[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2441-H2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT MILITARY AIR OPERATIONS AND MISSILE
STRIKES AGAINST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution
151, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) authorizing the President of the United
States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Clerk read the title of the
Senate concurrent resolution.
The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 is as follows:
S. Con. Res. 21
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the President of the United States is
authorized to conduct military air operations and missile
strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution
151, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues are distributing a letter that
frankly is, I am sure, unintentionally inaccurate. I would hope that
every Member of this body, before they vote, reads the five line
resolution.
This five line resolution is not an authorization for ground forces,
and I will ask my colleagues to listen as I read it, because it is only
five lines. The resolution that has come from the Senate says: ``The
President of the United States is authorized to conduct military air
operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.''
It says nothing else. Make it clear. Members should vote however they
believe is correct, but they should do it based on the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis) control my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will
control the remainder of the time allotted to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
General Leave
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject matter under consideration, S. Con. Res. 21.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, as I have previously indicated, I am
prepared to support statutory authorization for appropriate measures
necessary to achieve all of our objectives in Kosovo. Accordingly, I
support this resolution, although I consider it to be only a halfway
measure. It is not a statutory authorization, even though it purports
to be such, and it addresses itself only to the present military air
operation by NATO in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
As I previously stated, I believe that it would be both timely and
prudent for the administration to come to the Congress with a request
for statutory authorization for any and all measures necessary to bring
about our stated objectives in Kosovo. We do not want to encourage Mr.
Milosevic to believe that our Nation is not prepared to pursue victory,
and we do not want him to believe that he can wait us out and his will
is superior to our manifest determination in this matter.
I believe that this measure advances, in a modest way, our
determination of support for an end to the brutality in Kosovo and,
accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21.
The Congress needs to have a voice in the involvement of the United
States in Operation Allied Force. We should stand up and express our
support for our troops and our allies in NATO.
[[Page H2442]]
We must also take this opportunity to show to President Milosevic
that we are united in our belief and determination that this campaign
of terror must be stopped. We must continue to work with our NATO
allies to restore peace to the region, to ensure that the Kosovo
Albanians who want to return to their homes can be allowed to do so
under peaceful circumstances, and we must continue to ensure that Mr.
Milosevic will withdraw his military and paramilitary forces from
Kosovo and, ultimately, provide for self-governance in Kosovo.
To accomplish these goals we must participate in Operation Allied
Force and support the air strikes. We are steadily diminishing the
power of Mr. Milosevic and his military forces. For the United States
to withdraw from this attack at this moment would undermine the entire
NATO effort and would, in effect, validate Mr. Milosevic's inexcusable
and terrible campaign of ethnic cleansing.
{time} 1845
Our NATO allies have stepped up to the plate in Kosovo. Leaders of
the NATO alliance have recently reaffirmed their commitment and resolve
to continue the air strikes until we stop President Milosevic. This is
the time for Congress to step up and to endorse those air strikes.
The Senate concurrent resolution authorizes the President to conduct
military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. Passage of this resolution will express our
endorsement of these strikes and send a strong message to President
Milosevic that we are unified with our allies. This will also send a
strong message to our troops in the field.
Fifty years ago we formed NATO to work together for the security of
Europe. The cold war has ended and communism has ended. However, there
is a great need for us to work to assure the safety and stability of
countries in Europe who have been our partners for over 50 years.
We can continue this good work by adopting this resolution today,
sending a message that we are united as a country and determine our
resolve to stop the slaughter in Kosovo.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
I hope Members will think very seriously about this resolution,
because what this resolution says is that this House is about to take
ownership in what the President has put us into since he started
bombing Kosovo. So I think we should think very, very seriously whether
we are going to take ownership of the bombing of Kosovo.
Let us go back a little ways. Let us go back to even the negotiations
in Rambouillet. I do not think many Members of this House have even
read the provisions of the peace agreement in Rambouillet. One of the
provisions of the peace agreement was that Milosevic had to agree to
allow foreign troops, the peacekeeping troops, to have free reign over
the entire country of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo, but the entire
country of Yugoslavia, which put Milosevic in a very untenable
situation. No wonder he was not going to sign this agreement.
Then the Secretary of State, who believes in bombing to support her
diplomacy, decides that we are going to bomb him to the peace table and
make him sign something that would actually slit his throat with his
own people.
Then after trying to force him with bombing, and I remind Members of
the briefings that we had with this administration, the first
briefings, that frankly scared me to death because those briefings with
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us that this was no big deal, that we
were going to bomb for a couple of days, 48 hours, and then stop
bombing and Milosevic would come to the table.
When asked the question, what if he does not come to the table, they
said, well, we will go to Phase 2; and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for
a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie. And
when we asked, ``Then, what?'' then they said, well, we will bomb for
another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will
be all over with. And then when we asked, ``Then, what?'' there was
silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along
than 2 weeks.
And Phase 3. That is what brought us to the bombing, my colleagues.
Once they started bombing and found out that Milosevic was a pretty
tough customer and that the Serbian people were pretty tough people
that have been through these kind of things before, and some people
have said that the Germans had something like 20 divisions in
Yugoslavia trying to route the Serbians out of those mountains and
those caves, and they could not do it.
So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an
unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it
out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are three reasons why it is
legitimate, why our actions in Yugoslavia should be authorized by this
Congress: Number one, the strength of NATO; number two, our experience
with Milosevic; and number 3, the alternative of doing nothing.
It is in our vital interest that there be a strong and resolute NATO.
Think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers, sailors, and
airmen that were lost in Europe because we did not have NATO when we
needed NATO.
We need NATO now. We need to act with NATO. We need a strong NATO.
And if we do, we will not have to be the world's peacekeeper in the
future.
Secondly, our experience with Milosevic, because NATO did not get
involved when it had an opportunity, such as in 1992, when it was
recommended; what resulted, with the same leadership, Mr. Milosevic,
200,000 lives were lost, 2\1/2\ million people were displaced, 40,000
women were raped. It could have been prevented had NATO acted when it
had the opportunity.
But thirdly, think of the alternative. This is the fault line, my
colleagues, between the Muslim and the Orthodox worlds. This is the
fault line that has existed for generations. If we had not gotten
involved in a multilateral action, NATO taking the leadership, think
what would have happened. Extremists would have been involved.
We know what Milosevic was going to do, why he had 40,000 troops
amassed on the border, why he did not want to compromise at
Rambouillet, because he knew exactly what he was going to do; and he
did it. But if he had done that and NATO had not gotten involved, do my
colleagues really think other nations would have stood by? Of course
they would not have. We would have had the Mujahidin getting involved.
We would have had Islamic extremists getting involved.
And do my colleagues really think Russia then would not have gotten
involved if there had not been the strength of NATO taking the
leadership here?
My colleagues, we are doing the only responsible thing. This is not
the United States acting unilaterally. We are acting multilaterally. We
are acting with NATO. We are acting in the long-term interests of this
country. We are doing the right thing, for a number of reasons. And the
Congress should be supporting it. They should vote ``aye'' today.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleagues, particularly on
this side of the aisle. We can question whether we should have ever
gone in. But we are in. And if we do not win, we might as well withdraw
from NATO, fold it up, because the credibility will be gone.
The message that we send to Saddam, to Iran, to Qadhafi, to Korea, to
China, to Russia, is that we do not have the resolution, we do not have
the will. Think about it.
[[Page H2443]]
This past Saturday, I was privileged to have lunch with two foreign
policy experts, Henry Kissinger and Ziggy Brzezinski. I posed these
questions to them. They said, send me a letter and we will reply. And
Dr. Kissinger sent this response to me:
Prior to the initiation of the bombing, I repeatedly
expressed my uneasiness about the Rambouillet process. But,
having begun the military operation, we must win it
militarily. To back down would demonstrate a dangerous lack
of commitment and credibility, both to nations tempted to
take advantage of our perceived weakness and to our NATO
allies.
From Dr. Brzezinski:
I have your letter of April 26. Let me state unequivocally
that in my view it is absolutely essential that NATO should
prevail fully, and thus without making any compromises
regarding the demand it made prior to the bombing, in the
course of the current Kosovo conflict. Failure to do so would
be most damaging to America's global leadership and would
doubtlessly undermine both the credibility and the cohesion
of NATO. Accordingly, the U.S. Congress should encourage the
President to use all means necessary to successfully complete
the ongoing mission.
I could not say it any better.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters to which I
referred.
Center for Strategic &
International Studies,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bliley: I have your letter of April 26.
Let me state unequivocally that in my view it is absolutely
essential that NATO should prevail fully--and thus without
making any compromises regarding the demands it made prior to
the bombing--in the course of the current Kosovo conflict.
Failure to do so would be most damaging to America's global
leadership and would doubtlessly undermine both the
credibility and the cohesion of NATO. Accordingly, the U.S.
Congress should encourage the President to use all the means
necessary to successfully complete the ongoing mission.
Yours sincerely,
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
____
New York, NY,
April 27, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
House of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bliley: This is in response to your
letter of yesterday.
Prior to the initiation of the bombing, I repeatedly
expressed my uneasiness about the Rambouillet process. But,
having begun the military operation, we must win it
militarily. To back down would demonstrate a dangerous lack
of commitment and credibility, both to nations tempted to
take advantage of our perceived weakness and to our NATO
allies.
I have stated this view repeatedly and publicly--in an
article in Newsweek and in my recent testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee (both of which I enclose), as
well as in numerous television interviews: ABC's ``This
Week'' with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, CNN, Fox News,
Charlie Rose, CNBC, Reuters TV, as well as the BBC, ARD
(German TV), Britain's ITN and various other American and
European networks.
I would be glad to have you refer to this letter in the
coming debate in the House of Representatives, if it would be
useful.
I enjoyed our discussion at luncheon at the Romanian
Embassy.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Kissinger.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, one of the truest sayings is that ``second
place does not count on the battlefield.''
We are engaged in a conflict to bring the Europeans' last dictator
into light. It has to be a victory for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. It has to be a victory for the United States to bring
Milosevic to the table, to do what is right by the refugees, to get
them back to their home, to make sure there is autonomy for these
people. But more than that, it is a matter of credibility for NATO and
for the United States.
If the world perceives NATO, led by our country, not winning and not
being successful in this effort, NATO will then become a paper-debating
society. That we cannot have.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution, even though I am not opposed to air strikes philosophically
in the Balkans as a vehicle to achieving American policy.
Unfortunately, the policy of this administration, which includes air
strikes, has been confusing and sometimes incoherent. Air strikes as
part of a policy that would recognize Kosovo, and part of that policy
would be arming the Kosovars to defend themselves, certainly might have
been a respectable plan at one point.
Instead, this administration is using bombing to force both parties
into accepting a plan in which American troops would be garrisoned in
the Balkans for years and years to come. This is total nonsense. And we
will be spending tens of billions of dollars and putting American lives
at stake in order to achieve what? The garrisoning of troops, leaving
the troops in the Balkans all of those years?
This is a blank check, my colleagues. This resolution is a blank
check for an air war which will lead to tens of billions of dollars and
American blood being shed. And do my colleagues know where that check
is going to be cashed? It will be cashed at the bank that is holding
the money for the Social Security Trust Fund. It is going to be cashed
at the bank that is supposed to be paying for the defense of our
country all over the world. Because we are going to be spending the
money, instead of buying ammunition and making sure our defenders are
safe overseas, we are going to be wasting that money in the Balkans on
big explosions. It is going to make us worse off. We are not going to
be as safe.
And as far as NATO goes, this is an organization that did its job.
Are we now to be the policemen of the world? And because we are part of
NATO, to keep an organization going, finding a purpose for it, we are
going to spend our money all over the world, send our troops all over
the world, in order to create stability wherever there is not
stability? American lives are going to be put on the line?
This will, in the end, cost American lives. It will break our bank.
We will not be able to deter the aggression in Asia and from China and
elsewhere where there are serious threats. Oppose this resolution.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I support Senate Concurrent Resolution 21.
The reason I could not support the other alternatives is because I
think it would be wrong to withdraw. I also believe it would be wrong
to hamstring our Commander in Chief's authority to conduct operations.
And finally, I believe it would be wrong to declare war.
My major concern is that all of these options send the wrong signal.
Neither with respect to NATO nor President Milosevic should we even
hint that we might withdraw block funds for further development.
{time} 1900
Nothing would make Milosevic happier than knowing the power and the
might of the United States would no longer be fully engaged. By the
same token, we should never suggest to our own forces that our full
support for their effort may be less than forthcoming. What we need to
do is to authorize the continuation of the current effort and give the
current effort more time to work.
Mr. Speaker, I have said it before. You cannot run the Department of
Defense like a business, with 535 Members of a board of directors. The
same thing goes for foreign policy and military operations. You cannot
substitute the opinions of these board members for the sound judgment
of Chairman Shelton and General Clark and Secretary Cohen and, yes, the
Commander in Chief. We should not get into the details of whether ``you
can do this mission, but you can't do that mission.'' That is like the
Vietnam War with the President choosing Vietnam targets on sand tables
in the White House basement. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and
Congress should not be part of it.
What Congress should do is to affirm or deny the general policy and
turn over the details to the war fighters. I believe that the Gejdenson
amendment, which has already gotten bipartisan support in the other
body, makes the best sense in the current situation. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
[[Page H2444]]
on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I just want to point out one thing. All we are doing in all of
these resolutions today is sending messages. I think we have sent some
pretty strong messages. I imagine tonight if there is a television
capability in Belgrade that the Belgrade television will say Congress,
U.S. Congress votes 430-2 against war against Yugoslavia.
But with respect to this particular message that we are sending, we
mention in this resolution, Montenegro. I do not think that there is a
Member of this body who thinks that we should be bombing Montenegro. I
agree that we should be bombing Belgrade, and I support the President
in that respect. But I do not think we ought to send a message to the
people of Montenegro that this Congress is in favor of bombs being
dropped in that part of the world because they indeed are struggling,
struggling to create a democratic form of government, struggling to do
what we are requesting they do. I think that if we send a message, we
should make certain that the people of Montenegro know that we are
supportive of their efforts and sorry they are in the dilemma they are
in.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask each Member to seriously
consider voting for this resolution. As I enter this debate, I think it
is worthwhile tonight at 7 o'clock here in Washington to take into
account the votes that we have taken and the messages that we have sent
from this Chamber this afternoon, today.
First, we have said that we do not want a general declaration of war
against Serbia. Second, we have said that we do not want to withdraw
all of our troops out of the region. Third, we have said that if there
is to be a ground war, we want the President to come back here and get
a vote from this body.
If we now vote against what the Senate passed 4 weeks ago in a
bipartisan way, a simple authorization of what is now happening on the
ground in Kosovo and around Kosovo, we will send a message to our young
men and women who are out there trying to carry out this policy that we
have conflicting signals on war or withdrawal or what we are going to
do about a ground war, but we send the clearest signal of the day that
we do not even want to authorize what we are doing.
It also will send a message to Mr. Milosevic and his leadership that
the House of Representatives of the United States of America is totally
confused and certainly is not behind what is happening. I do not think
that is the message we want to send. If we learned anything from
Vietnam, I think we should have learned that before we commit our
troops and put them in the field and leave them out there with
ambivalence, that we have to stand finally behind something.
I know there are lots of worries by Members here about ground troops.
I have worries about ground troops. I have not decided how I would vote
on ground troops. But I have decided that what we are doing with 19
other nations of NATO is the right thing for our country to do. If it
is to succeed, we must be unified together as a people, behind the
effort, and America must be unified with NATO in its first affirmative
action in 50 years, since it was conceived, to move forward to try to
end this killing and mayhem that is going on and has been going on for
weeks now in Kosovo.
I urge Members to put aside partisan feelings and political goals and
objectives. That can have no place in this consideration. There is not
a Republican Army or a Democratic Army or a Republican Air Force or a
Democratic Air Force. This is the United States of America. Our young
people, our best, are out there tonight doing what we have asked them
to do. At the very least, we owe them and NATO an affirmation that we
as the representatives of the American people at least support what is
happening now, without prejudging or saying what we would do about
other propositions that might come later.
I urge Members to support this resolution. The Senate passed it 4
weeks ago with a bipartisan vote. Fifty-seven Members of the Senate
voted for this resolution. I think it would be a grave error if we
would not support it tonight. I urge Members to search their
conscience, I urge Members to stand behind this policy for the sake of
the United States, for the sake of our young people, for the sake of
our future.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the distinguished
minority leader that this is not about partisanship, it is about
policy. We have an advantage here tonight in that we are being asked to
authorize something that happened 5 weeks ago. That gives us the
advantage because we can see the immediate effects. We have got the
benefit here of a crystal ball to see what the results will be of the
President's policy.
The question for all of us is, do you want to stand behind this? Is
this the policy and the results that you want? Because if it is not,
you will be endorsing everything that has gone on in the last 5 weeks
and taking on the risk of what will happen in the future.
What have we seen? The political aims are not clear and they have not
been from the very beginning. Mostly they are humanitarian. Our
objective was to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the Balkans. We
have exacerbated that humanitarian disaster, and hundreds of thousands
of Kosovar Albanians have been pushed out of their homes and those
homes burned because our military means were not tied to those
political objectives.
I am a former Air Force officer. I believe in air power, as my father
did and my grandfather before him. And despite the images that we see
on our televisions of precise attacks, we can hit the bridges, but we
cannot change the mind of Slobodan Milosevic. As a result, we have not
been able to stop a door-to-door campaign of repression and ethnic
cleansing, and we have made it worse.
The refugees themselves enhance the instability of the Balkans. We
have pushed those refugees into neighboring countries which themselves
are fragile, and we will have to deal with the consequences of that for
the coming decade. We have increased domestic support for Milosevic and
enhanced Serbian nationalism in Serbia. That does not serve NATO
interests or American national interests.
And we have stretched our forces dangerously thin. We are almost out
of cruise missiles. Fully a fifth of the American Air Force is
committed and tied down in the Balkans. What kind of risk does that put
us in in Korea? We are a superpower, but much of our power comes from
our own restraint and the threat of the use of that power.
NATO will endure. I used to serve at the United States Mission to
NATO. It will continue to have the credibility to do that which is in
its vital interests to do and that, Mr. Speaker, is the fundamental
problem. This is not in the vital national interests of the United
States. If it were, we would be there, foursquare, with decisive
military force to get the job done and come home. But because it is
not, we cannot sustain this operation. I will not vote to support an
action which has been shown to fail.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have a great deal of respect for our new colleague, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and her unique expertise, but I flat out
disagree with her in a couple of important respects. I believe it is
ludicrous to assume that but for the NATO air campaign, Slobodan
Milosevic would not have turned 1 million people out of their homes. He
could not, Mr. Speaker, forcibly evict 1 million people from their
homes in 2 weeks without having
[[Page H2445]]
a very thoroughly developed plan well in advance. Do not kid
yourselves. This was on the game plan of Slobodan Milosevic and would
have occurred irrespective of the NATO air campaign.
I also disagree with my colleague in believing that it is time to
pack it in, to let Slobodan Milosevic have his evil way. The
gentlewoman from New Mexico supported that approach in a vote earlier
today and it was rejected. We must now stand together, just like
happened in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, to support the air
campaign.
A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a vote for our troops, a
vote for NATO, a vote for American leadership and a vote to end the
ethnic slaughter in Kosovo. Children and the elderly are dying by the
side of the road today as Serb forces shove them to the border.
Thousands and thousands of young men have disappeared, many more
murdered perhaps right now, even as I am speaking. We cannot turn our
back on this dimension of ethnic cleansing.
While we send an unequivocal message to Milosevic, let us send with
this resolution an equally clear message to our troops and all of the
troops, Americans and others, involved in the NATO engagement. We need
to support our troops and can do so with this resolution.
I regret and regret very much we have no alternatives but to continue
with this intervention. It is now our only option. I urge my
colleagues' support.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the
committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans have big hearts. It is one
of our best traits. Whenever we see killing anywhere, injustice
anywhere, we want to stop it, even if our national interests are not at
stake.
On Kosovo, having good intentions and a bad plan have proven to hurt
the very people we are trying to help. We have increased human
suffering. We have not stopped it. We have spread instability rather
than prevented it. With the lessons of the Vietnam War barely cold on
our plates, here we go again. Like Vietnam, we wage a war we are not
committed to win, by the seat of the pants, war by committee, war by
posters, war by the politically correct. It is having fatal results.
{time} 1915
Worst of all, we forgot the most important lesson of Vietnam. It is
fatal to enter a war without the will to win it. Those who sought this
war lack the political courage to win it. To aggressively target
Slobodan Milosevic, his leaders in the Serbian Army he commands, they
have forgotten what General MacArthur has told us. War's very object is
victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for
victory.
If a lethal criminal entered our home, entered our school, entered an
airport, entered our neighborhood and began to gun down innocent
families, it would be the first responsibility of law enforcement to
stop them cold, now, to bring the shooter down without flinching.
History will record in Kosovo an America that flinched, and the lives
of Kosovars fell around us because we were unwilling and lacked the
courage to bring the shooter down, the leaders, the Army and to end the
atrocities.
There is nothing humanitarian about a policy that puts American
pilots' and fighters' lives on the line so that Milosevic can live.
There is nothing just about a policy that allows Kosovars to die cold
and hungry and lonely on the side of the road while we preserve Serbian
troops, our enemies, the killers on the very day American pilots flew
into Yugoslavia.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should
flinch either, and I do not see how denying any authority to continue
this is nonflinching. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) whose efforts forced this House against its
will to stop hiding.
There were 2 aspects to this issue. One, what is the policy choice in
Yugoslavia? It is an unhappy choice. I believe that the policy of
continued bombing in conjunction with our allies, and it is awkward to
carry out an allied policy, but it is better than an unilateral one.
When we accept the strength of an alliance, we take constraints with
it. I think that is the best policy in a set of bad choices.
The House now has to make a choice, and it is inappropriate for this
great elected body of representatives, when confronted with a difficult
choice, to say: None of the above. But if we vote down this resolution,
that is what we are doing. Thanks to the efforts and the integrity of
the gentleman from California who insisted we face up to our
responsibilities, we voted. We voted not to pull out.
Now 139 people who voted not to pull out can consistently vote
against this. But are we to be told that there are dozens, maybe 100,
125 Members who do not think we should pull out but simply do not want
to be blamed for staying in? We had one comment say:
Oh, well, we should not take ownership of this.
That is an inappropriate attitude for people who are elected. The
draft does not work here. We all ran for this job, and a lot of it is
fun, and sometimes it is not, and having to help ratify this unpleasant
choice is one of those moments when it is the least fun, the least
attractive. But we do not have the option of simply copping out.
Members could be against this, they can be for it, but they cannot vote
for none of the above. They cannot conscientiously say it is too hard,
I will vote over here, and I will vote over there.
I am delighted that we have a chance here to pass a concurrent
resolution to have a combined policy, House and Senate, which says we
support this current military policy. Members may be opposed to the
military policy, and then they should have voted for the resolution
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), or they can be
in favor of it and they should vote for this. But punting is not an
option; it is not football season. We cannot simply say:
Let this one pass from us.
I voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling). I voted for it because I do think before we commit
ground troops, this House ought to vote. But I must say I have some
second thoughts about putting that authority into the hands of a group
of people, some of whom say, ``Gee, can I duck the hard one?'', and
that is what we are talking about now. If people thought the policy was
wrong and we should pull out, they had a chance to vote that way.
Mr. Speaker, I hope people will not simply try to duck a tough issue
and will vote to ratify the least unpalatable choice.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman
from Massachusetts I agree with him with the need for consistency, and
I will consistently be opposing this action and will vote against it,
and for several reasons.
First of all, we had the minority leader talk earlier today about how
this was, quote, the first affirmative action by NATO. What he is
saying is actually this is a radical extreme departure in the history
of NATO, the first time they have attacked on the offensive instead of
being defensive. This is an extreme radical departure for NATO, make no
mistake of it, and guess who is paying for that extremism and
radicalism? It will be the men and women who are in my district, who
are in five military bases, whose sons and daughters go to the public
schools of my children. It is very easy to play fast and lose with
military tradition, very easy to make an extreme radical departure for
the first time in 50 years of a defensive alliance, but that is
happening in this situation.
We also see the ghosts of LBJ rising like from the mist of the
Potomac where we have a President who is selecting bombing targets in a
war. We have Madeleine Albright going on television, on PBS, declaring
early on that this was going to be a short, clean, tidy war.
These people do not know what they have gotten into. It is a 610-
year-old ethnic war, civil war, religious war, and, yes, Milosevic is a
murderer. He has murdered according to the New York Times 3700 people.
But I see the selective outrage up here. I hear nothing about those
that want to support the KLA who were murderous. I hear nothing about
the 60
[[Page H2446]]
million killed in China over the past 50 years. I hear nothing about
the 2 million killed in Sudan. Of course there is an oil pipeline that
Occidental Petroleum wanted to get through Sudan, so I heard no moral
outrage then. I hear no moral outrage about the 1 million people
slaughtered in Rwanda. Of course they are not the same color as a lot
of us.
I mean let us not go here and beat our chests in moral self-righteous
indignation if we are not willing to apply the same test to every
region that we want to start wars in.
I will oppose it.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida would have heard a
great deal about all of those outrages had he been active in the
Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The folks who cry crocodile tears
for all these people who have been killed and tortured and murdered are
nowhere to be seen when we are dealing with human rights issues.
Mr. Speaker, the greatness of this country is measured by the moments
when we act in a bipartisan fashion. It was the Marshall Plan, it was
NATO, and it was all the bipartisan measures passed by our predecessors
that created the great moments of American history in the 20th century.
In the other body 16 of my colleagues' Republican colleagues, some of
the most distinguished members of the Republican party, Senator John
McCain, their most credible presidential candidate, Senator Lugar of
Indiana, the foreign policy expert, Senator John Warner, head of the
Armed Services Committee and 13 others voted for this identical
resolution. They have risen to a high level of bipartisanship.
Now I have some credentials along those lines. I stood up with
President Bush 8 years ago and voted to support that President because
I felt the national interest was at stake. It is no less at stake
today. The blind hatred that is so apparent on the part of some of my
colleagues towards this administration makes it impossible to make
rational judgments.
What we are asking for is to get our troops the feeling that the
Congress is behind what they are doing day and night under the most
difficult circumstances. That is all that this resolution calls for.
And John McCain saw fit to vote for it, as did 15 other distinguished
Republican senators. They have taken ownership, if I may borrow the
phrase of the Republican whip, they have taken ownership of this
measure because this is an American engagement. It is not a Republican
or a Democratic engagement, just as the Marshall Plan was an American
engagement and NATO was an American engagement.
We are seeing a miracle unfold. Nineteen nations of the most
disparate types are united, but our own House of Representatives has
risen with division. Vote for this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. In response to some reckless words from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) first of all, they were not
crocodile tears. It was my resolution that passed on Sudan last year.
My colleague can ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) or
anybody else, that I have been on the forefront for human rights in
China, and I challenge my colleague to check the Congressional Record
over the past year and-a-half or 2 years. If anybody has spoken out
more on human rights than myself, I would like my colleague to let me
know.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious that the President
does not need this resolution to use air power because he is already
using it. He needs Senate Con. Resolution 21 because, if it passes,
both houses of Congress will have satisfied the War Powers Resolution
to authorize force, and that effectively gives the President the power
to wage an unlimited war even with ground troops.
Section 5 of the War Powers Resolution states that the President must
terminate the use of force after 60 days unless Congress, first,
declares war; second, enacts explicit authorization of the use of
force; or third, extends the 60-day period. Although Senate Con.
Resolution 21 refers only to air war, it is an explicit authorization
of force. The President will not be limited to only air war once the
War Powers Resolution requirement is fulfilled. Since this resolution
authorizes the President to conduct military operations against
Yugoslavia in the air, its passage by the House is, in fact, a blank
check for the President to wage war, not only to bomb, but to send
ground troops.
If Senate Con. Resolution 21 should fail, then the war in Yugoslavia
will be limited to air war, which is what is now being waged, and no
ground troops, and the President will have to get Congress'
authorization to deploy ground troops at a later time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) for yielding this time to me.
I would like to start with a quote by a man called Jacob Brownoski
that I think is apropos to this situation. In it he says there are two
parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies
the means, that deliberate deafness to suffering has become the monster
of the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit where
a nation becomes a nation of ghosts, obedient ghosts or tortured
ghosts. The road to war is paved with unchecked ignorance, arrogance
and dogma.
What is our national interest in Yugoslavia? It is peace and
stability in a democratic process where all men are created equal. It
is in our national interest to check the road to war that has caused
the dilemma that we are now in.
I am going to vote in favor of this resolution.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us
this evening, and in doing so, yes, I want to stipulate to the work of
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for human rights in China,
and let us say that everybody in this room cannot tolerate the
atrocities, the brutality that Milosevic has exacted upon the people of
Kosovo.
{time} 1930
Let us not have a fight about anyone's sincerity on the issue. But in
supporting this resolution, I want to say what it is not. This
resolution is not a declaration of war. It is not a blank check for the
President. It does not authorize the use of ground troops.
In fact, I do not support ground troops in Yugoslavia. It is
interesting though to hear those who have criticized President Clinton
for taking ground troops off the table as an option now say that they
do not support this because it could lead to the authorization of
ground troops. It is interesting to hear the same people who want to
double the appropriation from $6 billion to $12 billion and those are
on the majority side of the aisle say they do not want to support the
military action that that funding is being appropriated for.
So how can we have it both ways? We criticize the President for no
ground troops, but we do not want to support this resolution because it
could lead to ground troops. We do not want to support this resolution
because it supports the President's policy on the flights and the
strikes, and yet we want to double the amount of money that is there.
It reminds me of Yogi Berra who said of a restaurant, ``I don't like
the food in that restaurant, and, besides, they don't give you
enough.''
Mr. Speaker, let us sound a resounding vote of yes on this
resolution, so Milosevic can hear it, so our flyers in the area can
hear it, and for the children who are displaced in the region.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I look around this room and I see my senior
colleagues, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the
gentleman
[[Page H2447]]
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt),
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and I realize very
clearly that over the years as the baton has passed from one generation
to the next in this political body, that those men and women who serve
here manage to make sure that the young men and women who serve in our
Armed Forces are used properly for vital national security interests.
I am proud to be here as a new Member. I take very seriously my
charge to vouchsafe and keep secure the interests of those young babies
now who come to our country as new citizens from birth and what have
you. And I absolutely do not understand, Mr. Speaker, what the vital
national security interest that senior Members of this body on both
sides of the aisle have protected for years and years, what national
security interest it is that we are proposing to protect by conducting
a unquantified and unidentified military campaign in Yugoslavia,
whether it be in the air or on the ground.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the stability of
Europe, which is supported by all of the NATO leaders, is very much in
the interest of America's national security. I would also suggest that
what is extreme and radical is not the action of our NATO allies. What
is extreme and radical have been the actions of the modern day Hitler,
Slobodan Milosevic.
I do not think we should write a blank check in this matter, and this
resolution does not. Let us be clear about that. What we can do in
voting for this resolution though is check the power of someone who has
killed not 3,700, but hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and
children. How ironic it would be that the NATO leaders who left this
Nation's capital just a few days ago unified to stand up to that reign
of terror would have that unity now undermined by those of us who work
in this Capitol.
Let us recognize that if we stop the air war now, Milosevic wins,
NATO loses; the ethnic cleanser wins, and Europe's stability loses.
Every other two-bit terrorist in the world would be emboldened to
emulate this modern day Holocaust.
If this measure is defeated now, especially in light of the passage
of the Fowler resolution earlier, what we will have done today is this:
We have said we are not yet ready to support a ground war, and now we
are not even sure we want to continue supporting an action of an air
war supported unanimously by our NATO allies.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle, please,
in a bipartisan vote, do not send this message to Mr. Milosevic. Let us
send him a clear message, that while we are not quite sure if we want
to commit to ground troops today or any day, we do not believe that
God's gift of life and liberty stops at the American border. Let us
support this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all why we cannot
have this debate with the clear feeling and understanding that this is
not about politics, this is not about party. Some of us just think he
is wrong, this is wrong-headed foreign policy.
I believe that in my absolute soul. We do not need to be attacking
from the air, we do not need to be attacking with ground troops. We
need to get out of the Balkans. It is going to lead to a disaster that
will carry us well into the 21st century, and primarily because it is
not in our national interest. I totally disagree with that.
Is it a humanitarian cause? Absolutely. And are there ways we should
deal with that? Yes. But we need a leader, not a commander-in-chief. We
needed a leader to deal with this with Europe.
Many, many, many months now have gone by. I have been there and done
this, Mr. Speaker. I watched this occur as a young man when we went to
Vietnam. I did not question the Congress and I did not question the
President. He said we needed to go, and I was ready to go.
I will tell you another thing. Those of you who think this is such a
clear-cut mission, perhaps if you are young enough, and I consider
myself, maybe we ought to resign from Congress and go into the Balkans.
Let us fight through the mountains over there with the Marines, if that
is what you believe is so important; and if you are not young enough to
go, send your sons. That is the question: Will you let your son die for
humanitarian interests that we well should put on the backs of the
Europeans?
It is time for them to grow up. We need a leader who is sanctioning
Britain and sanctioning France and talking to Russia and saying you
guys have been burned down twice in this century, you need to be in the
Balkans. You need to have peace.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this one minute, and I hope
no one will, because I agree this may allow him to put ground troops
in.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution. It is identical to the resolution passed by the other body
in March. It expresses Congress' support for our forces caring out a
brave mission. It sends an important message to Slobodan Milosevic that
his savage campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar Albanians
will not be tolerated.
Mr. Milosevic continues to wage war on ethnic Albanians. His acts of
violence, mass murder of civilians, driving 950,000 people, whole
communities, from their homes to refugee camps in foreign countries,
have forced our hand. If left unchecked, he will continue his crimes in
Kosovo.
I heard a Member opposed to our mission in Kosovo earlier today
compare this action to the Gulf War and say that the difference was
that we had a national interest in the Gulf; oil. Well, I do not know
the going rate for a barrel of oil today, but I do know that you can
put no price on the lives of men, women and children who have been
slaughtered in Kosovo.
It is in our national interest to stop genocide. We have witnessed a
grave humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and a destabilization of the region
and neighboring countries like Macedonia and Albania.
By endorsing air strikes now, Congress is not tying its hands in the
future. Congress can still and I believe should vote on sending ground
troops if we reach that point in the future.
Vote to authorize air strikes in Yugoslavia. Let our young men and
women in the Armed Forces know that our prayers and our support are
with them as they fight to counter aggression and to foster peace.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
First, as was expressed by some of my colleagues in their concern
earlier today on our first resolution when they had concerns with
wording, I believe this resolution is very poorly drafted, and those
that had that concern earlier I am sure must share that concern on this
resolution, because it authorizes the President ``to conduct military
air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.''
Now, this appears to authorize the President to conduct airborne
operations; in other words, drop paratroopers into the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia.
It also authorizes the President to pursue ``missile strikes'' of an
unspecified variety, which theoretically could include strategic
weapons.
Moreover, I oppose this measure because, as one of those in the
leadership who met with the President twice prior to the bombing, I
joined many of my colleagues from both parties in asking the President
face-to-face to seek specific authorization from the Congress before
proceeding with any air campaign. He ignored that request. Today I
cannot in good conscience retroactively authorize him to do something
that I did not support and that he undertook without regard for the
Congress' responsibilities under the Constitution and the very direct
bipartisan
[[Page H2448]]
advice he received before he began the bombing.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to
authorize United States involvement in the NATO air operations against
Slobodan Milosevic's military force.
It is both in our strategic and humanitarian interests to end the
vicious ethnic cleansing campaign that Slobodan Milosevic is pursuing
in Kosovo. His actions have threatened the stability of southern
Europe, jeopardized our efforts to maintain peace in other parts of the
Balkans and unleashed a flood of refugees into poor and underequipped
nations in the region. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we must take
action to end this tragedy.
A couple of weeks ago I traveled to Brussels with Secretary Cohen. I
met with General Clark and the delegates of our NATO allies. The
resolve that every person and every country involved in this operation
showed then was reinforced this past weekend in Washington.
The truth is, our air campaign is working. We are knocking out the
infrastructure of Mr. Milosevic's military and isolating his troops in
Kosovo. If we continue to take out the four corners of his fighting
machine, his whole house of cards will come crashing down.
We must make clear to Mr. Milosevic that the bombing campaign will
not cease until he withdraws his troops and allows the citizens of
Kosovo to return to a life of peace and autonomy. I urge my colleagues
to support this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Chair would advise Members
that since this resolution was taken directly from the table, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has the right to close.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 7 minutes remaining and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, we have sons and we have daughters of
America in Apaches, in F-16s, in submarines, fighting for principle and
fighting against ethnic cleansing.
Now, we can do nothing; we can ignore the horrific holocaust. That is
not acceptable. We can send in ground troops, and that is not an option
for me, for many of our NATO allies, or for our troops. But we can
support this authorization to conduct military air operations against
Yugoslavia.
{time} 1945
We must now aggressively and vigorously pursue victory for our
people, for principle against ethnic cleansing, and for NATO. Defeat is
not acceptable.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support our policy on Kosovo. Some
in this debate have said our goal is not clear, but our goal is to stop
Milosevic's slaughter of Albanian Kosovars, to prevent the spread of
conflict, and to permit the Kosovars to return safely home. Our allies
share that objective.
This century is the bloodiest in human history and the world's
democracies must stand against Slobodan Milosevic's bloody repression
if we hope to deter other tyrants from engaging in ethnic slaughter.
In Kosovo there are no clear answers, no good options, but to do
nothing in the face of Milosevic's barbarity would be barbarous itself.
Some see Kosovo as another Vietnam. I disagree. Kosovo is another
Cambodia, another Rwanda. Let us learn the lesson of those in other
killing fields and not allow our belated or inadequate response then to
compound this tragedy today. The lack of a perfect choice is not an
excuse to take no action.
Some here today have declared after 30 days that this policy is a
failure. Well, we should be made of sterner stuff than that. The young
men and women in our military are made of sterner stuff than that. We
need to be patient with this policy in Kosovo. The bombing campaign,
even with its limitations, should be given time to work. Ground forces
may yet be required, and we will have that debate. But for now, we
should maintain our unity, stay the course. America is strong enough to
see this through.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the day the bombing began,
this Member stood on the floor and said, this is a tragic day,
undoubtedly the beginning of a tragic scenario, and that is exactly
what it was. We have heard today about hamstringing the President. But
I would like to point out that, in fact, no authorization was requested
by the President before the bombing began, and he has not asked for
that authorization to this day.
This is a gratuitous authorization. I do not think it is wise that it
is brought up. I wish even at this late date that it would be
withdrawn. Bombing for peace, bombing for peace is wrong, and it is not
working. I regret the fact that any of our colleagues would suggest
that decisions of this gravity are based upon partisan considerations.
I say to my colleagues, we have a war, in Yugoslavia. We can call it
whatever we want, but it is a euphemism unless we recognize it is a
war. It is an unmitigated disaster. Our and NATO's involvement in this
war is an unmitigated disaster. That is the ugly truth, and everybody
knows it. They certainly know and talk about it in the Pentagon.
In the past, NATO, the 12 members, the 16 members, now the 19
members, were a defensive pact, and for the first time NATO has used
those forces aggressively. We can imagine what the Soviet Union said,
and now what the Russians say about NATO as an aggressive force. Well,
we have just confirmed their worst suspicions and, in fact, we set back
Russian-American relations dramatically for years to come. We have
reinforced the wrong people in Russia in the process.
We cannot say that this war has unintended or unanticipated
consequences. They were entirely predictable. I had hoped that people
in the administration would have looked at and understood the history
of the Balkans. I would have hoped they would have talked to people who
know Mr. Milosevic and how he came to power.
I had a chance to visit with the Secretary of State, Secretary of
Defense, and General Shelton in a meeting convened by the Speaker, a
bipartisan meeting, and I laid out the dire consequences that I thought
would prevail if, in fact, the bombing campaign began, and all of those
predictions but one have come true. The remaining prediction is that
after starting to bomb we would have combat troops involved in
Yugoslavia in 2 months. We are a little over a month and counting, and
we are headed for those combat troops in Yugoslavia.
Now, look at it from the side of the Albanian militants, the KLA.
They never wanted autonomy, they wanted independence, and that is what
they want today. Look at it from the side of the Serbians. We have to
recognize that Kosovo is sacred ground for the Serbs. It is where they
all came together in an infamous but courageous defeat in 1389, and
they have not forgotten what happened on the Field of Blackbirds.
It is for them the same as if Lexington, Bunker Hill and Yorktown are
rolled up into one. It is like asking a Texan to give back the Alamo,
site of another courageous defeat, to the Republic of Mexico. That is
what it means to the Serbs. Milosevic had no option to give up his
Serbian control over Kosovo. He did not have that option. And what we
have predicted, that the Serbs would coalesce around Milosevic, has
happened. Yes, I say to my colleagues, as negative and terrible an
individual as Milosevic is, he would now be followed by more Serbian
leaders who have this very kind of militant, aggressive Serbian
nationalism re-aroused.
What has happened, of course, is that Milosevic made his reputation
in
[[Page H2449]]
Kosovo by jumping right over his mentor by speaking to the abuses,
real, alleged and exaggerated, that were taking place against the
Serbian minority in Kosovo. And that is how he played upon their
emotions, and that is what has been further ignited by the bombing
campaign.
What happened when we threatened we would bomb, and then we held off,
and we threatened and we threatened? Well, of course, it provided time
for him to deploy his troops in and around Kosovo, in fact right on the
Macedonian border, for that matter. And all of the NGOs and independent
observers, they went out of Kosovo, naturally, and so no one is there
to report on the atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that were
accelerated when we began that air war, just as predicted.
Some people have said, and in fact the Secretary of State said before
our committee, well, we had no idea he would be so brutal and thorough
and energetic in the ethnic cleansing. I say to my colleagues, we had
an object example in Bosnia with Croatian and Serbian ethnic cleansing
like we had not seen since World War II in Europe. Of course, we had an
idea of what he would do.
Were we ready for it? Did we anticipate it? Did the people that
launched this war have this in mind? Look at the refugees coming out of
Kosovo into Macedonia and Albania and Montenegro. Look at the people
dying from all kinds of disease and from hypothermia. NATO was not able
to take care of them. It is obvious NATO was not ready for it. The
Administration and NATO did not anticipate this result.
One of the frustrating things about being on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence at a period of time when Yugoslavia was in
danger of disintegration was that we had the best information about
what would happen with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. We knew a
blood bath was coming in Bosnia where three religious/ethnic groups
live side by side, and we knew that Kosovo was a tinderbox waiting to
explode with its Albanian majority, but our vital national interests
were not involved yet. Where they are and still remain involved is in
Macedonia. And we should have gone to great lengths never to
destabilize Macedonia. This air war is, in fact, pushing us towards a
destabilization of Macedonia. Why is that so important? Because it is
likely to bring Greece and Turkey, overtly or covertly, in on opposite
sides, fracturing the NATO alliance, and that, I say to my colleagues,
is very much against our vital national interests.
But we have taken steps inadvertently, but predictably, to
destabilize Macedonia. And yet today, the Yugoslavian military is
basically intact. All the armor units are setting there; they are not
using their engines, they are not using fuel, they are in hiding. And
they have not used their air defense systems at this point. We have
been attacking, but we have been attacking refineries and bridges and a
whole variety of things that are important to the long term, but the
Yugolavians or Serbians military is basically setting there intact. And
what are we assured on the other side? We have assured the rule of the
KLA militants in Kosovo beyond this.
I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at the May-June 1999 issue
of Foreign Affairs and read the article by Chris Hedges, the former
Balkan Bureau Chief of the New York Times.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution. Vote against it. I
voted against the War Powers Act; for strategic and tactical reasons we
do not want to give that 30-day warning before a withdrawal would
theoretically be required under the invocations of the War Powers Act.
I urge my colleagues, do not take this gratuitous step to authorize the
bombing war.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), our closing Democratic
speaker, a senior member of the Committee on International Relations
who just returned from a trip to the Balkans region.
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important vote coming up in a
few minutes. We are hearing discussions today about people saying, this
in our national interests? Why should we be concerned about those
people over there?
Well, for 50 years we have been partners with our neighbors in
western Europe. We came together to stop the Soviet threat from taking
over Europe and coming over to our shores. All of a sudden, when there
is a problem with our partners, now we have decided that perhaps now
that we have defeated the USSR, it is time for us to take a look at
this partnership. Maybe if there is a difficult situation coming up, we
ought to step out of it because I thought we were the land of the free
and the home of the brave.
Next week we are going to have a constitutional amendment voting on
flag desecration because we love our flag so much. And here we see
people talking about, let us take our flag and let us run out of there
because a person in a country of 11 million people, about the size of
Tennessee, has raped and robbed and destroyed, killed, maimed a whole
group of people, and we are saying this is not in any interests of
ours. Destabilizes central Europe, destabilizes western Europe, and it
continues to spread.
I am shocked by some of the speeches that I have heard in this
discussion today. Mr. Speaker, 60,000 people in Montenegro, 120,000 in
Macedonia, 300,000 in Albania.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous support for S. Con. Res. 21 so that
we can put this in its right and proper perspective.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con.
Res. 21. This resolution authorizes the current military air campaign
that was launched by NATO a little over a month ago. Mr. Speaker it is
important to note the bipartisan support, which this bill received in
the Senate. I believe that this resolution will enable NATO to achieve
its goal of a durable peace that prevents further repression and
provides for democratic self-government for the Kosovar people.
This Body can send an invaluable message to Milosevic, to our troops,
and to the world. If we adopt this resolution authorizing air
operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, we will show our
support for the troops carrying out this mission. If we adopt this
resolution we will signal to our NATO partners that our resolve to see
stability and peace prevail in Europe is no less today than it was
during WWI and WWII. When we adopt this resolution we signal to
Milosevic that his campaign against the Albanians of Kosovo is
unacceptable.
Endorsing airstrikes today does not preclude a vote in the future to
authorize ground troops in the future. But we are certainly not at that
point now. Instead this Body should show patience and determination.
The airstrikes are an effective means of delivering our message. We
must make Milosevic feel the pain and pay a heavy price for his policy
of repression and aggression in Kosovo.
If this Body fails to adopt this resolution now it would be
interpreted as a vote of no confidence for our foreign policy in the
Balkans. It would send confusing signals about our national resolve to
persevere to friend and foe alike. The blame for this crisis lies not
with the President, the U.S. Congress, or even the NATO airstrikes;
rather the blame rests with Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic shoulders the blame for the current crisis. I stand firm in
my determination to see the killing of innocent Kosovar Albanians
ended. War and conflict is not my first choice, it is not the first
choice of any American, but there are times when force must be
employed. We joined the NATO alliance some fifty years ago to provide
stability and to limit aggression. If we ignore the acts committed by
Milosevic, then our fifty-year commitment to NATO will have been lost.
During WWII this nation turned away a ship full of Jewish immigrants
from our shores. The 907 immigrants on board the S. S. St. Louis sought
to escape the horrors of Nazism but our nation sadly turned them away.
In the aftermath of WWII the American people pledged to never again to
allow ethnic cleansing to occur and to never again to ignore the plight
of those who face genocide. This Body must answer the call of the 1.6
million Kosovars displaced from their homes and of those who can rest
in the unmarked mass graves.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We should follow the
Senate and send a unified message to our troops, to Milosevic, and to
our allies.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Gejdenson resolution
to authorize the NATO action in Yugoslavia.
Tragically, we were unable to prevent Serbian forces from brutally
killing thousands of people, forcing innocent people from their
[[Page H2450]]
homes, and burning and bombarding countless villages.
Now, we must do everything in our power to put an end to this
tragedy, to halt the mass killings, and hold accountable those
responsible for the unspeakable atrocities that Serbian forces are
committing against the ethic Albanians in Kosovo.
First, we must aid the refugees in any way that we can. We cannot
allow refugee camps to turn into death camps due to poor sanitation,
the spread of disease, and the lack of food and shelter. I support a
massive humanitarian response to this crisis. The U.S. should do
whatever it takes to bring food, medicine, and shelter to the refugees,
and I support efforts by the United States and other countries to admit
any refugees seeking asylum.
But I am afraid that is not nearly enough.
We have a moral obligation to protect the internally displaced ethnic
Albanians within Kosovo. Those who have not yet been slaughtered must
be protected. We must not allow them to suffer the same fate as so many
other Kosovars.
Unfortunately, we did not act soon enough to address the murderous
actions by Serbia, and today thousands of people are dead because of
international indifference. We ought to create safe havens for ethnic
Albanians inside of Kosovo--and we ought to do it as soon as we can.
This would prevent further expulsions and mass killings. This will not
be easy and will not be without a loss of lives, but it must be done.
We cannot allow the leader of one nation to wipe out an entire ethnic
group. At the end of World War II and the Holocaust, the world made a
collective promise to all future people. We said ``never again'', we
ought to mean it.
However, it is unlikely, at this point, that air strikes alone will
bring an end to this conflict. We ought to consider other options,
including the use of ground forces. We now have to be prepared to
forcefully enter Kosovo and occupy the area in order to make the safe
return of refugees possible. This is not a task that we ought to take
lightly, but it is one that must be done.
NATO must continue to assess the situation and make adjustments as
they see fit. This resolution gives the Administration the flexibility
to respond quickly to any new developments and continue their efforts
on all fronts to resolve this conflict. I urge support for this
resolution.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for the bipartisan Senate-
approved resolution authorizing President Clinton to continue military
air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. I supported this
resolution because it shows strong support for the troops while
endorsing the NATO action as the best available way to convince
President Milosevic that his campaign of ethnic cleansing is
unacceptable.
We in Congress must take care to be supportive and not limit our
future military options in Kosovo, especially given that the situation
may change faster than Congress can react. For that reason, I opposed
the Goodling-Fowler resolution as it would have required Congressional
authorization before using ground troops. Even though the Goodling-
Fowler resolution will never find its way into law, the act of approval
by the House sends all the wrong signals about our commitment to NATO's
actions. We cannot afford to tie NATO's hands or broadcast our military
intentions--especially at this important juncture in the conflict.
I also opposed both proposals by Representative Campbell, one
declaring war on Yugoslavia and the other demanding the removal of our
armed forces from their positions near Yugoslavia. I believe both
resolutions were extreme and not helpful in advancing NATO's efforts to
restore peace to the region, in returning the Kosovars to their
homeland, or in reducing or eliminating Milosevic's ability to threaten
his neighbors or terrorize minorities inside Yugoslavia.
However, I feel clarifying Congress' role in foreign conflicts under
the War Powers Act is one worth considering at an appropriate time. We
in Congress have continued to neglect what Congress' exact role should
be in these situations. It is unfortunate that we seem to only visit
this issue in the middle of conflicts, when such debate is confusing at
best, and often inappropriate. I am hopeful we can schedule a full
debate on this issue at a time certain before the end of this Congress.
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, the vote today on S. Con. Res. 21--
although largely symbolic because of its timing--presents every Member
of this House with a grave dilemma. On the one hand, we can vote
against this resolution and the deeply flawed policy that it
represents, even though doing so risks undermining our troops and
giving comfort to Slobodan Milosevic, Europe's last Communist dictator.
On the other hand, we can vote for this resolution and ratify a flawed
policy which has failed to make any progress towards stopping the
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
Neither of these choices is attractive. But I believe that my duty as
Member of the United States Congress compels me not to undercut our
current policy, flawed as it might be, but to focus on finding a
credible diplomatic alternative.
I support a negotiated solution to the conflict in the Balkans, and I
was one of 15 Democrats in this body who last month voted against
authorizing the use of U.S. troops in Kosovo. I warned back then that a
continued escalation of military action would only serve to undermine
conditions for lasting peace in the region. Regrettably, these fears
have been borne out.
With all that said, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote
against the efforts of our Nation's Armed Forces when a military
operation is already underway. Our soldiers are in the Balkans doing
the job we sent them to do. A unilateral halt to the bombing at this
stage in the conflict would not bring us closer to a lasting peace in
the Balkans. Instead, it would give the Milosevic regime a boost and
deprive the NATO alliance of critical negotiating leverage.
However, the sooner we begin negotiations, the sooner the air strikes
can stop. Continuing to seek a military solution to a political problem
will only mean that more Albanian Kosovar, Serb, and American lives are
lost in vain. Just yesterday, General Wesley Clark, commander of NATO
forces, acknowledged that NATO air strikes have not slowed the ethnic
cleansing of Kosovo's Albanian population. And just yesterday, NATO
forces again mistakenly struck a civilian target in Serbia, killing 17
people including 11 children.
The United States of America believes very strongly in doing the
right thing--and we have an exemplary record of fighting for what is
right around the world. But as Henry Kissinger has pointed out, a
supremely moral foreign policy is useless if it is not effective.
As difficult as it may be, we must acknowledge that the bombing
campaign has not been effective--and we must immediately begin to seek
a negotiated solution to this conflict. The sooner negotiations start,
the sooner the bombs will stop, and the sooner the Kosovo refugees can
return home.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this resolution which
passed the Senate last week with bipartisan support. But let us step
back and take a long-term view of the Balkans.
Milosevic is the only tyrant left in Europe. Who amongst us predicted
10 years ago that some of the most reprehensive Communist regimes in
Central Europe would today be thriving democracies and members of the
European Union and NATO. That is the trend in Europe and that is my
long-term prediction for the Balkans as well. One tyrant cannot stop it
for long.
But in the meantime we have some short-term objectives.
Peace and humanity will prevail in Kosovo.
The refugees will go home.
They will have security.
And they will have self-autonomy.
And, Mr. Milosevic, these terms are not negotiable.
NATO will prevail.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I voted to require the President to
obtain congressional approval before deploying ground troops in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The framers of the Constitution
clearly intended that the power to initiate war, whether declared or
undeclared, should reside in the legislative branch of government. The
power to lead the nation without congressional authority into a costly
overseas military adventure is a power the Constitution explicitly
denies the President of the United States.
The Administration's policy in FRY is extremely short sighted and is
a clear example of why the Administration should have come to Congress
before committing U.S. troops to the NATO airstrikes. A congressional
debate would have forced the Administration to define every aspect of
NATO's Balkan policy. Congress should have been given the chance to ask
the tough questions that still linger after weeks of bombing. Instead,
NATO and the Administration are defining and defending their policy as
they go along. The result has been a tenuous military coalition with a
mission constantly questioned. This has emboldened Milosevic to
escalate his genocidal campaign and strengthened his power in Serbia. A
completely unified NATO force backed by a well-defined long term Balkan
policy before executing any military operations might have made
Milosevic a willing participant in peace negotiations.
The congressional leadership has presented Congress with a lot of bad
choices today as well. It is unfortunate that Congress is falling into
the trap that the Administration has set for it. Before the NATO
airstrikes began, the Clinton Administration wanted us to believe that
the only options available were to bomb or do nothing. Now Congress
wants us to believe that the only options are to continue the severely
flawed military operations or withdraw our troops and do nothing.
Unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from the military operations at
this time would cause the collapse of
[[Page H2451]]
NATO and be tantamount to a victory for Slobodan Milosevic.
While I support the efforts of my colleagues today to begin asserting
their Constitutional duty to authorize military actions, I question the
timing. Debating whether or not to withdraw our troops while they are
engaged in a military action, is extremely irresponsible. There is a
way to assert our Constitutional duty without undermining the safety of
our troops. I have introduced legislation for the last 8 years to
require Congress to authorize military actions before U.S. troops are
placed in hostilities.
The continuing religious and ethnic strife in the Balkans is unlikely
to be resolved by offensive military actions. Milosevic has more than
demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice the lives of his own people
to retain his power. There is another option. The U.S. and NATO should
call for a cease fire contingent upon a pull back of Serbian forces and
the beginning of real negotiations including Russia and the United
Nations. The Rambouillet agreements were fatally flawed and designed to
fail. It's time to go back to the drawing board and negotiate
enforceable peace between Milosevic and the Kosovar Albanians.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House has the
opportunity to debate these important questions before us today. While
I have not supported the first three options before us, I do believe
that Congress needs to have a voice in the involvement of the United
States in Operation Allied Force. We should stand up and express our
support for our troops and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). We must also take this opportunity for Congress to
show Mr. Milosevic that we are united in our belief and determination
that his campaign of terror must be stopped.
We must work with the international community to help restore peace
to the region and to ensure that the Kosovar Albanians who want to
return to their homes are allowed to do so. We must work with our
Allies to force Milosevic to withdraw his military and para-military
forces from Kosovo and to provide self-governance for Kosovo. Mr.
Speaker, we must work together with our Allies in Europe to achieve a
lasting peace in this critical region.
To accomplish these goals, we must continue to participate in
Operation Allied Force and support the air strikes. We are steadily
diminishing the power of Mr. Milosevic and his military forces. For the
United States to withdraw from this operation at this time would, in my
opinion, undermine the entire NATO effort to stem Milosevic and his
campaign of terror against the Albanian population, hand Milosevic a
victory and, in effect, validate his campaign of ethnic cleansing. Mr.
Speaker, I ask my colleagues how we can in good conscience turn our
back on these people and the horrible crimes that are being perpetrated
against the Kosovar Albanians.
While I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Campbell, for
bringing this issue before the House, I urge my colleagues to join me
in opposing both of his resolutions. We should not withdraw our troops
or declare war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I also oppose H.R. 1569 offered by Representatives Fowler, Goodling,
and Kasich. This bill would prohibit the Department of Defense from
deploying ``ground elements'' in Yugoslavia unless such a deployment is
authorized by Congress, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
Passing this proposal at this time is at best premature and at worst is
a prescription for failure of our current air strike operation. The
Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill is unnecessary. Congress ultimately holds
the power of the purse and will continue to have the ability to
withhold funding for this operation. In addition, if events change and
the President decides that ground troops are needed, he should come to
Congress and ask for our support and approval at that time.
Furthermore, if this prohibition of funds were to become law, many
aspects of the current NATO operation could be imperiled. We would be
weakening our own position for future negotiations for a settlement by
removing the threat of possible ground troops in the future. We must
show Milosevic our resolve. We must make it clear to Milosevic that we
intend to prevail and that we are reserving options to accomplish
victory.
The Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill also puts our current operations in
Yugoslavia at risk. For example, MacDill Air Force Base, located in my
community, is the headquarters for U.S. Special Operations Command--a
unified command that oversees special operations for the Army, Navy and
Air Force. Forces housed at MacDill could very well be involved on the
ground in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in support of our air strikes. I am
concerned that this bill would put their operations and possibly their
lives at peril. We should not limit the ability of the troops already
in and around Yugoslavia as part of our current operation.
Our NATO Allies have stepped up to the plate in Kosovo. Just last
weekend, at the NATO Summit here in Washington, DC, the leaders of the
alliance reaffirmed their commitment and resolve to maintain the air
campaign against Yugoslavia until our objectives are met. Now it is
time for Congress to step up to the plate and endorse the NATO air
strikes against Yugoslavia.
I urge my colleagues to support the Gejdenson Alternative offered in
the form of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. This Resolution authorizes
the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Passage of this Resolution
will express Congress' endorsement of NATO air strikes and send a
strong message to Milosevic that we are unified with our allies.
Adopting this Resolution will reaffirm to our troops carrying out
this mission that Congress supports them. By endorsing the NATO action,
Congress will be sending a message that we are unified as a nation and
determined to stop Milosevic.
Fifty years ago, we formed NATO to work together for the security of
Europe. Today, the Cold War has ended and communism has ended. However,
there is still a great need to work to ensure the safety and stability
of countries in Europe who have been our partners for these 50 years.
We have heard a lot about the fear of Milosevic and his forces crossing
over the borders. Some thought this might be an unfounded fear.
However, we now know that the Serbian forces have crossed over into
Albania, proof that Milosevic has no fear and is quite willing to cross
sovereign borders to continue his atrocious attacks on the people in
this region. The stability of Eastern Europe is at stake and we must
stand by our allies in the region.
I urge this House to show Mr. Milosevic that we stand behind our
military and our allies. Join me in supporting Senate Concurrent
Resolution 21.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 151, the Senate concurrent
resolution is considered as having been read for amendment, and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the Senate concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 213, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 103]
YEAS--213
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
[[Page H2452]]
Vento
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Wu
NAYS--213
Abercrombie
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Aderholt
Blagojevich
Hansen
Mollohan
Shuster
Slaughter
Tauzin
Wynn
{time} 2018
Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the Senate concurrent resolution was not concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________