[House Report 106-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-116
=======================================================================
DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5(c) OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, TO REMOVE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM THEIR POSITIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRESENT OPERATIONS AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF YUGOSLAVIA
_______
April 27, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Gilman, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted
the following
ADVERSE REPORT
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 82]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on International Relations, to whom was
referred the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 82) directing
the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from their
positions in connection with the present operations against the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, having considered the same,
report unfavorably thereon and recommend that the concurrent
resolution not be agreed to.
Background and Purpose
Representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
and the ethnic Albanians from the Serb Province of Kosovo
convened for negotiations in Rambouillet, France on February 7,
1999. After sixteen days of talks the negotiations recessed at
the request of the Albanians, who wanted to return to Kosovo to
consult with members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and
others among the Albanian community. Three weeks later the
negotiations reconvened and the Albanian representatives signed
the Rambouillet Accords which provided for substantial autonomy
for the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, a sharp reduction of
Serbian police and military personnel in the province, and a
NATO-led peacekeeping force comprised of 28,000 troops, of
which the United States had agreed to provide 4,000.
On March 11, 1999, the House adopted H. Con. Res. 42, a
concurrent resolution stating, in part, that ``the President is
authorized to deploy United States Armed Forces personnel to
Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation implementing a
Kosovo peace agreement.''
Representatives from NATO had made clear to the government
of the FRY that if the Albanians agree to the Rambouillet
Accords and the FRY did not, NATO would undertake punitive air
strikes against targets throughout the FRY. The FRY, objecting
to the provisions for the NATO-led peacekeeping force, refused
to sign the Accords, and the talks ended. On March 24, 1999
NATO launched the air strikes. On March 26, 1999, President
Clinton reported to the Congress, ``consistent with the War
Powers Resolution'', that the United States had begun ``a
series of air strikes in the [FRY] in response to the FRY
government's continued campaign of violence and repression
against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo.''
Serbian special police and military forces have, despite
the NATO air strikes, been able to conduct an offensive
operation in Kosovo involving in excess of 40,000 troops.
Serbian forces have driven more than 850,000 of the 1.6 million
Albanians out of Kosovo, and there are reports that there may
be at least 500,000 more internally displaced within Kosovo.
Albanian refugees have reported that they have witnessed mass
killings, rapes and other atrocities. It is believed that there
are 100,000 men of war-fighting age being held in Kosovo by the
Serbs for forced labor or as potential human shields or
hostages.
H. Con. Res. 82, introduced by Rep. Tom Campbell on April
12, 1999 is a concurrent resolution that directs the President,
pursuant to section 5 (c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public
Law 93-148, 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) to remove U.S. Armed Forces
from their positions in connection with the present operations
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia within thirty days
after passage or within such longer period as may be necessary
to effectuate their safe withdrawal.
Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution provides in
pertinent part that:
* * * at any time that United States Armed Forces are
engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the
United States, its possessions and territories without
a declaration of war or specific statutory
authorization, such forces shall be removed by the
President if Congress so directs by concurrent
resolution.
Section 7 of the War Powers Resolution provides expedited
procedures to govern the consideration of concurrent
resolutions introduced pursuant to section 5(c).
Concurrent resolutions are resolutions approved by both
houses of Congress but not presented to the President for
signature into law. When the War Powers Resolution was enacted
in 1973, it was widely believed that Congress could require the
President to act in response to the adoption of concurrent
resolutions. In 1983, however, the Supreme Court ruled in INS
v. Chadha that provisions of law purporting to require the
President to act in response to the adoption of concurrent
resolutions are unconstitutional because they deny the
President his right to veto legislation to which he objects. It
is generally accepted that section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution was among the concurrent resolution provisions
rendered ineffective by the Chadha decision.
The fact that a concurrent resolution passed pursuant to
section 5(c) may not legally require the President to withdraw
U.S. Armed Forces from a foreign country does not mean that
section 5(c)--and the associated expedited procedures of
section 7--effectively have been repealed. Rather, the import
of the Chadha decision is that any concurrent resolution passed
pursuant to section 5(c) would not be binding.
In addition, because the Chadha decision does not address
congressional procedures, the expedited procedures of section 7
remain available with respect to concurrent resolutions
introduced under section 5(c). Under section 7, the Committee
is required to report H. Con. Res. 82 within fifteen calendar
days, or by Tuesday, April 27, 1999. The resolution ``shall
become the pending business of the House in question * * * and
shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless
such House otherwise determines by the yeas and nays.''
The Committee is generally sympathetic to the intent of the
sponsor of the resolution to reassert the constitutional
authority of Congress with respect to deployments of U.S. Armed
Forces into hostilities abroad.
The Committee is of the view that, if adopted, H. Con. Res.
82 would have severe deleterious consequences for U.S. national
security and severe repercussions within the North Atlantic
Alliance, and that it would not address the situation that we,
along with our allies, now face in the Balkans. Without
continued U.S. participation in the NATO operation in the FRY,
the Alliance is not capable of fulfilling its stated objective
of securing a withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo
and creating the conditions for a safe return of refugees and
the presence of an international military force. Failure by
NATO to achieve its stated objectives after the use of massive
air power, would embolden theleadership of the FRY, and other
potential adversaries. The Committee feels that withdrawal of U.S.
armed forces will only exacerbate the shortcomings of present U.S.
policy.
Committee Action
Introduction and Consideration of the Resolution
The Committee on International Relations held a hearing on
February 10, 1999 concerning U.S. policy in Kosovo and received
testimony from Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Thomas Pickering, and from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
Walter Slocombe. On March 10, 1999 the Committee received
testimony from a number of private witnesses regarding Kosovo,
including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former
Permanent Representative of the U.S. to the United Nations
Jeanne Kirkpatrick and former Senator Bob Dole. On April 21,
1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified on the
situation in Kosovo before the Committee. In addition to these
public hearings, Administration and U.S. military officials
have briefed members in closed sessions, and there have been
consultations conducted by the President with key members of
the Congress.
H. Con. Res. 82 was introduced by Representative Campbell
on April 12, 1999 and referred by the Speaker to the Committee
on International Relations. The Committee began its mark-up of
H. Con. Res. 82 on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, continued the
mark-up on Thursday, April 22, 1999, and concluded its
consideration of the measure and, a quorum being present,
ordered it reported adversely, by record vote, on Tuesday,
April 27, 1999.
Record Votes on Amendments and Motion to Report
Clause (3)(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the results of each record vote
on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of
those voting for or against, be printed in the committee
report. The following record vote was taken during the
consideration of H. Con. Res. 82:
Description of Amendment, Motion, Order, or Other Proposition (Vote
during markup of H. Con. Res. 82--April 27, 1999)
(4:42 p.m.).--Bereuter motion to order the resolution
reported adversely.
Voting Yes: Gilman, Hyde, Bereuter, Smith, Burton,
Ballenger, King, Houghton, McHugh, Gillmor, Gejdenson, Lantos,
Berman, Ackerman, Faleomavaega, Martinez, Payne, Menendez,
Brown, Hastings, Hilliard, Sherman, Wexler, Rothman, Davis,
Pomeroy, Delahunt, Meeks, Crowley, and Hoeffel.
Voting No: Goodling, Leach, Gallegly, Ros-Lehtinen,
Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot, Sanford, Salmon,
Campbell, Brady, Burr, Radanovich, Cooksey, Tancredo, McKinney,
Danner, and Lee.
Ayes 30. Noes 19.
Other Matters
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Committee on Government Reform Findings
Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain a
summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by
the Government Reform Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of
rule X of those Rules. The Committee on International Relations
has received no such findings or recommendations from the
Committee on Government Reform.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
resolution.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the resolution does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures, Congressional Budget Office
Cost Estimate, and Federal Mandates Statements
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies
a measure providing new budget authority, new spending
authority, or new credit authority or changing revenues or tax
expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section
308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended,
and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget
authority, a comparison of the estimated funding level for the
relevant program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under
current law.
Clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires committees to include their own cost
estimates in certain committee reports, which include, when
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate
levels under current law.
Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the report of any committee on a
measure which has been approved by the Committee to include a
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is timely submitted.
The Committee is not of the view that the reports referred
to above need be submitted with respect to H. Con. Res. 82, but
has requested them for the information of Members and provides
them as a service to the Members. Accordingly, the Committee
adopts the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office as
its own submission of any new required information with respect
to H. Con. Res. 82 on new budget authority, new spending
authority, new credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
the national debt. It also adopts the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The estimate and report which has been received is set out
below.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 27, 1999.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: At your request, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for
H. Con. Res. 82, a concurrent resolution directing the
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from their
positions in connection with the present operations against the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeannette
Deshong.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
H. Con. Res. 82--Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of
the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces
from their positions in connection with the present operations
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The resolution would direct the President to remove U.S.
military forces from their positions in connection with the
present operations against Yugoslavia within 30 days after the
resolution is passed or within as long a time as necessary for
their safe withdrawal.
Uncertainty about the duration, intensity, and conduct of
the present operations makes it impossible to estimate the
savings from implementing the resolution. The Department of
Defense has requested about $5.5 billion to cover the costs in
1999 of actual and projected operations. Ultimately, the costs
in 1999 and later years would depend on the scope, duration,
and intensity of the operations, which CBO cannot predict. If
fighting escalated to include U.S. ground forces, costs would
be about $400 million a month to deploy and sustain each
increment of 27,000 troops and over $1 billion a month to
sustain an air campaign.
The estimate was prepared by Jeannette Deshong. This
estimate was approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The Resolution consists of a single section entitled
``Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.'' This section states that ``Pursuant
to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the President to remove
United States Armed Forces from their positions in connection
with the present operations against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia within 30 days after the passage of this resolution
or within any such longer period as may be necessary to
effectuate their safe withdrawal.''