[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14816-H14825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR DEBATE AND CONSIDERATION OF THREE MEASURES RELATING TO 
               UNITED STATES TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN BOSNIA

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 304, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 304

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to debate the deployment of United States 
     Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations.
       Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the 
     bill (H.R. 2770) to prohibit Federal funds from being used 
     for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed 
     Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of 
     any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation 
     force. The bill shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by Representative Dornan of California 
     and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
     
[[Page H14817]]

       Sec. 3. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2770, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the resolution (H. Res. 302) relating to the 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the 
     territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to 
     enforce the peace agreement between the parties to the 
     conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 
     resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by Representative Buyer of Indiana and an 
     opponent. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution to final adoption without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 4. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on House Resolution 302, it shall be in order to 
     consider in the House a resolution relating to the deployment 
     of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of 
     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee. The resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time 
yielded is for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous materials.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us in designed to enable 
the enable House to debate the President's policy of deploying American 
ground troops to Bosnia as part of a NATO peacekeeping contingent.
  Because the peace agreement is scheduled to be signed in Paris 
tomorrow, and because the President has asked the Congress to vote on 
the deployment of U.S. troops before the peace agreement is signed, we 
are taking this unusual action of a same-day consideration rulemaking 
this debate in order. It, therefore, can be legitimately argued this 
qualifies as an urgent or emergency matter on those grounds.
  Having said that, however, I want to make clear that my own 
preference would have been that we not vote on anything today since the 
House has already twice expressed its overwhelming opposition to send 
American troops in Bosnia. That should have been sufficient. I 
seriously doubt that many minds have been changed since our last vote 
on November 17--less than a month ago.
  However, it was the feeling of our conference, and of many Members on 
the other side of the aisle, that the House should vote again on the 
President's policy, because it was not officially and fully unveiled or 
presented, until after that last vote took place on this floor. That's 
an understandable argument for today's debate and votes, even if I 
don't happen to agree with it.
  The rule before us will give the House ample time to both debate the 
President's Bosnia policy, and to vote on three distinct alternatives 
measures. Under the rule before us, there will first be 1 hour of 
general debate on the subject of deploying American troops to Bosnia, 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
International Relations Committee.
  Following that debate, the rule first makes it in order to consider 
in the House a bill introduced by Representative Dornan of California, 
H.R. 2770, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for deploying 
American troops to Bosnia. That bill will be debated for 1 hour, 
divided between Mr. Dornan and an opponent. It will not be subject to 
amendment but will be subject to one motion to recommit which may 
contain instructions.
  Following the disposition of the Dornan bill, the House will consider 
a sense-of-the-House resolution, House Resolution 302, by 
Representative Buyer of Indiana. The Buyer resolution first calls 
attention to the previous two House votes in opposition to sending our 
troops to Bosnia, and the President's subsequent decision to do so 
anyway, notwithstanding those votes.
  The resolution then reiterates, and this is important, the concerns 
and the opposition of the House to the President's policy, but goes on 
to express for American servicemen and women who will be deployed to 
Bosnia and calls for their full protection, and the supply of 
sufficient resources to carry out the mission.
  The Buyer resolution will be debated in the House for 1 hour, and is 
not subject to amendment or to a motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule allows the minority leader or his designee to offer 
a resolution in the House on the subject to United States troop 
deployment to Bosnia, debatable under the same terms and conditions as 
the Buyer resolution.
  Let me emphasize that we are talking about three, free-standing 
measures, each of which will have a separate vote, regardless of the 
outcome of votes on the other measures. This is not a king-of-the-hill 
or most-votes procedure. It is conceivable that all three measures 
could pass, that all three measures could be defeated, or that only one 
or two could pass.
  The House will be able to work its will on all three.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there will be some who will still criticize this 
process for one reason or another. It is not perfect, but it does allow 
for substantial debate on at least three options. I say ``at least 
three options'' since the minority is also protected in its right to 
offer a motion to recommit the Dornan bill with amendatory instructions 
subject to 10 minutes of debate. So, there could actually be four 
alternatives before the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, the process will still be criticized by some, I suppose, 
because none of the measures has been reported for a committee or is 
subject to amendment.
  But the President's Bosnia policy has been the subject of 
considerable hearings and discussions in several committees of the 
House and Senate, as well as the subject of the previous debates and 
votes on this floor which I have already referred to.
  So, while this may not be a perfect process, I think it is still fair 
and open in giving this House the ample amount of debate time that many 
have asked for on the President's Bosnia policy, and the opportunity to 
choose among several alternatives in response to that policy. By the 
end of the day today, there should be no question as to where this 
House stands. I personally remain adamantly opposed to the present 
policy of placing American troops in harm's way in a place where they 
are not wanted and do not belong.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague 
from New York, Mr. Solomon, for bringing this resolution to the floor.
  House Resolution 304 is a rule which would permit the consideration 
of three, free-standing bills in response to our commitment to use 
United States troops to bring peace to Bosnia and implement the Dayton 
peace accord. The three bills are H.R. 2770, introduced by Mr. Dornan; 
House Resolution 302, introduced by Mr. Buyer and Mr. Skelton, and a 
Democratic alternative, offered by the minority leader or his designee.
  As my colleague form New York has ably described, this rule provides 
1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations. The rule further provides for 1 hour of debate for each of 
the other three proposals. No amendments are permitted.
  I must express my disappointment with the process on this rule. We 
all knew that the President asked Congress for a vote of support for 
the troops. We have had weeks to plan this rule. However, not even 3 
hours ago, key decisions had not been made on this process. Now we are 
debating this on this floor. As a matter of fact we just debated on the 
rule 15 minutes ago. This is a vital matter of war and peace. Ram-
rodding this issue through the House on such a grave issue does a 
disservice to Members on both sides of this question.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two issues of substance at stake here. The 
first issue 

[[Page H14818]]
is whether the United States will be a leader for world peace. We have 
an opportunity to bring peace to a turbulent region in Europe that has 
been ravaged by war for 4 years. Opportunities like this do not come 
about easily or often. We should seize the chance for peace while we 
have it.
  The second issue is whether we will support our President and retain 
credibility in the international community. Or will we tie the hands of 
our President, embarrass ourselves, and let down our supporters 
and friends in Europe. President Clinton has taken a bold step for 
peace. We should back him up.

  This past summer, I traveled to the former Yugoslavia and witnessed 
the terrible conditions there. When I visited refugees in Tuzla and 
Zenica, I saw many children that had not only lost their homes. They 
had lost hope. When I looked into the eyes of these children, I saw 
pain, confusion, and sadness. I found that many of these children had 
not been immunized or educated during the 4 years of the Bosnian war.
  When I returned to America, I called Carol Bellamy, the executive 
director of UNICEF, and asked her to help implement a plan to immunize 
the children of Bosnia. She quickly pulled together a detailed 
proposal.
  Two weeks ago, I was with President Clinton at the White House when 
he endorsed the proposal and he pledged funding. This humanitarian 
initiative is now going on. I compliment the President for supporting 
the children.
  My constituents and I have a special reason for wanting the peace 
process to go forward. The treaty between the warring factions was 
negotiated at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is partly in my 
district. We are proud of the role that we played in the crafting of 
this agreement.
  Two days ago, the mayor of the city of Dayton and all the city 
commissioners signed a proclamation expressing pride and support for 
the men and women of our Armed Forces who are helping to implement the 
Dayton peace agreement. The resolution also calls on ``all nations of 
the world to support the Dayton peace agreement.''
  I would like to insert the text of the proclamation in the Record.
  The rule before us will give House Members an opportunity to support 
he President and peace. I regret that the rule did not make in order a 
proposal by Mr. Kennedy that would have required our NATO allies to 
pick up the costs associated with this mission.
  Mr. Speaker, our national security interests are at stake. I urge 
defeat of the Dornan bill, defeat of the Buyer/Skelton resolution, and 
support of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the proclamation to which I 
referred.

                              Proclamation

       Whereas, The Dayton Peace Agreement represents an 
     opportunity for all parties within Bosnia and Herzegovina to 
     work toward building a lasting peace for its people; and
       Whereas, the last four years have yielded untold suffering 
     of families and innocent victims who have lost homes, 
     friends, and a way of life to the worst atrocities and war in 
     Europe since World War II; and
       Whereas, The Dayton Peace Agreement calls for free and 
     democratic elections to be held throughout Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, and commits all parties, including Serbia and 
     Croatia, to cooperate fully and abide by international 
     humanitarian law; and
       Whereas, The Dayton Peace Agreement also commits all 
     parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to respect the highest 
     level of internationally recognized human rights; and
       Whereas, The Dayton Peace Agreement acknowledges the need 
     for international assistance to help the people of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina rebuild communities after the devastation of four 
     years of war; and
       Whereas, The Dayton Peace Agreement is testimony to the 
     leadership that The United States and its allies must play 
     not only to preserve peace, but to build peace in the world.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Dayton 
     Ohio, and its citizens commend all the parties in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina for courageously agreeing to peace for all its 
     people; and
       Be it further resolved, that the City of Dayton, where, 
     through leadership of the United States and its allies, terms 
     and conditions for a fair and just peace were forged, extends 
     its hopes and prayers to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     that their peace may be lasting and free; and
       Be it further resolved, that the City of Dayton with pride 
     and support wish the men and women well, of our armed forces, 
     who will assist the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 
     implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement; and
       Be it further resolved, that the City of Dayton commits to 
     working with Sister Cites International in providing a 
     network of cities to assist our counterparts in further 
     building the peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and
       Be it further resolved, that the City of Dayton encourages 
     all nations of the world to support the Dayton Peace 
     Agreement.
       Signed and presented to the President of the United States, 
     William J. Clinton, December 11, 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the statement 
of my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], that we are 
ramming these measures through the House.
  My colleagues, let us be perfectly clear about it, the reason we are 
on this floor here today over my objections, I might add, because I do 
not think we should be here, period, is because President Clinton has 
asked Speaker Gingrich to have this body take another vote on this 
issue before the Paris signing tomorrow. That is why we are here today. 
If it were not for that request, I can guarantee you that I would not 
have let this matter come before this body today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart], a very respected new member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I will support this rule because it 
gives ample opportunity to the Congress to support the very serious 
question of the Bosnia intervention. In the last 2 weeks, in multiple 
discussions held with colleagues in this House about the imposition of 
the Clinton administration of the new Secretary General, Mr. Solana, of 
NATO, various colleagues have stated to me that that decision by the 
Clinton administration seriously and legitimately calls into question 
the foreign policy judgment of the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, NATO of course is the military wing of the western 
alliance. It was greatly responsible for maintaining the security of 
Europe throughout the cold war and, of course, today we are poised to 
intervene militarily in an armed conflict in Europe for the first time 
since World War II and in the Balkans under the military shield and 
utilizing the military structure of NATO for the first time in history.
  Thus even though NATO was always important, it is perhaps even more 
important today. So who is the man who was named last week in Brussels 
as the new Secretary general, the head of NATO? Javier Solana is the 
foreign minister of the Spanish Socialist Workers party government. Mr. 
Solana opposed NATO with vehemence throughout the 1970's and the 
1980's. As late as 1986, when a Socialist-sponsored referendum was held 
in Spain to determine whether it would remain in NATO, Mr. Solana, then 
culture minister in the Spanish Government, was one of the most 
outspoken opponents of Spain remaining in NATO.
  He also opposed the presence of United States military bases on 
Spanish soil. As late as 1985, precisely on that subject of the 
presence of United States bases on Spanish soil, he I think somewhat 
contemptuously stated, and I quote, If need be, we will send a copy of 
the Spanish Constitution to Washington so they will know what a 
sovereign country is.
  Until September 29, 1979, Mr. Solana was formerly a Marxist. That is 
the date that his party, the Socialist Workers Party, erased the word 
Marxist from its political program so as to help and win the next 
Spanish general election. Despite the opposition of almost all western 
Europe, the Clinton administration, Mr. Speaker, insisted upon Mr. 
Solana to be the new NATO Secretary General.
  Much of the military and intelligence community of the NATO countries 
simply could not understand why the Clinton administration would insist 
on Solana as the new NATO head with other available candidates in 
contention such as Mr. Ruud Lubbers, former Dutch Prime Minister, who 
was endorsed by France and Germany and Great Britain and was always a 
dedicated supporter of NATO with exemplary security credentials.
  The Clinton administration insisted on imposing the Spanish Socialist 
Solana as we prepare to use NATO to intervene militarily in Europe for 
the 

[[Page H14819]]
first time since World War II, despite the fact that the Spanish 
Government is being wracked by unprecedented corruption, despite the 
fact that Solana, while Spanish Foreign Minister, just ended a 6-month 
stint as chairman of the European Union and during that time named a 
buddy of his, Mr. Garcia Vargas, a former defense minister in the 
Spanish Cabinet, who was so personally affected by corruption, 
including illegal wiretapping that he had to resign from the Spanish 
Cabinet. Mr. Solana named him European Union Special Envoy to Basnia.

                              {time}  1615

  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Spain is not 
part of the military structure of NATO, that was the candidate, that 
Foreign Minister of that government that is not part of the military 
wing of NATO, was the imposition of the Clinton administration for 
Secretary General of NATO, and that is the administration that is now 
asking the American people and the Congress to trust it with respect to 
Bosnia. I think this debate is long overdue, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say before I yield to my friend, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], that the chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], took issue with the fact that I 
said that we were ramrodding this rule through this process. I say to 
the gentleman, I really believe that, Mr. Solomon, and I know that the 
gentleman is trying to react to the fact that the President is going to 
the peace signing tomorrow, but I must say that we have known about the 
fact that we wanted to have this debate, and it has been many weeks in 
coming, and what has happened is that we had a Committee on Rules in 
which we just passed a rule 20 minutes ago of which we have three 
amendments; not three amendments, three bills and one rule. Only one 
amendment has any teeth in it; it is the Dornan amendment, because in 
fact it is really law if it would pass. The other two are sense of 
Congress. But of the other two, one is changing, and probably as I am 
talking, the Skelton-Buyer amendment. At least it was changing as of 
110 minutes ago. I just got the Democratic alternative, which to me as 
I read very quickly is I wish it could be stronger, and the fact is 
that it is being ramrodded, and it is a heck of a way to debate 
probably one of the more important issues that we re debating this 
whole year, is the commitment of troops.

  So, it is being ramrodded. I realize the pressure that the chairman 
is under, but I must stick by my original comment, that this is a heck 
of a way to bring up a serious issue like this, and I very much object 
to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me such a generous amount of time.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of what is 
clearly one of the most significant foreign policy measures we shall 
take up in the foreseeable future, the measure dealing with 
congressional support, or disapproval, of the President's decision to 
send troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina to participate in the peacekeeping 
operation there. This is a decision we all hope will mark the beginning 
of the end of the tragic conflict.
  With respect to the rule itself, our main concern in fashioning it 
was enough time be provided so that Members on both sides of the aisle 
and on all sides of the issue have an adequate opportunity to offer 
their arguments and to hear the opinions and arguments of other 
Members. We should have preferred more debate time, and many of us felt 
that a full day of debate was necessary for a measure of this 
significance. We do hope that every Member who has a desire to be heard 
during this important debate is given the opportunity to speak during 
the time that is provided under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, for almost 4 years now most Americans have been angered 
and sickened by the seemingly endless savagery and destruction being 
perpetrated in the lands that comprise the former Yugoslavia--and have 
urged and prayed that someone, somewhere, would try to put an end to 
the suffering.
  Finally, after years of failure of the combatants themselves and of 
their neighbors in Europe to stop the fighting, the United States has 
stepped in and done what every decent and caring American has wanted.
  We have asserted our leadership of NATO and participated in air 
strikes that sent an unmistakable signal for the first time that 
continued aggression would be punished forcefully, and we have asserted 
the moral authority that only the United States seems to represent to 
many people throughout the world and have brokered a peace treaty 
between the former combatants.
  Finally there has been a cessation of hostilities; finally,a peace 
agreement has been approved by all the warring parties.
  I hope one can assume, up to this point at least, virtually all 
Americans approve of and applaud what we have done. Yet many Americans 
are voicing unalterable opposition to sending any U.S. personnel to 
help enforce this newly achieved peace agreement, and even more are 
questioning the advisability of such further involvement by us in 
attempting to help keep this tragic conflagration from restarting.
  That is an entirely proper and normal concern, it seems to me. In 
fact, it should be part of the debate that we have not really had since 
the end of the cold war, about what the international role of the 
United States should be, and when and where, and under what 
circumstances, we should use our Armed Forces other than to repel a 
direct attack upon our own Nation.
  It has, understandably, been difficult since the end of the cold war 
to agree upon a role for the United States to play in world affairs. 
The threats to us, and to much of the rest of the free world, are 
certainly less obvious and less specific than they used to be. But it 
has become painfully clear over the past few years that concerted 
efforts to help bring about the results most of us in the United States 
would hope for seem unable to be brought about successfully without 
active involvement and, in fact, leadership from the United States.

  Now we are faced with a peace agreement that was made possible by 
American-led NATO air strikes and American diplomacy, and one that all 
of the parties want American forces to help carry out. One could argue 
that it does not necessarily follow that we cannot now walk away from a 
truly hopeful situation that we were instrumental in creating, but if 
Americans really want us to do just that, it probably would have been 
better for us not to have tried to end the fighting in the first place.
  Not everyone agrees, of course, but some of us like the idea that the 
world looks to us for leadership so long as we determine how, and when, 
and whether we should respond. In this case we are not faced with the 
situation confronted by the British, French, and other nations' troops 
under the banner of the United Nations, who have tried to enforce a 
peace on warring parties that required their being in the middle of an 
ongoing war.
  The parties have now agreed to stop fighting, and our troops will be 
in the position, finally, of peacekeepers, rather than peacemakers, 
which was sadly the position in which the United States troops found 
themselves both in Somalia and in Lebanon. In this current case, too, 
the Pentagon itself is satisfied with the role our troops will play and 
the circumstances in which they will be deployed which represents a 
complete about-face from their position, quite a proper one it seems 
too, I think all of us over the past couple of years were against 
committing United States troops to Bosnia for war-fighting purposes.
  If our military, which is far and away the most capable, best-
trained, and best-equipped in the world, is ever to be deployed for 
purposes other than defending our own territory, this, it seems to many 
of us, is the best possible use.
  We are proud of the fine men and women of our Armed Forces, and if we 
are ever to use them at all, we can think of no better way than that of 
honest peace-keeping in a situation 

[[Page H14820]]
where our presence, United States presence, literally will make all the 
difference.
  There is no one here in Washington who wants us to be the policeman 
of the world, or solely responsible for enforcing the peace in Bosnia 
or anywhere else, but this is the kind of cooperative and multilateral 
effort that many Americans have, for many years now, called for and 
insisted upon, and it is being done under rules of engagement that 
provide that American troops will be under American command, and that 
they will have the authority to respond immediately, and with 
overwhelming force.
  It may not be possible for us to define to our own satisfaction, and 
in advance, exactly when and in what capacity American troops should be 
used in this new and more complicated--if oftentimes less threatening--
world than we used to face during the cold war, but we are a moral, and 
a caring, and a peace-seeking people; we take our ideals and beliefs 
seriously; and, when our involvement, with others, will stop the kind 
of terrible suffering that has been going on in this corner of Eastern 
Europe for 4 years now, common decency and concern for other human 
beings dictates that we do what we can.
  President Clinton, in fact, offered a useful, pragmatic, and yet 
moral policy for this Nation to follow in the years immediately ahead, 
and I quote him, if I may, Mr. Speaker: ``We cannot stop war for all 
time, but we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all 
children, but we can save many of them. We can't do everything, but we 
must do what we can.''
  This is something we can do, and it is something we must do, if we 
are to have any respect for ourselves and for this great Nation whose 
people we are privileged to represent.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules who has been very much involved in this issue.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee from Glens Falls, Mr. Solomon, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I support the rule to allow 
this critical debate to come to the floor. The rule provides for ample 
debate time especially since this body has debated and spoken clearly 
twice recently, and it provides for consideration of a range of 
motions, fairly representing--in my opinion--the broad range of views 
and conflicting positions held by Members of this body. There is no 
question that the President has used his authority to deploy troops--
against the clear wishes of this House of Congress. Nevertheless, we 
must deal with the situation as it exists. It is a curious situation. 
Why is the President flying to Paris on December 13 when we are in 
budget crisis that threatens to shutdown Government Friday? Where do 
the President's priorities lie?
  But Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to begin this debate that has national 
and international ramifications, I want to take a minute to talk about 
individuals--those I represent in southwest Florida and those who will 
be spending a cold winter in the hills of war-ravaged Bosnia under the 
Dayton agreement and the President's plan. This past weekend I held two 
town meetings, and the topic that evoked the sharpest response from my 
constituents at these meetings was Bosnia. Not Medicare, not the 
budget, but Bosnia. And the questions were direct and heartfelt and to 
the point: Why are we putting our young men and women on the ground in 
Bosnia? These were not political people asking political questions--
these were honest folks demanding an answer.
  I have listened to the President and his advisors and his spokesmen, 
and I still cannot find a convincing answer. I have yet to be convinced 
that the United States has a compelling reason to put people on the 
ground in Bosnia. I say ``people,'' because these are individuals--sons 
and daughters--who will be put in harm's way. And it is not a country 
or an army that will suffer casualties and loss of life if things go 
wrong; it is those individual people.

  In considering where to go from here, I cannot support a complete 
withdrawal of funds and support for the United States troops who are 
already on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. These men and women are 
wearing the uniform of the U.S. military and obeying orders, and we 
cannot leave them stranded in hostile territory. I would like to see 
them brought home, however, and I certainly will not give the President 
a blanket approval to continue as he sees fit. Because too many 
Americans have taken the time to tell me that they strongly disagree 
with the President's actions so far. In addition I have serious 
questions about the role of NATO in this operation, and the 
arrangements for burden sharing that have been put together. Our forces 
have been trained in conventional warfare, and are the best in the 
world--however, the greatest threat in Bosnia comes from unconventional 
sources. And I am concerned that when it comes time to withdraw our 
troops under the President's plan, extraction will be extremely 
difficult.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to draw attention to the parallel 
that many inside and outside the administration are drawing between the 
mission in Bosnia and the mission in Haiti. I think this is a good 
comparison, but not, I suspect, for the same reasons as the White 
House. It is a useful comparison because despite a virtual media 
blackout and attempts by the Clinton administration to spin the 
situation otherwise, the conditions in Haiti are deteriorating and 
could very well collapse as soon as our troops leave. We are reminded 
that efforts at nation building are not as simple as they seem, and 
that internal problems of foreign countries spanning many generations 
cannot be solved by a year of occupation by the United States Armed 
Forces, especially in difficult terrain, harsh climate, and the 
dangerous atmosphere we know is Bosnia. And we are disarming in Haiti 
and rearming in Bosnia. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because it promotes wishy-washiness. 
The gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
committee, has commented on the fact that we have had hearings in other 
committees. We have, but not about the particular language that we are 
getting ready to vote on. There have been no committee hearings in that 
regard. I have been to every hearing on the Committee on International 
Relations that was officially held concerning Bosnia. It does not 
permit any amendments, and then we are just seeing the language, as I 
speak. It is a work in progress. We do not have any idea what we are 
getting ready to vote on. This is political posturing in the extreme.
  Mr. Speaker, we were sent here to lead, not to seek cover for our 
political, personal safety. What do we have with this rule? Cut off the 
troops. The other body just voted something like that. We voted on 
Hefley here on authorization. The other body just rejected that 
soundly, 77 to 22. Trash the President but support the troops. You all 
trash the President every day around here, so what else is new about 
that? Support the troops? But we have some reservations.
  Is this leadership? We should support the President, any President, 
Republican or Democrat, when they deploy troops under their 
constitutional aegis, and we should promote and praise the troops that 
I saw when I was in Croatia this past weekend. These children are 
magnificent, and we should reject this rule. Here is why.
  Let me quote, for those who keep asking, ``What is the stake for the 
United States, and why does United States participation make a 
difference?'' Admiral Leighton Smith, a four-star in charge of every 
American child in that theater, said:

       The question is about United States leadership in the 
     world. If we don't go in, our credibility goes to rock 
     bottom.


[[Page H14821]]

  Let me repeat again what Admiral Leighton Smith said, in response to 
the question ``What is the United States' stakes in Bosnia, and why 
does United States participation make a difference?'' He said:

       The question is about United States leadership in the 
     world. If we don't go in, our credibility goes to rock 
     bottom. The next time, when vital U.S. interests are engaged, 
     our allies and friends are not going to be with us. If we 
     don't go in, there will be more killing and the war can 
     spread. Do not underestimate the volatility of the Balkans.

  What I saw in the way of destruction in Sarajevo, no man or woman in 
this body can say that we should not somehow or other, as the leader of 
the world, promote a period of decency and give peace a chance.
  Reject this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida, 
Alcee Hastings, who is leaving the floor there, and he is a good 
friend, but I have just about heard all I am going to hear on this. 
This bill is on this floor because the President asked for it to be 
here. Mr. Speaker, I would just as soon pull this rule. We do not need 
to debate this today. However, if you are going to continue trashing 
us, we might as well do that. Keep that in mind. We are bending over 
backwards to be fair, I want to tell the gentleman, and he can trust my 
sincerity in that.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, we have 97 people on the ground in Tuzla, 
97, scouts, that is all. It snowed 2\1/2\ feet yesterday. There were 16 
flights ready to go in, not big C-141's and certainly not C-5 Galaxies, 
Hercules, hard landing aircraft. One got in out of 16. I am waiting for 
a weather report right now. I do not think anybody got in today. It is 
snowing again.
  I am the one who drove this, so we could have one more vote before we 
start the First Armored moving. I do not want this on the floor today 
after what I have just heard. I really do not. I want to give you time 
to study it all night.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I share 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] the concern about that 
snow. The weather or the elements there are the most serious threat to 
our troops, but you do not pick your theater when you are trying to 
preserve some kind of semblance of peace. It is going to be a difficult 
theater. No war is risk free, and nobody here knows that better than he 
does, I would say to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for saying that. My 
problem is basically constitutional. I testified to this up at the 
Committee on Rules. Bless everybody's heart around here for loving our 
men and women in uniform going in harm's way.
  I have spoken on this floor about the atrocities in Bosnia as much as 
anybody. I begged President Bush to do something, to hit those 
concentration camps with an air assault using Blackhawks with Cobra and 
Apache gunship support, and extract the people from the concentration 
camps. I did not want, and it is a rough word, but it is fair, I did 
not want the current President to dither away 3 years.
  The other sides are not going to kill one another with three feet of 
snow. You cannot find your own land mines without landmarks, and I do 
not give Bill Clinton much advice, but if he wanted to be a hero with 
the First Armored Division, he could very easily, at Paris tomorrow, 
say:

       We are holding off the deployment because of the severe 
     weather, and I am telling my young dads and moms in Europe 
     that are on their way there, enjoy Christmas with your 
     children and your wives. We will start moving on the 6th or 
     7th.

  Imagine the cheer that would go up in the day rooms in Germany, which 
will probably have half a foot of snow, and nobody knows what the 
buildup in weather is going to be until Christmas. I just heard a 
European weather projection. They are predicting the worst weather 
since the winter of 1944 and 1945, which was the worst in 50 years, so 
I do not want this on the floor if we are going to have all this angst. 
Jerk it, and we can do it tomorrow, or better yet, Friday.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], and his spirited comments a few 
moments ago. I would point out a phrase that he used: ``No war is risk 
free.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not a war. We are told that our troops are 
being sent there as peacekeepers, but I am afraid and I will explain 
this further in debate on the general bill and during the amendments, 
why this is not an evenhanded, impartial peacekeeping operation, and 
how it may very well end up in a very high-risk situation as far as our 
troops are concerned.
  I would also point out that the bill that the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Buyer] and I put forth, and on which there will be a vote later 
this evening, is based upon hearings that we had in the Committee on 
National Security. We had numerous hearings there. What is in there, we 
took from the hearings the testimony and combined it into this bill 
that we have put forth as number 302.
  I also wish to point out that early on November 11, I set forth some 
eight conditions under which we could deploy troops to the country of 
Bosnia. I gave full expression of my concern in those eight conditions 
as of that moment. I tell this body, Mr. Speaker, that six of those 
conditions have been met, two have not been met.
  As a result, I have chosen to be a principal cosponsor with my 
friend, the gentleman from Indiana, and I hope that when we reach that, 
that there will be a sizeable, sizeable vote in favor of it. I also 
will vote for this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Greensboro, NC, Mr. Howard Coble, a very distinguished Member of this 
body.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fresh off the Christmas parade circuit back home. I 
rode in nine Christmas parades. While these parades are not scientific 
polls, they are accurate barometers of public opinion. The consistent 
theme I heard from thousands at these Christmas parades was twofold: Do 
not back down on your effort to balance the budget, and stay out of 
Bosnia.
  I spoke with many of these constituents personally, Mr. Speaker. They 
oppose our presence in Bosnia, not because they are insensitive or 
uncaring about the problems that plague Bosnia, but rather because they 
view it as a lose-lose proposition for the United States.
  The reasons for this conclusion are apparent: No vital national 
interest in Bosnia; fighting that has endured over the centuries there 
is not likely to cease with the presence of 20,000 American men and 
women on the ground; severe, unforgiving inclement weather in a country 
generously laced with land mines located Lord only knows where.
  Our Bosnian operation, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion is a recipe for 
failure at its best, a recipe for disaster at its worst. The arms 
embargo should have been lifted months ago, but that cannot be 
corrected at this late date.

  America cannot continue, Mr. Speaker, to be the world's peacekeeper 
eternally. American men and women should not be placed in harm's way at 
this time, and virtually nothing, Mr. Speaker, has been said about the 
enormous cost to the American taxpayer. It has been estimated at $2 
billion. All of us know that is the low end. It will exceed probably $3 
to $4 billion, money that we do not have.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the message of Christmas parade 
goers in the Sixth District of North Carolina: Stay out of Bosnia.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is the most important national 
security vote that we have cast since the Persian gulf war. We have to 
ask ourselves, and that is what we are doing, why is United States 
involvement in 

[[Page H14822]]
Bosnia in the national interest? There are three reasons:
  First, America's values are at stake, and we can stop genocide and 
war in the Balkans.
  Second, America's interests are at stake. We need a stable Europe, 
and Europe's stability is in danger if this war simmers.
  Third, America's leadership is at stake. The peace agreement that we 
pushed, initialed, and fathered would collapse.
  If we do not support the President on this issue, our credibility in 
other crisis areas, North Korea, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and 
many other arenas will be eroded.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years more than half of Bosnia' pre-war 
population has been murdered, starved, or driven from their homes. One 
million are homeless; one million. The people of Bosnia have witnessed 
Europe's worst human rights atrocities since the end of World War II: 
ethnic cleansings, mass executions, torture, rape. The only way to stop 
this killing for good is to make peace.

                              {time}  1645

  Our conscience demands that we seize this chance. America needs a 
strong Europe as our partner in fighting security threats from 
terrorism to proliferation of mass weapons of destruction, and Europe's 
stability is in danger if this war continues. Without United States 
participation, the peace agreement would literally collapse and the war 
would reignite and spread through Greece, Turkey, Macedonia. That is 
not in our interest. NATO would collapse literally.
  Third, America's leadership brokered this cease-fire and brought the 
parties to Dayton to make peace. Now we have to take the lead in 
securing that peace.
  This vote is not popular. My constituents let me know their views, 
too. But once in a while when national security and America's interests 
are at stake, we must take the tough votes. If we fail to keep our 
commitment in Bosnia, what is going to happen on North Korea and the 
nuclear issue? What are the North Koreans going to think? Or in 
containing Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Or in Northern Ireland and the 
Middle East where we are brokering peace?
  If we fail to keep our commitment in Bosnia, the credibility of our 
leadership in Europe and around the world will suffer and with it our 
ability to protect America's interests.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us here want to do the right thing. I cast no 
aspersions on any Members' motives. Therefore, we should do the right 
thing and support the President as we have done with President Bush in 
the Persian Gulf and other important national security votes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, just like the statement of the gentleman from North 
Carolina about the numbers of his constituents who have registered 
there opposition to the deployment of troops in Bosnia, I am here to 
report to the Congress that the same is true in my district. Even the 
gentleman who just preceded me in the well acknowledged that of his 
constituents. The question that was posed to our people by the action 
of the President is: Should we support deployment of troops in Bosnia? 
The answer is no.
  But the next question now has to be asked, since the president has 
decided once and for all, without looking back and without any chance 
of changing his mind, that the troops will be deployed. So the question 
now that the people must register there opinions on is as follows: 
Shall we abandon our troops in Bosnia? The answer to that is no.
  I cannot vote under any circumstances to abandon our troops. Not to 
fund them? Unheard of. I cannot support that. Not to supply them with 
foods, materiel, ammunition, all the weapons that they require to do 
their mission? All the accoutrements of carrying on a peacekeeping 
mission? I will not be a party of not supplying all that is needed to 
our troops. I will not abandon our troops. I deplore the action of the 
President, but it is his decision and I will abide by that decision and 
support it, but know well that it is a tragedy about to unfold.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in the House. 
For years I have fought, as chairman of Military Construction, for 
quality of life for our troops and for better living conditions. And I 
have served on the Defense Subcommittee for a lot of years with my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  This is not a political argument. In my view we should not be 
trashing the President of the United States. This is the price that we 
pay for being who we are, the most powerful country on the face of the 
Earth, the only superpower that is left.
  Our negotiators went to a part of the country where people had been 
fighting for 4 years, and we saw on our television screens the precious 
old grandmothers that were crying and trying to find their place and 
trying to get across the street to get water. We saw in the marketplace 
where they were being shelled, we saw the children with their limbs 
blown away. Total devastation. Something that would make any honest 
human being cringe at the atrocities that were being committed on these 
human beings.
  There people all came together, and our negotiators said, ``We want 
you to come. You are tired of war, and we want you to come to Dayton, 
Ohio,'' in the great United States of America, in our chairman's home 
district. ``We want you to come, and you are going to sit down and we 
are going to talk about trying to come to grips with this, because we 
are so tired of war. We have people being slaughtered.''

  The city of Sarajevo where we saw the beautiful winter games many 
years ago, the stadium now has now been turned into a cemetery, the 
buildings destroyed, people absolutely ravaged. Thousands have been 
buried in the skating rinks and the coliseum and all the places where 
we had the beautiful games. They have been turned into graveyards, and 
the stadium seats, the wood has been used to make coffins.
  People were tired of war. So our negotiators said, ``Would you come 
to Dayton, Ohio? We will sit down, we will try come to some kind of a 
peace accord.'' They came and they hammered out and all the parties 
signed on to a peace agreement.
  Every other time we have been involved in a confrontation, we have 
fought our way in, we have gone in with guns blazing. This is 
different. It may not work. But is it not worth, for God's sakes, to go 
in with other countries to try to make some effort to establish peace 
and to police a peace process for these people that have been so 
devastated in the past few years?
  I would hope and pray at this time close to Christmastime that we 
should talk about peace on Earth and good will to men, that we would 
bypass the political cheap shots and at least make an effort to 
establish some peace in a part of the world that has been so devastated 
by the havoc that has been perpetrated on these citizens for so many 
years.
  I would hope that we would support our troops and our effort to 
proclaim peace on Earth and good will to men this time at 
Christmastime.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne].
  (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the effort to try to 
keep the peace and to send troops to Bosnia as part of the peace 
agreement recently reached in Dayton.
  The United States has committed troops to serve in Bosnia as part of 
the NATO peacekeeping force.
  The United States has been able to broker a peace agreement in Dayton 
among the various factions in Bosnia. As the President stated in his 
address to the Nation November 27, America's mission will not be 
fighting a war. ``It will be about helping the people of Bosnia to 
secure their own peace agreement.''
  The United States mission in Bosnia is limited, focused, and under 
the command of the American general.
  This deployment of troops in the United States's national interest. 
The 

[[Page H14823]]
United States mediated the Dayton peace accord. If we want to be 
credible in future international negotiations, we must take the 
necessary steps to implement that which we have arranged. If we do not 
follow through in this instance, we will not have much credibility in 
any future negotiations.
  Furthermore, the United States has a vital interest in maintaining 
stability in Europe. Instability in any part of that region can not 
only intensify but expand to include other countries as well. As we all 
know, events in Sarajevo earlier this century led to World War I and 
the eventual involvement of the United States in a very wide conflict. 
Only 20 years later, the United States was inescapably drawn into war 
in Europe again. And for most of the last 50 years, the United States 
has been involved in NATO because its national interests were 
threatened by the prospect of Soviet hegemony over Europe. Even today, 
when Soviet Union has collapsed, the United States has a powerful 
interest in promoting peace, democracy, and free trade within Europe 
and around the world.
  It is important to point out that the emphasis in this deployment is 
peace--U.S. troops will be part of a peacekeeping force which is 
implementing a peace agreement made by the various warring factions. We 
will be administering a peace, not imposing one.
  We now have an opportunity to make peace in a conflict which could--
and I believe would--eventually widen and draw us into it. We must 
consider whether the eventual cost of standing idly by and allowing the 
war to continue might not eventually far exceed the cost of this 
peacekeeping mission.
  We should also not forget that we are implementing a peace agreement 
which will end the continuing murder of innocent civilians. These 
crimes against humanity have been so horrible that the United Nations 
has established an international tribunal to investigate them. We can 
not claim to be a civilized nation if we turn our backs on torture and 
murder when we have the power in our hands to stop it.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the agreement in Dayton 
and support the U.S. military in its mission as a peacekeeping force in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Friedberg, Germany, I visited our 
troops of the 1st Armored Division, U.S. Army, who are being deployed 
to Bosnia.
  One young soldier who served in both Somalia and Haiti told me, ``The 
Bosnian mission is so much harder to understand. We're going in as 
neutral peacekeepers but also to get the Bosnian Muslims armed. You 
can't have it both ways!''
  Mr. Speaker, this young soldier points out the inherent contradiction 
in the Administration's Bosnia policy.
  As Vice President Gore said on Meet the Press Sunday, ``We're going 
to make sure it (referring to arming the Bosnian Muslims) gets done.''
  The President is putting 20,000 American lives in harm's way, as 
neutral peacekeepers, while simultaneously helping arm one of the 
combatants. You cannot have it both ways!
  This past weekend, as part of the congressional fact finding mission 
to the Balkans, I also heard Admiral ``Snuffy'' Smith, IFOR Commander, 
say that he does not want to be involved in any way with equipping, 
arming or training the Bosnian Moslems. And he also said we're not 
neutral because the Serbs don't think we're neutral. After all, Mr. 
Speaker, we just bombed them into submission.
  My overriding concern is that we are placing our troops in an 
untenable position and committing them to ``mission impossible.''
  As Serbian President Milosevic told our delegation, ``If the Bosnians 
are armed, peace will be endangered and the treaty will fail.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Dayton peace accord has a rigid formula on weaponry 
that, relatively speaking, ensures the Bosnian Moslems remain weak.
  Therein lies the basic problem with the President's Bosnia policy. If 
a balance of power in the Balkans is not established, how in the world 
can we ever expect long-term peace and stability in the region?
  Yes, we should lift the arms embargo. Yes, we should train and equip 
the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves.
  But, no, Mr. Speaker, not with 20,000 U.S. troops on Bosnia soil at 
the same time.
  Let us establish the equilibrium of power in the Balkans by creating 
a stable military balance. But let us arm, equip and train the Bosnian 
Moslems in a neutral country and out of harm's way for 20,000 American 
troops.
  Mr. Speaker, as we heard from every military officer on our recent 
trip to the Balkans, this is a very dangerous mission.
  There are as many as 6 million land mines awaiting our troops in the 
snow where they are almost impossible to find.
  Also, Bosnian Serb mortar and sniper positions are well-established. 
Our troops are being deployed primarily to Tuzla where 71 civilians 
were killed in a single mortar attack in May.
  The mujahadeen--some 4,000 Islamic extremists--represent a real 
threat to our troops as well.
  And as one commander put it, ``The threat of guerrilla warfare with 
grenades is very real.''
  Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to Croatia told us that the biggest 
problem is Serb Sarajevo. He said, ``We can expect big trouble if the 
Serbs there don't accept the peace agreement.''
  Yesterday, the Serbs in Sarajevo overwhelmingly rejected the 
agreement in a referendum.
  As one Serb woman in Sarajevo told me, ``I would rather kill myself 
than accept the new boundaries.''
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here with a heavy heart because I want to 
support our Commander in Chief on foreign policy matters, especially 
those involving U.S. troops.
  However, Mr. Speaker, my first obligation is to our troops and their 
safety. I cannot and will not support a policy that is fundamentally 
flawed and inherently inconsistent.
  But if our troops are deployed, as it now appears they will be, I 
will support them 100 percent and do everything I can to see than they 
return home safely and as soon as possible.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Youngstown, OH [Mr. Traficant].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we forgot about some of these cities. 
Maybe that is the way to start this debate. There are great problems in 
Bosnia. There are great problems in America.
  I support the rule. I commend the chairman for bringing the rule 
forward. He is trying to help the President. The President asked for 
this vote. This is a nonbinding, after-the-fact vote. The President has 
already decided to send troops into Bosnia.
  I oppose sending troops into Bosnia for the following reasons: First, 
our generals have told us that Bosnia does not pose a security threat 
to the United States of America. Second, Europe has adequate manpower 
and money to handle this problem.
  And, ladies and gentleman, we have been subsidizing Europe for too 
long as it is. These countries just dial 911 and we send over our 
troops to fight their problems, whether or not they have the money and 
the personnel or not. Then we send a credit card with them, an American 
Express card.

                              {time}  1700

  I am opposed to sending our troops. If, in fact, Europe cannot 
contain this civil war and it would spread. I would then support ground 
troops. But I cannot at this point.
  Let me also say this: The Constitution speaks to these issues. 
Everybody who continues to talk about the history of Vietnam should 
take a look at the debate that is occurring in the House here tonight. 
Vietnam started with some trainers, some consultants, some technicians. 
That is about what we have.
  But I think it is time to look at the Constitution. The Constitution 
is explicit. The founders took great pains to debate one issue: No one 
person could ever place America and our troops at war. And the 
potential for hostilities here is very great, folks.

[[Page H14824]]

  So I do not think we are sending peacekeepers over to Bosnia. I think 
we are sending over targets, with bull's-eyes on their backs, and I 
believe this is a flawed policy.
  But what bothers me in America anymore, the people do not govern. If 
the people govern, the House of Representatives and the other body 
would not allow for a nonbinding, after-the-fact vote on placing troops 
in harm's way. I think this is very bad move for us to make.
  I am going to support the Dornan amendment, folks. I do not believe 
it will pass, and I will probably vote for every one of these 
nonbinding, after-the-fact, feel-good, kiss-your-sister types of votes 
here tonight. But it is not good policy, and the Congress of the United 
States should govern and the American people should govern, and right 
now, ladies and gentlemen, the American people do not govern anymore; 
governance comes from the White house.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], one of the very most distinguished members of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago one of our Members stood 
up and said that he was opposed to sending ground troops to Bosnia, but 
once and for all the President has made the decision, so he is not 
going to be involved in abandoning our troops. That is pure nonsense, 
and I am sorry to say it came from this side of the aisle. I am 
appalled to hear something like that.
  It can be stipulated that everyone in this body supports our troops, 
but we have a constitutional responsibility. It is to serve as a check 
on this President or any other President from the inappropriate 
deployment of American troops abroad. That is what we are here 
discussing in the Bosnia resolution that follows.
  We will support our troops. That is clear.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy said in 1961 we must face the fact 
that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we 
are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our 
will upon the other 94 percent, that we cannot right every wrong or 
reverse each adversity, and that there cannot be an American solution 
to every world problem. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy was right.
  Twice in the last few days I have spoken on this floor to say 
something that I want to emphasize once again: There is absolutely no 
threat whatsoever to our national security because of what is going on 
in Bosnia.
  Second, there is no vital United States interest in Bosnia, and we 
should never send young American soldiers to foreign battlefields or 
participate in any military adventure unless one of these conditions is 
unquestionably, unequivocally clear and certain. And there are many 
questions about, and much opposition to, our involvement in Bosnia.
  I know that the pack mentality of those in our very liberal national 
news media has produced a drumbeat to try to gain support for this very 
ill-advised operation, but I really believe that this has much more to 
do with political correctness than it does with anything else. It is 
simply not politically fashionable today to be labeled as an 
isolationist. Yet someone who is not an isolationist and who wants good 
relations with and close ties to other nations still should be strongly 
against sending transportation to Bosnia.

  First, Time magazine asked a few days ago on its cover the question: 
``Is Bosnia worth dying for?'' It may be for Bosnians, but they should 
solve their own problems. It is not worth even one American life to 
temporarily stop this age-old conflict.
  Second, even if by some miracle, for which I hope, we have no 
casualties, we still should oppose this mission.
  We are $5 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, and almost everyone believes 
we will crash in a few years if we do not turn this around. Yet now we 
are going to spend billions we do not have in Bosnia, and we are going 
to, further, very seriously jeopardize the futures of our own children 
and grandchildren.
  I feel sorry for the people in Bosnia. Humanitarian aid, yes; 
military aid, no. We can prove world leadership in many other ways.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, President Clinton ought to know that the American 
foreign policy has been to defend our democratic allies against 
external military attack that threatens the sovereignty of those 
nations that we are treaty-allied with or where America has a strong 
national interest that is threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no vital American national interest that would 
justify the taking of even one American life. President Clinton says we 
will hurt our standing with our NATO allies.
  Well, if that were true, I would say, ``So what?'' It is still not 
worth one American life.
  But even that is not true, Mr. Speaker. I have worked with our NATO 
allies as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, the political arm of 
NATO, for the last 17 years. I am the chairman of the political foreign 
affairs committee of that body, and I can tell you that they are 
shocked that we would even consider putting American troops in harm's 
way when there is only a European interest and no American interest 
there. That is why we should do everything in our power to stop 
President Clinton from putting those troops there.
  Because he has made the decision, I do believe that we are going to 
have to support the Buyer amendment, the Buyer resolution, because it 
does say that we oppose the policy but we support our troops, and that 
is something that we absolutely must do.
  So let us get on with it. Let us pass this rule and then take up the 
general debate on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 357, 
nays 70, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 855]

                               YEAS--357

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     
[[Page H14825]]

     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--70

     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lantos
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     McHale
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Moran
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wyden
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     McInnis
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Waldholtz
     Wilson

                              {time}  1728

  Messrs. Neal of Massachusetts, Jefferson, and Towns changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Quillen, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Ms. Roybal-
Allard, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
Texas, Mr. Studds, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Yates changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________