[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8109-H8122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the House Resolution 204, and 
rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the Senate 
bill, S. 21.
                              {time}  1455


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
Senate bill (S. 21) to terminate the United States arms embargo 
applicable to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Mr. 
Bonilla in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] had 5\1/2\ minutes remaining in 
debate, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] had 1 minute 
remaining in debate, pursuant to the House resolution 204 and the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] had 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will 
each be recognized for an additional 30 minutes of general debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] of the 30 minutes provided to me, for general 
debate, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] be allowed to yield portions of that time to other members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman]?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, obviously I 
am not going to object, I do want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. The gentleman from 
New York is one of the real gentlemen of this House irrespective of 
party. He is my close 

[[Page H8110]]
friend, and he and I have worked closely together for over a decade on 
issues of concern to human rights and international peace and justice. 
I want to thank the gentleman for his consideration during the course 
of this debate. It is very much appreciated.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of the arms 
embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and proposals before Congress for 
the United States to unilaterally lift the embargo.
  This is not an easy issue. It affects our relations with our allies 
abroad, and the authority of our President to conduct foreign policy. 
Above all, it involves the lives of thousands of people, Bosnians and 
Americans, who will be affected by lifting the embargo.
  There are some who argue that ending the embargo will lead to a fair 
settlement in Bosnia, or even some victories for the Bosnian Moslems. 
But there is little evidence this will happen. Indeed, the exact 
opposite may occur: Serbs may begin massive pre-emptive attacks on 
Bosnians to destroy their army before they can receive arms. In 
addition, recent evidence suggests the Bosnians are so poorly trained 
and led that increased arms shipments would do little to improve their 
chances on the battlefield.
  In fact, the war may expand far outside the borders of Bosnia if the 
embargo is lifted. Nearby places such as Macedonia and Kosovo are 
already politically and ethnically unstable, and could easily become 
engulfed in the conflict. Furthermore, Russia, a traditional ally of 
Serbia, may respond to any Bosnian victories by providing overt 
military support for Serbia--bringing a major world power into the war, 
and forcing the West to either provide similar support for the 
Bosnians, or else let them be defeated.
  Even supporters of ending the embargo admit: Ending the embargo would 
mean increased conflict in Bosnia--and thus, more bloodshed, more 
deaths of innocent civilians, and massive increases in refugees fleeing 
to Western Europe.
  Above all, I believe the ultimate question on this issue must be: 
Will lifting the embargo put the lives of American men and women in 
danger?
  Supporters for lifting the embargo make it sound simple: Lift the 
embargo, and wash our hands of the Bosnian conflict. But things rarely 
happen that way--and they would be unlikely to happen that way in 
Bosnia.
  First, the United States would be forced to immediately deploy 
troops--at least 20,000--to Bosnia, to aid the withdrawal of the 
thousands of defenseless U.N. troops stationed in Bosnia.
  Next, the Bosnians would need weapons and the training to use them. 
Supporters for ending the embargo may say that that would not be our 
responsibility. But how will we respond to those who argue that, if we 
are responsible enough to unilaterally end the embargo, for the 
supposed benefit of the Bosnians, how can we not be responsible enough 
to come to the aid of those same Bosnians, especially the innocent 
civilians who have lost the protection of the United Nations?
  And what if other countries, such as Russia, come to the aid of the 
Serbs? How could we not provide similar aid to the Bosnians?
  Mr. Chairman, I support peace in Bosnia, not war, and not the deaths 
of Bosnian civilians or Americans soldiers. It is hard to believe--and 
no one can possibly guarantee--that lifting the embargo would help the 
peace process. I cannot support unilaterally lifting the arms embargo 
when the result will be needless conflict and deaths.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Operations of our Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was given the 
opportunity to speak in this debate about why I felt so strongly we 
need to lift the arms embargo. I think it is immoral. It continues to 
be unethical. People are being killed and slaughtered.
  Under the right of one's country, a sovereign right, to defend 
themselves, it is my strongly held view, and thanks to the majority of 
this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, that we ought to lift the arms 
embargo. It was improperly imposed. It ought to be lifted immediately 
so the Bosnians can defend themselves.

                              {time}  1500

  But I would like to take just a moment or two to read a letter that 
was sent on July 31 to myself and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer], who has been a real strong advocate and a leader on this 
lifting of the arms embargo. It is from Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, 
a man who has appeared before the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, 
and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] used to chair, is now 
ranking Democrat on that Commission, and time and time again he has 
made an impassioned plea over the years for lifting the arms embargo as 
a way of this country, this important country, to defend itself, but 
also so that the diplomacy would work. Absent a credible counterweight 
to the armed aggression by the Serbs, the Bosnian Serbs, the diplomacy 
will not work, and I would like to read the letter from Dr. Silajdzic, 
the Prime Minister, to Mr. Hoyer and me:
                                    Republika Bosna I Hercegovina,


                                 Office of the Prime Minister,

                                                    July 31, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Smith,
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     U.S. House of Representatives.
       Dear Congressmen: As you are aware, the people of my 
     country have been under the most brutal assault seen in 
     Europe since World War II. Throughout this conflict, we have 
     never asked for American or foreign ground troops to fight 
     for us. We do not need them. We have both the manpower and 
     the will to fight for ourselves. Nor have we asked for 
     training for our soldiers in weaponry or fighting. Our 
     officers are already well trained, and our rank-and-file 
     soldiers have had three years of on-the-job training in 
     addition to their service in the former Yugoslav army. 
     Instead, we have asked only that the arms embargo against our 
     country be ended.
       In spite of the passage of the Hoyer amendment last month, 
     this embargo remains in place. In the eight weeks since that 
     vote, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has 
     deteriorated dramatically. The countries that created and 
     committed themselves to protect the six United Nations-
     designated ``safe areas'' have betrayed two of them--
     Srebrenica and Zepa--by allowing them to be overrun by 
     Serbian forces. During and after these attacks, hundreds of 
     civilians were raped and tortured. Thousands were massacred. 
     At least seven thousand are unaccounted for. Tens of 
     thousands more were displaced, and, in the absence of any 
     real response from the international community, hundreds of 
     thousands of our citizens throughout Bosnia are now more 
     gravely imperiled than before. Time is of the essence.
       With their latest pledge to defend Gorazde and interminable 
     deliberations over whether to honor their existing 
     commitments to protect the three other remaining ``safe 
     areas,'' Contact Group and UN-troop contributing nations 
     claim to have drawn a line in the sand. The London Conference 
     countries made their pledge ten days ago, yet still there has 
     been no action. And it increasingly appears that the line was 
     drawn to protect only Gorazde--if that.
       Why only Gorazde? Why not Zepa? Its 20,000 inhabitants, 
     even as they were still clinging to life and defending the 
     enclave against all odds, were written off in the London 
     conference communique in the name of consultations and 
     consensus. Why not Bihac, which Serbian forces are trying to 
     overrun even now? Why not Sarajevo, where Serbian forces have 
     escalated their criminal strangulation and shelling attacks, 
     and where, last week alone, 45 civilians--including 5 
     children--were killed, and 184 more wounded.
       How do you explain to the Bosnian people that the very 
     governments that created and promised to protect these 
     enclaves are now sacrificing them? Serbian forces have 
     crossed every line that the international community has ever 
     drawn. After only a few more summits, commitments, pledges to 
     act, and consultations, there could be no more Bosnians left 
     in Bosnia.
       Since before the very first attacks on our population more 
     than three years ago, we have been prepared to fight to 
     defend ourselves. Tragically, the arms embargo against our 
     country has ensured that this conflict be a slaughter rather 
     than a war.
       The arms embargo must be terminated and a balance of power 
     be effected on the ground. Only then will this genocidal 
     spiral end. The recent offer of Croatian Serb forces to 
     retreat from Bihac back into Croatia rather than face 
     approaching Croatian Army units amply demonstrates the Serbs' 
     responsiveness to a credible threat of force rather than 
     empty diplomacy.

[[Page H8111]]

       Our Army and even ordinary citizens are determined to 
     provide that threat and fight for their lives, homes, 
     villages, and country. This is our right. It is one that the 
     American people--and their leaders--would undoubtedly demand 
     for themselves if faced with brutal aggression of the type 
     that Bosnia is enduring.
       On behalf of our people, I appeal to the American 
     government, the American people, and their elected 
     representatives to untie our hands and to prove, once again, 
     why American is the leader of the democratic world. In the 
     name of morality, lift the arms embargo.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Haris Silajdzic,
                                                   Prime Minister.

  I urge all Members to vote to endorse the amendment that has been 
offered to the bill by Mr. Dole, and please lift this arms embargo so 
people can defend themselves.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we should be clear about one thing. 
The Western response, our response, to the war in Bosnia represents the 
greatest failure of the West since the 1930's. It has tarnished NATO; 
it has tarnished all of us. In the past I have voted for the resolution 
to lift the embargo unilaterally because of my disgust for the Western 
response and, I am sorry to say, because of my disgust for our own 
response to what has been happening there, and I have listened during 
this debate to the passionate speeches on behalf of lifting the arms 
embargo. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and others have 
reminded us about American responsibilities to support freedom and 
oppose the forces of tyranny, and nowhere is that tyranny more apparent 
than in former Yugoslavia today. There is rape, murder, ethnic 
cleansing, concentration camps, disappearances, the slaughter of 
innocents. These have all become Serbian trademarks in this battle, and 
we have long gone beyond the time for decisive action. We should have 
acted years ago to end these atrocities.
  So why do I change my position at this particular time? It is 
because, as we all search for the moral and appropriate thing to do, I 
think we have to look at the consequences of our actions and what is 
happening, and for the first time in 3 years, since all of this started 
unraveling, since all of this horror came upon the scene, I finally see 
a glimmer of hope, perhaps the first demonstration of a reality that 
the West finally realizes it needs to act.
  NATO is now taking a forceful role in Bosnia. The dual key system 
that gave United Nations bureaucrats control over the use of force has 
now ended. Military commanders now have the ability to order tactical 
and strategic attacks when necessary to defend the remaining safe 
areas.
  NATO is now discussing the use of heavy air attacks to end the Serb 
assault on the Bihac safe area.
  A Rapid Reaction Force, heavily armed, has been deployed. Artillery 
units are dug in on Mount Igman. Relief convoys are being escorted into 
Sarajevo. Artillery, tanks, and armored personnel carriers are in 
position. The French have already fired back, suppressing Serb 
artillery.
  Secretary Perry says that ``airplanes are ready to go on a moment's 
notice'' and the White House assures us that ``substantial air actions 
will be mounted.''
  With these new commitments and change in the command and control 
structure, NATO has pledged its resolve. Now it must demonstrate it.
  The alternative of lift; we should be clear what it does and what it 
does not do. It lifts the arms embargo, but it does not provide arms to 
Bosnia. It does not authorize the use of American troops for any 
purpose in Bosnia, whether it is to help with the withdrawal of the 
UNPROFOR forces that surely must follow that lift or the training, 
support, or delivery of military equipment. It does not give the 
Bosnian forces a chance. It does not provide them with the heavy 
military equipment or the training that all experts--including the 
Bosnians--agree is needed.
  Is this a vote for symbolism over substance? I fear that it may very 
well be.
  In the end I cannot help remembering that whether it was 
Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Hungary, or the other countries that were 
subject to Nazi aggression and genocide, there was no arms embargo on 
those countries. Those countries without a forceful Western response 
were unable to resist the aggression. It was not until that response 
came all too late for so many millions that that aggression was 
resisted, and in the hope and the belief that finally the West and the 
United States are prepared to do something meaningful, I say for this 
time now let us give them that chance. If we are disappointed once 
again, then we have to go back to the old strategy.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for 
yielding this time to me.
  My colleagues, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this bill 
which seeks to pile matches upon a smoldering tinderbox in the former 
Yugoslavia. I am a veteran of war, but if I am remembered for anything 
in this body, I hope this body will remember me as a champion of peace. 
At best, we will make a difficult choice in our policy toward Eastern 
Europe, and at worst, we will take the first step down a slippery slope 
to an involvement that we cannot get out of, and I would like to give 
my colleagues the three reasons that make me support a position of 
voting ``no'' on lifting the embargo.
  If the United Nations has to move out, the United States will have to 
deploy 25,000 ground troops to this volatile region to protect the 
withdrawal as part of President Clinton's commitment to the NATO 
evacuation plan, OPLAN 40104. So do not be deceived. This is an easy 
vote in some quarters, but a vote to lift the embargo is a vote to send 
in U.S. troops.
  Second, our best allies, Britain and France, have made clear that, if 
the embargo is lifted, the United Nations will pull out and no one will 
be there to feed the 3 million displaced people daily. This would 
dramatically exacerbate the refugee crisis and the civilian casualty 
rate, especially among Moslems.
  Let me skip the other two and quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

       The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars 
     are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows. One day 
     we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal 
     that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We 
     must pursue peaceful ends by peaceful means.

  So today I ask my colleagues not to overlook the common sense of this 
uncommon wisdom. Let us commit to a long-term policy that cuts off fuel 
and supplies to aggressors, allows the President to act in concert with 
the international community and seeks to wage peace rather than war.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I hate to my core the tragedy that is occurring in Bosnia. Twenty-two 
years ago I was an exchange student in Yugoslavia. It was a country 
coping reasonably well with its incredibly diverse culture and 
backgrounds. This god-awful tragedy did not have to happen. Those 
responsible for sending this country into a fratricidal state of 
unimaginable cruelty, murder, and rape should be condemned for all 
eternity. This tragedy on our planet is a blow for all mankind.
  But let me make one thing very, very clear. It is not America's 
fault. It is not America's fight.
  As I wrestled with the decision before us, a constituent asked me two 
questions that I think get to the core of the difficult issues before 
us. Why are these people killing each other, and why should we place 
American lives on the line to stop it?

                              {time}  1515

  I did not have an answer to either question posed by my constituent, 
and without these answers I cannot vote on a proposal which is an 
inevitable first step to Americanizing this tragedy. As deeply as I 
hate what is occurring, I will not support this country taking a ``Go 
It Alone'' approach and exposing us in this fashion to deeper U.S. 
Involvement in this tragic conflict.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] 

[[Page H8112]]
who has been deeply involved in foreign affairs issues during his 
career here in the House.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. We have all heard this story of how Nero fiddled while Rome 
burned. For the past 3 years the world has fiddled while Bosnia has 
burned and its people have been raped and killed. For 3 years, I and 
others have been arguing on this floor to lift the arms embargo, and 
what do we hear time and time again and 3 years later? We are still 
hearing the same things.
  Mr. Chairman, the failed policies, the tired policies, the diplomatic 
niceties, they have failed. The status quo is not acceptable. Two 
hundred thousand people have been killed. It is almost an insult to our 
intelligence to say we should just stay the course and let us give NATO 
or the United Nations one more chance.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past several weeks, some of us who are Members 
of Congress have been receiving the most vile anti-Semitic and racist 
faxes coming into our office. Unfortunately, it shows that 50 years 
after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism is still alive and well 
in some quarters, and genocide, once again, is rearing its ugly face on 
the Continent of Europe. Are we just to stand by and do nothing?
  Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we ought to do something because it is right. 
Is that not what this wonderful country has always stood for, doing 
what is right? The Serbs are trying to expand Greater Serbia. If they 
get away with this in Bosnia, Kosova will be next and other places will 
be next. Let the Bosnian Moslems defend themselves. That is all they 
are asking.
  We have seen in the past 3 years, whenever NATO has seemed to take a 
firm stance, the aggressors have backed down. When they saw that NATO 
and the United Nations was a paper tiger, they emboldened themselves. 
Safe zones were established only to crumble: Srebeniza, Zepa. What is 
next, Gorazde, Bihaj, and Sarajevo? Are we going to sit by and watch 
people be raped and murdered?
  Mr. Chairman, we do not want to send the message that aggression and 
genocide pays. We want to send a message that this country will not 
tolerate it. Support the bill. The whole world is watching.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
President's position to uphold the arms embargo on Bosnia. As the 
world's leader we have the responsibility to uphold the principles of 
negotiated settlement and conflict resolution.
  By lifting the arms embargo, Mr. Chairman, we put 25,000 peacekeepers 
in danger, we become responsible for escalating the war, and we set the 
stage for a deeper, personal U.S. involvement in the conflict. A 
unilateral lifting of the embargo would drive our allies out of Bosnia 
and pull us in. It will place the responsibility for defining the 
mission in Bosnia squarely on our shoulders.
  Our leadership on this issue must be clear, unwavering, and 
forthright. The Serbs' assault in recent days makes it clear that we 
must strengthen UNPROFOR in consultation with our allies. A 
congressional passage of a unilateral arms lift at this delicate moment 
would undermine all efforts to shore up UNPROFOR and work in concert 
with our allies.
  A unilateral arms lift means unilateral responsibility for the United 
States. A unilateral arms lift, Mr. Chairman, will not be a quick fix. 
We must stand fast with our allies and with NATO.
  We must maintain our global responsibility to seek a negotiated 
settlement to pursue a peaceful resolution to the Bosnian crisis. We 
must support the President, our allies, and NATO. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we ought to get clear here on the 
amount of time remaining. Could the Chair advise us what time remains 
for each of the three managers?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has 18 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], one of the leaders on our 
side of the aisle.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of lifting the 
arms embargo on Bosnia.
  Lifting the arms embargo is not something we should take lightly. But 
we cannot continue to allow innocent civilians to be killed, tortured, 
raped, and herded out of what have been called safe havens. What kind 
of safe haven allows the slaughter of innocents?
  The arms embargo was put in place to prevent weapons from entering 
the former Yugoslavia. But it has not worked each night on the news, we 
can witness the atrocities being committed by the well-armed Serbs. The 
Serbs have slaughtered men, women and children. The survivors have been 
forced out of their homes so that the Serbs may realize their appalling 
goal of an ethnically pure Serbia.
  The international community has not been able to defend the Bosnian, 
and through the arms embargo, the international community has not 
accorded the Bosnians their fundemental right to defend themselves. We 
must not continue down the same path that has led to ethnic cleansing, 
rape, murder, and torture. In Bosnia the battle lines may change daily 
but the line between right and wrong does not move. It is wrong for the 
Serbs to slaughter a defenseless people and it is wrong for the United 
States to stand by and watch. Lift the arms embargo. Allow the Bosnians 
to defend themselves.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time. We 
do not have a speaker on the floor at the moment, but some are on their 
way.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] a member of the Helsinki 
Commission.
  Mr. CARDIN. First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for his leadership on the Helsinki Commission and 
on human rights issues.
  Mr. Chairman, by maintaining the status quo and not lifting the arms 
embargo, we are taking sides. We are taking the wrong side, on the side 
of the aggressor. The Serbs are clearly the aggressors in Bosnia.
  We have had hearings before the Helsinki Commission here in 
Washington that have documented the atrocities that have taken place. 
The numbers before the most recent aggression by the Serbs indicate 
over 20,000 rapes, over 151 mass graves holding up to 3,000 remains, 
over 200,000 deaths, 800 prison camps and detention facilities, 50,000 
people tortured. The Serbs are the aggressors, the Serbs are armed, the 
Bosnians are not. Maintaining the status quo is taking a side; taking 
the wrong side.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, lifting the arms embargo is uncertain. We do not 
know what will happen by lifting the arms embargo, but we know that by 
maintaining the arms embargo, the atrocities, the genocide that is 
currently taking place, will continue to take place. Why should we not 
let the Bosnians make their own decision? They should have the right to 
be armed.
  Recently, at a meeting of the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, I presented a statement on behalf of the Bosnian 
Government. They were unable to get there, for obvious reasons. I will 
quote from the government statement less than one month ago.

       This war continues because UNPROFOR commanders have lacked 
     the political will and the Bosnian army has lacked the means 
     to adequately confront those that willfully defy 
     international law and Security Council resolutions and OSCE 
     decisions and principles in pursuit of an ethnically pure 
     Greater Serbia acheived through genocide. You know that the 
     Bosnian government lacks the means of confront those 
     butchering its civilians and acquiring its territory by force 
     because of the unjust and absurd arms embargo, which is in 
     full contradiction to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter 
     confirming the inherent right to self-defense.

  Mr. Chairman, the United States has stood up before, and many times 
alone 

[[Page H8113]]
on human rights issues. We stood very tall against the former Soviet 
Union and opposed economic sanctions against the advice of many of our 
allies, and the Soviet Union changed and Soviets were allowed to leave 
the Soviet Union.
  We stood tall against South Africa, when many of our allies 
questioned our actions. We were right and South Africa changed.
  On the 20th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, let us stand up for 
what is right. Vote to lift the arms embargo.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the statement by the Delegation of the 
Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the 4th OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly for the Record.

Statement by the Delegation of the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia 
 and Herzegovina to the 4th OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Ottawa, 4-8, 
       1995--General Committee on Political Affairs and Security

       Mr. Chairman, the Delegation of the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina is pleased to contribute to this debate on 
     political affairs and security our views which have been 
     formulated after years of experience with the United Nations 
     and OSCE security mechanisms, as manifested in UNPROFOR, 
     NATO, as well as numerous political mechanisms, including the 
     International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia and the 
     Contact Group.
       We must impress upon you the fact that these experiences 
     are first hand and in the most difficult and trying of 
     circumstances. The lessons learned, or better to say, the 
     lessons that have been offered to us, those in the security 
     and political fields, come at the expense of more than 
     200,000 dead Bosnians, and perhaps at the expense of the 
     credibility of the security and political mechanisms 
     mentioned above.
       Stability and security in Europe are most threatened by the 
     continuing war of aggression and genocide waged by Karadzic's 
     war criminals and their sponsors in Belgrade against the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. This war 
     continues because (1) the Karadzic terrorist Serbs still 
     reject the Contact Group peace plan, and (2) because UNPROFOR 
     commanders have lacked the political will and the Bosnian 
     Army has lacked the means to adequately confront those that 
     willfully defy international law and Security Council 
     resolutions and OSCE decisions and principles in pursuit of 
     an ethnically pure Greater Serbia achieved through genocide.
       You know that the Bosnian Government lacks the means to 
     confront those butchering its civilians and acquiring its 
     territory by force because of the unjust and absurd arms 
     embargo which is in full contradiction to Article 51 of the 
     UN Charter confirming the inherent right to self defense. You 
     also know that the Karadzic regime continues to reject peace 
     as its totalitarian ambitions have been fulfilled under the 
     current status quo while its territorial ambitions have not.
       What may not be known to you is why UNPROFOR, despite the 
     courage and commitment of its troops on the ground, has 
     failed to protect Bosnia's civilians and has failed to have 
     an impact in facilitating peace. The answer is not new, 
     rather, it is known to many, but unfortunately ignored by 
     those capable of making it a reality. In October 1993, Mr. 
     Jose-Maria Mendiluce (Former Special Envoy of the UNHCR in 
     Former Yugoslavia) stated that humanitarian efforts in
      Bosnia and Herzegovina ``were used as a palliative, an 
     alibi, an excuse to cover the lack of political will to 
     confront the reality of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     with the necessary means (political and perhaps military) 
     . . . generating a great deal of contradictions.'' This 
     problem still exists today and is compounded by the UN 
     Secretariat and some Permanent Security Council members 
     who cling to a policy of ``conflict containment'' in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina--a policy that is morally corrupt 
     and strategically absurd. In trying to justify their 
     position, these factors have given us a public display of 
     handwashing and rhetorical evasion.
       Rather than seeing action to implement the mandates, we 
     hear invocations that the neutrality of a peacekeeping 
     mission must not be compromised when there is no peace to 
     keep and when the mandates were established as reactions to 
     the transgressions of the Karadzic Serbs. As this has become 
     more difficult to justify, the relevant factors have engaged 
     themselves in the immoral practice of equating victim and 
     aggressor, and towards that end, have manipulated and 
     suppressed information. An Associated Press wire report of 25 
     November, 1994 entitled ``Playing Down Bihac'' illustrates: 
     ``A United Nations spokesman. . . repeated assurances that 
     rebel Serbs were respecting the Bihac (safe area) zone. He 
     mentioned in passing, however, that a United Nations 
     observation post had to be abandoned due to shell fire. 
     Afterward, reporters with access to United Nations maps 
     discovered the post was inside the safe zone.''
       Mr. Chairman, equation of victim and aggressor, evasion of 
     responsibility, and manipulation of information are no 
     substitute for the rule of law, and in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, the law manifests itself in UNPROFOR's mandates. 
     And, again despite the muddying rhetoric of the UN Secretary-
     General and others, the mandates are clear in their 
     permission, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to use force 
     to deliver aid to populations in need and to use force to 
     protect the safe areas and to use force to ensure compliance 
     with the UN/NATO exclusion zones around Sarajevo and Gorazde. 
     It is high time that the relevant factors be held accountable 
     for their evasion of responsibility and manipulation and 
     suppression of information. It is high time the UNPROFOR 
     implement what my government sees as a satisfactory mandate; 
     not just to vindicate the suffering Bosnians, but to 
     vindicate the valiant efforts of UNPROFOR's men and women, 
     who have been short changed by the UN Secretary-General and 
     his representatives.
       Towards implementing the UNPROFOR mandates, my Government 
     welcomes the deployment of the Rapid Reaction Force. We 
     believe that this force has the capability and the means to 
     help UNPROFOR bridge the gap between what is written in 
     Security Council resolutions and what actually takes place on 
     the ground. We also welcome the positions of those UNPROFOR 
     troop contributing states, like the Netherlands, who have 
     expressed that UNPROFOR's primary responsibility is to the 
     Bosnia's civilian population.
       More and more UNPROFOR troop contributors hold the view 
     that their troops must carry out their responsibilities in a 
     robust fashion if the mandate is to be successfully 
     implemented and if their troops are to be less vulnerable to 
     Karadzic Serb terrorist reprisals. We believe that you, as 
     Parliamentarians, are in a position to see this concept 
     become reality.
       However, if UNPROFOR, and the Rapid Reaction Force act only 
     as instruments that maintain the status quo, we cannot accept 
     their continued presence in the RBH. To do so would only 
     prolong our civilians dependence on international subsistence 
     without addressing their protection and how to neutralize 
     those that are responsible for their suffering.
       It must be remembered that UNPROFOR was deployed in BH in 
     the absence of our inherent right to self defense. While 
     humanitarian aid has prolonged some lives, it has failed to 
     save others from murder and other acts of terror. Only a 
     force with the will to protect civilians can protect 
     civilians. In this regard, UNPROFOR has thus far failed. If 
     the Rapid Reaction Force is unable to make amends for these 
     shortcomings, then the Government of the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina must be given the opportunity, as it is 
     legally and morally obliged to protect the civilian 
     population. We can only succeed where others have failed if 
     the arms embargo is lifted. To maintain this embargo under 
     existing circumstances would be nothing less than playing 
     accomplice to the genocidal and territorial designs of the 
     Karadzic terrorist Serbs sponsored by the Milosovic regime. 
     The continuation of this policy is nothing less than inviting 
     other like-minded terrorists to pursue racist and aggressive 
     objectives undermining peace and security in Europe and 
     throughout the world.
       Thank you Mr. Chairman.

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been incredibly frustrated by our 
situation is Bosnia, and I frankly, think that the only time that the 
tragedy which has happened there could have been prevented was at the 
very beginning, before Mr. Milosevic and the Serbs began their brutal 
series of attacks. I think through much of the period since then NATO 
has failed. I think they especially failed at the beginning, when they 
should, I think, have made it quite clear that they were going to take 
collective action if the Bosnian Serbs moved one troop across a 
designated line.
  Mr. Chairman, because of that concern and frustration, and my outrage 
at the conduct of the Bosnian Serbs, I voted on two occasions to lift 
the embargo in order to send a message to the United Nations that they 
needed to shape up their operations; in order to send the message to 
our NATO allies that they needed to get serious and get tougher; and 
that U.N. troops had to be in a position to shoot back when fired on; 
and, lastly, almost in desperation, to send a message to the Serbian 
leadership that they might, in the end, encounter more than they 
bargained for unless they backed off.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that things have changed, at least for the 
moment. I reserve the right in the future to again vote to lift the 
embargo, but it seems to me that, at least for the moment, the message 
seems to have partially been heard. There seems to be some at least 
temporary pause by the Serbs in their attack since the possibility of 
air strikes were announced. There has been a change in U.N. operating 
procedures so that we do not have Mr. Boutros-Ghali continuing to 
interpose himself in decisions on air strikes. It also seems to me that 
we 

[[Page H8114]]
have had a stiffer reaction on the part of the U.N. forces lately to 
attacks or threats of attack.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, under these circumstances, the most 
important thing, since we have gotten movement from our allies, and 
since we have gotten a change in procedure from the United Nations, it 
seems to me the most important thing at this point is for us to be 
together and for us to try to see whether this new effort by the 
President can, in fact, be expanded and enhanced.

                              {time}  1530

  When we met with the President this morning, he indicated that 
perhaps those who had voted to lift the embargo in the past had in fact 
provided some help to him, because that had perhaps sent the message to 
our NATO allies, which helped him to get a stronger position out of 
them. I dearly hope so. But it seems to me at this moment, given the 
changes that have taken place on the ground and the changes that have 
been enunciated with respect to our allies' policy, as well as the 
United Nation's policy, that we ought to grant the President the time 
he needs to try to work out policy based on this new stance and this 
new posture.
  So I, with great reluctance, and with great frustration, and with 
great understanding for those who have in the past supported lifting 
the embargo, I would urge that for the moment we give this new adjusted 
policy a chance to work, because it seems to me the best chance to 
avoid having to send American troops into that area and to avoid the 
significant and perhaps even massive loss of life that could come if 
this situation unravels quickly, as it certainly might.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of lifting the embargo. I 
believe this vote is a vote for American leadership in the world and 
the only moral thing to do.
  The Clinton administration calls their strategy engagement. Well, if 
this is engagement where is the ring?
  It would be more accurate to call the current policy living together. 
We have no commitment, we have no plans for the future, we simply make 
ourselves feel good while leaving plenty of room to sneak out the back 
door with no strings attached.
  This policy has been a disaster since the beginning. Bosnia, a member 
of the U.N. General Assembly, has been denied its fundamental right to 
self-defense under the U.N. Charter. Instead, the United Nations has 
provided a protection force hardly capable of protecting itself, and 
now provides U.N. escorts to ensure the safe and orderly ethnic 
cleansing of the U.N. designated safe areas.
  While at its root this problem is a European one, this does not mean 
the United States should relinquish its rightful role as leader of the 
allies. On the contrary, leadership is precisely the role we must play.
  Leadership, however, does not mean compromise and agreeing to some 
easy middle ground. Leadership requires the courage of commitment to do 
what is right.
  What is right in this case is that the Bosnian Government is entitled 
to protect its sovereignty and its people, against Serbian aggression.
  What is right, is that the NATO allies, supported by the United 
States, should begin to follow through on their promises of air strikes 
in response to continued Serbian attacks on the safe areas of Bihac, 
Gorazde, and Sarajevo.
  What is right is that the United Nations should lift the immoral arms 
embargo against the people of Bosnia. While there will almost certainly 
be casualties, I believe the Bosnian people would rather die fighting 
for their country, than at the hands of cowardly Serb snipers or brutal 
ethnic cleansing.
  As Dr. Martin Luther King so clearly stated, ``The biggest enemy is 
not the brutality of the evil people but rather the silence of the good 
people.''
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for American leadership and 
international law, vote for S. 21.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have three points I would like to make this 
afternoon. First, I stand here as a past opponent of lifting the 
embargo, but not necessarily as a supporter of the administration's 
policies in that part of the world. I think we have been vacillating 
and indecisive, and I think we have invested far more authority in the 
United Nations than they are militarily capable of handling.
  It has reached the point where our forces on the ground are actually 
ridiculing what we are establishing in terms of policy, for the forces 
that are on standby in that part of the world, they are not talking 
about the rapid reaction force, they are talking about the reaction 
force, or the reaction-reaction force; or, listen to this one, 
UNPROFOR-UNPROFOR, the U.N. Protection Force for the U.N. Protection 
Force.
  It is clear to me that the administration needs to understand it 
needs to put some steel behind its words; and if we are going to offer 
safe havens for innocent civilians, they need to know they are going to 
be kept safe. But the real choice in this debate is between a policy 
that will further more violence or less violence, and I would submit 
that adding more ammunition, more weapons, to an already volatile 
situation is going to be counterproductive in terms of what we want to 
accomplish.
  I will go one step further: It is very clear if we lift the arms 
embargo Great Britain and France are going to withdraw their 
peacekeeping forces, which is going to lead to a commitment the United 
States has made to provide troops on the ground in Bosnia to assist in 
that withdrawal.
  This vote amounts to a vote as to whether we want to put Americans on 
the ground there or not. On that basis I would oppose lifting the 
embargo.
  I would add one further thing. If I were a troop sitting on the 
ground in Italy or at sea, watching the division between the 
administration and the Congress over this aspect of our foreign policy, 
I would be shivering in my boots. I would submit that once we get 
through this vote, it is incumbent upon us as leaders of both parties 
and the administration to find some way to bridge the chasm that exists 
between us, so we can finally restore a bipartisan consensus on what 
our policy is going to be in that part of the world.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
the gentleman for his relentless leadership on this effort. I have not 
always agreed with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on this 
particular resolution. In the last year I voted against it. I did so 
because I am a strong believer in multilateralism, a strong supporter 
of the goals of the United Nations, and am indeed a member of the North 
Atlantic Assemblies, so I would prefer a multilateral solution. For 
that reason, I voted no last year.
  I visited the former Yugoslavia. I have met with UNPROFOR forces 
there and are impressed by what they are trying to do. But, sad to say, 
this approach has not succeeded. Indeed, since the summer of last year, 
the allies contact group has developed a take-it-or-leave-it peace map, 
threatening the Bosnian Serbs with lifting the arms embargo or air 
strikes if they refused to sign on. They refused, but no punishment has 
been meted out. In August, we threatened air strikes against the 
Bosnian Serb forces violating the Sarajevo weapons exclusion zone. Pin 
prick strikes were the response. The list of threats and retreats goes 
on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, we must be sure people know what we mean and say about 
ethnic cleansing. Never again. I urge our colleagues to support the 
resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. Let me say there is plenty of blame and shame to go around to 
everyone all over the world as to what has happened in the former 
Yugoslavia. But there is one bit of good news, and 

[[Page H8115]]
I fear that if we vote for this resolution today, we may even blow up 
the one bit of good news, and that is unlike the war in that region at 
the beginning of this century, so far that war has not spread. It has 
not splattered all over the face of Europe, making it a World War III.
  While we have fumbled all over each other trying to figure out how to 
act together as an alliance, and we have been awkward, and alliances 
are not really efficient, and while there has been some real horror 
shows that none of us want to see on TV, if you read history and if you 
read what has been accomplished, at least this has not spread. If we 
Americanize this war, which is what I think we will be doing if we vote 
for this today, because if you were the Bosnian leaders, you would pick 
up the phone right after this passed and say, OK, you guys, you voted 
for it, now bring the weapons in and it is now ours, as our allies say 
goodbye. So let us not do that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it was a terrible joke to begin with. 
Izzi and Abie were rounded up and captured by the Nazi troops. They 
were marched to the end of the town and told to dig their own grave, 
which they did. And the Nazi storm trooper stood in front of them with 
his machinegun and he said, ``Do you have any last wish?'' And Izzi 
looks at Abie and he says, ``Abie, I think I will ask for a 
blindfold.'' And Abie looks quietly back at Izzi and he says, ``Izzi, 
don't make waves.''
  From that terrible story, Mr. Chairman, came the expression ``Never 
again.'' Never again would a people allow themselves to be placed at 
the edge of annihilation, without fighting back, without defending 
themselves. Never again said the almost wiped out people. Never again 
said their neighbors. Never again said the rest of the world. Never 
again will we sit idly by and allow a whole race to face extinction. 
Never, said a regretful world.
  We did not know, said their neighbors. We did not know it was 
happening, said everybody. They must have taken them away in the middle 
of the night. How did we know? Never again.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, never again is happening yet again. Does it make 
it any better if you substitute Ahmed and Mohammed for Izzi and Abie? I 
think not. Does it make it better if you substitute someone else's 
people for my people? I think not. Does it make it better if you talk 
about the numbers being only hundreds of thousands instead of millions? 
It certainly does not.
  How do we sit idly by? How do we allow this to happen? How do we 
institutionalize inaction? How do we prevent the people from fighting 
back and defending themselves, tying their hands behind their backs. 
That is worse. That is being complicitous. That is being enablers. That 
is being permitters. It is almost like being accomplices to those who 
are committing genocide on this planet today.
  We sit here and fritter about terrible choices that we have. There 
were terrible choices then as well. We talk about glimmers of hope. 
Glimmers of hope for whom? If that were your people, if that were my 
people, you would not be so hopeful, waiting for the world to 
intervene.
  Mr. Chairman, we must act or we will be guilty of recommitting the 
sins of the past that we have condemned on this floor over and over and 
over again. This is racial ethnic genocide, make no bones about it, and 
those who sit and only watch are guilty of participating, are guilty in 
sins of omission, if not sins of commission.
  Mr. Chairman, once again evil stalks the world, and we are sitting 
around passing the blindfolds.

                              {time}  1545

  Do not let this happen. We would not want this to happen to our 
people. This should not happen to anybody's race. This is our race. It 
is the human race.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] has the right to close. I advise my 
colleagues that I have three speakers remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has 11 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are now beginning to wind the debate down. I 
want to say to my colleagues who have participated on both sides that I 
think we have had a very, very good debate, certainly have clarified 
the issues.
  let me speak very quickly to two or three points that I think are 
salient in the debate. One of the things that bothers me most gravely 
about the position of those who would lift unilaterally is it seems to 
me throughout this debate they have simply been unwilling to speak to 
the consequences of what happens once you have the unilateral debate.
  They want to lift the embargo, but that raises a whole series of 
questions: who supplies the arms who delivers them, who pays for them, 
who is going to feed 2 million people every day, who protects the 
Bosnian civilians if Serbs attack. The consequences of the lift simply 
have not been adequately addressed, it seems to me, by the proponents 
of a unilateral lift. They do not provide any arms. They do not provide 
any funds. They do not provide a single cent in this resolution. I 
think it is a serious defect in the resolution.
  Second, they have spoken very powerfully today about atrocities. I do 
not yield to any person in this Chamber at my abhorrence of atrocities 
that have been committed in this war. I am willing to concede that the 
Serbs have committed a lot of atrocities. I do not think all atrocities 
have been committed by one side. But I do know this: That the way to 
stop atrocities is to stop the war. Almost all who favor lifting the 
embargo recognize that that is a consequence of the war. To intensify 
the war will simply multiply the atrocities.
  The third point I would make is that this unilateral lift simply 
turns over one of the most fateful decisions in American foreign policy 
to the Bosnian Government. The bill says that the President shall lift 
the embargo if the Bosnians ask UNPROFOR to leave. How can we in this 
Chamber, who often say that we do not like to put authority in 
multilateral institutions, how can we just turn over the authority of 
the U.S. Government to conduct American foreign policy to a foreign 
government, without any even participation on our part?
  Finally, many have said that the policy has not worked. I agree with 
that statement. But I think we do have, as repeated speakers have said 
on our side, a new strategy in place. The President has articulated it 
and so have his secretaries. We do not know if that strategy is going 
to work. It may work. But give it a chance for the next few weeks to 
see if it works. If it does not, then maybe we have to go to a 
unilateral lift.
  It is a stiffer policy. It is a tougher policy. It is a unified 
policy. It will give time for negotiations to work, and in the few days 
that it has been in place, it has worked. So for, so good.
  I urge the defeat of the proposal.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is a difficult, difficult situation for me because in my 23 
years in this House, I have supported the foreign policy of President 
Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President 
Bush, and so far, President Clinton. However, the savageness that the 
Serbs have placed upon the people of the Balkans simply crosses the 
line. I can no longer do that, as much as I find it distasteful.
  The aggression and brutality are just too much. With the arms 
embargo, this is the first time I can think of in history that the 
great democracies of the West have denied the right of self-defense to 
the people upon whom aggression is being put.
  Therefore, I am going to support the resolution of the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations from New York. But I would 
also say that I think that we are going to have to consider Croatian, 
and we are going to 

[[Page H8116]]
have to consider the fact that they are going to be next, if the Serbs 
are successful, as they are apparently going to be, in the wretchedness 
that they are vesting upon the Bosnians.
  So I would say to the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of 
the amendment that I would hope that in the future we can consider the 
fact that we are probably going to have to lift the arms on Croatia 
because they are probably going to be the next attacked. They are going 
to be subject to exactly the same kind of racial cleansing that the 
Bosnians are. I hope that we will keep that in mind.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me 
say every 2 or 3 years debate takes place on this House floor where the 
thoughtfulness and the humanity and the depth of feeling on both sides 
of the argument is equally powerful and has equal ability to touch the 
heart and to make one's thinking processes work at supersonic speed.
  I agree with most, well not all, but I agree with much of the 
arguments made on the other side about how sad it is to release arms 
embargo, arms embargoes in a situation where males, and it is generally 
always older males, telling younger males to die and to fight for a 
cause that could be negotiated if the proper pressure were applied in 
this case, I believe, by the ex-superpower, that has come down to be 
the confederation of Russia, and the world's only superpower, the 
United States.
  If the proper pressure, probably privately, was applied by the United 
States and Russia in Belgrade, which is the seat of this problem, when 
all is said and done, there probably could be a diplomatic solution.
  Sometimes it appears like Northern Ireland in my heritage tree, that 
until there is an exhaustion over the death, the unnecessary death of 
thousands of innocent people, until the exhaustion point is reached, 
middle-aged males will not sit down and reason properly.
  Now, there is one point that has been argued on the side against this 
resolution that I must take exception to. It is when they stand up and 
say, this is going to drag in American fighting people. And I guess 
that includes women at this point in our history for a while anyway, 
until I have hearings, men and women. American men and women are not 
going to be dragged into this fight under this Senate Resolution 21 
that we are voting on here shortly.
  On the next to last page, article f, Rule of Construction, it says 
quite clearly: ``Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as 
authorization for deployment of United States forces in the territory 
of Bosnia and Herzegovnia for any purpose, including training''--I want 
to repeat that--``including training.''
  To release an arms embargo against the people most suffering does not 
mean high technology weapons are going in there, Stinger missiles. And 
it does not mean we have
 any obligation to train anybody to even use a rifle or a pistol. It 
just does not.

  It says it includes ``training, support, or delivery of military 
equipment.'' We have no obligation by removing this arms embargo to 
deliver anything, let alone train anybody, let alone put in Vietnam-
style observers, let alone get involved in the fighting.
  Here is what makes this thing so painful. One of the Members said it 
is like throwing gasoline on a fire. There has been an awful fire 
burning there. I read an intelligence report the other day, the title 
is not classified. It said simply, fighting in all directions. That is 
what is supposed to be on the President's desk in his 9 intell 
briefing, fighting in all directions was talking about the Bihac pocket 
where the Moslems are divided into two camps and the U.N. courts of 
justice have just made Martic, M-A-R-T-I-C, Martic another war 
criminal. That is war criminal No. 46, and they are all in the Serbian 
camp, 46 war criminals who cannot travel through the airports of the 
world. And they do not care, because they can drive up to R&R in 
Belgrade. So what do they care whether the world calls them war 
criminals?
  But the fact that we have a four-way fight going on there does not 
mean that we have a right to hold the hands behind the back of one 
party being terribly beaten, even if we think by releasing their hands 
the adversary will pull out a gun and shoot them dead in front of our 
face. That is how bad I think this conundrum is, the horns of this 
dilemma is.
  We are crippling the right of men to fight to defend themselves. Yet, 
if we take off the restraints we have put on them, the other side, led 
by 46 war criminals, will go so wild that they may try and kill as many 
young males as they can before the first pistol arrives on the scene.
  With all of that said, this Member cannot vote to keep an embargo on 
people who are being slaughtered.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the point of view of the 
ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations, 
which is the point of view of the President of the United States, that 
we ought to continue negotiating.
  I understand the implications of lifting the arms embargo. But we 
have been negotiating for 3 years, and the problem is we are dealing 
with a bully. Bullies to not negotiate. They react to the threat of 
force. We understand that in our own lives.
  Who among us, if we were walking down the street and saw someone 
clubbing to death a defenseless person, who among us would not do 
something? I am sure there are some who would shrug their shoulders and 
walk on, saying this is not my battle. I am not in my neighborhood. A 
lot of people get clubbed to death all the time. Life is unfair. But 
that is not very many of us.
  Some of us would take the club away, maybe punch them in the nose to 
create a level playing field, and then let them fight it out. Some of 
us might interrupt and give a club to the other person and say, okay, 
it is fair now. Go ahead. But I do not think any of us would stand 
there and watch it happen. And for 3 years that is what we have been 
doing. We have been complicit in this genocide.
  America is the moral leader of the world. We are not just the 
military leader. We have looked to as the moral leader of this world. 
Let us be that leader. Let us be that leader. Let us exercise that 
leadership.
  We have another choice then to do the right thing. Support the 
lifting of the arms embargo.
                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me say that one of the previous 
speakers talked about supporting President Reagan in Central America, 
and I did that. He talked about supporting President Bush in Saudi 
Arabia, and I did that. I opposed their effort in Somalia. I felt it 
was a mistake. The United States can only do so much.
  The gentleman who just spoke, said if somebody is fighting in the 
middle of the street, reminds me of one of the Members who said they 
got involved in a domestic quarrel; and when they got involved, in the 
end they both turned on the individual Member who tried to interfere 
with a domestic quarrel. There was a physical battle.
  We are talking here about the most complicated type of situation. I 
remember one time going to Bosnia, 3 or 4 years ago, and Helen Bentley 
said to me, a former Member of Congress, ``Do not forget, this started 
in 1389.'' The animosity and deep feelings of the two sides, the three 
sides, in Bosnia are very difficult. All of us feel we would like to 
solve it. It is a tragedy.
  I walked through the mud in Vietnam, up to my waist in the water. I 
saw young Vietnamese killed, and I saw young Americans killed. I was 
wounded twice. I know something about what it is like to send Americans 
into harm's way. If I thought it would solve the problem, I would be 
the first to step in front, but it will not solve the problem. For 
instance, if we were to lift the arms embargo, France and Britain will 
withdraw their troops. 

[[Page H8117]]
America is committed, the prestige of the United States, the prestige 
of the President of the United States, is committed to sending in 
25,000 American troops. It will not be an easy evacuation.
  For instance, if we go into Split, it will take one ship at a time, 
it will take one C-5 in that small airport. The roads are narrow, the 
foliage is deep. It took us 40 days to get a light infantry unit into 
Saudi Arabia. It will take much more time to get 25,000 troops into 
Split, and we cannot send them in piecemeal. If they go over the roads, 
which are 10-ton roads, with our heavy equipment, it will break the 
roads down, so it will take all kinds of time to reinforce or to get a 
rapid deployment force into position, if we have to fight our way in 
and fight our way out. What we are saying is we are authorizing a 
defeat.
  We are actually saying we are in favor of lifting an embargo which 
withdraws the British and French, and the United States will go in and 
bring them out. It is a Diepee. It is a Dien Bien Phu for the United 
States. We are starting out by saying we are authorizing a defeat, and 
what will it cost? One billion dollars, at least, and how many lives we 
do not know; and it will not solve the problem. What is the next step? 
Croatia gets more involved, Serbia gets more involved, the Russians get 
more involved, Hungary gets involved, Greece and Turkey get involved.
  I stood on the spot where World War I started. I looked out and 
thought to myself, how could this have happened, that this incident 
where the Archduke Ferdinand was killed started World War I?
  We are, in effect, starting the possibility of a wider war with much, 
much more loss of American lives. The President changed his policy 
dramatically. He now has got the key to eliminating the dual key of 
bombing. The military asks military-to-military. Second, the hostage 
situation is eliminated. They will not stop the bombing because of 
hostages. Instead of pinprick bombing, there will be massive bombing. 
That is a big difference. That will make a difference.
  There is no one who knows better than I do how much air power means 
in an operation, especially in the short term. When we go in and drop 
bombs, we will usually drive off any enemy. We are facing a major 
decision, one of the most important decisions that Congress will face. 
I would urge Members not to lift the embargo, because they are in fact 
declaring war, and they are endangering American lives.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we come to a close of a very serious debate. We come to 
the close of a debate that has seen 3 years of failure. No one on this 
floor has addressed the policy as a success. Everyone has said it is a 
failure. It is time, then, to move on. Today we mark, Mr. Chairman, the 
20th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act to the day, 
August 1, 1975. Twenty years ago the United States, in concert with 33 
countries of Europe and Canada, declared our commitment to 10 sacred 
principles governing our relationships with each other. We pledge to 
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. We pledge to respect the 
territorial integrity of each state, like Bosnia, the sovereign, 
independent, internationally recognized state of Bosnia. We pledge not 
to threaten or use force against any state, unlike Serbia. We pledge to 
settle disputes by peaceful means, so as not to endanger international 
peace, security, and justice. When President Force signed the historic 
accord on behalf of the United States he said this: ``This document 
will not be measured by the promises made in the Helsinki Final Act, 
but by the promises kept.''
  This debate is about promises to keep. This debate is about meeting 
our commitments under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. 
There are promises to be kept, Mr. Chairman, and now is the time; not 
tomorrow, not tomorrow and thereafter.
  I have heard in every debate on the lifting of the arms embargo, 
``Wait, wait until tomorrow. The sun will come up tomorrow for the 
Bosnians. The sun will come up, and all of a sudden the Serbs will see 
the light.'' However, here we are, Mr. Chairman, years later. The 
atrocities continue. Seven weeks ago this House voted overwhelmingly in 
support of the Hoyer amendment to lift the arms embargo. S. 21 before 
us now, gives us a vehicle to do just that. Three hundred and eighteen 
of us stood to say we will not give aid and sustenance to the 
aggressors, branded as war criminals by the international community.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] makes the point that we 
will turn over American policy to the Bosnians, because if they have 
this they would have to request UNPROFOR to leave, or the lifting of 
the embargo. That is not true. We make a decision today to say in which 
manner we will lift the arms embargo. We will do it in a considered 
fashion, under S. 21, ensuring the safety of our allies. Indeed, the
 President is given 30-day segments to extend the lifting of the 
embargo if the allies are still at risk.

  Mr. Chairman, what has happened in the few short weeks between voting 
for the embargo and today? Srebrenica and Zepa lie in ruins. The United 
Nations-declared safe areas have been overrun by the terrorist Serbs. 
The international community effectively buried Zepa. Where is our 
integrity? Where is our commitment to enforcing the principles we 
adopted in Helsinki?
  Civilians raped, tortured, thousands massacred, thousands unaccounted 
for, and tens of thousands more displaced; more refugees out of this 
confrontation and conflagration since any time since the 1940's. War 
criminals we have put on the same level as the democratically elected 
government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have said to them: ``You can 
only proceed with the arms that are in Yugoslavia,'' and all of us know 
that it is the Bosnian Serbs who succeeded to that army.
  Yes, there has been some moral relativism on this floor, making 
analogies between the Serbs and the Bosnian Moslems, and we ought to be 
neutral; and yes, if we do this our European allies may lift the 
embargo on Iraq. If they do that, shame, shame, shame on them. Is there 
any analogy to be made between Saddam Hussein, the dictator-butcher of 
Baghdad, and the democratically elected government of Sarajevo, Bosnia, 
and Herzegovina? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is of course not.
  The time has come for us to make a decision. The time for us has come 
to lift this embargo. The time for us has come to say we understand who 
the victims of aggression are in this case; and America, the leader of 
the free world, America, the beacon of freedom to the peoples of the 
world, America, that stands for justice, will not stand silently by 
while the innocent victims, unarmed, are subjected to the genocide that 
everybody on both sides of this issue has spoken to.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not fall into the abyss of negligence. Let us 
not fall into the abyss of saying, ``It is not our struggle.'' I quoted 
John Kennedy earlier today when he told the world that we would be with 
them in their fight for freedom. The international community recognized 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. It said to them, ``We respect you as a member 
of the international family of nations,'' under the Helsinki Final Act, 
under the United Nations Charter, but even more importantly than that, 
under the principles that America has held so dear since it declared on 
July 4, 1776, our independence. When we look to others to recognize and 
support that independence, let us stand for those principles today. 
Vote for S. 21.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this 
resolution. I want to talk this afternoon about what is moral and what 
is right for our country and for the people in Bosnia. However, first, 
I want to talk to the Members who voted for a resolution of this kind a 
few weeks back. I want to urge them to change their vote. I want to 
argue to them that there are two reasons, in fact, three, to do that.
  First, the situation on the ground in these 3 or 4 weeks has changed. 
The 

[[Page H8118]]
complexity of the war is now in full view, as the Croatians are about 
to enter the war again, and there is even talk of the Serbians coming 
back from Serbia proper and having a much wider conflagration than we 
contemplated 3 or 4 weeks ago.
  Second, I want to argue that the President's and the West's policy 
has changed dramatically in these last 2 or 3 weeks. There is no more 
dual key. The West now says we will no longer stop air attacks if there 
are hostages taken; easy to say, hard to do. I understand it, but they 
have said it. The West is more united in taking a strong response. A 
rapid redeployment force is on the ground, and they are shooting back 
on the road to Sarajevo.

                              {time}  1615

  So there is hope that a tougher, more effective policy among the 
western nations is in place. But last, I want to argue to you that 
lifting this embargo is not the moral thing to do. I want to lead you 
through what I believe, and more importantly, what experts on the 
ground believe, will happen if we lift this embargo.
  Mr. Chairman, the first thing that will happen, it has been said many 
times today, is that the U.N. forces will immediately want to come out. 
Are we committed by the word of the President of the United States that 
we will put 25,000 of our people on the ground to defend the Moslems? 
No. To conduct a retreat. I am told it may take 50,000 of our people 
for a retreat. Imagine explaining to the American people that your kid 
died in Bosnia to perform a retreat. It will be the biggest retreat 
since Dunkirk. Is that what we want to do?
  Mr. Chairman, the second thing that will happen is the Serbs will 
move. Do you think for a moment if this embargo is raised that they 
will not move faster than they are already moving? The Secretary of 
Defense told me this morning that all of the enclaves will go down. 
There is not a chance we will get there in time with arms to protect 
the enclaves. With the roads, with the ports being what they are, it 
would take 50 days to get arms in, much less train anybody to use them. 
The genocide that we are worried about will be increased if we adopt 
this policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to give credit to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] who feels so deeply and so morally with such great 
integrity about this issue, and all who think like him. But in his 
case, he has consistently said throughout that he not only wants to 
lift the embargo, he wants American troops, and a lot of them, on the 
ground. I respect him for that view.
  I even want to argue that if that is what we were deciding today, 
that that would not be a moral policy. We cannot bring about what we 
want to bring about, either by lifting the embargo or putting a lot of 
our people on the ground. Ladies and gentlemen, the answer in Bosnia 
has always been the same. We have to have a peace treaty. And even if 
you put 200,000 people on the ground and defeat the Serb army, when you 
leave, you will be back to what you are at today. There is no solution 
to this without getting peace.
  I end with this: A British official said it best. No language can 
describe adequately the condition of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and 
the other provinces. The political intrigues, the constant rivalries, 
the hatred of all races, the animosities of rival religions, and 
absence of any controlling power, nothing short of any army of 50,000 
of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts.
  Mr. Chairman, Benjamin Disraeli, 117 years ago, uttered those words. 
It has not changed. What we need is peace, peace in this very troubled, 
troubled part of the world. I wish our force could bring it about. I do 
not think it will happen. What we must do is what the President and the 
West is trying to do, which is get these people back to the peace table 
and do everything in our power to bring about peace and end the 
genocide. That is the moral thing to do, and we must recommit ourselves 
today to do exactly that.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman, both the 
ranking minority member of our committee, the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for the 
fine manner in which they conducted this very thorough debate and all 
of our colleagues who participated.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice that our colleagues have before them is 
clear and impelling. We can explain to our children and our 
grandchildren some 10 or 20 years from now that we stood with the 
people who have been the victims of rabid, genocidal supernationalism, 
and supported their right to self-defense, or that we stood on the 
sidelines wringing our hands and reaffirming once again the ``Spirit of 
Munich'' that we were powerless to do anything but speed the end of the 
conflict by ensuring the destruction of an innocent nation.
  Let there be no mistake, my colleagues. Despite ours' and the 
international community's best intentions, our Bosnia policy has been 
an abject failure, and serves only the interests of the aggressors. 
Time after time during the sad history of this conflict, the United 
Nations, our friends in Europe and our own Government have laid down 
strict terms and lines that could not be crossed by the Serbs, and time 
after time, the Serbs have thumbed their noses with impunity.
  We can start with Security Council resolutions stating unequivocally 
that humanitarian assistance could not be blocked, and how many times 
because of Serb obstruction have we heard about U.N. convoys taking 
weeks and sometimes months, to get through to a desperate people? How 
long has it been since a single flight of humanitarian supplies has 
been able to land in Sarajevo? It has been months.
  We can go on to mention the enforcement of the no-fly decree. Today 
we heard that Serb aircraft were flying with impunity over Bosnia on 
military missions. What about the heavy weapons exclusion zones around 
Sarajevo and Gorazde? Those are apparently not even under discussion 
any more. Then of course there are those almost comically misnamed 
``safe areas.'' I think we may all be forgiven for our skepticism when 
we are told that the United Nations has drawn another line in the sand 
around one of the four safe areas that remain while it tries to decide 
whether we can defend the remaining three. We are fast running out of 
sand.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not forget this war's other casualty, the 
credibility of our Government, of our allies, of the United Nations and 
its Charter, and of NATO.
  Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues who point to the escalating U.S. 
involvement, I point to that section of the bill, section 4, 
subparagraph F, which states that this measure is not to be interpreted 
as an authorization for deployment of U.S. forces.
  There is one principle in international relations that we can still 
salvage from this Bosnian debacle and that is the right to self 
defense. This right provides the backbone of any kind of international 
order that our own citizens would want to live under. I urge my 
colleagues by their support of this legislation to reaffirm that right, 
not only for the people of Bosnia, but for tomorrow's potential victims 
of aggression, for ourselves, and for our children.
  Former National Security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski in a recent 
New Republic article on August 7 stated and I quote:

       There is every reason to believe that the lifting of the 
     embargo will significantly help the Bosnians in their effort 
     to defend themselves. Their army, which is eager and willing 
     to fight, is larger than the army of the Bosnian Serbs. With 
     the arrival of more modern and plentiful arms, the Serbian 
     advantage on the battlefield will be erased. A number of 
     States have indicated their willingness to finance and to 
     deliver to the Bosnians the needed arms. The arming of the 
     Bosnians need not be a unilateral American undertaking.

  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to lift the arms 
embargo.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider 
legislation to lift the embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Last 
week, the Senate passed S. 21, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense 
Act of 1995, with the two-thirds necessary to override a Presidential 
veto. Senator Bob Dole, in conjunction with a broad bipartisan 
coalition is attempting to assert American leadership in the right 
direction. In the course of 3 years, the United Nations prestige has 
dwindled to nothing, NATO's credibility has been seriously 

[[Page H8119]]
damaged, and the United States has invested over $2\1/2\ billion in a 
mission which is undeniably a complete failure. As a result, tens of 
thousands have died by simply putting faith in the United Nations 
promise of protection. After the fall of two of six U.N. safe havens, 
there can be no doubt that the United Nations lacks the will and means 
to defend innocent civilians. Yet, the embargo denies the Bosnians the 
ability to acquire the weaponry necessary for them to do the job of 
defending Bosnian homes, cities, and citizenry. And so, it is now our 
responsibility to exhibit strong and decisive leadership to end this 
grave injustice. It is high time to allow the Bosnian people to defend 
themselves. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to once again vote to lift 
this crippling arms embargo. Bosnia's fate should be decided by Bosnia, 
not the international community.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, as the international community watches, 
Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II enters its 40th month. 
In the heart of Europe, villages are burning, innocent civilians are 
driven from their homes, women are raped, families are separated, and 
men are systematically executed in a campaign of terror unmatched since 
the days of Hitler.
  It was once said that ``the revolution will not be televised.'' Mr. 
Chairman, this genocide has been televised, analyzed, and quantified. 
We know how many Bosnians have been murdered, we know which cities and 
towns have been destroyed, we know who the aggressors are, where they 
operate, and what they plan to accomplish. Still, we do not stop them.
  There are consequences for our inaction. The supporters of ethnic war 
everywhere are watching: Hutu rebels in the refugee camps of Zaire; 
Moslem extremists in the Middle East; white supremacists throughout 
Europe. By remaining silent accomplices to genocide, we are sending a 
loud and clear signal to the opponents of racial, ethnic, and religious 
tolerance: proceed with your plans, we will not object.
  As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, we are 
paying a bizarre tribute to the very principles on which the United 
Nations was founded. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter stipulates that 
``nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective 
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United 
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to 
maintain international peace and security.''
  Bosnia is a recognized member of the United Nations. Yet we refuse to 
permit the Bosnian Government to exercise its right of self-defense. 
The embargo imposed on Bosnia prevents a democratically elected 
government from protecting itself from the forces of hatred and 
separatism. Although intended to contain the Balkan conflict, the 
embargo has served merely to guarantee its outcome. With the heavy 
equipment of the former Yugoslav army in the hands of the Bosnian 
Serbs, the Bosnian Government is left to fight with substandard 
weapons. It's a fight they cannot win.
  There are no good choices in Bosnia. There are no easy solutions to 
the problems in the former Yugoslavia. We must, however, allow the 
Bosnians themselves to try to solve their own problems. We must lift 
this unjust embargo and permit them to defend themselves. It is their 
right, and it's our duty.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the tragic situation in Bosnia demands 
action by the United States. While I support diplomatic efforts to end 
the war in former Yugoslavia permanently, it has become increasingly 
apparent that diplomacy will prove insufficient in resolving the 
Balkans conflict, the source of which is deeply rooted and complex. 
Moreover, achieving consensus with our European allies on the best 
course of action has been extremely difficult. The time has come for 
the United States to take a leadership role.
  The recent Serb capture of U.N. safe areas and subsequent actions 
against the civilian population demonstrate once again that the U.N. 
arms embargo has worked only to the advantage of Serbia and the Bosnian 
Serbs against the Bosnian military and Croatian military and most 
importantly the civilians. I am outraged at recent reports of rapes, 
summary executions, and massive looting following the capture of 
Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serbs. This is a continuation of a pattern of 
outrageous behavior that is wholly unacceptable. If the Serb aggression 
continues unchecked and unchallenged, the former Yugoslavia will face 
an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. The United States should not 
stand by and permit this carnage and assault against human dignity 
persist to be endured by essentially unarmed Bosnian Moslems.
  Lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems will help some 
in this situation and permit the people of Bosnia to obtain weapons to 
defend themselves and their country. Lifting the embargo is not a 
panacea; but as the United Nations, NATO, our European allies, and the 
United States itself are unwilling to engage in the Bosnian civil war 
that is to provide protection to the unarmed population, then the 
Bosnian people must not be barred from having the opportunity to defend 
themselves.
  Earlier this year, I joined 317 of my colleagues in voting for an 
amendment to the 1996 defense authorization bill supporting the efforts 
of the Bosnian Government and people to defend themselves against 
aggression, and calling on our President to lift the arms embargo 
against Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will today support S. 21, which 
terminates the U.S. arms embargo applicable to the Government of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina under specified conditions. The Senate has already 
approved this legislation by a wide margin. I hope there will be a 
similar show of support in the House, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting S. 21 to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia.
  I believe that a diplomatic solution is best considering the diverse 
nature of this Yugoslavian society, but certainly negotiations to date 
have not crossed the line to a conclusion. Some progress has been made, 
but some outstanding and unreasonable actions persist, largely by 
Bosnia Serbs, that must be arrested. Endorsing the right to self-
defense as proposed in this resolution will be of some assistance, but 
there should be no doubt that diplomatic and negotiated solutions must 
continue to be sought for a final resolution of the conflicts in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in considering this resolution we are 
faced with a terrible dilemma. A great many of us have long felt it is 
morally indefensible to deny the Bosnian Moslems adequate arms to 
defend themselves through the ill-advised multilateral arms embargo 
that is so one-sided in its effect. Yet beginning the process of 
unilaterally lifting the arms embargo today will surely place the 
UNPROFOR peacekeeping troops from France, the United Kingdom, and other 
countries in far greater danger.
  Extracting those UNPROFOR personnel will surely require the use of 
American ground personnel. In fact, without adequate consultation with 
Congress, President Clinton has already committed up to 25,000 U.S. 
troops for that task. Just as surely there will be American casualties 
in this difficult operation--probably substantial casualties to the 
scattered UNPROFOR personnel and to the American and NATO allies' 
troops who are sent in to extract them from this difficult terrain. 
Under those circumstances the possibility for tragic events to cause an 
escalation of our actions and reactions into an Americanization of the 
conflict are very high. The countries providing the UNPROFOR troops and 
our NATO allies, all urging and warning the United States not to 
unilaterally lift the arms embargo, will surely blame America for the 
tragedy and hold us primarily responsible for such additional actions 
as the unfolding tragedy demands.
  And what will become of the Bosnian Government and its Moslem 
population after
 UNPROFOR withdraws? The necessary quantities of adequate armament will 
not appear overnight and personnel are not instantly trained in their 
use and the military tactics to properly employ them. It certainly can 
be expected that the Bosnian Serbs will accelerate their onslaught 
before the Bosnian Government can increase their combat effectiveness. 
All restraint the UNPROFOR forces have been able to impose will be 
absent. There will be a countrywide killing field of Bosnia Government 
forces and the Moslem population. In this total conflict the relatively 
latent conflict between Croatian and Serbian forces will surely erupt 
and the resultant conflict and abandonment of the Yugoslavian area by 
UNPROFOR will make it even more difficult to keep this bloody warfare 
from spreading south into a larger Balkan war that would jeopardize the 
integrity of the NATO alliance.

  Of course, the status quo is not acceptable and finally there is 
recent evidence of change.
  Some of my colleagues have asked what could be worse than seeing this 
ethnic cleansing and genocide continuing? The answer to ``What could be 
worse'', my colleagues, is the probably general scenario I have just 
outlined. That would be worse and the approval of S. 21 by the House 
today will be a step down this road to a greater series of tragedies 
which clearly do affect our national interest. American actions must 
not be unilateral but framed and implemented in concert with our key 
European allies who have the troops on the ground in the Yugoslavian 
region.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, despite our horror with the events in 
Bosnia, despite the lack of confidence most of us have in the policies 
of the Clinton administration, and despite the dangerous incompetence 
of the civilian leadership of UNPROFOR, I urge my colleagues to set 
aside those emotions and vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to S. 21, the 
so-called Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act. While I share my 
colleagues' frustrations over the war in Bosnia, I believe this is the 
wrong course of action to take at this time. Unilaterally lifting the 
embargo will Americanize the war, damage U.S. leadership in NATO, and 
impede our 

[[Page H8120]]
ability to enforce U.N. sanctions in regions of the world where we have 
more vital national interests. Enactment of this legislation today will 
commit Congress to deploying U.S. troops into a war that will be made 
even more hostile and violent by these unilateral actions.
  We are all united today in our condemnation of the recent deplorable 
actions of the Bosnian Serbs. The recent Serbian assaults on Srebrenica 
and Zepa, and their ``ethnic cleansing'' of these areas, have prompted 
this Congress to respond. The temptation to do something to put an end 
to this conflict has never been stronger.
  But before we act, we must examine how effective our actions will be, 
and whether the benefits are worth the costs. I share my colleagues' 
belief in the principle that the Bosnian Government deserves the right 
to defend itself. But I believe the damage that will be caused to our 
national interests by unilateral action far outweigh any benefit to our 
interests in Bosnia.
  Unilaterally lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government will 
not end this tragic war. It will not bring about an end to ethnic 
cleansing. It is questionable whether it will even have any appreciable 
difference on the battlefield. In fact, our own military leaders at the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS] concluded in a January study that it is 
``extremely unlikely'' that a unilateral lift would improve the Bosnian 
Government's chances of achieving a balance of forces with the Serbs.
  More likely, lifting the embargo unilaterally at this time will 
intensify the fighting, widen the conflict and perhaps even make 
matters worse for the Bosnian Government forces. Because new heavy 
weapons would have to cross Croat and Serb territory, many would not 
even make it into right hands. By the time the Bosnian Government can 
be effectively trained to use the weapons that do make it through, it 
may be too late. Unilateral action by the United States will give 
Russia an excuse to supply arms to the Serbs, its historic ally. 
Inspired and supplied by Russia and Belgrade, the Serbs will launch new 
offensives to capture as much territory as possible before the Bosnian 
Government can be effectively armed.
  Overwhelmed by Serb attacks, the Bosnian Government will make urgent 
appeals for support from Islamic countries, including those 
antagonistic toward the United States. While such support may help 
Bosnia's interests, it will come at the cost of increased influence of 
Iran, Libya and other fundamentalist countries in the Balkans.
  Unilaterally lifting the arms embargo will not only damage our 
efforts in the Balkans, but also threaten U.S. leadership throughout 
the world. While the United States has a strong humanitarian interest 
in ending the war, it has a greater national interest in preserving a 
strong relationship with our NATO allies. Unilateral action will cause 
extensive and irreparable damage to a relationship that has remained 
strong and united for the past 50 years. It will isolate the United 
States at a time when it is seeking allied support for its foreign 
policy toward North Korea, China, Iran.
  Our refusal to comply with the U.N. arms embargo will also 
permanently damage our ability to enforce other U.N. sanctions in 
regions where we have more vital, national interests. This will prompt 
other nations, who wish to put their economic interests ahead of our 
national interests, to violate sanctions against rogue nations like 
Iraq, Libya and North Korea. We will have little credibility arguing 
against such violations.
  The enactment of S. 21 will divide our Nation at home as well. By 
seizing the President's constitutional prerogative to make foreign 
policy, we will send a powerful signal abroad that Congress and the 
President are moving in different directions on foreign policy. A 
divided Nation at home is a weak nation abroad--a fact that will only 
embolden future potential foreign adversaries.
  A vote for S. 21 is a vote to commit United States troops into the 
middle of an even more violent Balkan quagmire. The President has 
already promised 25,000 troops for the evacuation of U.N. peacekeepers. 
Should that evacuation be necessary, the enactment of this legislation 
is likely to create an even more hostile environment for our troops. 
They will be on the ground at the same time that Serbian forces will be 
launching new offensives before the actual lifting of the embargo. Our 
troops will become targets for those seeking retaliation for the 
actions we will take today.
  Mr. Chairman, the war in Bosnia is a travesty that requires a 
determined and united effort by all western nations. We should work to 
cease this war, but we should not go it alone. Enactment of this 
legislation will Americanize this war and lead to the eventual 
deployment of thousands of our men and women into this troubled, 
violent land. If we pass this legislation today, we in Congress will 
become directly responsible for their fate.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution and in 
support of lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government.
  No one can approach this debate without some misgivings about the 
appropriateness of any action in this war-torn part of the world. But 
no one can watch what is taking place in the former Yugoslavia without 
being deeply troubled by the ongoing barbarity and terror.
  As the safe havens for Bosnian Moslems continue to come under attack, 
and as the United Nations presence there does little to prevent 
aggression, the time has come to lift the arms embargo and allow the 
Bosnian people to defend themselves.
  The arms embargo has not halted the aggression of the Serbs--it can 
be argued that it has, ultimately, encouraged them to continue their 
advances with little fear of retribution. The United States can no 
longer impose an embargo which ultimately results in leaving people 
virtually helpless against an aggressor intent on cleansing the earth 
of their presence.
  I will reserve judgment about the manpower and equipment we might be 
called on to provide should a withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops be 
necessary. But I am opposed to putting American troops on the ground in 
the former Yugoslavia, and believe the time has come to lift the 
embargo and allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state support on 
a matter of utmost importance: lifting the arms embargo against the 
Bosnian Government. The United States Government must take the morally 
correct position and unilaterally lift the arms embargo immediately. We 
simply cannot continue to look the other way as the horrors of genocide 
continue.
  On September 25, 1991, the United Nations Security Council imposed an 
international arms embargo against the former Yugoslavia which was 
intended to cut off the supply of arms to all parties involved in the 
conflict. Yet, despite this embargo, the violence and bloodshed 
continues. The Bosnian Serbs already have heavy weapons. The embargo, 
which United States forces have helped enforce, has done nothing but 
deprive the Bosnian Moslems of their inherent right to defend 
themselves and their families.
  International bureaucrats should not be making decisions about which 
weapons the Bosnian people may use to defend themselves. For too long 
we have stood idly by as incidents of ethnic-cleansing, systematic rape 
and murder, and attacks on civilian targets continue. Yet there is no 
end in sight unless we unequivocally stand and demonstrate that this 
moral outrage is absolutely unacceptable.
  I do not advocate the use of United States ground troops in this 
conflict. The Bosnian Government has not asked for that kind of help. 
While our European neighbors have apparently decided to abdicate their 
moral responsibilities in Bosnia, we have no right to turn a blind eye. 
The United States must not let itself become a party to such gross 
negligence. Although I hold out hope for a diplomatic solution to this 
conflict, the end is not in sight, and as long as the right to self-
defense is denied to the Bosnians the onslaught will continue.
  It is time to realize that our past policies have failed. It is time 
to do our part to stop the slaughter.
  My colleagues, it is time to support this bill. Let's end the 
embargo.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that most Americans 
support efforts to bring peace to Bosnia and to end the war against the 
Bosnian people being waged by Serb forces in Bosnia. I share the deep 
concern of many Americans over recent events in Bosnia, especially the 
violation of safe areas established by the United Nations.
  Americans are right to feel outrage and frustration over the events 
in Bosnia. The violations of human rights and atrocities against women, 
children and unarmed men should disgust everyone. It is natural for us 
to look for some solution to the war in Bosnia which will bring a quick 
resolution to this brutal war against the Bosnian people.
  Unfortunately, there are no quick and easy solutions to the crisis in 
Bosnia. This is certainly true of the proposed legislation before the 
House today which would unilaterally lift the arms embargo currently in 
effect for all of the former parts of Yugoslavia. Lifting the embargo 
will ensure that the war will continue in Bosnia while sharply 
undermining efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement in Bosnia. 
Lifting the embargo will result in the certain withdrawal of NATO 
forces serving with the United Nations' humanitarian mission in Bosnia 
and will guarantee the deployment of up to 25,000 members of the 
American military to assist in the withdrawal of our NATO allies from 
Bosnia.
  Unilaterally lifting the arms embargo against the former nations of 
Yugoslavia will ensure that the United Nations role in Bosnia is 
brought to an end. Members of the House must keep in mind that this 
U.N. mission currently provides the Bosnian people with vital 
humanitarian relief that feeds and helps keep alive over 2 million 
people in Bosnia. The United States will bear a great responsibility 
for 

[[Page H8121]]
the void left by the departure of our European NATO allies who have 
placed their military forces on the ground in Bosnia. It may be an easy 
vote for some to lift the embargo but this vote, if successful, will be 
only the first of several votes to follow with the Americanization of 
the Bosnian conflict.
  The situation in Bosnia is at a very crucial point. The Clinton 
administration is currently working intensively with our NATO allies 
and the United Nations' command in Bosnia to strengthen the United 
Nations' position in Bosnia. President Clinton has stated that the 
United States is now working to implement the agreement reached 
recently in London to threaten substantial and decisive use of NATO air 
power if the Bosnian Serbs attack Goradze and to strengthen protection 
of Sarajevo using the Rapid Reaction Force. These actions lay the 
foundation for stronger measures to protect the other safe areas.
  Congressional passage of this resolution to lift the embargo 
unilaterally will undermine these efforts. It will provide our allies 
with strong motivation to initiate a withdrawal from Bosnia at exactly 
the moment the United States is asking for greater involvement by our 
NATO allies. It will require the United States to honor its promise to 
provide ground support for the withdrawal of our NATO allies from 
Bosnia.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to understand what is at stake if 
the Congress approves a unilateral lifting of the embargo. The Congress 
is setting the United States on a course that will place responsibility 
for Bosnia squarely with our country. I urge my colleagues to consider 
carefully the direction in which unilaterally lifting the embargo will 
move U.S. foreign policy. We must not vote on this issue out of 
frustration with the horrible situation in Bosnia but instead should 
support the efforts of President Clinton to strengthen U.N. resolve in 
support of its mission in Bosnia.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are once again discussing the 
pros and cons of unilaterally lifting the U.N. arms embargo on Bosnia, 
and I rise in strong support of this measure, S. 21, that would lift 
the embargo.
  Although the arms embargo was deemed a viable stopgap to the conflict 
when it was first instituted almost 3 years ago, it has clearly failed 
to inject any amount of fairness into this tragic war. The Bosnian Serb 
army, under the tutelage of Milosevic, and armed with the weaponry and 
training of the former Federal Yugoslav Army, is a towering Goliath to 
the Bosnian Government's brave David.
  For 3 years now every American has watched with horror as the 
tragedies in the Balkans continued unabated. In those 3 years there has 
been much talk, and even several threats, about doing something that 
could effectively stop the advance of the Bosnian Serbs in their quest 
to ethnically cleanse Bosnia.
  And yet the United States and Europe are still stuck in the same 
place we were in when the conflict began. What is the secret solution 
to ending the bloodshed? What is the correct combination of action and 
diplomacy that will send the strongest possible message to the Serbs 
that the international community does not tolerate this slaughter? I 
don't know. And I can't say if anyone knows. But I do know, as do most 
of my colleagues, what is the right thing to do. We must lift the 
embargo.
  In my mind, it is the only conscionable thing to do. The Bosnian 
Government and people have called for it, and the American people 
support it, as does this Congress. There is no doubt that the embargo 
was well-intentioned, but in practice it has no validity. We must give 
the Bosnians a chance to defend themselves under equal terms. Without 
this measure, we leave them without a fighting chance.
  Recently Srebrenica and Zepa were overrun, tomorrow it could be 
Sarajevo and Bihac. And it is common knowledge that the Bosnian Serbs 
won't stop until they get exactly what they want--a land free of 
everybody else except for them. This message sounds eerily familiar, 
particularly in light of the Nazi Holocaust, and especially this 
summer, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII.
  The United States has always been known as the true defender of 
democracy and basic freedoms. I say then, let us take the lead in 
promoting that legacy. We are not opening the door for another Vietnam. 
The Bosnians don't want us to train and advise them. They don't want us 
to plan their military operations and send in American ground troops to 
defend Sarajevo. What they want is a fighting chance. And with this 
vote, we can give that to them.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the policies of the Western allies 
with respect to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, including the 
deployment of the U.N. Protection Force [UNPROFOR] to protect the U.N.-
declared safe areas of Bosnia and the denial of arms to Bosnia, have 
failed. That failure has been vividly documented in newspapers and on 
television.
  The arms embargo on Bosnia was intended to contain the spread of 
armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. While that may have been the 
embargo's intent, the embargo has in fact expanded the conflict by 
securing the military advantage of the Bosnian Serbs and allowing the 
Bosnian Serbs to exercise their military advantage to the fullest. The 
Bosnian Serbs have shelled Sarajevo unrelentingly, attacked Bosnian 
Moslem enclaves repeatedly, and are now in the process of eliminating 
the U.N.-declared safe areas.
  The arms embargo on Bosnia has allowed the 80,000-member Bosnian Serb 
militia, which is armed and supported by neighboring Serbia, to conquer 
and control roughly 70 percent of Bosnia. The embargo has also 
prevented the Bosnian Government from defending its territories by 
mobilizing its potential 200,000-member militia. And, by encouraging 
Bosnian Serb aggression, the embargo has undermined the efforts of the 
United Nations to encourage a diplomatic settlement and, most 
tragically, provide humanitarian aid to Bosnian civilians.
  I have voted twice to lift the United States arms embargo on Bosnia 
because I believe that Bosnian Serb aggression and truculence can be 
checked and the stage set for a possible diplomatic resolution of the 
ongoing conflict only when the Bosnian forces are able to defend their 
territories by gaining parity with Serbian military might.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to lift the arms embargo.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule. No amendment is in order except an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the minority leader or his designee. 
That amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment.
  If there is no amendment, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Combest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonilla, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate bill (S. 21) 
to terminate the United States arms embargo applicable to the 
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, pursuant to House Resolution 204, 
he reported the Senate bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 298, 
nays 128, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 608]

                               YEAS--298

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling

[[Page H8122]]

     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--128

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Callahan
     Canady
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Longley
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Neumann
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Schroeder
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bateman
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Minge
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1644

  Mr. HASTERT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________