[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13767-H13768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is recognized for 5 minutes.


                          balancing the budget

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up briefly, I was going 
to be talking on Bosnia but to follow up briefly on what the gentleman 
said before, anybody that comes up with a plan that does more to 
balance the budget than what the Republican plan has done this year is 
fine with me. But I am hearing conflicting signals.
  The first thing I am hearing is that the Republican budget does not 
go far enough to balance the budget. And then we turn around the next 
day and 

[[Page H 13768]]
hear how savagely the Republican budget cuts everything. The fact of 
the matter is that is a falsehood.
  Student aid goes up 49 percent under the Republican plan, goes from 
$24 billion to $36 billion. But now we are hearing a new line. Now the 
line is that the Republican budget does not go far enough. If the 
gentleman from Hawaii would like to get into the debate and figure out 
a way to balance the budget plus handle it, $1 trillion dollars, 7 
years from now, if you say we are $1 trillion short, I welcome him. 
Again I want to talk about Bosnia. But I will just say this with a 
footnote.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman kindly yield a moment.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Let me just finish this. Any plan you come up with 
if it goes even further than the Republican plan in making the savings 
that we are doing is going to have to add about $750 billion to what 
your President and your party is willing to do.
  I yield to the gentleman before going into Bosnia.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is very kind because I will focus on Bosnia. I 
realize what you are saying. Obviously if this moves forward we have to 
find more money to deal it. That is one of the problems with Bosnia.
  My point is that there are alternatives. I will not take the 
gentleman's time tonight. It includes capital budgeting, and I do not 
consider it Republican or Democrat in that context. I am considering it 
in the context of America, the way the rest of American Government and 
business and families run their budgeting.
  We separate capital budgeting from operating expenses and I think we 
can get to a balanced budget. We do not have to put a timetable right 
now but I would be happy to discuss with the gentleman and my good 
friend from Georgia ways that we can deal with honest numbers. I 
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentleman from Hawaii. Certainly it has nothing to do with the 
Republican or Democratic Party. It has to do with being honest with 
budget figures. Obviously the Republicans in the early 1980's engaged 
in rosy scenarios just as Democrats have in the past.
  But moving on to Bosnia, I know the gentleman from Hawaii certainly 
has some opinions on this which I look forward to hearing, also, I have 
just got to tell you. I hear so many people calling my offices, and I 
have answered a lot of the calls myself, and I have talked to other 
Members across the country.
  The fact of the matter is, and I do not care what a CNN poll says, 
the overwhelming number of Americans today do not want United States 
men and women to put their lives on the line for a 500- or 600-year-old 
civil war in Bosnia. The fact of the matter is that we as a country 
appear to have learned a lot from the mistakes we made in Vietnam.

  In fact, the Pentagon put forward a doctrine that would prevent us 
from getting involved in future conflicts that would lead into Vietnam-
style quagmires. It was called the Weinberger doctrine. It came out in 
the mid 1980's, and it seemed to make a lot of sense. The first 
requirement was that before the President sent one young American to 
die in a war across the sea, he clearly stated a vital American 
interest that was at stake.
  I have sat on the Committee on National Security for the past few 
months. I have heard testimony from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary 
of State, General Shalikashvili, and they have failed to come forward, 
and not them personally. They are representatives of the 
administration. The administration has failed to set forth a clear, 
vital American interest that is worth the spilling of blood of young 
American men and women to end a civil war that has been going on for 
500 or 600 years, to end a civil war that is much more complex than 
even the conflict we got involved with with Somalia.
  Remember the need to go to Somalia because it was the right thing to 
do? We had to stop the hunger, we had to stop the clans from fighting 
each other.
  The fact of the matter is, we went to Somalia, we spent $3 billion, 
it cost us over 20 American lives, and today the warlords continue to 
fight each other. We did not make a difference in Somalia, and Somalia 
is nothing compared with what we go to when we start talking about 
sending troops to Bosnia. It makes absolutely no sense.
  The President spoke a few nights ago and tried to define a vital 
interest, but unfortunately his vital interest had to do with securing 
a Bosnian peace treaty. The fact of the matter is that right now that 
Serbs in Sarajevo said they will fight to the death. I have got to tell 
my colleagues, until we clearly define a vital American interest that 
is worth the death of Americans, I respectfully have to reject the 
President's reasoning to send young Americans to Bosnia to die.

                          ____________________