[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2385-H2400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN AND AROUND THE FEDERAL 
                         REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to House Resolution 
151, it is now in order to debate the deployment of United States armed 
forces in and around the territory of the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor to begin this 
debate today, and I believe that it is an important one. There is no 
way for me in 1 minute to lay out all of the factors to take into 
consideration here, but let me just make two observations at the 
beginning of this debate.
  We have a duty and a responsibility as a Congress to be heard on the 
issues before us. As a Nation, we must face the fact that this is not 
over and may not be over for some time and that we will be dealing with 
the consequences of American actions in the Balkans for the next decade 
at least. Our relationships with NATO, United States' relationships 
with Russia, NATO's relationships with Russia, the problem of the 
refugees, the pressure for a greater Albania with claims to Macedonia 
and Greece, all of these things we will have to deal with as a 
consequence of American actions, and they will be influenced by the 
decisions and the votes that we take today.
  We cannot and should not avoid this discussion on the merits. That is 
our responsibility as elected representatives from the districts that 
we have come here to serve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) will control the time of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are here with one single primary 
purpose, and that purpose is to stop the murder in Kosovo. Mr. 
Milosevic continues to kill innocent civilians and tries to chase the 
rest away.
  This country has led the world, sometimes single-handedly, in 
military actions in Korea and Vietnam, in Panama, in Lebanon, in 
Grenada and in Kuwait. In Nicaragua, we armed people to fight 
themselves because we were worried about the economic and political 
system that would end up in Nicaragua. We fought to stop communism. 
Some people say we fought in Kuwait to protect our oil reserves.
  Here, Mr. Speaker, it is much simpler. We have a brutal dictator who 
is murdering innocent people and chasing the rest off the land. How do 
we stop this murder? That is our goal.
  We cannot use the argument that as a country, we failed to act 
elsewhere. Yes, there have been other tragedies in recent years, and to 
my regret we either did not have the assets or the inclination to 
respond. In Rwanda, in Cambodia, in countless other places the world 
should have responded.
  One advantage we possess here is that we have NATO; we have NATO 
united, that has been trained and operational together for decades. And 
this is not the United States as the Lone Ranger. How many times have 
we bemoaned the fact that America alone is left with this 
responsibility? This is the United States and it is other NATO partners 
together on a goal to stop murder.
  Do not blame NATO for the acceleration or the deaths in Kosovo. I 
have said it before: As the American troops headed towards the 
concentration camps, the Nazis increased their production rate. They 
killed more people. We cannot use that as an argument for not going 
after them. Milosevic would have been happy to kill these people at a 
lower percentage, try to chase them out more slowly if he was not 
threatened.
  We are going to have an amendment here that lets the Congress decide 
tactics. How many years did we hear about Lyndon Johnson picking 
targets in the White House? Now we are going to have 535 Members of 
Congress determine the tactics in the battlefield. Whatever my 
colleagues' debate is on war powers, I think most people understand 
that is bad policy.
  I look around this Chamber, as I did yesterday in committee, and I 
have seen virtually every Member here at a Holocaust memorial. I have 
seen them come for a day of remembrance about the Armenian genocide. I 
have heard speeches by my colleagues here condemning our inaction in 
Rwanda. And now what are we going to do here in Kosovo?
  We will make a decision whether we simply repeat history so we can 
have one more day with the Speaker's approval in the Rotunda, bemoaning 
the

[[Page H2386]]

death and destruction of the Kosovar Albanians, or we will try to take 
an action united with our other NATO partners that will put this murder 
to an end. The Constitution gives us the prerogative to take action. It 
does not demand that we vote on the first three proposals in the 
affirmative. We, the independent Congress, can make the choice of what 
statement we want to make here today.
  Do not let process get in the way of policy. We can follow process. 
We can reject both proposals of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), we can reject the proposal of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and we can vote for a proposal that 
authorizes, as the Senate language does, the present action be 
consistent with the Constitution and war powers.

                              {time}  1230

  At the end of this debate, at the end of this conflict, I do not want 
to come here in this chamber to remember one more group of victims and 
to bemoan the inaction of our generation. We fought again in other 
places to fight theoretical battles about communism and what have you. 
Here we are talking about simple murder. Let us join together to put an 
end to Mr. Milosevic's attacks on the Kosovar Albanians.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  (Mr. Chambliss asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 
1569. Given the current ongoing military operations and the fact that 
the American men and women of our Armed Forces have their lives on the 
line, I do not think that now is the time to have a constitutional 
showdown on the War Powers Act.
  We had an opportunity to repeal the War Powers Act in 1995 and the 
administration, despite the urging of several former presidents, failed 
to support the effort to end this legal obstacle. I believe that the 
War Powers Act is indeed unconstitutional, but today the debate is on 
Kosovo and the policy of our pursuing military operations against 
Yugoslavia.
  I continue to be extremely concerned about the current military 
operations in the Balkans and the obvious lack of long-term goals and 
objectives. We were initially told that our military objectives were to 
deter Serbian attacks against the people of Kosovo and to reduce their 
ability to pursue offensive operations in Kosovo. Two weeks ago we were 
told that our objective was to remove all Serbian troops from Kosovo, a 
political moving target. After five weeks of bombing targets, which 
have been limited by politicians, Serbian forces have created a 
humanitarian crisis where over 1 million refugees have now retreated 
from Kosovo, and, in fact, have dug in along the Kosovo border.
  In 1995, the President said that we would send troops to keep peace 
in Bosnia for a year. We are four years later and we still have 6,000 
American soldiers serving in Bosnia, with no end in sight.
  Where are we headed in Kosovo? We still do not have a clear, well-
defined mission or strategy for what we are pursuing in the Balkans. 
There may be conceivably some point in time at which I would very 
reluctantly support the use of overwhelming force, including ground 
troops, to ensure that the United States is victorious in this military 
engagement. Dictators around the word must know that when America 
becomes involved, we intend to win.
  The President must show leadership and define our mission and the end 
game strategy, clarify our objectives and provide the resources 
required to ensure victory. We must know when we have achieved success 
and how we measure our progress.
  Our military is already overextended and underfunded, and we are 
fighting a war without a clearly defined objective. Mr. Speaker, we 
cannot win that. We need leadership. We need to support H.R. 1569.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Ms. Fowler's bill to 
prohibit the deployment of ground troops in Yugoslavia unless 
specifically authorized by Congress.
  Given the current ongoing military operations and the fact that the 
American men and women of our Armed Forces have their lives on the 
line, I do not think that this is the time to have a constitutional 
showdown on the War Powers Act. We had an opportunity to repeal the War 
Powers Act in 1995 and the administration, despite the urging of 
several former Presidents, failed to support the effort to end this 
legal obstacle. I believe that the War Powers Act is indeed 
unconstitutional, but the debate today is on Kosovo and the policy of 
pursuing military operations against Yugoslavia.
  I continue to be extremely concerned about the current military 
operations in the Balkans and the obvious lack of long term goals and 
objectives. We were initially told that the military objectives were to 
deter Serbian attacks against the people of Kosovo and to reduce the 
ability of the Serbian military to pursue offensive operations in 
Kosovo. Two weeks ago we were told that our objective was to remove all 
Serbian troops from Kosovo. However, after five weeks of bombing 
targets which have been limited by politicians, Serbian forces have 
created a humanitarian crisis with over a million refugees, have not 
retreated from Kosovo, and in fact have dug in along the Kosovo border.
  In 1995, the President said that we would send troops to keep the 
peace in Bosnia for a year. Here we are almost 4 years later with 6,000 
American soldiers serving in Bosnia with no end in sight. Where are we 
headed in Kosovo? We still do not have a clear well-defined mission or 
strategy for what we are pursuing in the Balkans.
  There may conceivably be a point at which I would very reluctantly 
support the use of overwhelming force, including ground troops, to 
ensure that the United States is victorious in this military 
engagement. Dictators around the world must know that when America 
becomes involved, we intend to win. The President must show leadership 
and define our mission and the end game strategy, clarify our 
objectives, and provide the resources required to ensure victory. We 
must know when we have achieved success, how we measure our progress, 
and thoroughly understand new long term commitments we are accepting.
  Our military is already overextended and under funded. They are 
brilliantly executing a questionable policy. Without a significant 
change, another long term, open ended commitment in the Balkans will 
continue to degrade military readiness and our ability to deal with 
other national security challenges around the world.
  It is clear that the President has failed to plan for the possible 
contingencies and the unintended consequences of military action in the 
Balkans, he has failed to demonstrate clear and decisive leadership in 
leading this military campaign to a successful conclusion, he has 
failed to provide the necessary resources to adequately support our 
brave men and women serving in the military. I am gravely concerned 
about the incremental and gradual escalation of this conflict without 
the clear understanding of where we are headed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to ensure 
that we in Congress are engaged in this before the President commits us 
further to war in the Balkans.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week I attended the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation meeting in Copenhagen, 
Denmark, and there, to a person, including the Russians, we prepared 
the position of the organization for security and cooperation in 
Europe, outlining the exact same requirements as set forth by the NATO 
alliance.
  This bill, if it were to pass, sends an overwhelmingly negative 
message to our troops and to our allies. Regardless of how one feels 
about the need for the Congressional role in authorizing ground forces, 
this bill represents precisely the wrong way to seek such a role. By 
denying funding for the full range of actions we may need to take 
against Slobodan Milosevic, we are tying one hand behind the backs of 
our military.
  This bill would prohibit funding for ground elements unless Congress 
specifically authorizes a deployment.

[[Page H2387]]

 ``Ground elements'' is a pretty broad term. What happens if the 
President has to act quickly but the Congress is out of session? The 
legislation would require him to delay until he had specific 
Congressional authorization. That delay could cost lives.
  I do not think that it is responsible for us to go forward in this 
manner.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, there have clearly been set two goals among a group of 
us. We have been striving to make sure this Congress follows procedure, 
that is, if we go to war, that we do it properly. It is pretty 
difficult to achieve this, especially when a president is willing to go 
to war and then we have to do this as a second thought. I am pleased 
that, at least today, we are trying to catch up on this. The second 
issue is whether it is wise to go to war.
  Certainly, under these circumstances, I think it is very unwise for 
the American people to go to war at this time. The Serbs have done 
nothing to us, and we should not be over there perpetuating a war.
  Our problem has been that we are trying to accommodate at least a 
half century of a policy which is interventionism at will by our 
presidents. We have become the policemen of the world. As long as we 
endorse that policy, we will have a difficulty with the subject we are 
dealing with today.
  Today we are trying to deal legally with a half a war. A half a war 
is something like a touch of pregnancy. You can't have a half a war. If 
we do not declare war and if we do not fight a war because it is in our 
national interest and for national security reasons, we'll inevitably 
will not fight to win the war. That has always been our problem, 
whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf war.
  To me, it is so important that you fight war for national security 
reasons only, you declare a war and you fight to win the war. We are 
not about to do that today. We are not going to declare war against 
Serbia. Serbia has done nothing to America. They have been close allies 
of ours, especially in World War II. We are not going to do that. Are 
we going to demand the troops be removed? Probably not.
  So what are we going to do? We are going to perpetuate this 
confusion. But what we should do is vote down a declaration of war, 
vote to get the troops out of Yugoslavia, and vote to stop the bombing. 
The sooner we do that, the better. That is in America's interests.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Goodling-Fowler bill sends the wrong 
message at the wrong time to a person who has been more responsible 
than anyone else for the grievous wrongs committed in the Balkans.
  If any issue should be above politics and should be above 
partisanship, it should be these life and death issues. But the 
majority in this House, too many of them, talk the nonpartisan talk, 
but have difficulty walking a bipartisan walk on this issue. No one 
should ask blind loyalty on this kind of a matter, but neither should 
there be masked politics.
  The President has not rushed to use ground troops, and he should not. 
But the opposition often is not sure whether to criticize the President 
for being too weak, or too strong; for using too little, or too much 
force.
  I found the public at home is ahead of many officials. Fifty-nine 
Members, or I think it may be 57, of the 927th Air Refueling Wing at 
Selfridge Air Base have been called to duty. We met some of these men 
and women a few weeks ago. Their reaction was symbolized by what was 
said yesterday by Chief Master Sergeant William Shaw: ``If called up, I 
will go where I am asked to go, and with pride.''
  How many more entanglements do we want of Macedonia, Greece and 
Turkey before we act? How many more mass murders do we have to see? How 
broad does the genocide have to become?
  I suggest that we vote down Goodling-Fowler, vote down the Campbell 
motions, and support the resolution that was passed by the Senate. It 
is the right thing to do at this right time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), our Top Gun from San Diego and a gentleman 
who won the Navy Cross carrying out America's foreign policy in 
Vietnam.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the most inept 
foreign policy in the history of the United States. The Pentagon told 
the President not to bomb, that it would only exacerbate the problems. 
We have forced over 1 million refugees. 2,012 were killed in Kosovo 
prior to the bombing. NATO has killed more Albanians than the Serbs did 
in an entire year, and yet we have exacerbated those problems.
  ``So, what do you do, Duke?'' First you halt the bombing, then you 
have your POW's returned and you have Milosevic take his forces out of 
there. Use Russian troops. Right now they are the antagonists. Make 
them part of the solution. Use the Russians, use the Greeks, use the 
Scandinavians, use the Italians, to come in there as peacekeepers and 
separate these people.
  The President has to look Izetbegovic in the face, he has got to look 
the President of Albania in the face, and say we want 100 percent of 
the Iranians, the Iraqis and the Afghanistanis, with the KLA and 
Mujahedeen and Hamas, out of there, because Albania has been in 
expansionism since the 1850's, tried to take Montenegro, Macedonia and 
Greece. You have got to get them out of there or they are going to be a 
problem. The Albanians have got to stop their expansionism. 
Cantonization possibly of Kosovo, but you have got to take Kosovo off 
the table.
  One of the President's big faults, he did not recognize what Kosovo 
means to the Serbs. It is their Jerusalem. Yes, maybe you can Cantonize 
it, like you do in the Scandinavian countries, but it will have to be 
part of Serbia. It is not just Milosevic. The Serbia people and their 
nationalism will not give up Kosovo. Until they realize that, there is 
going to be a problem.
  You need to take a look at 95 percent of the aid goes to the 
federation. You have got Croatians, about 70 percent are out of work; 
the Serbs, the same, and you have got to stabilize that part of the 
country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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, in five conflicts since the Constitution was 
ratified we have declared war, first including the War of 1812, last 
including World War II. In the period since then we have had 
bombardments and blockades and occupations and conflicts of all kinds, 
civil wars, and war has become sort of a subjective concept.
  There are so many variations on it, that if you read the UN charter 
you will not find the word ``war'' anywhere included. The charter 
refers to hostilities, to armed attacks, to breaches or threats to the 
peace, to acts of aggression.
  The War Powers Resolution was written with that reality in mind, 
written in the aftermath of Vietnam and Korea, two wars that were never 
declared wars, and its authors recognized that there were some lesser 
included alternatives under the rubric of war.
  The War Powers Act gives us, the Congress, an explicit alternative to 
declaring war, total outright war. Within 60 days of a deployment, when 
we are notified by the President, we can enact a specific authorization 
of such use of the Armed Forces. That was laid out for us when we 
passed the War Powers Resolution.
  The Campbell resolutions I disagree with and believe frame the choice 
falsely. They imply that we can only declare total war or withdraw 
totally.
  S. Con. Res. 21 takes a different course, and I think a legitimate 
one. It concurs in the air and missile campaign that is now being 
waged, and, by not going any further, reserving judgment on the 
introduction of ground forces if the air forces do not accomplish their 
objectives.
  Fowler-Goodling, on the other hand, is deficient in several major 
effects. It

[[Page H2388]]

does not approve a sanction or concur in an ongoing campaign. It dodges 
the issue. Then in the most emphatic, flattest possible way, it lays 
down a prohibition against ground war, barring any expenditure whatever 
on ground elements in Yugoslavia.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, ground elements include personnel and materiel, it includes 
weapons and equipment. Secretary Cohen has just written us a letter 
saying this could be interpreted as retrenchment. This could actually 
undercut the intended effect of the ground war. But worse still, in 
trying to keep us out of the quagmire of a ground war, and I understand 
their concerns, Goodling-Fowler runs the risk of putting us into a 
legal quagmire. If we pass it, we better call up the reserve JAG 
officers, because the lawyers are going to be busy making tactical 
interpretations of its effects.
  It would prohibit any expenditure on ground elements. That would 
prevent prepositioning of equipment in the theater, weapons in the 
theater as a contingency, either to be used by a ground force in a 
ground war, or by an implementation force if there is a settlement. It 
would bar special forces operations in Yugoslavia. It would bar on-the-
ground military intelligence operations anywhere in Yugoslavia. It 
would bar forward observers. This is not the way to go.
  We have a good alternative in S. Con. Res. 21. It is limited in its 
effect, and it is the proper application in these circumstances.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing these resolutions to the floor 
at this time so that we can properly consider our role in the Balkans.
  The NATO military air operation now taking place over Serbia is a 
response, belatedly in my opinion, to more than a year of the most 
callous brutal acts of repression of innocent men, women and children 
in Kosovo whose only crime is being Albanian. The architect of these 
policies is Slobodan Milosevic, a ruthless dictator, who has 
accumulated an abominable record in the former Yugoslavia, and who 
should be indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.
  The cost of Milosevic's aggression has been the uprooting of hundreds 
of thousands of people, thousands of whom are now refugees in 
neighboring countries. Last fall it appeared that tens of thousands of 
the displaced Kosovars were in danger of freezing to death during the 
winter months.
  As we all know too well, the Serbs never withdrew their police and 
military, and the violence gradually escalated until in January we had 
the massacre by Serb police of a small village that killed 45 unarmed 
civilians. At that point we told the Serbs that they had to agree to a 
plan put forward by our government and other members of the contact 
group of the international community that would have restored 
substantial self-rule to the Albanians in Kosovo; and, if Serbia did 
not agree, they were advised that NATO would escalate its military 
action.
  The Serbs have used NATO bombing as a pretext, a pretext to escalate 
the ethnic cleansing that they had prepared for Kosovo when the spring 
weather permitted conditions for their military operations.
  The major issue confronting our Nation and the Kosovo crisis has 
been, and continues to be, the humanitarian situation facing the 
refugees in Kosovo, and now in Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, as well 
as some other countries in that region.
  A second priority of our policy should be to support those frontline 
States in order to create stability and a bulwark against a possible 
spread of the conflict which could be an objective of Mr. Milosevic.
  We need to recognize that the issues we are facing are complex, and 
the resolutions of these problems are not readily achievable. We are 
nevertheless embarked upon a course of action that must succeed. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to be supportive of these efforts, 
even as we continue to probe into questions of policies that underline 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these very important 
issues that we are about to address, and their impact upon the peace in 
the Balkans.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, some say we must win, but we must win the 
peace. We cannot win peace through war. The failure of the bombing 
campaign is proof. We can win peace through negotiation, through 
diplomacy. We must pursue peace as vigorously as we would pursue war.
  We will decide today whether to escalate an undeclared war. Better to 
push diplomatic initiatives, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) is attempting. We will decide today whether to send ground 
troops. Better to put peacekeepers on the ground in Moscow, in 
Belgrade, to obtain a negotiated agreement. Today we will decide 
whether to continue bombing; bombing which has not worked, bombing 
which has been counterproductive, bombing which has destroyed villages 
in order to save the villages, bombing which is killing innocent 
civilians, both Kosovar Albanians and Serbians; bombing which is 
leaving little bomblets across the terrain in Kosovo, injuring young 
Albanian children, unexploded bombs being played with by children. 
There are more amputations now in Kosovo than have ever occurred 
probably anywhere because of these unexploded bombs that children are 
finding and playing with and are blowing up.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a metaphor for the war. This entire war 
is an unexploded bomb which is ready to maim and kill children. The sad 
fact is that today, if we pass Senate Con. Res. 21, we will be 
authorizing not just continuing the bombing, but sending ground troops, 
and we will have given a license to expand an undeclared war. The 
cruelest irony is that Congress will take money from the Social 
Security surplus, money that our senior citizens need to assure their 
Social Security, they will take that money and use it to send the 
grandchildren to fight.
  We must continue to give peace a chance, declare a cease fire, halt 
the bombing, help the refugees, pursue peace, not war.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for 
yielding me this time.
  First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) if we were in recess, the President could call us back for an 
emergency session within 24 hours to get an authorization for the 
money, so I think that it really is a red herring, although I have 
respect for my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, is this war in our national interests? Does it involve 
the security of the United States? I think anybody who is familiar with 
this operation realizes that it is not. The Persian Gulf, on the other 
hand, did involve our national security, because 50 percent of our oil 
reserves came from that part of the world, and it also involved one 
country invading another.
  Should we be involved for humanitarian reasons? Look at the Sudan. 
Two million people, 2 million people, died in the Sudan. We did not do 
a darn thing about it. In Ethiopia, there have been 10,000 deaths in 
just the last couple of months. In Tibet, nearly 1.2 million people 
have died, and we have not done anything. In Sri Lanka, 56,000 people 
have lost their lives; 200,000 in Indonesia, and I could go on and on. 
In Croatia, in the former Yugoslavia, 10,000 Serbs were killed and 
200,000 were driven out in ethnic cleansing in 1995, and we did not do 
a darn thing about it. That was a humanitarian crisis right next door. 
Why did we not do something about that?
  Should we be involved? At the NATO Summit here in Washington just 
last

[[Page H2389]]

week, a resolution was passed to involve NATO in peacekeeping and 
humanitarian missions, like this one, anywhere in Europe. Are we going 
to be the world's policeman? We are already paying two-thirds of the 
costs and flying 90% of the missions. Can we afford it? My colleague 
from Cleveland just noted that we are going to have to take money out 
of the Social Security trust fund and other areas in order to pay for 
this war, if it is prolonged.
  Was this war properly planned like the Persian Gulf War? No. We all 
know that. It is piecemeal, and this President does not know where we 
are going. We have a man who knows nothing about the military directing 
this, even though the people at the Pentagon have told him that the 
bombing is only going to exacerbate the situation.
  Is this a prelude to more? I think it is. Putting in ground troops 
over there is going to bring back what to us? A lot of body bags, a lot 
of problems, a lot of costs that we simply do not need. We do not need 
to be there. We should support H.R. 1569, bring our troops home, and 
let the people in Europe deal with a European problem.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Con. Res. 21, 
which has been offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) to authorize military air operations against the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia.
  I am not a hawk, not by any stretch of the imagination, and I have 
been a peace activist for years. I do not support a full-scale war with 
Serbia. We are not in a full-scale war, and I hope it can be averted. I 
believe, however, we should do everything possible to avoid taking any 
actions that would create a full-scale war.
  However, I vowed that I would never again remain silent in the face 
of genocide, and the Albanians in Kosovo are clearly facing genocide.
  The United States did not act quickly enough to stop the Holocaust 
during World War II. Throughout the 1930s, persecution against the Jews 
in Nazi Germany continued to escalate, yet the world community did 
nothing. Even after the United States entered the war, we did not take 
any action to shut down the gas chambers. As a result of this genocide, 
6 million Jews were murdered.
  Between April and June of 1994, the Tutsi people of Rwanda were 
systematically slaughtered. Throughout the months of April and May of 
that year, the U.S. Government failed to support any action to stop 
this genocide. The United Nations finally authorized the peacekeeping 
force, but it was too late to save the lives of 1 million Rwandan 
people who were slaughtered.
  Kosovo is not the only place where genocide is happening today. The 
Government of Sudan is conducting a genocidal war against the people of 
southern Sudan. More than 1.5 million people have been killed since 
1983 as a result of aerial bombings, massacres and attacks on civilian 
villages. The survivors of these attacks are routinely murdered or 
taken to northern Sudan and sold into slavery.
  We cannot allow genocide to be ignored. I know there are limits to 
what the United States can do to stop genocide. Although war is not 
always the answer to oppression, we know that silence can never be the 
answer.
  We must take action to stop genocide in Kosovo. That is why I support 
the President's efforts and the efforts of our troops to stop those 
deplorable crimes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) has 8 minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
northern California (Mr. Stark).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I 
applaud the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for 
his resolution that forced this debate today. Without his efforts, we 
would continue to have U.S. military might, troops and weapons of war 
with no congressional deliberation whatsoever.
  I support his resolution, House Resolution 82, because the 
administration policy is not defined, it is not clear, it is not viable 
with its use of force. Indeed, it is hardly existent.
  Members have heard people talk about why we are not in other parts of 
the world, and excuse it blithely. I cannot. We cannot ignore all these 
other conflicts, but that does not give us an excuse, when we had no 
policy then, to begin killing people when we have no policy now.
  This resolution is of the highest priority because we must exercise 
our obligation under the War Powers Act to debate the use of military 
force, particularly so in light of the absence of any comprehensive 
policy on the part of our administration.
  Unfortunately, we are not allowed enough debate. We are going to talk 
about spending $13 billion, approving the committal of ground troops, 
which we all know is beginning while the debate goes on, and I support 
this resolution authorizing House Resolution 82 of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) because the use of force is not working and 
will not work here.
  NATO has made matters worse, not better. The administration chose 
force as the most probable outcome by our expectations and 
deliberations in Rambouillet. The administration left no room for 
further negotiation or diplomatic efforts. They chose war. I do not.
  Our children, by the way, learn firsthand from our adult behavior. 
The Colorado deaths are no coincidence. They are the natural 
consequence of what our children see the national leaders in their 
adult role models perform.
  When the President held a press conference at the school to talk 
about conflict resolution, as he was talking, NATO-based troops were 
dropping bombs and explaining away civilian deaths as collateral 
damage.
  These civilians died because of our inability to resolve this crisis. 
The Campbell resolution provides that the troops should be withdrawn. I 
support this as a first step, not a last step, to bring peace in 
Kosovo.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with several of the 
resolutions that we will consider here today, because I believe that 
several are too extreme, and others would tie the hands of U.S. 
military commanders like General Clark.
  These legislative proposals would undermine the flexibility of our 
military leaders to ensure the safety and security of American forces 
in the Balkans. We can debate whether or not we should be in Kosovo at 
all, but the fact remains we are there. We must now listen to our 
military leaders and not prohibit them from carrying out their mission 
effectively and safely.
  In war or conflict, or whatever it is that Members want to call this, 
we never want to be in a situation in which we are fighting a limited 
war and our enemy is fighting an unlimited war. We do not want our 
enemy to know what we will not do or they will exploit that weakness to 
their advantage.
  If we, by our votes today, tell Milosevic that we will force a long, 
protracted process to allow ground troops, then he can exploit this 
situation to his benefit and to the detriment of our men and women in 
uniform.
  As a Vietnam veteran, I remember being in a war in which the military 
was not provided the tools that it needed. I remember only too well 
being in Vietnam and being exploited by the commentary that was 
occurring in this country and sometimes in this body.
  For example, when we decided not to mine Haiphong, we allowed the 
Soviets to continually supply surface-to-air missiles to the North 
Vietnamese, which placed our service personnel in greater danger.
  In 1992 in Somalia, Lieutenant General Montgomery, the then theater 
commander, requested Bradley Fighting vehicles and AC-130s, but the 
Secretary of Defense turned him down. We saw what happened to our 
Rangers there when the hands of the military

[[Page H2390]]

commanders were tied. In that instance, it was the administration, not 
the Congress, affecting the battle, but I simply use this as an example 
to simply demonstrate what can happen when we tie the hands of our 
military leaders.
  We must not allow such a horrible event to happen again.
  Please understand my position. I am not here to support the use of 
ground troops. I believe that we must continue the air war until our 
military commanders tell us otherwise. I am here simply to support the 
military to allow them to decide what they need and to provide them 
with those resources.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), another distinguished veteran.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his comment. I compliment him on his words here 
in the well.
  If the gentleman swings by my office, he will see hanging in my 
office as he leaves, and I look at it almost every day, the father who 
lost his son who bled to death in Somalia cut the Ranger patch off his 
son's uniform and sent it to me. It is on the wall in my office. It is 
a constant reminder about the pain.
  If America is going to send our sons and daughters into a theater 
war, then they need to thoroughly understand what they are fighting 
for, what are the vital national security interests, what is at stake. 
I compliment the gentleman's words.
  We are hearing some rhetoric on the floor about genocide, ethnic 
cleansing. Mr. Speaker, since when has that been a cause for U.S. 
intervention throughout the world?
  I will not stand for the United States to have a racist foreign 
policy. Since when do we have a preference of ethnicity? Are we 
Europhiles, that we somehow want to go on the ground in Europe, but 
will not do so in Africa or Asia or Indonesia or in other countries?
  Let us be very wise, prudent, and cautious about the words we use 
here today and about our foreign policies. Let us be the advisers and 
counsel to the President to make proper judgments. The reason American 
is confused is that the political rhetoric does not match NATO's 
political objectives, which does not match the military use of force.
  If we say that Milosevic is a Hitler and Stalin and he has no right 
to lead that country, it appears as though that is our political 
objective, and therefore the use of military force is to overthrow 
Milosevic. That is not true. NATO's political objective is Kosovo and 
Kosovo only. So we should restrict our rhetoric, be careful for our 
words.
  Then the ultimate question is, through the use of air power, does 
that accomplish the political objectives? That is why, when I returned, 
I said we have to return for the ground function. That does not mean I 
support troops on the ground.
  Mr. Speaker, what I advise my counsel, I will vote this way today. I 
do not agree with the War Powers Act. I will vote no on House Joint 
Resolution 44, I will vote no on H. Con. Res. 82, I will vote yes for 
the Fowler amendment, because I want the President to define the end 
state, what does he want it to look like, how does he define success, 
before we go on the ground.
  With regard to Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, let us be up front, 
this is a political vote. This is a cover vote for some Democrats here 
who do not have the stomach. We have had over 10,500 sorties that have 
already been flown. Now we are going to come in and have a vote to 
authorize? The question is moot.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 
21, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson), and in opposition to the three other resolutions.
  Now is not the time to run from the atrocities being committed by the 
sole remaining tyrant of Europe, or to limit our military options. 
Quite frankly, I am proud to support the NATO mission in Kosovo. It 
speaks to our values and principles as a Nation, and to our role as a 
leader of the NATO alliance.
  I am proud of our young men and women in U.S. and NATO uniform who 
are being asked once again to restore the peace and stability in 
Europe. Twice in the first half of the 20th century young American 
soldiers were sent to Europe to restore that peace at a cost of 525,000 
lives and over 900,000 casualties.
  After the Second World War this Nation stood up and declared, never 
again. Never again can we afford to disengage from the continent of 
Europe and hope everything will just be all right. Never again will we 
stand idly by while innocent men and women are forcibly removed from 
their homes and wiped out by military forces under a policy of 
genocide.
  Elie Wiesel, the Nazi concentration camp survivor, reminded us last 
week that the only miserable consolation that they had in those 
concentration camps had during the Second World War was the belief that 
if the western democracies knew what was taking place, they would do 
everything in their power to try to stop it.
  History later showed that the Western leaders did know, but did not 
take action. This time, he said, the democracies do know. We are 
acting. We are intervening. And this time we are on the right side of 
history.
  Mr. Speaker, today we face very serious votes. It is a rendezvous 
with history. This can be NATO's finest hour, or it may be the 
beginning of the end of the U.S. involvement in maintaining the peace 
and stability on the European continent. Let us hope that this is our 
and NATO's finest hour. I encourage my colleagues to support Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 21.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a 
Vietnam veteran.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members, it is easy to be proud to send 
our troops into Kosovo if Members have never been there. They have to 
understand what we are asking our troops to do, and we need to clearly 
understand why we are asking the sons and daughters of American mothers 
to die for these humanitarian causes. There are other ways, if we act.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate will determine the course of 
American policy and military policy, foreign policy, for the next 
century. I urge my colleagues to totally ignore the partisan 
ramifications of our decisions and instead base our votes on the 
constitutionally defined security interests of this Republic.
  Today we hear the argument that to withdraw from an unconstitutional 
war undermines the morale of our armed forces and steels the resolve of 
those with whom we contend. If we accept that argument, we will have 
granted absolutely war powers, not just to this administration but 
every administration in the 21st century. That rationale demands that 
we keep quiet, we go along with every military adventure of every 
president, for the same reasons.
  Instead, I ask Members, I plead with them, to listen to the words of 
John Quincy Adams in 1821: ``(America) knows well that by once 
enlisting under other banners than her own . . . she would involve 
herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest 
and intrigue, of individual avarice . . . She might become the dictator 
of the world;'' or the police power, in my words; ``she would no longer 
be the ruler of her own spirit.''
  If we refuse to do our constitutional duty in this body, in this 
House, the horrible warnings of President Adams may become reality. 
Serbs are fighting Albanians, Albanians are fighting Serbs. People in 
the Balkans have fought and have committed atrocities against one 
another for at least 500 years. Now we allow our Nation to be dragged 
into a quagmire for which there will be no exit.
  I believe that within the next few days the President will be 
delivering a new speech if we send troops into the Balkans. He will 
lament the death of Americans in combat in the Balkans. He will call on 
the Nation to ensure that their ultimate sacrifice will not be in vain. 
Have we heard this before?

[[Page H2391]]

  In the process, he will commit my great-grandchildren to policing the 
Balkans, not because we are threatened, not because we are under 
attack, not because freedom of this country is not secure, but simply 
to enforce a new world police order in Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, let me allow the President not to make that speech. Do 
not help him make that speech. Vote to end this nastiness today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some general comments about our 
position in Kosovo, and then focus on the resolutions that are before 
us today.
  Some think that this is a stark choice, that we must either ignore 
the refugees of Kosovo and ignore the fact that America's credibility 
and NATO's credibility is on the line, or we must, instead, commit 
ground forces and incur hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American 
casualties.
  I think we do need to focus on other options. One of those is to 
train, though not necessarily arm, a force of Albanians perhaps 
independent of the KLA. Then when Milosevic reviews the situation, he 
will see that he is up not only against the most powerful air armada 
ever assembled, not only against a ragtag band of lightly armed KLA 
guerrillas, but also will soon be up against a force of heavily armed 
Albanians with tanks and heavy artillery willing to take casualties.
  We need to enlist the Russians in negotiating a settlement. I would 
suggest that that settlement would provide that 20 percent or so of 
Kosovo would be patrolled by a Russian peacekeeping force, and that 
some 80 percent would be patrolled by a NATO peacekeeping force.

                              {time}  1315

  The ultimate resolution of Kosovo could be decided later.
  I see that my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), has returned to the Chamber, and I 
discussed with him earlier the meaning of his own resolution, which I 
know he intends, or is at least allowed by the rule, to introduce later 
today. I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman, because it 
has been argued that the legal effect of his resolution, as interpreted 
by a court, his resolution is an authorization by Congress to send a 
large ground force into Kosovo or as waiving any of Congress' rights 
with regard to such a deployment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, our intent with the resolution is simply 
to authorize the present campaign as it is presently being undertaken.
  Mr. SHERMAN. And should any court interpret it as a congressional 
authorization to use any other kind of force?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I think my statement was clear, and I agree with that.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to further 
clarification.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time. We are in a very, very difficult situation 
today, confronting one of the most dismal range of policy choices the 
House has ever had to make.
  We are forced to do that, in part because notwithstanding my 
imploring him to do that, and others much more important than I 
imploring him to do that, our President and Commander-in-Chief has 
chosen not to come to this Congress or send to this Congress the best 
articulation that he could come up with as to what our objectives are 
in the Balkans and what authority he would ask in order to pursue those 
objectives. He has not done it. It, therefore, should be our charge to 
do it for the Nation.
  We are not doing that by any of the four propositions before us 
today. No one declares any objective, no one clearly authorizes in any 
intelligent way the utilization of military force. The Fowler-Goodling-
Kasich solution says ``thou shalt not use ground forces''. 
Inferentially, it is status quo. We can continue to use air power, but 
it really does not say that or authorize that. It is left dangling.
  The same can be said of the resolution of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), which he has just made abundantly clear by 
his unusual response in the colloquy that was just suggested, which 
leaves the resolutions of my dear friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell), which say forget any objectives, forget any policy, 
just withdraw; or if we do not do that, declare war.
  None of these choices make any sense, and I think it is a very sad 
day that we in the House are faced or not faced with some alternative 
that does make sense and does authorize that which ought to be 
authorized in proper discretion, and for what purposes it should be 
authorized, and who should be paying the bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, may we have a review of the 
time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 7 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) has 4 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) has 3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We should not be deploying ground troops of the United States armed 
forces in Yugoslavia until Congress has authorized such a deployment. 
That is what we did in Desert Storm, that is what the War Powers Act 
contemplates, and that is what we should do. I do not know today how I 
would vote on such an authorization.
  I believe that we should be very cautious about getting ourselves 
into a ground war in the Balkans, and we should recall the lessons of 
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and not pass a Gulf of the Adriatic 
Resolution that provides an open-ended and unconditional authorization 
for the use of ground forces. But we should also keep a ground troops 
option open in case the air campaign proves unsuccessful, the ethnic 
cleansing continues, and all our NATO allies agree that ground forces 
could achieve our military and political objectives.
  I will vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) to authorize the present air campaign in 
Yugoslavia. It is underway, it has had some success, and we should 
support it.
  I will oppose the removal of our military forces from their positions 
in connection with the present air campaign, because I believe the 
President and NATO need to be given a chance to try to stop the 
bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.
  I will also oppose the proposed declaration of war the gentleman from 
California offers us, because I believe that such a step would 
needlessly inflame an already tense political situation in Europe and 
our relations with Russia. But while I will oppose the gentleman's 
resolutions, I want to compliment him on bringing this debate to the 
House floor. It is the most important power that Congress has and it is 
critical that all our voices be heard.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time. I want to commend the leadership for allowing 
the two Campbell resolutions to be debated and voted on today.
  We are in a precarious situation, maybe the most precarious in a 
generation. We are debating whether American blood will again be shed 
in a European war started in the Balkans. I believe we have three 
options: We can continue the current policy, which is ill-conceived, 
meandering and appears to have no comprehensive plan or exit strategy; 
secondly, we can declare war on Yugoslavia and follow General Colin 
Powell's advice that if we are going to act, we should use overwhelming 
force and win quickly.

[[Page H2392]]

  While I oppose this strategy, I do think it is more responsible than 
the first option. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare 
war. Our Founding Fathers lived in a world where kings dragged their 
populations into wars with no thought of the cost to citizens. They 
wisely wanted to ensure that America was governed differently. If we 
believe we should continue this war, then we should have the guts to 
formally declare war. I want to thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) for recognizing this obligation and for having the 
courage to stand up for his convictions.
  The third option, which I will support, is a 60-day pullout of our 
troops. This is the most logical and sensible option at this point, and 
can restart the negotiations that can allow refugees to return to their 
homes. The current military action has not stopped the flow of refugees 
or helped Kosovo become autonomous. It has only further destabilized 
the area and made things worse.
  This is not a criticism of our men and women who are fighting in 
Kosovo. They are doing their job and they are doing it very well, but 
they are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs and 
suffering from the effects of years of neglect of our military 
infrastructure.
  Air strikes do not win wars, and I do not believe the blood of 
American troops will end centuries of hatred and mistrust in the 
Balkans. I therefore will vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 82 requiring a 
60-day pullout.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending 
the gentleman from California for forcing this Congress to do what it 
should have done long ago, and that is to exercise our constitutional 
responsibility to decide where and when young Americans will be called 
upon to place their lives at risk to defend this country.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that despite much of the 
rhetoric against the President of the United States, it was the United 
States Senate on March 23 that voted to authorize air strikes against 
the former Yugoslavia. I must admit that the President, following up on 
that, has put me in a very strange situation. After all, just in 
December I voted to impeach President Clinton, but the majority of the 
United States Senate decided otherwise.
  The question now is, do I face the reality that young Americans are 
at war, or do I do what is politically expedient and ignore that?
  When I was a young State Senator, I once questioned a former 
Congressman by the name of Charles Griffin, who served during the 
Vietnam War. I remember asking him how he could serve for those years 
while Americans were coming home every day and, in effect, pretending 
there was not a war going on? I want to apologize to Congressman 
Griffin because basically I am seeing the same thing today. But in 
deference to now deceased Congressman Griffin, I certainly will not do 
what I accused him of doing.
  I am going to vote to declare war. Americans are at war. I find 
myself at a horrible reluctance to do this, but the bottom line is 
Slobodan Milosevic has initiated four wars. As we speak, he is killing 
innocent men and women. And, yes, American credibility is at risk.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is what are the unintended 
consequences of this Congress failing to act? Do we signal to North 
Korea, who it is anticipated will drop 600,000 rounds on the American 
positions the very first day of that war, that as a Nation we say one 
thing and do another when it becomes slightly politically inconvenient 
for the 535 Members of Congress?
  I say this with great reluctance, because I know that in voting for 
war I share the responsibility for the lives of those young Americans 
who may die. But to do nothing is much worse. We are in this situation. 
We cannot choose to ignore it. And I think that the best course of 
action for this Nation is to use the overwhelming military might that 
we have at our disposal to end this war quickly, swiftly and with a 
decisive American victory.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
has 4 minutes remaining,
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have had an excellent debate, and it shows a 
great division. And there is great division because we have several 
legitimate interests, and it is a matter of balancing which of these 
interests outweighs the other. One interest is a humanitarian interest; 
another interest, of course, is our NATO alliance and their military 
objectives; another interest that many people have expressed here very 
eloquently is our concern for the safety of our men and women in 
uniform. Let me just review my own position and the history of this 
Congress in the last 15 years or so.
  In Lebanon, in Libya, in Grenada, and of course in the Middle East, a 
number of us voted to give the President of the United States, 
President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush, great discretion and 
to attribute to them great presidential prerogative with respect to 
initiating conflict. And that accrued to our benefit, because the 
Presidents were able to strike swiftly and to move American force 
projection very quickly without asking for permission from Congress. We 
were able to achieve goals we could not have otherwise achieved.
  So one principle I followed was that the Commander in Chief must be 
able to act quickly, using a full range of military options short of 
total war. And my feeling is that total war is what we have conducted 
in the past in World War I and II, the last war ending when we reduced 
Tokyo and parts of Germany to rubble. I do not want to reduce Belgrade 
to rubble.
  I do not want to stand by and do nothing. So I agree with the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) that the range of options is a 
range of options that does not serve this Congress well.

                              {time}  1330

  The second principle that I felt we were following over the last 15 
years was that the Commander in Chief must be able to act with full 
military leadership authority when leading joint operations with our 
allies.
  Somebody commented once that if we were not in the NATO alliance, it 
would be like that church full of townspeople without Gary Cooper, all 
of them with different ideas but all of them too timid to execute 
anything. And I think that is probably true.
  So I am going to vote to be consistent with my votes that I exercised 
with respect to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. And 
I want to say to all my Republican colleagues who voted with me on 
those votes and voted not to force the President to seek a vote before 
he could go in with military force, that I think those principles which 
accrue to the benefit of the United States and save lives will long 
outlive this presidency in which many of us have a lack of confidence.
  Now let me turn to my Democrat friends and simply say this: We have 
cut our military under President Clinton, almost in half. So to carry 
out this foreign policy that we are engaged in right now, whether it is 
in Kosovo or on the Korean Peninsula or in the Middle East, we now have 
10 Army divisions instead of 18, we now have only 13 fighter air wings 
instead of 23, we are down almost 40 percent in Navy vessels, we are 
short $3\1/2\ billion in basic ammunition for the U.S. Army, we are 
short in almost all of our smart stand-off weapons that save lives, and 
we are going to have votes in the very near future to increase that 
ammunition, spare parts and equipment that will ultimately save lives 
of our military people, whether they are operating in this theater or 
some other theater.
  We need Democrats to vote in a strong defense. If we do not have 
them, we are going to go ahead with half empty ammo pouches in these 
wars, with our coffers of spare parts that are only half full, and we 
are going to repeat years like the one we just had in which 55 American 
military aircraft crashed in peacetime missions because of lack of 
training, lack of spare parts, and old equipment.
  So I am going to join and try to be consistent with the votes I have 
made in the past. I hope all my colleagues will vote for a strong 
national defense regardless of their vote on this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair will advise that

[[Page H2393]]

the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 5 minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has 1 minute remaining. 
All other time has expired.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generosity in 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in less than 30 days, 1.6 million Kosovars have been 
forced from their homes at gunpoint and torn from their loved ones. 
They have been stripped of everything, even their identities, all 
because of their ethnic heritage.
  Now, some say the suffering Kosovars are not America's 
responsibility, that the gang rapes, the burned villages, the mass 
graves, they are not our problem. Well, to that I say we represent 
history's greatest democracy. We are a superpower at the peak of our 
prosperity and our strength.
  What is America supposed to do? Are we supposed to look the other 
way? Hitler said in the 1930s, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' before 
he unleashed his thugs to exterminate a people.
  We stand here because so many of us have come to this well and said 
never again, never again would we stand by idly while genocide is 
committed. We stand against Slobodan Milosevic not just to stop a 
tyrant bent on ethnic cleansing but also against the very idea that 
such a barbaric campaign will be tolerated at the end of the 20th 
century. We simply cannot and will not let the worst of history repeat 
itself.
  The NATO air campaign is taking its toll on Milosevic and his 
military power. Not only are his bunkers and his barracks cracking 
under the allied attack, but so is his domestic support. Just this 
week, Yugoslavia's Deputy Prime Minister publicly called on Milosevic 
to tell the truth to his people: that the world is against him, that he 
is alone, and that he cannot defeat NATO.
  Now, my colleagues, is the time for this Congress to come together, 
united behind NATO. Now is the time for this Congress to be unyielding 
in our resolve. And now is the time for us to send Milosevic an 
unmistakable message: Ethnic cleansing will not stand, and we will 
persevere.
  There are some in this Congress who seek to entangle us in legalisms, 
to micromanage military strategy, and to force us into false choices. 
Let us reject these traps. Let us reject the Goodling amendment.
  Many of us believe that we should have a congressional vote before 
sending ground troops, but this amendment ties the hands of our 
military commanders and could leave the bordering nations, millions of 
refugees, and thousands of our own soldiers dangerously exposed.
  Let us reject the Campbell proposal and reject the idea that we can 
pull out now and wash our hands of this humanitarian responsibility. 
Let us support the resolution offered by my friend the gentleman from 
Connecticut Mr. Gejdenson. This is the same bipartisan language the 
Senate adopted to support the NATO air campaign.
  It will show our resolve to turn back this genocidal tide. It will 
show our support for our troops. It will show our support for NATO. And 
it will show Milosevic our resolve that his brutality will not endure.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, the most solemn responsibility 
a Member of Congress has is the consideration of a declaration of war. 
The four measures before us today which concern our military actions in 
Kosovo also concern our nation's standing in the world and the very 
future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  I support our brave men and women in uniform and all of the allied 
troops who are part of the NATO operations in Kosovo. Many of those who 
are flying missions in Kosovo are from Whiteman Air Force Base in my 
home state of Missouri. I thank them and the other men and women who 
are there serving our country, the Alliance, and the people of Kosovo. 
I pray for their safe return from a successful mission.
  At the historic 50th anniversary of NATO summit, the leaders of the 
Alliance convened and reached consensus that Slobodan Milosovic's 
violence against the ethnic Albanians is abhorrent and must stop. As 
the leader of the free world, the United States is compelled to join in 
action to prevent the horrendous acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing 
that are taking place in Kosovo. In addition, we share a humanitarian 
obligation to assist the more than 550,000 refugees who have been 
forcibly evicted from their homes, and in many cases separated from 
their families. Until stability returns to this region, the United 
States and its NATO allies must provide an example to the world of 
generosity, compassion and commitment to those who are suffering at Mr. 
Milosovic's hand. The rebuilding process of both physical structures 
and people's lives must begin as soon as peace and stability is 
achieved.
  Mr. Campbell has introduced two resolutions which we will vote on 
today--H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44. I am opposed to both of these 
measures. The gentleman from California assumes only two choices exist 
for Congress: to declare war or to abandon our allies. These 
resolutions are partisan in nature and are merely intended to place the 
President in the politically untenable position of having to make an 
extreme choice, knowing that either alternative would undermine his 
ability to effectively act as Commander in Chief. The situation in 
Kosovo does not present a simple dichotomy of choices. We have entered 
into this conflict as part of the NATO Alliance, and for the U.S. to 
pull out now or to declare war as an individual country would directly 
contradict the agreements reached at the summit concluded just three 
days ago here in Washington.

  The resolution introduced by Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Goodling, and others, 
H.R. 1569, would prohibit the Department of Defense from using funds 
for ``ground elements'' without the authorization of Congress. I agree 
with the premise that Congress must protect the checks and balances 
laid out by the framers of the Constitution. During the ``Gulf of 
Tonkin'' crises 35 years ago a misinformed Congress conceded its 
foreign policy powers to the President. The resulting unchecked 
escalation of forces in Vietnam should never be repeated. While 
Congress has the responsibility to be vigilant, the President has 
assured us in writing that he will not commit ground troops without 
authorization from the Congress, making H.R. 1569 unnecessary. Further, 
passage would tie the hands of NATO leaders and seriously jeopardize 
NATO's chances of successfully completing its mission. This measure 
would also jeopardize our own leadership role in this most critical 
alliance, and would send the wrong message to Mr. Milosovic, thus 
undermining much of our efforts to date. For these reasons, I oppose 
this measure.
  S. Con. Res. 21, passed in the Senate April 20, authorizes the 
President of the United States to conduct military air operations and 
missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). I support this 
resolution. It is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 
United States and is key to NATO's ongoing military strategy.
  Fifty years ago, at the end of World War II, President Harry Truman, 
whose hometown is in the Congressional District I am proud to 
represent, had a vision to reunite and rebuild Europe to avoid world 
war in the future. The successful result is NATO. Our country is the 
foundation and security that NATO requires to succeed in its mission of 
peace in Europe. For our armed services to succeed in their current 
mission we must support them with our actions. Let us learn from 
history and support the young American men and women who carry our flag 
into jeopardy. Let us support our President, Secretaries of State and 
Defense, our Joint Chiefs of Staff, our battlefield commanders, and the 
NATO allies we lead that we are unified in our resolve to end this 
inhumanity. We proclaim to the world, those who support us and those 
who would not, that we act in defense of American's core values; life, 
liberty, the pursuit of happiness and, of course, justice for all.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vote in favor of 
legislation to put the Congress' voice where it should be--at the 
forefront of the national policy which guides our armed forces in the 
face of conflict. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to 
declare war and commit our troops to battle. As a Member of Congress 
who is opposed to putting American ground troops in Kosovo, I believe 
the Congress should have the opportunity to debate whether it is in our 
national security interests and vote to give the President the ability 
to put troops on the ground in Yugoslavia. I do not believe it is right 
for the President to act unilaterally to put our young men and women in 
uniform into ground battle in Kosovo without the explicit authority of 
the U.S. Congress.
  President Bush acted correctly in seeking the authority of Congress 
to commit ground troops before we acted to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 
1991. While the President is working with our NATO allies to persuade 
the Serbs to end their brutal actions in Kosovo through air

[[Page H2394]]

attacks and diplomatic initiatives, I believe he has an obligation to 
first seek the authority of the nation's legislative body before 
sending tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of our armed forces 
personnel to battle.
  Many of my colleagues favor sending ground troops into Kosovo; others 
join me in opposing the use of ground troops. Either way, I believe 
there should be a full debate on the issue and a vote on giving the 
President the authority to commit our nation to what is the equivalent 
of a declaration of war on Yugoslavia, albeit under the aegis of NATO. 
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting legislation that restores 
the voice of the Congress in the debate on Kosovo.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to put myself forward as an 
expert in national defense matters or in matters of military 
deployment. I do not serve on the Armed Services Committee or on the 
Appropriations Committee which handles military matters. Nor am I a 
member of the International Relations Committee. My experience in the 
military was as an enlisted person where I rose to the rank of 
Specialist 4.
  I feel very strongly that we should not be in Kosovo militarily. Yes, 
we should help with humanitarian needs and could indeed do much more 
for those who are suffering as a result of the civil war by the use of 
only a small amount of the money which we are spending on the bombing.
  In the current situation in Kosovo we are footing a major part of the 
bill and already talking about how we will use our resources to rebuild 
this area that is being bombed. Do we forget that we very properly 
asked for our allies to contribute in the gulf war, which in fact 
alleviated a major burden on American tax payers by the money that was 
paid by those who also had an interest in that military activity?
  The Vietnam experience is one that I hope I will never forget. I 
believe that there are some very important lessons to be learned from 
that experience. I felt a feeling of betrayal by the leadership of this 
country as a result of the Vietnam war. We were told of the dire 
consequences if we did not fight to a victory in that conflict. We 
threw hundreds of thousands of young men and women into that fray, and 
in the end we had to acknowledge our mistake and withdraw. That has 
left a lasting scar on our country. Not our withdrawal, not our 
admission of a mistake, but the conflict and the controversy 
surrounding the war. And we are today, as we have through the years 
since Vietnam ended, paying a terrible price for our mistake and we are 
still reaping the bitter fruit of those decisions.
  The war in Southeast Asia is very similar to the Balkans, a civil 
war. And I ask the question: ``Is Southeast Asia worse now because we 
withdrew?'' And I believe the answer is a resounding ``no.''
  The civil strife has to be settled by those who are most affected--
those who live there. This is a civil war in the Balkans and it will be 
impossible for us militarily from the outside to impose a successful 
solution on the problems faced by the people of this area.
  I, would ask the question--what kind of a country would we have 
today, had England and France been successful in intervention in our 
own civil war on the sides of the Confederate States?
  While I oppose the military action in Kosovo and am adamantly opposed 
to sending any ground troops, I am also concerned greatly by the cost 
of this operation. It is my opinion that the current administration 
will have easily spent a hundred billion dollars in soirees around the 
world from Bosnia to Iraq to Kosovo. This money will come from only one 
source, the American tax payer, and most likely from the surplus of 
Social Security money.
  I, believe that the current expenditure of funds is unwise and will 
be of a major detriment to our efforts to save Social Security and 
Medicare. We have worked long and hard to improve the financial 
condition of this country over the last four years. Kosovo holds the 
key to totally reversing the successes we have had and returning us to 
a situation of using funds from Social Security to pay our bills. It 
was wrong when it was done during Vietnam and it is wrong today.
  I, believe that it is also the greatest error when leaders of our 
country fail to recognize that they have made a mistake in judgement, 
and continue to push ahead with all of their vigor and might, often 
with the use of our fighting men and women and the expenditure of our 
funds, to prove that they are in fact right.
  In the end I believe that we will see the error of our involvement 
militarily in Kosovo. I do not subscribe to this theory that we can't 
back out because we have military involvement now. I know of no 
endeavor anywhere that was won by pursuing a failed policy and failing 
to admit mistakes when they are so very obvious. I do not buy the 
theory that we must continue to pursue military action there simply 
because we are there.
  All that we need to do is provide for the safe removal of our 
military, with hope that military bombs can be replaced by talk and 
negotiation which will help the troubled people of this area reach an 
agreement as to their future.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the H. Con. Res. 
82, H.J. Res. 44, and H.R. 1569 and in support of S. Con. Res. 21.
  All of us are concerned whether the United States through the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is taking the prudent position with 
regard to airstrikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. All of 
us are just as concerned and even repulsed by the actions of the 
Milosevic Government to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of non-Serbs creating 
the worst human tragedy Europe has witnessed since WWII. The conflict 
involves a part of the world where ethnic violence has been commonplace 
since the fourteenth century and the scene of intense fighting in this 
century's two world wars.
  At the same time, how can the free and democratic nations of the 
world, in particular the nations comprising NATO, which won the cold 
war against communist aggression, sit idly by and allow a dictator to 
use his military and police apparatus against innocent civilians and 
noncombatants, causing death and destruction of property and wreaking 
havoc on his neighboring sovereign states?
  We must weigh the costs of engagement and non-engagement in the 
affairs of one nation which will impact the stability of others with 
consequences for the U.S. To do nothing and withdraw would send a 
message, I believe, to Yugoslavian President Milosevic that ethnic 
cleansing is an acceptable practice at the end of the millennium. It 
would send that same message to other would be dictators that barbaric 
treatment of your own citizens is an immoral but acceptable sovereign 
practice. But perhaps more important, allowing Milosevic to drive those 
citizens he does not want into other countries will only destabilize 
Albania and Macedonia. What right does a dictator have to shed his 
unwanted citizens whom he has not killed to another sovereign state?
  Finally, if the U.S. decides to cut and run, where does that leave 
NATO? NATO, under U.S. leadership helped rebuild European democracies 
and create political stability after World War II, which has been of 
great benefit to the U.S. Stability in Western Europe through NATO led 
to the end of the Cold War and to the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
while at the same time preserving a strong market for U.S. goods and 
services. After fifty years of success is it time to abandon the 
partnership of NATO? I think not.
  The Campbell resolutions calling for a declaration of war or removal 
of all U.S. military personnel are premature and misguided. First, we 
are involved in an air campaign jointly with our NATO allies in an 
effort to stop Milosevic's brutal campaign of aggression against the 
ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. For the U.S. to unilaterally declare war 
outside of NATO undermines the alliance and its efforts. Second, to 
call for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the NATO exercise 
would only serve to enhance Milosevic's position, which I oppose, and 
weaken NATO's. And, it would completely undermine NATO and the U.S. 
leadership position in the alliance.
  The Goodling legislation, H.R. 1569, would prohibit the use of any 
funds of the Department of Defense for the deployment of ground 
elements, including personnel and material to the FRY. This is both 
premature and sends the wrong message. I have stated publicly that I 
oppose the introduction of ground troops into the FRY at this juncture, 
but I also support our efforts as part of NATO to end the ethnic 
cleansing in Kosovo and bring stability to the region. It is premature 
for the Congress to prospectively limit the U.S.'s options because 
there is currently no plan to send ground troops in a military 
situation at this time. If at any time such a plan is developed, the 
Congress can move immediately to prohibit such activity.
  I am also concerned about the limited exceptions in the Goodling 
bill, which would hamper the ability of U.S. and NATO commanders to 
gather intelligence necessary to prosecute the airstrike operation. 
Further, it would not allow U.S. and NATO commanders to pre-position 
tanks and military equipment, or allow for pre-emptive strikes based on 
intelligence reports. These exceptions would eliminate on-the-ground 
intelligence gathering and the use of special forces, which would 
impair NATO's decision making ability and its ability to obtain 
critical military information. Worst of all, this bill sends the wrong 
message to Milosevic at a critical time that the U.S. is not serious 
about pursuing a peaceful settlement which includes the repatriation of 
Kosovar refugees.
  Finally, we should adopt the same resolution adopted by the Senate to 
endorse the U.S. participation in the NATO air operation. Regardless of 
the outcome of the Goodling resolution, we should unequivocally state 
our support for NATO. To do otherwise at this point would greatly 
weaken the NATO alliance, serving only to threaten the lives of the

[[Page H2395]]

men and women pursuing our military objectives, and weakening the 
international standing of the United States.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I want to first express how proud and 
honored I am of our brave men and women in the armed services. I salute 
them and offer them my unequivocal support for the wonderful job they 
are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I was opposed to this operation from the beginning. 
Putting American troops in the middle of an ethnically charged civil 
war carrying six hundred years of cultural baggage is pure folly. 
Neither the Albanians nor the Serbs are interested in any sort of 
serious compromise. As I said two months ago and I say today, I do not 
believe that we should risk the lives of our American men and women in 
an ethnic conflict thousands of miles away where there are no American 
interests at stake.
  This is an issue that should have been handled by the European 
nations, but it wasn't. We should not send American men and women 
thousands of miles from home to do what European men and women should 
be doing for themselves.
  But now that we are embroiled in this foreign policy failure, now is 
not the time to disengage because to do so would be a blow to U.S. 
prestige and a license for Milosevic to continue his heinous actions.
  With this in mind, today we will debate and vote on four separate 
bills dealing with Kosovo, and I would like to take this opportunity to 
outline my thoughts on each of them.
  First, I support H.R. 1569. The bill would prohibit the Department of 
Defense from using appropriated funds for the deployment of ground 
elements of American troops in Yugoslavia unless authorized by 
Congress.
  Our nation's first President, George Washington, said over 200 years 
ago: ``The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; 
therefore no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after 
they have been deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a 
measure.''
  George Washington's statement is as true today as it was 200 years 
ago. As duly elected Members of Congress and as representatives of the 
American people, it is our duty, and yes, it is our responsibility to 
exercise our constitutional right to authorize military deployments of 
this nature. As Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal writes: 
``Compliance with the Constitution should not be optional.'' Congress 
should not relax our role as an equal partner with the Administration 
in this decision-making process.
  We must not allow ``compliance with the Constitution'' to devolve 
into an option. We must assert our constitutional prerogatives, which 
is why I support H.R. 1569.
  Secondly, I oppose H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44, H. Con. Res. 82 
would direct the President to remove American troops from their 
positions and cease military operations against Yugoslavia within 30 
days of passage, and H.J. Res. 44 would declare war on Yugoslavia. 
While I certainly respect the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Campbell) keen intellect, I do not agree with the goals of either of 
his bills. H. Con. Res. 82 would send a harmful message to our American 
troops already there. It would undermine their efforts and our support 
for American men and women in the armed services. H.J. Res. 44 would 
just go too far.
  The final bill to be considered on this floor today will be S. Con. 
Res. 21. This resolution would authorize the President to continue to 
conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with 
NATO against Yugoslavia. I oppose this resolution, but this does not 
mean that I want to stop the bombings.
  Specifically, I do not support the current policy behind the 
bombings. The five week long bombing campaign against Yugoslavia has 
been an abject failure. NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley 
Clark, admitted as much at a news briefing yesterday. The bombs have so 
far failed to stop the ethnic cleansing, failed to stop the buildup of 
Serb troops, and failed to break Slobodan Milosevic's resolve.
  I would support the bombing if it were effective. I would support it 
if military professionals could carry out their mission unfettered by 
political persons with little or no military experience. There is no 
place for armchair generals here, only military professionals.
  Perhaps it was doomed to fail from the start. There were questions 
that should have been answered for a military campaign of this nature 
such as what are the rules of engagement? How will we handle the 
massive exodus of Albanian refugees? What is the exit strategy? What 
are the goals? What will we do if air strikes prove to be ineffective?
  Perhaps a political determination was made over the objections of the 
Pentagon--a decision to gamble and hope that Milosevic would cave in 
after a few days of air strikes. Unfortunately, the gamble failed, and 
no contingencies were planned. And now, the Administration's 
reactionary foreign policy has resulted in another situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will continue to debate this matter in 
the months to come, and so I conclude my statement with one final 
thought for my colleagues and for the Administration. It is fatal to 
enter any war without the will to win. We must recognize the fact that 
it's not tidy, and it's not clean, but if we're going to fight, we must 
fight to win.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say first that I stand in 
wholehearted support of the brave men and women who are currently 
risking their lives in this mission. I pray for their safe return. We 
should all be very proud of their dedication to their country.
  The ongoing situation in Kosovo represents a grave humanitarian 
crisis. The government of Slobodan Milosevic has been engaging in the 
systematic slaughter and oppression of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. 
I have no quarrel with the Serbian people. The blame for the killing 
and persecution lies with Milosevic and he must be stopped. The United 
States cannot stand by as innocent men, women, and children are driven 
from their homes and villages, while countless others are brutally 
slaughtered. The history of 20th century Europe presents us with a 
moral imperative, and we have no choice but to act, and act now.
  This conflict is occurring in a politically volatile region in an 
area of crucial importance to this country. This conflict could spread 
rapidly in the Balkans, affecting our NATO allies, and that has serious 
national security implications for America. If this conflict erupts 
into a major European war, U.S. involvement will be massive and much 
costlier than our participation in the NATO effort now underway.
  Today, I plan to vote against two Resolutions being offered by my 
colleague, Congressman Tom Campbell. While I have great respect for his 
views, I don't feel that these Resolutions encompass our best policy 
options in Kosovo.
  H. Con. Res. 82 calls for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from 
current operations in Yugoslavia. The approval of this resolution would 
send a devastating message about America's commitment to NATO and to 
stopping the mindless slaughter of innocent civilians. It would allow 
Slobodan Milosevic to continue his policy of ethnic cleansing with 
impunity. In addition, any unilateral statement by Congress against the 
U.S. commitment to NATO would be especially ill-timed in light of 
NATO's reaffirmed commitment this past weekend to resolving the 
situation in Kosovo. Finally, I fear that this resolution would 
undermine the morale of our brave troops in the field.
  H.J. Res. 44 calls on the U.S. government to issue a formal 
declaration of war against Yugoslavia. We have not declared war since 
World War II, and such a declaration is out of proportion to the 
current situation. The U.S. and NATO are seeking to stop the slaughter 
of innocent people and to stabilize the region for the long term, not 
the conquest of Yugoslavia. In addition, a unilateral declaration by 
the U.S. would shatter the delicate coalition of 19 NATO nations who 
have worked closely together to try to stop the violence that Milosevic 
and his forces are committing. Yesterday, this resolution was 
unanimously defeated in the International Relations Committee.
  I also plan to vote against H.R. 1569, a bill that would cut off 
funding for operations in Kosovo if the President deploys ``ground 
elements'' without authorization. I have repeatedly voiced my hope that 
a ground invasion will never be necessary, but there are a myriad of 
circumstances that could necessitate the use of some ground forces. I 
do not believe Congress should tie the hands of the military commanders 
and risk putting our troops in any unnecessary risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the resolution offered by Mr. 
Gejdenson in support of continuing air strikes against Yugoslavia. This 
resolution is identical to the bipartisan measure which has already 
passed the Senate. I do this with reluctance and a heavy heart because 
I firmly believe that military action should always be our last resort. 
However, Milosevic's brutal actions and blatant refusal to negotiate 
have left no other options. I sincerely hope that NATO's air campaign 
will bring about a successful conclusion to this conflict, avoiding 
bloodshed of innocents on all sides of this conflict, and so we can get 
our troops out of harm's ways as quickly as possible.
  I support this Gejdenson resolution, first and foremost, because I am 
convinced that it represents the right policy. I also support it 
because Congress has a unique responsibility--both constitutionally and 
morally--to speak out on matters of military conflict. Whether one 
supports or opposes our mission in Kosovo, it would be unconscionable 
for Congress to be silent on this issue. Doing so would effectively 
disenfranchise the millions of Americans who want to voice their views 
on this topic through their elected representatives.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my heartfelt thanks and 
gratitude to the American people for their generosity to the refugees 
of Kosovo. Once again, they have responded to

[[Page H2396]]

a humanitarian crisis with compassion and generosity, donating food, 
clothes, and money and countless hours of their time. This past weekend 
I visited Direct Relief International in my district and met with 
representatives from DRI, Missions Without Borders, and New Horizons 
Outreach. They showed me the tons of supplies they have gathered and 
are sending to the refugees. We all owe groups like this, and the 
thousands of volunteers and donors across this great land who support 
them, our debt of gratitude.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my thoughts about the 
current situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and more 
specifically, my deep concern about the role of the United States 
military in the ongoing conflict.
  There are no easy answers to the questions posed by the country's 
civil war and the reprehensible actions of Slobodan Milosovic. 
Thousands of Kosovars have been killed and driven out of their homes 
and out of their homeland. We see their suffering every night on the 
evening news. And we keep asking, ``What can we do?''
  Without second guessing the decisions of the President and his 
national security team, I think it is important that we look at the 
status of this military action realistically. After more than a month 
of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the suffering of the Kosovars has not 
been eased. More refugees are being forced out of Kosovo every day, 
destabilizing other countries in the region. We are now learning that 
NATO bombing is killing innocent civilians.
  The Constitution requires that Congress act on matters of war. 
Accordingly, Congress has two options to address the current 
situation--one, declare war; or two, withdraw our troops.
  Declaring war on Yugoslavia is not an option. Yugoslavia has not 
attacked the United States, and the President has never made the case 
that it is in the vital interest of the U.S. to declare war.
  Instead, today I voted to withdraw U.S. troops from Yugoslavia 
because we are not at war, and yet there is no mistake that the 
President is indeed waging war with our troops. In fact, ninety percent 
of the NATO missions are flown by U.S. pilots. Until the President 
explains to Americans why this military action is necessary, why we are 
bombing a sovereign nation, and how success is determined in this 
mission, I do not believe U.S. troops should be participating in this 
military action.
  This current situation in Kosovo highlights an even larger and 
looming problem with our national defense policy. I am concerned that 
the President has stretched our national defense to the breaking point. 
We have too many deployments by too few troops who are under-trained 
and ill-equipped to put out fires in every corner of the world. Since 
1991, U.S. troops have been deployed 33 times--compare that to only 10 
deployments during the forty years of the Cold War.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States needs a consistent foreign policy and 
understanding of our role in the world. That need is more evident today 
than every before. I am pleased that the U.S. Congress today is 
fulfilling its role in helping determine that policy, and would hope 
that the President would do the same.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this 
historic debate on the tragic situation in the Balkan region. We find 
ourselves in a disturbing conflict, and I believe the public is 
concerned about our long term strategy.
  The President and the Secretary of Defense have recently begun a call 
to duty of more than 33,000 reservists and National Guardsmen. Each one 
of us here represents men and women that could be called to fight in 
the Balkans. I am confident that these men and women will represent our 
country well. This conflict in the Balkans has been generally viewed by 
my constituents as a mostly international issue taking place in areas 
that are unknown and unfamiliar to many of us. However, the recent call 
up of reservists and National Guardsmen has hit my district square in 
the heart, since it could involve the potential deployment of the 
National Guard and Air Force Reserve components stationed at March Air 
Reserve Base.
  I am very proud of the efforts by our military personnel. Although 
this is the longest and largest such campaign in which no American 
lives have been lost, chances are this may not continue. The credit for 
this extraordinary accomplishment should be placed on the shoulders of 
our American and allied troops. These brave men and women deserve our 
praise. Let me take this opportunity to extend enormous gratitude from 
myself and everyone living within the 43rd District of California for 
the job and effort of our troops.
  As proud as I am of our troops, I am concerned that the President has 
not done enough to involve Congress in the decision-making process 
throughout the Balkans crisis. Still today, Congress has not been 
advised on the exit strategy once hostilities have ceased. Yet, at the 
same time, this President is asking Congress for additional funds for 
this campaign. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President will begin to involve 
Congress.
  I have every confidence that our men and women will do their jobs. I 
do not have confidence that they will have the material support that 
they deserve over the long haul. That is why we desperately need to 
pass a large defense supplemental bill to make up for previous years of 
inadequate defense requests from this administration.
  I have voted today to reserve the decision to start any ground war to 
Congress, where it belongs. I have also voted against the extremes of 
media withdrawal and declaring war. Authorizing the air war merely 
recognizes reality--a reality which Congress must monitor daily so that 
the will and interests of the American people are reflected in our 
foreign policy.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this crisis, my 
central concern has been the human rights situation in Kosovo. I 
believe that we cannot simply look the other way during this disaster. 
I believe that our policy must be directed toward saving as many 
Kosovars as possible from death, rape, torture or other atrocities. To 
that end, on March 24th, I issued a statement supporting NATO's 
targeted air strikes against military targets. I supported targeted air 
strikes in order to diminish President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to 
wage war on more than a million of his own citizens. I believed it to 
be the best of many bad options available to NATO after rejection of 
the peace plan by Milosevic and more than a year of failed diplomatic 
efforts.
  Since the air strikes began, we have seen the focus of our bombing 
shift from strictly military infrastructure targets to include the 
civilian infrastructure. My support for the air strikes waned when this 
shift began occurring, because our military actions were no longer 
connected to my central goal of addressing the human rights crisis. In 
fact, I believe that bombing the Yugoslavian civilian infrastructure 
will worsen rather than improve the humanitarian situation.
  I believe that Congress and the President must share in the 
responsibility of deciding whether or not to introduce U.S. troops into 
hostilities. The War Powers Resolution is unambiguous on that issue. 
The U.S. House of Representatives has not yet taken such a vote. I 
believe that we should.
  Votes on war and peace are the most serious votes that a member of 
Congress ever has to cast. In the end, votes of this magnitude must be 
guided by conscience, not politics or party loyalty. For that reason I 
am today casting votes in favor of H.R. 1569, prohibiting the use of 
funds to deploy ground troops without Congressional authorization; in 
favor of H. Con. Res. 82, invoking the war powers resolution and 
withdrawing our troops in the absence of Congressional authorization 
for their continuing presence; against H.J. Res. 44, declaring war on 
Yugoslavia; and against S. Con. Res. 21, authorizing continued military 
air operations against Yugoslavia.
  What most concerns me about today's votes is that we are not 
addressing our most important goals. I would like to be voting on a 
resolution devoting as much time, energy, money and human resources to 
assisting the refugees as we are to prosecuting this military action. 
While we fight allegedly on their behalf, refugees remain in unsafe and 
squalid conditions. There is much more we could be doing to assist 
those whose lives we are fighting for. I would also like to be voting 
on a resolution that says unequivocally to our troops--especially those 
who are being held prisoner--I support and honor you in your work, 
regardless of whether my vote is in the majority or minority today.
  In the final analysis, our mission must be a moral one to relieve the 
suffering of hundreds of thousands of displaced families and to seek 
lasting peace in the region.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concerns for the 
current situation in Kosovo and the military policies being pursued by 
the Clinton Administration.
  Let met say at the outset that I fully support our military men and 
women. They are the finest in the world. Further, in no way do I wish 
to send a message to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic that I 
consider him to be anything other than a barbarian and a thug. His 
policies in Kosovo of ``ethnic cleansing'' and mass deportation of the 
Albanian majority are nothing short of deplorable which serve to 
reinforce his pathologic quest for ultimate power and authority. There 
can be no doubt that as Secretary of Defense Cohen has stated, ``Mr. 
Milosevic and his minions are engaging in rape, pillage, and murder on 
a scale that we have not seen since the end of World War II'' * * * 
``Milosevic is an ex-communist thug who has been appallingly brutal to 
the Kosovo Albanians.''
  Kosovo is much more than a civil war. It is in effect an extension of 
what we have already experienced in Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia. Serb 
forces, including elements of the Yugoslav Army, Serb special police 
and paramilitary units have attacked towns and villages

[[Page H2397]]

throughout Kosovo in a clear pattern similar to what we saw in Bosnia. 
The world has a right to be outraged and to demand that Mr. Milosevic 
end his brutal campaign of hatred and expulsion.
  Like many, I do believe that the nations of Europe had the right to 
decide that the situation in Kosovo was no longer tolerable and had to 
be stopped before a broader war in the Balkans ensued. NATO's reason 
for taking action in Kosovo is honorable. Ethnic cleansing must be 
condemned. Clearly, the United States does have a national interest in 
a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Peace and stability in southern 
Europe is important. If the current situation persists, Montenegro 
could be next and perhaps Bosnia could flare up again. The current 
situation also places our friends and allies in Greece and Turkey in a 
tenuous situation which could rekindle old animosities. But does the 
United States have such a strategic national interest in the Balkans 
that we should commit U.S. military forces to the region? I do not 
believe so. Is it in the best interest of the European nations of NATO 
to act to resolve this conflict? Yet it is. And, as a member of NATO, 
should the U.S. participate in some way? Yes, we could. But do we need 
to be in the forefront of the military operation, providing the bulk of 
the air-strike forces and potentially the ground forces? I do not 
believe so. If the European nations of NATO wish to intervene 
militarily, I believe the U.S., as a NATO ally, can assist with 
communications, intelligence, logistics, and medical support. And if 
that is not enough for the NATO alliance to act in a case such as this 
to enforce their own responsibilities to preserve stability in Europe, 
then I question the real resolve of the alliance and wonder what kind 
of an alliance we have if it cannot function without the U.S. in the 
lead.
  That is why I voted today to remove our air forces from the 
operations over Yugoslavia and will oppose the commitment of United 
States ground combat forces to Kosovo should the President decide to do 
so. Last March, I voted against authorizing American ground forces to 
be used as a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. I did so because NATO didn't 
have a clearly defined mission or strategy to win the conflict. We also 
didn't have an exit strategy. I said then that I hoped I would be 
proven wrong. That hasn't been the case.
  When feasible, the United States and NATO should take well thought-
out steps to stop aggression or in this case the brutal extermination 
or deportation of an ethnic population. Our actions, if we are to take 
them, must be swift and taken with overwhelming force. But we have done 
the opposite in Yugoslavia. If we are to be intellectually honest, we 
have to admit that an air war cannot stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. 
Air wars alone have never succeeded. If we are to be intellectually 
honest, we have to admit that the air war is in all likelihood a 
prelude to a ground war. If we are to be intellectually honest, we have 
to admit that incrementally increasing our war effort is a losing 
strategy. Even General Clark, the NATO supreme commander has stated 
that ``air power alone will not be sufficient to stop the ethnic 
cleansing''.
  Instead of stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, our strategy 
seemingly has hastened it. The administration was caught off guard by 
that. Milosevic has achieved most of his objectives. He has extended 
his control over Kosovo, and he has successfully expelled a large 
portion of the ethnic Albanian population. Now he is suggesting to 
Russian negotiators that he is ready to talk peace. Perhaps this option 
should be seriously reconsidered, instead of being summarily dismissed, 
as the Administration has done.
  If we resort now to a ground war, we risk far more casualties and an 
open-ended commitment to Kosovo that could quickly become a long-time 
quagmire. When we put our troops in Bosnia, the President promised they 
would be home in a few months. That was four years ago, and 3,000 
troops are still there. He's not saying how long our troops would be in 
Kosovo. And because our mission and exit strategy remain unclear to me, 
I fear that we would have to send an invasion force into Kosovo at 
least as large as the one we used in the Persian Gulf and that those 
forces would be required to remain in Kosovo for a very long time.
  Furthermore, we are also asking our military men and women to do a 
job without supplying them with the necessary tools. Today, there are 
265,000 American troops in 135 countries--including 50,000 in Korea and 
several thousand more in the Persian Gulf. At the same time, since the 
end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Since 1990, 
the Air Force has shrunk from 36 active and reserve fighter wings to 
20. The Navy is sending warships to sea hundreds of sailors short of a 
full crew. The Marines and Army are running out of ammunition. If we 
needed to, we would be hard-pressed to respond elsewhere in the world. 
Already, we have had to divert planes from their patrol over Iraq to 
fly Kosovo missions.
  As we commit American troops to more hotspots around the world, 
coupled with the defense cutbacks this Administration has made over 
this decade, it means our tissue-thin military resources have become 
even thinner.
  My prayers go to the outstanding men and women in U.S. uniforms 
involved in this confrontation and those facing danger throughout the 
world. I have the greatest confidence in their commitment, to their 
honor and in their willingness to fight for freedom. Had we given them 
the tools, the strategy, and the commitment to win, I know they would 
prevail in Kosovo. But we haven't. So they should no longer be engaged 
and certainly should not be committed to a ground war.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to American participation in Operation Allied Force.
  This Administration's policy in the Balkans has been completely 
misguided from the outset. While I feel great sympathy for the innocent 
people on both sides of this conflict, I firmly believe that American 
military intervention is not the answer. The divisions that plague 
Yugoslavia are centuries-old grievances that no external force may ever 
be able to control.
  Mr. Speaker, too many questions remain unanswered regarding our 
participation in this mission. The Administration's effort to counter 
Serbian aggression lacks a coherent design, a fixed timetable for 
engagement, a well-defined exit strategy, and a clear final objective. 
Administration officials continue to argue that American military 
intervention is absolutely necessary to end Slobodan Milosevic's brutal 
ethnic cleansing campaign. But if the purpose in striking Yugoslavia 
was to end humanitarian abuses, then NATO has surely failed. All 
indications are that Milosevic has actually accelerated his ethnic 
cleansing program since air strikes began, and NATO's own military 
commander today acknowledged that Operation Allied Force has failed to 
reduce the size of the Serbian force in Kosovo or its operations 
against Albanians.
  Mr. Speaker, this President is now preparing to fully engage our 
Armed Forces in a conflict that pre-dates Columbus' first trip to the 
Americas. Despite his continued claims that he has no intention of 
deploying American ground troops to this bloody conflict, every move 
this President now makes points to this ever-growing possibility. Just 
yesterday, the President ordered over 33,000 U.S. reserves back into 
active duty, the biggest call-up since the Persian Gulf War. In 
addition, the President has put into effect an order that prevents Air 
Force pilots and other critical personnel from retiring or leaving the 
Air Force before the Kosovo air war ends.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support risking American 
lives to fight a war that seems to have more to do with ensuring this 
president's legacy than protecting our national security interests 
abroad.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, today we debate two concepts--
responsibility and planning. Understanding our responsibilities and how 
we plan to carry them out is the key to determining what America's 
interest in Kosovo is.
  Our responsibility as Americans are limited and crystal clear. We 
must oppose any threat to our national security. Our interests in the 
Balkans are limited. We have no direct national interest in the 
region's politics. Our interests are solely limited to preventing any 
other outside power from increasing its threat to America by dominating 
the region. Preventing any conflict in that region from emboldening 
tyrants elsewhere or becoming a threat to our ties with key allies. 
Unfortunately, our current policy threatens to do just that.
  When we commit American power we have a responsibility to plan. We 
must have a plan of action that will lead to the achievement of 
objectives that is consistent with U.S. interests. There must be 
linkage between our political objectives and military plans if we are 
to succeed in achieving our goals.
  Unfortunately, our mission in Kosovo falls short in both respects. 
The Balkans are not an area of vital national interest. We have no 
security interest that remotely justifies the massive commitment of 
military resources and U.S. credibility that the administration has 
made. It is both dangerous and irresponsible to place our forces and 
credibility at risk.
  It was very clear to me during any recent visit to the region that 
there is a clear disconnect between our political objectives and our 
military actions. A human tragedy is unfolding in the region. Having 
personally visited the refugee camps I understand the devastation faced 
by the Albanian people. I also know that our first humanitarian 
responsibility is to do no additional harm. The administration's 
actions have fueled this too. To this day it remains unclear what the 
administration's long term political objectives for the region are. We 
cannot succeed without objectives.
  My colleagues, I fear that our policy du jour places American lives, 
strategic alliances and credibility at risk. The lack of policy 
direction

[[Page H2398]]

makes success unachievable and threatens to only compound the current 
humanitarian crisis. This is a political problem which requires a 
political, not military, solution. Let's escalate our diplomatic 
efforts to seek a solution to this humanitarian crisis. We still have 
diplomatic cards to play. Let's not compound the errors of our current 
policy by military escalation. Let's focus our efforts on achieving a 
diplomatic triumph.
  Going to war is the most profound question we will ever vote on as 
representatives. We must never risk American lives except to protect 
our vital national interests.
  My colleagues, I ask each and every one of you to look at the facts. 
The president has failed to outline a plan with achievable objectives. 
Escalation only promises more political failure despite military 
successes. Let's stop this ruinous spiral and seek a diplomatic 
solution. Please join me in voting against the Administration's war 
policy.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, these four important votes concerning NATO 
Operation Allied Force in Kosovo cause me tremendous difficulty. We 
hold this debate today because the mission, the means and the mentality 
behind this operation are unclear. There are no good options before us, 
only some less bad than others.
  People speak of winning, people speak of losing. People speak of sins 
of omission and sins of commission. But, we have no agreed definitions 
for those terms so we stutter and speak similar words with disparate 
meanings. Look at the history of the Balkans and you can understand one 
thing--no one's hands are clean and everything is colored in shades of 
gray. We must look to the President of the United States to lead and 
give us common definitions and meaning for our involvement, to define 
the political objectives we seek to achieve, and to determine how we 
can best achieve them.
  On March 11, over a month ago, we debated our interests in Kosovo. At 
that time I had not heard from the President an unambiguous statement 
of our interests and goals in Kosovo. Today, we cover some of the same 
ground and yet still do not have an articulation of the central 
strategic national interest involved. That suggests at best an 
unfortunate lack of communication, consultation and evolution, at 
worst, a complete muddle on the part of the administration.
  Given this environment, it is proper that we pass legislation that 
puts a check on escalation to ground forces.
  As one who seeks to maintain our leadership in international trade 
issues, I understand the arguments of maintaining international 
stability, NATO credibility, of assisting in the humanitarian relief, 
and on standing firm against the kind of atrocities that have been 
taking place in Kosovo. For those reasons I am willing to give the 
President and NATO leaders the benefit of the doubt on their air 
campaign strategy. In any event, it is the reality of where we are 
today, the level at which we are now engaged. That is why I support S. 
Con. Res. 21 which authorizes the President to conduct military air 
operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia.
  Following those same arguments, I also stand opposed to the immediate 
removal of our military forces under section 5(c) of the War Powers 
Resolution as H. Con. Res. 82 would have us do. But, those arguments do 
not convince me that the situation warrants the United States of 
America declaring war on the Federal Republic of Serbia; so, I oppose 
H.J. Res. 44. I trust the President shares this letter view since he 
himself has not asked Congress for a declaration of war.
  Let me also mention that none of the above in any way diminishes the 
importance of passing an emergency appropriation bill to pay for the 
cost of what has already been done. The number of missiles and 
munitions already expended in Operation Allied Force is extraordinary. 
This action in addition to Desert Fox, Afghanistan and other operations 
has exceeded all forecasts and expectations. Therefore, we need to 
replenish the stocks and give the military the resources they need to 
maintain their equipment through this campaign. But none of us should 
be under any illusion; if this air war continues, this will not be the 
last supplemental appropriation bill we will see on this floor.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, sixty years ago Nazi Germany prepared for 
the invasion of Poland that thrust the world into darkness, despair and 
death. We put our heads in the sand. It wasn't our problem.
  It became our problem, and before it was over more than 50 million 
people lost their lives. At the heart of Hitler's madness was the 
conscious decision to kill every Jew in Europe. He almost succeeded.
  Sixty years ago we did not have NATO and the United States was not 
the pre-eminent world leader. But once again we have a European leader 
whose rise to power is premised on the forced dislocation, rape, 
torture, and murder of an internal ethnic and religious minority. This 
time it is the ethnic Albanians, who are for the most part Muslim.
  How should we respond to this challenge? We could hide in the sand. 
Or we could take action in the name of humanity. That is what we have 
done. We have acted properly by using our military to end the 
atrocities. We must now complete the job. We must fight to win. Ending 
our participation would be a horrible disaster--for the United States, 
for Europe, and for the ethnic Albanians we seek to help. It is not in 
our character to duck and run. Rather, we should take a stand for 
democracy, for hope, and for a secure Europe.
  We have spent considerable effort trying to reach a peaceful 
settlement. The ethnic Albanians accepted a compromise. The Serbs 
rejected it. This is not a new problem and this bombing campaign is not 
a knee jerk response. President Bush, as he was leaving office, 
threatened military action against the Milosovic regime, and President 
Clinton and other world leaders have repeated that threat numerous 
times.
  Sometimes you need to back up a threat with action. And that is 
precisely what President Clinton has done. He has not acted alone, but 
with the unanimous consent and widespread participation of our NATO 
allies. I am proud that we have taken a stand against inhumanity and 
for basic human rights. We waited to take action in Bosnia, at the cost 
of many lives, and once we did, we were able to end the daily horrors. 
As President Clinton observed, if a united force had moved to stop 
Hitler early, we might have spared the world its darkest hour.
  Our military must remain fully ready to respond to traditional 
threats to our national security. But we must not be afraid or 
unwilling to take action to stop or prevent genocide where we can make 
a difference. We cannot solve every world problem, but we also cannot 
therefore refuse ever to act. A European genocide, as we should have 
learned, can destabilize the entire world.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House needs to 
search clearly for a rational, sustainable policy regarding Yugoslavia. 
In this process, we need to hear all the voices instead of only those 
with which we agree. I am inserting an article by Vesna Perio-Zimonjic 
that provides a valuable insight on the long-term potential ecological 
damage our bombs could cause:

              After Bombs, Ecological Disaster and Hunger

                       (By Vesna Perio-Zimonjic)

                  [From IPS Terraviva, Apr. 22, 1999]

       Belgrade.--Apart from the razing of Yugoslav industrial 
     sites and infrastructure, NATO air attacks are causing an 
     ecological disaster that could endanger the Balkans as a 
     whole, Serbian officials and ecological experts warned. 
     Important rivers, lakes and agricultural land are now 
     contaminated with chemicals and depleted uranium, while the 
     country's fertiliser plants have been destroyed at the height 
     of the seeding season. The result, experts say, might be 
     widespread hunger. According to NATO spokesmen, however, the 
     destruction of refineries and chemical industries is just 
     aimed at crippling Belgrade's ability to wage war against 
     ethnic Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo, some 374 
     km from the capital. For days on last week, huge black clouds 
     were hanging over the Yugoslav capital, coming from the 
     industrial town of Pancevo, 20 km to the northeast, where a 
     huge oil refinery, petrochemical complex and fertiliser 
     factory had been hit by NATO planes. For two days, residents 
     of both Pancevo and Belgrade were counselled to use watered 
     handkerchiefs or towels over their faces in case they had 
     burning eyes or sore throat when they came out in the street. 
     Luckily, people thought, the wind quickly swept the clouds 
     and the rain washed residues away. But Yugoslav Development, 
     Science and Environment Minister Jagos Zelenovic told 
     journalists that the damage coming from Pancevo's industrial 
     complex was far from over, causing a cross-border 
     environmental hazard. ``The spreading of harmful, dangerous, 
     inflammable and explosive materials used in this complex has 
     polluted the atmosphere, ground water, rivers, lakes and 
     water supply of the wider region,'' Zelenovic said. ``The 
     effects of this pollution not only go across borders, but 
     these are long-term substances and carcinogens,'' he said.
       Local civil defence authorities in Pancevo evacuated two 
     residential districts after April 18--the fiercest NATO 
     attack so far--that led to the release of chlorine, 
     hydrochloric acid and even phosgene in the atmosphere, when 
     petrochemical facilities and a fertiliser factory were 
     destroyed. Residents of two small neighbourhoods close to the 
     complexes had to be taken by buses to nearby schools and a 
     sports centre, where they remain until now. Dragoljub 
     Bjelovic, of the Serbian Ministry of Ecology, told 
     journalists that ``ecological catastrophe'' could hit the 
     entire Balkan Region. ``The whole region is in danger, 
     specially after the fertiliser factory was hit, as highly 
     toxic substances went into the air but also, with rain, into 
     the ground,'' he said. ``All rivers and underwater streams in 
     this part of Serbia and the Balkan region are connected, so 
     the toxins can spread into quite a big zone,'' he added. 
     According to Bjelovic, a 20 km-long oil spill from the 
     Pancevo refinery is travelling down

[[Page H2399]]

     the Danube river, towards the two huge Djerdap dams and 
     hydro-electric plants on the Yugoslav-Rumanian border. Both 
     dams were built decades ago by Yugoslavia and Rumania, as the 
     Danube marks the border between the two countries in that 
     zone. From Rumania on, the Danube goes through Bulgaria and 
     into the Black Sea. ``Everything that goes into Danube now, 
     will saturate the Black Sea in a short while,'' Bjelovic 
     said. Miralem Dzindo, general manager of the `Azotara' 
     fertiliser plant in Pancevo, told journalists that besides 
     the threat of bombs and ecological disaster, there is an 
     additional hazard Serbs have to worry about. ``There is no 
     way to produce necessary fertilisers now, as all facilities 
     were burned to ground on April 18,'' he said. ``The seeding 
     of land is in full swing at this time of year and we won't be 
     able to deliver the necessary substances for our fields . . . 
     The rockets that hit the plant also hit the land and we might 
     face hunger as a result.''
       Evacuation of residents is also being considered by civil 
     defence authorities in the town of Ohrenovac, 20 km southwest 
     from Belgrade, where a huge chemical complex is located in 
     the neighbourhood of Baric. It is no secret that the Baric 
     complex produces hydrochloric acid for civilian use and even 
     the dangerous and extremely toxic hydrofluoric acid, used as 
     a component for different household detergents. Baric is 
     situated on the Sava river, which meets the Danube in 
     Belgrade. ``If we let all these chemicals into the river--to 
     prevent them from evaporating into the atmosphere in case 
     Baric was hit by NATO--that would be a real catastrophe,'' a 
     plant official told IPS. ``Under normal circumstances, it 
     would take three months to properly shut down the factors, 
     with all necessary precautionary measures. If we're hit now, 
     God knows what could happen,'' he added. The threat is not a 
     mere speculation: a small office building at the Baric 
     complex was already hit twice in NATO air raids last Sunday. 
     Reports about NATO using depleted uranium (DU) weapons have 
     also been printed by the Serbian press, based on a document 
     issued by the New York-based International Action Centre 
     (IAC)--founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark--
     said that US A-10 ``Warthog'' jets, introduced recently into 
     NATO attacks, carry anti-tank weapons ``that could present a 
     danger to the people and environment of the entire Balkans.'' 
     According to IAC, ``the A-10s were the anti-tank weapon of 
     choice in the 1991 war against Iraq. It carries a GAU-8/A 
     Avenger 30 millimetre seven-barrel cannon capable of 
     firing 4,200 rounds per minute. During that war it fired 
     30 mm rounds reinforced with DU, a radioactive weapon.'' 
     ``There is solid scientific evidence that the DU residue 
     left in Iraq is responsible for a large increase in 
     stillbirths, children born with defects, and childhood 
     leukemia and other cancers in the area of southern Iraq 
     near Basra, where most of these shells were fired,'' the 
     group says. Many U.S. veterans groups also say that DU 
     residues contributed to the condition called ``Gulf War 
     Syndrome'' that has affected close to 100,000 service 
     people in the U.S. and Britain with chronic sickness,'' 
     IAC added. John Catalinotto, a spokesman for IAC's 
     depleted Uranium Education Project, said the use of DU 
     weapons in Yugoslavia ``adds a new dimension to the crime 
     NATO is perpetrating against the Yugoslav people--
     including those in Kosovo.'' ``DU is used in alloy form in 
     shells to make them penetrate better. As the shell hits 
     the target, it burns and releases uranium oxide into the 
     air. The poisonous and radioactive uranium is most 
     dangerous when inhaled into the body, where it will 
     release radiation during the entire life of the person who 
     inhaled it,'' Catalinotto said.

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers legislation 
regarding U.S. policy toward the crisis in Yugoslavia. Under our 
Constitution, Congress has an important responsibility to be involved 
in the conduct of foreign policy, and this is no exception. Today, I 
will vote for H.R. 1569 and S. Con. Res. 21 and against H. Con. Res. 82 
and H. Con. Res. 44.
  There are four issues that the House of Representatives must decide 
today: whether the United States should declare war on Yugoslavia; 
whether the United States should withdraw its forces from the NATO led 
strikes; whether Congress must pass legislation to approve any ground 
troops that may be deployed by the President; and whether the President 
has the support of the Congress to continue to participate in the NATO 
led air campaign. These are not easy or simple decisions.
  H. Con. Res. 82 would require the President to remove U.S. military 
forces currently participating in Operation Allied Force. The other 
proposal, H. Con. Res. 44, would declare a state of war between the 
United States and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I intend to 
oppose both of these proposals.
  Passage of either bill would have severe consequences for United 
States foreign policy. Withdrawing U.S. troops participating in 
Operation Allied Force would hand Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic 
a victory and a signal that he was free to continue the policies of 
ethnic cleansing and genocide. In addition, withdrawing troops would 
destroy hopes for a positive outcome of current air strikes against 
Serbia. Finally, the withdraw of U.S. troops may break apart the NATO 
alliance. Withdrawal of troops could cause Milosevic to question our 
resolve to achieve the objective of a multi-ethnic, democratic Kovoso 
in which all can live in peace and security.
  Conversely, declaring war would have equally devastating 
consequences. The situation in Kosovo, though extremely serious, has 
not developed to the point that the United States as a sovereign 
country should declare war. Declaring war carries legal consequences 
that include the nationalization of factories for wartime production, 
as well as foreign policy consequences such as the military involvement 
from other countries such as Russia. The United States has only voted 
to declare war 11 times in its history, and none since World War II. 
The United States should continue its participation in the NATO led 
effort, but at this time, there is no compelling reason why we, as a 
sovereign nation, should independently declare war on Yugoslavia.
  I do intend to support H.R. 1569, which would prohibit the use of 
funds appropriated to the Defense Department for deploying U.S. ground 
forces in Yugoslavia unless the deployment is authorized by law. This 
prohibition does not apply to ground missions that deal specifically 
with rescuing U.S. military personnel or personnel of another NATO 
country participating in the mission.
  Normally, I do not advocate limiting the President's options in his 
conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and I do have some concerns about this 
legislation. For example, requiring Congressional approval of ground 
troops by law could be misinterpreted by both Milosevic and our Allies 
as a potential step back from the solidarity expressed at the NATO 
summit. In addition, there could be practical problems in carrying out 
the intent of this legislation because there are some U.S. ground 
troops already in the region as part of peacekeeping forces. However, 
the question of enaging U.S. ground troops in combat in Kosovo is so 
serious that Congress must take an active role in making that decision. 
Unfortunately, in initiating the air campaign, the Administration left 
the impression that it would be over in a matter of days and that 
Milosevic would immediately capitulate. Initiating the use of ground 
troops is an even more serious decision and there must be full 
consultation with Congress if that decision has to be made.
  While the potential use of ground forces cannot be completely ruled 
out, the best scenario would be that a NATO ground force--predominantly 
made up of European-NATO forces--would escort refuges back to Kosovo 
after the Yugoslav forces voluntarily withdraw or they are forced to 
withdraw as a result of the NATO air campaign. The ramifications of the 
use of ground forces must be fully studied and debated by Congress and 
conveyed to the American people. Regardless of what steps are necessary 
and what measures are passed by the House of Representatives today, I 
would urge the president to make sure he prepares the American people 
for any role he may ask of our military personnel.
  Finally, I also intend to support S. Con. Res. 21 which authorizes 
the president to conduct military air operations and missile strikes 
against Yugoslavia. The United States must continue to work to insure 
that our NATO allies do their part and that our burden does not grow 
disproportionately. At the same time, we cannot escape the fact that we 
are the world's only real superpower and thus the only nation that has 
certain military, logistical and humanitarian capabilities. Each day 
brings more grim statistics regarding the treatment of ethnic Albanians 
in Kosovo. Since February of 1998, Milosevic has used force to kill 
more than 2,000 ethnic Albanians and has displaced at least 400,000. 
Since NATO's air campaign began, Milosevic has escalated his violence 
against ethnic Albanians and they have been killed and tortured and 
driven from their homes and families. The United States, as a member of 
NATO, has a responsibility to step in to try to stop the killing of 
innocent civilians.
  In our Constitution, the Founding Fathers envisioned full 
consultation by the President with Congress whenever the U.S. would 
send troops into a conflict. It is never easy to ask American men and 
women to leave their family and friends to risk their lives to protect 
the peace of another country. When the President decides to send U.S. 
troops into harm's way, he should seek the full backing of Congress and 
the American public. I am pleased that we have been given this chance 
to debate the situation in Kosovo today.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in Kosovo, the United States is 
bearing most of the burden in a region of the world where there are no 
American security interests at stake.
  Our pilots and planes account for at least 80 percent of the air 
strikes against Yugoslavia. And our taxpayers are picking up the bill 
for most of the costs of the war. Yet our NATO allies in Europe have 
almost twice as many men and women in uniform as we do.
  The U.S. cannot always be the supercop patrolling the world. Our NATO 
allies should do more, and America less.
  Unlike Iraq, which attacked other countries and where our national 
security was at risk

[[Page H2400]]

because of Iraq's control of our oil supply, Kosovo has no similar 
claims to American intervention.
  America may have a humanitarian responsibility to help bring 
stability to the region, but we have no obligation to carry the 
heaviest load. Our NATO allies have more reason to intervene and are 
capable of doing so. They should shoulder more of the burden.
  After five weeks of bombing, we now know that our stated goals in 
Kosovo have turned to ashes. Our hostile actions against Yugoslavia, we 
were told by the Administration, would stop the exodus of refugees and 
bring the surrender of Yugoslavia within days. The Administration has 
failed in its mission. Our actions likely have made the situation 
worse.
  A realistic solution is to seek a negotiated settlement that protects 
the rights of Kosovars to remain safely in their homeland. There is 
much we can do to encourage this without declaring war: provide 
logistical support to our allies, seize Yugoslavia's assets in foreign 
banks, and encourage Russia, Yugoslavia's historical ally, to medicate 
a peace agreement.
  For Congress to declare war and give the President a blank check 
would continue America's level of involvement and even escalate it. In 
fact, the President announced yesterday he is calling up 32,000 
reservists. That's not the direction we should be going.
  Based upon numerous conversations with many constituents, I sense a 
growing unease with putting the lives of Americans at risk, especially 
when our objections are not being achieved.
  Our allies should take responsibility for a greater share of the war 
effort and the U.S. should do more to bring about a negotiated 
settlement.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult, and probably 
inappropriate, for me to publicly express the despair I feel over our 
policy in the Balkans. With noble motives, we have waded into complex, 
ancient hatreds, and we have only aggravated the situation. In a place 
and situation where the United States has no vital national security 
interests, we have become deeply involved. We have staked the 
credibility of the United States and NATO on achieving an acceptable 
solution where none may exist.
  I did not believe that the U.S. should participate in a peacekeeping 
force and voted accordingly on March 11. I did not support U.S. 
involvement in the air campaign which is now underway. It is very 
tempting to vote to require that our forces be withdrawn immediately 
from this conflict.
  Yet, whatever differences we may have with past decisions, we are 
where we are. Where we are today is that we are left with no good 
options. That is particularly true with the provisions upon which we 
are forced to vote today.
  I believe it would be better not to have these votes today. I do not 
want the outcome of a vote to be seen as authorizing an escalation in 
the conflict without clear objectives and the will to carry it through 
until those objectives are achieved. But neither do I want any vote to 
be seen as undercutting the efforts of the brave men and women 
conducting the current air offensive. Nor do I wish for any vote to 
give comfort to Mr. Milosevic.
  Two of the votes today are on resolutions submitted pursuant to the 
War Powers Act. As I noted during debate related to Bosnia a year ago, 
I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
  Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act attempts to give Congress 
authority to force the President to remove U.S. forces by passing a 
concurrent resolution. The Supreme Court's 1983 Chada decision struck 
down a similar provision, and most scholars and observers believe that 
section 5(c) is also unconstitutional because it would require the 
President to remove troops by a concurrent resolution, which require 
the signature of the President.
  I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional on broader 
grounds as well, as I detailed in the debate last year. I will vote 
against both War Powers Resolutions because I believe that the Act is 
unconstitutional and because I do not believe it is prudent for 
Congress to declare war against Yugoslavia or to force the immediate 
withdrawal of all U.S. forces from an ongoing NATO military operation.
  Congress certainly has the constitutional authority to restrict 
funding for a military operation. While I have real concern about any 
measure which takes a military option off of the table, I believe that 
the Administration should get Congressional approval before using 
ground troops in this conflict. Therefore, I will vote for the 
provision requiring prior authorization for use of ground forces, 
although I do so with some hesitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to harbor some hopes that a negotiated 
solution to this conflict can be found through the efforts of Russia 
and others. Certainly, we should carefully consider the consequences of 
any U.S. action upon a number of factors, including: U.S. credibility 
and the effectiveness of our deterrent now and into the future; the 
reaction of other significant powers, especially Russia; the best 
interests of the refugees and of the people still in Kosovo; long-term 
stability in the Balkan region; the effects on the NATO alliance; and 
the consequences for the military position of the United States around 
the world.
  Today, the United States finds itself in a quagmire which may be only 
a taste of what's to come. I hope that an honorable solution can be 
achieved, but I am not sure that any of the measures we consider today 
will move us any closer to that goal. I also hope that our nation can 
come to a clear understanding and establish guidelines for the proper 
role of the United States and of NATO in a complex world and especially 
for the circumstances under which we are willing to risk the lives of 
the men and women who defend our nation and our freedoms.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, to close debate, I yield the remainder of 
my time to the gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, what we have to understand in debating 
this is there is a false dichotomy that is being presented. And the 
American people can understand that. The option is not doing nothing or 
sending in our U.S. troops to do the fighting. That is not the option.
  The American people need no longer bear the burden for maintaining 
stability throughout the world, especially in Europe's backyard. Our 
forces right now are flying 9 out of 10 combat missions, and we 
Americans are paying two-thirds of the cost.
  We have done our part in this conflict already. If the Balkans are so 
important, let the Europeans step forward and finish the job. Let them 
deploy their troops if they think it is so important.
  This operation has been confused since its inception. The Kosovars 
were willing to fight for their own freedom, for their own stability, 
for the protection of their families. Helping them do this would have 
cost us a pittance compared to the tens of billions of dollars this 
will drain from our coffers.
  There goes Social Security reform. There goes our surplus. No, 
America need not bear this burden itself. People are willing to fight 
for themselves. Other people can pick up the cost and meet the 
responsibilities.
  We can be the arsenal of democracy, yes, and help others. But we 
cannot be the policemen of the world or it will break our banks and put 
us in jeopardy in other places in the world
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, all time for general debate 
has expired.

                          ____________________