[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15374-S15375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     UNITED STATES TROOPS TO BOSNIA

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in recent days, the Nation has focused its 
attention on one of the most serious issues to come before this country 
since I have been privileged to be in the Senate, and I say that in all 
sincerity. That is the very difficult decision facing the President of 
the United States as to whether or not this Nation will make a 
further--and I underline further--commitment of our Armed Forces to the 
situation in Bosnia.
  As I am privileged to address the Senate this morning, there are 
still pockets of combat in that war-torn nation, a nation which I have 
visited five times myself, being the first Senator to go to Sarajevo 
over 2\1/2\ years ago.
  Since that time, I am pleased that so many of the Members of the 
Senate have found the opportunity to go to that region so that they 
can, likewise, gain a clearer and better understanding of this historic 
and tragic conflict.
  I would like to focus my remarks today, Mr. President, on an issue 
which has captured the attention of the American people over the last 
week, that is, President Clinton's decision to send up to 25,000 United 
States ground troops to Bosnia.
  Hearings were held this week in the U.S. Senate, both in the Armed 
Services Committee, of which I am a member, and in the Foreign 
Relations Committee. Those hearings revealed the depth of congressional 
concerns, both Republican and Democrat, with this proposed deployment. 
May I emphasize, Mr. President, I do not view this issue as a political 
one. I think each Senator that has spoken out or involved himself or 
herself in this debate has done so very sincerely, as a matter related 
to their duties to this Nation, not for any political reason.
  I myself, in traveling through my State, indeed, not just in the last 
month or so, but over the period of the nearly 3 years of this 
conflict, have detected perhaps the deepest, the most sincere concern 
that I have ever experienced since the closing days of Vietnam about 
this conflict and America's role in the conflict.
  In my view, the American people are entitled to a voice in a decision 
of this magnitude. The American people have followed this conflict for 
over 3 years. They are well-informed, they understand the complexities 
involved, they should have a voice in this decision. Their voice can 
best be manifested right in this institution, the U.S. Congress, with a 
very thorough and extensive debate. That is the principal reason I rise 
today to address the Senate. We, their elected representatives in the 
Congress, must ensure that the voice of the American people is heard.
  I call on the congressional leadership, both Senate and House, to 
establish a plan for debating and voting on a freestanding resolution 
regarding the authorization for the use of United States ground troops 
in Bosnia.
  I have consulted with my leader in the Senate, Senator Dole. And he, 
at this time, is considering this need for the leadership to establish 
the procedure and the timing for this debate. In my view, in this 
special instance, the leadership must exercise control--I say that most 
respectfully--control over the procedure by which the Senate commences 
this debate to ensure that it is meaningful, well-informed, and timely.
  I would like to emphasize that the timing of this congressional 
debate is critical. If the Senate considers the issue too soon, that 
is, before we know the outlines of the peace agreement, before we know 
all of the details of the proposed NATO operation, there will be too 
many unanswered questions to enable this debate to reach an informed 
conclusion. If we wait too long, however, our troops may well be on the 
their way, that is, our ground troops, and Congress will not have 
performed the responsible role that I believe the Constitution requires 
us to perform. Only by daily monitoring of this situation can the 
leadership best determine that critical hour when this debate should be 
initiated.
  I do not see this debate, I repeat, Mr. President, as a political 
fight. This is not Republicans versus Democrats or Republicans versus 
the President. The misgivings regarding this operation cross party 
lines. At issue in this debate is not who scores the most political 
points. What is at stake are the lives of the men and the women of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and the present and future credibility of America's 
security policy.
  The most important question we must answer in this debate is whether 
or not the United States has a vital national security interest in this 
conflict in Bosnia, which justifies putting United States combat troops 
in harm's way in this operation and justifies imposing a very 
significant cost on the American taxpayer, a cost which cannot be fully 
calculated at this time but which would easily be in the billions of 
dollars.
  We must keep in mind that past military operations have taken dollars 
from our modernization and O&M accounts in the Department of Defense, 
dollars which directly affect the future readiness, preparedness, and 
capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States.
  Again, Mr. President, I focus on the fact that the use of United 
States ground troops in Bosnia would be an additional step by our 
Nation. Our military forces are already there and have been there in a 
very significant way in those military operations involving airpower, 
and in those military operations involving the naval embargo. In both 
the air and the naval operations, for several years we have been the 
dominant military participant.
  I question, is this deployment of United States ground troops the 
best of the remaining options for resolving the fighting in Bosnia? The 
President and his negotiators deserve credit for the achievements they 
have had to date with respect to achieving a peace agreement and 
lessening the fighting. So that is definitely to their credit.
  But should the United States play a role on the ground in Bosnia 
given that we are already, as I say, playing the major role in the air 
operations and the naval blockade, or are there other options we should 
consider which 

[[Page S15375]]
would not involve such a significant number of upward of 25,000 United 
States ground troops?
  Mr. President, Senator Levin and I recently completed a report for 
the Senate Armed Services Committee involving the United States 
military involvement in Somalia. That report, I think, if I may say, 
should accomplish one thing. It should cause the administration and 
this Senate to consider more carefully the policy decisions that put 
men and women who serve in our Armed Forces at risk.
  As the father of one of the young Rangers killed in Somalia, Col. 
Larry Joyce, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in an open 
hearing, and I quote him:

       Too frequently, policymakers are insulated from the misery 
     they create. If they could be with the chaplain who rings a 
     doorbell at 6:20 in the morning to tell a 22-year-old woman 
     she's now a widow, they'd develop their policies more 
     carefully.

  That is why I emphasize that the American people need a much stronger 
voice in this critical decision. And that can only be fulfilled, in my 
judgment, by a very comprehensive debate here in the U.S. Senate. I 
hope that President Clinton will actively seek such a debate.
  I point out that, very wisely, President Bush, when he was faced with 
the similar situation in the gulf war, received congressional 
authorization for the use of force prior to the initiation of that 
conflict. That debate, though difficult and contentious, was, in my 
view, one of the finest in the contemporary history of this 
institution.
  The final vote taken after, I think, almost 3 days of debate, was by 
a narrow margin of five to authorize the President to use force. But 
the debate and vote served to unite the Congress and, indeed, the 
American people behind our President.
  Fortunately, the casualty level in that conflict was far below the 
predictions. But had the Congress not been on record in support of the 
President and the war effort, and had that conflict resulted in 
greater--there were significant losses--but had there been greater 
losses, I fear the drumbeat could well have started right here in the 
Congress to bring our troops home. We need only remember the experience 
of Somalia.
  In calling for this vote, I do not seek to question the President's 
role as Commander in Chief--in particular, his authority to deploy 
United States troops in emergency situations, such as we saw in Grenada 
and Panama, when the circumstances did not allow for a protracted, 
prior debate in the Congress. That was quite appropriate, and it was 
that type of action that was contemplated by the Founding Fathers when 
they wrote into the Constitution the specific roles of the President 
with respect to being Commander in Chief.
  But that is not the case with Bosnia. That war has been going on for 
3\1/2\ years, since April 1992. We are, at best, weeks away from a 
peace agreement. There is plenty of time for the Congress to exercise 
its constitutional responsibility for such a deployment by thoroughly 
debating the issue and voting on a resolution.
  Although I have traditionally been a supporter of Presidential 
prerogative in the deployment of United States troops, I have yet to be 
convinced that this President's plan, President Clinton's plan, for 
putting this additional contingent of military forces, namely, up to 
25,000 ground forces in Bosnia, is the proper option to follow.
  I listened carefully to the administration's testimony during the 
course of our hearing in the Armed Services Committee, but I still 
cannot identify a vital United States national security interest in 
Bosnia that justifies putting United States ground troops at risk in 
that nation. I do not want to see U.S. troops inserted in the middle of 
a civil war, a civil war which is based on centuries' old religious and 
ethnic hatreds.
  I would like to recount just a personal note. On my last visit, 
Senator Robert Kerrey and I went into the Krajina region which, just 
days before our visit, had been the battleground for Croatian forces 
driving Serbian forces out, Croatian Serbs having taken that land 
several years earlier. There was an enclave of Serbs that had been 
trapped and prevented, in one way or another, from fleeing into Serb 
territory. We met extensively with these refugees. In one particular 
meeting, there was a doctor, there was a schoolteacher and there was 
another very well-educated individual. As hard as we pressed them for 
answers as to why this conflict exists and continues to exist, they 
could give no answers to explain why well-educated people have 
participated all throughout that region--all sides--in barbaric acts 
which those of us in this country find incomprehensible.
  That is my major concern as to why we should not put our troops in 
there in harm's way. President Clinton has yet to make a convincing 
case that we should proceed with this deployment.
  In my view, the burden of proof on the administration to turn public 
opinion around is virtually insurmountable. Therefore, it has to be a 
joint responsibility of the Congress and the President, no matter how 
definite the President and others may wish to make this commitment at 
this time. And another thing that concerns me, how the administration 
can predict, should we go in, that this situation would be of such a 
nature that we could pull out all of our forces 1 year from today. I 
just find that incomprehensible.
  So, Mr. President, I shall have more to say on this subject in the 
coming days. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] is recognized for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________