[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11924-H11930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     UNITED STATES TROOPS IN BOSNIA SERIOUS FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a 
very important issue this evening, that being the President's plan to 
put United States troops into Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, before we get into that, I would like to yield several 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] to 
respond to some of the things that we have heard here this evening from 
the other side.


                   responding to democratic rhetoric

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our 1 
hour tonight is on Bosnia, but I just cannot stand to sit here and 
listen to some of the rhetoric that has come from the other side of the 
aisle without responding to it.
  No. 1, if anybody read this morning's Washington Times, they would 
have seen an incredible quote by the Secretary of the Veterans' 
Administration, Mr. Brown, who admitted that under the Clinton budget 
plan, veterans would have suffered greater cuts than under the 
Republican plan that we have imposed. The Republican plan is more 
generous toward the veterans than the Democrats, and yet to listen to 
tonight's rhetoric, the Republicans are gutting and hurting and 
injuring the veterans that have fought so valiantly and have served so 
valiantly in the armed services. It is simply not true.
  The Democrat budget that was set forth by the President has deeper 
cuts than those set forth by the Republican budget, and that is stated 
officially by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Brown.
  No. 2, we have heard the rhetoric about the Republicans talking about 
taking over, taking the hands off the pension plan. I serve on the 
Joint Economic Committee, and we had a vote in this House about a month 
ago that said, we are on record as opposed to something called the 
economically targeted investments, the ETI, where the Clinton 
administration wanted to raid $4 billion from the pension plan in order 
to put it in the pork projects, in public housing projects, and very 
questionable projects all over the place.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? We have all 
kinds of time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield at this time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to hear what the 
gentleman has to say.
  Mr. MANZULLO. So the Republicans had to fight back this incredible 
program, this incredible raid on the pension plans in this country 
called the economically targeted investments.
  What were some of these investments? Well, we had teachers; pension 
plans in the eastern States losing millions of dollars on housing 
projects, and all over this country, one failure after the other, 
because there are $4 billion of private pension plans that Democrats 
could not wait to get their hands on.
  The third thing that I would like to address is the rhetoric over the 
so-called tax break. Mr. Speaker, the tax break is not for the rich in 
this country, but the CBO shows, and several organizations show, that 
when the tax, so-called tax break goes into effect, those taxpayers in 
the highest quintile, in other words, those earning in the upper 20 
percent, will end up paying more taxes, and in addition, 75 percent of 
the capital gains taxes in this country are paid by those earning under 
$75,000 a year. That is not high income, and 87 percent of those who 
will gain from the tax cut for children earn under $75,000 a year.
  I mean clearly, this is not high income, this is common sense, 
because we believe that the American people who have worked very hard 
for their dollars know much better how to spend their money than the 
U.S. Congress, and I just had to clear that up.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the purpose of this 
special order tonight was to take some time to discuss the President's 
plan where he is considering putting United States troops on the ground 
in Bosnia as part of a proposed peace package.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that this could be one of the most 
serious foreign policy blunders in memory. This House sent a very clear 
message to the White House within the past couple of weeks stating very 
clearly that it is our opinion that no troops should be sent into 
Bosnia on the ground without the President first coming to Congress and 
making his case to Congress and to the American people.

                              {time}  2145

  He clearly has not done that to date. This was a bipartisan vote. 
Three hundred fifteen Members of this House voted this way, versus 103 
who supported the President on this particular effort. Half of the 
President's own party in this body voted that way. So it was a very 
strong message. At least to date the President apparently has chosen to 
disregard this very clear message from Congress.
  That vote was only a first step. We are now considering taking much 
stronger action which we are going to discuss here this evening in 
which we feel that it may perhaps be the appropriate action for us to 
tell the President up front that we are not going to funds any venture 
on putting United States ground troops into Bosnia.
  I spoke with Vice President Gore several weeks ago in this building 
along with several other Members of Congress. One of the things I asked 
the Vice President at that time is did they have any casualty 
estimates, how many casualties, how many Americans did they project 
will lose their lives if we put ground troops into Bosnia. They had no 
answer. They are looking into it. We have not heard word one back from 
the administration on this yet.
  There are many things which have not been addressed yet by the 
administration. The American people are not in favor of this effort. 
These are the types of things that we are going to be discussing here 
this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot].
  Mr. Speaker, I spent 6 years of my life living in the Balkans. I am a 
historian of southeastern Europe. The Turkish word for the Balkans 
means ``mountains.'' That is what Bosnia and former Yugoslavia are all 
about geographically. We do not need an American Afghanistan.
  The other thing we learn from a history of the Balkans and Bosnia-

[[Page H 11925]]
  Herzegovina is that centuries of ethnic strife and slights are alive 
and well today, irrationally. Part of the problem is that Orthodox 
Serbs still remember their defeat at the hands of the Ottoman Turks 
back in the 14th century and the 15th century and especially a battle 
in 1389, ``The Field of Black Birds,'' where the Serbs were finally 
defeated. Many of the ethnic South Slav people were then converted to 
Islam by the conquering Turks, and the Orthodox Serbs who did not 
convert still consider the Muslims who were converted to be traitors to 
the South Slav nation.
  So the world is faced with a place which was never a real country, 
with a real language or a real nation, that is, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 
this place being defended as something essential to America's security. 
What a joke. There was never a Bosnia nation, a Bosnia people, a Bosnia 
language. There are Orthodox Serbs, Muslims and Catholic Croats, all 
living together side by side in village after village during the past 
five centuries.
  For Americans to presume that we understand the ethnic conflicts in 
the region and that we can easily pick out one side as the good guys 
and the other side as the bad guys is not very wise.
  Of course, we stand with people anywhere who have been the victims of 
genocide and who have been attacked and killed by better-armed old 
Communist dictators, which is what the Serbian government is, and it is 
the strongest ally to the Bosnian Serbs. As a member of the CSCE, the 
Helinski Commission, and an advocate for human rights throughout 
eastern Europe, Russia, and the world, I deplore the legacy of the 
government in Belgrade, and I supported lifting the embargo and 
allowing the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves.

  The united States of America does not have any national interests, 
any strategic interests, any economic interest, any political interests 
or any other interests which would justify American soldiers dying in 
the mountains of Bosnia and Yugoslavia over an ethnic hatred dating 
back centuries.
  In North Carolina, we know that Fort Bragg is getting ready to send 
American ground troops to Bosnia. We know preparations are under way, 
and we know that American soldiers like Michael New have already been 
commanded to wear the United Nations uniform and United Nations 
insignia in violation of their solemn oath to the Constitution of the 
U.S. in the area of the former Yugoslavia. We know that American 
soldiers sent to Bosnia could also well be asked to serve under U.N. 
command. If so, they will be violating their oath to the U.S. 
Constitution, and they will be killed needlessly in inhospitable 
terrain where the parties have been fighting for centuries and where 
the parties fight for their national survival, not caring who gets in 
the way. They will use any methods to survive, even when it means 
getting in U.N. uniforms or gathering together around a hospital. 
Anything for their ethnic survival.
  So President Clinton wants to have his Kuwait, and he wants to earn 
some macho credentials as military commander-in-chief. But he will not 
have his Kuwait in Bosnia. It will not be that easy. Thousands of 
American soldiers will lose their lives, and for what American national 
security interest? And the United Nations will no doubt be involved. 
What is the mission? What is the goal? What is the objective?
  The people's house here in Washington, the House of Representatives, 
will not have been consulted by the President. Most Congressmen and 
most Americans think we should stay out of Bosnia, but the President 
seems hellbent on going ahead. To date, this foreign policy has been a 
disaster, and now he wants to make matters worse. If we have learned 
any lesson----
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. I will not yield at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). The gentleman from Ohio 
controls the time.
  Mr. CHABOT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have learned any lesson from any previous military 
engagement, it is that we do not enter into a foreign conflict or war 
without the strong backing and support of the American people. Clinton 
does not have that backing for sending 20,000 American ground troops 
into Bosnia. We have to speak loud and we have to speak clear and we 
have to make sure the President hears the voice of the American people 
before it is too late.
  I support America defending its national security, and I support a 
strong national defense, which is provided for in the Constitution. But 
in this case, in this place, I strongly object to United States 
soldiers being sent to Bosnia and to them being sent there without the 
support of the American people and the Congress.
  Wake up, Mr. President, avoid a tragic mistake, and stay out of 
Bosnia.

  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his 
remarks. I think they are very insightful and I think he is right on 
point.
  I represent the First District of Ohio. It is basically the city of 
Cincinnati. We have gotten a fair number of phone calls and letters. I 
have not gotten the first phone call yet of anybody who thinks that we 
should put United States ground troops into Bosnia. Not one phone call 
have I received yet.
  I am going to yield to some of my fellow colleagues here in just a 
moment. I brought here a copy of an article which appeared in my 
hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer. I just wanted to read a 
couple of paragraphs from this particular article.
  The headline on this is ``No Way.'' ``Sending U.S. troops to Bosnia 
would be a disastrous blunder.''
  ``It may throw a wet blanket on the United Nations' 50th birthday 
party, but someone besides Russian President Boris Yeltsin should ask 
some tough questions about the U.N. debacle in Bosnia.''
  ``The echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Another war in which 
unsupported troops fight for unexplained goals in an ungrateful land. 
For all his recent rhetoric about rescuing NATO and performing a 
``peacekeeping'' role, Clinton still has not offered a reason why one 
American life--much less 20,000--should be risked for a shameful paper 
``peace'' that ratifies the rape and plunder of Bosnia.''
  It goes on. It says, ``Sending U.S. troops into a flammable pit of 
ethnic hatred, where death has been a fact of life since 1992, will 
invite hostage taking and terrorism against our soldiers, to inflame 
American outrage against Clinton's policy. Somalia and the near loss of 
a U.S. flier in Bosnia should be fresh, painful reminders that it is 
sheer folly to gamble American blood in a game where our Nation has no 
cards to play.
  ``If that's not enough, Clinton can recall his own protests against 
Vietnam.
  ``Instead, he threatens to invoke his presidential war powers to send 
troops, even if Congress balks,'' and it goes on.
  Clearly a very strong message from my hometown newspaper, the 
Cincinnati Enquirer, that we ought to stay out of Bosnia. I agree 
completely.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  It was interesting that you noted that you had not received one phone 
call. On the central coast of California, which consists of Santa 
Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, I can also say that I have not 
received one call, one fax, one letter or any comments at town hall 
meetings.
  The message is loud and clear: Do not send our men and women to 
Bosnia.
  I think it is important to note that perhaps it is for more than 2 
years that the Clinton administration has failed to articulate any 
clear policy in Bosnia. If you were to listen to the President since 
his Presidency began, you would be astounded at what he has said, or 
perhaps what he has not said.
  One day the United States is sending troops to Bonsia, the next day 
we might be; the day after that, we are probably not; then the next day 
we probably will send troops.
  One day the President pushes for more air strikes. After a U.S. plane 
is shot down and United Nations personnel are taken hostage, the 
President decides that air strikes are a bad idea. One day we have to 
pressure the Serbs with decisive action. The next day, well, do not 
want to provoke the Serbs. 

[[Page H 11926]]

  So I think that the American people understand that there is no clear 
policy of why men and women should be sent to Bosnia.
  It is interesting to note, I have a quote here from an ex-State 
Department official, Mr. Steven Walker, who resigned from the State 
Department over United States policy on Bosnia. He had this to say, 
back in June, about the administration's policy:

       The Bosnia policy has gotten consistently worse over the 
     last 2 years. It's in more of a mess than it was before. The 
     Clinton administration is still dealing with this on a day-
     to-day ad hoc basis. They wake up in the morning, they see 
     what's in the newspapers, and they try and do whatever they 
     can to get the pressure off the administration.

  I believe it is a sad commentary, as Mr. Walker stated, on how the 
Clinton administration decides the Bosnia policy back then, and I wish 
the Clinton administration would read the newspapers today before 
getting and deciding on current policy. Because if they did, they would 
be aware of the fact that the public, the American people, do not 
support sending troops, our men and women, our young men and women, to 
Bosina.
  A recent New York Times poll found that 79 percent of Americans 
believe that President Clinton should get approval from Congress before 
sending troops to Bosnia.
  A recent New York Times poll found that 79 percent of Americans 
believe that President Clinton should get approval from Congress before 
sending troops to Bosnia. It is going to be interesting in the debate 
in the next days to come of what leaves this House and what direction 
we will send to the President. I am going to do all I can to insist 
that he come before this Congress before he sends anybody to Bosnia.
  Perhaps the Clinton administration would have come across the piece 
in the Washington Post with these words of wisdom, and I quote this 
article:

       The first law of peacekeeping is that when you have a real 
     peace, you don't need peacekeepers. The second law of 
     peacekeeping is that where there is no peace, sending 
     peacekeepers is a disaster. The third law of peacekeeping is 
     that Americans make the best targets. From which follows one 
     of the rare absolutes in foreign policy; never send 
     peackeepers--and certainly never send American peacekeepers--
     to police a continuing unsettled war.

  I think we have learned our lessons in faraway places like Beirut, 
Somalia, and Vietnam. I remember Vietnam very well. I remember the men 
and the women that came back in body bags. I remember shedding many 
tears with relatives, friends who had their loved ones come back from 
that horrendous war. I remember how we had a no-win policy. We were 
just sending troops. We had no reason, no feeling of how we were going 
to bring our troops home. We had prisoners of war. It was a sad time.

  I do not believe we want to do and see a Vietnam all over again. 
Before we commit 25,000 of our sons and daughters to a mission, and the 
mom in me understands this very clearly, I have two children, before we 
send our sons and daughters to a mission that has no clear objective, 
no statement of our national security interest, no rules of engagement, 
no exit strategy, President Clinton has a moral obligation to ensure 
that these life-and-death questions are answered. American soldiers 
deserve to know that their combat missions and their potential 
sacrifices are underwritten by strong public understanding and support, 
and that does not exist today.
  I firmly believe that the President and this administration should 
seek Congress' approval now before any ground troops are deployed to 
Bosnia. The American people deserve it. The men and women in our armed 
services definitely deserve it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her remarks. I agree with her sentiments exactly.
  It is interesting that that same Washington Post article that you 
mentioned here from Charles Krauthammer, I would like to read the last 
paragraph from this which I think is very good and right on point.

                              {time}  2200

  He says:

       It is hard to think of a greater folly than trying to 
     enforce a peace among unreconciled Balkan enemies. It is a 
     folly that Clinton's fickle meanderings on Bosnia have backed 
     us into, a folly that must be firmly rejected now before it 
     is too late.

  That is that same article, and I think his words should be heeded.
  At this time I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, in the next few days a monumental decision 
will come before the U.S. Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will request the 
House to instruct our conferees on the Defense Appropriation Act, that 
is, H.R. 2126, to insist on the House-passed version restricting the 
use of funds for any deployment of United States Armed Forces in the 
former Yugoslavia without prior congressional authorization.
  Last Monday, this House passed a nonbinding resolution stating the 
sense of Congress that the peace conference in Ohio should not include 
deployment of United States troops as a precondition to a peace 
settlement in Bosnia. That measure passed this House 315 to 103 with 
broad bipartisan support.
  My motion to instruct will impress upon the conferees the importance 
of retaining the original House language. This is not a partisan issue. 
Almost identical language was placed in the 1994 Department of Defense 
appropriations bill passed by the Democrats very wisely last year. So 
we are not inventing anything new.
  The question is, shall the United States commit troops to Bosnia? The 
President has the constitutional authority to commit troops, but the 
Congress has the constitution responsibility to decide whether or not 
to fund those troops. So there is a balance of constitutional authority 
here.
  Before this momentous decision is made, there must be a full debate 
in this House. The President must come to Congress and explain what is 
the objective, what vital United States interests are threatened, what 
will our United States troops do to protect those vital United States 
interests, if any are found, and there have not been any related to the 
House yet. Will the troops at all times be under United States military 
control and United States military officers?
  The United States troops are truly not needed in Bosnia. Perhaps the 
greatest injustice is that U.S. troops are really not needed to 
implement a peace settlement. This is not just my opinion. This is the 
declaration by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When 
he testified to the Senate and the House last month, just last month, 
he stated that militarily U.S. troops are not necessary. He stated the 
Europeans were fully capable of carrying out this mission on their own.
  As I say, the House has a constitutional responsibility to judge the 
validity and then authorize the funds or refuse to authorize the funds. 
President Clinton has stated he does not need congressional authority. 
He has not yet even agreed to come before the Congress to present his 
case.
  Well, I have a deep concern about any ground troops in Bosnia, and I 
for one will not vote any money until those conditions are met, the 
President comes, lays out the plan, what are the vital interests and 
how do we protect those vital interests, if there are any. Until that 
time, I will not vote money for any adventure in Bosnia.
  Mr. CHABOT. I would like to thank and compliment the gentleman from 
Washington for his leadership on this issue. He spoke out very 
eloquently this morning at the New Federalist group, which is a number 
of very committed freshmen who keep an eye on making sure we balance 
the budget and making the necessary cuts in certain areas that are 
necessary to do that.

  He spoke up very eloquently as to why we should not put ground troops 
in Bosnia this morning, and then again at the Republican Conference, 
which is all Republican Members of Congress. The gentleman from 
Washington spoke up very eloquently there, as well, so I want to thank 
him for his leadership in this area and thank him for his comments this 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Committee on International 
Relations, and we have had a couple of very disturbing committee 
hearings in the past several weeks concerning certain administration 
officials who are attempting, in all earnestness and desire and 
sincerity and honesty on their part, to explain to the United States 

[[Page H 11927]]
Congress exactly what the policy, if any, of the President is with 
regard to Bosnia.
  Let me take you back to a hearing that we had involving Secretary of 
Defense Perry, Secretary of State Christopher, and General 
Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I asked 
this question. I said, ``Is there a plan to arm Bosnia?'' And I said I 
would like a simple yes-or-no on it. And the answers that came from all 
three were very cautious, very guarded, really, because they really did 
not know the answer to it.
  The reason I asked that question is as follows: If there is a plan to 
arm the Bosnians, then the presence of American troops in Bosnia-
Herzegovina would be for the purpose of holding at bay the Serbs until 
military parity were reached. And none of the three really wanted to 
tackle that question, because they knew that it was a trap and it was a 
loaded question. I loaded it on purpose, because if there was a plan to 
arm the Serbians--and I doubt if our colleagues in England and France 
would agree to it, because both Mr. Major and Mr. Chirac have been 
opposed to it, and they are a vital part of NATO--then it was obvious 
that American troops would be in harm's way. They would be in the role 
of a referee, and can you imagine that type of a policy, as we sent 
peacemakers there for the purpose of holding one side at bay while the 
other side has the opportunity to arm itself.
  So none of the three could really come up with a reasoned answer. The 
problem is that the Clinton administration is seemingly trying to make 
American troops fight the war that we are not allowing the Bosnians to 
fight for themselves.

  The problem is there has been a consistent policy by the United 
Nations, the dual key policy of the U.N. having to go back, NATO having 
to go back to the U.N., et cetera, that says there is something wrong 
with allowing the Bosnians to arm themselves, and when the United 
States insisted on going along with this multilateral embargo, this 
means that it has placed itself on the side of the Serbs in this war.
  So why not allow the Bosnians to arm themselves and let them fight 
their own war?
  The second problem is we had another hearing involving Richard 
Holbrook, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and he 
said it would take up to 100,000 troops in order to extricate the 
present U.N. troops. I said I do not understand that. I said if we 
simply served notice that the U.N. peacemakers are going to be 
withdrawn, I said, who is going to shoot at people who are withdrawing? 
And he could not answer that question.
  I think the third thing that comes to my mind on this, Mr. Speaker, 
is the book that was written by former Secretary of Defense McNamara, 
who said it was a mistake and knew we could not win the war, and yet 
stood by to see thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands of 
American troops sent to Vietnam.
  Now, can you imagine that, a high administration official, the 
Secretary of Defense, writing his memoirs in a book, making money on it 
20 years after 50,000 young Americans have given their lives, saying 
that at the time he knew the troops were going there that he knew we 
could not win the war?
  I do not want to see that happen again, and 20 years from now have 
the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense write a book and 
say:

       Well, the President ordered those troops there; we knew we 
     could not win the war, and yet we stood by because these are 
     the directives of the President of the United States.

  Mr. Speaker, I tell you, we have no business fighting a war in 
Bosnia, and as former Ambassador and now Congressman Funderburk so 
eloquently stated, it is centuries of conflict, going all the way back 
to the Bosnian tribes and the Croats and the different parties involved 
in that very precious area around there. We have no business being 
involved in a war over there. We have a business to try to bring about 
the peace, but not at the price of American blood.

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
for taking the time this evening to share his thoughts with us, and I 
think you certainly put those remarks very eloquently, and we thank 
you.
  You know, the one thing that keeps coming to mind to me in this whole 
situation is we have to remember we have got three groups of people 
that have essentially hated each other and fought with each other for 
hundreds of years in this area, and essentially what the President is 
suggesting is that we put our young American men and young American 
women in between these different groups who have been shooting at each 
other for all of these years. I think it is clear at some point that 
these people will turn their targets on these American troops. I think 
that is the last thing in the world we should do.
  I have also heard the argument from those few people in this House 
that agree with the President on this issue--and I have to stress that, 
the few--that we now have a volunteer Army and these are voluntary 
young men and young women who knew what they were getting into when 
they signed up, so it is not quite as bad when we put them in harm's 
way. I strenuously disagree with that line of thinking, with that 
argument. I think it is only in those circumstances where the United 
States interests, vital interests, are at risk that those troops should 
be put at risk.
  I have also heard the argument that since--yes, and I have heard a 
few of my Republican colleagues espouse this point of view--that, yes, 
you know, we should not have done it, but now that the President has 
committed troops or is about to commit troops, that the United States 
might somehow lose prestige around the world if we stopped him at this 
point.
  Again, I want to argue first of all that this is exactly the time to 
stop this President from making this very wrong move, because the 
troops are not there yet. It will be much more difficult once the 
troops are there, because then we are all going to rally around our 
troops and support them. This is the time to stop those young men and 
young women from losing their lives.
  I have heard it argued that the U.S. might lose prestige around the 
world if we do not stick behind the President on this issue. I would 
argue that there is a much greater risk of us losing prestige around 
the world if this thing turns into the bloody debacle that just might 
occur, and that we all are so concerned about and trying to prevent.

  At this time, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. To the gentleman from Ohio, I 
very much appreciate that. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] on this issue he is taking on the Committee on 
International Relations and also here on the floor to be able to have 
this discussion taking place.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Republican Conference voted overwhelmingly to 
support legislation introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], to prohibit the use of Department of Defense 
funds for deployment of United States ground troops into Bosnia without 
an express congressional authorization.
  I think simply that the President must seek and receive congressional 
support for U.S. participation in this peacekeeping mission. More 
importantly, however, the President must make his case to the American 
people before a single United States soldier is deployed to Bosnia.
  I would just like to raise a couple of questions I think the 
President needs to take to the American people. A number of questions 
already are raised here this evening, and raised quite well, but there 
are several others as well.

                              {time}  2215

  Take the case to the American people. The President has failed to 
answer so many questions about the peacekeeping operation, the American 
involvement in the operation, and most importantly, the justification 
for American involvement in the operation.
  We heard earlier the statement, which I think is accurate, that if 
you have a peace there, you do not need peacekeepers, and if you do not 
have a peace there peacekeepers are not going to work. That just seems 
to make such fundamental sense.

[[Page H 11928]]

  I would like for the administration to explain how we intend to be 
perceived by the warring parties as neutral when we have bombed one of 
the warring parties and helped train one of the warring parties that 
are involved in this particular situation.
  I would like to raise another question that came up earlier, actually 
even this year, and that was in regard to Haiti and the payment for the 
operation in Haiti. We have not talked yet this evening about the cost, 
the actual dollar cost of this operation, but what domestic programs is 
the President willing to cut, willing to reduce, to be paying for this 
operation in Bosnia? We have not talked dollar figures, because 
frankly, there are much more serious matters about the lives of our 
young men and women that are involved here. But if we have to get down 
to talking about dollars as well, Mr. President, where are you going to 
make the cuts to pay for this operation? I think that is a very 
legitimate point, as earlier this year we had to do a defense 
appropriation supplemental bill to pay for what the President's 
operation was that took place in Haiti. Where are we going to make 
those cuts?
  The President has not explained to the American people to the point 
that they are able to believe that this is going to be a short-term 
peacekeeping operation, that there is not going to be a lot of 
bloodshed involved in this region of the world that has had bloodshed 
and hatred for centuries.
  Finally, I would just raise a continued standard that I think we 
should look at with any operation like this. That is a simple one of, 
is the case sufficiently in front of us, is it sufficiently compelling, 
do we have a sufficient vital and strategic interest of the United 
States that I personally would go? Would I send my son to go, or my 
daughter to go into this operation? I would have to say a dramatic 
``absolutely not, in this case.''
  Mr. President, you have not made your case to the American people, 
you have not made your case to this Congress. Now we are talking about 
deploying troops before any of that takes place. That is wrong. Come to 
this Congress, come to the American people with your case, if it is so 
compelling that we can say with a good conscience, yes, I would go.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his 
remarks this evening. I had mentioned earlier relative to the gentleman 
from the State of Washington [Mr. Metcalf], that he had spoken up at 
the New Federalist meeting this morning. And I just wanted to make the 
point that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] is the leader of 
that group, the head of that group, and has shown tremendous leadership 
in such issues as making sure we balance the budget, we stick to our 
guns and keep on top of things around here. I want to compliment him 
for that and his remarks here this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I almost feel after some of the remarks that have been 
made tonight that there is not really much to add to this discussion. 
But I think it is very important, and I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for having this special order tonight 
to talk about it, because I was one of those people who came of age, 
graduated from high school in 1969. I was fortunate enough to have a 
high enough draft number that I did not have to go to Vietnam, but a 
lot of my friends did.

  I think sometimes we overutilize the Vietnam analogy, but I think 
there is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear in the comparison, 
and the analogy fits this particular discussion. We all saw what that 
war in Vietnam did to the American people, what it did to our society. 
It literally tore us apart.
  The time to have this debate is now. The debate should not be going 
on a year from now, when we are bogged down in a no-win situation, when 
we have sent not 25,000 troops to that area of the world, but perhaps 
50,000 or 100,000; because we can talk about 20,000 to 25,000 American 
troops today, but the truth of the matter is if we get bogged down in a 
guerrilla-type war in the mountains of the Balkans, it may well be that 
the generals will be saying, ``What we really need are more troops, 
what we need are more air strikes, what we need are these things.'' We 
saw this all happen before.
  The time to have this debate, not only in this Congress, not only on 
the floor of this House but in this country, is before we find 
ourselves in a situation where the answer to every question is, ``We 
need more troops, we need more bombers, we need more air strikes, we 
need more materiel,'' and the potential for that, I think, is great.
  The reason is that the whole policy that we are seeing evolve in that 
area of the world, and Mr. John Hillen, who is the defense policy 
analyst for the Heritage Foundation has really nailed it when he said 
that the peace plan we are talking about, the Clinton peace plan, is a 
classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Instead of making 
troop commitment that is tailored to support a known, specific, 
workable mission, Mr. Clinton made the commitment of 25,000 U.S. ground 
troops first, more than 2 years ago, without any peace plan at hand.
  In fact, I think back then, between then and now, we have had 
something like 10 ceasefires and peace plans.
  The U.S. military commitment only incidentally is related to the 
military conditions that may exist on the ground. This strategy is 
backwards, a formula for confusion and disarray, and Members of 
Congress are correct to question it now.
  We should be having this debate before we make the commitment of 
American forces. In fact, I have told some of the people in my district 
that we hear a lot about the Vietnam analogy. Perhaps an even better 
analogy is what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. They found themselves 
bogged down in some warfare that had been going on in those mountains 
for years and years and years, and they never did win that war. They 
only lost thousands of young Russian soldiers in that area of the 
world.
  The truth of the matter is we are all becoming much more aware of 
where Bosnia and Herzegovina is, but if the truth actually be told, I 
think if you were to ask Americans to locate Bosnia on a world map or a 
world globe, I daresay that less than 25 percent of the American people 
can even find it on the map. To say that it is of some major national 
interest is to exaggerate in the 10th degree.
  The truth of the matter is, Americans have no real interest in what 
is happening in Bosnia, and most of them have little knowledge of the 
history of that area, but some of us in Congress have been forced over 
the last several months to become more expert in what the history is 
there. The more you learn about it, the more you begin to realize that 
this is a situation that has been going on for years. As a matter of 
fact, they have been fighting over there since the Turks first invaded 
in 1389, and there has been one form of conflict going on in that 
particular region of the world basically ever since.
  I think it sort of underscores American arrogance; that we can 
somehow, by sending 25,000 ground troops at a cost of over $1.2 
billion, somehow bring peace to a region that has been fighting that 
long is, I think, as I say, can only be described as arrogance.
  When we talked, and many of the other points that needed to be made 
have been made tonight, but before we commit our troops anywhere in the 
world I think we have to have a clearly defined American interest, 
there needs to be a clearly defined mission statement of what it is we 
are trying to accomplish. We need to know the rules of engagement. Most 
importantly, I think we need to know, how will we know when it is time 
to come home? The truth of the matter is we have not had answers to any 
of those questions.
  The interesting thing from my perspective, as a freshman Member of 
this body, is that many of the people that I would regard as hawks on 
national defense, many of the people that I think nonpolitical 
observers out in America would say, ``These are the kinds of people who 
would be eager to commit American troops anywhere in the world, they 
are the hawks of this Congress,'' they are the ones who are the most 
dovish on this whole idea of Bosnia. The reason is they have asked 
those tough questions.
  We have given the administration every opportunity to come up here to 
Capitol Hill, to talk about their plans, to explain exactly what they 
have in 

[[Page H 11929]]
mind, and with every opportunity that they have taken, if anything, the 
administration in selling their particular proposals to Congress, has 
lost ground. At every occasion the hawks of this Congress have, 
perhaps, been the most aggressive in saying that there is no American 
interest in that region of the world, there is no American mission. We 
do not seem to know what we are trying to do. There is no peace to 
keep.
  As the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] said earlier, the 
quote from the Krauthammer piece that appeared in the Washington Post 
says that the greatest targets people can have in the world are 
Americans, not only to shoot at them in some kind of guerrilla warfare 
but also to take them hostage. We have already seen that happen in that 
region of the world.
  So before we make this critical mistake, before we find ourselves 
bogged down in an unwinnable war, before we allow our sons and 
daughters to become the unwilling pawns in this unwinnable war that has 
been going on for over 600 years, we ought to have these questions 
answered. The American people ought to have them answered. I think 
Congress has a special responsibility, especially to those young kids 
who wear the American uniform, to make certain that we feel good about 
what exactly they are going to be asked to do before we ask them to do 
it.
  I think this is a huge mistake. I think the President needs to sit 
down with the American people and with this Congress, answer these 
tough questions, before we get into a war like we had back in the 1960s 
and 1970s that literally tore this country apart. The time for the 
debate is now, not after the troops are sent. The time for the Congress 
to get these answers is today, not next week, not next month, and not 
after the troops are sent in.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], for 
having this special order. I think we need to do more of this. I think 
we need to encourage the American people to become engaged in this, 
because I will just close, and I know the gentleman from California 
wants to share a few words, but a week and a half ago I spoke to some 
of the Legion commanders from my congressional district. One of the 
issues I talked about was Bosnia. I asked for some input from them. I 
have to tell you, the American Legion people who were at that meeting 
that day do not support the basic notion of sending group troops to 
that area of the world. Frankly, if you cannot sell the American Legion 
and some of the veterans' groups on the importance of this particular 
mission, then you cannot sell the American people.
  This is a mistake. We have to do all we can in the next several weeks 
to prevent it from happening, because all of those kids that we would 
be asking to go into that particular region have parents, they 
have lives of their own, and we cannot just offer them up on some altar 
just to protect the American ego. That is really, when you are talking 
about protecting American prestige, it seems to me that is too high a 
price when you are talking about real people, real kids who belong to 
real families, to send them into situations just to protect American 
prestige. In my opinion that is a huge mistake, and again, I want to 
thank the gentleman for yielding to me tonight. The gentleman from 
Ohio, again, is to be congratulated and thanked for having the special 
order.

  Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota for giving his talk and his points this 
evening. He happens to be one of the more articulate Members of this 
body. I think he did a tremendous job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], who serves on the Committee on International Relations 
with me, and has shown tremendous leadership on that committee. Many of 
us, particularly the freshmen on that committee, listen very well when 
this gentleman, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher from California, speaks.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the analysis and the 
comparisons between this proposed operation and what happened in 
Vietnam. I think that the more accurate comparison would be made to 
Beirut in 1983. In Beirut in 1983, President Reagan made his worst 
mistake, the worst mistake of his presidency, and sent 2,500 Marines 
into what was an absolute cauldron of turmoil and bloodshed. When it 
was over, there was a great deal of American bloodshed on the ground, 
and we retreated, and our prestige was never lower in that part of the 
world than when we had to retreat from having lost 240 Americans. That 
would be the worst blow to American prestige today, would be the 
introduction of troops and then to have some sort of cataclysmic event, 
and the resulting American public opinion shift that would force 
American troops to withdraw under fire, which would then leave us in a 
position around the world that would really diminish our influence. 
That is not what we want.
  What happened in 1983 was possible because we were in the middle of 
the cold war. During the cold war, we granted the President of the 
United States, every President of the United States, a great deal of 
power in terms of commanding troops. After all, there was a hostile 
power that sought to destroy the United States and western democracies, 
communism, as centered and in power in Moscow.
  During that time period we knew we had to meet the threat. We had to 
cut off maneuvers by this hostile power. It meant that the President 
had to have extraordinary, extraordinary authority that is 
extraordinary to the traditions of the United States.
  The cold war is over. What happened in Beirut unfortunately happened 
because the President had that authority, and unfortunately, we sent 
our Marines to places where they should not have gone. The cold war is 
over, and today when the President makes these decisions, the American 
people expect that their elected representatives in Congress will 
scrutinize the decisions and play a part in deciding where the funds 
that we spend, our funds on national defense, where they will be spent 
in terms of these foreign commitments.

                              {time}  2230

  I am not talking about isolationism. This is far different than 
isolationism. The charge of isolationism is nothing more than an 
attempt to stifle debate, honest debate, on this issue.
  What is being proposed in the Balkans is contrary to our national 
interests. That does not mean we are isolationists for pointing that 
out. Mr. Speaker, let us note this: Yes, there has been squabbling, 
there have been hard feelings and fighting going on in that part of the 
world between the various ethnic groups for many years, many hundreds 
of years. But the Balkans is not the only place in the world where 
there have been intractable problems between neighbors, and it is not 
the only place in the world where the United States may be called to 
intervene in some way in order to have a presence or exert some sort of 
force, or to exercise some kind of influence over events in those far-
off reaches of the world.
  The peace plan now being contemplated, which includes 25,000 American 
troops on the ground in the Balkans for at least a year, is an 
absolutely insane plan. It will not work. So on top of the 25,000 
people that we are putting at risk, the plan itself, which I have 
looked over, seems to me to be a bad plan, even for those people who 
are negotiating right now and being pushed into that direction.
  We have seen for 4 years and heard the screams of agony and horror 
from the Balkans for 4 years, and yet, those people that were the 
architects of America's response to this event in history are now the 
very same people who have presented us this plan of sending 25,000 
Americans into this caldron.
  Well, the fact is, their policy for 4 years has failed. Their policy 
was basically to label all of those involved in the fighting as morally 
equivalent to place an arms embargo on everyone, a pox on all of your 
houses, and in some way with this aloof decisionmaking that we would in 
some way be able to effect a peace in that area. It was a peace that 
saw many United Nations troops in the area.
  I can still remember vividly a United Nations armored personnel 
carrier in the middle of April, armored column of United Nations troops 
being stopped by Serbians and Serbians going to the armored personnel 
carrier, opening the 

[[Page H 11930]]
door in front of heavily armed United Nations troops, hauling out the 
Vice President of Bosnia, and murdering him right in front of 
the United Nations troops. This was no coincidence. They understood 
what the policy was. They understood what the policy of the United 
States was. They understood what the policy of the United Nations was.

  Over these last four years we have seen acts of aggression basically 
coming from Bosnia--excuse me, from Serbia in Bosnia and in Croatia in 
an attempt to grab land. It has not been a moral equivalency, because 
we have seen heavy artillery, heavy weapons, heavy tanks from Serbia 
committing acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing in neighboring 
countries. Yes, there have been some, there have been some murders and 
there have been some genocide and unfortunate acts committed by 
Bosnians as well as Croatians. But by and large there is no question 
that the aggression has been coming as part of an organized attempt by 
Serbia to grab land.
  The peace that has been proposed now basically rewards the gangsters 
in Serbia who have been committing these horrendous acts against their 
neighbors. In fact, the peace plan in which 25,000 American lives will 
be at stake in order to enforce will not work without the goodwill of 
those very same people who have committed the most horrendous acts of 
genocide in that conflict.
  Part of the peace plan, by the way, has been not only to send 25,000 
Americans, but also to send 20,000 Russians, Russians, into the area as 
well. Thus, we will be relying on the goodwill of the Serbians, who 
have been murdering people, who have been committing acts of mass rape 
and genocide, we will depend on their goodwill not to get the United 
States into a conflict with Russian troops who are nearby. It is 
absolutely insane; it is a plan whose architects are the same 
architects who said we will have an arms embargo against the victims as 
well as against the aggressors.
  Their plan for the last four years has brought heartache and misery 
and death to the Balkans. Because it left the aggressor, the Serbians 
with their heavy tanks and heavy artillery, outgunning, overwhelmingly 
outgunning the victims. And thus, they had an incentive to commit these 
horrendous acts, because they could get away with it with minimum loss.
  I am not suggesting now that we should turn our backs on that 
aggression, but let me note I have been in that area several times, 
once just about a month ago. I was in Sarajevo, I was in Bosnia, I was 
in Croatia, I talked to people. The Bosnian people even now, after 4 
years and for 4 years they have never asked for American troops. Even 
now they are not asking for American troops.

  The people that are asking for American troops are those people who 
have been the architects of the failed American policy for the last 4 
years. The Bosnians have only asked for, as the Croatians, the ability 
to buy the weapons necessary to defend themselves.
  This is not isolationism, to suggest that that is the strategy we 
should be following. If there is any American involvement in that area, 
and I will close with this thought, if indeed we decide to get involved 
in that area, besides lifting, just lifting the embargo, we should be 
using American air power. We have invested in aerospace technology, in 
smart bombs and planes that we could use or exercise our influence with 
the use of American might that would minimize the risk of the loss of 
American lives.
  By lifting the arms embargo and using American air power, I believe 
we could force the Serbians aggressors back into Serbia and could bring 
peace in that way. Let those people bring peace to their own area. 
Instead, what we have before us is a plan that puts Americans at 
tremendous risk with very little chance of success.
  The last time I saw this is when I sat in the White House in 1983, a 
member of President Reagan's staff, and I remember when the Marines 
were introduced into Lebanon. I ran from office to office asking, what 
are we doing? What is this all about? And I was told, and I was given a 
very convoluted plan, and I bet nobody has even heard of that peace 
plan now in Lebanon. But it was a plan that depended on, if we 
introduce American troops down there and we show up, we have a presence 
there, this is going to happen and that is going to happen and this is 
going to happen and the result was going to be peace in the Middle 
East. Not just peace in Lebanon, but peace in the Middle East. And that 
type of globalistic, just absolutely irrationalism, led to one of 
America's greatest humiliations and the loss of 240 marines and naval 
personnel.
  Now, now, we hear about a plan to send 25,000 Americans to the 
Balkans and we say, what is this all about? Tell me, why? Why are we 
doing this? What is this all about? Nobody can give the answers except 
some nebulous plan of this, this and this, which will eventually lead 
to peace in the Balkans and peace in that part of the world. I have 
heard it before. We should not, we should not, give in to the notion 
that other people are going to solve this problem and will protect the 
lives of young Americans.

  It did not happen in Beirut, it is up to us to take care of those 
young people who defend us. They march off to war or they march off to 
put themselves in harm's way and they salute and they are willing to do 
it because they know that we will do our very best in Congress and in 
the executive branch to make sure that they are not putting their lives 
on the line for something of little value or something that has little 
chance of success.
  Today, we owe it to our defenders and we owe it to those young men 
and women to do everything we can to prevent them from being deployed 
to this area with a plan with so little chance of success.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California for his insightful remarks on this important issue. The 
gentleman from California mentions a scenario which I think is very 
similar, and that is American involvement in Lebanon, a different 
administration.
  Some years ago, but as the gentleman from California mentions, we 
went in there with good motivations, trying to keep peace, a peace 
which really did not exist. The mission really was not clear. There was 
no real exit policy out of there. We had a suicide bomber who went into 
the marine barracks and over 200 United States marines lost their 
lives.
  I think another situation which is somewhat analogous, more recently 
was in Somalia. We went into Somalia with the best of intentions, 
again, a different administration, to feed people, and then that 
humanitarian mission then turned into peacekeeping, and democracy-
building, and putting ourselves in-between these warlords, and they 
ended up shooting at us. We had helicopters shot down, we had 18 
Americans who lost their lives, we had an American who had his body 
dragged through the streets.
  We want to prevent that from happening again. That is why we are here 
tonight, and I want to thank all of those who took part in this special 
order here this evening.

                          ____________________