[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2459-H2464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INPUT FROM CONSTITUENTS ON ISSUES OF CONCERN TO AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wamp). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be recognized 
tonight in this special order. This special order is one that I hold 
for a number of members of the majority. I know there are some who are 
monitoring tonight's special order, and, for those who have something 
they would like to add to this hour, I would invite them to the floor 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, being from Colorado, I want to take the opportunity to 
discuss just briefly before I move on to my other remarks once again 
the tragedy that took place a week ago yesterday in Colorado, and just 
express for the people of Colorado our profound gratitude for all of 
those throughout the country who have expressed their support, their 
concern, who have supported us through prayer and in so many other 
ways.
  It is a tragedy that has really gripped our state, as it has the 
whole Nation, and it is encouraging for all of us in this time when we 
need a lot of courage and strength to know the rest of the country 
stands with us as a State and thinks daily about the families and the 
victims and all of those involved, young children, not only in Colorado 
but throughout the country, that are trying to make sense of a 
situation where I am afraid there is no logical conclusion that can be 
drawn as to what allows this kind of thing to occur in America.
  Nonetheless, it has, and a great Nation such as ours will emerge from 
such a tragedy stronger in the long run, I am fundamentally convinced 
of that, and I believe that is possible because of the strength and 
support and the prayer of all those who have given considerable thought 
to our State in the last few days.
  This is a topic that also emerged, Mr. Speaker, at a town meeting 
that I had last week. I go home to Colorado every weekend and visit 
with constituents and hold town meetings as often and as frequently as 
I can. The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado, which I 
represent, is a very large one. It represents approximately half of the 
State of Colorado, the eastern plains, and 21 counties in scope. So I 
use the opportunity of the weekends to get back home and talk to as 
many constituents as I possibly can.
  I have a standing town meeting every Monday morning halfway between 
Fort Collins and Loveland, Colorado. Monday morning is a breakfast 
meeting. Naturally, the focus and concern expressed from the audience 
there was about the shootings in Littleton and the tragedy at Columbine 
High School. A number of suggestions and solutions and theories were 
suggested, of course, but, once again, just the feeling of 
helplessness, the feeling of just devastation in the wake of something 
so tragic as the death of so many young people and their teacher is 
something that we will never, ever forget.
  Another topic that comes up at the town meetings frequently is the 
issue that was at the heart of the debate that took place on the floor 
today, and that is of the U.S. involvement in Kosovo. I have to say I 
have run across in the last three weeks one constituent in my district 
who believes the President has acted properly in committing our armed 
services and our armed forces to carry out his war in Kosovo, that out 
of literally thousands of constituents that I have had a chance to meet 
with over the last three weeks.
  The concern of those that I represent is certainly for the troops and 
is certainly for the most positive outcome we can possibly salvage from 
the operation in Kosovo, but their paramount concern is for the 
integrity of our Constitution.
  There are many interpretations, I suppose, that can be made of the 
votes that took place here. Some of our colleagues on the opposite side 
of the aisle were seen not too long ago flailing their arms and 
speaking in elevated voices about their disappointment with the outcome 
of today's votes.
  Some believe that the Congress, standing up for the Constitution, is 
an embarrassment. I would disagree entirely. He think that when our 
great founders 223 years ago, not just in launching a great country 
through the Declaration of Independence, but a few years later 
constructing a Constitution, were correct in suggesting that the 
authority to declare war should reside within the Congress, this House, 
as well as the other body, and should not be a function, certainly not 
a unilateral function, of the chief executive.
  There are those today that disagree with that premise, and, after a 
month and a half of debate and deliberation, this Congress spoke 
forcefully and reasserted its authority and its constitutional role in 
deploying troops around the world and expressing its opinion about the 
constitutional basis for warfare.
  One of the things I do in my district, Mr. Speaker, is ask for a lot 
of opinions. I ask people to write letters. I ask people to attend 
these town meetings that I hold. I ask people to fill out public 
opinion surveys that I distribute throughout my district and at these 
town meetings, and I want to share with you and the other Members 
tonight some of the results of some of those public opinion surveys. I 
want to go through some of the responses that I have heard from many 
people, because it really deals with those first two topics that I 
addressed at the start of this special order.
  One of the questions that I asked in this survey, I asked 8 
questions, and some of them rather open-ended. I asked, number one, 
what is the single most important issue facing the country today? 
Number two, I asked what is the single most important issue to you or 
your family? It is remarkable to see some of the responses that came in 
in response in answering this survey.
  The number of times that the issue of morality and our national 
integrity came up was just astounding. It comes up as the number one 
issue more often than I would expect it, until you read the full 
descriptions of people's concerns, and then it becomes more apparent.
  Here is one that I want to share. Again, what is the single most 
important issue facing our country today? Morality and the deficient 
educational system is the answer. Lack of old fashioned basic 
educational skills.
  Please tell me why, this writer asks, and this writer is from Fort 
Collins, Colorado, please tell me why our children are cheated out of 
learning the very exciting history of our great country. This is the 
greatest country ever conceived, and we do not even teach these 
children why it is the greatest. They are kept completely in the dark. 
They are not taught that this is a constitutional republic instead of a 
democracy, the writer says. They learn nothing about the Founding 
Fathers, the greatest thinkers of all time. They know nothing about the 
Revolutionary War that was fought for 6 years to give the American 
people liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They know nothing about 
the suffering that the soldiers went through to save this country for 
liberty. Every other civilized country in the world teaches their 
children the country's history but ours. Instead, our children are 
taught socialism. It isn't until we are out of school that we realize 
how little we know, but it takes years for us to figure out why we have 
been taught so little.

  Here is another writer who writes about his experience in Vietnam and 
talks about our history as a country and what we stand for as a Nation, 
why soldiers are deployed around the world and for what purpose. He 
speaks about getting back to a constitutional framework from which we 
exercise public policy.
  Here is one that wrote about taxes as the number one issue.
  We recently finished our kids tax forms for 1998. One of our children 
is 22 years old and has lived at home half of the year. The other is 19 
and has lived at home for the full year. They both attend college full-
time and work. They also have the maximum tax withheld from their 
paychecks. The 22-year-old had to pay in $89 and the 19-year-old had to 
pay in $181. We feel if government wants to help these kids, quit 
taxing them so much. College is so expensive, and then to tax them so 
much is truly unfair.

[[Page H2460]]

  This is from a husband and wife with two children. They are also from 
Fort Collins, Colorado.
  Here is another one. Again, the first question I asked in the survey 
is what is the single most important issue facing the country today? 
Moral decline is the answer from this woman from Wellington, Colorado. 
What is the single most important issue facing your family? The 
respondent says strong families for us and America.
  When I asked what do you think is the biggest challenge for our 
schools, I put a number of boxes. Not enough funds reaching the 
classroom, class size too big, violence and drugs. This respondent 
checked none of those. They checked the ``other'' box and wrote in weak 
families as being the issue that has their greatest level of concern.
  They wrote a special note that they attached. Congressman Schaffer, 
we are watching, we are listening. Hang tough on your moral 
convictions. Vote strong for the family. A strong family is a strong 
Nation. Keep up the good work. We pray for our Nation.
  I receive lots of letters like this. I know many other Members of 
Congress do too. I want to assure all those who observed today's 
proceedings that it is worthwhile to write to your Congressman, it is 
worthwhile to pick up the phone, to attend the town meetings, to let us 
know what you think. There are legions of people here in Washington who 
read these and respond to them and take them to heart and make them 
become part of the direction we move in Congress.
  There are several here. I see the gentleman from Texas has joined me 
on the floor, but before I yield time to him, I have to share this one 
response I received from an attorney who wrote, and please think about 
this.
  Once again, the single most important issue to him, according to his 
response and return survey, is the breakdown of the family. He asks to 
see the attached letter, a handwritten letter that he placed on his 
letterhead.
  It says Honorable Bob Schaffer, regarding the survey attached, 
breakdown of the family. There are a number of statistics he included.
  Over 85 percent of my criminal case clients come from divorced or 
single parent families. Every school shooting incident nationwide that 
I am aware of, except one, involved children from broken homes. Both 
incidents in Colorado last week of young kids bringing guns or 
ammunition to school involved kids from broken homes.
  Timothy McVeigh's, the Oklahoma City bombing, in parentheses, parents 
were divorced when he was in his teens. Most of my non-personal injury 
civil case legal work involves problems people face as single parents 
or divorced spouses, debt, bankruptcy, child support, child welfare, 
these kinds of actions and others, and I don't ever handle actual 
divorce cases, he says with an exclamation mark. There are about the 
same number of divorce cases as felony criminal cases filed in Larimer 
County each year, 1,600 cases. We would not need a new courthouse or 
nearly as large a local, state or national government budget if not for 
all the broken families.

                              {time}  2130

  So there is a connection between social and fiscal issues, he says.
  Here are some suggestions he gives us as far as causes. Number one, 
judges who legislate to set aside State laws, and he gives an example: 
the right of minors to get abortions, contraceptions without parental 
involvement, creating an atmosphere of no family responsibility and 
sexual license, and he is referring of course to the Title X clinics, 
which is a legitimate concern that all Americans should have. This is 
the program where the Federal Government provides funds for local 
health clinics to provide contraceptive services to children without 
the knowledge, much less the consent, of their parents. He cites that 
as an example of the authority of families being undercut.
  Number two, the number two cause he cites: No-fault divorce and other 
family-ignorant legislation. Treating non-married parents like real 
parents regarding custody and visitation.
  Three, government welfare programs without goals. This at least is 
being turned around. Thanks for letting me air my views.
  Again, this is from an attorney and one who I happen to know is very 
involved in many local charities and community activities in the 
northern Colorado community. I have lots more input from constituents 
and things that are on people's mind, but I want to yield the floor to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity to participate with him in his special order. The gentleman 
takes, as I do, great faith in learning from our town hall meetings. 
Meeting with the people we represent, we never fail to learn when we 
listen carefully to their thoughts, when we listen carefully to the 
burdens they are under, whether they are just struggling to make ends 
meet or just trying to get their business going and keep it afloat, or 
just to have dreams for their kids that they want to make happen and 
how difficult it is when government gets in the way; even when the 
government is trying to help, it gets in the way. It is so important.
  Like the gentleman, I also consult my constituents whom I represent 
at my cracker barrel sessions, my town hall meetings, which we have 
always called cracker barrel sessions around the tradition of meeting 
around the cracker barrel, talking about what is going on in the 
community and talking about politics, and we do the same thing today 
because we have a traditional district. Issues like Kosovo, the war, 
the shootings in Colorado, Social Security, there is much to discuss, 
and we had some of our best cracker barrel sessions ever, and I am 
looking forward to a new round we are holding in the next 6 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, on Kosovo, I want to talk a bit about that. I had a 
moment, a brief moment this afternoon to start to discuss it, and time 
was short, and I wanted to go back to it because it is such an 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have big hearts. That is one of our best 
traits. Whenever we see killing, whenever we see injustice anywhere, we 
want to stop it, whether there is a national interest in it or not. 
Well, Kosovo, having good intentions, but a bad plan of proving to hurt 
the very people we are trying to help; rather than stopping the human 
suffering, we have increased it. Rather than stabilizing the region, we 
have made it more unstable. And now, it appears we are ready to pour 
more fuel on a very deadly fire in this very volatile region.
  It seems tragic to me that with the lessons of the Vietnam War barely 
cold on our plates that we have not learned from it. Like Vietnam, we 
are waging a war today almost by the seat of our pants, driven not by 
military expertise, but by polls and what is politically correct and 
what are the overnight focus groups saying. As the gentleman would 
guess, results are predictably fatal, and failing.
  Worst of all, I think we forget the most important lesson of Vietnam. 
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it. Those who most 
sought this war have shown that they lack, unfortunately, the political 
courage to aggressively target Slobodan Milosevic, his leaders and the 
Serbian army he commands. As General Douglas MacArthur said in a speech 
to Congress back in 1951, I believe, he said, ``War's very object is 
victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for 
victory.''
  Well, if a lethal criminal entered our neighborhood today, our 
schools, our hospitals, and began to shoot our families and innocent 
children and victims, the first responsibility of law enforcement would 
be to bring them down, to stop them cold, now. How would we feel if 
that responsibility, the law enforcement officers flinched, reluctant 
to take the shot, reluctant to do what it takes to stop the killing? 
Well, history will record in Kosovo that America flinched, that the 
allies flinched. The lives of innocent people, young and old, were lost 
because the commanders in chief somehow found it immoral or were 
reluctant to bring the shooters down and end these atrocities.
  Last Thursday as I read The Washington Post, I read in one section 
about the atrocities and the fresh graves that had been dug, and I also 
read a NATO admission that they were, by design, leaving large sections 
of the Yugoslav Army untouched in the desire or the strategy that 
perhaps someday they can be part of a peacekeeping mission. So what I 
realized was that on the

[[Page H2461]]

same day we were describing how young American fighter pilots were 
heading into Yugoslavia, led and being cleared the way by young 
American pilots leading the process and clearing the path with overhead 
reconnaissance planes, again with young American soldiers in them, all 
risking their lives in this conflict, yet, at the same time, we were, 
by design, preserving the lives of the Yugoslav Army, the ones who were 
committing the atrocities.
  I find nothing humanitarian in a policy that allows young American 
soldiers to lose their lives, but lets Milosevic live. I find nothing 
moral or just about a policy, a strategy where the lives of innocent 
Kosovars die lonely and cold and hungry by the side of the road while 
we leave the Yugoslavian Army untouched, those who committed the 
atrocities, remain untouched.
  Today in The Washington Post, and in many papers across America and 
in Texas where I live, NATO updated the war, and they went through a 
pretty impressive list of the aircraft that they destroyed and the 
airfields and some of the hangars and office buildings, and some of the 
infrastructure. But when it came to talking about the Serbian Army and 
what damage we had done to those who have committed the atrocities, 
they were silent.
  Unfortunately and tragically, we now have pilots, young American 
pilots who risk their lives, and not in the hopes of preserving the 
American Army, but in preserving the Yugoslavian Army, and their 
targets are picked not by military experts, but by pollsters, and that 
is a failure. In this war, our humanitarian effort unfortunately has 
failed the Kosovars and failed the allies miserably. And now, like a 
desperate gambler who will not acknowledge their losses, we are 
thinking, if we can just gamble a little more, if we can just bomb a 
week longer, if only we can send in Apache helicopters, if only we put 
American ground troops in, just one more roll, just one more 
gamble, and perhaps we can win it all back.

  Well, we cannot win back the lives of the Kosovars that have been 
lost and we cannot bring back together the refugee families that have 
been torn apart. But surely we can save the hopes and dreams of 
Americans and allied soldiers whose lives have yet to be gambled with.
  A short walk from this Chamber, the Vietnam War Memorial lies half 
buried, silent, below the green grass of the national Mall. Mr. 
Speaker, 58,000 lives and names are engraved on the wall, 58,000 
fathers, brothers, sons and some daughters gone because America's 
leaders then would rather lose the lives of soldiers than lose face as 
a Nation. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 teenagers, because the average age of 
those fighting on the front line in Vietnam was 19 years old, barely 
out of high school. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 Americans who lost their lives 
in a war we were not willing to commit to victory to, and it is eerily 
like the war we are in today, because as America and allied political 
leaders flinched, Kosovars fell down around us, and we can never get 
that back; that opportunity for victory in saving those lives is gone.
  We have a moral obligation today, to our young soldiers and their 
families, to prevent another Vietnam War. We have a moral obligation to 
our soldiers' mothers who love them like no one else can, to their 
fathers who harbor dreams for them, can barely talk about without 
getting emotional; to the brothers and sisters and family members of 
every American soldier and their spouses and their friends, we have a 
moral obligation, because it is unconscionable to allow young Americans 
to give up their life and die while we allow the shooters, all of them, 
to live by design.
  I care a great deal about Kosovo and Kosovars. I am concerned about 
NATO. But my duty is to our American soldiers. I think that is our 
highest moral obligation and duty, to prevent another Vietnam War and 
all the destruction, all the lives and all the families that have been 
damaged and hurt so much by it because we did not have the courage and 
the will that when we started the war to conclude it, in victory. It is 
hard. It is hard to do that, and that is why war should be the last 
resort, because it is so damaging.
  I think before the President pours more deadly fuel on this fire, I 
think and I would respectfully ask that he exhibit what I would call 
battlefield leadership. And it means first being honest, truthful to 
oneself about the failure of the current strategy. It means putting the 
troops you command first, not yours, worrying not about your record, 
not about NATO's credibility, not about your legacy, but caring about 
the troops under your command.
  I think probably the toughest battlefield decision has been made many 
times by those who recognize that a hill cannot be taken, that 
sacrificing more lives and sacrificing more young people will not 
accomplish that goal, and to put them first, to do no more harm to 
them, and to determine what in real life can be done to advance our 
just and moral cause. I think the President needs to be totally honest 
with the American people about the steep price, and I mean staggering 
price, that we will pay, already we must pay, in lives, in resources, 
in years, to even attempt to secure a temporary peace in that civil 
war.
  My exit strategy, unfortunately, the time has gone for that. My exit 
strategy was simple. Although I opposed the intervention, once in, my 
belief is that we bring the shooters down and end the atrocities, or we 
do no more harm and negotiate an international peace treaty, attempt to 
secure what we can of Kosovo, attempt to relocate; how many refugees 
really want to go back to a region they can no longer call home; and to 
attempt to contain the damage we have now done in the neighboring 
regions. I believe it is time to do no more harm. I am not willing to 
sacrifice young American lives to a war we are not committed to win. 
That is my duty. That I think is Congress's duty, and I look forward to 
the day when we can complete that duty.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, that comment, that phrase about winning is 
usually something that one side or another could understand in the case 
of some military conflict or the engagement in warfare. But the 
definition of winning with respect to this conflict is very 
nondescript. The President and his spokesman, in announcing this war to 
the American people, in moving forward in an act of warfare in the 
Kosovo province, failed to identify the clear objectives and the 
national interest that is at stake when it is impossible and the 
President is incapable of clearly laying out the objectives to be 
achieved. It is by definition impossible to determine when one has won 
and when it is time to declare victory and go home.

                              {time}  2145

  That is the real dilemma that the President has put us in, because it 
has set off a whole cascade of problems that stem in all directions, 
and does so without the clear definition of what victory means for the 
United States of America. Without that definition, I am afraid this is 
an engagement to which we will be committed for a long, long time.
  I am curious, at the cracker barrel sessions that the gentleman has 
back in Texas, this notion that there is a lack of a clear objective 
and an exit strategy. And it seems to be, at least in my part of this 
country, and I am curious to find out about the gentleman's, the source 
of a tremendous amount of anxiety and concern.
  I might also point out, before I yield the floor back to the 
gentleman, from the perspective of the best interests of our troops it 
is unconscionable in my mind to send troops in harm's way; to send our 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen to conduct their duty in Kosovo without 
clear objectives, without knowing when the job is going to be done, and 
expect them to accomplish this mission.
  They will do it. These folks, you give them a mission and they will 
do it, they will do it proficiently. They are literally the best in the 
world, and they do the American people proud. But they are Americans, 
too, and they deserve to have answers about what objectives are being 
achieved. There are no answers to that question.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The gentleman from Colorado is right on target 
and people know it. Every time we go into a classified briefing on this 
war I am always hopeful to hear more, to hear that there is a plan I am 
not aware of, a hint of a mission that is so clear that I know that we 
can achieve it. Because the gentleman is right, the military,

[[Page H2462]]

they will achieve any objective, no matter how difficult. They will lay 
their lives on the line.
  But in fact, it is just the opposite. I come out thinking, at each of 
those sessions, and believing that we ought to give the military right 
now every medal possible and every acclaim possible, because they seem 
to be fighting this with two hands tied behind their backs, and a leg, 
perhaps, as well.
  It is interesting about objectives. I went back and took a look at 
America's intervention in our world wars and our intervention in Korea. 
The clarity of our missions in Germany and in the world wars, and the 
vagueness of our mission in Vietnam and here, is eerie.
  I looked back and I read a statement by President Johnson from Texas, 
as a matter of fact, as he addressed the Nation in 1968. Tell me if 
this sounds familiar:
  ``Our objective has never been the annihilation of the enemy. It is 
to bring about a recognition in Hanoi that its objectives could not be 
achieved.''
  If that sounds much like the President's objective, not to defeat 
Milosevic in Yugoslavia but only to degrade their ability to conduct 
their activities further, the gentleman is right.
  And with a mission so vague, and without a commitment, unfortunately, 
with a lack of courage to do what war requires us to do for compassion 
and humanity, that is why we do not get into wars until there is no 
other resort, because it is destructive to us and the enemy, and we 
must have the courage and will to win.
  My concern, and I think it has already been proven, is that we have 
lacked that. The Kosovars have paid the price. The question will be 
will American soldiers be the next to pay the price. I am not willing 
to wager their lives in this war, because that is what it is, without a 
clear objective, and in fact, without that will to win.
  I always use, and perhaps the gentleman does, as well, I use a test 
for our conflicts: If a young soldier were killed in this battle, could 
I go to the family and tell them, look them in the face and tell them 
they lost their son or daughter, their brother or sister, their wife or 
husband, and that they did it to defend America, in the best and 
highest cause of American interest?
  In this case, I cannot tell them that that death would be justified. 
It is a high standard, but I think it ought to be any time these young 
people are sent into battle on our behalf.
  We have a war memorial just at the bottom of this hill, the Vietnam 
War Memorial, where every time you go, and every other memorial is so 
lively and so inspiring and you get a sense of history, and it is 
people talking, and there is an enthusiasm and inspiration by our 
memorials. But when you go to the Vietnam War Memorial, it is stone 
cold quiet.
  Every time I go, and I walk from the base of the memorial, and you 
start to look, as you look at the names and you begin to walk up and 
out of the memorial and up into the sunlight, my thought every time is, 
never again. Never again will we put bright young American lives with 
wonderful hopes and dreams, and those of their families, never again 
should we commit them to war where our political leaders and our 
Commander in Chief do not have the will and the courage themselves to 
win. That, unfortunately, is where we are at today. I wish there were 
an easy way to say it.
  I like to believe the best in everyone. I hope and try to believe the 
best in our Commander in Chief, even as disappointed and upset as I get 
at times. But this time, we have lost that opportunity. We can never 
bring those people back. We can only save Americans and learn from the 
Vietnam War, never again.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The folks back home, when this topic comes up, are 
insistent that warfare is sometimes necessary and sometimes it is the 
only option, but that is the standard, that it is only something we 
should resort to when all other options have been exhausted.
  The President is convinced that all diplomatic solutions have been 
tried and none of them worked. But I want to make it clear that, in 
looking back over today's debate and even responding to some of the 
discussion that has taken place here, no single one of us who opposes 
the President's decision to commit an act of warfare opposes our 
involvement in trying to resolve the terrible situation that exists in 
Kosovo, this ethnic cleansing that is taking place at the hands of 
Slobodan Milosevic.
  This is a topic which we are very concerned about, and we want to 
spend American resources and spend America's diplomatic might and 
economic leverage and do whatever we possibly can to honor the dignity 
of human life, and the lives of all those who are involved, victims or 
otherwise, in the Kosovo conflict.
  But this is not a new conflict. This official policy of ethnic 
cleansing by Milosevic is about 6 years in the making now. What is most 
distressing is the length of time that this struggle has gone on and 
has been allowed to fester and grow without any real concern coming out 
of the White House until a few months ago, when the President at that 
point suggested to the country that now there are no options.
  I submit that the President of the United States and the office of 
the presidency should be held up and he maintained as the most forceful 
leader for liberty and freedom around the planet.
  The rest of the world does look to the United States of America for 
guidance and leadership in precisely these kinds of situations. They 
look to us to be the mediators, the negotiators, to exercise our 
leadership position and authority, to bring leaders of democracies 
around the world together to stand against the tyranny of dictatorships 
and tyrants of the sort Milosevic is a part.
  But that really did not happen over that 6-year period. Again, the 
White House all of a sudden and suddenly became concerned just a few 
months ago, and left the United States at quite a disadvantage. The 
relationships that we have lost and have been set back with respect to 
emerging democracies in Eastern Europe with Russia, with the Ukraine 
and other former Soviet Republics, are setbacks that are going to take 
many, many months, if not years, to regain.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point that is 
real critical here. Today, and in much of this debate, people will try 
to convince Americans that it is between those who care for humanity 
and those who want to isolate America. It is a rhetorical trick, a way 
to wedge people onto different sides, as opposed to talking about 
reasonable approaches.
  But the fact of the matter is that America does have a role in peace 
in this region. We do have a role to play. But the world has changed. 
Now that we are the strongest world superpower, while the world has 
changed, we are confused about our role in it today.
  We still respond by wanting to fight the disputes and fights of every 
one of our brothers, older or younger, around the world. And we will. 
We will jump to any battle, to any fight, and we will fight every one 
of our brother's and sister's fights for them.
  But at some point, because we have so many around the world, we 
simply cannot. You can fight other's disputes until you are so weak 
yourself that you lose your own fight when called upon to protect your 
own family, your own interests. That is where we are today.
  I think our new role, America's new role, is not to fight every one 
of our brother's fights, but to help teach them and work with them so 
that they can fight their own disputes, settle their own conflicts.
  America's role in peace, I believe, is to not lead others in what is 
principally their challenges but to support them, to help, to advise, 
to provide technology, to back them up in their challenges and their 
responsibility, but to not be always taking the lead in their fights; 
because frankly, we have new challenges here in America, such as the 
terrorism challenge, where the smallest rogue nations can develop 
biochemical weapons. International drug cartels have a distribution 
network literally to every community in this country.
  Then on top of those two, we have organized crime which finances 
instability because it is profitable to do that. So now America faces a 
challenge where literally biochemical weapons, weapons of mass 
destruction, can be brought into literally every community in America. 
We have not changed our security to respond and prevent that.

[[Page H2463]]

  We have nuclear missiles and the capability by countries to reach the 
continental United States that we are not prepared for, although thank 
goodness this Congress is taking the leadership role in doing that. So 
I think we do have a role to play in peace.
  Peace is always, almost always, less costly and less damaging than 
war, but there are times when your interest, your defense, and national 
security will quite compel you to do that.
  But I notice that Dwight Eisenhower, our former commander and 
president, made a statement in 1946 that I think rings true today. He 
said, ``Men acquainted with the battlefield will not be found among the 
numbers that glibly talk of another war.''
  Those who have been to war, who have seen the blood, who have been 
part of all of that, understand the need to explore their options 
first; to know that when you launch that hostility, just what type of 
courage it takes, and the blood that will always be on your hands.
  Unfortunately, in this foreign policy, in the advisers, in the 
Commander in Chief, I think perhaps we talk too glibly of war when in 
fact Europe and others around the world urged us to try to find another 
path to peace in Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, their predictions of the 
damage have been just terrible.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. If we contrast the response to the events that led up 
to this military conflict with the Gulf War when President Bush 
presided, we see a wide difference in approach.
  President Bush was successful at bringing the entire world and global 
leadership together to stand against the Iraqi government and Saddam 
Hussein. He was successful at putting in place various economic 
sanctions, and using all of the political leverage and diplomatic might 
of the United States and the global community to stand against a 
tyrant.
  Even when that all seemed to fall apart and the Iraqis moved in to 
attack a sovereign Nation, it was the response to that form of naked 
aggression that instantly brought the entire global community together 
to stand against Saddam.

                              {time}  2200

  Very, very different than what we have seen in the case of Milosevic. 
Again, this is an episode that is many, many years in the making and 
very little effort to try to use their political position to leverage 
economic sanctions against Milosevic.
  We see some of our strongest allies continuing to sell oil and other 
technology and weaponry to our enemy now in Kosovo. Yet what is the 
response from our President? We had all of the leaders of these same 
countries right here in Washington, D.C., just last week. I did not 
read one word of our President objecting to this economic exchange that 
is going on between our allies and the government that we are bombing 
right now and the regime that we are bombing.
  As I say, what America needs right now is a foreign policy, and out 
of the White House we have none today. I just shudder at the prospect 
that any of our troops will come home in body bags and find themselves 
buried in what one of my staff members today coined the ``tomb of the 
unknown policy.'' This is a prospect that all Americans ought to be 
very, very concerned about.
  But we do have a role in trying to prevent the violence that is 
taking place. It is a diplomatic role. It is one that requires real 
leadership out of the White House. We have to have a President, a 
Commander in Chief, who is not preoccupied by other things, distracted 
by less important topics, certainly, at a time when the willing answer 
of and eager military leader of our country is to commit somebody 
else's sons and daughters to fight a war for which victory is very hard 
to define.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thankfully, we live in a country 
where we have the opportunity to vote our conscience, to raise issues 
that trouble us, to talk about them, and to unite behind our American 
troops, to be absolutely a hundred percent behind them. Whatever they 
need while they are there, financially and funding-wise, we are going 
to get them.
  And in fact, not only that, but we are going to make sure that there 
are the reserves and the dollars to try to rebuild our military to 
where we are not costing lives each time we are given a new challenge 
as we do today.
  I was thinking also that our allies have been hurt terribly in this, 
as well. We have now pushed the ethnic Albanians out into the 
neighboring regions. And it is almost like taking part of our State and 
pushing them to other States.
  And by nature, if we took a bunch of Texans and push them out to 
three neighboring States and basically say they cannot come back or 
they can come back to a small, damaged, torn up, insecure, non-secure 
area, I will tell my colleagues what they are going to do. They are 
going to carve out from the three States, they are in a new Texas, a 
new State, with people they know and values they have and religions 
that they share.
  And this is what is happening now in the Balkans. We have pushed out 
ethnic Albanians out of their home. As in Bosnia, very few, my guess, 
will return. That is what history shows us. And they are going to look 
for a new country, a new independent nation with people whose values 
they share, and that means we will likely create a greater Albania and 
perhaps too a Macedonia. And I do not know what other damage we will do 
to our neighboring countries. So our friends there are paying a very 
steep price.
  And here is Europe who was asking all along, we want more options 
than just bombing, here is Europe in their biggest year perhaps ever. 
They launched a new currency, the Euro, created new Federal banks sort 
of like our Federal Reserve. They are trying to hire a new foreign 
policy person to unite the European Union. They had had their whole 
European Commission resign because of corruption, which was a major 
blow. They were asked and brought in expanded three new NATO neighbors 
and costs that are associated with that.
  And then we pushed them into not only defending themselves, but 
America said their new strategy in Europe is going to be to resolve 
disputes like this and resolve it militarily. We are like a friendly 
banker who keeps pushing the small business to expand, to expand, to 
expand, to expand, until one day they expand themselves out of 
business.
  My concern is that at a time when NATO should be reasonably and 
thoughtfully talking about their new role in Europe and with America in 
this new world, that we are pushing them into a role they are not ready 
to play. And while I have to admit, after 24 hours after bombing three 
of the countries, NATO said, enough, we think that is enough. Stop, 
that is enough bombing for us.
  To their credit, as a group, they have hung pretty tight. But the 
fact of the matter is that they do not know what victory is anymore. 
They do not know about if they can shoulder the costs of it. They do 
not know if they can survive this NATO expansion. So each of our 
closest allies we have pushed into a terrible position that will hurt 
them economically, politically, culturally for many years to come.
  And I just think again, war ought to be the last resort. We have so 
many pressures. We have so many tools that we ought not to ever glibly 
talk of war or to enter one. And whether we today declared war, which 
we did not but we know we are in it, and now have the responsibility to 
face up, to be held accountable ourselves for our actions, and what is 
sad is the price that we will all pay, but at least we ought to commit 
and have the courage to sacrifice no American lives in this terrible 
mess.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the question of whether we are at war or 
had to declare it, and so on, is one that now is going to be resolved 
in the courts. This is a question that has been at the center of the 
relationship between this Congress and the presidency for a great 
number of years, and it has been a point of dispute for quite a long 
time.
  And each military incursion that we have undertaken as a country 
seems to take one more step or one more bite out of that constitutional 
responsibility that the Congress has to declare war, and there are 
various reasons that that is so.
  With respect to NATO or U.N. operations over the years, we have 
granted huge amounts of authority to the President to act unilaterally 
within the context of our relationship to the NATO treaty or U.N. 
charters. When it

[[Page H2464]]

comes to peace agreements that disintegrate and erode, it is our 
relationship and response to these agreements, the fact that we have 
formally taken part as signatories to these agreements, that compels us 
and authorizes Presidents to step into war. Even under those 
circumstances, constitutional authority to declare war has been 
questionable.
  But this case is different altogether. It is different because we are 
talking now about a sovereign nation, a nation that did not act as an 
aggressor to a neighbor or some other jurisdiction around the world. We 
are talking about a conflict that does not involve an attack upon any 
of our NATO partners. NATO, being a defensive organization, its charter 
does not envision attacking sovereign countries as it has now been used 
to do.
  So this profound question that needs to be answered, and I guess at 
this point Congress has asserted its authority, has denied the 
President a declaration of war to carry out his war in Kosovo.

  The President now continues to carry out an act of war without the 
consent of Congress. And the only remedy remaining for us now is to 
test this question of the War Powers Act before our great courts. As a 
country, I think we need to certainly be concerned about the conflict 
that is the heart of the debate. But, also, we need to be very, very 
concerned about the status of our Constitution, that the War Powers Act 
maintains its integrity clear through to today's point in time, and to 
ensure the American people that this Congress will find the courage, as 
it has today, to stand for and assert its constitutional authority. And 
that is what we did.
  I guess some Members in Congress just an hour ago were here on the 
floor lamenting the fact that we stood up for our constitutional 
responsibility and the fact that we honored that constitutional 
responsibility, in their opinion, is the cause of some kind of personal 
discomfort for them. I am sorry about that. But we swore an oath to 
that Constitution to stand up for it when called upon.
  We were called upon to do it today. Some of us did. Others did not. 
And this is a matter to be sorted out now by the American people at the 
next election.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I think, too, that as the gentleman from Colorado 
has pointed out our constitutional duty, I always try to support the 
President, any President, in military action and we have in every case 
in Congress. But my duty and the duty of my colleague is not to the 
President, it is to the Constitution. And I think we have a higher 
moral duty to our young American soldiers.
  And they are young. I mean, they are young, bright, wonderful people 
who are serving our country and think that if they fight and risk their 
lives it will be for freedom, not to allow Milosevic to live, not to 
allow a Serbian army to go untouched, not to flinch when sent into war 
because of their constraint on them as individuals.
  Our duty today was not to cover the President for a terrible 
decision. That would have been disloyal, in my opinion. Our duty was to 
our American soldiers who are over there right now and the belief that 
we ought not sacrifice their lives when we do not have the courage, 
when our commanders in chief of this whole operation politically do not 
have the courage that we are asking of them.
  No one should ever ask more of their troops than they ask of 
themselves. And in this case, we ask too much.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Stepping forward to a conflict such as this requires 
preparation, requires considerable forethought, and to allow to prepare 
our armed services.
  And again, over the last 7 years in Congress, this has been a point 
of clear debate between the Congress and the presidency. This President 
has cut the funding of our armed services year after year after year, 
to the point where our soldiers, sailors, and airmen express legitimate 
concern for the resources for the equipment, for the backup, and for 
the training that they receive.
  And there may be times when they need to be deployed. This is not one 
of them. We are not prepared to win and win decisively. And winning, as 
we have pointed out earlier, is a nebulous term in and of itself with 
respect to this engagement.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be recognized for this 
special order hour. I am grateful to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) for sharing in this special order hour.
  I want to once again urge all of our constituents, people throughout 
the country, to write their Congressman, call their Congressman, let us 
know what is on their minds, help us lead the country. The voice of the 
people is the most powerful force in our political system, and all 
American citizens should be compelled to exercise it tonight.

                          ____________________