[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13725-H13729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        JUSTIFICATION FOR SENDING UNITED STATES TROOPS TO BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to 
discuss an issue that is going to confront us for the next several 
weeks in regard to the President's intention to send 20,000 to 25,000 
of America's sons and daughters to the Balkans to participate in living 
up to the terms of the agreement just recently initialed in Dayton, OH.
  Mr. Speaker, like many Americans across the country, I sat before my 
television set last evening and listened intently as President Clinton 
gave his justification to the American people for sending ground troops 
into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks from tomorrow I was invited to the 
Pentagon, where I had breakfast with Secretary Perry and the leadership 
of the Joint Chiefs, including General Shalikashvili, where they made a 
personal case to me and other Members of the Committee on National 
Security as to why we should commit our troops to Bosnia in light of 
the pending peace agreement, which had not yet been initialed.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to respond, first of all, to President 
Clinton's speech, because parts of it bothered me greatly, and to lay 
the foundation for a hearing which our committee will hold on Thursday 
when again Secretary Perry, General Shalikashvili, and Secretary 
Christopher will come before the House Committee on National Security 
and again make the case to us to support the President's efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who has been on the Committee on National 
Security for 9 years and who chairs the Research and Development 
Subcommittee, I am vitally interested in any place or any time that we 
send our troops into harm's way, whether it be the time that we sent 
them to Desert Storm, or Haiti, or other operations around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I was taken aback by some of the comments President 
Clinton made in the speech yesterday evening and I have to respond to 
them, and this is the only opportunity where I can deal with them in a 
lengthy and involved format. I want to respond to three specific points 
that the President made to the American people and to Members of this 
body.
  I want to, first of all, respond to his assertion that those who 
disagree with him are isolationists and want us to come back into our 
own borders and not be a part of the world community. The second issue 
I want to take exception to is the way that he characterized the moral 
argument involved in getting involved in Bosnia. And the third is the 
President's comparison of Bosnia and our potential involvement there to 
Haiti and Somalia as well as Desert Storm. Then I want to get into my 
own specific concerns relative to a potential vote that we may take in 
this body a week or two from now.

  First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the contention made by 
President Clinton that those who may oppose his policy here are 
isolationists. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that for the past 3 years, a 
strong bipartisan voice in this body and the other body have voted 
repeatedly, have signed letters, have sent messages to the White House 
and the administration that we want to be a part of the process of 
helping achieve peace in the Balkans. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I, 
like many of my colleagues in this body today, would support the 
presence of the United States in a somewhat limited way in the Balkans, 
as we have done repeatedly over the last 3 years.
  After all, Mr. Speaker, there were many Members of both the majority 
and minority parties that supported the President's use of our Air 
Force in terms of the air strikes. Many of us have supported logistical 
support to provide food and clothing and humanitarian support and 
relief to the people of the Balkans. So time and again over the past 3 
years Members of this body and the other body have made it clear that 
we want to be involved.
  And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Secretary of Defense 2-
weeks ago, I am prepared to support American troops in Bosnia tomorrow, 
but not on the ground. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the key issue that 
President Clinton completely ignored last evening. He made it appear as 
if we are in disagreement with him on his policy; that, therefore, we 
must not want the United States to be involved at all, and that is 
absolutely totally wrong. I think it was really shortsighted of the 
President to make that statement to the American people.
  In fact, what I proposed to Secretary Perry, I think, would be 
supported by many of our colleagues in this body; and that is, why 
should America have to put 20,000 to 25,000 ground troops in between 
three warring factions that have been at war not for 4 years and not 
for one decade but for decades and decades and centuries and centuries? 
Why should the European countries, who are the bordering nations to 
Bosnia, not step up with that ground support force and let the United 
States involvement be what we do very well; airlift, sealift, air 
strikes, command and control, intelligence gathering and monitoring, 
and all the other ancillary support to make this mission a success?
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about a U.S. 
commitment of 20,000 to 25,000 troops, he is not being realistic with 
the American people nor is he being realistic with our colleagues in 
this body. As a matter of fact, right now, Mr. Speaker, we have an 
estimated 15,000 troops who are providing support services in the 
theater around Bosnia.
  These services range from airlift and sealift to intelligence 
gathering, to all kinds of functions that they have been assigned by 
the Pentagon, just to name a few of the assignments that our military 
is currently involved in in the European theater, and this is, by the 
way, not complete. We have Operation Able Sentry going on right now. We 
have Operation Deny Flight. We have Operation Provide Province, 
Operation Sharp Guard, and Operation Provide Comfort. All of those 
operations are, today, involving American troops in the theater that 
the President is talking about sending ground troops in.

  In fact, along with the ground troops that President Clinton is 
proposing, we are going to have a carrier, the America, off the coast. 
We are going to have Navy pilots and Navy personnel available. So our 
total support forces, besides the 20,000 to 25,000 ground troops, is 
going to be somewhere between 13,000 and 17,000.
  When I met with the Secretary 2 weeks ago, I tried to pin he and 
General Shalikashvili to a specific number, and I will do that again 
this Thursday. I asked them, how many other U.S. troops will be 
involved in this effort? They would not give me a specific answer. To 
the best of my ability, I have determined that number will be somewhere 
above 15,000. So when the President goes before the American people as 
he did last night and says, I want to send 20,000 troops in, that is 
our commitment, what he should have said is, I want to have 35,000 or 
perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops involved in the theater of operation that 
includes, as our overall mission, Bosnia and the maintaining of the 
peace agreement that was initiated in Dayton.
  Now, many of us in this body feel that what the President should have 
done is said we will provide that support in the form of airlift and 
sealift and use of our aircraft for attacks, if necessary, on selected 
sites, and command and control and intelligence gathering, but should 
not have had American troops placed in harm's way in an area of the 
world so far away from our shore and which many of us feel that we do 
not have a direct national interest. Many of us feel that it 

[[Page H 13726]]
is unconscionable that those countries that directly surround the 
Balkans are only putting in small tokens of troops.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to get exact counts. These 
numbers have varied. But I went through the foreign media, through our 
FBIS reports we get, that we can request in our offices, to try to get 
a feel for what other countries are committing in the way of troops to 
this operation. I think it is important for our colleagues and for the 
American public to understand exactly what those commitments are and 
what, if any, strings are being attached, so that, when the President 
speaks about 25 nations being involved, we know really what he means 
and what these countries are actually saying.
  Great Britain, the United Kingdom, always our staunch ally, is in 
fact going to put up the largest complement of troops besides the 
United States. The Most recent number we have is about 13,000 troops 
compared to our 20,000. Now, Great Britain is very close to the 
Balkans, certainly much closer than the United States, and is obviously 
a part of the European theater. So you would expect them to put in 
place a large presence of military forces.
  Let us go to Germany. Here I have a problem, Mr. Speaker. The United 
States and the President are committing 20,000 ground troops and the 
ancillary support troops that I have just talked about numbering at 
least 15,000. The Germans have said that, and get this, Mr. Speaker, 
subject to the Bundestag's approval. In other words, we do not have to 
approve what the President wants to do in our Congress. He can send the 
troops on his own, which he said he would do with or without our vote 
of approval. But in Germany their commitment to send their troops will 
be predicated upon the support of the Bundestag.
  And how many troops are the Germans going to send in? Not 13,000, not 
10,000, not 5,000, but 4,000. So Germany, right next to the Balkans, is 
going to send a total of 4,000 troops to the Balkans as their part of 
this operation.

  Now, quoting the minister in a German publication, the defense 
minister, who spoke on November 22, he went on to say that these 4,000 
troops would be involved, and I quote, in terms of being logistical 
units, engineers, medical orderlies, transport units, helicopters, and 
aircraft to secure the airspace. Where is the commitment for the ground 
troops in the middle of the hostile parties? This is Germany's 
commitment.
  Then we go on to France. I remind our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that 
France has a very real threat from the spread of the Bosnian operation, 
and France is very near and close to the proximity of the Balkan 
conflict and you would expect would be willing to put up a sizable 
amount of soldiers for this operation. France's commitment is currently 
listed in a most recent French publication of November 22 as 7,500 
soldiers. This would be a part of the overall NATO deployment, but 
7,500 soldiers. This is the same France that is only putting up 7,500 
soldiers to our 20,000 that denied the United States the ability to fly 
our planes over France when we were going after Mu'ammar Qadhafi when 
Ronald Reagan was the President, in response to attacks he had made on 
American citizens. So France's commitment right now is listed at 7,500.
  Let us go to Spain, another European country. Let us see what Spain 
is talking about committing. This is from a radio network in Spanish in 
Madrid. Mr. Suarez Pertierra said it would be a tactical group of some 
1,250 soldiers. So, while America is putting in 20,000 to 25,000 ground 
troops, Spain in talking about sending 1,250 soldiers to this 
operation.
  Let us look at Sweden. Sweden, another European country that 
obviously has an interest in seeing peace in that part of the world, 
has said that it will be part of a Nordic brigade that would have 900 
Swedes. Now, Sweden also has a condition placed on its commitment.

                              {time}  2300

  And that condition is that the United Nations shall be financially 
responsible for this operation. So, Sweden is saying, ``Yes, we will 
go, but you pay our bill.'' I did not hear that said on the part of our 
commitment. We are going to pay the entire bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my guess is that this will end up much like Haiti. We 
not only paid for our expenses, but we will end up paying for the 
housing costs, the feeding, and logistical support for a number of 
other countries, all of which will be borne by the American taxpayers. 
But Sweden's troop commitment is right now 900.
  Then we go to Austria, and I will quote a news source from Vienna 
Television Network, November 21, where there is a quotation from the 
leadership of Austria about their commitment. Their consideration is 
for sending a force of 200 to 250 men. It goes on to say, quote, 
``Volunteers, of course. No one is going to be forced to go into 
this.'' Mr. Speaker, 200 to 250 are going to be volunteers and they 
will not serve as combat troops. They will be there as a transport 
unit.
  Let us go on and talk about Italy, another European country that is 
expected to be a part of this operation. Look at what Italy's 
contribution will be. Initially, Italy balked when the press said that 
they heard rumors that 2,100 men would be sent, but now there is 
confirmation that the form will be 2,100. But Italian news media 
sources also go on to say that actually, and I quote, ``Parliament 
still has to give its approval to send out Italian troops.''
  So, the United States Congress will not have the ability to approve 
the President's sending of not 20,000, but perhaps 35,000 troops into 
that theater; we will have the German Bundestag approve the German 
troops going in, and the Italian Parliament approve the Italian troops 
going in, but we will not have that ability in this country. The total 
commitment of Italy will be 2,100 men.
  The Netherlands, another European country. The Netherlands, according 
to its population, is perhaps contributing a larger element that we 
would expect. The Netherlands Cabinet wants to make a decision about 
sending 2,000 troops to help with the peace accord.
  Then we have Denmark. A Danish battalion is set to leave on January 8 
as part of the NATO operation and they are talking about 807 men going 
from Denmark.
  Mr. Speaker, these are not my reports. These are all sources that I 
will provide to anyone in this body in terms of what our European 
allies in NATO are going to commit to this operation.
  Our point, Mr. Speaker, is not one of isolation. We want to be the 
leader of NATO, and we know we are. We continue to help our NATO allies 
every day. We have a strong presence in the European countries I have 
just mentioned. We have military bases there and Navy units deployed in 
the vicinity of those countries. We will be there for them.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Bosnia is largely a European problem and many of us 
in this body feel that while the United States must play a role, and 
that role can be air strikes, air support, sea life support, command 
and control, intelligence gatherings, and all the other logistical help 
that we should not have to go beyond that and put 20,000 young American 
sons and daughters in the middle of what could be a very hostile 
environment; what certainly has been a very hostile environment.
  So when the President talks, as he did last night, about 
isolationism, the President is totally, absolutely wrong. It is a slap 
in the face to every Member of this body that he would say his 
opponents are isolationists. In fact, many of us have said all along 
that we want us to be involved; we just do not want the United States 
to go it alone. That is what we think this President has gotten us 
into.
  My opinion is the President, to some extent, put his foot in his 
mouth earlier their year when he said to the NATO allied leaders, ``I 
will put ground troops in Bosnia if we get a peace agreement.'' What he 
should have said is, ``I will make a commitment,'' and left that up to 
the final negotiations in Dayton. He did not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, while the negotiations were going on, all of us in this 
body knew what was going to come out of those negotiations, and that 
was going to be taking the President up on his word, and that is to 
send 20,000 ground troops into Bosnia. That should never have been the 
negotiating position of this country in terms of our NATO involvement. 

[[Page H 13727]]

  It certainly is not the position of this Member, and I know many of 
my colleagues, that we should not be involved, nor should we be 
isolationists.
  The second issue I want to take up with the President is the way he 
characterized the morality argument here. He somehow tries to make the 
case that the Members of Congress who perhaps question what he wants to 
do here are not concerned about babies being killed, about ethnic 
cleaning, and about women being raped.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. As a member of 
the Human Rights Caucus since I have been in this body, I have 
tirelessly, again and again, spoken out on behalf of human rights 
abuses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in at least three votes in this body over 
the past 2 years, we have overwhelmingly told the President to lift the 
arms embargo so that the Bosnian people could defend themselves, so 
that they, in fact, could have a level playing field, so that we could 
stop the abuses and stop the ethnic cleaning and stop the rape and 
torturing.
  Every time this Congress, in a strong bipartisan manner, told the 
President to lift the embargo, the President said, ``no.'' Yet last 
night on national TV, the President tells the American people that he 
is really that one concerned about these kids being killed and these 
women being raped and the ethic cleaning.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what were we doing the past 2 or 3 years with all 
of these votes and these letters and these issues where we came forward 
and said, ``You have got to do something, Mr. President, about what is 
happening in the Balkans,'' and he did nothing. Now, all of a sudden 
the solution to all of these problems is to spend 20,000 of our kids 
into the Balkans on the ground in the middle of this controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no justification for the President 
to make the statement that he made last night that he is the only one 
concerned with the moral issue of why we should be involved. There are 
steps that we could have and should have taken over the last 2 years to 
help even the playing field in the Balkans and we did not do it. Not 
because the Congress would not act, but because the President would not 
listen.
  These were not just Republicans speaking. These were Republicans and 
Democrats. Some of the most eloquent leaders on lifting the arms 
sanctions and the arms embargo were on the minority side of the aisle; 
not just on the Republican side.
  What really bothered me about the speech that the President made last 
night, at the end, Mr. Speaker, was when he alluded to a conversation 
that he had with the Pope. I really though it was grasping for straws 
when President Clinton basically said, The Pope told me to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the Vatican and for the 
Holy Father and for the leadership he provides for the world's 
Catholics. But, Mr. Speaker, to use a comment that supposedly have been 
attributed to the Pope as the political justification boggles my mind.
  As one of our colleagues on the House floor said today, perhaps the 
President will tell us that he is going to change his stand on 
abortion, because I am sure the Holy Father talked to him about the 
sanctity of life, but I do not see President Clinton following the 
advice of the Pope on that issue, yet quoting the Pope in terms of 
taking this action in the Balkans.
  The third issue I want to take exception with the President last 
night, Mr. Speaker, deals with his trying to compare the Balkans to 
what happened in Desert Storm and what happened in Haiti and Somalia.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, there are few, if any, similarities. In 
Desert Storm we have a figure who was destined to take over a major 
part of the world and threaten the security of not just one country but 
a freedom-loving people in the Middle East, including the State of 
Israel, and threatening to create anarchy in that part of the world.

  President Bush went to great lengths to line up allied support. Mr. 
Speaker, remember, that the cost of Desert Storm was not just in 
American lives and dollars, because as every Member, every one of our 
colleagues knows, the entire cost of Desert Storm, over $52 billion, 
was borne by those nations that benefited from our involvement. It was 
not a case where the United States went over and paid the bill and 
enticed people to come in by saying, ``We will pay your soldiers and 
provide them food and give them shelter, just be a part of the team.''
  Mr. Speaker, in Desert Storm the parties who benefited most provided 
the dollars. And, yes, we did have an interest and, yes, we responded. 
And, yes, President Bush came to this Congress and asked for us to have 
an up-or-down vote in both bodies.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, not one Member of the Democratic leadership 
at that time stood up and spoke for nor voted for the effort to send 
our troops into Desert Storm. Not one. Yet I am sure when we have a 
debate on this floor, every one of those Members will get up and 
support President Clinton's actions. There is irony in that statement.
  The President compared it to Haiti. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is not turning 
out to be the success that he promised. What has happened is we have 
spent about $2 billion of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars, and while the 
President has boasted about the other countries being involved, when he 
fails to tell the American people is that we paid for the bulk of their 
housing, their food, and their allowance support, subsistence support, 
to come to Haiti to be a part of that operation.

                              {time}  2310

  So basically they were brought in because America agreed to foot the 
bill. The U.S. taxpayers agreed to foot the bill. And whether or not we 
have been successful in Haiti is still undetermined. There have been 
killings and assassinations down there on a regular basis. And many of 
us predict Haiti will go right back to the way it was once we have our 
presence totally removed from that country.
  Let us talk about Somalia, because perhaps here is what scares me the 
most, Mr. Speaker. Somalia is probably that area where we have been 
involved militarily that I think causes certainly me and many of our 
colleagues to feel most uncertain and concerned about what President 
Clinton wants to do in Bosnia. I remember well, Mr. Speaker, a meeting 
in mid-September, held in one of the largest meeting rooms in the 
basement of this building, when Secretary of Defense Aspin and 
Secretary Warren Christopher came into a meeting room filled with 
Members of Congress only. There were about 300 House and Senate Members 
there, after we had lost 18 young Americans who had been shot down over 
Mogadishu and had their bodies dragged through the streets because we 
did not have the backup troop support to go in and rescue them. When 
Les Aspin was asked why this happened, he eventually acknowledged that 
the commanding officer of the Somalian operation had in August 
requested additional backup support for our troops in that theater but 
that he and the administration denied that support. When asked why, 
Secretary Aspin said it was because of the hostile political 
environment inside the beltway, the first time since Vietnam that a 
political armchair decision in Washington affected military action in 
another part of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you this, as a member of the Committee 
on National Security, President Clinton is not going to repeat what he 
did in Somalia. If he, in fact, is successful in sending 20,000 ground 
troops into Bosnia, which I am certain he will be, whether or not we 
have a vote, he has already said he is sending the troops in, we are 
going to be very careful and we are going to be strident that this 
President is not going to call the political shots of what our military 
officers do in that theater. Because if our troops are committed by 
this Commander in Chief, then those calls have to be made by the 
commanding officer in charge of the theater of operation in Europe.

  Commander Joulwon who has the highest respect of most every Member of 
this body who knows him and the military leadership who serves under 
him should and will be making those calls. And the one thing that we 
will be focusing on, since we will probably not be able to stop the 
President from asserting troops in Bosnia, will be to make sure that 
General Joulwon gets 

[[Page H 13728]]
every bit of support that he needs to maintain the safety of our 
troops. We want to make sure that there is no second guessing at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, as there was in Somalia, saying, General Joulwon, 
we cannot send in more troops, we cannot send you more equipment 
because it is not the right political climate in Washington. If this 
President follows through on his commitment to send 20,000 ground 
troops into Bosnia, then this President better be prepared to let 
General Joulwon call the shots in terms of what support he needs to 
protect our troops, even though many of us in this body, including 
myself, have great hesitation with any ground troops going into Bosnia 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, most of us have resigned 
ourselves to the fact that we cannot stop the troops from being sent 
over there. The President is in fact the Commander in chief of our 
military. I acknowledge that. He has that function. He has the ability 
to commit our troops to any part of the world, even though twice in my 
lifetime, it has been this Congress, under Democrats, who have cut off 
funding for our military as a way to bring our troops back home from 
Vietnam and from Somalia. So this President will in fact send our 
troops. Whether we have a vote or not here will not matter. He has 
already ignored the will of the Congress in terms of lifting the arms 
embargo over the past 2 years, and he has already ignored the will of 
the Congress three times in the last 2 months. Because three times 
since August, Mr. Speaker, this body and the other body have taken 
specific votes to say to the President, do not commit ground troops. 
Aerial support, logistical support, other types of aerial attacks and 
other types of support that we can provide, okay, but do not commit 
ground troops.
  And those votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. They were not 
Republicans. There were Democrats and Republicans together. What did 
President Clinton do? For the past 3 months he has ignored those votes. 
Even last week, the week before, before the agreement was initialed in 
Dayton, OH, this body again went on record saying, Mr. President, do 
not commit ground troops. He is going to send ground troops whether we 
have another vote or not. But what we will do in this body is, we will 
make sure that we do not have a repeat of the Clinton Somalia debacle 
where American kids who were sent to a foreign country are allowed to 
be put at risk and, in the case of Somalia, 18 of them coming home in 
body bags after their bodies were dragged through the streets of 
downtown Mogadishu.
  With every ounce of energy in my body, Mr. Speaker, that is not going 
to happen this time. The President may have his way in sending the 
troops in, but we who are on the Committee on National Security and 
those of us in the bipartisan manner in this Congress will work to make 
sure that our troops are given every possible means of support that 
they need with no second-guessing coming from the bureaucracy inside 
the Beltway here, letting our military leadership that has been 
assigned to this operation, in this case General Joulwon, make those 
decisions and have the full support he needs.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many other articles that I want to put in the 
Record and will do so either tonight or in special orders I will be 
taking out this week from news sources around the world where those 
people inside of the Balkans are questioning this agreement. We have to 
be aware of what the leadership in those countries are saying, not just 
what the three signatories to that agreement out in Dayton said, 
because they are three individuals. The question is, do they in fact 
represent the majority of the people in the Balkans? Are the people 
going to adhere? Are they going to cooperate with this peacekeeping 
force? If you read some of the FBIS articles that have come out over 
the past several days, I have grave concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask to enter into the Record an article that was 
printed in the Belgrade Nasa Borba in Serbo-Croatian, its November 22 
edition, relative to the political parties and the peace accord and 
statements specifically that Serbian Radical Party President Vojislav 
Seselj exclaimed, and I quote, ``The biggest betrayal of the Serbian 
nation has just been committed.''

       In stark opposition to the prevailing positive reactions to 
     the agreement, Serbian Radical Party President Vojislav 
     Seselj, according to BETA, exclaimed that ``the biggest 
     betrayal of the Serbian nation has just been committed.''

  I ask to include in the Record articles, again from FBIS reports, 
quoting a leading Bosnian Serb official Momcilo Krajisnik in terms of 
his refusal to sign on to the accord and explaining his opposition and 
how this agreement is a sellout of the Serbs.

                 [FBIS Transcribed Text, Nov. 21, 1995]

                     Plan ``Not Accepted'' by Serbs

       Sarajevo (AFP).--A senior Bosnian Serb official warned late 
     Tuesday [21 November] that the peace accord agreed in Dayton, 
     Ohio does not satisfy ``even a minimum'' of their demands.
       Quoted by the Bosnian Serb official media, ``parliamentary 
     speaker'' Momcilo Krajisnik said: ``The agreement that has 
     been reached does not satisfy even a minimum of our 
     interests. Our delegation has not accepted the plan and we 
     were unanimous on that.''

  I also ask to include articles, again from the FBIS reports, from the 
Banja Luka Srpska Televizija, a TV station in Banja Luka, relative to 
the explanation of the accord and saying that, ``The people, the Serbs 
are not intimidated by the Dayton agreement, they are not intimidated 
by the Dayton agreement in terms of what it is going to do to their 
nation.''
  Further go on to quote in the same article, we will never give up 
Sarajevo, dead or alive, let everyone know that. If I were able to talk 
to both Clinton and Christopher like our delegation that went to 
negotiate, I would tell them not to play with the Serbs.
  It goes on to further say, there is no Serb who would leave this and 
leave the Serb land behind. And it further goes on to say, they will 
not be frightened of the signatures from Dayton, speaking of the Serbs 
in Bosnia.

                 [FBIS Translated Text, Nov. 23, 1995]

           Serbs in Sarajevo Await ``Explanation'' of Accord

                        (Report by Draga Grubic)

       The signing of the Dayton peace agreement has recently 
     engrossed the citizens of Serb Sarajevo as the event on which 
     they pinned their hope and survival. Now that the results of 
     the talks have been revealed, the people of Sarajevo expect 
     official explanation of the agreement that is to determine 
     their destiny as well as the future of the second largest 
     Serb town in former Yugoslavia. Neither the joint Croat-
     Muslim enemy, NATO jets, nor rapid reaction mortars managed 
     to send the locals into exile and they are not intimidated by 
     the Dayton agreement either.
                                                                    ____


                 [FBIS Translated Text, Nov. 23, 1995]

        Excerpt From ``Sarajevo Serbs Oppose Dayton Peace Plan''

       [Unidentified woman] What, to give them Sarajevo? It is 
     Serb, and no one else's. We will never give up Sarajevo, dead 
     or alive, let everyone know that. If I were able to talk to 
     both Clinton and Christopher, like our delegation that went 
     to negotiate, I would tell them not to play with the Serbs.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [Unidentified man] There is no Serb who would leave this, 
     and leave the Serb land behind. I have buried 11 of my 
     dearest here over the last year, and now I am expected to 
     leave them behind. No way, God forbid.
       [Correspondent] The population of the second largest Serb 
     town in former Yugoslavia has not been driven away by the 
     combined Muslim-Croat enemy, by NATO aircraft, or Rapid 
     Reaction Force shells. And they will not be frightened of the 
     signatures from Dayton. [end recording]

  Then going on to an article that appeared in the November 27 FBIS 
report dealing with NATO, warning Karadzic about his bloodbath threat 
and NATO having to threaten him if in fact Karadzic was arrested for 
war crimes.

                      (Report by Angus MacKinnon)

       Brussels, Nov. 27 (AFP).--NATO on Monday [27 November] 
     warned Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic that any attempt 
     to intimidate the peace force the alliance plans to send to 
     Bosnia would be greeted with an ``extremely robust'' 
     response.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, another editorial, written by Bela Jodal, 
``Compulsory Hope,'' in a Budapest publication. This is a very 
important question he asks.
  ``Will it be the U.S. troops who left Somalia due to difficulties 
which were smaller than what can be expected in the Balkans?''

                 [FBIS Translated Text, Nov. 23, 1995]

Editorial Doubts Future of Bosnian Peace Accord

                           *   *   *   *   *


       Will it be the U.S. troops who left Somalia due to 
     difficulties which were much smaller than what can be 
     expected in the Balkans?

  Mr. Speaker, the key question we have to ask is, is what we are about 
to 

[[Page H 13729]]
do and what this President is about to do in America's best interest? 
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we, as elected Representatives of 
approximately 600,000 people each across this country, have to be able 
to ask ourselves the ultimate question: Can we go into that family's 
home when their son or daughter or mother or father or brother or 
sister are sent home as a casualty of this conflict and be able to 
justify the job and the mission that they did?

                              {time}  2320

  I am a strong supporter of our military, Mr. Speaker, and proudly so, 
and I will be a strong supporter if the President deploys them there. 
But I do not support the President's policy, and I do not believe he 
has made the case.
  Let me say in closing, Mr. Speaker, in coming to my conclusions 2 
weeks ago I had to rely on a friend of mine who has been in Sarajevo 
for 3 years. His name is John Jordan. He is a Rhode Island volunteer 
firefighter. He went over to Sarajevo because he heard that the fire 
and emergency services personnel were being abused by the military even 
though they were trying to serve the Croats, Serbs, Muslems, all 
factions. He went over to volunteer to help them. He ended up staying 3 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, he was featured by ABC-TV as their person of the week 
for the work that he did as a volunteer. He brought 50 other Americans 
over with him to help the Serbian fire brigade with Keenan Slimmick, 
who was the fire chief before he was assassinated.
  John Jordan was shot twice while he was in Sarajevo. He was beaten in 
the chest with the blunt end of a rifle. He had concussions, shrapnel 
wounds, but stayed there helping all of the various people in Sarajevo 
get decent medical protection and protection from fires and disasters.
  We sent an airlift of supplies over to him a year and a half ago., We 
sent three or four fire trucks, rescue equipment that had been donated 
from around the country, to help him perform this mission in Sarajevo 
of humanitarian aid to these people during the time this President did 
nothing to satisfy those concerns he spoke of last night.
  I asked John Jordan to come down to Washington to tell me what he 
thought we should do. John Jordan, American citizen, after 3 years in 
Sarajevo, gave me the following quote, Mr. Speaker, which appeared in 
an AP wire story on October 22 in regard to what we are going to face 
in Bosnia. Every one of us in this body have to understand in a context 
of the quotes I have given what John Jordan said will occur there:
  ``We're going to face some very, very ugly, heavily armed, prone-to-
violence people who are totally unafraid of the United States,'' he 
said. ``I've had more than one Serb commander say to me, `I really wish 
the U.S. instead of the French were running the airport. If we can just 
get enough of you in one place at one time, we can kill 200 or 300 of 
you, you'll be out of this war forever, and you won't be a problem 
anymore. You'll leave just like you left Beirut.' ''

  Mr. Speaker, that is a question we have to wrestle with. Are our kids 
heading for another Beirut? I hope not, Mr. Speaker, and while I would 
like to think that this Congress would have the same ability that the 
Bundestag is going to have, that the other parliaments, like Italy, are 
going to have in approving of sending in of their troops, we are not 
going to have that because our President said our troops are going with 
or without the support of this Congress and with or without the support 
of the American people.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of one thing. He may send the 
troops, but we will make sure that we do not have a repeat of the 
debacle that occurred in Somalia because our kids are not going to be 
shortchanged, there is not going to be some political decision 
determining what we will or will not send once they are over there. If 
the commitment is made and the troops are sent, then they are going to 
get every bit of support that this body and our committees in Congress 
can muster to make sure that our troops are protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask our colleagues to consider what is about to 
confront us both this week and next week if, in fact, we have a vote. I 
am considering legislation right now that I may offer as an amendment 
if, in fact, we have an up-or-down vote on Bosnia, but again I would 
close by saying the vote is not really going to matter, Mr. Speaker, 
because the dice have already been rolled, and the President has 
already made up his mind, the troops have already been committed, and 
those of us who have concerns are not isolationists, we are not people 
who are immoral, and we are not people who think that there is not a 
proper role for America to help provide security throughout the world. 
We just question the way that we got to where we are and the decision 
of this President to put 20,000 kids in harm's way between these 
warring factions that have been at each other's throats not for 4 
years, and not for one decade, but decade after decade and century 
after century.

                          ____________________