[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7718-7727]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1569, H. CON. RES. 82, H. J. RES. 
   44, AND S. CON. RES. 21, MEASURES REGARDING U.S. MILITARY ACTION 
                           AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 151

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to debate the deployment of United States 
     Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled among the chairmen and ranking minority members of 
     the Committees on International Relations and Armed Services.
       Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of the 
     question of consideration to consider in the House the bill 
     (H.R. 1569) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense from being used for the deployment of 
     ground elements of the United States Armed Forces in the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is 
     specifically authorized by law. The bill shall be considered 
     as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3. After disposition of H.R. 1569, it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order or the 
     question of consideration to consider in the House the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 82) directing the 
     President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers 
     Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from their 
     positions in connection with the present operations against 
     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 4. After disposition of H. Con. Res. 82, it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order or the 
     question of consideration to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 44) declaring a state of war between 
     the United States and the Government of the Federal Republic 
     of Yugoslavia. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. After disposition of H.J. Res. 44, it shall be in 
     order on the same legislative day without intervention of the 
     question of consideration to consider in the House the 
     concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) authorizing the 
     President of the United States to conduct military air 
     operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic 
     of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), if called up by 
     Representative Gejdenson of Connecticut or his designee. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
     Relations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion.
       Sec. 6. The provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the War 
     Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1545-46) shall not apply during 
     the remainder of the One Hundred Sixth Congress to a measure 
     introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War Powers Resolution 
     (50 U.S.C. 1544) with respect to Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time 
yielded will be for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 151 provides for the consideration of four 
separate measures relating to the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in 
the Republic of Yugoslavia, each under a closed amendment process with 
1 hour of debate. The first measure made in order by the rule is H.R. 
1569 which prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the Department of 
Defense from being used for the deployment of ground elements of the 
U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia unless that deployment is authorized by 
law. Debate time on H.R. 1569 will be controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The next two resolutions made in order by the rule were introduced by 
my friend from Campbell, California (Mr. Campbell) and reported 
unfavorably yesterday by the Committee on International Relations. Both 
resolutions, H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44, have a unique procedural 
status under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Without this rule, both 
Campbell resolutions will become the pending business of the House 
today as a result of having been reported by the Committee on 
International Relations. Motions to proceed to consideration of the 
resolutions would be privileged, and the resolutions would not be 
subject to general debate but would be subject to an open but clearly 
unfocused amendment process.
  As a result, this rule structures the consideration of these measures 
in accordance with the War Powers Resolution while providing for a 
full, fair and focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the 
introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia.
  Debate time on both of these resolutions will be controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  The fourth resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we make in order with this 
rule is S. Con. Res. 21, authorizing the President to conduct military 
air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. This resolution 
may only be called up by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) 
or his designee. Debate time on S. Con. Res. 21 will be

[[Page 7719]]

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Prior to consideration of these four measures, the rule provides for 
1 hour of debate on measures relating to the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, equally divided and controlled among the chairmen and 
ranking minority members of the Committee on International Relations 
and the Committee on Armed Services.
  Finally, the rule provides that provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the 
War Powers Resolution shall not apply during the remainder of the 106th 
Congress to a measure introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War 
Powers Resolution with respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, when Americans are engaged in armed conflict, the 
House of Representatives is invariably faced with important and very 
difficult questions. That is the responsibility handed to us by our 
Nation's forefathers when they crafted democracy's most enduring and 
enlightened document, our Constitution. Today is such a day. President 
Clinton has directed our Armed Forces to join our NATO allies in a 
battle against the forces of Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. 
It is a fight to preserve civilized society in a corner of Europe that 
has been wracked by atrocities, violence and Civil War on a scale 
unseen in Europe since the Second World War.
  The United States is not the world's policeman. The American people 
know too well that we cannot intervene in every civil war. We cannot 
stop every act of brutality. We cannot keep the peace and protect 
democracy all on our own. But that is not what is going on today in the 
Balkans.
  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of the world's 
civilized and democratic nations, is engaged in military action in 
Yugoslavia. When the President, the Commander in Chief, made the 
decision a month ago that it was in our national interest to lead NATO 
in this effort, America became a full participant in that undertaking. 
Our pilots are risking their lives every single day.
  Whether or not in hindsight that was the right decision is a question 
for presidential historians. This really is not about whether we agreed 
with the President at the time either. Today the overriding question 
is: What policy best protects and advances our national interests?
  Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly and unequivocally 
establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief. The 
deployment and direction of the armed forces is his job. In fact, since 
my first day of service in this legislative body, it has been my view 
that the direction of our foreign policy and national security is the 
President's first and foremost responsibility. Everything else comes 
after that.
  Although I have had some doubts about the President's original policy 
in Kosovo, I believe that the facts on the ground have overtaken those 
concerns. Now we must win. We must achieve the goals that the President 
set out to achieve when he committed our forces to battle. The price of 
failure is simply too great. American prestige and power, two of the 
most positive forces of good in the world today, must not be abandoned 
on the field of battle.
  Mr. Speaker, vacillation and hesitancy in the face of this challenge 
to the leadership of the United States and NATO, a challenge undertaken 
by a gang of thugs in Belgrade and their brutal underlings in Kosovo 
will severely undermine our Nation's ability to stand up and defend 
clear American interests across the globe. If that happens, we lose. 
The American people lose. Freedom loses.
  Mr. Speaker, as the House undertakes this important debate, I will 
focus on doing what is best for our national interests and for the 
American service men and women doing their jobs with bravery and 
commitment. First and foremost I believe that means opposing 
micromanagement of our foreign and military policy. We know we cannot 
engage in combat by committee. One of the most serious objections to 
the conduct of the Kosovo campaign thus far has been the fact that too 
many people, in particular too many political leaders, have been 
involved in this effort. I do not support adding to that problem. The 
President is constitutionally charged with leading and winning this 
campaign. He must do it, and we must stand behind him so that he can.
  I urge support of this rule which provides for, as I said, a full, 
fair and very focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the 
introduction of U.S. armed forces in Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
time. As my colleague from California has explained, this rule provides 
for the consideration of four different measures dealing with U.S. 
troops in Yugoslavia. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority 
members of the Committee on International Relations and Armed Services. 
For each measure, this rule provides an additional hour of debate.
  Under the rule, none of the measures may be amended on the House 
floor. Furthermore, the rule prohibits consideration of any other 
measure with respect to Yugoslavia brought up under the War Powers Act 
for the remainder of the 106th Congress.
  The purpose of considering these four resolutions is to give Congress 
a role in the decisions affecting U.S. military actions against 
Yugoslavian President Milosevic and his reign of terror directed 
against the Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo.
  The rule was approved by the Committee on Rules late last night on a 
straight partisan vote with Democrats against it, and I strongly oppose 
the rule, and I ask for its defeat.
  The first measure called up under the rule H.R. 1569 prohibits the 
use of funds for deploying ground troops in Yugoslavia without 
additional congressional authorization. This measure raises numerous 
legal and military questions. In a worst case scenario, this resolution 
would result in the Federal courts defining what operations are legal 
in Yugoslavia. The measure was only introduced yesterday, and it had no 
hearings and no committee consideration. If passed by the Congress, it 
would certainly face a presidential veto.
  The second measure, House Concurrent Resolution 82, calls for the 
immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in Yugoslavia. On a bipartisan vote 
of 30 to 19 the Committee on International Relations recommended 
against passing the bill. The committee report said that this 
resolution would have severe consequences for U.S. national security 
and severe repercussions with the North Atlantic Alliance. It stands 
little chance of passage on the House floor. Enactment of this measure 
would undermine the President, our military forces and destroy any hope 
that our air campaign against the Serbs would have a positive outcome.
  The third measure, H.J. Resolution 44, declares war against 
Yugoslavia. The Committee on International Relations unanimously 
recommended against this resolution. The legislation is intended to 
clear up the legal question of whether or not the U.S. is at war. 
Unfortunately, this resolution does more harm than good at this point. 
In fact, the report of the Committee on International Relations warned 
it could actually strengthen Milosevic politically. This measure also 
does not stand any chance of surviving a presidential veto.
  Lastly, the rule makes in order S. Con. Resolution 21 authorizing the 
President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes 
against Yugoslavia. This bill passed the Senate with bipartisan 
backing.
  Considering a declaration of war is one of the most solemn duties of 
Congress under this Constitution. Only 11 times before in our Nation's 
history has Congress ever formally declared war. This rule mocks the 
dignity of

[[Page 7720]]

that responsibility. What we have here is a grab bag of conflicting, 
contradicting and confusing resolutions about the war in Yugoslavia 
which stand little chance of enactment, and proceeding in this fashion 
is an embarrassment to the United States, to our President, to the men 
and women in our Armed Forces and to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, what would it say if none of these resolutions pass, or 
some of them pass, or if they all pass but are vetoed? The only signal 
that can possibly result from this rule is that our Nation is confused 
and hesitant. That certainly is not the message we want to send to our 
NATO allies, nor is it the signal we want to send to our troops.

                              {time}  1045

  It is not the signal we want to send to the American people. Indeed, 
Congress does have a role in going to war, but finding that role at the 
end of the 10th century in an era of modern warfare is difficult, and 
this rule does not find it.
  Under the War Powers Act, both H. Con. Resolution 82 and H.J. 
Resolution 44 would be amendable on the House floor, but this rule 
prohibits amendments to all four resolutions.
  Furthermore, the rule prohibits any further resolutions about 
Yugoslavia to be brought up in the 106th Congress under the expedited 
procedures of the War Powers Act. This is a terribly restrictive 
clause, that nullifies a key part of the War Powers Act. It reduces the 
ability of each House Member to participate in the decisions about this 
war.
  At a hearing before the Committee on Rules yesterday, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell), the author of two of these resolutions 
before us today, urged the committee to remove this provision. The 
expedited procedures are everything, the gentleman said.
  I appreciate the Republican Committee on Rules majority granting a 
full five hours of debate time to these measures. Still, the cause of 
democracy is not served by this restrictive rule. Under the War Powers 
Act, the House is required to consider H. Con. Resolution 82 and H.J. 
Resolution 44, so I have no issue with their consideration under the 
House rules. However, bundling these four measures together makes the 
House look weak and indecisive.
  I agree with the backers of these bills that Congress should not, 
cannot, be left out of the loop on vital decisions of war, but this 
rule is a clumsy, ineffective way to participate. The only way to get 
our voice heard is through careful, deliberate and bipartisan measures.
  The American people are hurting for leadership from Congress. They 
want us to work together. Painful experience with controversial issues 
in the recent past should have taught the House that bipartisanship is 
the only way to reach the American people.
  This rule will not increase the role of Congress in the decision to 
make war. It will only further undermine our ability to be taken 
seriously. I urge the defeat of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very 
good friend, the gentleman from Newport News, Virginia (Mr. Bateman), 
one of the great champions of our Nation's national security.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is certainly I suspect the most sorrowful day in my 
now 17 years in this body. It is a solemn day.
  We are here because of the circumstances of what I think has been a 
very, very poor implementation of a national security policy, founded 
on good intentions, but run amuck in the execution and the failure to 
appreciate all of the consequences that would ensue from the way we 
sought the objectives, all of which we would endorse, but we are indeed 
here.
  I am speaking in debate time on the rule; not so much in objection to 
its technical terms, but for the fact that it does not leave an 
alternative that I feel is logical and supportable given the incredible 
mess in which we find ourselves. But the one thing we cannot deny is 
the fact that we are in the mess.
  I have urged for weeks that the president, our Commander in Chief, 
come to the Congress and lay out in whatever terms he chose in support 
of a resolution framed by the White House, to ask for the authorization 
of the actions and of the objectives that he was pursuing, with great 
intention and expectation on my part that I would have voted for them.
  He has not chosen to do that. Yet I think very clearly it is 
incumbent upon the Congress as part of its obligation to the people who 
wear our uniform in the military that we let them know that the 
Congress has authorized what they are doing or what they may be asked 
to do and that we state the objectives pursuant to which they do it. 
None of the resolutions before us today do that.
  I cannot possibly vote for either of the Campbell resolutions. I 
cannot vote for an alternative that says it is all right to continue, 
bomb, bomb, bomb, without restriction or reservation, but, my goodness 
gracious, we cannot possibly contemplate the use of ground forces, even 
though I think that is a bad idea. But it is an even worse idea, when 
no one is proposing to do it anyway, to announce to your potential 
enemy, your real enemy, you are not going to do it.
  The reverse of that is what we do basically in the Senate joint 
resolution passed, you may recall, the day before the bombing began. It 
did not seem to me to be a good idea then. I do not think it has 
improved since.
  There are things we need to say and we need to do. I think this rule 
ought to make in order something that, when in effect, enunciates on 
behalf of the Congress the kind of policies incorporated in the 
statement of the gentleman who chairs the Committee on Rules, which was 
a very eloquent statement of why we are involved, what the stakes are, 
and what we as a Nation ought to be doing together to see that our 
objectives prevail. I wish the rule and debate was going to make that 
possible.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost), a very important member of the Committee on 
Rules and Chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this is a fatally flawed rule which should be 
defeated for a variety of reasons, and I want to touch on those as 
briefly as possible.
  First, it denies the opportunity for any Member of this House during 
the next 18 months to bring up anything else under the War Powers Act, 
no matter what happens. We tried to eliminate that in the Committee on 
Rules, but the majority insisted on that provision.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say to my friend that 
it does not prevent a Member from having an opportunity to offer a 
resolution. It simply moves under standard procedures without going 
through the expedited process.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) said yesterday, giving the preferred 
position, the status of a privileged resolution to go to the floor, is 
everything, so you have denied everything by precluding this to come as 
privileged resolution for the next 18 months.
  Secondly, only 5 hours of debate time were permitted. When we did the 
Persian Gulf resolution, we debated that virtually all night, as you 
remember.
  Third, and most importantly, this rule puts in a preferred position 
the Goodling resolution, which is enormously and dangerously flawed.
  I want to read from the Goodling resolution: ``None of the funds 
appropriated or otherwise available to the

[[Page 7721]]

Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the deployment 
of ground elements of the United States Armed Forces in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia unless such deployment is specifically 
authorized by law enacted after the enactment of this act.'' Then it 
talks about a limited exception to rescue our personnel.
  I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in the 
committee a series of questions. I first asked the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), does this preclude the use of Apache 
helicopters to go in and destroy tanks, with the Apaches being operated 
by our Army? The gentleman first said yes, it precludes it, and then he 
changed his mind and said no, it does not preclude it.
  Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) another 
question. I said, for sake of argument, let us say we have Special 
Forces in Kosovo right now acting as forward observers to direct our 
bombing attacks and who are also working with the refugees trying to 
rescue refugees. Would this require the immediate removal of our 
Special Forces in Kosovo if they are there for those purposes? The 
gentleman's answer was yes.
  Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), how 
could this be? How could we have these conflicting provisions? He then 
said in the Committee on Rules, well, he did not draft this. I said, 
this has your name on it. He said yes, but I did not draft it, and I 
cannot fully explain it.
  I find this to be a very unfortunate situation. We have a resolution 
that was drafted by some members of the other party, handed to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), which he cannot fully 
defend, which will create a situation where our commander on the 
ground, General Clark, will have to think, do I have to go to a Federal 
Court, do I have to seek a ruling from a Federal judge, before I make 
any decision in the next few days?
  This will hamstring our troops in the field and hamstring our 
President. This rule sets up in a preferred position a resolution that 
should not be passed by this House, and this rule should be rejected.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from Surfside Beach, Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose the rule, and I do this 
hesitantly, because it is difficult to write fair rules and I generally 
support the rules. But today I have to oppose this rule, mainly because 
we are going to be debating war, a declaration of war, and a full hour 
is not adequate to debate an issue of that magnitude. I know there was 
an attempt to provide for a lot of debate today, but, for instance, on 
the one issue of declaration of war, only one hour was given; that is 
just not enough.
  The other reason is that it does preclude a House Resolution coming 
up again under an expedited procedure. This is not right. This is 
undermining the whole purpose of the War Power Resolution of 1973, and 
we should not be doing this.
  This is taking more authority away from the Congress and giving more 
authority to the President and to the administration and for us not to 
have a say. The whole issue of war should be decided here in this 
Congress, and we are here today because we have been negligent on 
assuming our responsibilities.
  I saw this coming, and on February 9 of this year, I introduced a 
bill that would have prevented this whole problem by making certain 
that our President could not spend one penny on waging war in Kosovo. 
That is what we should have done. We have not, and now we are in this 
mess.
  But we do not need to be once again taking more responsibility from 
the Congress and giving it to the President. We have a policy problem, 
we do not have a resolution problem. We have a foreign policy that 
endorses intervention any time, anyplace, assuming that our Presidents 
know when to insert troops around the world. That is our basic problem. 
Until we in the Congress take it upon ourselves to assume our 
responsibility with the issue of war, this problem will continue.
  So I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for 
bringing these resolutions to the floor, but, unfortunately, I cannot 
support this rule today as written.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, some of us stood in this chamber 8 years ago 
when President Bush called on the Congress to support his military 
plans in the Persian Gulf. I was one of those Democrats who strongly 
supported the President at that time. But I recall, Mr. Speaker, that 
we were given 16 hours of debate, 16 hours of debate, on one single 
resolution. Every Member of this body had full opportunity to speak his 
mind. We now have four conflicting, contradictory, mutually exclusive 
resolutions, with each of them given one hour of debate.
  With all due respect, I think this is an outrage. This will be one of 
the most significant issues this Congress will debate in this session 
or for many sessions to come, and I strongly call on my colleagues to 
defeat this rule. This is a rule which is giving us 30 minutes on each 
side to decide on war or peace, which is an absurdity, and it is not 
worthy of this body.
  This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, my distinguished Republican 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I represented 
this body at the NATO summit.

                              {time}  1100

  Nineteen countries devoted 2 full days to discussing the plans for 
the future. It is unconscionable that the Congress of the United States 
should be denied the opportunity to seriously discuss issues of war and 
peace. The President has just asked for the call-up of some 33,000 
reservists. We have a major military engagement, and this body and the 
country are entitled to a full airing of all of the issues involved in 
this.
  I trust that my colleagues will see fit to turn down this rule. It is 
poorly crafted. It is a gag rule. It allows not a single amendment, and 
it gives over 200 Republicans and over 200 Democrats 30 minutes to 
discuss each of these issues. This is simply unacceptable, and I 
earnestly call on the majority to rethink this restrictive, un-American 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because it is 
a fair rule and it allows all views to be heard and will allow far more 
than 30 minutes that the previous speaker mentioned. We will be 
debating this for many hours to come today, and on into tonight.
  However, I rise in strong opposition to this war in the Balkans. 
First of all, as our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) has pointed out, it is an unconstitutional war because 
Congress has not and, I assume, will not declare war against 
Yugoslavia. Secondly, we have made the situation in Kosovo many times 
worse by our bombings and we cannot hide behind NATO because NATO would 
never have gone in there if the U.S. had not wanted it done. Ninety 
percent of the bombings have been paid for and done by the U.S. In 
fact, if the President is going to send in ground troops, as many 
people think, let the European members of NATO send them in. We have 
carried almost the entire financial and air war burden thus far and we 
should not have to carry the ground war burden too.
  If we get further into this mess by sending in ground troops, there 
are estimates that ultimately we will spend $40 to $50 billion in air 
and ground war costs and resettlement and reconstruction costs, money 
that will have to come from Social Security and many other valuable 
programs.
  Pat Holt, a foreign affairs expert writing in the Christian Science 
Monitor wrote a few days ago, ``The first few days of bombing have led 
to more atrocities and to more refugees. It will be increasing the 
instability which the bombing was supposed to prevent.''

[[Page 7722]]

  Richard Cohen, the very liberal columnist for The Washington Post 
wrote, ``I believe, though, that the NATO bombings have escalated and 
accelerated the process. For some Kosovars, NATO has made things 
worse.''
  Philip Gourevitch, writing in the April 12 New Yorker Magazine said, 
``Yet so far the air war against Yugoslavia has accomplished exactly 
what the American-led alliance flew into combat to prevent: Our bombs 
unified the Serbs in Yugoslavia, as never before, behind the defiance 
of Milosevic; they spurred to a frenzy the `cleansing' of Kosovo's 
ethnic Albanians by Milosevic's forces'', and on and on.
  A.M. Rosenthal writing in The New York Times a few days ago asked 
this question: ``Would we again bomb, bomb, bomb the capital of the 
Serbs, who thought of themselves as far more our friends than his,'' 
meaning Milosevic. ``So far this has produced three major results: 
humiliating Serbs forever, turning friendship into enmity, and 
persuading many to rally around a man they detest and fear.''
  All we have done, Mr. Speaker, is turn friends into enemies and waste 
billions and billions of dollars. We have gone into an area where there 
is absolutely no threat to our national security and no vital U.S. 
interest, and we should negotiate a settlement and get out of there as 
soon as we possibly can.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the former chairman and now ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the part of the 
rule that turns off the action-forcing elements of the War Powers Act.
  Today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is using the War 
Powers Act to force the House to debate and vote on two resolutions. 
The first is the concurrent resolution to withdraw the troops from 
Yugoslavia, and the second is a joint resolution to declare war on 
Yugoslavia.
  But after today, Mr. Speaker, no other Member will have that right. 
If this rule is adopted, no matter whatever else may happen in 
Yugoslavia, no matter how much the situation there may change, no other 
Member will be able to bring this issue for a vote.
  In the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) himself complained about this rule and he said, and I 
agreed, that ``the War Powers Act is there so that any Member of the 
House can request the House to take action against the war.''
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution prevents the average Member from 
exercising their war powers rights for the remainder of this Congress. 
This Congress has just started. The war has just started. A great deal 
may happen over the next 20 months, and nothing, nothing should be 
taken off the table.
  My colleagues might compare this to the rule in 1991 on Somalia. On 
that rule, the House turned off the War Powers Act only with respect to 
concurrent resolutions of withdrawal and only for a period of 2 weeks. 
We turned it off for only a period of 2 weeks. That rule retained 
Members' ability to introduce privileged resolutions declaring war, and 
it also reinstated the war powers for the second session of that 
Congress which was scheduled to start in 2 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison. We did it for 2 weeks, for a 
limited number of resolutions. My Republican colleagues today are doing 
it for 20 months, 20 months, for all resolutions. This is a very 
dangerous situation, to tie Congress's hands in the matter of war, and 
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a very able member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today, and I 
want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) for his forthright and honest War Powers Resolution Act that 
he is bringing up.
  The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that the 
collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply 
to the introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities or 
into situations where imminent involvement in the hostilities is 
clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of 
such forces and hostilities or in such circumstances.
  What we are talking about today is a rule that would allow us the 
opportunity to bring forth the debate and the discussion about foreign 
policy and the use of troops in a foreign country. Mr. Speaker, what we 
are talking about is the use of ground forces that would be engaged in 
war, the debate about the probability and possibility that U.S. lives 
would be lost overseas. We intend to utilize this time to discuss not 
only our foreign policy, but what we intend to engage in and be 
involved in overseas.
  I am opposed to us being in Kosovo. I am opposed to the war being 
escalated and us not seeking a peaceful resolution. This is why a 
debate is so important. Obviously, the other side does not want to have 
this debate. Obviously, the President feels like that he does not even 
need to fall within the confines of this law. The bottom line is that 
what we are discussing is that which democracy brings about, which the 
laws of this country have brought about, and I believe that it is 
important for us to do this.
  Previous Presidents have submitted 72 prior reports on the War Powers 
Resolution. President Ford, 4; President Carter, 1; President Reagan, 
14; President Bush, 7; and President Clinton, 46 times has asked for 
these types of powers. It is time that we openly engage in the debate.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, among the duties of a Member of Congress, 
there is nothing more serious than the issues of war and peace; 
committing the wealth and the might of our Nation, putting the members 
of our armed forces in harm's way. Before we went to war with Iraq, we 
debated around the clock. Every Member of this body who so wished was 
allowed to come to the floor and debate and discuss the issues of 
conscience and war and peace.
  Today promises a pathetic, pale and perverted version of that grand 
debate. Four contradictory resolutions, 1 hour each. Vote on a 
declaration of war, 13 seconds per Member of Congress, if it is equally 
apportioned. Vote on immediate withdrawal, 13 seconds per Member.
  Is the press of business on this body so heavy that we cannot 
allocate more time, or are the leaders on the other side afraid of a 
full and fair debate? Yesterday, the House adjourned at 4:30 in the 
afternoon. Tonight, after exhausting ourselves in this debate, we will 
leave at 7 p.m. What is more important to the other side, fund-raisers, 
or issues of war and peace fully and fairly debated?
  Fair debate? No amendments will be allowed from the floor of the 
House of Representatives. And, we are only having this debate today 
because of the War Powers Act and its expedited procedures. They have 
to have a debate, although they are trying to pervert it in different 
ways, but after today, no further votes will be allowed.
  This is an outrageous abdication of our duties as Members of 
Congress. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), my very good friend and a 
very able and hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the right time to have this debate. 
I too wish it would be longer, but this body needs to be heard on this 
issue.
  I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. At that point we 
had one nation trying to overtake another nation, and this country 
thought it was worth the effort to stop it. After 10 years and 58,000 
American lives, this body stopped the Vietnam War on a rider on an 
appropriation bill.
  We now have a dispute in the Balkans, and it is not one nation 
against

[[Page 7723]]

another. There are two bad actors in this. Last year, 2,000 people died 
in this area. Not nearly as many deaths as those that died in Sierra 
Leone in January of this year alone, but of the 2,000 that died, nearly 
a third were Serbs and two-thirds were Kosovars.
  There are two bad actors in this war. I do not know why we are there. 
If we are there, why are we not in the Sierra Leone or the Sudan where 
in 10 years, 2 million people were exterminated in ethnic cleansing? I 
do not understand our end game, if there is one, and I do not know what 
victory is. But this body ought to say no. This body ought to say 
enough of the adventurism. We are the only institution that can declare 
war, and this administration has admitted that it is at war. This body 
ought to be heard.
  I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is doing exactly 
the right thing to raise precisely the right issue, and I hope that 
this body will pass this rule. I too hope that we will strike section 
6; I supported the gentleman from Massachusetts last night in his 
effort to do so. I think that is a mistake. But after we strike that, I 
hope we will pass this rule and be heard on this issue. It is exactly 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McNulty).
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute, so let me get right 
to the point. I oppose this closed rule, I oppose the declaration of 
war and the use of U.S. ground forces, and I oppose the motion to 
withdraw from our efforts to liberate Kosovo.
  Mr. Speaker, when one says what one is against, one ought to stand up 
and say what one is for. I support the current air campaign, which is 
already weakening Milosevic's military capability, and I support arming 
the KLA so that we have a ground operation composed of individuals who 
actually know the terrain.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule, 
oppose both Campbell resolutions, and support the continuation of the 
air campaign, coupled with the creation of a more effective KLA ground 
force.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply distressed by the tragedy 
taking place in Yugoslavia. I urgently call on all parties to this 
conflict, including the United Nations and the Russians, to seek a 
negotiated settlement to this crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not relish breaking with my President, particularly 
when matters of war and peace are being debated. But in my opinion on 
this issue, this administration is headed in the wrong direction.
  The Clinton administration would have us believe that there are only 
two alternatives in this crisis, either do nothing or bomb. That 
premise is false. In following it, President Clinton has taken us on 
the slippery slope towards war.
  Our bombing started in Kosovo and has now thoroughly saturated Serbia 
and Kosovo. It triggered a dramatic increase in the refugee crisis and 
violence against the Kosovar Albanians. We have killed many innocent 
civilians, both Serb and Albanian. In addition, the Yugoslav democracy 
movement has been a casualty, as has been the peaceful Albanian Kosovar 
resistence to Milosevic's tribal fanaticism.
  Another unfortunate casualty in this episode has been U.S. respect 
for international law. The administration sidestepped the United 
Nations and flouted international law.
  Mr. Speaker, my gut check on this issue is personal. I am a mother. 
The question I have asked myself is am I willing to sacrifice the life 
of my son to follow this administration's policies in Kosovo. It is 
very clear that the administration has backed itself into a corner, and 
now wants to take all of us there with it.
  As for the Rambouillet agreement, I do not hear the administration 
even mentioning it anymore. For a peace agreement worth bombing for, it 
has had an amazingly short shelf life. So from Rambouillet 
implementation to Milosevic's removal to the return of the Kosovars to 
Kosovo, the goalposts keep shifting. How can we know if we have won if 
we do not know what we are fighting for?
  The objective first touted was autonomy for the Kosovars, and now we 
find ourselves allied with the KLA. So while our rhetoric remains the 
territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, our actions promote a secessionist 
movement along ethnic lines in the heart of Europe.
  Smart bombs are only smart when they back up smart policy. This is 
the wrong policy for too many reasons.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, limiting debate and blocking all amendments 
on this question of life and death is all too typical of this House 
Republican leadership. They would convert the War Powers Act to the 
``In War, Powerless Act.'' Through its previous inaction, this House 
has largely abrogated its responsibility to approve this Nation's 
involvement in foreign conflicts. Today's action will only prolong that 
irresponsibility.
  As a few of us indicated in letters to the President in August and in 
October of last year, and again on February 19 of this year, authored 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), there should have been 
no military action in the Balkans, not bombing, not troops, not any 
military action until this Congress had given it approval.
  The Constitution prescribes that no president should commit the lives 
of our youth and the billions of our taxpayers' dollars in nonemergency 
situations like this without involvement of the American people, 
through their representatives in this House.
  While NATO raids Belgrade, the same Republican leadership proposes to 
raid the United States' Treasury. They are determined to divert 
billions of dollars to purposes that have little or nothing to do with 
Kosovo. They are using Kosovo as an excuse to subvert the budget limits 
or caps that helped bring us a balanced budget, and which only months 
ago they swore to uphold.
  Yet now that this conflict is underway, it would be folly not to 
consider the facts on the ground. Milosevic is a war criminal, who is 
committing genocide. No doubt he and his thugs are watching these 
proceedings as they unfold today in Washington. We ought not to send 
the wrong message to him or to the other petty tyrants from Iraq to 
North Korea who may be watching these proceedings.
  What is wrong, further, with this rule, however, is that it denies us 
the opportunity to invoke the War Powers Act in the future, as we may 
well need to do. This rule is outrageous. It ought to be rejected 
firmly.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the war powers 
resolution. It provides for congressional action in committing and 
maintaining our men and women in harm's way. I oppose this rule because 
it compromises the ability of Congress to exercise its responsibility 
under the war powers resolution.
  I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 21. It supports the President's decision to join 
NATO in air strikes. I will support that resolution, considering the 
atrocities being committed by Mr. Milosevic.
  For many reasons, I have serious concerns about ground troops. If the 
President believes it is necessary to use ground troops, I believe he 
must come to Congress in compliance with the war powers resolution. 
H.R. 1569 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) goes well 
beyond the war powers resolution. It compromises the safety of our 
military operation. I will oppose H.R. 1569.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes and permits the 
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution

[[Page 7724]]

21, then Congress will have, in effect, declared war and permitted both 
bombing and ground troops, all in one.
  Let me explain how. The Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 
21, which authorizes bombing. In Dellums versus Bush, the court case 
against the Iraq war, Judge Green wrote in his opinion that Congress 
has the sole power to authorize the use of U.S. forces overseas, where 
the lives of our men and women would be put in danger.
  The President, at the very least, in order to be in accordance with 
the Constitution, needs a resolution passed by both Houses that 
authorizes him to use force. He does not need a declaration of war to 
proceed with the war.
  Therefore, if the House joins the Senate in Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 21, it meets the constitutional test of both Houses, and the 
President is authorized to send ground troops and to prosecute the war.
  Some say we must win the war. I believe we must win the peace. Some 
people believe that only military action can bring about peace. I 
believe that only diplomatic initiatives and constant negotiations can 
bring about peace. Some believe we need to teach the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia a lesson by bombing their Nation to rubble. I believe 
that violence is not redemptive but it breeds more violence, and places 
the hope of resolution far beyond the horizon of peace.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for four reasons.
  First of all, it limits the debate to 30 minutes on each side on 
something as momentous as this. Contrast that with the Persian Gulf 
debate. We debated all day, late into the night, all of the next day 
before we finally came to a vote.
  Second, it makes in order four measures. One, offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is a flawed product. It 
needs to be amended and changed considerably. It has already been 
amended since it was reported. It will be unamendable when it comes to 
the floor.
  What is missing among these four is something truly bipartisan. When 
we had the Persian Gulf debate we had a bipartisan resolution, Michels-
Solarz-McCurdy. I joined and voted for it. But we do not have an option 
like this, or even the opportunity for crafting one here.
  Finally, it crowns these four choices, four bad choices, three bad 
choices, with an exceptional, unprecedented declaration overriding 
statutory law and saying if there are any more measures like this to 
come up this year, they will not be entitled to the expedited procedure 
that the War Powers Act, a black letter law, provides them.
  This is no way to deal with something as important as war. This rule 
should be voted down.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want us to debate in this House the nuances of this 
campaign in a very serious manner. I also want to be able to say, in 
response to the question that is put often by the mothers and fathers 
of American forces, that we in Congress gave our best and most 
deliberative consideration.
  The proposed rule has removed the right of all Members to introduce 
resolutions pursuant to the war powers resolution and thus gain 
expedited procedures to ensure a floor vote on such an authorization.
  Without resort to the war powers expedited procedures denied for the 
remainder of the 106th Congress by this rule, the decision on whether 
to move forward with an authorization vote will lay entirely and solely 
with the Republican leadership. That is unwarranted and unfair.
  This rule and the underlying bill send an overwhelmingly negative 
message to our troops and to our allies. I think we deserve better.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), a very distinguished member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I note with regret that the President, who once pledged to the world 
that no American ground troops would be deployed, now refuses to pledge 
to seek congressional approval before such a massive deployment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because the last paragraph of 
it nullifies the War Powers Act until the end of this century, and the 
War Powers Act is a tool we may need to influence policy.
  There are those who argue against any congressional involvement in 
the grave decision that lies ahead. They say that our enemies will 
tremble in fear if one man, without congressional approval, can deploy 
100,000 American soldiers.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I tremble in fear and the Founders of this 
Republic would tremble in fear if they thought that one man, without 
congressional approval, could send 100,000 of our men and women into 
battle.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in 1968 to 1970 I was a physician in the 
Vietnam War and dealt with the casualties from that war. That war was 
started on this floor by a voice vote.
  If we think about the fact that we committed 500,000 people, 50,000 
of whom are dead and on a memorial not very far from this building, on 
the basis of a voice vote, it seems to me that the United States 
Congress can spend more than 1 hour deciding whether or not we are 
going to go into this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a debate for a few minutes and got out 
of here at 4 o'clock. Last week we came back here. One day we gave a 
gold medal to Rosa Parks. That is all we did that day. What have we got 
on our calendar that prevents us from spending the time to give the 
Members of this House the opportunity to speak about something, where 
we are potentially sending our young men and women to die?
  I think this rule should be defeated.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the acting chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding this time to me. I was asked to speak 
on the strategy of why these issues have come forward. I have told the 
acting chairman of the Committee on Rules that if I spoke I would speak 
on the rule as well, so it is with his permission that I say I object 
strongly to section 6. I went to the Committee on Rules last night and 
said that we should not cut off the opportunity of other Members to 
make use of the War Powers Resolution.
  I am an average Member of the Congress. I am not a senior Member, I 
am not in any leadership position, I am not a chairman, yet I have the 
rights simply granted me under the War Powers Resolution, which are 
remarkably important. I do not know of any other statute that provides 
that right. It is a right that a Member of Congress can come to the 
floor and require other Members of Congress to vote on the record, up 
or down, when the question is war. That is what we will be doing today, 
whether under this rule or otherwise.
  The purpose is to fulfill the constitutional obligation. Are we at 
war? Yes, we are at war. There are only the worst possible arguments to 
say that we are not at war. We have a President who has designated 
combat pay for our soldiers. We have the Secretary of Defense who has 
said we are in hostilities. We have the Secretary of State who has said 
we are in conflict and her designee who said we are in armed conflict. 
We have the Deputy Secretary of State who has said that Serbia would be 
within its rights to consider a bombing of Kosovo to be an act of war. 
We have all the reasons common sense gives to suggest that this is 
indeed war.
  Second, we are on the verge of ground troops. I do not think anybody

[[Page 7725]]

today should be mistaken about that. In our Committee on International 
Relations I asked the Secretary of State whether she thought that the 
approval of Congress was needed to prosecute the war, and she said no, 
she did not think so. And the ranking member of the Democrats in the 
Committee on International Relations yesterday stated that that even 
included ground troops.
  Let me emphasize that. It was the position of the ranking member of 
the Democratic Party in the Committee on International Relations that 
even for ground troops there was no need for Congress to give 
authority.
  Well, I am sorry, that is contrary to the Constitution. The Framers 
were quite clear that war was too important to be commenced by the 
action of one single individual. Those are the words of Alexander 
Hamilton and also of representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
  Are ground troops imminent? All one can do is look at the newspapers 
from this weekend and see the headlines that were prepared. In 
particular I refer to the Washington Post: ``Clinton Joins Allies on 
Ground Troops'', and the Wall Street Journal: ``Clinton Edges Closer to 
Backing the Use of Ground Troops''. The quotations from the articles 
under those headlines, which I will be distributing to my colleagues on 
the floor or make available, are quite clear that ground troops are 
very seriously being considered.
  If ground troops are introduced and Congress has not acted, we all 
know what will happen. The argument will be, how can we do anything 
that might possibly undercut American troops while they are on the 
ground in operation? So the moment is now. The moment was earlier, 
actually, before the bombing started, but no one can be surprised if 
the ground war starts.
  So those are the two premises. Number one, we are at war; and, number 
two, it is distinctly possible that the bombing will move into ground 
war. And, therefore, we must vote. My own view is that we should vote 
to withdraw the troops. My own view could be in error. I understand 
people of good will feel differently, but my view is that this is a 
civil war, and that if our purpose is to help the Albanian Kosovars, we 
have not succeeded. Milosevic has done the harm. He is the tyrant, he 
is the one at fault, but it is a fact that the Albanian Kosovars are 
worse off after our bombing has commenced than they were before. That 
is simply a fact. I wish it were not so.
  And if ground troops go in, and they must, even if Milosevic signs 
the Rambouillet Agreement this afternoon, what Albanian Kosovar will go 
back into Kosovo without the protection of ground troops? Thus, ground 
troops are the option, slugging their way through Kosovo, either 
because the Serbian army is resisting or taking up positions in Kosovo 
because the Rambouillet Agreement still requires that placement of 
ground troops.
  And as to those options, I put to all of my colleagues that we have 
the question of lives and the question of money. Lives will be saved if 
we do not commence a ground war. I am speaking of NATO lives, American 
lives, Serbian lives and Kosovar lives.
  And, lastly, regarding money, we are bombing bridges that we will be 
asked to rebuild tomorrow. Please mark my words. My colleagues know 
that. We all know we are going to be asked to appropriate taxpayers' 
money to rebuild the very buildings that today we destroy. We can, for 
the same amount of money or less, help the Albanian refugees right now 
immensely better where they are, in Albania and Macedonia.
  As for Milosevic, he should be denounced to the International War 
Crimes Tribunal. If he leaves his country, he will be subject to 
arrest, as has happened to Augusto Pinochet as he has tried to go 
around the world. And the time will come when there will be a change in 
government in Yugoslavia. But by putting in ground troops to force that 
change, it will cost innocent lives, and it will cost more economically 
than helping the Albanian refugees where they are now.
  So the options today are to declare war, which is what it is, to be 
honest under our Constitution, and thereby empower the President to 
carry on war, which is our constitutional right. After we declare war, 
then the President can conduct it. That is his constitutional right.
  I am very wary of the Congress telling the President, well, it is 
war, but now we want to overview every step of the war. No--if it is 
war, we declare it and then the President conducts it. But if it is 
something the American people do not wish to become engaged in, this is 
the moment to say no, this is the moment to remove the troops, and this 
is the moment to help the Albanian Kosovars where they are. Mr. 
Speaker, the choices are obvious.
  I want to conclude by offering my thanks to the Speaker of the House 
particularly for his graciousness and consideration, and to the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), for the same and allowing these two resolutions to come 
forward.
  Shall we be at war? Then vote to declare war. That is what the 
Constitution says. If we say no, then vote to withdraw troops, bring 
them home, and start the humanitarian assistance for those refugees 
where they are. I suggest the second is the better option.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
just advise my colleagues that I am going to close on this myself, and 
I will do so informing the House that I intend to offer an amendment to 
the rule which will strike section 6 in the rule itself.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FROST. Since we are amending the rule on the floor, would the 
gentleman also consider amending the rule to extend general debate 
time?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentleman that I do not intend to offer an amendment to do that. With 
this hour we have a total of 6 hours that have been included for the 
debate.
  We all know this is a very important, a very serious, a very grave 
issue, and I think 6 hours of debate is an appropriate amount of time 
for this. So it is my intention, following the concern that was raised 
by my friend from Dallas and many others, to offer an amendment to the 
rule which will strike section 6.
  Mr. FROST. If the gentleman will continue to yield just briefly, 
those of us on this side raised several concerns, not just about 
section 6 but also about the debate time. I think it is unfortunate 
that the gentleman would not agree to amend the rule to also extend the 
debate time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for accepting the fact 
that I am going to offer an amendment to strike section 6.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that I 
appreciate the chairman of the committee for announcing his amendment 
to strike section 6. I thought that was among the worst things about 
this rule. After the eloquent statement by the other gentleman from 
California, which I do not agree with at this point in time, to say to 
the House and to the country that the House will have one opportunity 
and one opportunity only to address the War Powers Act and only one 
Member will get that opportunity, I think would have set a very bad 
precedent.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify again that that is 
not what section 6 said. What would happen, if section 6 were to have 
been included, it would have meant that it

[[Page 7726]]

would have gone through the leadership structure and the only change 
that would have been made is we would not have proceeded with the 
expedited process. So it would have not have been a one-time-only 
thing.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, again, I commend the 
gentleman for agreeing to make that change. Perhaps that sets a 
precedent for more fair rules going forward in the remainder of the 
106th Congress.
  I think it is also a mistake that we are spending such little time to 
debate this issue. This is a very critical issue for the Nation, and I 
am afraid that this underscores the way this House is going to operate 
on issues that should be addressed in a bipartisan manner. I would 
encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule even as amended.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to this rule, which will govern our debate over the 
situation in Kosovo today.
  Under the terms of this rule, we will be debating four measures, each 
for only one hour. This means that each side will only receive but 30 
minutes to make known their concerns, just slightly more than is 
allowed for a bill on the suspension calendar. These measures are of 
precious importance to our troops, and to our national security, and we 
should have ample time to debate them.
  Furthermore, the timing for the debate on these bills is poor. Like 
many other conflicts, the factual circumstances are fluid, and require 
our flexibility if we are to be effective. We should not be 
pigeonholing our position and threatening the safety of our troops.
  Neither NATO nor the United States believes that a state of war 
exists in the current conflict in the Balkan region. The President has 
not requested that Congress issue a declaration of war. I believe that 
a declaration of war would be entirely counterproductive as a matter of 
policy and is unnecessary as a matter of law. Yet we stand to debate 
this measure today.
  On only five occasions in the United States history and never since 
the end of World War II has the Congress declared war, reflecting the 
extraordinary nature of, and implications attendant on, such a 
declaration. Yet it seems Congress is willing to do that today. While 
we are not at war with either the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or its 
people, Slobodan Milosevic should not doubt the determination of NATO 
to see the stability of Europe reasserted. Yet, with this debate today, 
we show Milosevic weakness. With resolve NATO can attain a durable 
peace that prevents further repression and provides for democratic 
self-government for the Kosovar people. Yet, with our votes today, we 
send mixed signals to our trusted allies.
  As it stands, I must question the genuineness of at least three of 
the measures we will be debating today. That is especially true because 
we will see Committee leadership bringing a resolution to the floor 
that they will be voting against. Those at home watching this debate on 
television will undoubtedly see through this charade, and know that 
what transpires here today will be less about the importance of our 
mission in Kosovo, less about ending human suffering, and more about 
partisan politics and taking shots at the White House.
  What we should be debating here today, and acknowledging, is the 
suffering that is taking place in the Balkans. We should be doing 
something to help the refugees who have been cast out of their homes, 
and their homeland, by a tyrant. We should be debating how we can bring 
stability to this region, and appropriating funds to help thousands of 
innocent children eat. We should be passing resolutions of support for 
our brave troops.
  Instead we stand here today, using the floor of the House of 
Representatives, to play tired, partisan politics. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this rule, and to bring to the floor meaningful debate 
that can help save lives in Kosovo.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and would simply say that there is nothing more powerful than when this 
body speaks with one voice, and the only way to get our voice heard is, 
I think, through careful, deliberate and bipartisan measures.
  I believe that the American people want us to work together. They 
believe, I think, that we are hurting for leadership here in the 
Congress, particularly on issues like this. It is not that the issues 
that we are debating are not important. They are important, each and 
every one of them, and the vote we will take on them, but the way we 
are packaging this makes it look like we are frivolous.
  This rule will not increase the role of Congress in the decisions to 
make war, it will only further undermine our ability to be taken 
seriously. The rule, in my opinion, is not the way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
rise in strong support of this rule.
  I am going to move that we strike section 6, but before I do that, 
let me make a couple of comments about this rule and the procedure 
around which it was considered.
  For starters, we had a request that came from the minority that we 
extend by an hour the debate. We agreed to that. We are allowing the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), under this rule, to call up 
or not call up a freestanding bill, which I believe, if it is not 
unprecedented, it certainly is unusual. We have also agreed to the 
requests that have been made by Members on both sides of the aisle to 
address this section 6 question.
  I should say that the section 6 which was included in the bill was 
not an idea of Republicans. As has been pointed out by some, in 1993 
when the resolution on Somalia was considered, it was a proposal that 
the majority, the Democratic majority at that time, offered. We were 
simply following along the line with that. But from discussions that 
have been held, we are going to move to strike section 6.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier: Strike Section 6.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know we are rapidly approaching a vote. I 
think we have very clearly explained it.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on both the amendment I 
just offered and the resolution itself.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 210, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 99]

                               YEAS--213

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica

[[Page 7727]]


     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Barr
     Callahan
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Moran (VA)
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Wynn

                              {time}  1220

  Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. JONES of Ohio 
and Mr. MEEKS of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 99, on April 28, 
1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________