[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7784-7796]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT MILITARY AIR OPERATIONS AND MISSILE 
             STRIKES AGAINST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 
151, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent 
resolution (S.

[[Page 7785]]

Con. Res. 21) authorizing the President of the United States to conduct 
military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Clerk read the title of the 
Senate concurrent resolution.
  The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 is as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 21

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That the President of the United States is 
     authorized to conduct military air operations and missile 
     strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 
151, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues are distributing a letter that 
frankly is, I am sure, unintentionally inaccurate. I would hope that 
every Member of this body, before they vote, reads the five line 
resolution.
  This five line resolution is not an authorization for ground forces, 
and I will ask my colleagues to listen as I read it, because it is only 
five lines. The resolution that has come from the Senate says: ``The 
President of the United States is authorized to conduct military air 
operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies 
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.''
  It says nothing else. Make it clear. Members should vote however they 
believe is correct, but they should do it based on the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis) control my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will 
control the remainder of the time allotted to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject matter under consideration, S. Con. Res. 21.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have previously indicated, I am prepared to support 
statutory authorization for appropriate measures necessary to achieve 
all of our objectives in Kosovo. Accordingly, I support this 
resolution, although I consider it to be only a halfway measure. It is 
not a statutory authorization, even though it purports to be such, and 
it addresses itself only to the present military air operation by NATO 
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  As I previously stated, I believe that it would be both timely and 
prudent for the administration to come to the Congress with a request 
for statutory authorization for any and all measures necessary to bring 
about our stated objectives in Kosovo. We do not want to encourage Mr. 
Milosevic to believe that our Nation is not prepared to pursue victory, 
and we do not want him to believe that he can wait us out and his will 
is superior to our manifest determination in this matter.
  I believe that this measure advances, in a modest way, our 
determination of support for an end to the brutality in Kosovo and, 
accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. 
The Congress needs to have a voice in the involvement of the United 
States in Operation Allied Force. We should stand up and express our 
support for our troops and our allies in NATO.
  We must also take this opportunity to show to President Milosevic 
that we are united in our belief and determination that this campaign 
of terror must be stopped. We must continue to work with our NATO 
allies to restore peace to the region, to ensure that the Kosovo 
Albanians who want to return to their homes can be allowed to do so 
under peaceful circumstances, and we must continue to ensure that Mr. 
Milosevic will withdraw his military and paramilitary forces from 
Kosovo and, ultimately, provide for self-governance in Kosovo.
  To accomplish these goals we must participate in Operation Allied 
Force and support the air strikes. We are steadily diminishing the 
power of Mr. Milosevic and his military forces. For the United States 
to withdraw from this attack at this moment would undermine the entire 
NATO effort and would, in effect, validate Mr. Milosevic's inexcusable 
and terrible campaign of ethnic cleansing.

                              {time}  1845

  Our NATO allies have stepped up to the plate in Kosovo. Leaders of 
the NATO alliance have recently reaffirmed their commitment and resolve 
to continue the air strikes until we stop President Milosevic. This is 
the time for Congress to step up and to endorse those air strikes.
  The Senate concurrent resolution authorizes the President to conduct 
military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia. Passage of this resolution will express our 
endorsement of these strikes and send a strong message to President 
Milosevic that we are unified with our allies. This will also send a 
strong message to our troops in the field.
  Fifty years ago we formed NATO to work together for the security of 
Europe. The cold war has ended and communism has ended. However, there 
is a great need for us to work to assure the safety and stability of 
countries in Europe who have been our partners for over 50 years.
  We can continue this good work by adopting this resolution today, 
sending a message that we are united as a country and determine our 
resolve to stop the slaughter in Kosovo.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  I hope Members will think very seriously about this resolution, 
because what this resolution says is that this House is about to take 
ownership in what the President has put us into since he started 
bombing Kosovo. So I think we should think very, very seriously whether 
we are going to take ownership of the bombing of Kosovo.
  Let us go back a little ways. Let us go back to even the negotiations 
in Rambouillet. I do not think many Members of this House have even 
read the provisions of the peace agreement in Rambouillet. One of the 
provisions of the peace agreement was that Milosevic had to agree to 
allow foreign troops, the peacekeeping troops, to have free reign over 
the entire country of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo, but the entire 
country of Yugoslavia, which put Milosevic in a very untenable 
situation. No wonder he was not going to sign this agreement.
  Then the Secretary of State, who believes in bombing to support her 
diplomacy, decides that we are going to bomb him to the peace table and 
make him sign something that would actually slit his throat with his 
own people.
  Then after trying to force him with bombing, and I remind Members of 
the briefings that we had with this administration, the first 
briefings, that frankly scared me to death because those briefings with 
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us that this was no big deal,

[[Page 7786]]

that we were going to bomb for a couple of days, 48 hours, and then 
stop bombing and Milosevic would come to the table.
  When asked the question, what if he does not come to the table, they 
said, well, we will go to Phase 2; and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for 
a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie. And 
when we asked, ``Then, what?'' then they said, well, we will bomb for 
another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will 
be all over with. And then when we asked, ``Then, what?'' there was 
silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along 
than 2 weeks.
  And Phase 3. That is what brought us to the bombing, my colleagues. 
Once they started bombing and found out that Milosevic was a pretty 
tough customer and that the Serbian people were pretty tough people 
that have been through these kind of things before, and some people 
have said that the Germans had something like 20 divisions in 
Yugoslavia trying to route the Serbians out of those mountains and 
those caves, and they could not do it.
  So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an 
unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it 
out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are three reasons why it is 
legitimate, why our actions in Yugoslavia should be authorized by this 
Congress: Number one, the strength of NATO; number two, our experience 
with Milosevic; and number 3, the alternative of doing nothing.
  It is in our vital interest that there be a strong and resolute NATO. 
Think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers, sailors, and 
airmen that were lost in Europe because we did not have NATO when we 
needed NATO.
  We need NATO now. We need to act with NATO. We need a strong NATO. 
And if we do, we will not have to be the world's peacekeeper in the 
future.
  Second, our experience with Milosevic, because NATO did not get 
involved when it had an opportunity, such as in 1992, when it was 
recommended; what resulted, with the same leadership, Mr. Milosevic, 
200,000 lives were lost, 2\1/2\ million people were displaced, 40,000 
women were raped. It could have been prevented had NATO acted when it 
had the opportunity.
  But thirdly, think of the alternative. This is the fault line, my 
colleagues, between the Muslim and the Orthodox worlds. This is the 
fault line that has existed for generations. If we had not gotten 
involved in a multilateral action, NATO taking the leadership, think 
what would have happened. Extremists would have been involved.
  We know what Milosevic was going to do, why he had 40,000 troops 
amassed on the border, why he did not want to compromise at 
Rambouillet, because he knew exactly what he was going to do; and he 
did it. But if he had done that and NATO had not gotten involved, do my 
colleagues really think other nations would have stood by? Of course 
they would not have. We would have had the Mujahidin getting involved. 
We would have had Islamic extremists getting involved.
  And do my colleagues really think Russia then would not have gotten 
involved if there had not been the strength of NATO taking the 
leadership here?
  My colleagues, we are doing the only responsible thing. This is not 
the United States acting unilaterally. We are acting multilaterally. We 
are acting with NATO. We are acting in the long-term interests of this 
country. We are doing the right thing, for a number of reasons. And the 
Congress should be supporting it. They should vote ``aye'' today.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleagues, particularly on 
this side of the aisle. We can question whether we should have ever 
gone in. But we are in. And if we do not win, we might as well withdraw 
from NATO, fold it up, because the credibility will be gone.
  The message that we send to Saddam, to Iran, to Qadhafi, to Korea, to 
China, to Russia, is that we do not have the resolution, we do not have 
the will. Think about it.
  This past Saturday, I was privileged to have lunch with two foreign 
policy experts, Henry Kissinger and Ziggy Brzezinski. I posed these 
questions to them. They said, send me a letter and we will reply. And 
Dr. Kissinger sent this response to me:

       Prior to the initiation of the bombing, I repeatedly 
     expressed my uneasiness about the Rambouillet process. But, 
     having begun the military operation, we must win it 
     militarily. To back down would demonstrate a dangerous lack 
     of commitment and credibility, both to nations tempted to 
     take advantage of our perceived weakness and to our NATO 
     allies.
  From Dr. Brzezinski:

       I have your letter of April 26. Let me state unequivocally 
     that in my view it is absolutely essential that NATO should 
     prevail fully, and thus without making any compromises 
     regarding the demand it made prior to the bombing, in the 
     course of the current Kosovo conflict. Failure to do so would 
     be most damaging to America's global leadership and would 
     doubtlessly undermine both the credibility and the cohesion 
     of NATO. Accordingly, the U.S. Congress should encourage the 
     President to use all means necessary to successfully complete 
     the ongoing mission.
  I could not say it any better.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters to which I 
referred.
                                            Center for Strategic &


                                        International Studies,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Bliley,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bliley: I have your letter of April 26. 
     Let me state unequivocally that in my view it is absolutely 
     essential that NATO should prevail fully--and thus without 
     making any compromises regarding the demands it made prior to 
     the bombing--in the course of the current Kosovo conflict. 
     Failure to do so would be most damaging to America's global 
     leadership and would doubtlessly undermine both the 
     credibility and the cohesion of NATO. Accordingly, the U.S. 
     Congress should encourage the President to use all the means 
     necessary to successfully complete the ongoing mission.
           Yours sincerely,
     Zbigniew Brzezinski.
                                  ____



                                                 New York, NY,

                                                   April 27, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Bliley,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Bliley: This is in response to your 
     letter of yesterday.
       Prior to the initiation of the bombing, I repeatedly 
     expressed my uneasiness about the Rambouillet process. But, 
     having begun the military operation, we must win it 
     militarily. To back down would demonstrate a dangerous lack 
     of commitment and credibility, both to nations tempted to 
     take advantage of our perceived weakness and to our NATO 
     allies.
       I have stated this view repeatedly and publicly--in an 
     article in Newsweek and in my recent testimony before the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee (both of which I enclose), as 
     well as in numerous television interviews: ABC's ``This 
     Week'' with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, CNN, Fox News, 
     Charlie Rose, CNBC, Reuters TV, as well as the BBC, ARD 
     (German TV), Britain's ITN and various other American and 
     European networks.
       I would be glad to have you refer to this letter in the 
     coming debate in the House of Representatives, if it would be 
     useful.
       I enjoyed our discussion at luncheon at the Romanian 
     Embassy.
           Sincerely,
                                               Henry A. Kissinger.

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, one of the truest sayings is that ``second 
place does not count on the battlefield.''
  We are engaged in a conflict to bring the Europeans' last dictator 
into light. It has to be a victory for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. It has to be a victory for the United States to bring 
Milosevic to the table, to do what is right by the refugees, to get 
them back to their home, to make sure there is autonomy for these 
people. But more than that, it is a matter of credibility for NATO and 
for the United States.
  If the world perceives NATO, led by our country, not winning and not 
being

[[Page 7787]]

successful in this effort, NATO will then become a paper-debating 
society. That we cannot have.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution, even though I am not opposed to air strikes philosophically 
in the Balkans as a vehicle to achieving American policy.
  Unfortunately, the policy of this administration, which includes air 
strikes, has been confusing and sometimes incoherent. Air strikes as 
part of a policy that would recognize Kosovo, and part of that policy 
would be arming the Kosovars to defend themselves, certainly might have 
been a respectable plan at one point.
  Instead, this administration is using bombing to force both parties 
into accepting a plan in which American troops would be garrisoned in 
the Balkans for years and years to come. This is total nonsense. And we 
will be spending tens of billions of dollars and putting American lives 
at stake in order to achieve what? The garrisoning of troops, leaving 
the troops in the Balkans all of those years?
  This is a blank check, my colleagues. This resolution is a blank 
check for an air war which will lead to tens of billions of dollars and 
American blood being shed. And do my colleagues know where that check 
is going to be cashed? It will be cashed at the bank that is holding 
the money for the Social Security Trust Fund. It is going to be cashed 
at the bank that is supposed to be paying for the defense of our 
country all over the world. Because we are going to be spending the 
money, instead of buying ammunition and making sure our defenders are 
safe overseas, we are going to be wasting that money in the Balkans on 
big explosions. It is going to make us worse off. We are not going to 
be as safe.
  And as far as NATO goes, this is an organization that did its job. 
Are we now to be the policemen of the world? And because we are part of 
NATO, to keep an organization going, finding a purpose for it, we are 
going to spend our money all over the world, send our troops all over 
the world, in order to create stability wherever there is not 
stability? American lives are going to be put on the line?
  This will, in the end, cost American lives. It will break our bank. 
We will not be able to deter the aggression in Asia and from China and 
elsewhere where there are serious threats. Oppose this resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I support Senate Concurrent Resolution 21.
  The reason I could not support the other alternatives is because I 
think it would be wrong to withdraw. I also believe it would be wrong 
to hamstring our Commander in Chief's authority to conduct operations. 
And finally, I believe it would be wrong to declare war.
  My major concern is that all of these options send the wrong signal. 
Neither with respect to NATO nor President Milosevic should we even 
hint that we might withdraw block funds for further development.

                              {time}  1900

  Nothing would make Milosevic happier than knowing the power and the 
might of the United States would no longer be fully engaged. By the 
same token, we should never suggest to our own forces that our full 
support for their effort may be less than forthcoming. What we need to 
do is to authorize the continuation of the current effort and give the 
current effort more time to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said it before. You cannot run the Department of 
Defense like a business, with 535 Members of a board of directors. The 
same thing goes for foreign policy and military operations. You cannot 
substitute the opinions of these board members for the sound judgment 
of Chairman Shelton and General Clark and Secretary Cohen and, yes, the 
Commander in Chief. We should not get into the details of whether ``you 
can do this mission, but you can't do that mission.'' That is like the 
Vietnam War with the President choosing Vietnam targets on sand tables 
in the White House basement. It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and 
Congress should not be part of it.
  What Congress should do is to affirm or deny the general policy and 
turn over the details to the war fighters. I believe that the Gejdenson 
amendment, which has already gotten bipartisan support in the other 
body, makes the best sense in the current situation. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I just want to point out one thing. All we are doing in all of 
these resolutions today is sending messages. I think we have sent some 
pretty strong messages. I imagine tonight if there is a television 
capability in Belgrade that the Belgrade television will say Congress, 
U.S. Congress votes 430-2 against war against Yugoslavia.
  But with respect to this particular message that we are sending, we 
mention in this resolution, Montenegro. I do not think that there is a 
Member of this body who thinks that we should be bombing Montenegro. I 
agree that we should be bombing Belgrade, and I support the President 
in that respect. But I do not think we ought to send a message to the 
people of Montenegro that this Congress is in favor of bombs being 
dropped in that part of the world because they indeed are struggling, 
struggling to create a democratic form of government, struggling to do 
what we are requesting they do. I think that if we send a message, we 
should make certain that the people of Montenegro know that we are 
supportive of their efforts and sorry they are in the dilemma they are 
in.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask each Member to seriously 
consider voting for this resolution. As I enter this debate, I think it 
is worthwhile tonight at 7 o'clock here in Washington to take into 
account the votes that we have taken and the messages that we have sent 
from this Chamber this afternoon, today.
  First, we have said that we do not want a general declaration of war 
against Serbia. Second, we have said that we do not want to withdraw 
all of our troops out of the region. Third, we have said that if there 
is to be a ground war, we want the President to come back here and get 
a vote from this body.
  If we now vote against what the Senate passed 4 weeks ago in a 
bipartisan way, a simple authorization of what is now happening on the 
ground in Kosovo and around Kosovo, we will send a message to our young 
men and women who are out there trying to carry out this policy that we 
have conflicting signals on war or withdrawal or what we are going to 
do about a ground war, but we send the clearest signal of the day that 
we do not even want to authorize what we are doing.
  It also will send a message to Mr. Milosevic and his leadership that 
the House of Representatives of the United States of America is totally 
confused and certainly is not behind what is happening. I do not think 
that is the message we want to send. If we learned anything from 
Vietnam, I think we should have learned that before we commit our 
troops and put them in the field and leave them out there with 
ambivalence, that we have to stand finally behind something.
  I know there are lots of worries by Members here about ground troops. 
I have worries about ground troops. I have not decided how I would vote 
on ground troops. But I have decided that what we are doing with 19 
other nations of NATO is the right thing for our country to do. If it 
is to succeed, we must be unified together as a people, behind the 
effort, and America must be unified with NATO in its first affirmative 
action in 50 years, since it was conceived, to move forward to try to

[[Page 7788]]

end this killing and mayhem that is going on and has been going on for 
weeks now in Kosovo.
  I urge Members to put aside partisan feelings and political goals and 
objectives. That can have no place in this consideration. There is not 
a Republican Army or a Democratic Army or a Republican Air Force or a 
Democratic Air Force. This is the United States of America. Our young 
people, our best, are out there tonight doing what we have asked them 
to do. At the very least, we owe them and NATO an affirmation that we 
as the representatives of the American people at least support what is 
happening now, without prejudging or saying what we would do about 
other propositions that might come later.
  I urge Members to support this resolution. The Senate passed it 4 
weeks ago with a bipartisan vote. Fifty-seven Members of the Senate 
voted for this resolution. I think it would be a grave error if we 
would not support it tonight. I urge Members to search their 
conscience, I urge Members to stand behind this policy for the sake of 
the United States, for the sake of our young people, for the sake of 
our future.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the distinguished 
minority leader that this is not about partisanship, it is about 
policy. We have an advantage here tonight in that we are being asked to 
authorize something that happened 5 weeks ago. That gives us the 
advantage because we can see the immediate effects. We have got the 
benefit here of a crystal ball to see what the results will be of the 
President's policy.
  The question for all of us is, do you want to stand behind this? Is 
this the policy and the results that you want? Because if it is not, 
you will be endorsing everything that has gone on in the last 5 weeks 
and taking on the risk of what will happen in the future.
  What have we seen? The political aims are not clear and they have not 
been from the very beginning. Mostly they are humanitarian. Our 
objective was to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the Balkans. We 
have exacerbated that humanitarian disaster, and hundreds of thousands 
of Kosovar Albanians have been pushed out of their homes and those 
homes burned because our military means were not tied to those 
political objectives.
  I am a former Air Force officer. I believe in air power, as my father 
did and my grandfather before him. And despite the images that we see 
on our televisions of precise attacks, we can hit the bridges, but we 
cannot change the mind of Slobodan Milosevic. As a result, we have not 
been able to stop a door-to-door campaign of repression and ethnic 
cleansing, and we have made it worse.
  The refugees themselves enhance the instability of the Balkans. We 
have pushed those refugees into neighboring countries which themselves 
are fragile, and we will have to deal with the consequences of that for 
the coming decade. We have increased domestic support for Milosevic and 
enhanced Serbian nationalism in Serbia. That does not serve NATO 
interests or American national interests.
  And we have stretched our forces dangerously thin. We are almost out 
of cruise missiles. Fully a fifth of the American Air Force is 
committed and tied down in the Balkans. What kind of risk does that put 
us in in Korea? We are a superpower, but much of our power comes from 
our own restraint and the threat of the use of that power.
  NATO will endure. I used to serve at the United States Mission to 
NATO. It will continue to have the credibility to do that which is in 
its vital interests to do and that, Mr. Speaker, is the fundamental 
problem. This is not in the vital national interests of the United 
States. If it were, we would be there, foursquare, with decisive 
military force to get the job done and come home. But because it is 
not, we cannot sustain this operation. I will not vote to support an 
action which has been shown to fail.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have a great deal of respect for our new colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and her unique expertise, but I flat out 
disagree with her in a couple of important respects. I believe it is 
ludicrous to assume that but for the NATO air campaign, Slobodan 
Milosevic would not have turned 1 million people out of their homes. He 
could not, Mr. Speaker, forcibly evict 1 million people from their 
homes in 2 weeks without having a very thoroughly developed plan well 
in advance. Do not kid yourselves. This was on the game plan of 
Slobodan Milosevic and would have occurred irrespective of the NATO air 
campaign.
  I also disagree with my colleague in believing that it is time to 
pack it in, to let Slobodan Milosevic have his evil way. The 
gentlewoman from New Mexico supported that approach in a vote earlier 
today and it was rejected. We must now stand together, just like 
happened in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, to support the air 
campaign.
  A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a vote for our troops, a 
vote for NATO, a vote for American leadership and a vote to end the 
ethnic slaughter in Kosovo. Children and the elderly are dying by the 
side of the road today as Serb forces shove them to the border. 
Thousands and thousands of young men have disappeared, many more 
murdered perhaps right now, even as I am speaking. We cannot turn our 
back on this dimension of ethnic cleansing.
  While we send an unequivocal message to Milosevic, let us send with 
this resolution an equally clear message to our troops and all of the 
troops, Americans and others, involved in the NATO engagement. We need 
to support our troops and can do so with this resolution.
  I regret and regret very much we have no alternatives but to continue 
with this intervention. It is now our only option. I urge my 
colleagues' support.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans have big hearts. It is one 
of our best traits. Whenever we see killing anywhere, injustice 
anywhere, we want to stop it, even if our national interests are not at 
stake.
  On Kosovo, having good intentions and a bad plan have proven to hurt 
the very people we are trying to help. We have increased human 
suffering. We have not stopped it. We have spread instability rather 
than prevented it. With the lessons of the Vietnam War barely cold on 
our plates, here we go again. Like Vietnam, we wage a war we are not 
committed to win, by the seat of the pants, war by committee, war by 
posters, war by the politically correct. It is having fatal results.

                              {time}  1915

  Worst of all, we forgot the most important lesson of Vietnam. It is 
fatal to enter a war without the will to win it. Those who sought this 
war lack the political courage to win it. To aggressively target 
Slobodan Milosevic, his leaders in the Serbian Army he commands, they 
have forgotten what General MacArthur has told us. War's very object is 
victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for 
victory.
  If a lethal criminal entered our home, entered our school, entered an 
airport, entered our neighborhood and began to gun down innocent 
families, it would be the first responsibility of law enforcement to 
stop them cold, now, to bring the shooter down without flinching. 
History will record in Kosovo an America that flinched, and the lives 
of Kosovars fell around us because we were unwilling and lacked the 
courage to bring the shooter down, the leaders, the Army and to end the 
atrocities.
  There is nothing humanitarian about a policy that puts American 
pilots' and fighters' lives on the line so that

[[Page 7789]]

Milosevic can live. There is nothing just about a policy that allows 
Kosovars to die cold and hungry and lonely on the side of the road 
while we preserve Serbian troops, our enemies, the killers on the very 
day American pilots flew into Yugoslavia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should 
flinch either, and I do not see how denying any authority to continue 
this is nonflinching. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) whose efforts forced this House against its 
will to stop hiding.
  There were 2 aspects to this issue. One, what is the policy choice in 
Yugoslavia? It is an unhappy choice. I believe that the policy of 
continued bombing in conjunction with our allies, and it is awkward to 
carry out an allied policy, but it is better than an unilateral one. 
When we accept the strength of an alliance, we take constraints with 
it. I think that is the best policy in a set of bad choices.
  The House now has to make a choice, and it is inappropriate for this 
great elected body of representatives, when confronted with a difficult 
choice, to say: None of the above. But if we vote down this resolution, 
that is what we are doing. Thanks to the efforts and the integrity of 
the gentleman from California who insisted we face up to our 
responsibilities, we voted. We voted not to pull out.
  Now 139 people who voted not to pull out can consistently vote 
against this. But are we to be told that there are dozens, maybe 100, 
125 Members who do not think we should pull out but simply do not want 
to be blamed for staying in? We had one comment say:
  Oh, well, we should not take ownership of this.
  That is an inappropriate attitude for people who are elected. The 
draft does not work here. We all ran for this job, and a lot of it is 
fun, and sometimes it is not, and having to help ratify this unpleasant 
choice is one of those moments when it is the least fun, the least 
attractive. But we do not have the option of simply copping out. 
Members could be against this, they can be for it, but they cannot vote 
for none of the above. They cannot conscientiously say it is too hard, 
I will vote over here, and I will vote over there.
  I am delighted that we have a chance here to pass a concurrent 
resolution to have a combined policy, House and Senate, which says we 
support this current military policy. Members may be opposed to the 
military policy, and then they should have voted for the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), or they can be 
in favor of it and they should vote for this. But punting is not an 
option; it is not football season. We cannot simply say:
  Let this one pass from us.
  I voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling). I voted for it because I do think before we commit 
ground troops, this House ought to vote. But I must say I have some 
second thoughts about putting that authority into the hands of a group 
of people, some of whom say, ``Gee, can I duck the hard one?'', and 
that is what we are talking about now. If people thought the policy was 
wrong and we should pull out, they had a chance to vote that way.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope people will not simply try to duck a tough issue 
and will vote to ratify the least unpalatable choice.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts I agree with him with the need for consistency, and 
I will consistently be opposing this action and will vote against it, 
and for several reasons.
  First of all, we had the minority leader talk earlier today about how 
this was, quote, the first affirmative action by NATO. What he is 
saying is actually this is a radical extreme departure in the history 
of NATO, the first time they have attacked on the offensive instead of 
being defensive. This is an extreme radical departure for NATO, make no 
mistake of it, and guess who is paying for that extremism and 
radicalism? It will be the men and women who are in my district, who 
are in five military bases, whose sons and daughters go to the public 
schools of my children. It is very easy to play fast and lose with 
military tradition, very easy to make an extreme radical departure for 
the first time in 50 years of a defensive alliance, but that is 
happening in this situation.
  We also see the ghosts of LBJ rising like from the mist of the 
Potomac where we have a President who is selecting bombing targets in a 
war. We have Madeleine Albright going on television, on PBS, declaring 
early on that this was going to be a short, clean, tidy war.
  These people do not know what they have gotten into. It is a 610-
year-old ethnic war, civil war, religious war, and, yes, Milosevic is a 
murderer. He has murdered according to the New York Times 3700 people.
  But I see the selective outrage up here. I hear nothing about those 
that want to support the KLA who were murderous. I hear nothing about 
the 60 million killed in China over the past 50 years. I hear nothing 
about the 2 million killed in Sudan. Of course there is an oil pipeline 
that Occidental Petroleum wanted to get through Sudan, so I heard no 
moral outrage then. I hear no moral outrage about the 1 million people 
slaughtered in Rwanda. Of course they are not the same color as a lot 
of us.
  I mean let us not go here and beat our chests in moral self-righteous 
indignation if we are not willing to apply the same test to every 
region that we want to start wars in.
  I will oppose it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida would have heard a 
great deal about all of those outrages had he been active in the 
Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The folks who cry crocodile tears 
for all these people who have been killed and tortured and murdered are 
nowhere to be seen when we are dealing with human rights issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the greatness of this country is measured by the moments 
when we act in a bipartisan fashion. It was the Marshall Plan, it was 
NATO, and it was all the bipartisan measures passed by our predecessors 
that created the great moments of American history in the 20th century.
  In the other body 16 of my colleagues' Republican colleagues, some of 
the most distinguished members of the Republican party, Senator John 
McCain, their most credible presidential candidate, Senator Lugar of 
Indiana, the foreign policy expert, Senator John Warner, head of the 
Armed Services Committee and 13 others voted for this identical 
resolution. They have risen to a high level of bipartisanship.
  Now I have some credentials along those lines. I stood up with 
President Bush 8 years ago and voted to support that President because 
I felt the national interest was at stake. It is no less at stake 
today. The blind hatred that is so apparent on the part of some of my 
colleagues towards this administration makes it impossible to make 
rational judgments.
  What we are asking for is to get our troops the feeling that the 
Congress is behind what they are doing day and night under the most 
difficult circumstances. That is all that this resolution calls for. 
And John McCain saw fit to vote for it, as did 15 other distinguished 
Republican senators. They have taken ownership, if I may borrow the 
phrase of the Republican whip, they have taken ownership of this 
measure because this is an American engagement. It is not a Republican 
or a Democratic engagement, just as the Marshall Plan was an American 
engagement and NATO was an American engagement.
  We are seeing a miracle unfold. Nineteen nations of the most 
disparate types are united, but our own House of Representatives has 
risen with division. Vote for this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

[[Page 7790]]


  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. In response to some reckless words from the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) first of all, they were not 
crocodile tears. It was my resolution that passed on Sudan last year. 
My colleague can ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) or 
anybody else, that I have been on the forefront for human rights in 
China, and I challenge my colleague to check the Congressional Record 
over the past year and-a-half or 2 years. If anybody has spoken out 
more on human rights than myself, I would like my colleague to let me 
know.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious that the President 
does not need this resolution to use air power because he is already 
using it. He needs Senate Con. Resolution 21 because, if it passes, 
both houses of Congress will have satisfied the War Powers Resolution 
to authorize force, and that effectively gives the President the power 
to wage an unlimited war even with ground troops.
  Section 5 of the War Powers Resolution states that the President must 
terminate the use of force after 60 days unless Congress, first, 
declares war; second, enacts explicit authorization of the use of 
force; or third, extends the 60-day period. Although Senate Con. 
Resolution 21 refers only to air war, it is an explicit authorization 
of force. The President will not be limited to only air war once the 
War Powers Resolution requirement is fulfilled. Since this resolution 
authorizes the President to conduct military operations against 
Yugoslavia in the air, its passage by the House is, in fact, a blank 
check for the President to wage war, not only to bomb, but to send 
ground troops.
  If Senate Con. Resolution 21 should fail, then the war in Yugoslavia 
will be limited to air war, which is what is now being waged, and no 
ground troops, and the President will have to get Congress' 
authorization to deploy ground troops at a later time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) for yielding this time to me.
  I would like to start with a quote by a man called Jacob Brownoski 
that I think is apropos to this situation. In it he says there are two 
parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies 
the means, that deliberate deafness to suffering has become the monster 
of the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit where 
a nation becomes a nation of ghosts, obedient ghosts or tortured 
ghosts. The road to war is paved with unchecked ignorance, arrogance 
and dogma.
  What is our national interest in Yugoslavia? It is peace and 
stability in a democratic process where all men are created equal. It 
is in our national interest to check the road to war that has caused 
the dilemma that we are now in.
  I am going to vote in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us 
this evening, and in doing so, yes, I want to stipulate to the work of 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for human rights in China, 
and let us say that everybody in this room cannot tolerate the 
atrocities, the brutality that Milosevic has exacted upon the people of 
Kosovo.

                              {time}  1930

  Let us not have a fight about anyone's sincerity on the issue. But in 
supporting this resolution, I want to say what it is not. This 
resolution is not a declaration of war. It is not a blank check for the 
President. It does not authorize the use of ground troops.
  In fact, I do not support ground troops in Yugoslavia. It is 
interesting though to hear those who have criticized President Clinton 
for taking ground troops off the table as an option now say that they 
do not support this because it could lead to the authorization of 
ground troops. It is interesting to hear the same people who want to 
double the appropriation from $6 billion to $12 billion and those are 
on the majority side of the aisle say they do not want to support the 
military action that that funding is being appropriated for.
  So how can we have it both ways? We criticize the President for no 
ground troops, but we do not want to support this resolution because it 
could lead to ground troops. We do not want to support this resolution 
because it supports the President's policy on the flights and the 
strikes, and yet we want to double the amount of money that is there. 
It reminds me of Yogi Berra who said of a restaurant, ``I don't like 
the food in that restaurant, and, besides, they don't give you 
enough.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us sound a resounding vote of yes on this 
resolution, so Milosevic can hear it, so our flyers in the area can 
hear it, and for the children who are displaced in the region.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I look around this room and I see my senior 
colleagues, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and I realize 
very clearly that over the years as the baton has passed from one 
generation to the next in this political body, that those men and women 
who serve here manage to make sure that the young men and women who 
serve in our Armed Forces are used properly for vital national security 
interests.
  I am proud to be here as a new Member. I take very seriously my 
charge to vouchsafe and keep secure the interests of those young babies 
now who come to our country as new citizens from birth and what have 
you. And I absolutely do not understand, Mr. Speaker, what the vital 
national security interest that senior Members of this body on both 
sides of the aisle have protected for years and years, what national 
security interest it is that we are proposing to protect by conducting 
a unquantified and unidentified military campaign in Yugoslavia, 
whether it be in the air or on the ground.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the stability of 
Europe, which is supported by all of the NATO leaders, is very much in 
the interest of America's national security. I would also suggest that 
what is extreme and radical is not the action of our NATO allies. What 
is extreme and radical have been the actions of the modern day Hitler, 
Slobodan Milosevic.
  I do not think we should write a blank check in this matter, and this 
resolution does not. Let us be clear about that. What we can do in 
voting for this resolution though is check the power of someone who has 
killed not 3,700, but hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and 
children. How ironic it would be that the NATO leaders who left this 
Nation's capital just a few days ago unified to stand up to that reign 
of terror would have that unity now undermined by those of us who work 
in this Capitol.
  Let us recognize that if we stop the air war now, Milosevic wins, 
NATO loses; the ethnic cleanser wins, and Europe's stability loses. 
Every other two-bit terrorist in the world would be emboldened to 
emulate this modern day Holocaust.
  If this measure is defeated now, especially in light of the passage 
of the Fowler resolution earlier, what we will have done today is this: 
We have said we are not yet ready to support a ground war, and now we 
are not even sure we want to continue supporting an action of an air 
war supported unanimously by our NATO allies.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle, please, 
in a bipartisan vote, do not send this message

[[Page 7791]]

to Mr. Milosevic. Let us send him a clear message, that while we are 
not quite sure if we want to commit to ground troops today or any day, 
we do not believe that God's gift of life and liberty stops at the 
American border. Let us support this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all why we cannot 
have this debate with the clear feeling and understanding that this is 
not about politics, this is not about party. Some of us just think he 
is wrong, this is wrong-headed foreign policy.
  I believe that in my absolute soul. We do not need to be attacking 
from the air, we do not need to be attacking with ground troops. We 
need to get out of the Balkans. It is going to lead to a disaster that 
will carry us well into the 21st century, and primarily because it is 
not in our national interest. I totally disagree with that.
  Is it a humanitarian cause? Absolutely. And are there ways we should 
deal with that? Yes. But we need a leader, not a commander-in-chief. We 
needed a leader to deal with this with Europe.
  Many, many, many months now have gone by. I have been there and done 
this, Mr. Speaker. I watched this occur as a young man when we went to 
Vietnam. I did not question the Congress and I did not question the 
President. He said we needed to go, and I was ready to go.
  I will tell you another thing. Those of you who think this is such a 
clear-cut mission, perhaps if you are young enough, and I consider 
myself, maybe we ought to resign from Congress and go into the Balkans. 
Let us fight through the mountains over there with the Marines, if that 
is what you believe is so important; and if you are not young enough to 
go, send your sons. That is the question: Will you let your son die for 
humanitarian interests that we well should put on the backs of the 
Europeans?
  It is time for them to grow up. We need a leader who is sanctioning 
Britain and sanctioning France and talking to Russia and saying you 
guys have been burned down twice in this century, you need to be in the 
Balkans. You need to have peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this one minute, and I hope 
no one will, because I agree this may allow him to put ground troops 
in.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. It is identical to the resolution passed by the other body 
in March. It expresses Congress' support for our forces caring out a 
brave mission. It sends an important message to Slobodan Milosevic that 
his savage campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar Albanians 
will not be tolerated.
  Mr. Milosevic continues to wage war on ethnic Albanians. His acts of 
violence, mass murder of civilians, driving 950,000 people, whole 
communities, from their homes to refugee camps in foreign countries, 
have forced our hand. If left unchecked, he will continue his crimes in 
Kosovo.
  I heard a Member opposed to our mission in Kosovo earlier today 
compare this action to the Gulf War and say that the difference was 
that we had a national interest in the Gulf; oil. Well, I do not know 
the going rate for a barrel of oil today, but I do know that you can 
put no price on the lives of men, women and children who have been 
slaughtered in Kosovo.
  It is in our national interest to stop genocide. We have witnessed a 
grave humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and a destabilization of the region 
and neighboring countries like Macedonia and Albania.
  By endorsing air strikes now, Congress is not tying its hands in the 
future. Congress can still and I believe should vote on sending ground 
troops if we reach that point in the future.
  Vote to authorize air strikes in Yugoslavia. Let our young men and 
women in the Armed Forces know that our prayers and our support are 
with them as they fight to counter aggression and to foster peace.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. 
First, as was expressed by some of my colleagues in their concern 
earlier today on our first resolution when they had concerns with 
wording, I believe this resolution is very poorly drafted, and those 
that had that concern earlier I am sure must share that concern on this 
resolution, because it authorizes the President ``to conduct military 
air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia.''
  Now, this appears to authorize the President to conduct airborne 
operations; in other words, drop paratroopers into the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia.
  It also authorizes the President to pursue ``missile strikes'' of an 
unspecified variety, which theoretically could include strategic 
weapons.
  Moreover, I oppose this measure because, as one of those in the 
leadership who met with the President twice prior to the bombing, I 
joined many of my colleagues from both parties in asking the President 
face-to-face to seek specific authorization from the Congress before 
proceeding with any air campaign. He ignored that request. Today I 
cannot in good conscience retroactively authorize him to do something 
that I did not support and that he undertook without regard for the 
Congress' responsibilities under the Constitution and the very direct 
bipartisan advice he received before he began the bombing.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to 
authorize United States involvement in the NATO air operations against 
Slobodan Milosevic's military force.
  It is both in our strategic and humanitarian interests to end the 
vicious ethnic cleansing campaign that Slobodan Milosevic is pursuing 
in Kosovo. His actions have threatened the stability of southern 
Europe, jeopardized our efforts to maintain peace in other parts of the 
Balkans and unleashed a flood of refugees into poor and underequipped 
nations in the region. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we must take 
action to end this tragedy.
  A couple of weeks ago I traveled to Brussels with Secretary Cohen. I 
met with General Clark and the delegates of our NATO allies. The 
resolve that every person and every country involved in this operation 
showed then was reinforced this past weekend in Washington.
  The truth is, our air campaign is working. We are knocking out the 
infrastructure of Mr. Milosevic's military and isolating his troops in 
Kosovo. If we continue to take out the four corners of his fighting 
machine, his whole house of cards will come crashing down.
  We must make clear to Mr. Milosevic that the bombing campaign will 
not cease until he withdraws his troops and allows the citizens of 
Kosovo to return to a life of peace and autonomy. I urge my colleagues 
to support this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Chair would advise Members 
that since this resolution was taken directly from the table, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has the right to close.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 7 minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, we have sons and we have daughters of 
America in Apaches, in F-16s, in submarines, fighting for principle and 
fighting against ethnic cleansing.
  Now, we can do nothing; we can ignore the horrific holocaust. That is 
not acceptable. We can send in ground troops, and that is not an option 
for me, for many of our NATO allies, or for our troops. But we can 
support this authorization to conduct military air operations against 
Yugoslavia.

[[Page 7792]]



                              {time}  1945

  We must now aggressively and vigorously pursue victory for our 
people, for principle against ethnic cleansing, and for NATO. Defeat is 
not acceptable.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support our policy on Kosovo. Some 
in this debate have said our goal is not clear, but our goal is to stop 
Milosevic's slaughter of Albanian Kosovars, to prevent the spread of 
conflict, and to permit the Kosovars to return safely home. Our allies 
share that objective.
  This century is the bloodiest in human history and the world's 
democracies must stand against Slobodan Milosevic's bloody repression 
if we hope to deter other tyrants from engaging in ethnic slaughter.
  In Kosovo there are no clear answers, no good options, but to do 
nothing in the face of Milosevic's barbarity would be barbarous itself.
  Some see Kosovo as another Vietnam. I disagree. Kosovo is another 
Cambodia, another Rwanda. Let us learn the lesson of those in other 
killing fields and not allow our belated or inadequate response then to 
compound this tragedy today. The lack of a perfect choice is not an 
excuse to take no action.
  Some here today have declared after 30 days that this policy is a 
failure. Well, we should be made of sterner stuff than that. The young 
men and women in our military are made of sterner stuff than that. We 
need to be patient with this policy in Kosovo. The bombing campaign, 
even with its limitations, should be given time to work. Ground forces 
may yet be required, and we will have that debate. But for now, we 
should maintain our unity, stay the course. America is strong enough to 
see this through.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the day the bombing began, 
this Member stood on the floor and said, this is a tragic day, 
undoubtedly the beginning of a tragic scenario, and that is exactly 
what it was. We have heard today about hamstringing the President. But 
I would like to point out that, in fact, no authorization was requested 
by the President before the bombing began, and he has not asked for 
that authorization to this day.
  This is a gratuitous authorization. I do not think it is wise that it 
is brought up. I wish even at this late date that it would be 
withdrawn. Bombing for peace, bombing for peace is wrong, and it is not 
working. I regret the fact that any of our colleagues would suggest 
that decisions of this gravity are based upon partisan considerations.
  I say to my colleagues, we have a war, in Yugoslavia. We can call it 
whatever we want, but it is a euphemism unless we recognize it is a 
war. It is an unmitigated disaster. Our and NATO's involvement in this 
war is an unmitigated disaster. That is the ugly truth, and everybody 
knows it. They certainly know and talk about it in the Pentagon.
  In the past, NATO, the 12 members, the 16 members, now the 19 
members, were a defensive pact, and for the first time NATO has used 
those forces aggressively. We can imagine what the Soviet Union said, 
and now what the Russians say about NATO as an aggressive force. Well, 
we have just confirmed their worst suspicions and, in fact, we set back 
Russian-American relations dramatically for years to come. We have 
reinforced the wrong people in Russia in the process.
  We cannot say that this war has unintended or unanticipated 
consequences. They were entirely predictable. I had hoped that people 
in the administration would have looked at and understood the history 
of the Balkans. I would have hoped they would have talked to people who 
know Mr. Milosevic and how he came to power.
  I had a chance to visit with the Secretary of State, Secretary of 
Defense, and General Shelton in a meeting convened by the Speaker, a 
bipartisan meeting, and I laid out the dire consequences that I thought 
would prevail if, in fact, the bombing campaign began, and all of those 
predictions but one have come true. The remaining prediction is that 
after starting to bomb we would have combat troops involved in 
Yugoslavia in 2 months. We are a little over a month and counting, and 
we are headed for those combat troops in Yugoslavia.
  Now, look at it from the side of the Albanian militants, the KLA. 
They never wanted autonomy, they wanted independence, and that is what 
they want today. Look at it from the side of the Serbians. We have to 
recognize that Kosovo is sacred ground for the Serbs. It is where they 
all came together in an infamous but courageous defeat in 1389, and 
they have not forgotten what happened on the Field of Blackbirds.
  It is for them the same as if Lexington, Bunker Hill and Yorktown are 
rolled up into one. It is like asking a Texan to give back the Alamo, 
site of another courageous defeat, to the Republic of Mexico. That is 
what it means to the Serbs. Milosevic had no option to give up his 
Serbian control over Kosovo. He did not have that option. And what we 
have predicted, that the Serbs would coalesce around Milosevic, has 
happened. Yes, I say to my colleagues, as negative and terrible an 
individual as Milosevic is, he would now be followed by more Serbian 
leaders who have this very kind of militant, aggressive Serbian 
nationalism re-aroused.
  What has happened, of course, is that Milosevic made his reputation 
in Kosovo by jumping right over his mentor by speaking to the abuses, 
real, alleged and exaggerated, that were taking place against the 
Serbian minority in Kosovo. And that is how he played upon their 
emotions, and that is what has been further ignited by the bombing 
campaign.
  What happened when we threatened we would bomb, and then we held off, 
and we threatened and we threatened? Well, of course, it provided time 
for him to deploy his troops in and around Kosovo, in fact right on the 
Macedonian border, for that matter. And all of the NGOs and independent 
observers, they went out of Kosovo, naturally, and so no one is there 
to report on the atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that were 
accelerated when we began that air war, just as predicted.
  Some people have said, and in fact the Secretary of State said before 
our committee, well, we had no idea he would be so brutal and thorough 
and energetic in the ethnic cleansing. I say to my colleagues, we had 
an object example in Bosnia with Croatian and Serbian ethnic cleansing 
like we had not seen since World War II in Europe. Of course, we had an 
idea of what he would do.
  Were we ready for it? Did we anticipate it? Did the people that 
launched this war have this in mind? Look at the refugees coming out of 
Kosovo into Macedonia and Albania and Montenegro. Look at the people 
dying from all kinds of disease and from hypothermia. NATO was not able 
to take care of them. It is obvious NATO was not ready for it. The 
Administration and NATO did not anticipate this result.
  One of the frustrating things about being on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence at a period of time when Yugoslavia was in 
danger of disintegration was that we had the best information about 
what would happen with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. We knew a 
blood bath was coming in Bosnia where three religious/ethnic groups 
live side by side, and we knew that Kosovo was a tinderbox waiting to 
explode with its Albanian majority, but our vital national interests 
were not involved yet. Where they are and still remain involved is in 
Macedonia. And we should have gone to great lengths never to 
destabilize Macedonia. This air war is, in fact, pushing us towards a 
destabilization of Macedonia. Why is that so important? Because it is 
likely to bring Greece and Turkey, overtly or covertly, in on opposite

[[Page 7793]]

sides, fracturing the NATO alliance, and that, I say to my colleagues, 
is very much against our vital national interests.
  But we have taken steps inadvertently, but predictably, to 
destabilize Macedonia. And yet today, the Yugoslavian military is 
basically intact. All the armor units are setting there; they are not 
using their engines, they are not using fuel, they are in hiding. And 
they have not used their air defense systems at this point. We have 
been attacking, but we have been attacking refineries and bridges and a 
whole variety of things that are important to the long term, but the 
Yugolavians or Serbians military is basically setting there intact. And 
what are we assured on the other side? We have assured the rule of the 
KLA militants in Kosovo beyond this.
  I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at the May-June 1999 issue 
of Foreign Affairs and read the article by Chris Hedges, the former 
Balkan Bureau Chief of the New York Times.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution. Vote against it. I 
voted against the War Powers Act; for strategic and tactical reasons we 
do not want to give that 30-day warning before a withdrawal would 
theoretically be required under the invocations of the War Powers Act. 
I urge my colleagues, do not take this gratuitous step to authorize the 
bombing war.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), our closing Democratic 
speaker, a senior member of the Committee on International Relations 
who just returned from a trip to the Balkans region.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important vote coming up in a 
few minutes. We are hearing discussions today about people saying, this 
in our national interests? Why should we be concerned about those 
people over there?
  Well, for 50 years we have been partners with our neighbors in 
western Europe. We came together to stop the Soviet threat from taking 
over Europe and coming over to our shores. All of a sudden, when there 
is a problem with our partners, now we have decided that perhaps now 
that we have defeated the USSR, it is time for us to take a look at 
this partnership. Maybe if there is a difficult situation coming up, we 
ought to step out of it because I thought we were the land of the free 
and the home of the brave.
  Next week we are going to have a constitutional amendment voting on 
flag desecration because we love our flag so much. And here we see 
people talking about, let us take our flag and let us run out of there 
because a person in a country of 11 million people, about the size of 
Tennessee, has raped and robbed and destroyed, killed, maimed a whole 
group of people, and we are saying this is not in any interests of 
ours. Destabilizes central Europe, destabilizes western Europe, and it 
continues to spread.
  I am shocked by some of the speeches that I have heard in this 
discussion today. Mr. Speaker, 60,000 people in Montenegro, 120,000 in 
Macedonia, 300,000 in Albania.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous support for S. Con. Res. 21 so that 
we can put this in its right and proper perspective.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. 
Res. 21. This resolution authorizes the current military air campaign 
that was launched by NATO a little over a month ago. Mr. Speaker it is 
important to note the bipartisan support, which this bill received in 
the Senate. I believe that this resolution will enable NATO to achieve 
its goal of a durable peace that prevents further repression and 
provides for democratic self-government for the Kosovar people.
  This Body can send an invaluable message to Milosevic, to our troops, 
and to the world. If we adopt this resolution authorizing air 
operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, we will show our 
support for the troops carrying out this mission. If we adopt this 
resolution we will signal to our NATO partners that our resolve to see 
stability and peace prevail in Europe is no less today than it was 
during WWI and WWII. When we adopt this resolution we signal to 
Milosevic that his campaign against the Albanians of Kosovo is 
unacceptable.
  Endorsing airstrikes today does not preclude a vote in the future to 
authorize ground troops in the future. But we are certainly not at that 
point now. Instead this Body should show patience and determination. 
The airstrikes are an effective means of delivering our message. We 
must make Milosevic feel the pain and pay a heavy price for his policy 
of repression and aggression in Kosovo.
  If this Body fails to adopt this resolution now it would be 
interpreted as a vote of no confidence for our foreign policy in the 
Balkans. It would send confusing signals about our national resolve to 
persevere to friend and foe alike. The blame for this crisis lies not 
with the President, the U.S. Congress, or even the NATO airstrikes; 
rather the blame rests with Slobodan Milosevic.
  Milosevic shoulders the blame for the current crisis. I stand firm in 
my determination to see the killing of innocent Kosovar Albanians 
ended. War and conflict is not my first choice, it is not the first 
choice of any American, but there are times when force must be 
employed. We joined the NATO alliance some fifty years ago to provide 
stability and to limit aggression. If we ignore the acts committed by 
Milosevic, then our fifty-year commitment to NATO will have been lost.
  During WWII this nation turned away a ship full of Jewish immigrants 
from our shores. The 907 immigrants on board the S. S. St. Louis sought 
to escape the horrors of Nazism but our nation sadly turned them away. 
In the aftermath of WWII the American people pledged to never again to 
allow ethnic cleansing to occur and to never again to ignore the plight 
of those who face genocide. This Body must answer the call of the 1.6 
million Kosovars displaced from their homes and of those who can rest 
in the unmarked mass graves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We should follow the 
Senate and send a unified message to our troops, to Milosevic, and to 
our allies.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Gejdenson resolution 
to authorize the NATO action in Yugoslavia.
  Tragically, we were unable to prevent Serbian forces from brutally 
killing thousands of people, forcing innocent people from their homes, 
and burning and bombarding countless villages.
  Now, we must do everything in our power to put an end to this 
tragedy, to halt the mass killings, and hold accountable those 
responsible for the unspeakable atrocities that Serbian forces are 
committing against the ethic Albanians in Kosovo.
  First, we must aid the refugees in any way that we can. We cannot 
allow refugee camps to turn into death camps due to poor sanitation, 
the spread of disease, and the lack of food and shelter. I support a 
massive humanitarian response to this crisis. The U.S. should do 
whatever it takes to bring food, medicine, and shelter to the refugees, 
and I support efforts by the United States and other countries to admit 
any refugees seeking asylum.
  But I am afraid that is not nearly enough.
  We have a moral obligation to protect the internally displaced ethnic 
Albanians within Kosovo. Those who have not yet been slaughtered must 
be protected. We must not allow them to suffer the same fate as so many 
other Kosovars.
  Unfortunately, we did not act soon enough to address the murderous 
actions by Serbia, and today thousands of people are dead because of 
international indifference. We ought to create safe havens for ethnic 
Albanians inside of Kosovo--and we ought to do it as soon as we can. 
This would prevent further expulsions and mass killings. This will not 
be easy and will not be without a loss of lives, but it must be done. 
We cannot allow the leader of one nation to wipe out an entire ethnic 
group. At the end of World War II and the Holocaust, the world made a 
collective promise to all future people. We said ``never again'', we 
ought to mean it.
  However, it is unlikely, at this point, that air strikes alone will 
bring an end to this conflict. We ought to consider other options, 
including the use of ground forces. We now have to be prepared to 
forcefully enter Kosovo and occupy the area in order to make the safe 
return of refugees possible. This is not a task that we ought to take 
lightly, but it is one that must be done.
  NATO must continue to assess the situation and make adjustments as 
they see fit. This resolution gives the Administration the flexibility 
to respond quickly to any new developments and continue their efforts 
on all fronts to resolve this conflict. I urge support for this 
resolution.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for the bipartisan Senate-
approved resolution authorizing President Clinton to continue military 
air operations and missile strikes

[[Page 7794]]

against Yugoslavia. I supported this resolution because it shows strong 
support for the troops while endorsing the NATO action as the best 
available way to convince President Milosevic that his campaign of 
ethnic cleansing is unacceptable.
  We in Congress must take care to be supportive and not limit our 
future military options in Kosovo, especially given that the situation 
may change faster than Congress can react. For that reason, I opposed 
the Goodling-Fowler resolution as it would have required Congressional 
authorization before using ground troops. Even though the Goodling-
Fowler resolution will never find its way into law, the act of approval 
by the House sends all the wrong signals about our commitment to NATO's 
actions. We cannot afford to tie NATO's hands or broadcast our military 
intentions--especially at this important juncture in the conflict.
  I also opposed both proposals by Representative Campbell, one 
declaring war on Yugoslavia and the other demanding the removal of our 
armed forces from their positions near Yugoslavia. I believe both 
resolutions were extreme and not helpful in advancing NATO's efforts to 
restore peace to the region, in returning the Kosovars to their 
homeland, or in reducing or eliminating Milosevic's ability to threaten 
his neighbors or terrorize minorities inside Yugoslavia.
  However, I feel clarifying Congress' role in foreign conflicts under 
the War Powers Act is one worth considering at an appropriate time. We 
in Congress have continued to neglect what Congress' exact role should 
be in these situations. It is unfortunate that we seem to only visit 
this issue in the middle of conflicts, when such debate is confusing at 
best, and often inappropriate. I am hopeful we can schedule a full 
debate on this issue at a time certain before the end of this Congress.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, the vote today on S. Con. Res. 21--
although largely symbolic because of its timing--presents every Member 
of this House with a grave dilemma. On the one hand, we can vote 
against this resolution and the deeply flawed policy that it 
represents, even though doing so risks undermining our troops and 
giving comfort to Slobodan Milosevic, Europe's last Communist dictator. 
On the other hand, we can vote for this resolution and ratify a flawed 
policy which has failed to make any progress towards stopping the 
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
  Neither of these choices is attractive. But I believe that my duty as 
Member of the United States Congress compels me not to undercut our 
current policy, flawed as it might be, but to focus on finding a 
credible diplomatic alternative.
  I support a negotiated solution to the conflict in the Balkans, and I 
was one of 15 Democrats in this body who last month voted against 
authorizing the use of U.S. troops in Kosovo. I warned back then that a 
continued escalation of military action would only serve to undermine 
conditions for lasting peace in the region. Regrettably, these fears 
have been borne out.
  With all that said, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote 
against the efforts of our Nation's Armed Forces when a military 
operation is already underway. Our soldiers are in the Balkans doing 
the job we sent them to do. A unilateral halt to the bombing at this 
stage in the conflict would not bring us closer to a lasting peace in 
the Balkans. Instead, it would give the Milosevic regime a boost and 
deprive the NATO alliance of critical negotiating leverage.
  However, the sooner we begin negotiations, the sooner the air strikes 
can stop. Continuing to seek a military solution to a political problem 
will only mean that more Albanian Kosovar, Serb, and American lives are 
lost in vain. Just yesterday, General Wesley Clark, commander of NATO 
forces, acknowledged that NATO air strikes have not slowed the ethnic 
cleansing of Kosovo's Albanian population. And just yesterday, NATO 
forces again mistakenly struck a civilian target in Serbia, killing 17 
people including 11 children.
  The United States of America believes very strongly in doing the 
right thing--and we have an exemplary record of fighting for what is 
right around the world. But as Henry Kissinger has pointed out, a 
supremely moral foreign policy is useless if it is not effective.
  As difficult as it may be, we must acknowledge that the bombing 
campaign has not been effective--and we must immediately begin to seek 
a negotiated solution to this conflict. The sooner negotiations start, 
the sooner the bombs will stop, and the sooner the Kosovo refugees can 
return home.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this resolution which 
passed the Senate last week with bipartisan support. But let us step 
back and take a long-term view of the Balkans.
  Milosevic is the only tyrant left in Europe. Who amongst us predicted 
10 years ago that some of the most reprehensive Communist regimes in 
Central Europe would today be thriving democracies and members of the 
European Union and NATO. That is the trend in Europe and that is my 
long-term prediction for the Balkans as well. One tyrant cannot stop it 
for long.
  But in the meantime we have some short-term objectives.
  Peace and humanity will prevail in Kosovo.
  The refugees will go home.
  They will have security.
  And they will have self-autonomy.
  And, Mr. Milosevic, these terms are not negotiable.
  NATO will prevail.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I voted to require the President to 
obtain congressional approval before deploying ground troops in the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The framers of the Constitution 
clearly intended that the power to initiate war, whether declared or 
undeclared, should reside in the legislative branch of government. The 
power to lead the nation without congressional authority into a costly 
overseas military adventure is a power the Constitution explicitly 
denies the President of the United States.
  The Administration's policy in FRY is extremely short sighted and is 
a clear example of why the Administration should have come to Congress 
before committing U.S. troops to the NATO airstrikes. A congressional 
debate would have forced the Administration to define every aspect of 
NATO's Balkan policy. Congress should have been given the chance to ask 
the tough questions that still linger after weeks of bombing. Instead, 
NATO and the Administration are defining and defending their policy as 
they go along. The result has been a tenuous military coalition with a 
mission constantly questioned. This has emboldened Milosevic to 
escalate his genocidal campaign and strengthened his power in Serbia. A 
completely unified NATO force backed by a well-defined long term Balkan 
policy before executing any military operations might have made 
Milosevic a willing participant in peace negotiations.
  The congressional leadership has presented Congress with a lot of bad 
choices today as well. It is unfortunate that Congress is falling into 
the trap that the Administration has set for it. Before the NATO 
airstrikes began, the Clinton Administration wanted us to believe that 
the only options available were to bomb or do nothing. Now Congress 
wants us to believe that the only options are to continue the severely 
flawed military operations or withdraw our troops and do nothing. 
Unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from the military operations at 
this time would cause the collapse of NATO and be tantamount to a 
victory for Slobodan Milosevic.
  While I support the efforts of my colleagues today to begin asserting 
their Constitutional duty to authorize military actions, I question the 
timing. Debating whether or not to withdraw our troops while they are 
engaged in a military action, is extremely irresponsible. There is a 
way to assert our Constitutional duty without undermining the safety of 
our troops. I have introduced legislation for the last 8 years to 
require Congress to authorize military actions before U.S. troops are 
placed in hostilities.
  The continuing religious and ethnic strife in the Balkans is unlikely 
to be resolved by offensive military actions. Milosevic has more than 
demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice the lives of his own people 
to retain his power. There is another option. The U.S. and NATO should 
call for a cease fire contingent upon a pull back of Serbian forces and 
the beginning of real negotiations including Russia and the United 
Nations. The Rambouillet agreements were fatally flawed and designed to 
fail. It's time to go back to the drawing board and negotiate 
enforceable peace between Milosevic and the Kosovar Albanians.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House has the 
opportunity to debate these important questions before us today. While 
I have not supported the first three options before us, I do believe 
that Congress needs to have a voice in the involvement of the United 
States in Operation Allied Force. We should stand up and express our 
support for our troops and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO). We must also take this opportunity for Congress to 
show Mr. Milosevic that we are united in our belief and determination 
that his campaign of terror must be stopped.
  We must work with the international community to help restore peace 
to the region and to ensure that the Kosovar Albanians who want to 
return to their homes are allowed to do so. We must work with our 
Allies to force Milosevic to withdraw his military and para-military 
forces from Kosovo and to provide

[[Page 7795]]

self-governance for Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, we must work together with our 
Allies in Europe to achieve a lasting peace in this critical region.
  To accomplish these goals, we must continue to participate in 
Operation Allied Force and support the air strikes. We are steadily 
diminishing the power of Mr. Milosevic and his military forces. For the 
United States to withdraw from this operation at this time would, in my 
opinion, undermine the entire NATO effort to stem Milosevic and his 
campaign of terror against the Albanian population, hand Milosevic a 
victory and, in effect, validate his campaign of ethnic cleansing. Mr. 
Speaker, I ask my colleagues how we can in good conscience turn our 
back on these people and the horrible crimes that are being perpetrated 
against the Kosovar Albanians.
  While I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Campbell, for 
bringing this issue before the House, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing both of his resolutions. We should not withdraw our troops 
or declare war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  I also oppose H.R. 1569 offered by Representatives Fowler, Goodling, 
and Kasich. This bill would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
deploying ``ground elements'' in Yugoslavia unless such a deployment is 
authorized by Congress, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. 
Passing this proposal at this time is at best premature and at worst is 
a prescription for failure of our current air strike operation. The 
Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill is unnecessary. Congress ultimately holds 
the power of the purse and will continue to have the ability to 
withhold funding for this operation. In addition, if events change and 
the President decides that ground troops are needed, he should come to 
Congress and ask for our support and approval at that time.
  Furthermore, if this prohibition of funds were to become law, many 
aspects of the current NATO operation could be imperiled. We would be 
weakening our own position for future negotiations for a settlement by 
removing the threat of possible ground troops in the future. We must 
show Milosevic our resolve. We must make it clear to Milosevic that we 
intend to prevail and that we are reserving options to accomplish 
victory.
  The Fowler/Goodling/Kasich bill also puts our current operations in 
Yugoslavia at risk. For example, MacDill Air Force Base, located in my 
community, is the headquarters for U.S. Special Operations Command--a 
unified command that oversees special operations for the Army, Navy and 
Air Force. Forces housed at MacDill could very well be involved on the 
ground in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in support of our air strikes. I am 
concerned that this bill would put their operations and possibly their 
lives at peril. We should not limit the ability of the troops already 
in and around Yugoslavia as part of our current operation.
  Our NATO Allies have stepped up to the plate in Kosovo. Just last 
weekend, at the NATO Summit here in Washington, DC, the leaders of the 
alliance reaffirmed their commitment and resolve to maintain the air 
campaign against Yugoslavia until our objectives are met. Now it is 
time for Congress to step up to the plate and endorse the NATO air 
strikes against Yugoslavia.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gejdenson Alternative offered in 
the form of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. This Resolution authorizes 
the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes 
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Passage of this Resolution 
will express Congress' endorsement of NATO air strikes and send a 
strong message to Milosevic that we are unified with our allies.
  Adopting this Resolution will reaffirm to our troops carrying out 
this mission that Congress supports them. By endorsing the NATO action, 
Congress will be sending a message that we are unified as a nation and 
determined to stop Milosevic.
  Fifty years ago, we formed NATO to work together for the security of 
Europe. Today, the Cold War has ended and communism has ended. However, 
there is still a great need to work to ensure the safety and stability 
of countries in Europe who have been our partners for these 50 years. 
We have heard a lot about the fear of Milosevic and his forces crossing 
over the borders. Some thought this might be an unfounded fear. 
However, we now know that the Serbian forces have crossed over into 
Albania, proof that Milosevic has no fear and is quite willing to cross 
sovereign borders to continue his atrocious attacks on the people in 
this region. The stability of Eastern Europe is at stake and we must 
stand by our allies in the region.
  I urge this House to show Mr. Milosevic that we stand behind our 
military and our allies. Join me in supporting Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 21.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 151, the Senate concurrent 
resolution is considered as having been read for amendment, and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the Senate concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 213, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               YEAS--213

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu

                               NAYS--213

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary

[[Page 7796]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Aderholt
     Blagojevich
     Hansen
     Mollohan
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Wynn

                              {time}  2018

  Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the Senate concurrent resolution was not concurred in.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________