69–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 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.
2

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
3

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 the leadership 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
4

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 markup 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.
5

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.
6

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 pas-
7

sage of this resolution or within any such longer period as may be

necessary to effectuate their safe withdrawal.’’

Æ