October 6, 1995

President William Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC. 20500

Dear President Clinton:

The current impasse in the Senate-House conference on the Defense Authorization bill for next year is largely caused by the issue of whether assistance of U.S. Armed Forces to past, current and future United Nations "Peace Keeping" operations in the former Yugoslavia should be under the direct command of the United Nations. We believe that there are at least seven questions involved in resolving this difficult issue: 1) Whether such U.S. intervention in United Nations ''Peace Keeping" operations in this historically troubled region is in the U.S. "national interests" in the first place; 2) Whether constitutional procedures will be respected in the decision making on this issue; 3) How many killed or wounded American soldiers we are prepared to sacrifice in such Operations, if any; 4) How many U.S. troops we will need to deploy; 5) How long they will need to be deployed; 6) How much the operation will cost, and who will pay; and finally, 7) Will foreign officers of the United Nations be in command of the U.S. forces, will they wear U.S. uniforms, and will they be under U.S. regulations? To fulfill its duties under the U.S. Constitution, Congress must play a role in deciding these tough questions.

The conference on the Defense bill is now concerned with the difference between the strong, legally binding House-passed language prohibiting United Nations command of U.S. Armed Forces, non-binding Senate language on this issue, and your veto threat which has mentioned your insistence on placing the United Nations in command of U.S. Allied Forces assisting in United Nations "Peace Keeping" operations.

In summary, we strongly believe that for all deployments of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, proper "war powers" decision-making procedures under the Constitution must be scrupulously followed at all times. Moreover, we strongly believe that if any members of the U.S Armed Forces are constitutionally deployed to assist in any United Nations "Peace Keeping" operations in the former Yugoslavia, American forces must always be totally under American command, wear distinctive U.S. military uniforms with no augmentation of UN insignia, helmets, headgear, or accoutrements confusing their legal status as American Forces at all times and for all purposes, especially if they become Prisoners of War.

Letter to President Clinton
October 6, 1995
Page 2

Mr. President, we are deeply concerned about certain important constitutional issues raised by courageous and loyal young American soldier, Specialist Michael New, U.S. Army. According to information provided to us related to this case, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, you have:

        1 ) ordered Specialist New and other members of the U.S. Armed
        Forces to participate "in the service of the United Nations" in
        United Nations "Peace Keeping" military operation under actual
        United Nations foreign "command" in the former Yugoslavia (and
        also in other areas such as northern Iraq and Somalia);

        2) deployed members of the U.S Armed Forces under the
        "temporary operational control" of foreign United Nations
        commanders in such UN operations;

        3) required members of the U S Armed Forces to become "UN
        personnel" and to wear United Nations accoutrements or insignia
        to "augment" their U.S. military uniforms;

        4) ordered members of the U.S. Armed Forces to become subject
        to "The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United
        Nations," which may supersede the Geneva Convention on POWS and
        the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Under the Constitution, the Congress has a clear and specific role to play in deciding issues of war and peace, and in the administration and regulation of the U.S. Armed Forces. But, Mr. President, the Congress has not been informed or consulted on most of these acts, despite the fact that we have certain clear cut constitutional duties regarding these matters. Therefore, we request a full legal and constitutional analysis of the justification of your orders placing members of the United States Armed Forces under the "command" of foreign United Nations officers, especially your orders to U.S. Army Specialist Michael New.

We thank you in advance for promptly providing detailed and specific legal analyses and answers to our attached questions.

Sincerely,

DAVID FUNDERBURK
Member of Congress

ROBERT K. DORNAN
Member of Congress