Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)

[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.

____________________