[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S15399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      AUTHORIZING TROOPS IN BOSNIA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I, too, am about to speak about the situation in Bosnia 
and am glad to follow on the remarks of the majority leader and the 
Senator from West Virginia, both of whom have expressed a concern about 
the role of Congress as we go forward with this possible commitment of 
troops into the situation in Bosnia.
  This week, administration officials testified before the Senate 
Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
House International Relations Committee, and the House National 
Security Committee on the issue of the deployment of United States 
troops as a part of NATO's implementing force in the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.
  While the testimony laid out some of the proposals the administration 
is contemplating, it opened up many, many questions for consideration, 
some of which the majority leader just listed. The most constructive 
forum, in my view, to debate those issues, though, is through the 
constitutional process embodied by the War Powers Act by which Congress 
is required to authorize the deployment of troops into imminent 
hostilities. For that reason, I am pleased that just today the 
President has indicated that he will seek congressional approval of the 
mission, as Senator Byrd just reported. I am not completely satisfied, 
however, that the President will request authorization prior to the 
time that he has actually made a commitment. I want to be sure that he 
does not sign a peace treaty with that commitment in it and then come 
back and say, ``By the way, I need your approval to go forward.''
  If Congress is going to really be a partner in the process envisioned 
under the Constitution then we should either vote on an authorization 
prior to the commitment to deploy is made, or alternatively, the 
President should clearly state that any commitment he makes for U.S. 
troop deployment during negotiations is contingent upon congressional 
approval. One way or the other, the President has in effect rendered 
Congress' role meaningless.
  To ensure that this most necessary exchange takes place in the most 
constructive sequence, Mr. President, I am going to introduce a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution today which would express our intention to 
vote on a resolution of approval prior to the commitment to introduce 
United States forces in Bosnia as a part of IFOR. My resolution does 
not approve or disapprove of the administration's proposal. Rather, it 
requires the Senate to debate and vote on it before we are presented 
with a commitment to deploy. What I am trying to avoid, Mr. President, 
is being presented with a fait accompli to authorize a deployment, and 
therefore undermine the important debate that we should have had.
  Mr. President, in many respects this is a bit of a rehash of the war 
powers debate, the debate about whether this body has the right and the 
responsibility to authorize the use of American troops. Indeed, the 
mere fact that this resolution is needed indicates the institutional 
crisis we face in this country about how we make the gravest of 
decisions--the decision about whether to send American men and women in 
harm's way overseas.
  This is a debate we face every time American troops are called to 
active duty. Unfortunately, it is not a question we have seriously 
sought to resolve. Instead, we seem to muddle through each crisis and 
try to work out sort of a case-by-case understanding between the 
Congress and the President, somehow hoping that the skeleton of war 
powers will stay hidden in the closet just until the current crisis 
goes away, as if there is not going to be another crisis in the future.
  Mr. President, the issue of war powers will not go away because its 
purpose really makes too much sense to ignore. While the War Powers Act 
has certainly failed as a mechanism for implementing article I of the 
Constitution, its intention should be heeded, and Bosnia is a perfect 
example of why.
  The Constitution and the War Powers Act were both crafted to take 
advantage of the collective wisdom and power of both the President and 
the Congress in making some of the most serious decisions we face. Our 
democracy does not vest in one person so much power that he or she 
alone can use military force to accomplish their own goals. Rather, our 
system splits such an awesome power by charging the President with 
commanding the Army, the Navy, and giving Congress both the power to 
declare war and the responsibility to appropriate funds for military 
action.
  Mr. President, Congress is not simply supposed to be consulted on 
such matters or just be a rubberstamp for such actions. Congress is 
supposed to be an active partner in this process.
  Mr. President, I think this is shared power worth protecting. While I 
have no doubt of President Clinton's motives in committing 20,000 
troops to Bosnia, I want to ensure that some other future President 
does not have the unilateral authority to send 80,000 troops for some 
reason that she or he alone supports. We have to remember that how we 
proceed here can and will set a precedence on how troops are deployed 
for other peacekeeping or peace-enforcing missions.
  Mr. President, this process is also important for marshaling public 
support for any military operation--which, as any of our veterans will 
tell you, is a critical element for success for any mission. It is 
through the authorization process that the mission is explained and 
refined to the American people generally, and specifically for those 
folks that are asked to serve their country and risk their lives. The 
questions are answered, fears are alleviated, and the American people 
are given an opportunity to air their views on what the mission means 
and is worth to them.
  In this case, in this case of Bosnia, there are many, many, 
unanswered questions at this point, many good questions that the 
President will want to answer in building support for this mission.
  Mr. President, these are very, very crucial questions. They are fair 
questions. Their answers hold great consequences for this country, for 
NATO, for the Balkans, and perhaps for the world.
  Certainly, if we are going to do something as drastic as deploy U.S. 
troops, we have to create a process by which the Congress and the 
executive work together to forge a workable and attainable mission.
  Mr. President, my main point is that consultations are not going to 
be enough. Authorization that comes just after a commitment to the 
parties has already been made is not sufficient, either. Congress has 
to have this debate before the President is authorized to commit 
troops, and any commitment he makes prior to congressional approval, I 
believe, has to be explicitly conditioned upon subsequent congressional 
consent.
  This is the only way to ensure that article I of the Constitution is 
respected and that the awesome decision of placing U.S. troops into 
imminent hostility is one that is jointly made by the executive and the 
legislative branches. Our troops must have the confidence that, if they 
are going to be sent to Bosnia, they are doing it with the support of 
the American public through their elected Representatives. If they 
cannot get that, then perhaps we may actually say that their mission 
may not be worth the risk.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________