[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18049-S18050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  DISCUSSIONS ON THE BUDGET AND BOSNIA

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I see that we have no other colleagues on 
the floor ready to speak on this subject, so I would like to speak both 
about Bosnia and about the budget negotiations that are going on here 
in the Capitol. I would like to talk about both because I think they 
are very important.
  Mr. President, I am opposed to sending American troops to Bosnia. I 
have not reached this conclusion quickly; I listened to President Bush 
and the Bush administration debate this issue at some length and 
followed that debate pretty closely. They reached the conclusion that 
sending ground troops to Bosnia was a mistake. My consistent position 
during that debate was that I also opposed sending ground troops to 
Bosnia.
  I have now had 3 years, counting the Presidential campaign in 1992, 
to listen to President Clinton try to make the case that we should send 
American ground troops into Bosnia. I am perfectly aware--and I say it 
with no criticism intended--that the President is a very effective 
salesman. I have concluded that his failure to convince me, and his 
failure to convince the country, on the issue of sending ground troops 
to Bosnia is not the result of his lack of ability as a salesman. I 
think it has resulted from the fact that this position cannot credibly 
be sold.
  I have always tried to use three tests in deciding whether to send 
Americans into combat or into harm's way. I have applied those tests in 
the past and I have applied them to sending ground troops to Bosnia:
  First, do we have a vital national interest? In the Persian Gulf, we 
had a military dictator who was working to build chemical and nuclear 
weapons, and who had invaded a neighboring country. His military 
aggression threatened two vital allies of the United States--Israel and 
Saudi Arabia. And so, clearly, in the Persian Gulf we had a vital 
national interest.
  I have been to the region that we are discussing today. I have talked 
to our military at some length. Like virtually every other person in 
the country who keeps up with what is happening in our country and 
around the world, I am aware of the terrible misery that has plagued 
all of what used to be Yugoslavia, and especially the misery in Bosnia. 
But I have concluded that we do not have a vital national interest in 
this region.
  The second question that I tried to ask is: Can our intervention be 
decisive in promoting our vital interests? It is one thing to have a 
vital national interest; it is another thing to be able to be decisive 
in promoting that interest.
  In the Persian Gulf war, we had the military capacity to promote our 
vital national interest.
  We also had a clearly defined objective: drive Saddam Hussein out of 
Kuwait. We were able to put together an alliance and a plan that was as 
detailed about how we were going to end the war and get out of the 
Middle East, as it was about how we were going to intervene.
  I concluded in the Persian Gulf that we did have the capacity through 
our intervention to promote our vital interests. Certainly history has 
proven that to have been the case.
  I do not believe, however, that we have this capacity in Bosnia. I am 
very concerned about putting young Americans into the line of fire as a 
buffer force between two warring factions which have broken every 
cease-fire and have violated almost every treaty over the past 500 
years.
  Now we have proposals, both from the administration and from the 
leadership of the Senate, which say that 
we should not only serve as a buffer force between those warring 
factions, but remarkably, in my humble opin- 
ion, that at the same time we  

[[Page S 18050]]

should be engaged in overtly arming and training one of the 
belligerents in this conflict.
  I have to say, Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with that 
policy. I supported lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia. I thought 
it might make sense under some circumstances for Americans to provide 
training--not in Bosnia--but maybe somewhere else. It might make sense 
to train some of their senior officials in the United States, which is 
the sort of thing we have done in the past.
  I believe there is a conflict between the role of arming the Bosnians 
and serving as a neutral buffer force. I think that many even in our 
own Senate, and certainly some in the administration, have not 
reconciled how we could serve those two functions at the same time. It 
is not possible to be a neutral buffer force and, at the same time, be 
involved in the training and arming one side.
  I know, from having discussed this with some of our colleagues, there 
is a belief that we, in essence, took sides when we bombed the Serbs. 
If that is so, then this should disqualify us from serving in this 
intervention/peacekeeping role. I think it was a different situation. 
The Serbs had been issued an order by the United Nations to stop the 
shelling and to withdraw their heavy weapons. They refused to do it.
  NATO was asked to be the military arm of the U.N. forces in that 
case, a terrible command structure--one I would never support under any 
circumstance in the future and have not supported in the past.
  The point is, in no way do I see how our intervention, in a period of 
time of roughly 1 year as set by the President, how this is going to 
change anything in Bosnia. There is no reason to believe that our 
intervention is going to be decisive.
  Finally, let me say that in representing a big State with many people 
serving in the military, it has been my responsibility, after both 
Somalia and the Persian Gulf, to console parents and spouses of young 
Texans who have given their lives in the service of our country.

  In talking to families, it has struck me that at least in my case 
there ought to be one more test. That test ought to be this: I have two 
college age sons; if one of my sons was in the 82d Airborne Division, 
would I be willing to send him into battle? It seems to me that if I 
cannot answer this question with a yes--no ifs ands or buts about it; 
and in the Persian Gulf I could answer it yes, no ifs ands or buts 
about it--if I cannot answer this question with a yes, then I cannot 
feel comfortable sending someone else's son or sending someone else's 
daughter.
  So I am opposed to sending American troops into Bosnia. I intend to 
vote against the President's resolution asking Congress to join him in 
endorsing this policy. I am concerned we are in the process of seeing a 
resolution put together that, quite frankly, is full of escape clauses 
and ejection seats so that politicians can be on both sides of the 
issue.
  I want a clear-cut vote where we can vote ``yes'' we support the 
President's policy to send troops to Bosnia; or ``no,'' we do not. I 
intend to see that we get such a clear-cut, up or down vote.
  I am working with roughly a dozen of our colleagues who want to have 
that vote. I think it is very important that we say where we stand. I 
know there will be those who will try to combine the issue of 
supporting the troops with supporting the President. Quite frankly, I 
do not buy into that logic and I do not think it serves our political 
system well to try to combine the two. There is not a Member of the 
Senate, nor has there ever been a Member, who would not support the 
troops.
  It is because I support the troops, because I am concerned about 
their well-being, that I am opposed to sending troops to Bosnia. I have 
no doubt that the Americans who serve in the Armed Forces of the United 
States will go where their Commander in Chief sends them. They will 
serve proudly. They will do their job well. That is not the issue here.
  Their performance is not in doubt; it is our performance that is in 
doubt. Their ability to do their job is not being questioned. It is our 
ability in the Senate to do our job that is being questioned.
  I think it is important that there be no ifs, ands or buts about it, 
that we ought to have a clear-cut vote as to who supports the 
President's policy in Bosnia, and who does not. I, for one, do not.
  Let me add one other thing. This whole issue has nothing to do with 
politics. It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do 
with our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, who supports the 
President on this issue. It has everything to do with my obligation to 
18 million Texans who elected me.
  I was against sending troops into Bosnia when George Bush was 
President. I am against sending troops into Bosnia now that Bill 
Clinton is President, and I am going to be against sending troops into 
Bosnia when someone else occupies the White House. This is an issue 
that I think is vitally important and goes to the very heart of what 
the role of Congress is. I believe that here we should say ``no.''

                          ____________________