We support the President's request. Thank you very much. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will include the Minority report. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.

Without objection, that will be transmitted to the Budget Committee.

Now, I think we can-do you want to do the Cambodian one?

We will now consider House Resolution 361, relating to the Cambodian elections. The Chair lays before the Committee the resolution. The clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. BLOOMER. "House Resolution 361, calling for free and impartial elections in Cambodia."

Chairman GILMAN. Now, this resolution was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and reported from them with an amendment in the nature of the substitute that is now before the Members.

[H. Res. 361 appears in the appendix.]

Without objection, the Committee print will be considered as an original text for the purpose of amendment, and without objection the clerk will read the preamble and operative language of the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute for amendment. It is so ordered the clerk will read the resolution for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. "Whereas, Cambodia continues to recover from years of political conflict, civil war, the era of Khmer Rouge genocide, and subsequent".

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point.

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 361 appears in the appendix.]

I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for being in the Banking Committee, where we are conducting activities.

Seven months after the violent coup ousted the democratically elected First Premier Prince Ranariddh from power, Cambodia's prospects for democracy remained a shattered dream.

The fragile coalition government finally disintegrated last July when Prime Minister Hun Sen violently expelled First Prime Minister Ranariddh from the government.

Many prominent opposition leaders fled into exile. Most of those politicians have subsequently returned to Cambodia to prepare for the elections scheduled for July 26th. However, because of continued intimidation by forces close to the Hun Sen regime, these politicians have been unable to conduct normal political activities.

Today, 7 months after the fact, Hun Sen's regime has yet to investigate many instances of extrajudicial killings that have taken place since the coup, despite repeated calls for accountability from domestic and international groups.

H. Res. 361 cites the coup d'etat of July 1997 and subsequent extrajudicial killings and other improper activities as evidence that conditions do not exist to conduct free, fair, and credible elections.

In response to these problems, H. Res. 361 urges the Cambodian Government to fully enforce the Paris Peace Accords, to restore a nonviolent and neutral political atmosphere, to allow all exiled opposition leaders, including First Premier Ranariddh, to return to Cambodia and engage in political activity without fear of physical or political reprisal and to take further measures to ensure a credible election.

H. Res. 361 also states the unwillingness to accept as legitimate or worthy of U.S. assistance a Cambodian Government resulting from fraudulent elections.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support and the Subcommittee Members for their unanimous support. We adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which made a number of modest textual changes. For example, the amendment corrects the value of the European Union's contribution to the elections and so

on.

At the request of Mr. Hamilton, an additional clause was added that calls upon the Cambodian Government to work with the U.N. Center for Human Rights in Phnom Penh.

In addition, a "final resolve clause" was included that states the U.S. unwillingness to accept as legitimate any Cambodian Government that arises out of a flawed election.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of H. Res. 361.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this resolution passed unanimously out of our Committee. It is strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, and I urge its adoption.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just express my appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, for his leadership. I appreciate the manner in which the Majority worked with the Minority to get a strong resolution.

This is an important resolution. It represents a vote for democracy, and with a little luck and a lot of effort by the Cambodian people we may yet get democratic governance in that country.

So I strongly support the resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on it.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.

I want to commend the chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, for introducing this resolution calling for free and fair elections in Cambodia and for keeping this issue in the forefront of our work on our Committee.

The people of Cambodia who had expressed their overwhelming commitment to the democratic process in 1993 deserve the unflagging support of this body, the American people, and the U.S. Government, and the entire international community.

But as you know, democracy is in danger in Cambodia. The illegitimate Government of Hun Sen continues to impose its political will on the people of Cambodia and threatens the legitimacy of a democratic process that many, both inside and outside of Cambodia, have worked so hard to create.

The people of Cambodia deserve much better. With only four short months until the July elections, H. Res. 361 is an extremely timely resolution. It is critical that this body continue to bring to the attention of the American people and to the world the plight of Cambodia.

We should also call on others, such as ASEAN and the European Union to do the right thing and support the real democratic process in Cambodia embodied in free, fair, and fully representative elections.

Although I believe my views on the subject are well known, I want to express my strong support for the democratic forces in Cambodia and for the Cambodian people who have suffered so much. We are all disappointed in the current state of affairs, but we are committed to bringing democracy, justice, peace, and freedom, once again, to the kingdom of Cambodia and the Khmer people.

There is much work to do between now and then, but this resolution, expressing the sense in Congress, I think is an appropriate start.

I am proud to be a co-sponsor. I look forward to bringing it to the floor expeditiously for consideration.

Is any other Member seeking recognition?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. If there are no other Members seeking recognition, I recognize the gentleman-if not, the question of agreeing to the Subcommittee amendment, as amended, any that are in favor of the amendment say aye.

Those that are opposed say no.

The amendment is agreed to.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their support and your support.

I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is now on a motion by the gentleman from Nebraska. As many in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

As many as opposed, signify by saying no.

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Further proceedings on this measure are postponed.

And now we will return to the Committee's consideration of the Campbell resolution. When the Committee recessed Mr. Campbell had introduced his amendment. We now recognize Mr. Campbell on the amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you and colleagues.

The amendment deals with the timing of when the President would have to implement the War Powers Resolution. The initial draft said June 30th and what this amendment does is to strike the reference to June 30th and instead say "60 days following a determination of a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction."

My purpose in making this change is so that we completely remove the question of any date that would impact a particular policy.

Almost all of the discussion that I heard yesterday dealt with the question about the policy, is the policy right? I respectfully suggest that probably that was the wrong direction to be taking because this resolution doesn't deal with the policy. It deals with who shall decide, and so by removing the June 30th date and placing in reference to a court determination, we make it clear that we are not going to have any impact until such time as a court has ruled, which is the secondary purpose, I should say, but important purpose of this resolution."

I checked with the parliamentarian, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, and I have checked with the Office of Legislative Counsel, and they inform me that this amendment is appropriate formalistically; that it will preserve the special status, the priority status, of this amendment.

I will just take the remaining moment or two to say what I would intend to do. In that it is 100 percent likely the Administration will not change and give a vote to Congress upon the passage of a concurrent resolution by itself, I thought why, and they will have to take it to court anyway, I thought why not have the triggering effect when the court rules, and that is what this resolution does.

In the remaining time, I would just say for those who weren't able to attend yesterday's hearing, that the fundamental point is there are hostilities in Bosnia. You can't deny there are hostilities. I put at everybody's desk a black binder, which I prepared, with my staff's help. The most important provision I think to look at right now is under Tab A, where we define hostilities with reference to the House Committee Report.

So in that black binder you have the bill, and you have this most recent amendment, and you have the definition of hostilities: "Hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired, but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict."

I would submit that all of the discussion about what is happening in Kosovo suggests that this could start up once again any moment and, in that sense, hostilities are, indeed, present, as they are defined in this resolution.

So, Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment for the purposes of removing any suggestion that we are dealing with the policy about our troops in Bosnia, but leave the issue so that I may take it to a court.

And in one remaining moment, if I still have the time, I wanted to explain the strategy of bringing this to court.

I need a resolution. When Congressman Dellums brought his case to court in 1990, Judge Greene ruled that he was able to bring it-he had standing—that it was not a political question, but that it was not ripe.

I have behind Tab C, if you take a look at that, the second page, a description of Judge Greene's decision. The lawsuit ran aground on the fourth finding by Judge Greene, "That unless and until the

plaintiffs could get a majority of their colleagues to join their challenge, the case was not ripe for decision."

Chairman GILMAN. Where are you reading from?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Page 2 behind Tab C, Professor Ely's summary of Judge Greene's opinion, holding that there was standing, there was no political question, it was appropriate for adjudication, but not ripe due to absence of a resolution.

And so what I am proposing here is the resolution. From here I then would go into court with the ability to argue under both 5(b) and 5(c) and the Constitution.

This, I would respectfully suggest, is my answer to Mr. Hamilton. You were not present when I offered my rebuttal, my attempted rebuttal, and I would like to just repeat it if I may.

The court will likely have presented-because if I am involved in this I will present not only 5(c), but 5(b) and 5(b) does not require an action by Congress, but I would be thrown out for lack of ripeness by not getting a resolution by Congress.

I hope we will bring the case under the Constitution directly, which is how Congressman Dellums brought it. But I can't get into court without a resolution. So I am using 5(c) to get a resolution because that gives me a privileged motion on the floor. I won't get a rule, God knows, otherwise.

Once the Congress gives me the resolution, we then can argue 5(b), which does not require any action by Congress. It says the President shall submit that report upon introducing troops into hostilities and if he does not, 60 days thereafter he has got to bring them out by himself, no action needed, and I will argue directly under the Constitution, as Ron Dellums did.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have had a brief conversation with the gentleman on the telephone about this issue, but I have not given it the study I should. It is a fascinating issue. I have a few questions just based on what you have said, and I think they are probably very easy answers to straighten out.

My recollection of the War Powers Act is that, when certain conditions are met, a report is required, and if Congress does not speak within a certain number of days after, I guess, that report has been filed, any existing authorization to have our forces in harms way or in the midst of hostilities-I thought, at one point, it was even the imminent threat of hostilities was the standardthat there would be no authorization for those forces to remain there more than a certain number of days.

So what I can't understand is, on this ripeness issue, if either the report has not been filed or Congress has not within a certain number of days provided the authorization, what is there about passing your resolution that makes the case more ripe than just the factual situation and the existence of the War Powers Act?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would have ruled the same way as you if I were Judge Greene, but Judge Greene ruled ripeness. I agree with you.