[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H3220-H3222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENFORCE THE WAR POWERS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 56 days ago President 
Clinton launched a massive offensive air campaign against Yugoslavia. 
Over the past few weeks we have witnessed the capture and release of 
three United States soldiers. We have seen destruction, lives lost, and 
hundreds of thousands of men, women and children forced to leave their 
homes and seek refuge.
  Most would call this a war. But Article I, Section 8 of the United 
States Constitution grants Congress, not to the Commander in Chief, the 
authority to declare war. Approaching two months of repeated air 
strikes, President Clinton has never asked for congressional 
authorization. Now, in order to proceed with Operation Allied Force, 
President Clinton must either ask Congress for authorization or remove 
our troops from the region. Unfortunately, he has made no indication 
that he is eager to do either.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that President Clinton has violated 
our Constitution as it pertains to the declaration of war. Therefore, I 
join the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and 15 
of our colleagues in the House in filing a lawsuit against President 
Clinton in order to clarify Congress's constitutional war authority. I 
regret that we are forced to call upon the courts, but until we do, 
further administrations will continue to violate the Constitution and 
the War Powers Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of my colleagues who have very grave 
doubts about the United States involvement in Operation Allied Force. 
While I agree that the situation in Kosovo is a tragic one, our 
national security is not threatened. Our armed services already suffer 
from years of neglect under this administration. When we continue to 
commit troops in our limited resources on peacekeeping operations, we 
undermine our military's primary goals, to protect and defend the 
citizens of this great country, and we leave ourselves vulnerable in an 
unstable post-Cold War climate.
  Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine recently forwarded to me a letter 
from Charles Hunter, a military Reservist who served in Bosnia for nine 
months. I want to share with my colleagues some of what he observed. I 
feel very strongly that his words and observations will prove much more 
powerful than my own.
  In an open letter to Congress, Mr. Hunter wrote, ``It would be 
interesting to note what light further history will cast on the actions 
currently being implemented by this administration and enabled by this 
Congress.'' Mr. Hunter further states, ``It is interesting to note that 
this is the first time that we have attacked another sovereign nation 
unprovoked and uninvited by a host or exiled government.'' He further 
states, ``To me, this is a huge and pivotal point, the possible effects 
of which are frightening.'' Mr. Hunter further states, ``Should we some 
day have a revolution in our land that is an affront to some sort of 
world entity, we have now forfeited the right to handle things as we as 
a Nation see fit. If we continue down this road before us, we will be 
handing national sovereignty, for any Nation, over to some nonelected 
multinational body.''
  Mr. Hunter further states, ``My oath as a soldier and yours as a 
Senator included the phrase, `to uphold and defend the Constitution of 
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Never has 
there been a vow made to an international constitution or treatise, so 
why the concern over the honor of NATO? Why is Congress not concerned 
with the honor of the United States?''
  Mr. Speaker, these are words of a United States soldier who spent 
nine months in the Balkans, and he is absolutely correct. We need to 
restore the honor we once valued and treasured. President Clinton, my 
colleagues in Congress and I took an oath to uphold and defend the 
Constitution. Especially now, we must keep that oath. Once again, I 
urge the President to seek congressional authority to declare war or 
bring our troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will submit the full text of Mr. Hunter's 
letter for the Record. God bless our troops and God bless this Nation.

                    A Balkans Soldier's Open Letter

                         (By Charles W. Hunter)

       I am a reservist. I have served in Bosnia for nine months. 
     I am a linguist and interviewed between 100 and 200 people 
     each day while I was there. I have also had the unique 
     experience of losing a job due to my reserve commitment. I do 
     hope that you will take these following points into 
     consideration as you think about the possible future 
     commitment of ground forces to, and our general involvement 
     in, Yugoslavia.
       As a point of clarification, I refer to the leader of the 
     United States as ``impeached'' President Clinton, because 
     that is the title that the House of Representatives voted to 
     give him. I am not demeaning the office of the president or 
     the person of William Jefferson Clinton. They, not I, put him 
     in a classification different from recent past presidents.


              1. the yugoslav people do not think as we do

       Due to the unique position and job which I had while I was 
     in Bosnia, I had the opportunity to interview between 100 and 
     200 people each day for nearly 8 months. These people were 
     mostly Croats and Muslims. However, during the last month of 
     my tour my focus was with the Serbs. Because I had learned 
     the language, these people felt that I was different than the 
     majority of British and American soldiers they met and as a 
     result they opened up to me. All of these people told me that 
     as soon as we leave, if it is in one year, five years, or 
     fifty years, they will go back to killing each other.
       All of the sides committed mass executions, as is the case 
     in Kosovo now. Look at the history of the region. I think 
     that you will find it was not too long ago that the KLA was 
     viewed to be a terrorist organization. They were raping, 
     executing, burning and looting the Serbs in an attempt to 
     drive them out of Kosovo. This was not that long ago. Our 
     response at the time was probably tempered by the fact that 
     our Secretary of State was not Serb, as now Mrs. Albright is 
     Albanian. These people do not forget the wrongs done to them. 
     Unless a firm handed dictator is in power, like Tito or 
     perhaps NATO, these people will not live together. Period.


       2. humanitarianism is a poor excuse for military diplomacy

       If we are to use the humanitarian crisis in the region as a 
     reason for this gunboat diplomacy, then we are setting a 
     dangerous precedent, as well as an inconsistent one. Millions 
     of people have been killed in Sierra Leone in the past couple 
     of years. The ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Burundi has 
     created over 1 million dead and 3 million refugees. Turkey 
     has been killing the Kurds for years.
       The list could go on, as you well know, yet to these 
     tragedies a blind eye is turned. With this current 
     administration it is even blasphemy to mention the abuses 
     occurring in China. Yet, in all of these areas we do nothing. 
     These examples serve only to show the glaring inconsistency 
     of this as U.S. foreign policy. It also sets up a dangerous 
     precedent. China will not renounce the possible use of force 
     in relations to Taiwan. Tensions are still high between Iraq 
     and Iran, India and Pakistan. What of the Taleban in 
     Afghanistan? Will this foreign policy change dictate our 
     future involvement in these areas? Why not?


                    3. forgotten lessons of history

       It has been well quoted, ``Those who fail to learn from 
     history are doomed to repeat it.'' I am afraid that we are at 
     such a crossroads now.
       Some critics of this administration feel that all actions 
     done by Impeached President Clinton are done so to create a 
     legacy for history. It would be interesting to note what 
     light future history will cast on the actions currently being 
     implemented by this administration and enabled by this 
     Congress. It is interesting to note that this is the first 
     time in the history of our once great nation, that we have 
     attacked another sovereign nation unprovoked and uninvited 
     by a host or exiled government. To me, this is a huge and 
     pivotal point, the possible effects of which are 
     frightening.
       Should we someday have a revolution in our land that is an 
     affront to some sort of world entity, we have now forfeited 
     the rights to handle things as we as a nation see fit. If we 
     continue down this road before us

[[Page H3221]]

     we will be handing National Sovereignty, for any nation, over 
     to some non-elected, multinational body. My oath as a soldier 
     and yours as a senator included the phrase ``. . . to uphold 
     and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
     enemies, foreign and domestic.'' Never has there been a vow 
     made to an international constitution or treatise, so why the 
     concern over the honor of NATO? Why is Congress not concerned 
     with the honor of the U.S.?
       The specter of Vietnam is all over this operation. Vietnam 
     started with U.S. bombing, so did this Yugoslav operation. 
     The politically correct response to this is that this is a 
     NATO mission. Yeah, right! 90 percent of the flights are U.S. 
     aircraft, not to mention the cruise missiles. If this is the 
     proportion of U.S. involvement now what precedent is being 
     set for when a ``permissive environment'' is achieved? This 
     is a U.S. mission.
       Vietnam had a gradual escalation with no thought-out plan 
     of execution. This is paralleled here as the nation witnesses 
     the AH-64 debacle. No ground troops were to be committed to 
     Vietnam, and then were. Newspaper headlines today are saying 
     the same thing. Congress was misled and half-informed in the 
     '60s with lies and half-truths. Many Congressman from both 
     parties have expressed their frustration over these same 
     problems in this situation. In Vietnam, a war was waged 
     without the understanding of the psyche, intent and 
     motivation of the enemy. By even being optimistic of peace 
     happening between these peoples, a lack of understanding of 
     them is being exemplified.
       None of the lessons learned in Vietnam are being applied to 
     any of this administration's military endeavors. From the 
     police action in Southeast Asia three major lessons of 
     military doctrine were learned. These pearls of military 
     doctrine were to: (1) have defined, accomplishable 
     objectives; (2) have a defined or structured period of 
     involvement; (3) have a planned exit strategy. The last two 
     parts of this doctrine are predicated by the first. These 
     lessons were played out to grand effectiveness during the 
     Reagan and Bush years (outside of Beruit). From Grenada to 
     Desert Storm, even Somalia, these three points were 
     practiced.
       If one recalls, the U.S. involvement in Somalia was to be 
     ended at a specified time. When Impeached President Clinton 
     was elected, he extended the U.S. withdrawal indefinitely. 
     Several Rangers had to die before Congress forced the end to 
     that mission. U.S. forces are still in Haiti, as was I in 
     '95. What is interesting, is that for the average Haitian all 
     is as it was. Those who have the guns still have the power, 
     yet we are still sending troops and dollars there.
       For years Impeached President Clinton has been playing with 
     the Iraqi President. Suddenly, he starts a bombing campaign 
     to force compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors. ``To what 
     end?'' I ask. Are there now, or will there be, U.N. 
     inspectors in Iraq? To gain congressional approval for the 
     operation in Bosnia, Impeached President Clinton outlined a 
     plan for a one-year occupation. He held this claim until the 
     day after his re-election. The day after his re-election he 
     announced an additional 18 months of occupation, then it 
     became an indefinite extension. Where is Congress and why is 
     Impeached President Clinton not held accountable for his 
     word?
       Now the U.S. is faced with a police action in Yugoslavia. 
     The Media labels this a war. Only Congress can declare war on 
     another country. A police action can be stopped by Congress 
     by not authorizing funding. In this action against the 
     sovereign nation of Serbia, objectives and conditions for 
     victory have never been defined and have been ever changing. 
     One element which has been consistent is for an indefinite, 
     multinational peace keeping force to be placed on the ground.
       The people of this region of the world have a long and 
     great history of hating each other. This hatred is not 
     restricted to the Serbs. I mentioned the atrocities committed 
     by the Albanians against the Serbs earlier. That was only one 
     decade ago. As I would talk to the people in my AO while in 
     Bosnia, I would ask them how the Bosnian conflict started. 
     For an answer I received a history lesson that often started 
     prior to WWII and sometimes would start back with the Ottoman 
     Empire. To a person, everyone I spoke with said that as soon 
     as we leave they will start at it (fighting) again. This is 
     the problem for the current administration.
       If the U.S. forces are withdrawn, war in Bosnia will erupt 
     again, highlighting a bad foreign policy. In order for the 
     illusion to be maintained, U.S. presence in the region must 
     be passed on to the next presidency. If that 
     administration were to remove our forces, again, war would 
     start and that administration will get the blame, so the 
     illusion will be maintained. In the end, there might be an 
     administration with enough honor to end the illusion. 
     However, because all of the time, resources and lives 
     spent which will have been wasted, that administration 
     will be through. Again, look at history. Impeached 
     President Clinton says that the current campaign against 
     Serbia is based upon lessons learned from Bosnia. What is 
     clear to me, and to every other soldier who has served 
     there, is that nothing was learned--otherwise we would not 
     now be engaged.
       Many historians believe that if Hitler had listened to the 
     advice of his general staff, the war would have gone in favor 
     of Germany. The Washington Times reported that the U.S. 
     military advisors to Impeached President Clinton advised him 
     that this mission would not be successful, but rather, would 
     only exacerbate the conflict. Impeached President Clinton 
     chose rather to listen to the advice of Mrs. Albright. Once 
     so ordered, the military advisers were bound by oath to carry 
     on.
       In a fashion which has not been seen since the fall of the 
     Soviet Union, history is being rewritten by this 
     administration. Another reason that Impeached President 
     Clinton gives for this action is the preservation of U.S. 
     interests in Europe by preventing another world war; after 
     WWI and WWII both started in this region. This is false. WWI 
     started here, that is true. I walked the bridge where the 
     Archduke was assassinated. The real cause of the war was the 
     entangling alliances throughout the region. No such alliances 
     exist today outside of the growing relationship of Russia 
     with Serbia. WWII did not start in this area. In truth, 
     Hitler could have done what he wanted if he had not attacked 
     Poland. The attack on Poland brought England into the war. 
     WWII escalated from there.
       One point about WWII, which is quite valid, is that the 
     Serbs were the best friends a U.S. pilot had. In addition, 
     ill clothed, ill fed, and ill armed the Serb partisans pinned 
     down 24 German Divisions. The power of the Luftwaffe and the 
     might of the Wehrmacht was all but lost in the terrain of 
     Yugoslavia. Something to consider as you go to cast your vote 
     on the escalation of this conflict and the introduction of 
     U.S. ground forces.
       Indeed, ``Those who fail to learn from history are doomed 
     to repeat it.''


             4. our position in yugoslavia is morally wrong

       In setting up this government and finding the principles 
     upon which this Republic was established, the Founders of 
     this country took great inspiration and insight from the Holy 
     Scriptures, among other sources. In his Farewell Address, 
     George Washington wrote, ``Of all the disposition and habits 
     which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are 
     indispensable supports.'' Up until the early '60s, primers 
     and many secondary school language texts were based on the 
     Bible. So powerful was the union of this country with 
     Scripture, that in 1805 a man was convicted of treason 
     against the United States for blaspheming the name of Jesus 
     Christ. The founders understood well the Sovereignty of God. 
     It was that understanding by which our Constitution was 
     conceived.
       By that same great Tome, which so inspired our Founders, 
     our aggression towards Yugoslavia is wrong. Throughout 
     Scripture this is made very clear. In the book of Daniel we 
     are instructed that successions of governments are determined 
     by God. The book of Romans states that ``There is no 
     authority except from God, and those which exist are 
     established by God.'' If one believes in the Sovereignty of 
     Almighty God, then in the course of that same belief, in 
     light of Scripture, as long as Molosevic is acting within his 
     own borders then the only correct position to take is one of 
     neutrality.
       As was pointed out by the Chinese Premier, President 
     Lincoln used force to hold this country together. In that war 
     more Americans died than in any since. Both England and 
     France were considering entering the war, but on the side of 
     the South. What would have been the result if that had 
     occurred? Freedom and a living form of democracy cannot be 
     instilled in another people. It must be won by those for whom 
     it is meant.


               5. the overshadowing of other real issues

       The people of this nation by course of the mainstream media 
     are so preoccupied, and thus our elected officials, with the 
     plight of the Albanians that real focus is being lost.
       One of the problems with the Gulf War was that victory 
     there was a cheap victory. One hundred thousand casualties 
     and 100,000 prisoners were afflicted upon Iraqi forces while 
     the U.S. suffered only 149 dead in both Desert Shield and 
     Desert Storm. While I have no intent to minimize the 
     sacrifice those brave and proud men gave, or the effect upon 
     the conscience of this country. Desert Storm, like Vietnam 
     was waged in the living rooms of America. However there is 
     one great difference.
       Instead of seeing men dying from limbs blown off or sucking 
     chest wounds, the people of this country saw something like a 
     video game on their computer. Bombs guided into windows with 
     amazing accuracy. Deserted tanks being demolished in live-
     fire exercises. Here, the human element was removed. War 
     became acceptable. What a tragedy.
       Our attacks on Serbia are causing untold suffering for the 
     general population of Serbia. This is acceptable because they 
     are the villains, the evil Serbs, the scourge of the world. 
     Has the lust for blood become so strong that we have become 
     that which we hate?
       Of greater national interest and security, but that which 
     is all but off of the radar screen, is the ongoing Chinese/
     Impeached President Clinton saga. Impeached President Clinton 
     opens trade through which missile guidance technology is 
     transferred to the Chinese thereby allowing them to deliver 
     the MRV technology stolen in the late 1980s to the shores of 
     the United States. In 1995, Neutron Bomb technology is stolen 
     by the Chinese. Problems are reported to the Administration 
     in 1996. The suspected individual is allowed to continue 
     working and even given a promotion in the facility. The 
     Justice department head and Impeached President

[[Page H3222]]

     Clinton appointee, Janet Reno tells her agencies to leave it 
     alone. In 1999 the story breaks, the individual is arrested.
       Impreached President Clinton initially states there were 
     security problems, inherited from the Republicans, but that 
     no technology has been stolen by the Chinese on his watch as 
     President. Once the story breaks in full, he denies any 
     knowledge of the events. Subsequently, in a press conference 
     with the Chinese Premier, impeached President Clinton jokes 
     before national news media over the incident. China refuses 
     to commit to a non-military resolution to the Taiwan issue. 
     Impeached President Clinton rebuffs critiques of Chinese 
     human rights policies. In a news conference the Chinese 
     Premier states that there has been enough talk of human 
     rights. He further says that the Chinese just have a 
     different way of looking at things. The media and, apparently 
     Congress, buy off on this as a valid explanation as to the 
     ongoing and increasing human rights atrocities being 
     committed in China (as reported by Amnesty International). 
     Put this together with the campaign fund-raising issue with 
     the Chinese and an interesting puzzle starts to form.


why are we bombing the serbs and courting the Chinese? possible answer:

       Mrs. Albright is Albanian and lost a grandfather and two 
     cousins to Serb cleansing after WWII, as was reported in the 
     New York Times. China was a staunch ally of Albania during 
     the period of the cold war. Impeached President Clinton and 
     China have a strange involved relationship, which is under 
     investigation. Impeached President Clinton has always hated 
     the United States Military. He is quoted as having stated 
     that he loathed the military. Through the course of the 
     policies and practices of the current administration: morale 
     of the military is at a 25-year low; deployments are at an 
     all time high; Reserve and National Guard units are being 
     used on a regular basis in places such as Haiti, Bosnia, 
     Central America and the Sinai; cruise missile and other 
     munitions stores are being completely depleted and not 
     replaced; all branches of the military are under manned; 
     service members are leaving in record numbers; recruitment is 
     at a two-decade low and China has gained 40 years worth of 
     nuclear technology in the last six years.
       I believe that the U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia is for 
     only two real reasons:
       1. Mrs. Albright's ancestral hatred of the Serbs. Now she 
     is in power as an impeached President Appointee to seek 
     revenge for her people--the Albanians.
       2. Impeached President Clinton's ongoing relationship with 
     the Chinese and his M.O. to use the military to divert and 
     confuse the already short and anemic attention span of the 
     American people.
       I am not by nature a conspirator. I am a patriot. I am a 
     critical thinker. I doubt that you will agree with my bold 
     answer to my bold question. However, as to my five main 
     points, I do hope that you will muse on them. As a soldier, I 
     will go to wherever I am sent. As with all soldiers, I will 
     do my duty to the best of my ability. I have had a terrible 
     three years of employment since I lost my job due to my 
     military service in Haiti. I was shot at and could have been 
     killed as I stopped a Croat from blowing up his car at my 
     base in Bosnia. I volunteered to go to Desert Storm; as a 
     soldier I felt that I should be with my brothers in arms. I 
     do not want, however, to see my children in a Vietnam-like 
     situation. A situation in which at the end of the day, after 
     the waste of lives, material, resources and National Honor, 
     no difference will have been made.
       Would you be willing to possibly die for the United States 
     of America? Impeached President Clinton has clearly answered 
     that question, in a manner quite different from the way the 
     proud men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces today have 
     answered that question. How would you, Senator, answer that 
     question? How about your sons and daughters, would you commit 
     them to possibly die for Old Glory?
       Would you be willing to possibly die for Kosovo? When it 
     was Vietnman, many did. In 1974 their deaths became 
     meaningless? If we continue down the present path the same 
     will be true for those who will lose their lives in 
     Yugoslavia. Is this what you want, if it were your son who 
     could die on the Field of the Blackbirds near Pristina? Is 
     this what you want for the lives of the sons and daughters of 
     your constituents?
       Congress has not declared a war. Congress can stop this 
     before it becomes a U.S. tragedy. I urge you, for the sake of 
     this country, stop the conflict in Yugoslavia. Pull our 
     forces out of the Balkans. You have the power to either end 
     this or escalate it.
       It is not unlike riding a bike up a road that is 
     increasingly getting steeper. One either has to pedal harder, 
     or get off of the bike. Let's get off. At the top of this 
     hill is a cliff.

                          ____________________