[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9187-9195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 9187]]

                 ISSUES OF CONCERN IN THE COUNTRY TODAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, during this special order hour, I have 
secured this hour on behalf of the Republican majority and would invite 
all those Members who are monitoring tonight's proceedings and who 
would like to participate in this hour to join me on the floor here 
tonight, again those Members from the majority party who would wish to 
be present.
  There are several issues that I want to discuss tonight: taxes, 
education, Social Security, and of course the President's war in 
Kosovo.
  I want to engage in that discussion by reading into the Record a 
letter that many of us here received last week from the American 
Legion. The American Legion, of course, is one of the Nation's leading 
organizations representing veterans throughout the country.
  They sent to Members of Congress copies of a letter that was written 
by the national commander of the American Legion. The letter was sent 
to the President of the United States.
  That letter, again, also copied and sent to Members of Congress read 
as follows: ``The American Legion, a wartime veterans organization of 
nearly three million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of 
American troops participating in `Operation Allied Force.'
  ``The National Executive Committee of the American Legion, meeting in 
Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled `The American 
Legion's Statement on Yugoslavia.' This resolution was debated and 
adopted unanimously.
  ``Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never be 
committed to wartime operations unless the following conditions are 
fulfilled:
  Number one, ``That there be clear statement by the President of why 
it is in our vital national interest to be engaged in hostilities;''
  Two, ``Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear 
exit strategy;''
  Three, ``That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress 
and the American people; and''
  Four, ``That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded only 
by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders.
  ``It is the opinion of the American Legion, which I am sure is shared 
by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions 
have not been met in the current joint operation with NATO (`Operation 
Allied Forces').
  ``In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the absence of 
clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in 
accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United 
States.''
  It is signed again by the national commander of the American Legion. 
Copies of this letter were sent to several individuals in the 
administration, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairmen, the Speaker of the House, the majority 
leader in the Senate, the minority leader in the House and several 
others, members on the Committee on Armed Services, and so on.
  This resolution was adopted, again, in Indianapolis, as I mentioned 
earlier, on May 5, just last week. It is again referred to as 
Resolution Number 44 by the American Legion. It is their statement on 
Yugoslavia.
  This is a sentiment certainly expressed by members of the veterans 
throughout the country. It is indicative, I think, of several other 
veterans organizations. Of course they are capable and prepared to 
speak for themselves, as many of them have.
  But I can say, Mr. Speaker, that over the last weekend, as I returned 
home to Colorado, I had an opportunity to receive opinions and comments 
from several individuals throughout the district on this matter. I 
would say that the voice of veterans as expressed by the American 
Legion rings in a consonant cord with those sentiments expressed by my 
constituents.
  Several other letters have been sent and forwarded to my office by 
constituents. One of the things I enjoy doing at these special orders 
is relaying the concerns of my constituents as expressed in writing to 
my office and through E-mails and telephone calls and so on.
  I use this opportunity to encourage constituents to write and to 
call, not just my constituents, but all those from throughout the 
country who are concerned about the affairs of our great Nation. It is 
worthwhile to write letters to Members of Congress. It is a proper role 
in the course of active citizenship to demand accountability from our 
elected officials, to let them know what is on the minds of those who 
constitute the citizenry of our great country.
  Here is one letter I received last week as well. It starts out, Dear 
Congressman Schaffer, ``This is a belated thank you for your vote to 
impeach'' the occupant of the White House; we have to maintain our 
House rules I understand so I will have to edit the letter a little 
bit, ``and your stand, unfortunately useless, against the current 
action in Kosovo.
  ``We've heard that the CIA, NATO, military advisors, and our own 
military recommended against the bombing in Kosovo but that'' the 
President, ``with the great military astuteness he's shown since 
Somalia, decided to go ahead. Is there any way, in this life, to hold 
this man accountable for the damage he's done to this country over the 
years?
  ``Just a side note, I'm opposed to paying the U.N. this so-called 
debt we are claimed to owe. I'd love to see us disengage from that 
organization in all ways.
  ``Thanks for your dedication and service.'' This is a woman from Fort 
Collins, Colorado who sent this letter in.
  This is another letter from a constituent of mine: ``The mood of the 
country over the recent past is that the United States is not at war 
unless we say that we are at war.'' In the first portion, Mr. Speaker, 
of this letter he writes a little bit tongue in cheek. ``And the way we 
say that we ARE at war is to have Congress declare war. In other words, 
even if we are ACTUALLY at war it is not a war until we call it a 
war.''
  That sounds a bit bizarre, but in fact the writer accurately 
characterizes the current disposition of the Congress and certainly the 
Presidency. There has been no declaration of war in this war, and there 
are many people running around here in Washington claiming that we are 
somehow not at war.
  It certainly was something to explain when the three members of the 
United States Army who were held as prisoners by the Yugoslavian 
forces, upon their release, received the Prisoner of War Medal. I would 
love to hear someone over at the White House try to explain that, 
prisoners of a war that does not exist. Nonetheless, they were pinned 
with a medal, which I think they deserve.
  I do believe we are clearly engaged in an act of war and outside the 
parameters of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, that which 
gives the authority to this Congress to declare a war, and that is our 
responsibility.
  This writer from Fort Collins, Colorado goes on. He says, ``The 
recent presidents and Congresses have moved toward erasing the 
separation of powers called for by the Constitution. Congress is to 
decide if we are going to go to war and when, and declares war when it 
is ready. The President executes the war as commander and chief. It is 
about time we called for a halt in this tendency toward an imperial 
presidency.''
  He goes on: ``The country seems to think that the NATO treaty 
supersedes the U.S. Constitution where war is involved. Well, that is a 
very serious matter indeed, to say that a bunch of bureaucrats in 
Brussels can say that the U.S. has to go to war. But the matter is not 
that complicated. We can still have the treaty but should place in it 
that the U.S. will not go into any war unless and until Congress 
declares war.''
  Again, this is from a constituent in Fort Collins, Colorado.

[[Page 9188]]

  There is another writer from Johnstown, Colorado. He says: ``I 
believe that our American National Security interests are adversely 
affected by the NATO-USA involvement in Yugoslavia.
  ``Our national defense/military preparedness is already marginal from 
years of downsizing in defense capabilities. Further USA military 
expenditures for the Kosovo cause are not warranted and our military 
shows'', it is very difficult to read; this is handwritten, and our 
military has shown to protect our country. ``I support increased 
spending in missile defense systems, advanced aircraft and substantial 
size/numbers increases in our land, sea, and air forces.
  ``I applaud your votes of'' April 28 ``concerning withholding of 
ground forces and not supporting the air strikes.
  ``Please continue your efforts to extricate our country from a 
colossal mistake by'' our Commander in Chief ``and the Secretary of 
State Albright.''
  Again a letter from Johnstown, Colorado.
  Another letter that I would like to share with our Members from 
Greeley, Colorado: ``I would like to express some concern for the path 
we seem to be taking in Kosovo. As I recall, we were only assigning 
troops to Bosnia for a short time and they are still there. Our recent 
history in being the `world's' peacekeeper is not outstanding. We 
continually `draw lines in the sand' and then say, well not this time 
but next time. I wish I had confidence this was not a political ploy 
but a legitimate diplomatic endeavor--but I do not.''
  This is a student, it seems, from the University of Northern Colorado 
who wrote just last week. He put a postscript on his letter. It says: 
``It takes humility to seek feedback. It takes wisdom to understand it, 
analyze it, and appropriately act on it.'' Keep ``First Things First 
Every Day''.

                              {time}  2015

  A letter from Aurora, Colorado, also within my district: ``As a 
conservative Republican and as a Vietnam veteran, I appreciate your 
opposition to the U.S. Attack on Serbia. The Clinton policy is 
misguided. The commander seems only interested in his place in history. 
If he had wanted historic recognition for foreign adventures, he should 
have gotten some experience in 1968, when he had the chance.
  ``It is the wrong leadership with the wrong policy taking the wrong 
action. I urge you to do whatever you can to end this adventure as 
quickly as possible by sponsoring or supporting legislation to end 
funding for this hopeless intervention in another civil war.''
  Again, this is letter from a constituent of mine in Aurora, Colorado.
  Here is another one. ``Dear Congressman Schaffer:'' This is from 
Wellington, Colorado. ``The best idea I have heard yet is Senator 
Smith's bill to stop any funding of the Kosovo bombing. I fully support 
it. It should prove difficult to fly a bomber with no MasterCard for 
the fuel. Sincerely, Ben.'' From Wellington, Colorado.
  Here is another letter I received from a gentleman from Bellvue. He 
said that he recently met a woman from Yugoslavia, a graduate student 
from Colorado State University in the 1980s. She continued her studies 
there and got her Ph.D. in the 1990s. The writer says, ``She is a 
beautiful lady, and I have enjoyed many hours in friendship with her. 
Her mother came to her graduation party, and I had a chance to meet 
her. Our common language was Italian, and she said that I was the only 
person in America, except for her daughter, that understood her. She is 
a lovely lady in her 80s and lives in peace in Yugoslavia. This week 
American bombs, rockets and missiles were exploded in anger over her 
homeland. For the sake of all that is right and in the name of 
humanity, please don't kill this lady. She is a friend. We are not at 
war with anybody.'' He is reminding us that this Congress has not 
declared war under Article I, Section 8.
  ``If we are a member of some club,'' again referring to the U.N. or 
NATO, or perhaps both, ``that says we have to bomb other countries, 
perhaps we should get out of it. As a taxpayer, I cannot afford to 
spend millions of dollars for cruise missiles that might land on my 
friend's mother. Please tell the President to stop bombing other 
countries. I repeat, we are not at war with anybody. Thank you.''
  I have received several letters on that order; and, Mr. Speaker, I 
include for the Record those letters I have referred to.
                                              The American Legion,


                             Office of the National Commander,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 1999.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The American Legion, a wartime veterans 
     organization of nearly three-million members, urges the 
     immediate withdrawal of American troops participating in 
     ``Operation Allied Force.''
       The National Executive Committee of the American Legion, 
     meeting in Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled 
     ``The American Legion's Statement on Yugoslavia.'' This 
     resolution was debated and adopted unanimously.
       Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never 
     be committed to wartime operations unless the following 
     conditions are fulfilled:
       That there be a clear statement by the President of why it 
     is in our vital national interests to be engaged in 
     hostilities;
       Guidelines be established for the mission, including a 
     clear exit strategy;
       That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress 
     and the American people; and
       That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded 
     only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior 
     military leaders.
       It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure 
     is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the 
     above listed conditions have not been met in the current 
     joint operation with NATO (``Operation Allied Force'').
       In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the 
     absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. 
     Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the 
     Constitution of the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                       Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller,
                                               National Commander.
       Enclosure.

           NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE--THE AMERICAN LEGION

                              May 5, 1999

     Resolution No. 44: The American Legion Statement on Yugoslavia

       Whereas, The President has committed the Armed Forces of 
     the United States, in a joint operation with NATO 
     (``Operation Allied Force''), to engage in hostilities in the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without clearly defining 
     America's vital national interests; and
       Whereas, Neither the President nor the Congress have 
     defined America's objectives in what has become an open-ended 
     conflict characterized by an ill-defined progressive 
     escalation; and
       Whereas, It is obvious that an ill-planned and massive 
     commitment of U.S. resources could only lead to troops being 
     killed, wounded or captured without advancing any clear 
     purpose, mission or objective; and
       Whereas, The American people rightfully support the ending 
     of crimes and abuses by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 
     and the extending of humanitarian relief to the suffering 
     people of the region; and
       Whereas, America should not commit resources to the 
     prosecution of hostilities in the absence of clearly defined 
     objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance 
     with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States; now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, By the National Executive Committee of The 
     American Legion in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis, 
     Indiana, May 5-6, 1999, That The American Legion, which is 
     composed of nearly 3 million veterans of war-time service, 
     voices its grave concerns about the commitment of U.S. Armed 
     Forces to Operation Allied Force, unless the following 
     conditions are fulfilled:
       That there be a clear statement by the President of why it 
     is in our vital national interests to be engaged in Operation 
     Allied Force;
       Guidelines be established for the mission, including a 
     clear exit strategy;
       That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress 
     and the American people; and
       That it be made clear U.S. Forces will be commanded only by 
     U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military 
     leaders; and, be it further
       Resolved, That, if the aforementioned conditions are not 
     met, The American Legion calls upon the President and the 
     Congress to withdraw American forces immediately from 
     Operation Allied Force; and, be it further
       Resolved, That The American Legion calls upon the Congress 
     and the international community to ease the suffering of the 
     Kosovar refugees by providing necessary aid and assistance; 
     and, be it finally
       Resolved, That The American Legion reaffirms its unwavering 
     admiration of, and support for, our American men and women 
     serving in uniform throughout the world, and we reaffirm our 
     efforts to provide sufficient national assets to ensure their 
     well being.

[[Page 9189]]

     
                                  ____
       Dear Representative Schaffer: This is a belated thank you 
     for your vote to impeach Clinton and your stand, 
     unfortunately useless, against the current action in Kosovo.
       We've heard that the CIA, NATO military-advisors, and our 
     own military, recommended against the bombing in Kosovo but 
     that Clinton, with the great military astuteness he's shown 
     since Somalia, decided to go ahead. Is there any way, in this 
     life, to hold this man accountable for the damage he's done 
     to this country over the years?
       Just a side note. I'm opposed to paying the UN this so-
     called debt we are claimed to owe. I'd love to see us 
     disengage from that organization in all ways.
       Thank you for your dedication and service.
           Sincerely,
     Mrs. C. Lile.
                                  ____

                                                   April 17, 1999.
     Rep. Bob Schaffer,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Schaffer: How much longer will we have to sit and 
     watch the genocide going on in Kosova? The United States 
     failed to stop the genocide of Jews and Gypsies in World War 
     II; we failed to stop the genocides in Laos and Rwanda. This 
     is not a matter of foreign policy; this is not a matter of a 
     Democratic President and a Republican Congress. This is a 
     matter of morality, of humanity and human dignity. We have a 
     moral imperative to do something.
       We say: send in ground troops NOW, before it's too late.
           Sincerely,
     Jonathan Bellman.
                                                 Deborah Kauffman.
       Representative Schaffer: Best idea I've heard yet is Sen. 
     Smith's bill to stop any funding of the Kosovo bombing. I 
     support it fully. It should prove difficult to fly a bomber 
     with no Master Card for the fuel.
           Sincerely,
     Ben Mahrle.
                                  ____

       Representative Schaffer: As a conservative Republican and 
     as a Vietnam vet, I appreciate your opposition to the US 
     attack on Serbia. The Clinton policy is misguided. Clinton is 
     only interested in his place in history. If he had wanted 
     historic recognition for foreign adventures, he should have 
     gotten some experience in 1968 when he had the chance.
       It is the wrong leadership with the wrong policy taking the 
     wrong action. I urge you to do whatever you can to end this 
     adventure as quickly as possible by sponsoring or supporting 
     legislation to end funding for this hopeless intervention in 
     another civil war.
           Sincerely,
     James Beetem.
                                  ____

       Dear Mr. Schaffer, I would like to express some concern for 
     the path we seem to be taking in Kosovo. As I recall we were 
     only assigning troops to Bosnia for a short time and they are 
     still there. Our recent history in being the ``world's'' 
     peacekeeper is not outstanding. We continually ``draw lines 
     in the sand'' and then say, well not this time but next time. 
     I wish I had confidence this was not a political ploy but a 
     legitimate diplomacy endeavor--but I don't.
           Sincerely,
     Dr. David Crabtree,
     Dr. Karen Crabtree.
                                  ____

                                                   April 29, 1999.
       Dear Congressman Schaffer: I believe that our American 
     National Security interests are adversely affected by the 
     NATO/USA involvement in Yugoslavia.
       Our national defense/military preparedness is already 
     marginal from years of downsizing in defense capabilities. 
     Further USA military expenditures for the Kosovo cause are 
     not warranted and our military should exist to protect our 
     country. I support increased spending in missile defense 
     systems, advanced aircraft and substantial size/numbers 
     increases in our land, sea, and air forces.
       I applaud your votes of April 28, 1999 concerning 
     withholding of ground forces and not supporting the air 
     strikes.
       Please continue your efforts to extricate our country from 
     a colossal mistake by President Clinton and Secretary of 
     State Albright.
           Sincerely yours,
     Thomas H. Steele.
                                  ____

                                                      May 2, 1999.
       To: Representative Schaffer: The mood of the country over 
     the recent past is that the United States is not at war 
     unless we SAY that we are at war. And the way we say that we 
     are at war is to have Congress declare war. In other words, 
     even if we are ACTUALLY at war it is not a war until we call 
     it a war.
       If we are actually at war but do not want to call it a war 
     we use a legal fiction, or an euphemism, to call being at war 
     something else: a police action, attack, intervention etc.
       The mood of the country is that declaring war is a BIG 
     DEAL, and we do not want to do it unless we have to. But 
     actually going to war without calling it a war is not so big 
     a deal because we think we can pull out if we want, do not 
     have to win, do not have to defeat, etc. We can simply play 
     at war but without the commitment. But declaring war does not 
     really have to be a big deal. There are big wars and little 
     wars, costly wars and cheap wars, easy wars and hard wars.
       The situation is similar to the act of recognizing the 
     existence of a foreign regime. When we said that we did not 
     recognize Communist China it did not exist as far as we were 
     concerned, even though we all know that it did actually 
     exist. Non recognition is not dangerous to the country. But 
     actually going to war is a serious matter, at least in my 
     view. Therefore I strenuously object to using euphemisms when 
     engaging in it. And it seems to me that this was exactly what 
     the founding fathers had in mind when they said that it was 
     up to Congress to declare war. They did not want the 
     president to just start wars any time he wanted to, 
     especially since he is also the Commander in Chief. And that 
     is what has been happening. But Congress has abnegated its 
     responsibility by not calling him on it. Exactly what will, 
     or would happen if they called him on it and he ignored them 
     is a serious constitutional question. It seems to me that he 
     could and should be impeached and removed from office.
       The recent Presidents and Congresses have moved toward 
     erasing the separation of powers called for by the 
     Constitution. Congress is to decide if we are going to go to 
     war and when, and declares war when it is ready. The 
     President EXECUTES the war as commander in chief. It is about 
     time we called for a halt in this tendency toward an imperial 
     presidency.
       This country seems to think that the NATO treaty supercedes 
     the U.S. Constitution where war is involved. Well, that is a 
     very serious matter indeed, to say that a bunch of 
     bureaucrats in Brussels can say that the U.S. has to go to 
     war. But the matter is not that complicated. We can still 
     have the treaty but should place in it that the U.S. will not 
     go into any war unless and until the Congress declares war.
     Michael Moran.
                                  ____

                                                   March 25, 1999.
       Dear Congressman: Olga Radulaski is from Yugoslavia. She 
     graduated from CSU in the 1980's. She continued her studies 
     there and got her PhD in the 90's. She's a beautiful lady and 
     I've enjoyed many hours in friendship with her. Olga's mother 
     came to her graduation party and I got a chance to meet her. 
     Our common language was Italian, and she said I was the only 
     person in America, except for her daughter, that understood 
     her. She's a lovely lady, in her eighties, and lives in peace 
     in Yugoslavia.
       This week American bombs, rockets and missiles were 
     exploded in anger on her homeland. For the sake of all that 
     is right in the name of humanity, please don't kill this 
     lady. She's a friend.
       We are not at war with anybody. If we're a member of some 
     ``club'' that says we have to bomb other countries, perhaps 
     we should not get out of it. As a taxpayer, I cannot afford 
     to spend a million dollars for a cruise missile that might 
     land on Olga's mother.
       Please tell the President to stop bombing other countries. 
     I repeat, we're not at war with anybody.
       Thank you.
                                                     Fred Collier.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by one of the stellar 
Members of the class that was elected at the same time I was, in 1996, 
which constituted a very solid block of new Members in that year for 
the United States Congress, now in our sophomore year, and it is a 
great privilege to serve with the gentleman from Montana. I yield to 
him.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado; and I want to thank him for securing this time. I certainly 
want to echo the comments of the folks writing to the gentleman with 
regard to the activities in Kosovo.
  I joined with the gentleman voting to withdraw our troops and to 
require the President to secure the approval of Congress before he puts 
in any ground troops.
  If we look at the policy with respect to Kosovo, the objectives that 
were set out in the beginning of this adventure, I guess we would say, 
of course, that one of our goals was to prevent the ethnic cleansing. 
That is the effort on the part of the Serbs to drive the Kosovars out 
of Kosovo.
  Of course, that aspect of the policy is an obvious failure. Every 
night our heart aches for those refugees we see in the neighboring 
provinces and in the neighboring countries.
  The objective was, of course, to bring stability to the region. These 
refugees have brought greater instability to the region. Macedonia is a 
very unstable setting. The large number of refugees are being held in 
encampments because, if they were allowed out of those encampments, the 
concern would be that that would destabilize Macedonia.

[[Page 9190]]

  What is really interesting is that this President, under the War 
Powers Act, is required to submit reports to the Congress whenever 
troops are put in harm's way. Of course, the War Powers Act was passed 
over President Nixon's veto, but, as I recall, President Ford made four 
reports under the War Powers Act, President Carter made one, President 
Reagan made 14, President Bush made 7, and President Clinton has made 
46 reports under the War Powers Act. That means that he has put troops 
in harm's way on more than twice as many occasions as have all the 
previous presidents under the War Powers Act.
  Interestingly, two of those reports were to deploy troops to Albania, 
where rioting Albanians were threatening our embassy in 1997 and in 
August of 1998. And of course the other objective of this activity has 
been to protect the prestige of NATO. In every one of those instances, 
I think the President's objectives of this war in Kosovo have not been 
fulfilled, and that is why I joined with my colleague in voting to 
bring our troops home. Unfortunately, we were not successful in getting 
that done.
  But one of the things I wanted to visit a little bit tonight about, 
and I think this has kind of gone unnoticed, is the fact that those men 
and women over there fighting today are going to be our veterans of 
tomorrow.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. That is right.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. And we, as the gentleman knows, passed a budget 
here in the House of Representatives where we made a very strong 
commitment to veterans' health care. The President proposed a budget 
that basically flat-lined it. There was no increase in veterans' health 
care. And Congress, recognizing the importance of living up to the 
commitments that we have made to our veterans, increased the funding by 
about $1.7 billion.
  I have a few letters from folks in Montana. Veterans' health care is 
a pretty interesting issue in Montana. One of the interesting aspects 
of the Montana experience in World War II is that there is a larger 
proportion of Montana's population that served in World War II than any 
other State in the country. That had a lot to do with the census during 
the 1930s. Montana lost a lot of population, and the allocation of 
forces and the draft quotas were based upon population numbers that 
predated 1940. So Montanans sent more men and women to fight in World 
War II than other States did proportionately.
  So, as a consequence of that, we have a larger proportion of 
veterans; and, of course, we have a very large State also to deal with.
  They just recently closed a veterans facility in Miles City, a 
veterans hospital in Miles City. In fact, one veteran wrote to me and 
said, ``I'm wondering what message you are trying to send to us. You 
expanded the veterans cemetery and you closed the Veterans Hospital. 
Does that tell us that you have something in mind for the World War II 
and Korean War veterans?''
  In any event, this Congress has approved a budget that will increase 
spending to provide health care to veterans, and it is extremely 
important that we live up to the commitment that we made to these 
disabled veterans and other senior citizens who are veterans who need 
to secure their health care.
  Budgets are about more than numbers. Budgets are about priorities. 
And the budget that we just passed, I think, is an important one 
because I think it tells the American people what our priorities are 
for the future of America. And I want to just outline again what those 
are.
  I talked briefly for a few minutes about increasing spending for 
veterans' health care, but also we included in our budget a provision 
to set aside all of the Social Security taxes that are collected for 
Social Security, which is something that is unique. Congress has not 
done that. Over the last 20 years, the surpluses coming from Social 
Security, as I know most of my colleagues know, has been spent on other 
things. We established a milestone. We say from now forward all of the 
Social Security taxes, 100 percent, will be set aside to save Social 
Security.
  We also want to strengthen our national defense. I think it is 
obvious to everyone who is paying attention to the situation in Kosovo, 
the war in Kosovo, it is obvious that our military is strapped to the 
absolute limit. We cannot fly many of our airplanes. We are running 
short of armaments. It is clear we have inadequate training or 
insufficient training in many cases, that our men and women are being 
stretched to the limit and perhaps beyond it. We need to put more 
resources to the national defense.
  Also, as part of this budget, there is a plan to lower taxes on the 
American people. I think it is important for us to have some discussion 
about why it is important for us to lower taxes for the American 
people. The portion of our national income today that is going to 
taxes, to the burden of taxes of the Federal Government, is the third 
highest it has ever been in the national history. In fact, the only 
time the percentage of our national income was higher going to taxes 
was in World War II, in 1945 and 1946. So it is a simple matter of 
fairness, that the tax burden is too high and we need to lower the tax 
burden on American families.
  I think it is really important that we talk about and have a clear 
debate about where we think we ought to reduce taxes. There are two 
areas I think that are particularly important.
  One is eliminating the marriage penalty. I think it is grossly unfair 
that 70,000 of my constituents in Montana pay on average $1,400 more in 
taxes because they are married than if they were single.
  I also believe that we need to do something about the estate tax. 
There is not a tax that is more unfair than the estate tax. The fact 
that we tax somebody simply because they die seems to me to be 
extraordinarily unfair. While it is often perceived as a tax on the 
rich, the very wealthy do not pay that tax. It is working men and 
women, small business owners and people who have saved and have been 
prudent with their money. Farmers and ranchers particularly are hard 
hit by the death tax.
  We just passed on May 8, Tax Freedom Day. The American people have 
been working all year long, until May 8, to support government. Now 
they get to work for their families.
  One of the ways we can help them live up to the responsibilities of 
their families, be able to provide for their families, is by reducing 
taxes. We did that in the last Congress. We passed the $400 per child 
tax credit. It will go to $500 this year. It is surprising how many 
Montanans have written to me thanking me for that $400 per child tax 
credit, saying that that is going to allow them to be able to spend 
more money on education for their children, or perhaps even clothing or 
food or the necessities of the family, or even maybe a family vacation. 
But Montanans are grateful for that.
  Incidentally, that is $50 million more that will be made available to 
the citizens of Montana to spend in Montana, which will, of course, 
strengthen the economy of the State of Montana.
  So many Montanans write to me and say that both the husband and the 
wife have to work in order to support their family, or a woman might 
even write and say that her husband has two jobs, a full-time job and a 
part-time job, just to support the family.
  Forty percent of that income is going to the government. That is too 
high of a percentage. We ought to be 20 or 25 percent total going to 
government. And the best way to do that is a downpayment with the 
marriage penalty.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman is absolutely right. The tax burden on 
the American family is upwards of 40 percent. And that is just the tax 
burden. When we include the cost of Federal regulation and other 
compliance costs associated with just being an American citizen and 
doing business in the United States, the actual tax burden on the 
American family averages well over 50 percent today. It is one that we 
are constantly reminded of back home when we go back home to visit 
constituents.
  I wanted to read a letter I received from a constituent in Loveland, 
Colorado, which reinforces what the gentleman just said. It is a letter 
from a

[[Page 9191]]

small business owner, runs a sprinkler and landscape company, and he 
says, ``Dear Congressman Schaffer: I am your constituent from Loveland. 
As a business owner and a grandparent, I am very concerned about the 
serious economic problems facing our country. I feel our current income 
tax structure is having a very negative impact by taxing production, 
savings and investment, the very things which can make the economy 
strong.''
  So these folks support a national consumption tax, as the letter goes 
on, and they want to see some answers. But this is pretty typical of 
what we are hearing more and more from a greater number of American 
citizens throughout the country that are realizing that this silly 
notion of punishing hard work and success cannot be a successful 
formula for the United States of America. They are asking us to look 
harder and work more vigorously toward wholesale tax reform and at the 
very least reducing the overall tax burden.
  I ask constituents all the time, what would be a reasonable level of 
taxation? I ask, if they could pick a number, a fair number, as an 
American citizen, what their percentage of income should be to pay to 
live in the United States, and the answer is typically somewhere around 
20 to 25 percent. Well, we are almost twice that. And, again, when we 
include the regulatory costs of State, local and Federal governments, 
the American taxpayers are crying out for relief.
  And not just on the tax side, but they are demanding that we be a 
little more critical of the expenditures that take place here in 
Congress. There is extravagant spending on programs that constitute 
nothing more than grand waste. It is unfortunate that this city seems 
to have a sense of momentum about it.
  We make progress in small increments every year, and we really have 
turned the corner over the last 6 years Republicans have had the 
majority in this Congress. We have made a remarkable difference and 
changed the overall trend line for everything from the national debt to 
eliminating deficit spending and now putting aside dollars over the 
next 10 years that can be used to achieve real priorities and 
objectives of the country such as saving Social Security, providing for 
a world-class education system, providing for a strong national defense 
and so on.

                              {time}  2030

  So the point my colleague mentioned and the voices of Montana are 
remarkably similar to those of my home State of Colorado and I presume 
throughout the rest of the country, as well.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. If the gentleman would continue to yield, why is 
it important for us to save Social Security?
  First of all, we have to look at what the President's actuaries say. 
And they say, if we do not do something now to address this, we are 
going to be faced with two choices. One is to cut benefits by as much 
as a third, or to increase taxes by as much as a third.
  Neither of those options are acceptable to me. And one of the reasons 
is that most working families today pay more in Social Security taxes 
than they do any other form of taxes. That is the tax rate that has 
gone up the fastest. And the idea that people have been paying into 
this year after year after year and now we are being told that because 
Congresses in the past have not had the discipline to put that money 
aside that they are either going to have their benefits cut or the tax 
burden is going to go simply higher simply is wrong.
  I think that people who pay into Social Security all of their lives 
have the right to expect that it is going to be there when their turn 
comes to be able to collect on it. But beyond that, I think it is 
really important for us to understand how important it is to us.
  My mom is 80 years old, and I can tell my colleagues that I feel 
great knowing that she is going to have a Social Security check coming 
every month, that she is going to be able to take care of the needs 
that she has. And I am very grateful that she has Medicare so I do not 
have to worry about whether or not she is going to have quality or 
adequate health care.
  That is why it is so essential that we exercise the discipline today 
so that those programs are going to be there for the next generation of 
people but they are also going to be there for this generation of 
retirees.
  Frankly, when I first ran for Congress, I used to talk about my 
granddaughter Katie and I used to point out that she is going to pay 
$185,000 in taxes in her lifetime just to pay her share of interest on 
the national debt. But we cannot pass a bigger tax burden on to our 
children and grandchildren because the consequence of that is that they 
are not going to have their shot at owning their own business or 
pursuing their dream, the American dream, because the tax burden would 
have to go up.
  So fairness dictates that we save Social Security, that we save 
Medicare, that we exercise the discipline today to make sure that those 
programs are going to be there and they are going to be sustained for 
my mother's generation, my generation, my children's generation, my 
grandchildren's generation, and even, hopefully, my great 
grandchildren's generation.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, all those concerned about saving Social 
Security, providing for a world-class education, providing for a 
national defense, and the other great priorities of our country are 
just grieving I think right now over the notion that we had to pony up 
$13.1 billion last week in the supplemental appropriations bill to 
support the President in his war and it is tremendous expense.
  When the failure of diplomatic policy disintegrates to the extent 
that it has and is carried out by unskilled administrators at the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a huge expense that detracts and 
takes away not only from all of these priorities that we discussed but 
from these children.
  At a $5.6 trillion national debt divided by all the men, women, and 
children in America, that comes out to about $20,000 per person. Now, a 
child born today has to pay that back over the course of his or her 
working life with interest, and it comes out to about 10 times that 
amount. A child born today literally owes on today's debt approximately 
$200,000.
  So we just have to fight harder not only at being more fiscally 
frugal here in Congress but insisting that our international policy and 
the skill with which we carry out diplomacy is done properly and done 
in a way that is emblematic of the most free, most powerful country on 
the planet.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  The manner in which he has described the inner workings of the 
Federal Government is very accurate in that what we do in one arena 
does affect what we do in another, particularly with respect to our 
financial condition, which is why I came down to the floor tonight was 
to bring the attention of this chamber to the continuing disastrous 
foreign policy being pursued by the Clinton administration.
  The activities being promulgated by the Clinton administration in 
Yugoslavia remain unauthorized by the Congress, unapproved by the 
Congress, and completely bewildering to the vast majority of the 
residents of the Third District of California.
  What is the national security interest that the administration is 
seeking to protect by destroying the infrastructure of Yugoslavia? What 
is the standard by which the administration will judge their air 
campaign a success?
  Going to the reference of my colleague, how much will this ill-
founded campaign cost our country in blood, bombs, and bullion that has 
to be taken from Social Security if nowhere else?
  It is inarguable that the administration's foreign policy in 
Yugoslavia is reducing our military readiness and preparedness. What 
will be the consequence to our national interest as a result of this 
stripping of our ability to conduct our military efforts elsewhere in 
the world, and for what purpose?

[[Page 9192]]

  My friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) earlier shared with us the list of 
obviously non-military targets being destroyed or damaged in this air 
campaign. Those are my colleagues' and my tax dollars being used on, as 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) said, day-care centers, schools, 
churches and the like. That is Social Security money being used to 
destroy day-care centers, schools, churches and the like.
  Do my colleagues know what I find the most ironic? I go home on 
Friday of last week and I find it extremely ironic that all of 
America's foreign policy eggs now rest in a Russian basket.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this must stop, not next month, not next 
week, not tomorrow, now.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is remarkable, just 
as my colleague says, about our reliance on a Russian partnership to 
try to resolve this matter and keep some peaceful solution.
  I found it disturbing somewhat the level to which the communications 
and diplomacy with our Russian counterparts have disintegrated. Two 
weeks ago we had a Republican Conference meeting downstairs and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) announced that he was at wit's 
end that we can no longer rely on communication between the President 
of the United States and the President of Russia.
  The President of Russia, of course, is virtually incapacitated as a 
result of a medical condition and lacks the mental coherence to lead 
the country, and so there is a shell of a Government that operates 
around him. And our own President, of course, is typically preoccupied 
with other things and unable to devote the full attention that the 
American people deserve to the crisis.
  And so Members of Congress, again, had proposed to meet with members 
of the Russian Duma in Vienna a week ago Friday; and it was the 
greatest hope for optimism that we had in resolving the crisis between 
the two countries. And I say remarkable because, as a Congress, we have 
no diplomatic leverage, we have no diplomatic authority, we cannot sign 
treaties, we cannot engage in the kind of discussions that the State 
Department can. Yet, absent the leadership from the White House, it has 
come to the legislative body of two countries to meet together to try 
to hammer out a compromise and a solution.
  The fortunate outcome of that meeting was that there were some 
positive results that were reported back to this Congress just last 
week. Again, keeping in mind the limited authority that legislators 
have to engage in diplomacy, there were still pretty promising 
prospects for the Russian Government to use its considerable leverage 
over Milosevic to try to get him to cease the efforts toward ethnic 
cleansing; and that would, of course, have to correspond with an effort 
by the United States to withdraw from military activity and put in 
place an international coalition of peacekeepers.
  Unfortunately, for a long period of time, that is an expensive 
proposition. Far cheaper, however, than even one week's worth of a 
full-scale war that is being undertaken today.
  But I point that out to my colleagues and to the American people in 
general just so that we all can keep in the proper perspective about 
the miserable failure in leadership that is occurring again at the 
White House, the lack of skill and expertise in carrying forward the 
position of leadership that the United States of America for 223 years 
has traditionally enjoyed.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield on 
that point. The gentleman's point is well made. And I do not think we 
need to go further than to examine simply our ability to communicate 
with the Russian Duma, for instance.
  The administration did not approve of those trips, did not sanction 
them, did not disprove them, nor did they discourage that trip. 
Interestingly enough, Reverend Jackson, who went and met with Milosevic 
and obtained the release of those three gentlemen with one of our 
members, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), that  was a 
remarkable event. That was leadership, taking on the burden, 
unsanctioned, unapproved, unencouraged. And yet he went forward. That 
is what leadership is all about. And he brought those three people home 
to the grateful arms of this country.
  I really wish that that kind of leadership existed more in the 
administration. Because that was a great victory for just our ability 
in America to act in our best interest.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, I know that before coming here to the House he was a 
businessman; and like me I think as a businessman, I think I used to 
always try to contemplate the consequences of the decisions that I made 
as a businessman and tried to anticipate them. And I keep trying to 
anticipate what the outcome will be of this war in Kosovo.
  If, by chance, Milosevic agrees at some point to withdraw his troops 
and allows us to put peacekeeping occupying troops, in reality, into 
Kosovo, which the administration would consider a victory, the 
consequence of that is going to be that we will elevate the KLA, which 
our own State Department has identified as a terrorist organization. It 
obtains its funding by being a conduit for illicit drugs and drug 
trafficking. It is an organization that has its ties to Bin Laden, the 
terrorist group. It has as its objective the autonomy of Kosovo but 
probably the linking of Kosovo to Albania, which would create greater 
Albania, which would be a terrible destabilizing influence on that part 
of the world.
  My point, simply, is that any definition of ``victory'' as it might 
be described by the White House leads to serious consequences that 
substantially complicate the proposition in the Balkans, increases the 
level of commitment that we are going to have to make in terms of 
personnel and troops and resources, all of which appear to be negative. 
And that is the question that I have with the policy from the beginning 
is I could not see any outcome from our decision to go to war and to 
bomb Kosovo that was a positive one other than the potential to stop 
the ethnic cleansing.
  I mean, if it would have been possible through our actions to stop 
the Serbs from driving the Kosovars out of Kosovo, that is possible. 
But the fact is that the policy was an utter failure.
  And interestingly, in all the briefings that I attended prior to our 
decision to go to war, I was told that that was the likely result, that 
the air strikes could not stop Milosevic, that it would not cause him 
to change his mind, and that it could not stop the Serbs from driving 
the Kosovars out of their country. So, from the beginning, where we are 
today was fully anticipated.
  Now, the problem is that is there any outcome that would be a 
positive outcome for us and for that region of the country, and I am 
having difficulty in my own mind being able to draw that conclusion.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. There are a few American people that are not able to, 
as well. I have another letter that I want to share with my colleagues. 
This woman is from Loveland, Colorado. I just received the letter last 
week. She wrote:

       Dear Congressman Schaffer, ``I am writing to voice my 
     opposition to our bombing of Kosovo. It seems I am never 
     called by the public opinion polls that seem so influential 
     in Government policy-making. I hope that you, as my 
     representative in Colorado, will vote against financing any 
     further aggression against Kosovo.
       I hope the War Powers Act will get serious reconsideration 
     and be revoked. I feel this act tempts the President to use 
     war as a tool of diplomacy. If a NATO member had been 
     attacked, I would certainly be behind this bombing. It is not 
     that I condone ethnic cleansing, but I do feel it should only 
     be addressed by war when it crosses a country's border. 
     Otherwise it falls to diplomatic or U.N. action, sanctions, 
     in my humble opinion.
       It is very hard to pay your taxes April 15 and realize, 
     less than a week later, $6 billion is being requested for 
     actions in Kosovo. It is time Congress take back some 
     control.

  I just grabbed the sample of letters that happened to be sitting on 
the desk. I think out of 30 or 40 anti-Kosovo letters, there was one 
among them that is in favor of the action. I am curious as to whether 
the woman

[[Page 9193]]

from Loveland, Colorado, echoes similar sentiments to those that my 
colleague hears among his constituency?

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Are you sure of the postmark of that letter? That sounds like it came 
from Sacramento or Woodland or Yuba City.
  My colleague earlier referred to the law of unintended consequences 
that we all deal with in business and having to ever so carefully 
calibrate what we are doing and the consequence thereof. I have to say, 
I have never seen a truer example of what happens under the law of 
unintended consequences than this fiasco we are involved in in 
Yugoslavia.
  The President has no plan, the President has no means of measuring 
success, the President does not know what it is going to cost, and the 
President does not know when we are coming home.
  Contrary to the depiction of this body last week where someone in the 
administration said we voted against coming home, against going forward 
and against supporting anything, in fact we did vote to keep our troops 
out of Yugoslavia, to not declare war in a situation that does not 
threaten our national security interest, and to require the President 
and the administration to comply with the constitutional requirement 
that Congress retains the sole authority to declare war. That was a 
strength of our system and a triumph for American democracy. I was 
pleased to be part of it.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I just want to make one comment.
  We had the vote on the appropriations issue. I think a lot of folks 
out there are thinking, well, if Congress had not appropriated that 
money, that would have stopped the President from conducting the war. 
Of course, that is not true. The President is conducting this war, was 
conducting this war out of the normal defense budget. That will be 
tested under the War Powers Act, what the limits of his constitutional 
authority as Commander in Chief is. But the fact is that, had Congress 
not approved that appropriation, the President could have continued to 
wage this war.
  This Congress, this House of Representatives, however, sent a strong 
message to the President that we do not believe that we should be at 
war with Yugoslavia and that we do not believe that he ought to send 
ground troops in, whether they are for peacekeeping purposes or whether 
they are for combat purposes or whether they are there for an occupying 
force.
  At a recent meeting that we had with the Secretary of Defense, he 
made it clear that the level of commitment of ground forces if we win 
this war will be several times higher than the level of commitment that 
was being talked about before we started the air campaign. I do not 
think the American people are prepared for the size of the force that 
it is going to take to occupy that country. What we have to understand 
is that the President's current plan for rules of engagement if we do 
send those troops in there, which would be to further this disaster, 
would be to disarm the Kosovar Liberation Army, which is now doubled or 
tripled in size according to the latest reports, who are prepared to 
fight a war of attrition as they have fought for centuries for 
independence for that country.
  The fact is we will be putting our troops into a very troubling, very 
harmful situation where the warring parties are still going to have 
conflicting interests.
  It concerns me deeply, where the President is leading us. The best 
thing for us to do is to find some peaceful solution that allows us to 
end our commitment to this fiasco, as my colleague from California 
calls it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The confidence of the American people as well needs to 
be considered, also. We are not used to seeing wars carried out in the 
fashion that this President is carrying out this war. We are used to 
winning decisively. We are used to seeing U.S. leaders clear the way 
through securing the support of the global community to stand against 
world tyrants as Milosevic certainly represents.
  I held a town meeting just yesterday morning, as I hold a town 
meeting every Monday morning, between Fort Collins and Loveland, 
Colorado, from 7 o'clock to 8:30. It is at that same place and same 
time. We open up the morning with a question of the day and see what is 
on the minds of the 60 or 70 people who routinely show up.
  The sense of outrage over the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy 
was something that just had American citizens in my district shaking 
their heads in disbelief. It is certainly unfortunate. Apologies from 
our country have gone out to the Chinese. It was acknowledged that this 
was a mistake, that the CIA had been operating under, as I understand, 
6-year-old maps in choosing this target.
  The B-2 that flew the mission actually hit the target it was 
intending to hit. It is just that our government and the folks over in 
the White House had no idea that, over the 6 years since that map had 
been constructed, that the real estate had changed ownership and has 
come into the hands of the country led by the gentleman who was in the 
United States just 3 weeks ago where we rolled out the red carpet for 
the Premier of China and welcomed him with open arms.
  Well, relationships are not all that favorable today, are quite 
strained and have set us back for a number of years.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado as well as those 
from Montana and California for this very informative special order.
  As my colleague raises the question of our relationship with China, I 
would invite my colleagues to rejoin me, Mr. Speaker, and those 
American citizens who watch these proceedings on the House floor in 1 
hour's time, thereabouts, commensurate with the rules of the House in 
special orders, as we graciously provide time to our friends, the 
minority, and then return with majority viewpoint on what is 
transpiring in the world.
  But I want to thank you for the letters, the points of reference and 
the fact that our national security is at risk and we have to take 
steps to provide for the common defense. I look forward to furthering 
that discussion in about 1 hour's time.
  Mr. OSE. I would like to return, finally, to the point that the 
gentleman from Colorado was touching on just prior to my initial 
remarks, that being that following on the law of unintended 
consequences, the consequence to us in Congress is that we are forced 
to make choices. When one member of the government, that being the 
President, interjects our military forces into an arena where arguably 
we do not belong and have no national security interest at risk, it 
forces us to choose between standing behind the troops and making sure 
that they have the adequate munitions and materiel to conduct this 
campaign and defend themselves or the other choice being reducing our 
ability to fund domestic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, 
education and infrastructure.
  I do not relish that choice. I want to take care of our military to 
the highest degree possible. We stand today in a position that is 
seriously degraded relative to our historical positions on a military 
sense. But we have responsibilities elsewhere in this country of a 
domestic nature. Having the administration conduct this affair, if you 
will, I use that word advisedly, forces us to take money from other 
programs that are desperately needed here, being Social Security and 
Medicare. It is, again, a prime example of the law of unintended 
consequences. We are engaged in something overseas that has no 
constitutional authority, for which there is no identified national 
security interest at stake, and are being forced to reduce our ability 
to deal with programs here at home that are vitally important to our 
seniors and our youth and the people throughout this country. It is a 
difficult choice that we are faced with.
  I think last week Congress stepped up and sent a clear and 
unequivocal signal that there were people who disagreed with the 
administration. Again, I want to get back to my point, that is a 
triumph of our system.

[[Page 9194]]


  Mr. HILL of Montana. The gentleman from Colorado I think drew some 
contrasts with regard to leadership. One I think can look at the Gulf 
War and the Kosovo War and see some differences in terms of leadership.
  President George Bush and Colin Powell provided outstanding 
leadership in organizing our political interests, our military 
interests, identifying our vital national interests, getting the 
support of the American people and then using overwhelming military 
force to accomplish the mission. We have engaged in the war in Kosovo 
now longer than we were engaged in the Gulf War. A lot of folks I do 
not think realize that.
  But my point simply is, is that the Powell doctrine grew out of that. 
I want to remind my colleagues what that is. First, our political and 
military interests have to be aligned. There has to be a vital national 
interest.
  General Powell has pointed out that he sees no vital national 
interest. He sees, by the way, there it has no threat to NATO as well.
  And then the American people have got to be brought on board. That 
takes leadership. It takes a President who is willing to go out and 
explain to the American people why this is important, it is important 
to our national interest, and why it is important for us to commit the 
resources and take the risks that are associated with it.
  And then there has to be a plan for what victory is going to look 
like and then a full commitment of whatever it is going to take to 
accomplish that.
  Look at this situation. Whereas we had, I do not recall how many, 40 
nations or so, supporting us in the Gulf War, we really have 19, but 
they are not really fully committed. Our political and military 
interests are not aligned at all. Congress does not support the effort. 
There is no plan for victory. The commitment of force is insufficient 
to accomplish the mission. It was noted from the beginning. The 
difference in leadership is stark.
  That is why we are in this terrible dilemma that we are in today. 
Congress is facing a difficult dilemma because we have a worn-out and 
hollowed-out military; and this adventure, this war in Kosovo, is 
making that situation worse and more complicated and weakening our 
ability to defend our true national interests in other parts of the 
world. And so it is a very difficult proposition for all of us, I know.
  But if we had a leader who understood the principles that are 
associated with what we need in terms of foreign and military policy, I 
know a lot of us would feel a lot more comfortable going forward from 
here.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado for arranging the time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman from Montana hit the nail on the head 
when it comes to this letter that I received from a constituent again 
last week from Brighton, Colorado. He writes:

       Dear Congressman Schaffer: I am writing this letter in 
     response to NATO's action in Kosovo. I do not agree with this 
     action. Specifically, and he has a number of points here, six 
     points:
       NATO should not be involved in an offensive action. It is a 
     defensive treaty organization.
       Number two, I do not believe that the United States should 
     be involved in this action because it is not in the national 
     interest, and I believe the bombing of Kosovo has made the 
     refugees worse off than if we had stayed out of it.
       Number three, I view what is going on in Kosovo as an 
     ageless civil war which we have no business getting into.
       Number four, I do not agree with sending ground troops, 
     either NATO's or the U.S.'s into Yugoslavia.
       Number five, I will never agree to allowing the U.S. to 
     spend untold billions of dollars to support the NATO effort 
     in Kosovo or Yugoslavia.
       Number six, I do not agree with favoring the selective aid 
     to one country which is being subjected to, quote, ethnic 
     cleansing over many others that have suffered the same fate 
     in the near past and the present.

  Again, this is from a constituent in Brighton.
  In the closing minutes that we have, I would like to invite my 
colleagues to comment on letters like this. We are receiving thousands 
and thousands of letters from constituents. I view these letters to be 
very, very important. They provide for me the encouragement and the 
direction from my constituency to help me be a more forceful leader on 
the House floor and to speak more clearly about the interests of my 
constituency that I propose to represent here and believe that I do.
  I think it is a healthy thing for all Americans right now, if they 
have ever considered writing a letter, showing up at a town meeting, 
calling a Member of Congress, submitting a letter to the President, 
this is the time to do it. We have not had a crisis of this proportion 
in a long, long time. This is not a time for inaction among the 
constituents.
  I would like to hear in the minute or two that we have left from the 
others their opinions on the value of constituent input.
  Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  I, too, had town hall meetings this weekend. In fact, I had one last 
night in a community called Carmichael. It was probably a 95 percent 
opposition to what we are doing in Yugoslavia.
  The characterization that you lent to your constituent I think is 
extremely accurate. The American people have a very clear understanding 
of what America is all about. America is not about being undefined, 
ill-equipped and undirected towards an objective. America is about 
figuring out what we want to do and then doing it.
  We are not in that situation today by virtue of a lack of leadership 
from the administration. The voters of this country understand how 
America works, and they are looking to us to conduct our affairs in 
accordance with that clear thing. That is, identify the objective and 
then go do it.
  I thank the gentleman for including me in this hour tonight. I am 
pleased to reinforce the sentiments that he has seen in his 
constituents.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me just ask one more question. How important are 
letters like this in your office and among your constituency? What 
happens to these letters when they get to your desk?
  Mr. OSE. The gentleman from Colorado brings up an interesting point. 
We probably receive upwards of 5 to 700 letters a week, some by e-mail, 
some by Postal Service. We respond to every one. The subject matter is 
all over the map, depending on what happens.
  We find that an absolutely credible means of identifying things that 
are affecting our constituents directly. It is an immediate thing. It 
is like squeezing a water balloon in my district. If something happens, 
bam, I have got a letter. Something happens, bam, I have got an e-mail.
  I want to encourage everybody, as we have for 220 years, to stay in 
touch with their representatives and continue to write. In fact, now 
would be a very timely period to write because of our difficulty with 
the administration in Yugoslavia.
  I thank the gentleman for that point.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. As the gentleman knows, certainly there are 
well-informed Members of Congress on most every issue, but I find that 
there is greater wisdom in my district than there is wisdom here in 
this Capitol. Very often, my constituents write to me and give me 
special insights into how an issue or how a matter would impact them.

                              {time}  2100

  Certainly people have, I think, a personal view of the situation in 
Kosovo. They have sons and daughters who may be called upon to fight, 
or they have neighbors who will or friends.
  But also I think that there is an issue here about who we are as a 
country and how we are governed as a country. I do not think that the 
American people are comfortable with the idea that one person can make 
a decision to put this Nation at war, put our men and women at risk and 
the treasury of the country at risk without the consent of the American 
people and their Congress.
  The letters that I have received are overwhelming in opposition to 
this war, but I have found some of them very insightful. Even had one 
member of the Armed Services send me a letter resigning his commission 
as a consequence of this.
  But the fact is, is that I find that extraordinarily valuable. Like 
my colleagues, I think we received 40,000 or

[[Page 9195]]

more letters a year. We respond to them all. It is a challenge for us 
to get that job done. But the value to me, of course, is hearing from 
my constituents, having their input, having their ideas and their 
views. I always learn from them, and I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. We are all part of the Republican majority here in 
Congress, and many people wonder how it is that we have two divergent 
viewpoints in Washington about how to lead the country, that which is 
represented by the President and that which is represented by the 
majority here in Congress, and I think tonight's special order by 
Republicans, Members of the majority party, is one indication of how it 
is we come to differences of opinions on such important matters of 
public policy.
  I am proud to be a part of the party that takes its direction from 
the people of the country, that reads the mail, that listens to the 
phone calls, that responds to the opinions that come to us at town 
meetings, and, as we all know, there are legions of special interests 
whose lobbyists parade through the halls of Congress trying to leverage 
every bit of influence that they can on politicians, but it is the 
voice of real people, ordinary Americans who will commit to 10, 15, 20 
minutes to sit down and put their thoughts in writing and communicate 
to their Congressman that, if they continue to do so in great numbers 
and reach out and realize the tremendous difference that a Republican 
majority has made in this Congress for the American people, it is not 
only possible but, I believe, imminent that the voice of the people 
will rise up over and above those of the special interests that have so 
much influence at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  So I am very, very proud to be associated with the colleagues that 
have joined me here tonight, Mr. Speaker, in this special order. I am 
grateful for the indulgence in yielding to us an hour for the majority 
party, and for those members of the majority party we try to reserve 
this hour every Wednesday night, and we will be back next week.

                          ____________________