[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NO UNITED STATES TROOPS DEPLOYMENT TO BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress will within a 
very short period of time take up the very delicate issue as to whether 
or not American fighting troops should be positioned in the country 
that we know as Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the past 3 years, our 
President has, without consulting Congress, made a commitment that 
somehow he is going to send 20,000 to 25,000 American troops to Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.

                              {time}  1315

  Now we find ourselves at this point in American history where this 
body has to make a reasoned decision as to whether or not we should put 
these young men and women in harm's way. We have to take a look at the 
historical background of this country as we know it.
  One can go back 1,000 or even 1,500 years to see continuous fighting 
on either side of the Balkans as the various tribes from the areas that 
we know as the former provinces of Yugoslavia, now independent nations, 
have risen up, engaged each other in mortal combat, then been quiet for 
a period of time only to have these types of prejudices flare up again 
and result in killing.
  The question is this: Does America have such a strategic interest in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina so as to commit our young men and women into 
combat? And that other question is this: If there is, indeed, a peace 
treaty, then why should our young men and women, as part of a NATO 
force, be sent in heavily armed for the purpose of killing to keep the 
peace?
  As I examined last night the very thick document that sets forth the 
memorandum of understanding among the parties to this horrible 
conflict, several points stood out, and I think the American people 
have a right to know the terms upon which American troops would be sent 
into this country.

  Let us take a look at the nature of the country that will be set up. 
There will be an elected house. There will not be a president; there 
will not be two presidents; there will be three presidents. Can you 
imagine a constitution that has a troika for a presidency and is able 
to rule? And, incidentally, each of these presidents have to come from 
each of the three warring factions, the Moslems, the Croats, and the 
Serbs. So now you take one of each, put them into a government and say, 
``You rule.''
  What is even more ironic is that in the constitution that will be set 
up is called the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and yet it is 
legally split, one country that is already split, and this is supposed 
to be a peace agreement.
  How is this peace agreement formed? Well, a demilitarized zone is set 
up. American troops have to pour in, and the language of the agreement 
says that the troops will use whatever force is reasonably necessary in 
order to carry out the peace plan. So that if the warring factions do 
not clear out of the DMZ, then after some type of a warning, presumably 
NATO forces will be called upon to shoot in order to secure a peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: What type of peace is this? And that 
is not all. The agreement says that within a year the troops are to be 
withdrawn.
  So everybody gets together for a year, possibly acquiesces in a DMZ 
zone, and then knowing at the end of the year they can pull out only to 
have the fighting resume.
  But there is more to it than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to examine very closely 
the agreement before they vote in favor of this type of peace plan.

                          ____________________