolution coming
up again under an expedited procedure. This is not right. This is
undermining the whole purpose of the War Power Resolution of 1973, and
we should not be doing this.
This is taking more authority away from the Congress and giving more
authority to the President and to the administration and for us not to
have a say. The whole issue of war should be decided here in this
Congress, and we are here today because we have been negligent on
assuming our responsibilities.
I saw this coming, and on February 9 of this year, I introduced a
bill that would have prevented this whole problem by making certain
that our President could not spend one penny on waging war in Kosovo.
That is what we should have done. We have not, and now we are in this
mess.
But we do not need to be once again taking more responsibility from
the Congress and giving it to the President. We have a policy problem,
we do not have a resolution problem. We have a foreign policy that
endorses intervention any time, anyplace, assuming that our Presidents
know when to insert troops around the world. That is our basic problem.
Until we in the Congress take it upon ourselves to assume our
responsibility with the issue of war, this problem will continue.
So I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for
bringing these resolutions to the floor, but, unfortunately, I cannot
support this rule today as written.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), a very distinguished member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, some of us stood in this chamber 8 years ago
when President Bush called on the Congress to support his military
plans in the Persian Gulf. I was one of those Democrats who strongly
supported the President at that time. But I recall, Mr. Speaker, that
we were given 16 hours of debate, 16 hours of debate, on one single
resolution. Every Member of this body had full opportunity to speak his
mind. We now have four conflicting, contradictory, mutually exclusive
resolutions, with each of them given one hour of debate.
With all due respect, I think this is an outrage. This will be one of
the most significant issues this Congress will debate in this session
or for many sessions to come, and I strongly call on my colleagues to
defeat this rule. This is a rule which is giving us 30 minutes on each
side to decide on war or peace, which is an absurdity, and it is not
worthy of this body.
This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, my distinguished Republican
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I represented
this body at the NATO summit.
{time} 1100
Nineteen countries devoted 2 full days to discussing the plans for
the future. It is unconscionable that the Congress of the United States
should be denied the opportunity to seriously discuss issues of war and
peace. The President has just asked for the call-up of some 33,000
reservists. We have a major military engagement, and this body and the
country are entitled to a full airing of all of the issues involved in
this.
I trust that my colleagues will see fit to turn down this rule. It is
poorly crafted. It is a gag rule. It allows not a single amendment, and
it gives over 200 Republicans and over 200 Democrats 30 minutes to
discuss each of these issues. This is simply unacceptable, and I
earnestly call on the majority to rethink this restrictive, un-American
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because it is
a fair rule and it allows all views to be heard and will allow far more
than 30 minutes that the previous speaker mentioned. We will be
debating this for many hours to come today, and on into tonight.
However, I rise in strong opposition to this war in the Balkans.
First of all, as our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) has pointed out, it is an unconstitutional war because
Congress has not and, I assume, will not declare war against
Yugoslavia. Secondly, we have made the situation in Kosovo many times
worse by our bombings and we cannot hide behind NATO because NATO would
never have gone in there if the U.S. had not wanted it done. Ninety
percent of the bombings have been paid for and done by the U.S. In
fact, if the President is going to send in ground troops, as many
people think, let the European members of NATO send them in. We have
carried almost the entire financial and air war burden thus far and we
[[Page H2380]]
should not have to carry the ground war burden too.
If we get further into this mess by sending in ground troops, there
are estimates that ultimately we will spend $40 billion to $50 billion
in air and ground war costs and resettlement and reconstruction costs,
money that will have to come from Social Security and many other
valuable programs.
Pat Holt, a foreign affairs expert writing in the Christian Science
Monitor wrote a few days ago, ``The first few days of bombing have led
to more atrocities and to more refugees. It will be increasing the
instability which the bombing was supposed to prevent.''
Richard Cohen, the very liberal columnist for The Washington Post
wrote, ``I believe, though, that the NATO bombings have escalated and
accelerated the process. For some Kosovars, NATO has made things
worse.''
Philip Gourevitch, writing in the April 12 New Yorker Magazine said,
``Yet so far the air war against Yugoslavia has accomplished exactly
what the American-led alliance flew into combat to prevent: Our bombs
unified the Serbs in Yugoslavia, as never before, behind the defiance
of Milosevic; they spurred to a frenzy the `cleansing' of Kosovo's
ethnic Albanians by Milosevic's forces'', and on and on.
A.M. Rosenthal writing in The New York Times a few days ago asked
this question: ``Would we again bomb, bomb, bomb the capital of the
Serbs, who thought of themselves as far more our friends than his,''
meaning Milosevic. ``So far this has produced three major results:
humiliating Serbs forever, turning friendship into enmity, and
persuading many to rally around a man they detest and fear.''
All we have done, Mr. Speaker, is turn friends into enemies and waste
billions and billions of dollars. We have gone into an area where there
is absolutely no threat to our national security and no vital U.S.
interest, and we should negotiate a settlement and get out of there as
soon as we possibly can.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the former chairman and now ranking
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the part of the
rule that turns off the action-forcing elements of the War Powers Act.
Today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is using the War
Powers Act to force the House to debate and vote on two resolutions.
The first is the concurrent resolution to withdraw the troops from
Yugoslavia, and the second is a joint resolution to declare war on
Yugoslavia.
But after today, Mr. Speaker, no other Member will have that right.
If this rule is adopted, no matter whatever else may happen in
Yugoslavia, no matter how much the situation there may change, no other
Member will be able to bring this issue for a vote.
In the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) himself complained about this rule and he said, and I
agreed, that ``the War Powers Act is there so that any Member of the
House can request the House to take action against the war.''
Mr. Speaker, this resolution prevents the average Member from
exercising their war powers rights for the remainder of this Congress.
This Congress has just started. The war has just started. A great deal
may happen over the next 20 months, and nothing, nothing should be
taken off the table.
My colleagues might compare this to the rule in 1991 on Somalia. On
that rule, the House turned off the War Powers Act only with respect to
concurrent resolutions of withdrawal and only for a period of 2 weeks.
We turned it off for only a period of 2 weeks. That rule retained
Members' ability to introduce privileged resolutions declaring war, and
it also reinstated the war powers for the second session of that
Congress which was scheduled to start in 2 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison. We did it for 2 weeks, for a
limited number of resolutions. My Republican colleagues today are doing
it for 20 months, 20 months, for all resolutions. This is a very
dangerous situation, to tie Congress's hands in the matter of war, and
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a very able member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today, and I
want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) for his forthright and honest War Powers Resolution Act that
he is bringing up.
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that the
collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply
to the introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities or
into situations where imminent involvement in the hostilities is
clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of
such forces and hostilities or in such circumstances.
What we are talking about today is a rule that would allow us the
opportunity to bring forth the debate and the discussion about foreign
policy and the use of troops in a foreign country. Mr. Speaker, what we
are talking about is the use of ground forces that would be engaged in
war, the debate about the probability and possibility that U.S. lives
would be lost overseas. We intend to utilize this time to discuss not
only our foreign policy, but what we intend to engage in and be
involved in overseas.
I am opposed to us being in Kosovo. I am opposed to the war being
escalated and us not seeking a peaceful resolution. This is why a
debate is so important. Obviously, the other side does not want to have
this debate. Obviously, the President feels like that he does not even
need to fall within the confines of this law. The bottom line is that
what we are discussing is that which democracy brings about, which the
laws of this country have brought about, and I believe that it is
important for us to do this.
Previous Presidents have submitted 72 prior reports on the War Powers
Resolution. President Ford, 4; President Carter, 1; President Reagan,
14; President Bush, 7; and President Clinton, 46 times has asked for
these types of powers. It is time that we openly engage in the debate.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, among the duties of a Member of Congress,
there is nothing more serious than the issues of war and peace;
committing the wealth and the might of our Nation, putting the members
of our armed forces in harm's way. Before we went to war with Iraq, we
debated around the clock. Every Member of this body who so wished was
allowed to come to the floor and debate and discuss the issues of
conscience and war and peace.
Today promises a pathetic, pale and perverted version of that grand
debate. Four contradictory resolutions, 1 hour each. Vote on a
declaration of war, 13 seconds per Member of Congress, if it is equally
apportioned. Vote on immediate withdrawal, 13 seconds per Member.
Is the press of business on this body so heavy that we cannot
allocate more time, or are the leaders on the other side afraid of a
full and fair debate? Yesterday, the House adjourned at 4:30 in the
afternoon. Tonight, after exhausting ourselves in this debate, we will
leave at 7 p.m. What is more important to the other side, fund-raisers,
or issues of war and peace fully and fairly debated?
Fair debate? No amendments will be allowed from the floor of the
House of Representatives. And, we are only having this debate today
because of the War Powers Act and its expedited procedures. They have
to have a debate, although they are trying to pervert it in different
ways, but after today, no further votes will be allowed.
This is an outrageous abdication of our duties as Members of
Congress. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), my very good friend and a
very able and hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and
chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the right time to have this debate.
I too wish it would be longer, but this body needs to be heard on this
issue.
I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. At that point we
had one
[[Page H2381]]
nation trying to overtake another nation, and this country thought it
was worth the effort to stop it. After 10 years and 58,000 American
lives, this body stopped the Vietnam War on a rider on an appropriation
bill.
We now have a dispute in the Balkans, and it is not one nation
against another. There are two bad actors in this. Last year, 2,000
people died in this area. Not nearly as many deaths as those that died
in Sierra Leone in January of this year alone, but of the 2,000 that
died, nearly a third were Serbs and two-thirds were Kosovars.
There are two bad actors in this war. I do not know why we are there.
If we are there, why are we not in the Sierra Leone or the Sudan where
in 10 years, 2 million people were exterminated in ethnic cleansing? I
do not understand our end game, if there is one, and I do not know what
victory is. But this body ought to say no. This body ought to say
enough of the adventurism. We are the only institution that can declare
war, and this administration has admitted that it is at war. This body
ought to be heard.
I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is doing exactly
the right thing to raise precisely the right issue, and I hope that
this body will pass this rule. I too hope that we will strike section
6; I supported the gentleman from Massachusetts last night in his
effort to do so. I think that is a mistake. But after we strike that, I
hope we will pass this rule and be heard on this issue. It is exactly
the right thing to do.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McNulty).
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute, so let me get right
to the point. I oppose this closed rule, I oppose the declaration of
war and the use of U.S. ground forces, and I oppose the motion to
withdraw from our efforts to liberate Kosovo.
Mr. Speaker, when one says what one is against, one ought to stand up
and say what one is for. I support the current air campaign, which is
already weakening Milosevic's military capability, and I support arming
the KLA so that we have a ground operation composed of individuals who
actually know the terrain.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule,
oppose both Campbell resolutions, and support the continuation of the
air campaign, coupled with the creation of a more effective KLA ground
force.
{time} 1115
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply distressed by the tragedy
taking place in Yugoslavia. I urgently call on all parties to this
conflict, including the United Nations and the Russians, to seek a
negotiated settlement to this crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I do not relish breaking with my President, particularly
when matters of war and peace are being debated. But in my opinion on
this issue, this administration is headed in the wrong direction.
The Clinton administration would have us believe that there are only
two alternatives in this crisis, either do nothing or bomb. That
premise is false. In following it, President Clinton has taken us on
the slippery slope towards war.
Our bombing started in Kosovo and has now thoroughly saturated Serbia
and Kosovo. It triggered a dramatic increase in the refugee crisis and
violence against the Kosovar Albanians. We have killed many innocent
civilians, both Serb and Albanian. In addition, the Yugoslav democracy
movement has been a casualty, as has been the peaceful Albanian Kosovar
resistence to Milosevic's tribal fanaticism.
Another unfortunate casualty in this episode has been U.S. respect
for international law. The administration sidestepped the United
Nations and flouted international law.
Mr. Speaker, my gut check on this issue is personal. I am a mother.
The question I have asked myself is am I willing to sacrifice the life
of my son to follow this administration's policies in Kosovo. It is
very clear that the administration has backed itself into a corner, and
now wants to take all of us there with it.
As for the Rambouillet agreement, I do not hear the administration
even mentioning it anymore. For a peace agreement worth bombing for, it
has had an amazingly short shelf life. So from Rambouillet
implementation to Milosevic's removal to the return of the Kosovars to
Kosovo, the goalposts keep shifting. How can we know if we have won if
we do not know what we are fighting for?
The objective first touted was autonomy for the Kosovars, and now we
find ourselves allied with the KLA. So while our rhetoric remains the
territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, our actions promote a secessionist
movement along ethnic lines in the heart of Europe.
Smart bombs are only smart when they back up smart policy. This is
the wrong policy for too many reasons.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, limiting debate and blocking all amendments
on this question of life and death is all too typical of this House
Republican leadership. They would convert the War Powers Act to the
``In War, Powerless Act.'' Through its previous inaction, this House
has largely abrogated its responsibility to approve this Nation's
involvement in foreign conflicts. Today's action will only prolong that
irresponsibility.
As a few of us indicated in letters to the President in August and in
October of last year, and again on February 19 of this year, authored
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), there should have been
no military action in the Balkans, not bombing, not troops, not any
military action until this Congress had given it approval.
The Constitution prescribes that no president should commit the lives
of our youth and the billions of our taxpayers' dollars in nonemergency
situations like this without involvement of the American people,
through their representatives in this House.
While NATO raids Belgrade, the same Republican leadership proposes to
raid the United States' Treasury. They are determined to divert
billions of dollars to purposes that have little or nothing to do with
Kosovo. They are using Kosovo as an excuse to subvert the budget limits
or caps that helped bring us a balanced budget, and which only months
ago they swore to uphold.
Yet now that this conflict is underway, it would be folly not to
consider the facts on the ground. Milosevic is a war criminal, who is
committing genocide. No doubt he and his thugs are watching these
proceedings as they unfold today in Washington. We ought not to send
the wrong message to him or to the other petty tyrants from Iraq to
North Korea who may be watching these proceedings.
What is wrong, further, with this rule, however, is that it denies us
the opportunity to invoke the War Powers Act in the future, as we may
well need to do. This rule is outrageous. It ought to be rejected
firmly.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the war powers
resolution. It provides for congressional action in committing and
maintaining our men and women in harm's way. I oppose this rule because
it compromises the ability of Congress to exercise its responsibility
under the war powers resolution.
I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider Senate
Concurrent Resolution 21. It supports the President's decision to join
NATO in air strikes. I will support that resolution, considering the
atrocities being committed by Mr. Milosevic.
For many reasons, I have serious concerns about ground troops. If the
President believes it is necessary to use ground troops, I believe he
must come to Congress in compliance with the war powers resolution.
H.R. 1569 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) goes well
beyond the war powers resolution. It compromises the safety of our
military operation. I will oppose H.R. 1569.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H2382]]
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes and permits the
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, then Congress will
have, in effect, declared war and permitted both bombing and ground
troops, all in one.
Let me explain how. The Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution
21, which authorizes bombing. In Dellums versus Bush, the court case
against the Iraq war, Judge Green wrote in his opinion that Congress
has the sole power to authorize the use of U.S. forces overseas, where
the lives of our men and women would be put in danger.
The President, at the very least, in order to be in accordance with
the Constitution, needs a resolution passed by both Houses that
authorizes him to use force. He does not need a declaration of war to
proceed with the war.
Therefore, if the House joins the Senate in Senate Concurrent
Resolution 21, it meets the constitutional test of both Houses, and the
President is authorized to send ground troops and to prosecute the war.
Some say we must win the war. I believe we must win the peace. Some
people believe that only military action can bring about peace. I
believe that only diplomatic initiatives and constant negotiations can
bring about peace. Some believe we need to teach the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia a lesson by bombing their Nation to rubble. I believe
that violence is not redemptive but it breeds more violence, and places
the hope of resolution far beyond the horizon of peace.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for four reasons.
First of all, it limits the debate to 30 minutes on each side on
something as momentous as this. Contrast that with the Persian Gulf
debate. We debated all day, late into the night, all of the next day
before we finally came to a vote.
Secondly, it makes in order four measures. One, offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is a flawed product. It
needs to be amended and changed considerably. It has already been
amended since it was reported. It will be unamendable when it comes to
the floor.
What is missing among these four is something truly bipartisan. When
we had the Persian Gulf debate we had a bipartisan resolution, Michels-
Solarz-McCurdy. I joined and voted for it. But we do not have an option
like this, or even the opportunity for crafting one here.
Finally, it crowns these four choices, four bad choices, three bad
choices, with an exceptional, unprecedented declaration overriding
statutory law and saying if there are any more measures like this to
come up this year, they will not be entitled to the expedited procedure
that the War Powers Act, a black letter law, provides them.
This is no way to deal with something as important as war. This rule
should be voted down.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want us to debate in this House the nuances of this
campaign in a very serious manner. I also want to be able to say, in
response to the question that is put often by the mothers and fathers
of American forces, that we in Congress gave our best and most
deliberative consideration.
The proposed rule has removed the right of all Members to introduce
resolutions pursuant to the war powers resolution and thus gain
expedited procedures to ensure a floor vote on such an authorization.
Without resort to the war powers expedited procedures denied for the
remainder of the 106th Congress by this rule, the decision on whether
to move forward with an authorization vote will lay entirely and solely
with the Republican leadership. That is unwarranted and unfair.
This rule and the underlying bill send an overwhelmingly negative
message to our troops and to our allies. I think we deserve better.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), a very distinguished member of the Committee
on International Relations.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I note with regret that the President, who once pledged to the world
that no American ground troops would be deployed, now refuses to pledge
to seek congressional approval before such a massive deployment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because the last paragraph of
it nullifies the War Powers Act until the end of this century, and the
War Powers Act is a tool we may need to influence policy.
There are those who argue against any congressional involvement in
the grave decision that lies ahead. They say that our enemies will
tremble in fear if one man, without congressional approval, can deploy
100,000 American soldiers.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I tremble in fear and the Founders of this
Republic would tremble in fear if they thought that one man, without
congressional approval, could send 100,000 of our men and women into
battle.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in 1968 to 1970 I was a physician in the
Vietnam War and dealt with the casualties from that war. That war was
started on this floor by a voice vote.
If we think about the fact that we committed 500,000 people, 50,000
of whom are dead and on a memorial not very far from this building, on
the basis of a voice vote, it seems to me that the United States
Congress can spend more than 1 hour deciding whether or not we are
going to go into this issue.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a debate for a few minutes and got out
of here at 4 o'clock. Last week we came back here. One day we gave a
gold medal to Rosa Parks. That is all we did that day. What have we got
on our calendar that prevents us from spending the time to give the
Members of this House the opportunity to speak about something, where
we are potentially sending our young men and women to die?
I think this rule should be defeated.
{time} 1130
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the acting chairman of the
Committee on Rules for yielding this time to me. I was asked to speak
on the strategy of why these issues have come forward. I have told the
acting chairman of the Committee on Rules that if I spoke I would speak
on the rule as well, so it is with his permission that I say I object
strongly to section 6. I went to the Committee on Rules last night and
said that we should not cut off the opportunity of other Members to
make use of the War Powers Resolution.
I am an average Member of the Congress. I am not a senior Member, I
am not in any leadership position, I am not a chairman, yet I have the
rights simply granted me under the War Powers Resolution, which are
remarkably important. I do not know of any other statute that provides
that right. It is a right that a Member of Congress can come to the
floor and require other Members of Congress to vote on the record, up
or down, when the question is war. That is what we will be doing today,
whether under this rule or otherwise.
The purpose is to fulfill the constitutional obligation. Are we at
war? Yes, we are at war. There are only the worst possible arguments to
say that we are not at war. We have a President who has designated
combat pay for our soldiers. We have the Secretary of Defense who has
said we are in hostilities. We have the Secretary of State who has said
we are in conflict and her designee who said we are in armed conflict.
We have the Deputy Secretary of State who has said that Serbia would be
within its rights to consider a bombing of Kosovo to be an act of war.
We have all the reasons common sense gives to suggest that this is
indeed war.
Secondly, we are on the verge of ground troops. I do not think
anybody today should be mistaken about that.
[[Page H2383]]
In our Committee on International Relations I asked the Secretary of
State whether she thought that the approval of Congress was needed to
prosecute the war, and she said no, she did not think so. And the
ranking member of the Democrats in the Committee on International
Relations yesterday stated that that even included ground troops.
Let me emphasize that. It was the position of the ranking member of
the Democratic Party in the Committee on International Relations that
even for ground troops there was no need for Congress to give
authority.
Well, I am sorry, that is contrary to the Constitution. The Framers
were quite clear that war was too important to be commenced by the
action of one single individual. Those are the words of Alexander
Hamilton and also of representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
Are ground troops imminent? All one can do is look at the newspapers
from this weekend and see the headlines that were prepared. In
particular I refer to the Washington Post: ``Clinton Joins Allies on
Ground Troops'', and the Wall Street Journal: ``Clinton Edges Closer to
Backing the Use of Ground Troops''. The quotations from the articles
under those headlines, which I will be distributing to my colleagues on
the floor or make available, are quite clear that ground troops are
very seriously being considered.
If ground troops are introduced and Congress has not acted, we all
know what will happen. The argument will be, how can we do anything
that might possibly undercut American troops while they are on the
ground in operation? So the moment is now. The moment was earlier,
actually, before the bombing started, but no one can be surprised if
the ground war starts.
So those are the two premises. Number one, we are at war; and, number
two, it is distinctly possible that the bombing will move into ground
war. And, therefore, we must vote. My own view is that we should vote
to withdraw the troops. My own view could be in error. I understand
people of good will feel differently, but my view is that this is a
civil war, and that if our purpose is to help the Albanian Kosovars, we
have not succeeded. Milosevic has done the harm. He is the tyrant, he
is the one at fault, but it is a fact that the Albanian Kosovars are
worse off after our bombing has commenced than they were before. That
is simply a fact. I wish it were not so.
And if ground troops go in, and they must, even if Milosevic signs
the Rambouillet Agreement this afternoon, what Albanian Kosovar will go
back into Kosovo without the protection of ground troops? Thus, ground
troops are the option, slugging their way through Kosovo, either
because the Serbian army is resisting or taking up positions in Kosovo
because the Rambouillet Agreement still requires that placement of
ground troops.
And as to those options, I put to all of my colleagues that we have
the question of lives and the question of money. Lives will be saved if
we do not commence a ground war. I am speaking of NATO lives, American
lives, Serbian lives and Kosovar lives.
And, lastly, regarding money, we are bombing bridges that we will be
asked to rebuild tomorrow. Please mark my words. My colleagues know
that. We all know we are going to be asked to appropriate taxpayers'
money to rebuild the very buildings that today we destroy. We can, for
the same amount of money or less, help the Albanian refugees right now
immensely better where they are, in Albania and Macedonia.
As for Milosevic, he should be denounced to the International War
Crimes Tribunal. If he leaves his country, he will be subject to
arrest, as has happened to Augusto Pinochet as he has tried to go
around the world. And the time will come when there will be a change in
government in Yugoslavia. But by putting in ground troops to force that
change, it will cost innocent lives, and it will cost more economically
than helping the Albanian refugees where they are now.
So the options today are to declare war, which is what it is, to be
honest under our Constitution, and thereby empower the President to
carry on war, which is our constitutional right. After we declare war,
then the President can conduct it. That is his constitutional right.
I am very wary of the Congress telling the President, well, it is
war, but now we want to overview every step of the war. No--if it is
war, we declare it and then the President conducts it. But if it is
something the American people do not wish to become engaged in, this is
the moment to say no, this is the moment to remove the troops, and this
is the moment to help the Albanian Kosovars where they are. Mr.
Speaker, the choices are obvious.
I want to conclude by offering my thanks to the Speaker of the House
particularly for his graciousness and consideration, and to the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), for the same and allowing these two resolutions to come
forward.
Shall we be at war? Then vote to declare war. That is what the
Constitution says. If we say no, then vote to withdraw troops, bring
them home, and start the humanitarian assistance for those refugees
where they are. I suggest the second is the better option.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
just advise my colleagues that I am going to close on this myself, and
I will do so informing the House that I intend to offer an amendment to
the rule which will strike section 6 in the rule itself.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FROST. Since we are amending the rule on the floor, would the
gentleman also consider amending the rule to extend general debate
time?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the
gentleman that I do not intend to offer an amendment to do that. With
this hour we have a total of 6 hours that have been included for the
debate.
We all know this is a very important, a very serious, a very grave
issue, and I think 6 hours of debate is an appropriate amount of time
for this. So it is my intention, following the concern that was raised
by my friend from Dallas and many others, to offer an amendment to the
rule which will strike section 6.
Mr. FROST. If the gentleman will continue to yield just briefly,
those of us on this side raised several concerns, not just about
section 6 but also about the debate time. I think it is unfortunate
that the gentleman would not agree to amend the rule to also extend the
debate time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for accepting the fact
that I am going to offer an amendment to strike section 6.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that I
appreciate the chairman of the committee for announcing his amendment
to strike section 6. I thought that was among the worst things about
this rule. After the eloquent statement by the other gentleman from
California, which I do not agree with at this point in time, to say to
the House and to the country that the House will have one opportunity
and one opportunity only to address the War Powers Act and only one
Member will get that opportunity, I think would have set a very bad
precedent.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify again that that is
not what section 6 said. What would happen, if section 6 were to have
been included, it would have meant that it would have gone through the
leadership structure and the only change that would have been made is
we would not have proceeded with the expedited process. So it would
have not have been a one-time-only thing.
[[Page H2384]]
Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, again, I commend the
gentleman for agreeing to make that change. Perhaps that sets a
precedent for more fair rules going forward in the remainder of the
106th Congress.
I think it is also a mistake that we are spending such little time to
debate this issue. This is a very critical issue for the Nation, and I
am afraid that this underscores the way this House is going to operate
on issues that should be addressed in a bipartisan manner. I would
encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule even as amended.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in
opposition to this rule, which will govern our debate over the
situation in Kosovo today.
Under the terms of this rule, we will be debating four measures, each
for only one hour. This means that each side will only receive but 30
minutes to make known their concerns, just slightly more than is
allowed for a bill on the suspension calendar. These measures are of
precious importance to our troops, and to our national security, and we
should have ample time to debate them.
Furthermore, the timing for the debate on these bills is poor. Like
many other conflicts, the factual circumstances are fluid, and require
our flexibility if we are to be effective. We should not be
pigeonholing our position and threatening the safety of our troops.
Neither NATO nor the United States believes that a state of war
exists in the current conflict in the Balkan region. The President has
not requested that Congress issue a declaration of war. I believe that
a declaration of war would be entirely counterproductive as a matter of
policy and is unnecessary as a matter of law. Yet we stand to debate
this measure today.
On only five occasions in the United States history and never since
the end of World War II has the Congress declared war, reflecting the
extraordinary nature of, and implications attendant on, such a
declaration. Yet it seems Congress is willing to do that today. While
we are not at war with either the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or its
people, Slobodan Milosevic should not doubt the determination of NATO
to see the stability of Europe reasserted. Yet, with this debate today,
we show Milosevic weakness. With resolve NATO can attain a durable
peace that prevents further repression and provides for democratic
self-government for the Kosovar people. Yet, with our votes today, we
send mixed signals to our trusted allies.
As it stands, I must question the genuineness of at least three of
the measures we will be debating today. That is especially true because
we will see Committee leadership bringing a resolution to the floor
that they will be voting against. Those at home watching this debate on
television will undoubtedly see through this charade, and know that
what transpires here today will be less about the importance of our
mission in Kosovo, less about ending human suffering, and more about
partisan politics and taking shots at the White House.
What we should be debating here today, and acknowledging, is the
suffering that is taking place in the Balkans. We should be doing
something to help the refugees who have been cast out of their homes,
and their homeland, by a tyrant. We should be debating how we can bring
stability to this region, and appropriating funds to help thousands of
innocent children eat. We should be passing resolutions of support for
our brave troops.
Instead we stand here today, using the floor of the House of
Representatives, to play tired, partisan politics. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this rule, and to bring to the floor meaningful debate
that can help save lives in Kosovo.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and would simply say that there is nothing more powerful than when this
body speaks with one voice, and the only way to get our voice heard is,
I think, through careful, deliberate and bipartisan measures.
I believe that the American people want us to work together. They
believe, I think, that we are hurting for leadership here in the
Congress, particularly on issues like this. It is not that the issues
that we are debating are not important. They are important, each and
every one of them, and the vote we will take on them, but the way we
are packaging this makes it look like we are frivolous.
This rule will not increase the role of Congress in the decisions to
make war, it will only further undermine our ability to be taken
seriously. The rule, in my opinion, is not the way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
rise in strong support of this rule.
I am going to move that we strike section 6, but before I do that,
let me make a couple of comments about this rule and the procedure
around which it was considered.
For starters, we had a request that came from the minority that we
extend by an hour the debate. We agreed to that. We are allowing the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), under this rule, to call up
or not call up a freestanding bill, which I believe, if it is not
unprecedented, it certainly is unusual. We have also agreed to the
requests that have been made by Members on both sides of the aisle to
address this section 6 question.
I should say that the section 6 which was included in the bill was
not an idea of Republicans. As has been pointed out by some, in 1993
when the resolution on Somalia was considered, it was a proposal that
the majority, the Democratic majority at that time, offered. We were
simply following along the line with that. But from discussions that
have been held, we are going to move to strike section 6.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier: Strike Section 6.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know we are rapidly approaching a vote. I
think we have very clearly explained it.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on both the amendment I
just offered and the resolution itself.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 210, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 99]
YEAS--213
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
[[Page H2385]]
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--11
Aderholt
Archer
Barr
Callahan
Coburn
Cooksey
Engel
Moran (VA)
Slaughter
Tauzin
Wynn
{time} 1220
Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. JONES of Ohio
and Mr. MEEKS of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 99, on April 28,
1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
____________________