[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14825-H14860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the first section of House 
Resolution 304, it is now in order to debate the subject of the 
deployment of Armed Forces in Bosnia.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come to this point in our debate over United 
States policy on Bosnia because the Clinton administration has 
resolutely declined to provide the necessary leadership.
  In this campaign for President, Mr. Clinton stated that he favored 
using military force, if necessary, to ensure that food and other 
relief supplies could reach the desperate people of Bosnia. After his 
election in November 1992, President Clinton followed the lead of the 
United Nations and our European allies.
  During that period, a number of us in the Congress sought to ease the 
suffering of the Bosnian Moslems by repealing the arms embargo that put 
them at such a terrible disadvantage.
  Our legislation would have permitted the equipping and training of 
the Bosnians so that they could defend themselves.
  The Government of Bosnia pleaded with our Government to do just that, 
to lift the immoral arms embargo the United Nations imposed with our 
Government's support.
  In meetings with the President, again and again we strongly urged 
lifting the arms embargo, but the President did not act because our 
NATO allies opposed it.
  The best we could obtain was enactment of legislation late last year 
that required our Nation to stop enforcing the embargo against other 
countries.
  Had the arms embargo been lifted, we would not now be confronted with 
sending our troops to enforce a peace plan that raises more questions 
than it has answered.
  Hundreds of our troops are now in Bosnia even as we speak. Thousands 
more will soon follow. Short of passing a law to cut off funds--which 
the Senate has declined to do--and which the President would veto 
anyway--we cannot prevent this deployment.
  The administration has yet to convince the American people that we 
have a vital national interest in Bosnia that warrants the possible 
sacrifice of American lives there.
  The American people have registered their overwhelming opposition to 
sending our forces on a mission whose purposes remain murky, and whose 
outcome is uncertain.
  As the House debates the measures before it today, we must consider 
how to balance our opposition to the policy of deploying our forces to 
Bosnia with our support for the men and women who are being ordered 
into a real-life Mission Impossible.
  In his speech to the Nation, the President stated that providing more 
than 20,000 American ground troops for the NATO implementation force is 
vital for the Bosnian peace plan to succeed.
  The President stated that our mission would have realistic goals 
achievable in a definite period of time--1 year.
  While the President has specified a time frame, he has not spelled 
out the criteria for success, or our options if those criteria are not 
met. There is an exit date, but no exit strategy.
  The peace plan is complex and complicated. It states that our main 
military task will be to separate the warring factions from the lines 
of confrontation, and keep them behind boundaries that will partition 
Bosnia into two entities. If the factions do not comply, our troops are 
authorized to forcibly remove them. How does this differ from fighting 
a war, which the President has assured us is not our objective?
  Justice Richard Goldstone, the Chief Prosecutor of the War Crimes 
Tribunal, has told us that there can be no peace in Bosnia without 
justice for the victims of war crimes.
  The peace plan describes an elaborate framework for investigating and 
assigning responsibility for human rights abuses, but is silent on how 
its findings will be enforced. Will our troops be called upon to bring 
the guilty to justice? If not, who will?
  The President has argued that failure to keep his commitment to send 
troops to Bosnia will undermine future United States leadership and 
NATO's credibility.
  But what will happen if, when the year is up and the President 
prepares to withdraw our troops, our NATO allies object, saying that 
the mission is incomplete? Do we stay, or go anyway?

[[Page H14826]]

  Mr. Speaker, the votes we cast today will long be remembered in the 
history books of our Nation. Our votes must reflect our best judgments 
of the risks that this mission entails, of the soundness of the policy 
behind it, the potential for success and the price of failure.
  How many Members of Congress who voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution 
in 1964 have since said that was the one vote they wished they could 
take back?
  Mr. Speaker, let us hope that, in the months ahead, our colleagues do 
not say that they wish they could have back any of the votes they cast 
on this issue today.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate for the House today. Putting 
American troops in harm's way is as serious a decision as government 
makes. It is a decision that should be made not only by the President, 
but also by the Congress, so it is good that we are having the debate.
  I should say at the outset that my preference is that the House vote 
today to support the U.S. troops and the mission in Bosnia. I think 
that kind of a decision should be a collective judgment of the Congress 
and the President; and when the Congress shares responsibility, the 
decision is stronger, sounder, and better able to withstand the 
shifting political winds and circumstance.
  Let me state, as briefly as I can, why I think the deployment of 
troops to Bosnia is worthwhile. First, I think it is quite clear that 
the United States participation is essential to peace. All of the 
parties here, the Muslims, the Croats, the Serbs, and so far as I know 
all the countries in the world, none in opposition, agree that without 
American leadership, there would be no peace agreement; that without 
American troop participation, the peace agreement would simply fall 
apart; and that without U.S. involvement, the killing would resume and 
the war risks spread.
  I also think that U.S. interests are very much at stake here. The 
question of Bosnia is now bigger than Bosnia. It has become a key test 
of American leadership, and having brokered the peace agreement, we 
cannot walk away. Bosnia is a test of U.S. leadership in the world. If 
we do not go in, our credibility sinks and our reliability collapses.
  This Dayton agreement is not perfect. Some say it is not just. But 
the president of Bosnia has it right: This peace agreement is more just 
than a continuation of the war, peace is better than more war.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement supports U.S. interests in many ways. it 
stops the killing, it maintains a single unitary Bosnia state, it 
protects human rights, it reunifies Sarajevo, it allows refugees to 
return, it obligates the parties to participate and cooperate fully 
with the War Crimes Tribunal, it certainly avoids more war, it 
strengthens and preserves NATO and maintains U.S. leadership in NATO.
  I believe the mission is doable. The mission for IFOR will be limited 
with a clearly states military task. The mission will be NATO-led, 
operating under clear, unified command and control with robust rules of 
engagement. heavily armed, well-trained U.S. troops will take their 
orders from an American general who commands NATO. Its mission is 
limited and targeted.
  The purpose of this limited military mission is to establish a stable 
and secure environment so that others, not IFOR, can do the important 
tasks of reconstruction and reconciliation.
  It is important to recognize what the mission is not, and there must 
be no mission creep. Our troops must not deliver humanitarian 
assistance, they must not serve as a nation-building force, they must 
not be a police force, they must not be responsible for election 
security. Those are all important and even critical tasks, but they 
will be performed by the civilian component of the peace process, and 
the Europeans will play the leading role there and pick up most of the 
costs.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the risks here are shared and 
acceptable. There is not any doubt that the U.S. troops will face 
risks, but those risks are acceptable and the mission can be achieved.
  The costs and risks of failing to act are far greater: war instead of 
peace, not only in Bosnia but possibly in Europe, a crippled NATO 
alliance, and the United States not leading but staying on the 
sidelines.
  We do not bear these risks alone. We share these risks with our 
closest NATO allies. We supply one-third of the troops. NATO and other 
countries provide the other two-thirds. I believe that there is no real 
alternative that has been enunciated by the opponents of the 
President's policy.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. HAMILTON. So far as I can determine, those who oppose the present 
policy simply do not have an alternative. What would they have us do? 
how would they maintain U.S. leadership, U.S. credibility, and U.S. 
reliability? How would they stop the fighting? How would they aid the 
injured? How would they create stability? How old they provide hope?
  I believe, in this situation, that the United States can make a 
difference. Americans are understandably conflicted about this mission, 
and they have every right to be skeptical and to demand answers to 
their concerns. They do not want the United States to become the 
world's policeman, and there are many conflict in the world where we 
are not involved. But where we can make a difference for peace, where 
our action can stop a war, where our action can stop the killing, where 
the costs and the risks are manageable, we should act.
  Finally, the United States, and this may be the most important point 
of all, must remain, in the conduct of its American foreign policy, 
reliable and credible. When we come right down to it, foreign policy is 
all about reliability. The United States will only be taken seriously 
in the world if we are seen as reliable; if we are viewed as standing 
up to our commitments in Bosnia or elsewhere. If the United States does 
not participate in IFOR, the United States will not taken seriously, 
its standing in the world is weakened. The consequence then of not 
voting to support the policy in Bosnia is, in my view, to undermine 
U.S. security because we undermine the reliability and the credibility 
of U.S. foreign policy.
  No one knows whether this effort will succeed. no one is satisfied 
with all aspects of the Dayton agreement. There are no guarantees. But 
I urge the Members to support the policy and, of course, to support the 
troops.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabcher] a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. We have advocated an alternative to this policy 
for years. We have had a policy in the United States of an arms embargo 
against the victims of aggression for all of these years. The years go 
on and on, and yet the architects of that failed policy, which brought 
genocide, which brought mass killings, which brought aggression, now 
those architects of that failed policy tell us we have to send our 
young people into the Balkans, and we have not had an alternative.
  We have been advocating an alternative all along. The fact is the 
architects of that failed policy now want to deploy tens of thousands 
of young Americans into the bloody Balkans when they helped make the 
bloody Balkans, and they want to put then right in the heart of the 
conflict.
  I will be supporting the Dornan bill, which is the only binding 
legislation that we have to choose from of the three bills that we will 
choose from today. The other bills, just for the public knowledge, are 
show bills. They will give Members a chance for cover. The bill offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is the only that will 
stop a deployment, if indeed, it was enacted into law.
  I will have to let my fellow Members know what that means. The House 
of Representatives should understand that the vote that we will take 
that is going to take place will be characterized by the President, if 
the Dornan bill goes down, as support of his deployment of Americans 
into the Balkans. That is what he has done with the vote in the Senate.
  When the Senate voted down the Hefley bill today, the White House 
said, ``That was probably the strongest statement of support they could 
possibly make. Having voted overwhelmingly not to shut off funding, is 
in a 

[[Page H14827]]
sense supporting the President's judgement.''
  If my colleagues want it on their record that they voted for the Gulf 
of Tonkin resolution of the Balkans, go right ahead and vote against 
the bill offered by the gentleman from California. We do not want to 
send our young people into that meat grinder that has absolutely no 
goals in mind, just to have an American presence. That is insane.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a very uplifting and 
inspiring address, Prime Minister Peres of Israel characterized the 
20th century as the American Century. As the end of the 20th century 
approaches, Americans can look back and feel proud of what we have 
accomplished in the past 96 years. The United States has compiled a 
list of foreign policy successes which is unrivaled in the modern 
world, including squelching the threats of nazism and communism, and 
the recent strides made toward lasting peace in the Middle East, South 
Africa, and Northern Ireland. All of these successes share the same 
values--American values--on which this great country was built: freedom 
and democracy. Yes, this truly is the American Century.
  Now, the United States has been called on again, not to make war, but 
to make peace. Peace in a place where many felt it would never be 
achieved. We have all seen the atrocities on television, the rapes and 
murders of innocent civilians. After 3\1/2\ years, the fighting in 
Bosnia has left 250,000 people dead and 2 million more homeless. Yet 
here we are, on the verge of a unilateral peace agreement in war-torn 
Bosnia which will be formally signed tomorrow in Paris. We should be 
proud as Americans that our country's leadership has made this 
settlement possible. Now that the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and 
Serbia have reached agreement on the principles of freedom and 
democracy, it is up to the United States to take the next step, and 
following through with our commitment to help enforce these peace 
provisions. Let us all pray that this peace agreement will be kept by 
all parties.
  The political upheaval of the former Soviet Union has left the United 
States, and its democratic foundation, in a position of world 
leadership. We are the last superpower. With this leadership comes 
responsibilities, and helping to ensure the stability of Europe.
  I find it reprehensible that when the drawn of peace in Central 
Europe is upon us and our troops are already risking their lives to 
forge out this peace in Bosnia's hilly and dangerous terrain, some of 
my colleagues wish to cut off funding to the American troops.
  Congress has the opportunity to do the right thing. Support the 
President, support the troops, support American values, and support 
peace in Bosnia. My colleagues, it is time to give peace a chance. The 
American Century is far from over.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong concern 
about sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and in support of the Dornan 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said that I would not object to sending troops to 
Bosnia if we had a really rock-solid peace agreement, but we do not 
have a rock-solid peace agreement.
  President Tudjman has signed for Croatia, but he had an agenda. They 
got Slavonia back. President Milosevic has signed for Serbia, but he 
also had an agenda. He wanted to end the embargo. The only one who has 
signed for Bosnia is President Izetbegovic. No one has spoken for the 
Bosnian Serbs; no one for the Bosnian Croats. I think that, in fact, 
Mladic has spoken against this agreement on behalf of the Bosnian 
Serbs.
  The argument about not abandoning the troops in the field I think is 
just not valid. The troops are not there yet. We have maybe 100 troops 
in Tuzla. By this time 6 months from now, we will have thousands there. 
Now is the time to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, this war and the Vietnam war were very different, but in 
some ways, in one way at least, they are very similar. Do we never 
learn anything? We found out in Vietnam that we cannot and we should 
not fight a war that the American people do not support. I do not think 
that that support is here.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at what will we 
accomplish? I firmly believe that if we leave in a year, and I say if 
we leave in a year, the fighting will not only resume, but will be much 
more violent, because all the parties will have had a year to rearm and 
to develop supplies.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the Dornan amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the debate here today is not about sending 
troops to Bosnia. Our troops are in Bosnia, and tomorrow more will go, 
and Friday even more will go. In fact, yesterday afternoon I was with 
many of my colleagues having lunch with those troops in Frankfurt, 
Germany, and what they asked is for us to support what they are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, those troops are trained. They are prepared to go. They 
are eager to go. In fact, the ones I had lunch with said, ``I want to 
do the job that I am trained for.''
  This debate here tonight is not about war in Bosnia. It is a debate 
about whether Americans will stand up to implement a peace plan--a 
peace plan that we led. The agreement was written in Dayton. This 
agreement is one of the most interesting contracts ever done in the 
modern world. It sets out a whole process for how the military aspects 
will be involved in the peace settlement; how to stabilize the region; 
how to enter into boundary disputes; how to prepare for elections; a 
new constitution is written.
  It sets up a system of arbitration of differences and sets up a 
commission for human rights and petitioning that commission. It is how 
to deal with refugees and displaced persons, including just 
compensation for taken property. It sets up a commission to preserve 
the national monuments and sets up public corporations for Bosnia and 
Herzegovina.

  It sets up a civilian implementation plan to transfer from war to 
civil governments; it sets up an international policy for police task 
forces.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an agreement that is signed by all the leaders. 
This is a contract on how we get from here to there. And when it is 
over, we stabilize the Balkans. Sure, there is some risk. But we are in 
a world where leadership is about getting something done, and the 
United States has gotten something done. We have ended the war; peace 
has broken out.
  Mr. Speaker, to walk away from this would be a travesty. All the 
generals that we talked to, and the admirals that are going to be 
involved in this, urged our delegation to support the troops. As 
Admiral Snuffy Smith, who is going to be in command, told us, ``I'll 
tell you why I want you to support us. Because we're big, we're good, 
and we deliver. We'll get in, we'll get the job done, and we'll get 
out.''
  Twenty-eight nations are already involved in the IFOR process. It 
would be a travesty for our military to walk away from all of those 
other troops whose mothers and fathers are just as concerned as our 
mothers and fathers about their sons and daughters serving there.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be a travesty for diplomacy. Every ambassador 
that we talked to said this is the right thing. This peace accord is 
amazing. It is a great document. We ought to be supporting.
  Last, the Presidents whose countries are involved, whose citizens 
suffered the war, all stated, ``We signed this document. We are going 
to implement it. We want it to work. We are sick and tired of war. We 
do not want it to continue. We want to be back in the nation of 
economic prosperity. We have the talent to do that. Give us the 
chance.''
  Let peace prevail. Support our troops. Reject the Dornan amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have one North Star that my eyes are going 
to be fixed on during the next 3 hours, and that is what I will say to 
a young 

[[Page H14828]]
widow or Gold Star Mother or some young child who has lost their dad or 
their mom for the rest of their life.
  There has been a lot of confusion around here in the last couple of 
hours. It appears that Clinton is on his way to Europe again. The plane 
takes off in about a minute from Andrews. He is going to be calling the 
Democratic cloakroom, or somewhere, regularly to see if this House is 
going to give him the power that he took unconstitutionally, without 
coming to the Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives for 
permission to do this.
  I remember when the Vietnam war went down the tubes and the fight 
transferred from the jungles and the fields and the central highlands 
of Vietnam to the Halls of this Congress. I remember when liberal 
Democrats were on this floor saying that Johnson, and then Nixon, did 
not have the constitutional power to absorb 300 and 400 killed in 
action every week.

                              {time}  1800

  Every time I though they are half right, I was suppressed by loyal 
Americans saying you must support the men in the field. The last 
speaker talked about the enthusiasm of our young men and now women who 
want to do the job they were trained to do.
  How many people are left in this House who talked to the 18,000 
Vietnamese-speaking Green Berets who John F. Kennedy sent to Vietnam in 
1963, 1964 and 1965? They were over there because of his orders in 1961 
and 1962. How many thought that they should be allowed to do the job 
then? Talk to some of the fighter pilots here like the gentleman from 
California, Duke Cunningham, the gentleman from Texas Sam Johnson, and 
the gentleman from Florida, Pete Peterson, on this side. Ask how they 
were not allowed to hit serious targets in Vietnam and paid for it with 
years out of their life and their friends dead.
  This is going to be, as the man in the Speaker's chair said today, at 
the Republican conference the most important vote of 1995, maybe 1995-
1996. Clinton does not have the constitutional authority to do this. We 
have not even properly debated the constitutionality of it, let alone 
the weather report that I am looking at at Tuzla, which is sickening to 
put our men in there. Ninety-seven people are on the ground only right 
now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], distinguished dean of the Florida 
delegation.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have learned a few things in life. ONe of 
the things that sticks out I guess in all of our minds is that anything 
that is worth doing is not without risk, and certainly this mission is 
not without risk. but after long consideration, I rise to support the 
Hamilton resolution, support the mission and support the troops that 
are involved.
  I was here on the House floor and voted for the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution. This is not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution was a thinly disguished declaration of war against the 
Vietnamese forces. We go this time to keep peace, not to make war. 
There is a plan. There is a large support from the nations of the world 
to support this plan. There is acquiescence by the leaders of the 
combatants involved. Nothing that we do is without risk. We are going 
to have some casualties, for which we will all feel very sorry. But we 
cannot sit here or stand here idly and not do anything. Too much is at 
stake.
  I often think that World War II could have been avoided had there 
just been any resolve on the organized world community to resist the 
aggression that took place in the guise of Hitler and Mussolini and 
Tojo. In the beginning, we could have said no, if we had had the 
physical ability or the will to do it, but we did not and the world did 
not. That conflagration, that combat grew and grew and grew.
  I do not know that what we are doing here today is similar, but if we 
fail to act, the fault will be on our part. There is a time in which 
civilized people must act and must act together and must act in 
accordance with a plan. This is the best plan that we have come up 
with. I think it is time that we go ahead with it, facing the risk of 
facing the challenges that are there and be resolved to support our 
troops and to take whatever action is necessary in bringing about peace 
in that area of the world. If we do not, the fault will be on us. If we 
do, there will be plenty of other people to help claim whatever victory 
there is in all of this. But we must move. We must move together and we 
must move resolutely. Let us support our armed forces.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman from Tennessee, I was terribly moved 
yesterday as Prime Minister Peres extolled the United States of America 
for what it means to the entire world community. We all stood and 
applauded the eloquence, even though maybe that was self-serving, 
because he was talking about us.
  This country, after having deferred to our European allies for 1991 
until into this year, finally became fully engaged. Because it became 
engaged, our NATO Forces commenced their strikes against the Bosnian 
Serbs.
  Following that, there was a cease-fire and, following that, an 
agreement that the leaders of the warring factions would come to this 
country to try and work out a negotiated peace. None of that would have 
happened but for American leadership. There is no substitute for 
American leadership.
  Having brought about a cease-fire, now having brought about an 
agreement under our sponsorship, based upon a commitment that our 
forces would be committed, we make a terrible error if we now renege on 
that commitment. There are things about the commitment, the degree of 
the commitment and blemishes in the commitment that I think are 
unfortunate. But the bedrock of the matter is that we stand committed. 
If we renege upon it, our vital national security interests will be 
very materially and significantly adversely affected.
  We are the sole remaining world power, and we cannot be engaged 
militarily certainly anywhere and everywhere where there is strife in 
this world. But certainly if, having given this commitment, we renege 
upon it, say goodbye to the NATO alliance. Others may tell you 
otherwise, but I have no doubt that what it will, cripple it. Say 
goodbye to America playing a role and being credible in all of the far-
flung corners of the globe, where the United States can make a 
difference in terms of promoting stability and peace, which are in our 
national security interests.
  I must oppose the Dornan resolution.
  There is not and has not been a substantial question as to whether 
America has a role to play in seeking a peaceful conclusion to the war 
in Bosnia. It is an immutable fact of history that our country is the 
world's premier superpower. We did not seek that role; it has devolved 
upon us as a by-product of history in this century.
  The international activism of President Theodore Roosevelt, followed 
by our being compelled to enter World War I to facilitate the triumph 
over the forces of aggression and totalitarianism, had consequences. We 
were right recognized as a major would power.
  Unfortunately, after World War I, we withdrew from the world stage. 
We refused to participate in the League of Nations despite the fact 
that it was our creation. We stood by and watched Fascism come to power 
in Italy and Germany. We offered no meaningful opposition to Hitler as 
he marched into the Rhineland or to Mussolini as he attacked Ethiopia 
and marched into Croatia. We offered no resistance to Hitler's 
dismemberment of Czechoslovakia or to the invasion of Poland, which 
ultimately lead England and France to belatedly challenge Nazi Germany 
after it had rearmed.
  Only after the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor did we enter World 
War II and again make possible the defeat of aggressive and repressive 
totalitarianism. Based on the disastrous agreement struck with Stalin 
at Yalta, we saw all the Balkan, Eastern Europe and Baltic states come 
under the yoke of communism and an iron curtain descend across Europe. 
We committed ourselves to helping Greece and Turkey from falling prey 
to communism. We initiated the Marshall Plan to save Western Europe 
from sinking into economic collapse and communist influence. We 
negotiated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] as a bulwark 
against the expansion of the Soviet Union. In 1950, we led a United 
Nations' effort to defeat the conquest of South Korea by the North 
Korean communists.
  It could be argued that we could--or should--have remained disengaged 
from 

[[Page H14829]]
these situations because they were not our problems. Fortunately, we 
did not. Soviet influence was contained after a struggle of more than 
40 years. We led the free world in defeating Soviet imperial designs 
and the nations of Eastern Europe were freed of Communist regimes 
accountable to Moscow. This is an incredible record; one every American 
should reflect on with pride.
  There is no disputing that the historic events of this century have 
conferred upon the United States a status that is significant and 
unavoidable. We are the superpower. what our country thinks, the 
position it takes, and how it acts are vitally important factors in 
every area of the globe. Only a fully engaged United States could have 
put together the grand coalition that defeated Iraq in the Gulf War, 
when Sadaam Hussein's aggression threatened our security interests. No 
one can conclude that this aggression would have been resolved without 
American leadership.
  The break-up of powerful empires has throughout history been attended 
by political and economic instability, which is anathema to democratic 
governments and inimical to the maintenance of peace. Surely, few would 
argue that we have no interest in encouraging democracy and peace. The 
absence of either runs counter to our moral view and, as history has 
shown in certain areas--as in Europe--contrary to our national security 
interest.
  None of this argues that we are the world's policeman, or should 
conduct ourself as an international busybody. We should, however, be 
engaged where our influence serves a constructive purpose in spreading 
or supporting democracy, even if no American military or economic 
commitment is contemplated or appropriate. Against this background, I 
approach the question of what is the role of this country in the 
Balkans and in seeking to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovenia. Due 
to the troubled history of this region through the centuries, and the 
nature of the ethnic, religious, and nationalistic forces at play 
there, the peace of Europe has not only been threatened but conflict 
has occurred.
  When the former Yugoslavia broke up in 1991, the United States 
remained largely detached and chose to defer to its European allies to 
deal with the problem. This was an understandable view, but events have 
proven it unrealistic. Without the United States taking an active part, 
there exists a deficiency in leadership adequate to bring about an end 
to the war in Bosnia and to discourage its spread. NATO allies deployed 
thousands of troops on the ground and sustained a number of casualties, 
but the troops and their diplomacy failed to produce a comprehensive 
peace agreement.
  With Americans successfully insisting upon NATO air strikes against 
the Bosnia Serbs, and Croatian-Bosnian Moslem successes, the warring 
parties were induced by U.S. diplomacy to come to the bargaining table. 
But for the stature of the United States, this would not have happened, 
and vital to it happening was a commitment that the United States would 
play a part in the peacekeeping forces that would be put in place 
following the signing of a peace agreement. That such an agreement has 
been concluded is a triumph of American diplomacy and a tribute to this 
country's standing as a force for good, for peace and for democracy. 
How can we bring the parties to the bargaining table based on a 
commitment of our involvement, induce them to agree to peace, and then 
walk away from that commitment?
  If we refuse to honor the commitment, it will have consequences. 
These consequences would be significant and would affect our vital 
national security interest. If we falter, it would have deleterious 
implications for our most important national security relationship: the 
NATO alliance. It would be a low blow from which the alliance could 
likely never recover. That presents a clear and vital national security 
concern for this country.
  Should we shrink from our proper role in implementing the peace 
agreement negotiated under and as a result of our sponsorship, this 
country will have lost not face, but credibility throughout the world. 
It would have an impact in this hemisphere, throughout Europe, Asia and 
the Middle East--in short, everywhere. A superpower sought as a force 
for stability and peace that chooses to disengage, especially when it 
made a commitment to be involved, defaults as a leader. Such a default 
creates a vacuum of power no other nation is capable of filling. Such a 
circumstance is the basis from which instability and conflict are born 
and this defeats our vital national interests.
  We have supported expansion of NATO over the reluctance of some of 
our NATO allies. If we refuse to lead in implementing the peace 
agreement we procured our policy of expanding NATO will be nullified. 
NATO could well contract, not expand. Resumption of the conflict 
between Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Croats will not necessarily 
lead to expansion of conflicts throughout the Balkans, but if it 
resumes because the United States refuses to play it proper role, the 
risk of new and wider conflict in the Balkans increases. A signal that 
we are not concerned and are unwilling to take some risk for peace is a 
signal that we would not regard conflict between Albanian, Macedonian, 
Bulgarian, Greek, or Turkish ethnic, religious, or nationalistic 
elements as adversely affecting our national interest. To send such a 
signal would be a tragic mistake, for there are those who would 
certainly receive that signal and become more inclined to act upon it.
  I repeat, the issue should not be whether there is an important role 
we need and should play in bringing peace to Bosnia and Herzogovenia. 
We do, we should, we must play our proper role. President Clinton 
deserves recognition for ultimately becoming engaged and for using our 
unique standing to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. 
He was right to do so. In fact, it should have been done earlier. 
President Clinton was correct to signal that, if a peace agreement was 
reached, we would play a role in seeing it implemented.
  To have specified a commitment of 20,000 to 25,000 American ground 
forces, even before the military mission and the size of the total 
force could be determined, however, was a ridiculous mistake. We will 
undoubtedly have a very heavy responsibility for the air and sealift 
for the peace implementation force. We will provide the medical care, 
command and control, most of the intelligence function and the combat 
air support. This being the case, there should have been no need for us 
to comprise a third or more of the ground forces. This is a 
disproportionate burden for us, measured by what our NATO and other 
allies can and should be expected to do. The President should be 
seeking to reduce the burden we accepted to a more equitable level.
  American and the other forces deployed to implement the peace 
agreement must be perceived and in fact be neutral, not protagonists of 
one or the other of the warring parties. To be viewed as favoring one 
side risks the permanence of the peace and enhances the risk of 
casualties for the American forces.
  There are provisions of the Dayton peace agreement that wisely impose 
a moratorium for a period of months on the acquisition of arms by the 
formerly warring parties. It properly calls for negotiation of a 
disarmament regime to bring the conflicting parties to a state of 
parity in aggregate military capability, which should serve to deter 
renewal of the conflict. This is eminently sound, and we must exert 
intense diplomatic influences to promote military parity through 
disarmament. If the effort succeeds, there would be no need for us to 
arm and train the Muslims unless it was done within the framework of 
such an agreement. If the disarmament effort does not succeed, the 
Dayton agreement, by its items, provides that after 180 days there 
should be an agreed self-executing military parity between the parties 
using as a baseline the military resources of the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia. Based on the terms of the agreement, the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia would be permitted 75 percent of the baseline, with the 
Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzogovenia each 
allocated 30 percent of the baseline.
  If we make it clear that we will not provide arms to any faction 
except under the specific condition that it is done to provide and 
protect the military parity to which the parties have agreed, we can 
preserve the mutual, even-handed posture our role as a peacekeeper 
requires. The earlier the President spells it out, the less likely any 
role we ultimately undertake to arm and train Muslim forces will be 
perceived as constituting a hostile presence by the other parties.
  Our NATO allies have opposed arming the Bosnian Muslims. Should the 
United States proceed to do so while there is an ongoing NATO 
deployment, and without the concurrence of the North Atlantic Council, 
it would threaten alliance solidarity. This would place us on a 
slippery slope we would do well to avoid. If we do as I suggest it 
should be acceptable to our NATO allies because our actions would be 
consistent with the Dayton agreement that they have endorsed.
  I oppose any American forces being deployed to implement the peace 
agreement negotiated in Dayton until or unless it has been formally 
accepted by all the parties. Our role is not to make peace when the 
parties wish to continue the conflict. Our mission is to implement and 
help build mutual confidence among former warring factions who purport 
to want and have agreed to peace. If those parties by their conduct 
cast doubt upon whether they indeed desire the peace they ask us to 
implement, we should not put our forces in harm's way.
  The agreement initialed in Dayton spells out a number of specific 
measures the warring parties pledged to implement within a specified 
period of time. Those measures include the departure of foreign forces 
such as the Islamic fundamentalists, whose presence is a threat to NATO 
troops. The warring parties also agreed to comply with the October 5, 

[[Page H14830]]
1995, ceasefire and to refrain from all offensive operations of any 
kind, to disarm and disband all armed civilian groups and to avoid 
committing reprisals or counterattacks in response to violations of the 
agreement. The parties committed to begin promptly and proceed steadily 
to withdraw all forces behind a zone of separation. The parties are to 
account for all prisoners and to release them no later than 30 days 
after the date of the ``transfer of authority,'' which is the date on 
which the U.N. commander transfers authority to the Implementation 
Force [I-FOR] commander.

  The I-FOR implementation of the military aspects of the agreement 
should be delayed until the warring parties have demonstrated their 
willingness to discharge the obligations spelled out in Dayton by their 
leaders. If this is not done it will signify that they do not accept 
and will not comply with the reasonable measures required of them. In 
that event there will be no peace to implement and I-FOR, from the 
outset, would be injected into a combat mission.
  The Clinton administration is insisting that our deployment of forces 
in Bosnia will last approximately 1 year. That is not an exit strategy, 
only a more or less arbitrary date. I am sympathetic to the declaration 
of a date for the withdrawal of American military forces from Bosnia, 
and it should be understood that if the need exists for a continued 
deployment beyond 1 year that the forces that remain will be comprised 
from contingents supplied from other nations. While establishment of 
fixed dates to conclude operations is generally ill-advised, a 1-year 
deadline for participation of American forces should be sufficient to 
ensure that the conditions in Bosnia are stabilized to the extent that 
any continued deployment could be sustained by non-United States 
forces.
  As I have said, we do have a role to play in bringing peace to 
Bosnia. In 1 year we will have fairly and fully played that role and 
will have created conditions where non-U.S. forces should be fully 
adequate. The President should immediately communicate this position to 
our allies.
  Our commitment of ground forces is based upon more than the 
initialing of words on a piece of paper. It is predicated upon the 
premise that the warring parties truly desire peace and will comply 
with the actions they have pledged to take. If they do not, the 
conditions for our commitment of forces will not have been met and U.S. 
personnel should not be deployed. In this context, the recent 
repudiation of the Dayton agreement by Bosnian Serb military leaders 
and the statements of French Gen. Jean-Rene Bachelet are particularly 
worrisome. Before we proceed with the deployment of our personnel, we 
should insist on assurances through confidence-building measures that 
the Bosnian Serbs want peace and under the terms of the Dayton 
agreement.
  The securing of peace in Bosnia and stability in the Balkans is a 
noble objective that serves American interests and justifies our 
accepting some measured risk of casualties. Every drop of blood of 
American military personnel is precious, yet to shrink from our forces 
being engaged because there might be some casualties argues for doing 
away with our military. An American policy that shrinks from honoring 
commitments because there might be casualties is an invitation to 
future disaster. Our national interests throughout the globe would be 
imperiled if we prove unwilling to honor a major commitment.
  If we are steadfast, we reenforce freedom, decency and stability 
throughout the world. To be otherwise would lead to instability and 
upheaval in many areas that are important to our Nation's peace and 
security.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Ms. DeLauro] with whom I 
visited Bosnia this past weekend.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of American troops and 
in support of the United States mission in Bosnia.
  The debate we have here today is as much about America's future as it 
is about Bosnia. Our vote today will send a message about our country's 
future role in NATO. If we walk away today, we will have relinquished 
our leadership role in the international community.
  The human tragedy in Bosnia is beyond description. A quarter of a 
million people have been killed in 3 years of senseless slaughter. If 
we fail to enforce the Dayton peace agreement, we turn our backs on 
those who have suffered from mass rape, ethnic cleansing, and other 
unspeakable horrors.
  In the face of this moral crisis, we must be willing to step forward 
and lead. It is what great nations such as ours have always done. Moral 
leadership in the world is part of the price of being the world's sole 
superpower.
  Over the weekend, I joined a factfinding trip to Bosnia. I admit that 
I went with strong reservations about our military mission there, but I 
have returned with the knowledge that our troops are ready and our 
mission is clear. I have also returned with a belief that we have a 
moral obligation to do what only a U.S.-led force can do: keep the 
peace.
  One of the highlights of our trip was a stopover in Germany to visit 
with American troops who will be deployed in the coming weeks. While 
there, I had a chance to speak with a young soldier from New London, 
CT, Private Jarion Clarke. Private Clark told me that he is well-
trained, has faith in his leaders, and believes in the United States 
mission in Bosnia.
  I asked Private Clarke what I could do for him: ``Tell the American 
people that we are ready and we need their support,'' he said. So, that 
is the message I bring. Our soldiers need our support. They deserve our 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dornan, and Buyer 
resolution. Vote for the Hamilton resolution. The only measure that 
clearly says to American men and women in uniform is that we stand 
behind them.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I too, just returned from Bosnia. Let me 
summarize what I learned.
  First, no one in the Balkans wants to be part of a minority. 
Minorities get raped and killed. This fact caused the refugee problem. 
My impression is that there is a difference in commitment by the 
signers of the treaty on how to handle these refugees. One party wants 
them to return to their homes and villages. The other argues that this 
will recreate the conditions that led to the conflict in the first 
place. They argue for humanitarian aid to resettle these refugees in 
safer places. This is a crucial difference that bears on the long-term 
chances for success and peace.
  Second, there is clearly unhappiness with the territorial provisions 
of the accord by both the Bosnians and the Serbs. The Bosnian Serbs 
feel they were betrayed, and the Bosnian Moslems do not like the 
territorial provisions either. They only signed on with the condition 
that the United States arm and train them.
  This brings us to the third major area of disagreement, the level of 
rearming of the Bosnian Serbs. There were reports in the press 
indicating that the Bosnian Moslems want training for 18 brigades and 
want to be supplied with 200 tanks and 200 armed vehicles. Mr. 
Milosevic on the other hand thinks that all parties should 
proportionally downsize. This difference of interpretation of the 
treaty does not bode well for long-term peace.
  Mr. Speaker, the technical requirements of the plan are 
contradictory. Will our troops be policemen or not? Nation builders or 
not? I asked a senior military official what would happen if in his 
sector the Bosnians or the Serbs started to harass a civilian 
population, would he respond or not. He said, why yes. Well, if he 
does, then he has now taken sides. We now have the U.S. military in a 
civil war.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an alternative. Lift the arms embargo, provide 
relief aid, provide the same air support, the same logistical support. 
It is not too late. The best answer is Dornan.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I was fortunate to lead, with 
Congressman Dennis Hastert of Illinois, a CODEL which visited Italy, 
Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Germany. We met with the President of 
Croatia, the Prime Minister of Bosnia, the President of Serbia, IFOR 
commanders, and U.S. troops who were preparing for deployment. The 
CODEL sought to answer six questions: What is the United States stake 
in Bosnia? Can the IFOR mission be accomplished? Are there risks to our 
troops? How do you separate military from civilian responsibilities? 
How do you measure the success of the missions, and what happens if 
they are not working? What should be done to maximize IFOR's success?
  Adm. Leighton Smith, commander of the American forces south, and the 
other American generals and officers who briefed the CODEL were 
confident that the IFOR mission is achievable because IFOR has a clear 
mandate, substantial firepower, and the desire of the 

[[Page H14831]]
parties involved to settle this conflict. Each head of government with 
whom we met also expressed confidence that the Dayton signatories would 
meet their obligations because, as President Tudjman said, ``Without 
the direct involvement of the United States, peace in Bosnia is not 
possible.
  Implementation of the Dayton agreement is necessary and only the 
United States and NATO can do it.
  There are risks. The roads are poor and the danger of accidents is 
high. Snipers, car bombs, land mines, and mortar fire are all potential 
threats. The presence of an unknown number of Mujahedeen fighters may 
be a problem, especially if they decide they do not want to leave 
Bosnia.
  Clearly, there are many unknowns. Neither the U.S. Congress, our 
military leaders, our NATO allies, or the signatories to the Dayton 
agreement can promise that our involvement is without risk. But we do 
know that the Dayton signatories. both the politicians and the people 
they represent said they want peace. And they believe that peace and 
stability can be reached only with our assistance. As Prime Minister 
Silajdzic of Bosnia said, ``This move by your President is a courageous 
move, a farreaching move. It is extremely important to grasp this 
change for peace. Because if Dayton doesn't work nothing will work. We 
cannot have peace without a stable buffer, a bridge. That is why we 
need NATO troops. No other organization can do it. We need your help to 
make pace, not war.''
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is as much about our role in the world as it 
is about our role in this conflict. Today we are deciding how involved 
we want to be in shaping the world around us. In the past 72 hours two 
persons have put our role into perspective for me. The first was 
Admiral Smith. When asked about the United States national interest in 
Bosnia, he replied that the wrong questions was being posed. He stated: 
``The question is about U.S. 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, are our allies and friends going to be with us? 
Probably not.''

  The second person was Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, during his 
address to the joint session of Congress, when he said that the United 
States has ``. . . save[d] the globe from three of its greatest 
menaces: nazi tyranny, Japanese militarism and the communist 
challenge.'' When he spoke of Palestinian democracy and peace with 
Israel's enemies, he said ``three years ago such a prospect would have 
been a fantasy. All of this would not be attainable were it not for the 
American involvement and support for our efforts.''
  Mr. Speaker, every person voting in this Chamber today must decide 
right now what kind of world he or she wants to live in. We are clearly 
the most powerful country in the world. We have a strong military, a 
stable government, robust civil rights, and a reputation for constantly 
recreating ourselves to make America a better, more equitable country. 
And it is because of our vibrant, democratic traditions that the rest 
of the world looks to us for leadership. We talk a good game in this 
body, passing resolutions to say this and sense of Congress' to say 
that, but if we do not support our good intentions with actions, then 
our words will lose meaning and our good intentions and strong words 
will be a joke worldwide.
  I, for one, believe in American leadership and I believe, as one of 
the American generals said to me, that the people of Bosnia, Serbia, 
and Croatia, need a period of decency. I want to give them that period 
of decency by helping to secure their peace.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of our Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I also was in Bosnia last weekend, and I 
met some of the troops that are going to carry out this plan. I had my 
picture taken with them, and I got a medal from them, from the First 
Armored Division. They are good people, and they deserve our support.
  They were sent by the President to work with NATO to separate warring 
parties and hopefully keep those people from killing one another.
  Now those parties have gone to Dayton, and they have signed a peace 
accord, and that accord says that our troops are there to assure the 
peace, not to make war, not to rebuild Bosnia, not to aid refugees, not 
to remove mines, not to disarm the parties, not to arm or train the 
Muslims. They are there to keep the peace, and they are well-trained, 
and well-equipped. They are prepared for the mission, and they will 
shoot to defend themselves, if necessary.
  But hopefully they will not have to.
  Now, I have opposed the circumstances which have brought us to this 
point. I cannot change history however. The Commander in Chief of our 
armed forces has deployed our troops in what he says is in our national 
interest, and at this point I can only repeat what the local commander 
of our forces told me as recently as this Monday. He said, ``Don't let 
the Congress do anything which sends a message to these kids that you 
in Congress aren't in full support of their efforts.'' Mr. Speaker, I 
intend to follow his advice, and I intend to support our troops in and 
out of Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the buyer resolution, I will vote for 
the Hamilton resolution, and I will give our troops the resources that 
they need to do their job and come home.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another 
Floridian, Mr. Peterson, a distinguished veteran who, I might add, had 
a very significant hand in allowing that the fighter pilots from France 
were released.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have a peace treaty. We did 
not sign it, we did not initial it, but the combatants in the war in 
Bosnia, all three, did.
  This is an unusual opportunity for America. We have always had the 
opportunity to risk war, and we have done so every time that there was 
any national interest at stake. We have done that willingly, we have 
done that as a governmental body, we have done that as a nation.
  What a wonderful opportunity to have today. We can risk peace. Yes, 
we can risk peace.
  What happens if we fail? What happens if we fail in our effort to 
seek peace? We have war.
  This is a no-brainer to me. Never have I in my career had the 
opportunity to go for peace. Our troops are going to Bosnia to 
implement a peaceful settlement that all three of the combatants have 
agreed to.
  No one, I do not think can say that anything that happens in Europe 
is not of interest to us. The cost of being a superpower is that 
virtually anything that happens on this planet affects this Nation, and 
what is happening in Bosnia and in the Balkans right now is in fact 
affecting this Nation, and it will affect it even more if we do 
nothing. We have a very shallow window of opportunity to grab peace, 
and we should grab it with both hands, wrap out arms around it, and 
take it to the Balkans.
  If we fail to do so, my colleagues, there is no doubt in my mind, 
having just visited that area, that we will have an expansion of this 
war to Kosovo, which will then trigger the Albanian input, which will 
then probably bring Macedonia in, which will then bring in Turkey, 
which will then bring in Greece, and then what do we have? We have the 
potential for World War III.
  Mr. Speaker, we have history behind us that takes us back to World 
War I and World War II, both of which began in the Balkans. Do not let 
us help that start World War III. Support our troops and support the 
policy.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute, 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], a member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members of Congress 
to examine the exact document which is called the peace agreement, 
especially the military annex which is attached to it, and to compare 
the rules of engagement there with the statement put out by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff of the United States, and those rules of engagement 
contradict each other. In the one put out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
it says we are not to be involved in moving any people or 

[[Page H14832]]
equipment out of the demilitarized zone, we are not to be involved in 
any type of disarmament, and yet the NATO troops, in the military annex 
attached the peace agreement, gives our troops that type of power.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of defining the mission to send our 
beloved troops to a country that has experienced war for 1,500 years. I 
support the troops. I do not believe it is wise to send them, but I 
support the troops.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our 
time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn].
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, having just returned from Bosnia, I 
was appalled at the devastation in Sarajevo. I did not see a single 
building that had not been damaged by the shelling of the sniper fire, 
and it is very, very clear that something has to be done, but I came 
back convinced that the President had made a horrible mistake in the 
decision to send our troops there.
  We had an opportunity to listen to our military commanders tell us 
about how the troops are going to get in and how we are going to deal 
with the planning for casualties, how we have planned for 
communications, but when we asked about the exit strategy, there was no 
plan. We do not have a plan, how we are going to get our troops out of 
there. There was an alternative, and the plan was to lift the arms 
embargo and allow the Bosnians to defend themselves, and in meetings 
with the leaders in Bosnia the vice-president of Bosnia said point 
blank, ``We didn't ask for your troops, we didn't need your troops. 
What we needed was the ability to defend ourselves, and you denied us 
that.''
  Nevertheless we need to understand today that there are troops there 
and troops on the way. Nothing we do tonight is going to stop the 
deployment. We are beyond that now. Congress is often faced with bad 
options, and President Clinton has given us bad options, but tonight we 
can choose to support the troops.
  I am going to vote no on Dornan and support the alternative so we can 
do everything possible to allow our troops who are well trained and 
well equipped to do a job that they should not have been asked to do.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
yielding time to me.
  There has been a fair amount of confusion on the floor here today 
about the thought process. One idea is we should support the troops by 
sending them there. The best way to support the troops is to keep them 
from going there.
  Then there was a statement about how we are there to wage peace. I 
have never seen it waged with tanks and guns and bullets. I think if 
you are going to wage peace, you do not send in the U.S. Army. The U.S. 
Army goes into places to crush, kill, and destroy. That is what they 
are real good at. I do not understand this idea of waging peace with 
tanks and weapons. If there is a peace, there is no need for 
peacekeepers. They have peace. If there is not a peace, then our people 
are peacemakers and that makes them, I think, combatants in a 
centuries-old civil war.
  Then there is the thought we have to contain the conflict. It is like 
world War II, we are told. Think again. World War II, two key 
differences: No. 1, a pernicious, expansionistic ideology that wanted 
to control the world. There is no pernicious, expansionistic ideology 
here. This is the normal inhumanity of man against man, normal hatred. 
It is around the globe. It is in Rwanda, it is in China, it is all 
over. No pernicious expansionistic ideology.
  The second key difference between World War II and now, in World War 
II we were not prepared. Now we are prepared. We learned after World 
War II you prepare for peace by preparing for war, and you stand ready 
with that strength under control. We can contain the conflict no matter 
where it goes in that region.
  The sober judgment we need to bring right now is very simple: Is 
there an American security interest at risk? I would submit, that is 
the threshold question before you send troops anywhere: Is there an 
American security interest at risk? Clearly there is not in the 
Balkans. The only way to send that message is to support the 
gentleman's alternative.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, for me the most important priority is to support our 
servicemen and women. The President has made his decision. While I am 
angry that he has made it without consultation to Congress and with the 
American people, we need to back up our troops 100 percent. Our actions 
tonight should send this message loudly and clearly to them as they 
prepare to go, because 25 years ago I was one of them in Vietnam. I was 
sent on a mission that bitterly divided this country and this House, 
but I learned then, as I know now, that our troops deserve nothing less 
than the undivided support of this House and all the resources 
necessary to support their mission. Please support the Buyer 
resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in 1954 one of my heroes, 
Senator John Stennis, spoke against sending American mechanics to a 
little country called South Vietnam. He said that we would get drawn 
into a land war that we could not win, in a part of the world that 
people did not care about. John C. Stennis was right. We did get sucked 
into it. Then when that happened, he did his constitutional duty to 
support those troops.
  What I am asking this body to do tonight is to prevent us from 
getting sucked into another war where other brave young Americans will 
die, be maimed, in a part of the world that Americans just do not care 
about. It is not a right or wrong decision, it is what is best for the 
American young men and women who have sworn to defend this country.
  The best thing for those fine young people is not to waste their 
lives, and above all, do not abuse their trust. They swore to defend 
the Constitution of this country. They swore to defend this country. We 
are not even a participant on this treaty. Vote for the Dornan 
alternative.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking 
member of the Committee on National Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] is recognized for 4\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, we come to the end of the general debate on 
this very significant and important issue. All of us in this room come 
to this debate from our various reference points. My reference point in 
this debate is as a peace advocate who came here 25 years ago to 
challenge militarism and to challenge the concept of military 
intervention. We opposed the war in Vietnam, military intervention in 
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, opposed our military intervention in 
the Persian Gulf.
  We now find ourselves in the throes of a new era, an era referred to 
as the post-cold-war era, a period marked with change, with transition, 
a period pregnant with challenges and with opportunities.
  But I would hasten to observe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very 
interesting and fascinating disconnect in this country at this moment. 
At the grass roots level, the bedrock of a democracy, the American 
people look to Washington to say, ``What do we do, leaders, in this new 
post-cold-war era?'' The leaders in Washington, us being politicians 
who tend to poll, measure, count the votes, weight the mail and count 
the telephone calls, are saying, ``No, you tell us,'' so there is a 
great disconnect. Most politicians are not willing to step into a 
period of transition to lead. That is risky. Many American people are 
saying in this period of 

[[Page H14833]]
transition, ``Tell us where to go.'' It is very difficult.

  I am prepared to accept the challenge. I step into this breach. My 
argument, Mr. Speaker, is that yes, this is a period of change and 
transition, challenge and opportunity; perhaps wrongly, but I believe 
that this post-cold-war era has presented us with a significant enemy, 
and that enemy is war itself, war itself. The great challenge is the 
challenge of peace. The great opportunity is to bring the world, 
kicking and screaming, to peace.
  Perhaps wrongly, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that in my entire adult 
lifetime we have been given a magnificent gift, the gift of the post-
cold-war world, an opportunity to step forward boldly and bring about 
significant change in America and in the world. I believe that this is 
the first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that we truly have to challenge the 
whole notion of the use of force and the making of war as an instrument 
of foreign policy, the first time; the first time we truly, as adults, 
can challenge these whole bizarre and barbaric ideas of using force to 
kill and maim and harm, and using war as an instrument of foreign 
policy.
  I have lived long enough, Mr. Speaker, to come to this moment where 
we now truly have an opportunity to talk about the issue of peace. The 
transition that we are in, the pain that we feel, I believe is that we 
are witnessing the transition from war to peace, from warmaking to 
peacekeeping, from risking war to risking peace. These painful steps 
into the future, into the unknown, into transition, into change, are 
fraught with challenges. They are difficult.
  Peacekeeping is a new concept, a new lexicon, not worn easily by 
politicians, not understood by the American people. It is not something 
we have done, but I believe that it is something that we need to do as 
we move into the post-cold-war world with respect to Bosnia. The moral 
imperative is as follows: If you encourage a group of people to come 
off the bloody battlefield of killing and maiming and raping and 
plundering, and move them to the negotiating table, and they come with 
a product, perfect or imperfect, good or bad, liked or disliked, a 
product, a peace plan, and then they say to you, ``He has murdered my 
son, I murdered his daughter, he murdered my mother, I murdered his 
father, we murdered 16,000 of our children and 250,000 of our 
neighbors. So while we have come to a peace plan, we do not rest easy 
with each other. We are paranoid about each other. We are fearful about 
each other. So stand in the way for a while to allow a period of 
transition as we move from the bloody battlefield to the issue of 
peace; so help us at this moment, because we are fearful. We have 
killed many of them.''
  The moral question then is do you reject that notion? What is a peace 
advocate in a post-cold-war world? Do we walk away from that?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, when 6 million Jews were being killed during 
the period of Nazi Germany, as we looked back at that moment we said, 
``How could that have occurred? Killing 6 million people is terrible.'' 
But there are 250,000 people dying in Bosnia. So what triggers your 
moral imperative? Six million people? Two hundred fifty thousand 
people? Where do you get upset?
  Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying I think our role is one of 
peace. I think we have a responsibility to walk into this period as 
peacekeepers. I think we must address the moral imperative to play our 
significant role in the world. I think we ought to reject any effort to 
do anything less than that.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I also went to Bosnia to meet our troops on the way in 
Germany and to receive a coin from the First Armored Division. This 
coin I plan to carry for the next 12 months, so I keep them in my 
thoughts and prayers. But this is a civil war. This is not a religious 
war. Only three of the five parties have initialed off this peace 
agreement.
  Today, Bosnian Croats who did not initial this agreement are burning 
Bosnian Herzegovinian villages. This week they released a known war 
criminal. Bosnian Serbs, who also did not sign this peace agreement or 
initial this peace agreement, have two war criminals still commanding 
troops. This is an incomplete agreement. There will be no peace without 
justice. These people must be brought to justice.
  This is just a trial separation before the divorce. We are giving 
them the opportunity to rest and rearm. We need to create other 
opportunities for peace, opportunities that will be there without 
sacrificing our young men and women. That is why I support the Dornan 
bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed at how the sides 
change here. Many of the same people who have been telling us for 20 
years that we can no longer be the world's policeman are now coming to 
the floor saying, ``We must be the world's policeman,'' even when there 
is not a direct vital American interest worth dying for. Who said that? 
The Secretary of Defense, Secretary Perry, in Philadelphia, said there 
was not a direct vital American interest involved. So do we as a 
Congress have a right to stand up and say something? Yes. That is our 
constitutional right. Yet it amazes me that Republicans as well as 
Democrats say it is all the President's prerogative.
  James Madison, the framer of the Constitution, in 1792 wrote to 
Thomas Jefferson and said the following:

       The Constitution supposes what the history of all 
     governments demonstrate: that the executive is the branch of 
     power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has, 
     accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in 
     the legislature.

  It is our responsibility. Support Dornan and support the troops.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of our 
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] is recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult subject for me 
to even speak about. It is wrapped with emotion, it is wrapped with 
anger, and it is wrapped with pain. I do not think, no matter what you 
vote for today, if you vote for the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan], I am against sending the troops to Bosnia. I think if you vote 
for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], that is a message, 
again, that you do not want to do that. The Senate is not going to pick 
it up. I think that is an acceptable vote.
  If you vote for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] to support our troops in what 
they are doing, I think that is acceptable, also, and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] as well. I am not concerned so much about 
the vote today, Mr. Speaker, as I am in the future.
  Many of us served overseas. In 1968, President Johnson stopped the 
bombing over in North Vietnam. Our hands were tied.

                              {time}  1845

  I watched friends of mine die. They did not have to die. We had Mogia 
and Van Kari and Ban Nappi Pass where we could see supplies coming 
through, and we could not stop them.
  There was an ROE that you had to wait until a MiG shot at you first 
before you could shoot back. No Member of Congress ever devised that 
ROE. They never strapped their rear end into a fighter.
  I looked at the thousands of my friends that died over there when we 
could not hit the SAM sites and we could not mine the harbors. Yet when 
President Nixon came up, he let us do that.
  My concern is in the future because there are going to be some tough 
votes. There are a lot of people here in this body that will do 
anything they can to cut defense. It is a legitimate issue. They would 
rather put it in social spending. But in the future, we are going to 
have to vote, ladies and gentlemen, on supporting our troops. Make sure 
that you do.
  Another area that kills me, not just under this President. Lebanon 
was a disaster, to tie down our Marines. 

[[Page H14834]]
Those kids died and they did not have to die. In Somalia, we have gone 
through the reasons why our troopers died. It is because we did not 
give them the support, the votes in this Congress and the President. 
Not just this President but other Presidents.
  My real concern, Mr. Speaker, is the future. Because the votes are 
going to be tough. You are going to have to increase defense dollars 
probably if we get tied in there. I would ask my colleagues that want 
to cut defense, that want to cut defense, think about the amendments 
and the bills that you are going to vote for and all of them, because 
what you are saying is that you are going to support these kids. It is 
important. Do not forget the way you vote today.
  Most of us have lost too many friends. There are 30 kids that fought 
in Vietnam and in Desert Storm that because of Tailhook are not passing 
and making Captain or Commander because there are certain people that 
would exacerbate that. Some of these kids had nothing to do with 
Tailhook. But yet the Senate failed to confirm them.
  I would ask you, when we ask our men and our women to place their 
lives on the line, do not forget those sacrifices. Because we have over 
and over and over again, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask, think about your 
vote but carry it on after today.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the deployment of United States troops to the former 
Yugoslavia.
  I have consistently voted to lift the arms embargo levied on the 
Bosnian Moslems. I firmly believe that President Bush and President 
Clinton were wrong in their policy to continue the arms embargo on 
Bosnia. The Bosnians have the right, as a sovereign people, to defend 
themselves against any form of aggression. By continuing the arms 
embargo, the United States and its allies have perpetuated the 
slaughter of innocent people.
  I applaud the Dayton peace agreement initialed by the warring 
factions and the agreement to begin to re-arm the Bosnian Moslems in an 
attempt to return a balance of power to the region. However, I am 
skeptical of the agreement because all parties have not initialed the 
agreement and I have viewed very vocal and extremely aggressive anti-
American sentiments in Bosnia. The peace is tenuous at best.
  I have long questioned the role of the United States as the policeman 
of the world. Clearly there are other conflicts around the world that 
need policing, yet, no one has called for the use of the United States 
military. Not one Member of Congress has claimed that these conflicts 
are in the national interest of the United States or worth one drop of 
American blood. Still, Members call for American troops to sacrifice 
for the Bosnian civil war.
  During the debate surrounding the deployment of United States troops 
to the Persian Gulf, many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
isle derided the deployment as the United States in the role of world 
policeman. These same Members are now supporting the deployment of 
troops to Bosnia because they claim that it is the duty of the United 
States to lead the world in policing the civil war.
  Let me simply suggest to those Members: this is not the Persian Gulf. 
The United States deployed troops to the Persian Gulf as a direct 
result of military aggression by Iraq against Kuwait. The Bosnian 
deployment is a result of a weak peace agreement between warring 
factions of a centuries-old civil war that represents no risk to United 
States national security.
  I do not support the deployment of troops to Bosnia because the 
President has not convinced me, my constituents, or the majority of 
Americans of the need for this military action. Yes, I recognize the 
authority of the President to commit troops, but I also recognize the 
authority of the U.S. Congress to authorize the use of the military. 
The President, after repeated requests by this body, has neglected to 
seek Congressional authorization for the deployment of the troops. For 
this reason I supported Mr. Dornan's bill to refuse to fund the 
military action in Bosnia.
  The President has truly failed in his attempt to convince the 
American people that one American life is worth peace in Bosnia. My 
constituency is not convinced. Overwhelmingly, my constituents have 
written to me to oppose the deployment of troops to Bosnia. I will not 
allow this Nation to become the policeman for a regional civil war that 
has raged for hundreds of years and still simmers below the surface of 
this peace agreement.
  I have supported the use of United States technical support and 
related assistance in the Bosnian theater. I did not oppose the use of 
United States airpower to protect the peackeepers in Bosnia because 
this is where the United States expertise lies. As the world leader in 
military technology, this is an acceptable role for the United States. 
However, I will not support the use of United States ground forces in 
the Bosnian theater. Ground support in the Balkans is the sole 
responsibility of the European nations. Europe has the singular 
obligation to protect the European continent and provide the force 
necessary to maintain peace in the European theater.
  Due to the lack of a cohesive mission strategy and the inability of 
the President to convince the majority of the American people that 
deployment of United States troops to Bosnia is essential, I cannot 
support the deployment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the peace that was brokered in Dayton that 
is supposed to resolve the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is 
nothing but a thin, glass wall waiting to be shattered. It is just 
another cease-fire that will once again be broken by discontented 
parties. To send American ground troops into the thick tension that 
still prevails is nothing short of a kamikaze mission.
  Many Bosnians want Americans to come and help enforce the peace 
established in Dayton. Unfortunately, this is not true peace. True 
peace does not require 60,000 foreign soldiers to police the streets. 
Bosnian Serbs living in Sarajevo are staging daily protests hoping that 
the peace settlement will be renegotiated. They are dissatisfied 
because under the Dayton agreement the suburbs of Sarajevo that they 
call home will be turned over to the newly created Croat-Muslim 
Federation, which most view as a fate worse than death. This one 
provision in a multifaceted agreement is enough for some to pick up 
arms once again. Because Bosnian Serbs are so discontent with the 
agreement, their leaders announced they would hold a referendum on 
December 12, to ask their citizens whether or not they should accept 
the Dayton peace plan.
  The fact that Croatian President Franco Tudjman, Serbian President 
Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic were able to 
sit down in one room together and over the course of a few weeks, 
create a plan for peace is, of course, nothing short of a miracle. 
President Clinton and his administration ought to be commended for 
accomplishing the unthinkable. The problem though is that only 
presidents and foreign ministers present agreed to stop the war; no one 
consulted the people. It is the people who have festered hatred in 
their hearts which has caused this civil war. There cannot be a 
workable peace solution unless the people want it, unless they are 
willing to put away their deep-seated hatred for one another and say 
enough is enough.
  This tenuous peace which 60,000 NATO troops must enforce will be led 
by American troops and was promised to the warring factions before the 
American public could have its say. In fact, the understanding of the 
three warring parties before they came to the peace table was that 
America would be there to monitor the final agreement. But we cannot 
send 20,000 of your young, vibrant men and women to enforce a peace 
that is not going to last. President Clinton has promised Bosnia the 
lives of thousands of our young people for 1 year. Does President 
Clinton really believe that hatred which spans to course of hundreds of 
years is going to be resolved in 1 year?
  Why do we want to subject our soldiers to the wrath of the Serbs? 
What will these young men and women be to angry Serbs? Targets. Targets 
of their frustration of being bombed by American-led NATO war planes. 
Targets for their frustration of losing large amounts of territory to 
Croatia this past summer. Targets for their frustration of being forced 
to accept a peace plan they do not agree to. Targets for the anger of 
Serbs who were bombed by Americans in Sarajevo. Targets along the slim 
stretch of land, Brcko, that the Serbs want expanded and handed over to 
them. And when our soldiers are not the targets of snipers they will be 
subject to the threat of thousands upon thousands of landmines that 
will be covered by the winter snow, Yes, the best way for factions who 
are reluctant to go along with the Dayton agreement to sabotage peace 
is for them to attack Americans.
  And why should Americans be deliberately put in harms way? What vital 
interest does America have in Bosnia? None. We have no vital interest 
in Bosnia. Secretary of State Warren Christopher called Bosnia ``the 
problem from Hell.'' Political leader for the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan 
Karadzic, who has the responsibility of drumming up support for the 
agreement said, ``What is wrong with the Dayton agreement is that it 
has created a new Beirut in Europe. It is going to bleed for decades.'' 
Why does this require that we put American lives on the ground in a 
country whose hatred is older than our Republic? This is a civil war 
that must be resolved by its own citizens. It took nothing short of a 
totalitarian regime to maintain the peace during this century. One year 
of peacekeeping will not solve 

[[Page H14835]]
their problems or further any of our interests. For this reason, Mr. 
Speaker, I will vote today for H.R. 2770 to prohibit the use of Federal 
funds from being used for the deployment of United States Armed Forces 
on the grounds of the Republic of Bosina and Herzegovina.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the President will be in Paris to 
witness the signing of the peace accord that will officially end the 
43-month war in Bosnia. The United States will be standing proud as the 
instigator of the process that took place last month in Dayton, at 
which the leaders of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia agreed to end the 
savage ethnic warfare that has claimed more than 250,000 lives over the 
past 4 years. This will be a great day for the people of Bosnia, and 
certainly a proud moment for those nations involved in the peace 
process. There is much work ahead in implementing the vision of 
peaceful coexistence in the Balkans, but with the determination of all 
of the NATO countries to extend the guarantee of European stability, it 
is truly a cause worth the effort.
  Under this agreement one state with a unified, constitutional 
government will be created. Free elections will be held throughout 
Bosnia next year. Territorial issues within Bosnia have been resolved, 
and within these boundaries, all Bosnians will have the right to move 
freely. Those displaced from their homes by the fighting will finally 
be able to return home. Best of all, perhaps, is that the parties have 
agreed to respect the human rights of all persons, and those 
individuals who have been responsible for the heinous crimes 
perpetrated against the Bosnian people will be brought to justice.
  This agreement represents great progress. While some of my colleagues 
here in the House today have expressed skepticism, I firmly believe 
that this peace can and will work. The leaders of all sides in this 
conflict have affirmed a true desire for peace on behalf of their 
people who are weary from the harshness of the conflict they've 
experienced. The people themselves have encouraged their respective 
leaders to follow the course of reconciliation.
  What is required to make this plan work is simple: a neutral 
intermediary to enforce the peace accords for a time sufficient to 
allow the establishment of the new government. Clearly, this role can 
only be served by NATO. No other international organization has the 
capacity and respect to undertake such a critical operation. The 
mission itself is one that NATO is particularly capable of 
accomplishing. But it is equally true that NATO cannot accomplish the 
task without the direct and substantial participation of the United 
States. We have an obligation to participate and we have a direct 
interest in doing so because of the impact on the stability of Europe. 
Without our agreement to join NATO on this endeavor, other nations 
would decline to participate and the peace would assuredly fail. And 
then the fierce fighting would resume.
  I am confident that our participation in this peacekeeping mission 
will be both limited and well-defined. U.S. troops, serving under an 
American commander, have been given rules of engagement sufficient to 
provide them with the ability to protect themselves and carry out their 
assigned tasks. Our role in the implementation force, although 
significant, will be limited to about one-third of the NATO contingent, 
with more than 60,000 troops coming from European and other nations. 
And our role will be limited in duration: the President has expressed 
the clear intent of withdrawing American troops in a year.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision to send United 
States troops to Bosnia is an appropriate and necessary use of power by 
the world's only superpower designed to bring peace to the Balkans. It 
is a mission we neither sought nor savior. These troops are not being 
sent into a war. Rather, they are going to support a peace treaty. Last 
month, in Dayton, OH, the three Balkan leaders initialized a peace 
treaty that would halt the fighting between the Serbians, Croatians, 
and Bosnians. Two months ago, while the fighting was raging across the 
former Yugoslavia, I would have refused to endorse a plan sending 
American troops to Bosnia. Today, however, American troops are not 
being sent to Bosnia to engage in an active military conflict. Instead, 
they form the backbone of a peacekeeping mission that will at long last 
bring stability to an area of the world that has only seen violence and 
misery for so many years. Surely there is risk in sending our soldiers 
overseas. However, it serves our national interest to help bring peace 
and stability to the Balkans and to Europe.
  Before we send our soldiers to Bosnia, however, it is imperative that 
we develop a comprehensive exist strategy to guarantee that our troops 
will not fall into another intractable quagmire. As wisely highlighted 
by the Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, if we leave Bosnia without 
allowing all the parties to stand on equal ground, we will find 
ourselves debating these same issues in the very near future. The 
United States must ensure that before our soldiers return home, the 
Bosnian Army has the ability to defend itself and its people.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support tonight's 
efforts to prevent American troops from serving on the ground in 
Bosnia.
  This Congress has voted repeatedly in Congress and told President 
Clinton that we had no desire to send Americans to participate in a 
peacekeeping mission that is of no vital interest to us, of 
questionable prospects for lasting success, and that puts at risk 
thousands of American lives.
  I hope peace prevails in that troubled region, and that the recently 
negotiated peace holds and the bloodshed and misery in the Balkans soon 
ends.
  But we have no vital interests at stake in the region, and should not 
get involved.
  There is no overriding strategic or economic threat to the United 
States there.
  The war has not yet spilled outside of the former Yugoslavia, and we 
have already taken steps toward containing the fighting.
  And NATO won't fall apart if we do not participate.
  NATO is a strong alliance, a collection of Western democracies bound 
together by common interest.
  That common interest will not go away if we do not go to Bosnia.
  As for our prospects for success, exactly how will a 1 year 
deployment of peacekeeping troops solve a conflict that has raged for 
centuries?
  It took the iron fists of one empire after another to keep the 
underlying ethnic tensions in this area under control.
  It is unfortunate, but true: signatures on a piece of paper and a 
brief intervention of foreign troops will not quell the hatreds that 
dominate the former Yugoslavia.
  Yet to pursue this questionable objective, we are asked to risk the 
lives of 20 thousand American troops.
  The President wants to put them in the crosshairs of sniper's rifles, 
and subject them to the jeopardy that comes with the thousands of land 
mines that are buried over there.
  Angry mobs are already gathering in the streets to demonstrate 
against out mission.
  We are sending our men and women into an unfamiliar and dangerous 
hornet's nest, and for the wrong reasons.
  I support the troops, and am grateful for their efforts on our 
behalf.
  They have a very difficult mission to carry out, and I am sure they 
will do a fine job when they do.
  But it is a mission that will come at great cost, and it is one we 
should try to avoid for them completely.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, tonight, this House faces a choice. We can 
choose to support the President of the United States in his decision to 
help end the tragic war in Bosnia, in his decision to act with our NATO 
allies to stop the killing in Europe for the third time this century, 
in his decision to nurture a peace that without question will be 
fraught with its own risks and dangers. Or, we can choose to desert the 
President at this time of challenge to American leadership, to seek 
moral comfort for this country in the failure of Europeans to end the 
slaughter, to watch the war resume content that the vital interest of 
the United States might this time escape the blight of war in Europe. 
As between a problematic peace and a horrific war, I choose to support 
the President's courageous work for peace.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the people I represent have contacted me to 
express their concerns about the Dayton peace plan for Bosnia and the 
risks our troops may face as part of a international force to implement 
that plan. I've had many of the same concerns myself.
  Earlier this month I joined 14 other members of the House on a 
bipartisan fact-finding tour of Bosnia and other countries in the 
region to address these concerns. We met with American, NATO and U.N. 
military commanders and diplomats, soldiers from Colorado, and the 
presidents of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've also met 
with the President; the Vice President; Richard Holbroke, the Assistant 
Secretary of State who negotiated the Dayton accords; Samuel Berger, 
the Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; 
and Lt. Gen. Howell Estes and Lt. Gen. Wes Clark of the Joint Staff. I 
asked them the same questions that Coloradans have been asking me.
  At a town meeting this past Saturday, I heard again from people in my 
district, and I talked with them about what I had seen and learned.
  Based on all that I've been able to learn, I believe the American 
role in leading the NATO implementation force is essential and that the 
mission of the implementation force is well-planned and appropriate.
  I'm well aware that as we go down the path envisioned by the Dayton 
agreement, there is no guarantee of success. I have questions about 
having the new civil and political institutions up and running after 
the one year NATO deployment concludes, progress that will be important 
to sustaining the peace. Nevertheless, our contribution to the 
peacekeeping deployment gives us the best chance we have 

[[Page H14836]]
had to stop a dangerous war that has been raging for four years in 
Europe.
  Critics of this mission have said that the war in Bosnia is really a 
European problem and that we should let the Europeans solve it. But the 
truth is that we cannot afford to duck our responsibility as the leader 
of NATO during this defining moment in Europe's post-cold war history. 
We have largely deferred to the Europeans on this problem for 4 years, 
and they have never been able to reach a consensus on how to solve it. 
Without United States leadership the war in Bosnia will continue. Two 
tragic world wars should have taught us what can happen when we turn 
our back on Europe in a time of crisis.
  Our military mission in Bosnia will not be risk free; there will no 
doubt be casualties. But the mission has been carefully planned and 
trained for; American military leaders have been preparing for this 
mission for 18 months and helped to write the military annex to the 
Dayton agreement. The 1-year time frame for the military deployment is 
part of the plan that our military leaders helped craft--it is not some 
arbitrary deadline imposed from the outside for purely political 
reasons. The mission statement is clear, and our commanders in the 
field have unprecedented authority to respond to challenges and threats 
with overwhelming and decisive force. While it is impossible to plan 
for every contingency, I'm persuaded most have been anticipated.

  Our troops are well-trained in the recognition, detection, and 
clearing of land mines. They'll be equipped with sophisticated 
detection equipment and protective gear. Protection from the hazard of 
mines is a key reason our military planners chose a heavy armored 
division for this assignment. And keep in mind that the Dayton 
agreement calls for the warring factions to clear the mines they have 
planted. Yet, there will no doubt be casualties from mines.
  Our troops will likely face attack from some rogue elements outside 
the chain of command of the regular armies. We will have a remarkable 
capability to detect and track hostile elements, however, and 
overwhelming force to deter and repel attack.
  The question of an exit strategy has been repeatedly raised by 
critics of the plan. This strikes me as a false issue. Exit after 1 
year is expressly built into the Dayton agreement, with time-defined 
tasks and objectives. U.S. military commanders were quite clear that 
they have no question about when and how they'll depart. They also made 
it clear that if the parties to the agreement aren't serious about 
keeping peace and fighting resumes, we will withdraw our troops.
  There are risks and problems in the civil-political parts of the 
Dayton agreement, too. It includes an ambitious timetable for economic 
reconstruction, humanitarian activities and the formulation of new 
political institutions, and the power arrangements crafted to create 
the new Bosnian state seem awkward at best. But a massive international 
effort has already been launched by the London conference to coordinate 
the myriad of humanitarian and political projects that will have to be 
undertaken to support the agreement. We can only hope that enough will 
be in place to sustain the peace when the troops go home at the end of 
next year. And it may well make sense at that time, under circumstances 
then very different from the last 4 years, for some international 
police authority to assist with security for a longer period.
  We should be under no illusion that Presidents Milosevic, 
Izetbegovic, and Tudjman entered this agreement out of altruism. Just 
as self-interest brought these three leaders to the table in Dayton, it 
will be self-interest that will encourage them to keep their bargain 
and make peace work. All three have calculated that their future lies 
with the West. Izetbegovic is struggling to find a way for his country 
to survive as an independent state. Milosevic is desperate to put a 
permanent end to the devastating international embargo that has 
destroyed the Serbian economy. And Tudjman wants to expand trade with 
Europe and to press for admission to European institutions.
  So, the peace reached at Dayton is a messy, pragmatic arrangement. 
Sadly it is not a just peace, because it ratifies the gains of war. But 
I believe this peace is better than continued war with its horrors and 
injustices.
  Mindful of all these risks and uncertainties and imperfections, if we 
don't keep our commitment to help enforce the Dayton peace agreement, 
we'll pay a great price. The war will resume, and we will have 
forfeited American leadership and credibility. If the war spills over 
to Kosovo and Macedonia, it would cause enormous damage to our security 
interests in Europe by drawing Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey 
into the conflict. This risk of conflict between NATO member states and 
a broader European war can't be lightly dismissed.
  Ten days ago in Sarajevo, we encountered a group of the long-
suffering people of that city outside the Presidential Palace. An older 
woman, tears spilling from her eyes, told us that she had lost her son 
in the war; she pleaded that only America had the trust of the Bosnian 
people and the power to end the war. It was a poignant reminder that 
this is not a problem that can be solved by Europeans without American 
leadership.
  The next day I had lunch with two impressive young Army troopers from 
Colorado awaiting final orders to Bosnia at their 1st Armored Division 
base in Germany. One of these men had taken his Thanksgiving leave to 
visit the former Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. Referring to the 
mission ahead of him, he said, ``Congressman, if we have the power to 
keep that from happening again, we have to do it.'' A reminder of an 
earlier problem that could not be solved by Europeans without American 
leadership.
  So, it is important to remember that this is not just about Bosnia. 
Other actors around the world are watching these events and will be 
taking their cue. If leaders of dispossessed ethnic groups elsewhere in 
Europe and in the new states of the former Soviet Union see that the 
international community is unable to act effectively, they may well 
challenge the political compromises that have been worked out in their 
states. Eventually, much of what we won in the cold war could be put at 
risk.
  The President has not done an adequate job in making the case for the 
deployment of American soldiers in Bosnia. This surely makes it harder 
for members of Congress to support him, because it makes it harder for 
the American people to understand what's at stake. Still, the 
President's commitment to send a U.S. military force to help to enforce 
peace has been clear for a long time.
  The President has shown courage in taking on this difficult 
responsibility in the face of political risks and public opposition. A 
vote for this resolution to oppose the mission will only serve to 
encourage both the enemies of peace in Bosnia and the enemies of United 
States leadership in pursuit of a decent international order.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I have deep concerns about the mission 
which the President has assigned to our Armed Forces to implement the 
Bosnia agreement reached in Dayton last month.
  I remain deeply troubled by the President's decision to deploy United 
States troops in support of the Bosnia peace agreement. First of all, 
this is an unworkable agreement--that it is the best agreement 
attainable does not make it a good agreement. I have serious doubts 
that this agreement, even if it were fully implemented, would be 
successful in the long term. Moreover, the President has failed to make 
a convincing case that the conflict in Bosnia threatens our national 
security interests, or that implementation of the Dayton accords will 
resolve those concerns. He has also blurred the distinction between 
peacekeeping and peacemaking.
  I am also deeply concerned about the conditions on the ground for our 
troops. Bosnia, particularly the area around Tuzla where United States 
troops will be based, is heavily mined. The great majority of these 
minefields are not mapped, and many of the mines in use in Bosnia are 
not easily detected. Furthermore, United States troops who may be taken 
prisoner will not be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention 
for prisoners of war; they will not even have the legal status and 
guarantees of POW's.
  Lastly, does anyone really believe that this mission will last only 1 
year? Timetables on many international agreements in recent years have 
been much too ambitious, and inevitably have been revised and extended. 
I have serious doubts that this agreement, as contentious and entailed 
as it is, can meet its timetable.
  Last month, I voted for legislation in the House forbidding the use 
of appropriated funds for the President's proposed Bosnia peacekeeping 
mission unless he requested a specific authorization of appropriations 
for the mission. I believe that the Commander-in-Chief, although not 
constitutionally required to do so in all cases, should always come to 
Congress for approval of the deployment of U.S. troops in area of 
conflict. However, I will not vote to cut off funding for our service 
men and women when they have already been deployed; I will give our 
troops as much support as they need to carry out their mission to the 
best of their ability. I oppose H.R. 2770; I support the Buyer 
resolution.
  Mr. EWING of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
bills in opposition to President Clinton's misguided Bosnia policies. I 
support these bills because I support the men and women troops being 
asked by President Clinton to put their lives at risk.
  The President believes he may conduct this policy without the 
approval of Congress. However, Congress does have a responsibility to 
address this issue, particularly when Congress is expected to provide 
the funding for this endeavor. This House has already voted twice 
advising the President not to send ground troops into Bosnia, but he 
has ignored that advice. I see no reason why we should now give him our 
consent.

[[Page H14837]]

  The President has failed to explain to the American people clearly 
what our goals and objectives are in Bosnia or what national security 
issues are at stake there. He simply offers vague statements about 
securing peace. We are all deeply concerned about the terrible ethnic 
warfare occurring in Bosnia, but we cannot send American troops into a 
deadly situation without a clearly defined military mission, a firm 
timetable for their commitment, and a plan for getting them out. 
Furthermore, the President has failed to tell us how much this endeavor 
will cost the American taxpayers.
  I commend the various parties involved in the civil war for finally 
reaching a peace agreement recently, at least on paper. However, the 
long history of violence in Bosnia demonstrates that this agreement 
could easily fall apart. If it does, this time thousands of American 
troops will be in the firing line.

  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the American people are 
strongly opposed to the President's policy. In my own congressional 
district, constituent phone calls to my offices have been more than 5 
to 1 against sending ground troops into Bosnia. We should have learned 
from the Vietnam war that a successful military mission requires strong 
support from the American people.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this House that 
does not hope the Dayton peace agreement ends the bloodshed in Bosnia 
and Hercegovina. Three-and-a-half years of war and destruction must 
end, so that thousands more innocent lives are spared.
  However, I do not believe that the United States must or should send 
ground troops to continue to be a leader in implementing this 
agreement. Thus far, we have provided essential air, naval, and 
logistic support activities to our NATO allies. We could continue to 
operate in this capacity in order to make sure the peace is kept.
  Only a few months ago, we led the NATO air strikes against the 
Bosnian Serbs. How can our troops now be seen as neutral peacekeepers? 
Being viewed as partisans is a major threat to their safety, and 
already there is dissension among the parties to the peace agreement.
  The first bill considered today, offered by Mr. Dornan, expresses the 
position I have held on this issue from the beginning. This is the view 
that hundreds of my constituents have voiced, as well. They believe 
that there is no compelling argument for sending ground troops. This 
conflict is replete with many ethnic and historical issues which will 
not be resolved by deploying our service members.
  As a Member of Congress, I could never turn my back on the men and 
women who so bravely serve our country. Preceding the gulf war, I voted 
against similar resolutions to send in American troops. After they were 
sent, however, they needed and deserved the support of Congress. That 
is why the resolutions offered by Messrs. Skelton and Hamilton will 
also receive my vote today. We have a responsibility to give these 
brave and dedicated men and women our unqualified backing in their 
mission and these two resolutions accomplish that purpose.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, already patriotic American young men and 
women are in the former Yugoslavia preparing for the arrival of 
thousands of troops to help implement the recent peace agreement. 
President Clinton, without the support of the American people or the 
Congress, has exercised his Presidential authority to send troops into 
action without the consent of Congress.
  Republicans don't question the President's authority as Commander-in-
Chief to send United States troops to Bosnia. We do question his 
judgment.
  I believe the President has made a grave mistake. He has put 
Americans in danger without clearly articulating what national security 
interest requiring the use of United States forces is at stake in 
Bosnia. The President's promise to send some 20,000 United States 
ground forces into war-torn Bosnia was made in an off-hand remark more 
than 2 years ago. It became a commitment in search of a mission.
  President Clinton made the promise without seeking the support of the 
American people. As a result, both the American public and the Congress 
have been shut out of the process that now involves sending American 
men and women into a very dangerous situation. This fact is highlighted 
by numerous polls indicating that close to 60 percent of Americans 
continue to disapprove of the Clinton plan.
  There is no doubt that Republicans will unconditionally support our 
troops now and throughout the entire time they are deployed. We will 
make sure they are properly armed and have every resource available so 
they can adequately defend themselves.
  However, the President needs to understand that he has not 
successfully made his case, as is demonstrated by the fact that the 
House has voted three times in opposition to his policy. Unfortunately, 
the President has chosen to ignore our counsel. Today will mark the 
House's final attempt prior to the signing of the peace agreement in 
Paris to express to the President the will of the American people with 
regard to sending our young Americans to Bosnia.
  Mr. President, please take heed this time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, we must support our troops. We cannot 
fail to support our troops. If we cut off funds to our troops we are 
failing to support them.
  We must also support the President. He has created an environment for 
peace through the Dayton Agreement that hasn't been seen for 4 years in 
Bosnia. Four years of relentless killing; 4 years of non-stop ethnic 
cleansing; 4 years of unspeakable horror.
  Every soldier knows that his chain of command is vital to his well 
being. The President is the Commander in Chief. Therefore the well 
being of our troops depends on support for the President.
  The leaders of the warring sides have agreed to a peace. NATO is the 
only body that can enforce that peace. America is NATO's leader. 
Without NATO, the peace plan for Bosnia will collapse. NATO may 
collapse if the United States fails to lead in Bosnia. Turkey and 
Greece, both strong members of NATO, have conflicting sympathies in 
Bosnia. If the United States fails to act in Bosnia the war there may 
reignite, and it may drag members of NATO into it on opposing sides. 
Without American leadership, the peace agreement can not survive.
  The opportunity for peace is at hand. We need to act now. We need to 
support the President's initiative for peace.
  The Dayton Peace Agreement settles the territorial issues that caused 
the war. The Dayton Peace Agreement commits all parties to the conflict 
to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of war criminals.
  If we fail to act now to enforce the peace, we may later find 
ourselves with no choice but to once again become involved in a broader 
European war. The Balkans have been an historically volatile place. We 
are presented with an historic opportunity to contain that volatility.
  The peace agreement is now larger than Bosnia. It is about America's 
leadership in the world. It is about America keeping its word. If 
America fails to lead a peace plan brokered in the heartland of 
America, America's credibility around the world is irreparably damaged. 
North Korea, Iraq, and other countries that have aggressive intentions 
will no longer take America at its word. Failing to act in Bosnia opens 
a Pandora's box of worldwide troubles. American is only as good as her 
word. We must remain reliable in order to be taken seriously by every 
country with whom we conduct foreign policy, and that is every country 
in the world.
  Do not vote to cut America's soldiers off. Support the troops. 
Support the soldiers. Support the President. Support America's 
leadership role in the world. Support the peace.
  MR. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton Boards Air Force One 
for Paris to sign the Bosnian Peach accords, 20,000 American troops 
prepare to embark on a trip to Bosnia. They will spend the holidays in 
a strange and hostile land. Though I Know they will serve with 
distinction and honor, I cannot support President Clinton's unilateral 
decision to deploy these young men and women without first seeking 
approval from Congress.
  President Clinton is sending our troops to Bosnia to enforce an 
agreement that many Bosnians themselves reject. Look at a map and see 
how difficult it will be to police an effective peace. There are 
pockets of Croat-controlled areas, there are pockets of Moslem-
controlled areas and there are Serb-Controlled areas forming a virtual 
horseshoe around half of Bosnia. It would be necessary to deploy 
hundreds of thousands of troops throughout these various area for many, 
many years--perhaps decades, in order to effectively separate and 
pacify these warring factions. President Clinton's politically inspired 
withdrawal deadline of 1 year almost seems to ensure that in the long-
term, open hostilities will resume once foreign troops are removed.
  Now I do not pretend to have the key to peace in Bosnia, nor do I 
wish the suffering to continue. That is why I salute President 
Clinton's attempts to mediate a peace accord. However, I regret that he 
was unable to Broker a peace treaty that would essentially be self-
enforcing--one which would give all Bosnians incentives to uphold its 
terms and conditions without the necessity of massive foreign troop 
involvement. If most Bosnians are not convinced that peace is in their 
best interest, then I fear that the Dayton peace accords will be short-
lived. And our troops will be at risk from the day they arrive in 
Bosnia.
  I would like to remind President Clinton and my friends who support 
his unilateral troop deployment that Congress has spoken twice in 
recent months on this issue with a clear voice: On October 20, by a 
vote of 315-103, the House voted for the nonbinding Buyer-McHale 
resolution opposing deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. On 
November 17, less than a month ago, the House once again 

[[Page H14838]]
spoke on this issue, voting 241-171 for Mr. Hefley's binding resolution 
stating that no money is to be spent on deployment to Bonsnia unless it 
is specifically authorized by Congress.
  In recent polls the American people have spoken on Bosnia. In a ``CBS 
News poll'' on November 27, 58 percent of Americans said they were 
opposed to sending United States troops to Bosnia as part of an 
international peacekeeping force.
  My constituents have spoken on Bosnia. As of December 8, my office 
has received 603 letters and phone calls opposing United States 
involvement in Bosnia. How many have called or written in favor of 
deployment? All of 18.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support the President's 
troop deployment to Bosnia which might result in the loss of American 
lives in an ill-defined and dangerous attempt at nation-building.
  As our failed intervention in Somalia demonstrated, American troops 
cannot force peace and good-neighborliness on a reluctant local 
population.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, once again the House is going to express 
the will of the American people regarding the Clinton policy in Bosnia. 
The American people do not want our troops to go to Bosnia.
  Mr. Clinton and his followers have never made the case that this 
country's vital interests are at stake in Bosnia. That is why this 
House has repeatedly voted to oppose the deployment of U.S. forces 
there.
  There is simply no compelling reason for one drop of American blood 
to be shed in that troubled country. Contrary to Mr. Clinton's 
contention that this is a NATO matter, there is no threat to NATO from 
Bosnia.
  NATO is a mutual defense pact. The members of NATO are pledged to 
treat an invasion or attack on one of the members as an attack on all. 
There is not threat of an invasion of any NATO country by Bosnia. 
Bosnia is not going to invade Canada or Germany or England.
  What is happening in Bosnia is a civil war. It has been a horrible 
bloody affair with thousands of innocent people killed or hurt. But, it 
makes no sense to inject U.S. forces into that situation when we do not 
have any vital interest at stake.
  In my book, the injury or death of even one American soldier is not 
acceptable if there is no threat to the security of the United States. 
Clearly, there is no such threat in the case of the civil war in 
Bosnia.
  I feel for the people of Bosnia and I hate the fact that they have 
been suffering during this war. It has been brutal. But, there are 
brutal civil wars going on in several countries and we are not 
contemplating putting our military personnel into those fights; we 
should not.
  There is no more moral imperative to intervene in Bosnia than there 
is for United States intervention in Sri Lanka or Sudan. It is horrible 
that there is evil in the world and that men do wretched things to one 
another. But, it is not the job of the U.S. military to act as the 
world's security guard.
  Our military exists to protect our national security, not for 
enforcing other people's peace treaties.
  History is not on the side of those who, in my estimation, naively 
believe that we can solve the Bosnians' problems for them. The ethnic, 
religious, and territorial rivalries among the Serbs, Croats, and 
Moslems are many centuries old.
  The battles that the Bosnians are fighting today have their roots in 
the atrocities committed over the centuries. Bosnia has been conquered, 
controlled, traded, and oppressed by the various empires, kingdoms, and 
dictatorships that have ruled the region.
  We cannot change their history and we cannot assuage their mutual 
grievances. The peace that was brokered in Dayton, OH, may make us feel 
good about ourselves but it is a paper peace and our soldiers will be 
shot at with real bullets.
  We have all seen the old films of British Prime Minister Neville 
Chamberlain coming down the steps of the airplane waiving the peace 
treaty with Hitler and boldly proclaiming peace in our time. Let's not 
repeat that mistake.
  We intervened in the civil war in Vietnam. Let's not forget the 
lesson we learned from that. Congress should not give a blank check for 
the use of our forces to a President who has not spelled out exactly 
why they should be sent and what they are to accomplish and how we are 
to get them out.
  The policy is wrong. The American people do not want it. This House 
has repeatedly rejected it; but, Mr. Clinton has ignored us.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to vote to support the troops and to 
oppose the Clinton intervention policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). All time for 
debate pursuant to the first section of House Resolution 304 has 
expired.
  Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 304, it is now in order to 
consider the bill, H.R. 2770.


     PROHIBITION OF FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES IN BOSNIA

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 304, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2770

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT ON THE 
                   GROUND OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN THE 
                   REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AS PART OF 
                   ANY PEACEKEEPING OPERATION OR IMPLEMENTATION 
                   FORCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal 
     funds shall be appropriated or otherwise available 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
304, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] will be recognized for 
30 minutes and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, those Members that were on the floor and missed the 
evening ABC news tonight missed some very graphic videotape from Tuzla.
  The airport at Sarajevo has been closed all day today and the better 
part of yesterday. No C-5's or C-141's, our biggest transport 
airplanes, will go into either the Tuzla airport or to Sarajevo. It is 
going to be all tough C-130 Hercs or the C-17 at some point in the 
future when the runways are perfected.
  Tuzla has 2\1/2\ feet of snow, it is snowing at this moment, it is 
going to snow all night. There is a frontal system throughout the whole 
Balkan area. The mountains, where the mines are, are all in dense fog. 
The winds are 25 knots gusting to 35 causing snow drifts, and they 
expect 28 degrees at the city levels, much less up in the hills, and 
the 2 foot of snow will stay for weeks if not months to come, and more 
will be added to it.
  I wish someone in this Chamber could explain to me why this 
operation, Task Force Eagle, could not have been implemented the day 
after Christmas. Why do we take all these families, including mothers, 
away from their kids and their mates in Germany and a lot of reserve 
units having their civilian employment interrupted to go over there, 12 
days before Christmas?
  I am going to vote, of course, for the amendment of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. 
Ike has two sons on active duty. I have two Dornan nephews, a 
lieutenant in the Air Force and a lieutenant commander in the Navy who 
has 35 some missions in the gulf war.
  They tell me privately, all the military people I meet with, that 
this is a terrible way to put men and women in harm's way, but once 
they get the call, they are ready to try and do their best.
  This is going to come back to haunt a lot of Members, their Dornan 
vote tonight. December 13, 1995 is going to come back to haunt people, 
Mr. Speaker.
  When a Gold Star mother comes to a Member in this House and says that 
you do everything to keep Americans from going back to Europe after 50 
years of keeping their peace and two bloody wars, and the Pope did not 
tell anybody to put American ground troops in there so that this 
century would not end in Sarajevo the way it began in 1914.
  The factor of supporting the troops is a given in this House. I do 
not know anybody in this House, the most liberal Member, the most 
conservative, I do not know anybody at this point after Desert Storm 
and what we did to our forces in Vietnam and tragedies like Beirut and 
the fact that thousands of young men and women die every year in 
training, I do not know anybody in this Chamber who does not truly have 
intense, deep affection for our troops.
  But many Members have not met Herb Shugart, the father of one of our 

[[Page H14839]]
  two last Medal of Honor winners from the streets of Mogadishu. He would 
not shake Clinton's hand.
  Herb Shugart told me the whole story. He said, ``Mr. President, why 
do you fly a warlord Aideed on our airplanes with Marine guard? You 
wouldn't ask my son's Army to guard him just days after he had killed 
19 of our men. Why did you fly him to Addis Ababa?''
  Clinton said to him, ``It was a good military operation, Mr. Shugart. 
You son did not die in vain.''
  He said, ``How would you know what a good military operation was?''
  It went on from there, and finally he said, ``I have nothing more to 
say to you.''

  The press, some of the press, most of the press, suppressed that 
story. I do not think there are five Members in this Chamber that know 
that our two Medal of Honor winners, Gary Gordon, buried in Lincoln, 
ME, and Randy Shugart, buried in Carlisle, PA, were not just dragged 
through the streets before our eyes but their bodies were horribly 
mutilated and then burned and then dumped on the steps of the U.N. 
every 2 days.
  And then I am told by nice men like Christopher and Perry and 
Shalikashvili that, ``Well, we've learned our lessons from Somalia.'' 
Learned our lessons from Somalia? Did we not learn anything from 
Reagan's mistake in Beirut? Did we not learn anything from Vietnam? Did 
we not learn anything from the cold in Korea? Ask Charlie Rangel about 
trying to concentrate to fight when you are freezing to death.
  No, we did not have to rush in to rescue our European NATO friends 
when we are doing over 90 percent of the airlift, 90 percent of the sea 
lift, 90 percent of the sea power in the Adriatic. More like 95. The 
air strikes were 95 percent ours in August and September. Ninety 
percent of the food, the logistics, 100 percent of the hospital at 
Zagreb in Croatia. And when it comes to intelligence, it is all ours, 
from the unmanned aerial vehicles to the super architecture of our big 
satellites. Is that not a Treasury commitment of the American people?
  I am not an isolationist, far from it. I went up to Walter Reed 
Hospital and met all the wounded men up there. Chris Reed was trying to 
rescue the bodies, not the men, the bodies of a helicopter that went 
down September 25, 1993, days before the horrible firefight, and he 
lost his arm and his leg. His fiancee married him anyway--beautiful 
ceremony up at Walter Reed. I flew over 200 flags on the roof of this 
Capitol with my 5 oldest grandchildren. I sent little Medals of Honor 
to the parents of Shurgart and Gordon because the Army had forgotten 
that parents raise the young heroes. The wives get the Medals of Honor 
posthumously.
  This is a Gold mother, a Gold mother vote tonight. It is a widow 
vote. It is a vote to tell a couple of young kids and a handsome young 
father why their mother was hit by a sniper in Tuzla or some area in 
those hills.
  I wish all Members could get the intelligence briefing I had today. 
By the way, you can. Every one of us has a top secret briefing. Go get 
the briefing that I got today on who are our friends there and who are 
not our friends. The war criminals are on their best behavior, the 
victims are furious that they lost 49 percent of their country, and the 
older politicians who cut the best deal they could to have their nation 
partitioned in half, and we are going to enforce the partition, they 
cannot sell their younger people on the anger that they have lost what 
they wanted, not to be a multicultural state but an Islamic state.

  The intensity of the hatred with some of these folks reminds you of 
the 8, 14-way split in Afghanistan, reminds you of the worst of 
Lebanon, the worst of Vietnam.
  I am going to vote against Mr. Hamilton's amendment, because I think 
it is naive and a fig leaf and it acts like all 20,000 troops are in 
there. The news tonight said, I stand corrected, it is not 97, it is 
about 150 people are on the ground. Period. Nobody is getting in 
tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to call this the Dornan-Scarborough--because 
he has led my freshman--Freshmen amendment, ``freshmen'' for the 
baker's dozen, the 13 of you over there, because I predict, without any 
fear of being wrong, that some seats are going to be lost in November 
based on how people vote here.
  I want everybody to realize that we are a pretty elite group here 
now. Almost all of our kids go to college. This blue collar warfare 
that we started, putting our men and women in harm's way, started in 
Korea and it was perfected in Vietnam.
  I am going to give some time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] to speak out for the families who have their sons and 
daughters wear our uniforms as police, fire people, deputy sheriffs, 
and in all of our services. Then I am going to give 1 minute to as many 
freshmen as I can who were on the trip this weekend, last weekend, or 
the weekend before who have a totally different opinion than some of 
the people who have already spoken.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dornan resolution as the only 
crystal-clear vote this House will cast on this precedent-setting U.S. 
military involvement of our ground forces in an unstable former Soviet 
bloc nation.
  I rise in support of the Dornan resolution as the only crystal clear 
vote this House will cast on this precedent-setting U.S. military 
involvement of our ground forces in an unstable former Soviet bloc 
nation. The most assured way of maintaining our troops' safety is not 
sending them there in the first place.
  Moreover, there is no possibility that the age-old hatreds that have 
fueled the killings and plunder in the former Yugoslavia will be calmed 
in one year. Reestablishing civility in that region will require years 
of dedicated commitment, and the resources to back it up. Other 
instabilities in that corner of the globe are likely to bubble up in 
years ahead. Unless Europe, now rebuilt 50 years after World War II, 
seizes its proper leadership role, the United States cannot keep 
filling the vacuum. The initial cost of U.S. ground force involvement 
is projected at $2.6 billion including an initial $600 million for 
rebuilding roads, bridges and infrastructure. The cost in American 
lives tonight is uncertain. This operation is high risk and its 
ultimate resolution unclear. Thus, before committing U.S. forces, it is 
critical to ask the Clinton Administration:
  Under what Constitutional authority is your Administration committing 
20,000 U.S. ground forces to Bosnia and thousands more to adjacent 
nations?
  Under what specific treaty obligation and amended obligations is your 
Administration committing U.S. ground forces to Bosnia?
  Please define peace-keeping.
  Please outline the mission in Bosnia and when our nation will know it 
has succeeded and thus withdraw.
  Please define peace-making.
  In the past, when, where and through what legal or treaty authority 
has the U.S. deployed ground forces through NATO, or other European 
Security institutions for ``peace-keeping'' operations in the former 
Soviet bloc?
  Since the administration's Bosnia initiative is precedent-setting--
U.S. ground forces in a former, unstable Soviet nation--on what basis 
will our forces be committed to other internal civil wars in the 
future? What will be the U.S. military ``peacekeeping'' relationship to 
the United Nations, NATO and other such international entities in the 
future?
  Has the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe formally 
requested NATO assistance in Bosnia? Please provide the document 
requesting such involvement.
  What is the role of the Western European Union, if any, in the Bosnia 
deployment?
  Is Eurocorps functional and what force level has it committed to 
Bosnia?
  Describe the Bosnian Commission that is to settle property disputes 
and its legal structure. Is it operational? If not, when will it become 
functional?
  How does the United States role in Bosnia differ from our role in 
Lebanon?
  Do the three parties to the peace accord--Presidents Milosevic, 
Izetbegovic, Tudjamn--represent legitimate authority for their 
respective constituencies? Through what legal process was each elected 
to preside over those countries? Please detail the nature of their 
respective elections.
  Finally, why in this post Cold War era--when the U.S. citizenry has 
been clamoring for more defense-burden sharing by U.S. allies--has the 
U.S. again been asked to assume the central role in resolving this 
situation, even convening the peace talks in Dayton, OH, rather than on 
the European continent.

[[Page H14840]]

  This matter is a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy in that the 
U.S. is being asked to substitute for European resolve.
  In the NATO nations of Europe we have thousands of European trained, 
deployable troops that could be dispatched immediately to the Bosnia 
region in the event a final peace accord is signed in Paris.
  Let me read to you the countries and the number of their combat ready 
troops:

Belgium..........................................................63,000
Denmark..........................................................27,000
France..........................................................409,000
Germany.........................................................367,300
Greece..........................................................159,300
Italy...........................................................322,300
Luxembourg..........................................................800
Netherlands......................................................70,900
Norway...........................................................33,500
Portugal.........................................................50,700
Spain...........................................................206,500
Turkey..........................................................503,800
United Kingdom..................................................254,300
                                                               ________

  Total.......................................................2,468,400
  The Administration states that Europe, since 1914, has been unable to 
effectively maintain the peace and there was no other recourse but for 
the U.S. to assume the lead in bringing the warring factions to 
peaceful resolution. We are urged not to become ``isolationist''.
  The truth is the long-term prospects for peace in this troubled 
region are slim. Once the NATO troops withdraw, it will require 50 
years of cooling off between warring factions and maintenance of 
borders by external forces to give peace a chance, not a one-year quick 
fix. And who will commit to that? Who will pay for it?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Dornan resolution. At a time when U.S. troops are in the field, 
right at this very moment, the Dornan resolution would deny American 
troops the resources they need to carry out their mission.
  This is a naked political ploy that, despite all the rhetoric, pulls 
the rug right out from under the feet of the very troops that most if 
not all the Members in this body want to support. You cannot have it 
both ways.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] says there are now 150 
troops on the ground. If this bill were to reach the President over the 
next several days, there would be at least 2,000 troops on the ground 
before it would be presented to him.
  At a time when we already have a significant number of people there; 
what kind of message does this send, when Members of this Congress act 
to strip American troops of the resources they need? Could we even 
evacuate the area of those who have already arrived and will over the 
next several days be arriving?

                              {time}  1900

  I do not believe this bill would permit it. The Dornan resolution 
represents, I believe, a direct assault on every U.S. soldier on the 
ground in Bosnia and those who will soon be there. This resolution 
essentially could take the weapons out of the hands of the troops and 
put, unfortunately, and maybe unintentionally, our men and women 
directly in harm's way.
  I think we should stop playing politics with the lives of the young 
men and women who are there. If we really support our troops, there are 
opportunities ahead to vote for that. There is no question that this 
bill is not necessary and, in fact, could do a lot of damage. I think 
it is the height of irresponsibility, and I personally believe this 
resolution is far too far to the extreme. I believe it is really an 
attempt to embarrass this President.
  But, more importantly, to those of us who will be voting here 
shortly, I believe it will, in the long run, embarrass those of us who 
choose to vote for it. I do not intend to be one of them. I think there 
are other alternatives available to us this evening, whether you are 
for or against this effort in Bosnia, that have a more effective and 
less destructive way of expressing the opinion of this Congress.
  I wish this resolution had not been presented, but I think those of 
us who have the courage to stand with our troops need to oppose it.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind the 
gentleman who just spoke that there will be a lot of conscience voting 
on the other side. I respect that. But I believe all of the leadership 
over there, including you, voted against Desert Storm and voted against 
our troops. So let us not inject politics and hypocrisy here. Let us 
all speak with our brains and our hearts and respect one another.
  I looked up how you voted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I am highly offended 
that the Member from California would call this a naked political ploy, 
when we in Congress are simply doing what is our constitutional right 
to do, questioning whether we send young Americans to die in the snows 
of Bosnia.
  I sit on the Committee on National Security; make no mistake of it, 
every single person that has testified in front of the Committee on 
National Security has said young Americans will die in that battle. We 
have that right to ask the question.
  How many times have we heard since the end of the Vietnam war, ``Why 
didn't our leaders step forward earlier and stop it?'' The troops are 
not in at such a degree that we cannot get them out. We have more 
Americans in Central America fighting the drug war right now than we 
have over in Bosnia. We have a right, and for those who say how dare we 
do it now, these are the same people that were telling us during the 
Dayton peace talks that we had no right to do it; then that we had to 
wait until after the Dayton peace talks. Now they are telling us we as 
Congress do not have the right to do it now.
  Let me tell you, if not now, when? And if we do not have the right to 
do it, then who has the right to stand up and ask the President why he 
is sending Americans to die in a conflict that his own Secretary of 
Defense says does not pose a vital threat to America?
  The Constitution is clear. James Madison, one of the three drafters 
of the Constitution, said that the Constitution supposes, with the 
history of Governments to declare, that the executive branch of power 
is the most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has, 
accordingly, with studied care, vested the power of war in the 
legislature. That was from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson.
  I want the Member from California, I want those who vote against the 
only true bill that can do something to stop the bloodshed now, to tell 
me during this debate what will they tell the parents of those children 
who die in Bosnia? What is the reason that we have sent them over there 
to die? Tell the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], what is the 
vital American interest in sending his son over to die?
  These troops are not cowards. People from my district have been over 
there for months flying missions. We are not isolationists. But tell us 
the vital American interest that is worth the death of Americans. And 
make no mistake of it, the President will tell you, the Vice President 
said it today, as many as 50 Americans will die over there.

  So when you vote against Dorman, you are voting to wash your hands of 
this issue, and if you are comfortable with that, if you feel there is 
a compelling vital American interest, if you truly believe in your 
heart that a 500-year-old civil war with no vital American interest, 
according to our own Secretary of Defense, is worth spilling American 
blood, that is fine. But convince me, because nobody in the 
administration has convinced me or 75 percent of Americans that we have 
a vital American interest over there.
  I certainly respect those who will vote against the Dornan amendment. 
I know this is a highly emotional issue. Nobody has made a case yet 
that it is worth spilling American blood.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years a horrible war has 
been ranging in the former Yugoslavia. It is a war that, with each 
passing day threatens to become wider and more dangerous, not just for 
the people in that country but for other countries in the surrounding 
region and for the world itself.
  Already that war has claimed several hundred thousand lives. There 
are 2 million refugees in country and another 800,000 refugees outside 
of country.

[[Page H14841]]

  On the Serbian side, there are already volunteers, including high-
ranking officers, serving with the Serbians from former Soviet-bloc 
countries. On the Bosnian side, there have been volunteers from other 
countries, particularly in the Middle East. The war is becoming more 
dangerous, more complicated and more involved all the time.
  A month ago our President invited the leaders of those three 
countries to come to this country. They sat down in Dayton, and after 3 
weeks they signed a peace agreement. The fighting has stopped. Now they 
ask us to come and stand between them to make sure that the fighting 
continues to stop while they have an opportunity to rebuild their 
countries and settle their differences peaceably among themselves. They 
need NATO.

  They said to us, and I was in Bosnia as others of us have been over 
the last weekend, they told us directly,

       No one can ensure that this happens, that this peace 
     continues, other than NATO, and there is no one that can lead 
     NATO except for the United States. We need the United States. 
     We trust the United States. We respect the United States. We 
     want you to come here and make sure that this peace 
     continues.

  Our troops are on their way. They are already now on trains heading 
for the staging area in lower Hungary. Hundreds of them are on the 
ground in Tuzla.
  This resolution cuts off all funding for American troops in the 
field. I met with those troops in Frankfurt just yesterday, had lunch 
with them in the mess hall. What they said to us, from officers down to 
privates, the two privates that I sat next to in that lunch hall, was 
this:

       We need the support of the American people. We are going 
     for this mission. We understand it is dangerous. We are 
     prepared for it. Our morale is high. We can do the job, but, 
     don't deprive us, don't deprive us of the means to achieve 
     the objectives that you have set forth for us.

  That is what this bill does. Unfortunately, it deprives them 
precisely and specifically of the means to carry out the mission that 
they have been sent there to accomplish. It would cut off all of their 
funding. Let us not do that to them.
  We are sending them there on a mission that is dangerous and 
important for our country, for the NATO countries, and for the rest of 
the world to keep peace.
  More than 60 years ago, a kind of ethnic cleansing swept through 
Europe. We did not step in in time. Let us not make that mistake again. 
We are there to maintain this peace. Let us not cut off the funds for 
the troops who are there to do the job.
  Vote ``no'' on Dornan.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a time for us to 
count our blessings, and it was in this spirit that I came before the 
House last week to urge my colleagues to reflect upon the efforts of 
the peacemakers. I felt that the words found in the Bible expressed it 
best, ``Blessed are the peacemakers.''
  After 3 years of starvation, mass executions, sniper fire, 
indiscriminate shelling and rape, the children of Sarajevo are ready to 
enjoy their first Christmas free of fear and violence. For the first 
time in years, families have an opportunity to share the holidays 
together without worrying that a father or a son will be dragged off in 
the dead of night never to be seen again.
  In large part, our Nation, our President, its leaders, its diplomats, 
its men and women in uniform and its people are responsible for this 
state of affairs.
  While I strongly support the humanitarian goals of this mission, I 
also support this mission because it is in our national interest. Is 
not preservation of the North Atlantic Alliance, which has kept the 
peace in Europe for over 40 years, important to America's national 
security? Is not keeping the war in the Balkans from spreading to 
engulf our important allies, Turkey and Greece, important to America's 
national security? The answer is ``yes.''
  It is also a national interest to protect the constitutional powers, 
not just of this President but of future Presidents.
  After 3 years, our President and our European allies have finally 
pulled the warring parties in Bosnia off the battlefield and to the 
negotiating table to end the bloodshed and death which has claimed the 
lives of so many innocent women and children.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be messengers of peace and goodwill and support. 
Let us support our troops, America's national interests, our President, 
and the peacemakers. Let us support the Hamilton amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, blessed are the peacemakers. Peacemakers? 
Maybe targets.
  There is only one vote on the House floor tonight; I am going to vote 
for Mr. Hamilton's, but I am going to vote for Mr. Skelton's and Mr. 
Buyer's.
  They are after-the fact, nonbinding votes. They mean nothing. Yes, 
there may be 2,000 troops in Bosnia before the Dornan amendment may 
pass. I do not think it will pass. But if it did, the President would 
veto it, and we could not override the veto.
  Because, Congress, we know our history in Vietnam. What was the sense 
to it? What was the binding vote that declared war in Southeast Asia? 
There was none.
  Congress does not govern anymore. I hear all of this superpower 
business. We are not the only power. Europe is not exactly a Third 
World military pushover, folks.
  I want you to just think of this, while our young men and women, 
while there is no security national security threat in Bosnia, No. 1, 
and our experts tell us Europe has enough military personnel and money 
to provide the peace, while our personnel, ground troops, are over in 
Bosnia, French soldiers will be visiting Disneyland.

  This is ridiculous. I keep hearing about NATO. NATO was designed and, 
in fact, created to prevent a Soviet invasion. It is time for Congress 
to realign NATO. Let the Europeans put up the big money. Let the 
Europeans put up the military. Let us support them.
  My God, this is contained, and if we needed to send troops, if it 
would be exported out of Bosnia, we could send ground troops.
  This is the only vote you have. These other votes have absolutely no 
meaning. I am going to vote for them, but you have just given the 
authority to declare war to one person, the President. I do not want to 
hurt the President. But it is not the President's authority to do this. 
By God, if we do not challenge it over Bosnia, we will continue to look 
in our history, at Vietnam, Bosnia, Beirut, Lebanon, Somalia. What is 
next here?
  Wise up, Congress.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the distinguished deputy whip.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge may colleagues to support 
the peace agreement between the warring parties of Bosnia. Blessed are 
the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
  This was not an easy decision for the President. This is not an easy 
vote for any of us. It is not popular, and it is not easy. But we are 
leaders. We are not called to do what is popular, to put our fingers to 
the wind is blowing. Our mission, our responsibility is to do what is 
right.
  For 3 years, we have heard the cries of anguish from the people of 
Bosnia. We have been deeply troubled by the accounts of rape, torture, 
and murder. We wanted to help stop the violence, stop the fighting. But 
we did not want to get involved in a war that seemed to have no end.
  But now--finally--we have an opportunity to support peace. This 
mission is not for war. It is not Vietnam. It is a mission to uphold 
the peace.
  Only yesterday, the Prime Minister of Israel thanked America for 
leading the way. For fighting fascism and championing democracy. He 
urged us to continue our leadership, not just in the Middle East, but 
elsewhere, in places where our leadership--American leadership--can 
make a difference. America has always stood for peace and freedom 
because it is right.
  If we fail to act, we lose our moral compass. We lose our sense of 
purpose, our sense of direction as a great nation.

[[Page H14842]]

  We now live in a global village. What happens in Bosnia affects 
people in Boston, in Chicago, in Detroit and in Atlanta.
  But I believe--I truly believe--we cannot, we must not stand idly by. 
To do so would undermine our position in NATO and throughout the world. 
Our involvement can make the difference between war and peace, between 
death and life.
  How in God's name can we stand by? We have seen the ethnic cleansing, 
the slaughter of young children, and the rape of women. More than 
250,000 people have lost their lives. More than 2 million people have 
been uprooted and made refugees.
  If we fail to respond to the Macedonian call--to lend a helping hand 
for those in trouble--then the cycle of violence will continue.
  At long last, we can make a difference--to give peace a chance. I 
plead with you my colleagues--stand with us. Stand with our troops. 
Stand up for what is right and just. Support our mission for peace. 
Oppose this amendment, support Hamilton.
  Blessed are the peacemakers, Mr. Speaker, for they shall be called 
the children of God.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, since communism killed more people in 
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam than the entire population of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam 
Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is not about peace and 
war; it is about war. That is what is going on over there, and they are 
not going to stop fighting just because we go in there.
  I wholeheartedly support withholding funds from President Clinton's 
Bosnia mission. Although it is a drastic step and ties the President's 
hands, I do not feel like we have any other choice. The President has 
tied our hands, gone against the wishes of the American people, and 
this is the last best way I know how to show my respect for our 
American servicemen and women. They are helpless, following orders. But 
we, we are in a position to stop this terrible mistake before it 
happens.
  I know how those soldiers are feeling. I was in the military for 29 
years, and I recognize that we used to say ``Let's go to war. Let's go 
fight that war, it is the only one we have got.'' And that is what some 
of them are doing. However, I was told by Senator Hutchison that the 
guys down in Fort Hood did not say that. They said ``Why are we going 
there? Can't you stop us?'' She said she would try.
  Thirty years ago when I was sent to Vietnam in a similar situation, 
Vietnam started out as a peace type mission, no defined goal, no exit 
strategy, no idea whose side we were on, and a created incident to gain 
support of the Congress. A peacekeeping mission? Come on. Does this not 
sound just like a carbon copy? I think it is.
  What is going to happen when our guys get over there, and if the 
rules of engagement apply, and they get shot at, and we start shooting 
back, what are their people going to say when we start killing them, 
killing Bosnians, killing Croatians, killing Serbs? We will do it, and 
we will get chastised for it.
  Let me just ask one more thing for the guys over here voting against 
it: What are you going to do when one of our women soldiers get 
captured?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens.]
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Dornan amendment. 
There is no more noble a purpose and no more practical a purpose for 
the use of American military strength than the purpose for which the 
troops are being deployed in Bosnia. Blessed are the peacemakers and 
peacekeepers. All armies are created and mobilized for the purpose of 
achieving peace. Troops fight to win wars in order to realize peace. To 
conquer an enemy is to achieve peace.
  If peace is always the objective, then why do we belittle and 
challenge a use of American troops to maintain the peace in a situation 
where peace has been negotiated? Every soldier who serves in Bosnia 
should be saluted as a hero. The soldiers who keep the peace deserve 
all the medals and as much glory as the soldiers who fight hot wars.
  Peace is always the objective of honorable military action. Certainly 
there are great risks. From day one in training camp, every soldier 
enters a world where risks are far greater than in the civilian world. 
In any foreign theater, a soldier's risks are greatly increased. But in 
Bosnia the risks are being taken to feed the hungry, to clothe the 
naked, and to provide shelter for those who have been made homeless 
over and over again by the actions of military criminals.
  We spend nearly $250 billion a year to maintain the world's greatest 
military force. The American armed forces of 1995 should be declared an 
Army for peace. For all the years to come it should be understood that 
we are armed to promote and preserve peace. Bosnia should not be seen 
as a waste. The deployment of troops in Bosnia is a necessity to send a 
message to the military criminals of the world that thugs will not be 
allowed to rule any part of the world and go unchallenged.
  American soldiers should not be asked again and again to do this in 
the world, but this is a clear and present situation. This is a 
situation that has been negotiated. This is a situation where peace is 
achievable. Let our Army help to achieve that peace.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment that you are an 
American soldier who said good-bye to his family and you are on your 
way to Bosnia. Word reaches you tonight that the Dornan resolution has 
passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House of 
Representatives has voted to cut off all funds for Bosnian 
peacekeeping.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] knows and everyone knows 
on this floor his resolution will not go any further than this House of 
Representatives, but it will reach these troops on their way to 
represent America.
  This is a cruel resolution. It will say to the men and women whom we 
ask to wake up tomorrow to dress in their military uniform and to 
represent the United States that we do not stand behind them.
  I think we have learned many lessons through our lifetime. We have 
certainly learned that when we have made the commitment to put our 
troops in the field, we in the United States Congress must stand behind 
them.
  The gentleman from California likes to recount the fact that many of 
us voted against the Persian Gulf war. I did. The gentleman should also 
recount the fact that immediately thereafter there was offered a 
bipartisan resolution, which passed I believe without a dissenting 
vote, where we stood resolutely behind those men and women, regardless 
of our vote on the Persian Gulf war. That was the appropriate and 
proper thing for us to do as Americans.
  Regardless of the fact that I do disagree with some aspects of this 
Bosnian peacekeeping, I think the President was wrong in not seeking 
Congressional approval, the fact is the troops are committed. The fact 
is they will look to us, Mr. Dornan, and they will look to you as to 
whether you support them. And your answer to them is not a badge you 
wear on your lapel or any fancy ribbon that you wear on your suit, but 
how Members will vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will join me in voting to make sure those 
men and women in the field know that we stand behind them. This is 
serious, it is a serious commitment of this country. These men and 
women are putting their lives on the line. We owe it to them to take it 
very seriously. I urge my colleagues, whether you agree with the 
President or not, to defeat this cruel Dornan resolution.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I will not be goated yet. Mr. Speaker, my 22 
years and 4 months in the Air force prevents me from rising to that 
fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs. 
Helen Chenoweth, a freshman who has just come back from a recent trip 
to Sarajevo.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the Dornan 
resolution and the resolutions and bills that we have passed already in 
this Congress is not a message to our boys who are preparing to be 
deployed. It is 

[[Page H14843]]
a message to our boys who are preparing to be deployed. It is a message 
to the President of the United States, who is acting like a dictator. 
When is he going to get the message?
  Mr. Speaker, yes, I was in Sarajevo, and I sat with Prime Minister 
Siladjic, who said very clearly, we have not asked for your troops. We 
have only asked that the arms embargo be lifted. We do not want to be 
an occupied nation. We want to be able to defend ourselves. We want to 
have military parity.
  Mr. Speaker, they will only be able to have peace over there when 
everyone is equally armed. Let us not make a cheap political trick out 
of this by distorting the issue and using our boys in a political 
discourse. We are behind our men and women who will be deployed. There 
is no doubt about that. But, again, the Congress is saying no to 
President Clinton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to urge my colleagues tonight to 
think of the troops that we have in the process of deploying to Bosnia. 
I think a resolution that would cut off all money for ground forces 
would be widely misunderstood with the troops in the field, and I think 
would be a tragic mistake in undercutting of the U.S. presidency and of 
the Dayton agreement.
  I would hope that my colleagues would give President Clinton what he 
needs tonight, and that is a resolution which strongly supports the 
troops, strongly supports the men and women who will be going to 
Bosnia, and I think the Hamilton resolution gives us that exact message 
and is what this Congress should rally behind.
  I do remember the gulf war debate. After that debate was finished, we 
had a bipartisan effort to support the troops. I might recall to my 
friends on the other side, Speaker Foley did not call for a vote on 
this until after 500,000 troops were deployed to the gulf war. That was 
an appropriate time to do this. But to take this hard approach, to cut 
off all money, no money shall be spent, I think would be a terrible 
mistake. I think it would weaken the presidency, it will weaken our 
leadership in the world, it will weaken NATO and our leadership of 
NATO, and I think it is one of the most serious mistakes we will have 
made in this Congress.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Dornan 
amendment and support Hamilton, which is well written and very 
supportive of the men and women who will be serving us so well in the 
Persian Gulf.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina, [Mr. Funderburk], the Member of this House or the 
Senate who spent the most time on the ground, 4 years in Romania, as 
Ambassador Funderburk.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, 1 year in Bosnia's 600 year old war and 
out, and peace is to be permanently established? What a joke. U.S. 
leadership is at stake in the world? What a joke. NATO will collapse if 
we do not go? World War III? What a joke.
  U.S. troops must be supported. True, we all agree, but the President 
can send troops anywhere and then say if we do not support this 
unilateral Federal Executive action we are not for our troops. Shame on 
the one who never supported our troops until he was Commander-in-Chief, 
and until he seeks leadership credentials. He should have tried getting 
support of the American people and Congress first, before he committed.
  Mr. Speaker, saying our mission was a moral imperative are hollow 
words coming from people who, for the last 30 years, have turned a 
blind eye to atrocities in Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Romania, Iraq, and 
Syria. What about America's moral imperative to intervene in Bosnia? 
Bosnia is a nightmare, but why should American soldiers stop at Bosnia? 
Why not Sri Lanka, Peru, China, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Sudan, the 
Philippines, Western Sahara, Afghanistan, Algeria, wherever there is 
blood and fighting? The list is endless.
  Our policy has always been and it must be to selectively engage our 
forces where we can do the most good but with the goal of protecting 
the national security of the United States. On those grounds, Bosnia 
misses the mark. We have no interest there, plain and simple.
  I have lived in that part of the world, the sad part. The Dayton 
peace accord is a prescription for disaster. Its Byzantine arrangement 
of one Bosnia with two governments and three independent armies is 
farcical. Margaret Thatcher had it right when she said the best thing 
we can do in the Balkans is arm the Moslems and stay out of the direct 
fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support our only option here tonight for the 
Congress and the people, the Dornan bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the Dornan bill. I 
do so because I feel to support it would be a vote in favor of cutting 
our troops off at the knees. They are on their way. They are going to 
be there.
  Mr. Speaker, in a later moment I will explain, in great detail, 
problems that I have with the U.S. policy, but this is not the time nor 
the moment to do that. I will explain why we should vote for the Buyer-
Skelton resolution, which will put this entire matter in perspective.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], setting the standard here. There are so many distinguished 
people on his side and mine that want to speak, and so I am going to 
limit all my speakers to 30 seconds so that everybody gets a chance to 
be heard on this, and then they may join my special order tonight for 
an hour to extend their remarks. Let us give it our best shot on both 
sides.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt].
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear our troops understand what 
is going on. I talked to them on my way back from Bosnia. They know it 
is our job to argue policy, and by supporting the Dornan resolution it 
does not cut them off at the knees. It is shameless to say that it 
does.
  Our troops took an oath to defend the Constitution and our borders, 
and we have extended that to America's vital interests across this 
world, but none of that is here in Bosnia. None of it. We are asking 
them to go above and beyond the call of duty, outside what they have 
taken an oath and sworn to do. I think we should realize that.
  I am carrying a coin, and I am going to keep the First Armored 
Division in mind for 12 months. And I hope the guy that gave me this 
does not come back in a coffin.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], who was discussed at great length on the Senate 
Floor today.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would 
get up in the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out 
from under our troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to 
hurt the troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not 
want to send any more troops.
  When we debated Hefley back before Thanksgiving, the Democrats said 
it is a good idea but it was not the right time. Now they say this is 
not the right time because the troops are already there. When is the 
right time to say, Mr. Clinton, this is a stupid idea and we do not 
want you to do it?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I approach this with some trepidation. I have never been 
one who likes to use our American troops to do things outside of what 
is absolutely necessary for the protection of this country. I take a 
look at this and I ask myself did we get the best deal for the troops 
that are being sent out there? Is this really the peace accord that is 
the mother of peace accords, that will guarantee us that the parties 
will finally agree to what they 

[[Page H14844]]
have said? I ask if those paramilitary forces that are out there, under 
the control of no one, are really going to be stopped? And I ask do we 
really know how we will get our troops out should this operation fail
  At the same time, I know what I do not want to send a signal to the 
men and women who are going to Bosnia that I am not prepared to support 
them. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this vote, and I weigh the chance that 
I am sending people that are like me, in their thirties and twenties 
and forties, to go face off with people that we have never seen before, 
I do this with some trepidation.
  I will probably support the Hamilton resolution. I cannot, in good 
conscience, support the Dornan resolution, and I would urge all the 
Members to not support the Dornan resolution. What we must do is do the 
right thing for those that are going. And I do not believe, at this 
stage, we can say that cutting off funds is the way we want to send our 
troops to Bosnia.
  So I would urge Members to consider the fact this is them going. This 
is our chance to tell them that we support them, because they have no 
choice but to go, and it is our opportunity to say we will live up to 
our responsibility to do the right thing.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dornan 
resolution.
  Article 1, section 8 clearly enumerates the powers of the U.S. 
Congress and it clearly lays forth the power of the Congress to make 
rules for the regulation and the government of land and naval forces. 
It speaks very limited to the power of the President as Commander in 
Chief.
  It is time to end the concession of this Congress to the executive 
branch in matters of policy as relates to the military. Support the 
Dornan language.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds is a very short amount of time 
to say how I feel on this. But let me make a couple of things perfectly 
clear. I am 100-percent supportive of our troops. It is the policy and 
the idea of our troops risking their lives without our national 
interest at stake that I am opposed to.
  So the message out of here, in 30 short seconds: We support our 
troops 100 percent; we do not want them in Bosnia. We have sent this 
message early in the summer, in the middle of the summer, late in the 
summer, again this fall. In case the President does not get it yet, we 
do not want our troops in Bosnia; we do not want our young people to 
lose their lives in Bosnia.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dornan] has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Steve Chabot.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the deployment of 
our brave soldiers in Bosnia will accomplish any lasting purpose other 
than to have put valiant American men and women in harm's way in a 
centuries-old civil war.
  I will support the troops once they are there, but I want to state, 
in the strongest possible terms, that those troops should not be sent 
to Bosnia in the first place.
  I am concerned that one of two things will happen. President Clinton 
says they will be out in 1 year. Either they will come back in 1 year 
and the bloodshed will begin anew, or they will be over there for a 
long, long time; and that is not acceptable to the American people, and 
it is not acceptable to me.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Long Beach, CA, Mr. Steve Horn, who went over there 5 times as a 
professor to try to convince them to vote instead of kill one another.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  This is not a partisan issue. Anyone that says we are not supporting 
the troops has to be either a rogue or a scoundrel. That is utter 
nonsense. This is a constitutional issue; this is an institutional 
issue. The House of Representatives must authorize the money.
  This is not England. This is not the Roman Empire. This is not some 
dictatorship. If we have Presidents of both parties, and that is true, 
that have roamed the world in election years to look better rather than 
grapple with the problems at home, let us tell them that they must 
start here for the authority. They have no authority as Commander in 
Chief.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am not a war hero and so I cannot 
stand here with any credibility that might in any way match some of my 
colleagues, one of whom is proposing this resolution. I am however an 
American, and I am a human being and a supporter of world peace.
  I am a mother as well, and I had the opportunity just this past week 
to talk to some of the parents of some of the troops who are now in 
Germany, prepared to liberate those in the former Yugoslavia and 
Croatia and Bosnia.
  What I am, however, is an expert on life and the quality of life and 
what it means to live in a democracy. I would venture to say that the 
wrongest resolution we could ever have is the one that is on the floor 
right now: Cutting off the money, telling our troops we do not care, 
and simply saying to people who want peace, ``The heck with you.''
  I do not know if we are aware of the human suffering that has gone on 
in Bosnia, some 3.2 million refugees, 200,000 dead, 6,000 elderly; 
homeless, and the mass graves that USA Today indicated, where dozens of 
family members gathered in the morgue of Splits Clinical Hospital to 
try to identify remains of loved ones, including watches, crucifixes, 
and pieces of clothing found with the bodies.
  The article reveals that a BMW car key found on body number 28 was 
given to a woman who claims her husband, hotel manager Steko, age 33, 
had a similar car. The woman, Bozana Steko, 32, races home to see if 
the car starts, and it does.
  I am not sure what we are debating here. I did not have the privilege 
to rise to the House floor and debate whether or not we should have 
gone into Kuwait when we had a Republican President. But I know there 
are many of my colleagues here that rose with all articulateness and 
emotional fervor, saying there was a reason to go to Kuwait. As a 
Texan, I know that we were talking about oil.

                              {time}  1945

  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peace. The American people 
have never run away from peace. They have run away from the loss of 
human life and the memories of Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not Vietnam. We have a military that is 
enormously prepared. We have young soldiers who are committed to the 
principles of peace. We have a strategy of rules of engagement that 
allows our troops to shoot to kill. We do not have sitting ducks at the 
line of demarcation. We are sending armored divisions, and yes the 
Americans are in areas that they know they can cover.
  There are those who are cynical. There will be dangers, sniper fire, 
possibilities of land mines, but Americans and people of the world have 
never been able to gain peace without taking risks.
  But most of all, I would say to my colleagues who want to throw in 
the faces of our troops that we will cut off the money but yet, we are 
for you, as I have heard my colleagues say, I want them to simply tell 
the truth. If my colleagues are for peace, they have got to stand for 
peace. They have got to take risks for peace.
  Having gone to Bosnia, I will tell my colleagues that the people 
there want peace. They want to be part of peace. They begged us for 
peace as we stood in the streets with Bosnian children.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go. We must support our troops. 
We must be strong for peace. Let us act like Americans. Take a risk and 
take a stand. Stand strong for peace.

[[Page H14845]]

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke] who has one of the best chiefs of staff on the Hill.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, this is not so complex. Our troops are not in 
Bosnia. Our troops are in Germany. If my colleagues want our troops to 
stay in Germany and not go to Bosnia because this policy is wrong, dead 
wrong, this vote tonight is the only opportunity to do that.
  If this vote passes by two-thirds of this House and two-thirds in the 
other body, it is veto-proof. It is the only opportunity that we have, 
with 66 percent of these two bodies acting out the will of 85 percent 
of the American people, to prevent this travesty from happening.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, we have only one remaining speaker, and I 
will yield the balance of my time to him. I understand the gentleman 
from California has the right to close.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], a scholar.
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan] leading this effort, it is patently ridiculous 
to assert that this vote could be construed as a statement for 
nonsupport for our troops. Please do not use this argument. With Mr. 
Dornan leading this debate, there is no way our intentions could be 
misunderstood.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the White House and the public will 
take a vote against Dornan as a vote for Gulf of Tonkin-like powers for 
a Presidential deployment of American troops to Bosnia. That is what 
this debate is all about.
  Should we give the President the power to send these troops to 
Bosnia? If some nut or ruthless gang unleashes biological or chemical 
weapons or in some other way kills hundreds if not thousands of young 
American defenders, those opposed to this bill will bear a share of the 
responsibility with the President.
  The President is sending them there. We have a chance to act. We are 
now in the chain of command. If my colleagues vote against the Dornan 
proposal, they are sending a message to the President that he can send 
the troops to the Balkans.
  The cold war is over. The American people deserve better treatment 
than this. We should not be sending young Americans all over the world 
in every conflict. It is not fair to them. It is not good policy, and 
it will not lead to a more peaceful world.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult in a half-minute to sum up 
all the arguments. Suffice it to say, clearly and unequivocally, we 
stand in support of our American troops. It is for that reason that we 
do not ask those troops to put on referee stripes to go and try to 
mediate a peace that is not a reality.
  We call in American fighting men and women to defend this country and 
our legitimate national interests. There are no legitimate national 
interests at stake in Bosnia. Mark Twain said it best, Mr. Speaker: 
History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said that nothing that 
ever starts in the Balkans ever ends there. I think that when we think 
about making peace with tanks, bullets, guns, rifles, and missiles, we 
are not fooling ourselves. We are not going over there to make peace. 
We are going to go in there and prolong and probably start a bigger 
conflict than has been going on there already for over 100 years.
  So, I proudly support the Dornan amendment and will say this: If 
anybody thinks there is a Member of Congress who cares about our men 
and women in armed services more than the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dornan], they are only fooling themselves.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], just back from Sarajevo and all points 
thereabouts.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is 
the only way that I can express my view and the overwhelming views of 
my constituents to our President. The best way to support our troops is 
to not send them at all.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's policy to send United States troops to 
Bosnia is simply wrong. I have recently returned from Bosnia and I can 
tell my colleagues firsthand that the situation there is grave. The 
destruction that I witnessed is horrifying.
  We will not have peace in Bosnia with or without our troops, in my 
judgment. I opposed the President's policy before I went to Bosnia, and 
I oppose it more even after returning.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
hamilton] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Norwood], someone who not only supports the troops; he is 
one of the troops, a Vietnam veteran.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I 
rise tonight to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them 
by bringing the 150 home. Bring them home now, before we get into a 
mess like I personally had to live through 30 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I served one ``Mission Impossible'' in Vietnam where we 
waged political war and no one really knew who the enemy was, and we 
had no political will to flight. Let us stop this madness. Is it not 
better we embarrass the President than to lose one American life?
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of our conference who just made First 
Bird Eagle Colonel.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, there is a vital U.S. interest in peace in 
Europe, but there is more of an interest in peace in Europe to the 
Europeans. The case has never been made as to why the Europeans cannot 
themselves send 60,000 ground troops to quell the situation in Bosnia. 
No case has been made why U.S. troops are needed to help them.
  Mr. Speaker, just because we are a superpower should not make us a 
superpatsy to do the Europeans' job for them. If there is a threat that 
the war will spread further in Europe, that is even more of a reason 
for the Europeans to supply the ground troops themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the best way to support our troops is not to send them 
to Bosnia in the first place.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, even if I only save 30 seconds for myself, 
does that mean that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], this 
very distinguished Marine, once and forever, gets to go right before 
me, or could I ask the gentleman to speak now?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the gentleman from Pennsylvania could be 
yeilded to speak now. It depends.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior Member and a chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, these things never change. I have been in many 
of these debates. The American people are always conned. That is the 
truth of it, and that is happening again tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, a year from now, I want to predict what is going to 
happen. When there are yellow ribbons all over America and the American 
people say, ``When are our boys going to come home,'' these people are 
going to say, ``We cannot leave now. Look what is going to happen to 
NATO. Who is going to take care of the American sector? It is going to 
be war all over again.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we move in tonight, we are going to be there for a 
good long time, and all of my colleagues know it.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this so called mission is not--as the 
President would have us think--a peacekeping mission--this is a 
peacemaking mission. How can we commit our troops to 

[[Page H14846]]
keep a peace that does not even exist? Why should U.S. blood be spilled 
for a cause that is not in the interest of the American people?
  Mr. Speaker, what will we tell these brave soldiers' parents that 
their children died for? Remember the lessons of Somalia and Beirut. 
Vote for the Dornan bill.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, every once in a great while there is a policy 
that is so misguided, so ill-conceived, so poorly planned, and so 
deceptively presented to the American people that drastic measures are 
called for. The Bosnian policy pursued by this Presidency 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, falls directly into that category, and 
there is only one way to stop it.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing to do and that is to pass a bill 
that has some teeth in it. Not just mere words; some teeth in it. That 
is what the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has presented here 
this evening, and that is what we must do in order to stop this 
misguided and ill-conceived policy now.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, there are no vital United States interests 
threatened in Bosnia. Sad experience has taught us that it is real easy 
to move in the troops, it is very difficult to accomplish the objective 
after we are in there, and extremely difficult to get out in a timely 
and honorable way.
  We must do everything possible, and that is what we are doing now, to 
prevent this folly before the signing, before the decision is 
irrevocable.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Dornan 
proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in reluctant opposition to the legislation by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] to cut off funding for 
United States armed forces already on the ground in the territory of 
the former Yugoslavia.
  The basic problem is this: the President has already placed United 
States troops on the ground in Bosnia. That is a fact, though I 
maintain that he had no proper constitutional authority to do so 
without advance congressional authorization. But despite my opposition 
to this policy, I believe we owe those troops our support and our 
blessing. Therefore, in this instance, I will reluctantly oppose Mr. 
Dornan's resolution and support the resolution offered by Mr. Buyer 
which once again expresses our disapproval of the President's policy, 
but stands behind the well-being and safety of our young men and women 
in the Armed Forces.
  The sorry chain of events leading up to this vote only serves to 
underscore the need to revamp the legal relationship between the White 
House and Congress in matters of war and peace. I've introduced 
legislation to reassert Congress' constitutional authority to place 
troops into war or warlike situations. The key to my legislation is a 
binding requirement for prior congressional authorization for the use 
of U.S. forces in hostilities except in those cases where the President 
must act to protect the United States, its troops, citizens, or 
territories abroad. Until we in Congress act to reaffirm our 
prerogatives, we will find ourselves faced with this kind of Hobson's 
choice again and again.
  Frankly, I do not believe this peace accord will succeed in the long 
run, though I pray it will at least stop the blood letting for awhile. 
We are dealing here with an ethnic and religious war that is hundreds 
of years old. The best intentions of the Western powers are not likely 
to cool the flames of hatred in the region.
  Furthermore, our Nation should not assume the lion's share of the 
financial burden and military risk in this attempt to bring peace to 
the former Yugoslavia. For more than 40 years, the United States has 
provided for the security of Europe. We have spent as much as $100 
billion each year to protect the European democracies from the threats 
posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. It's time for the 
European community to own up to its responsibilities and take up its 
share of the burden.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, a year ago we stood on the floor and we 
debated the Haiti resolution. This House had a very good debate on 
deploying United States forces to Haiti. We heard the same kind of 
concerns. We heard that people were going to come back in body bags. We 
heard all kinds of recriminations about the policy, about the United 
States deployment, about the ability of the United States Commander in 
Chief to put United States forces in Haiti.

                              {time}  2000

  Not long ago, I became concerned about what was going on in Haiti. I 
went down there on Saturday. I found out that Aristide is going to step 
aside. They are going to have an election, that the human rights 
violations have receded substantially, that the 22,000 troops we had 
there at one time have been reduced to 2,500. In 2\1/2\ months we will 
have all the troops, all the United States forces out of Haiti, and we 
will not have had one casualty.
  Now, will it be a long-term success? All we did was allow them to 
have an opportunity to have a free election and to get their country in 
order. It will take a long time for them to straighten this out.
  I have been involved in the Bosnia situation for almost 4 years. When 
the Bush administration was in their last year, I went to Sarajevo. I 
could not get from the airport into town because the shelling was so 
heavy. The shells were landing in the houses. Two young children were 
killed not far from where I was. The next time I went in, I stopped at 
the location where 70 people were killed with one mortar shell in town. 
The people were in disarray. The buildings were destroyed. There was no 
heat, no electricity, and the people did not know where to go. The 
British commander, General Rose, said to me, stay out of it. We can 
handle it. The U.S. forces do not need to be involved. And I listened 
to that.
  I told President Clinton that I did not think we should be involved 
as long as the fighting is going on; I adamantly opposed any U.S. 
intervention. I did not think we had any business going in as long as 
they were fighting.
  Then the President took a real risk. A year later, I went over and 
talked to Gen. Rupert Smith. He thought it was time that something 
could happen there. Our emissaries went to Bosnia. Our emissaries 
talked to all the parties, and they did a marvelous job. I do not have 
the highest regard for the State Department, but in this particular 
case, they did a marvelous job in getting the parties to agree to a 
cease-fire, which has held for a period of time.
  When I was there, I saw every single building in Sarajevo had been 
destroyed or in some way hit by shellfire. People were starting to feel 
better about what had happened. And the British commander said, we 
cannot do it. Only the Americans can cause peace in Bosnia. The British 
and the French and the Germans have to many long-term animosities. If 
you want stability in Europe, you are going to have to have American 
troops involved.

  I still doubted it. I still had concerns. I believed there had to be 
a peace agreement where the troops withdrew. I felt the Russians had to 
be involved. I thought the terrorists had to be pushed out. And all 
those things have been agreed to.
  Now we stand on the threshold of a very serious decision by the 
United States Congress, very similar to what we did in Saudi Arabia 
with a difference. We were going to war in Saudi Arabia. We are going 
to make peace in Bosnia.
  I do not think that any of us take it lightly. I have no concerns 
about the patriotism of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] or 
his feeling or anybody else's motives in why they believe that they 
should vote one way or the other. But there is no question in my mind 
that if the United States is not involved, that if we do not take the 
chance, and I sat down with the President of the United States for an 
hour and a half and with my year in Vietnam, with my different 
experiences in the Congress of the United States, like the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], wounded twice 
when I was over there, I know something about the fighting. I know how 
difficult it is. But the President listened to my objections and 
concerns. I told him of the military concerns. I told him that 
politically he could be making the biggest mistake of his 

[[Page H14847]]
Presidential career. And I said, I do not expect you to make this 
decision based on politics. I would hope you would make it based on 
what is right and wrong, but I am just telling you the danger you are 
getting involved in.
  He listened to me and obviously made what he considered was the right 
decision as the Commander in Chief.
  There is no one in this country that I have a greater regard for than 
the majority leader of the U.S. Senate or the other body, no one who 
has taken a more courageous position in this incident, even though he 
has the same concerns that every person in here has about putting 
American troops in harm's way. But he made a decision based on the 
American commitment.
  The President of the United States made a very tough decision, a 
decision he considered was right, a decision he considered was in the 
best interest of this country. It behooves us not to undercut that 
President as he goes forward to sign or to agree or to witness a peace 
treaty by the participants who have been fighting.
  No question we will have casualties. But I would ask all of my 
colleagues to think about the involvement of the United States in world 
affairs. We cannot be the policemen of the world, but we can, when we 
see an opportunity, exert our moral force and insert our troops, who 
are so well trained, to do a job to make peace and not war.
  I would urge my colleagues not to cut off the funds for these valiant 
troops who are on their way to Bosnia at this very minute. Defeat my 
good friend's amendment. Vote down the Dornan bill and vote for the 
support of the troops later on.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, a word to my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. In the streets of Kuwait City a week after 
the war eight of us had people come up to us and thank us for bringing 
peace to Kuwait. And they watched our debate from their hidden rooftop 
antenna on this House floor, amazing. We brought peace there.
  This is the gold mother, the gold widow, the child who loses a dad in 
the snow of Sarajevo, Tuzla forever. Vote for the gold mother vote.
  If I were a Democrat, I would vote for all three. If I were a 
Republican, and I am, I would vote for mine and then I would vote to 
support the troops, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], my pal.
  This is a tough vote. I will respect whatever Members do on either 
side. But believe me, history is going to come back to bite us on this 
one. We are going to be asked to account for our votes on December 13, 
1995.
  Good luck. Vote your conscience.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of President Clinton's 
Bosnia peace initiative. This evening the U.S. House of Representatives 
debated several legislative measures addressing the issue of President 
Clinton's deployment of peacekeeping troops to Bosnia. I do not believe 
that it is constructive for the Congress of the United States to 
undermine the authority of the President and the confidence of our 
troops on the ground by challenging the powers granted to the President 
under the Constitution of the United States.
  Though I will always be wary of the deployment of American troops 
overseas I am confident that President Clinton has exercised his 
prerogative and authority under the Constitution of the United States 
to deploy American troops to Bosnia as part of an international 
peacekeeping force.
  Mr. Speaker, during my tenure in Congress, I have been consistent in 
my opposition and votes against the deployment of American troops in 
places such as the Persian Gulf and Grenada for the purposes of combat. 
The circumstances in Bosnia, however, warrant unique consideration of 
U.S. involvement.
  The President has made it clear that the mission of the peace 
implementation for [IFOR] under the command of NATO is well defined and 
limited. American forces will be under American command, the deployment 
has a clear exit strategy and the mission will be limited to the 
implementation of the historic Dayton Peace Agreement.
  Because of the peace mission the President is implementing and 
because of our strategy of integration, the entire continent can share 
the blessings of peace that unite our community of free nations. As we 
strive with our partners to overcome the division in Bosnia, we can 
also help overcome the remaining division of Europe. Bosnia, once the 
symbol of Europe's post-cold war disintegration and holocaust, can be 
the proving ground for a broader and deeper transatlantic community.
  Today, we know the extent of war crimes committed against innocent 
human beings in Bosnia. The atrocities are particularly disturbing when 
we consider the children of Bosnia and those who know no safe refuge. 
Finally, thanks to the leadership of President Clinton we are presented 
with an Opportunity to ameliorate a horrific situation. American 
leadership will clearly saves the lives of many of Bosnia's innocents 
that would have surely perished without our help. Hopefully, this peace 
effort will restore stability to their lives.

  The President took a historic step when he invited the Balkans 
leaders to the Dayton peace talks. At that conference, the parties 
agreed to pursue peace as opposed to war. In light of this pivotal 
development, I deem it important that we support President Clinton's 
peacekeeping initiative and support the American troops who are on 
foreign soil as part of an international peacekeeping force.
  Mr. Speaker, in Cleveland and communities throughout the Nation, our 
hearts and prayers are with our men and women in uniform and their 
families. The world will always remember their unselfish dedication to 
this peacekeeping challenge.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, with our troops on the move, and our 
national commitment clear, we cannot, should not, vote to cut off the 
funding of our military.
  To do so would both abandon our men and women who are under arms and 
negate our world leadership.
  Thus, I will vote to support our efforts; Concerned? Yes! Determined 
to preserve our strength? Always!
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dornan 
bill which prohibits funding for the deployment of United States armed 
forces on the ground in the Republic of Bosnia.
  Tomorrow the Presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and 
Serbia will sign the Dayton peace agreement which assumes the 
commitment of 60,000 NATO troops to implement its provisions. At least 
20,000 of those troops will be American soldiers. Advance troops have 
already been sent into Bosnia, and the President has said that the 
troops are committed regardless of whether Congress grants its 
approval.
  For 2\1/2\ years President Clinton turned his back on his campaign 
promises to take decisive action against the aggressors, and his 
administration further compounded the flawed policy--which had begun in 
the Bush administration--when it failed to focus, in a meaningful way, 
on the conflict and the atrocities, and the pleas of the Bosnian 
Government to permit the means to protect themselves. In fact, I 
introduced the legislation calling for the unilateral lifting of the 
embargo against Bosnia. A similar bill, the Bosnia and Herzegovina 
Self-Defense Act of 1995, was overwhelmingly supported in both the 
House and Senate. The President chose to veto the bill on August 11.
  The Dayton agreement--with the commitment of troops embedded into its 
fiber--has become the President's answer to the dilemma in the former 
Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, the President left no alternatives for the 
American people and the Congress.
  The President prematurely made commitments to send U.S. troops to 
Bosnia, first to enforce the Vance-Owen plan, then the Vance-
Stoltenberg plan, then the Contact Group plan, then the evacuation of 
UNPROFOR, and now the Dayton agreement. The President raised the 
expectations of our allies as well as those of the parties to the 
conflict that American ground forces would indeed be deployed in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to approve the deployment of our 
ground troops to this mission.
  The White House asserts that failure to deploy ground troops would 
have serious consequences for our status as a leading force in the 
world. Perhaps, but any loss of prestige is a consequence the record 
shows of the President's hasty promise and eagerness to deploy U.S. 
ground troops to enforce any plan. The premature withdrawal of troops--
either in response to military losses or simply in compliance with the 
convenient time frame set by the administration--without completing a 
realizable mission is damaging to the morale of the American military 
forces and the credibility of the United States. Questions remain about 
the agreement the troops are being sent to implement. Details about how 
and who will train and provide arms to the Bosnians are being provided 
piecemeal with the latest understanding being provided in a letter from 
the President. Will there be a clear delineation between the role of 
the NATO forces and the agreement's assurances of creating a climate 
conducive to elections, the return of refugees to their homes and 
reconstruction of the region?
  The President has prematurely committed our troops without providing 
the Congress and the American people enough confidence that the 
military strategy has been thoroughly examined, defined and structured. 
Therefore, I 

[[Page H14848]]
feel I must vote in favor of H.R. 2707 prohibiting the deployment of 
U.S. ground forces to Bosnia.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan]. Before I begin, however, I would like to 
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Funderburk], our former Ambassador to Romania.
  President Clinton gave a speech before the American people November 
27, 1995. He did not make a compelling case for sending United States 
ground troops into Bosnia. I do not believe that American interests are 
at stake or that our national security is being threatened in Bosnia. 
Therefore, I do not agree with the President's decision to send 
American troops into Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  As a veteran of 5 years of active duty as a combat arms army officer, 
I am well aware of the risks associated with the deployment of a large 
force into a hostile environment. Our sons and daughters and brothers 
and sisters in the military are an extraordinary resource that we must 
not place at needless risk.
  Some say America's international prestige is on the line, and that if 
we do not send the troops it will be diminished in the eyes of the 
world. But, I believe that our prestige will be weakened much more if 
young American men and women start coming home as fallen victims of a 
failed and poorly outlined foreign policy.
  The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is deplorable, but the basic fact 
remains that America's vital interests are in no way threatened by that 
internal conflict. Allowing our young men and women to fight and die 
for anything less than our vital interests is immoral and reprehensible 
and I will not support it.
  When the loved ones of those who will have needlessly given their 
lives for the Bosnia mission come to see us, will we honestly be able 
to tell them that their loved one sacrificed their life on a mission 
which served a noble purpose and that they did not die in vain? Can we 
tell them that their sacrifice advanced the cause of world freedom? Can 
we tell them that their effort was absolutely vital in protecting the 
security interests of our great Republic? We all know the true answer 
to these questions.
  The administration has yet to really define America's mission in 
Bosnia, including a detailed explanation of why it would serve our 
national security interest. No such definition has been forthcoming, 
nor is one likely to be, in my opinion.
  The situation in Bosnia strikes me as being a lot like the situation 
preceding the Lebanon fiasco of the early 1980's where over 200 young 
marines lost their lives in a hopeless crusade for peace when one of 
the chief belligerents of the conflict viewed the United States not as 
a peacemaker, but as an ally of another belligerent force. No, Mr. 
Chairman, sending American troops to Bosnia is not good foreign policy, 
it's a recipe for disaster and we in Congress have an obligation to 
prevent it.
  Sending our troops to Bosnia may achieve one particular result, it 
may well unite all the warring factions. And they will all be united 
against us as their common enemy.
  It was just last month that I, and the majority of the House, 
supported H.R. 2606, a bill which prohibited the use of funds 
appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the 
ground deployment of United States armed forces in the Republic of 
Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of 
any implementation force, unless funds for such deployment are 
specifically appropriated by law. On October 30, 1995, I also 
supported, as did the majority of the House, House Resolution 247 
expressing the sense of the House that no United States ground forces 
should be deployed to Bosnia without congressional approval. Tonight, I 
continue in my steadfast opposition to sending our troops to Bosnia and 
believe the best way of showing that opposition is by supporting H.R. 
2770.
  The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina is an 800-year-old struggle which is 
not ours. There is nothing going on in the Balkans that is worth losing 
one American live. I will never vote to send my neighbors' kids into 
that meat grinder. There is no discernable American interest, therefore 
there will be no American lives lost with my vote. There is no price in 
the Balkans which I am willing to pay with the blood of our military 
men and women.
  By passing H.R. 2770, the House will be exercising its Article I 
power of the purse and ensuring that we have a say in whether the 
taxpayer will pay to have American troops thrown into the quagmire in 
Bosnia. And what we are saying is that we will not appropriate funds 
for this needless mission that has no vital American interest at stake.
  The best way to support our troops is not to send them to Bosnia, and 
without the necessary funding they will be unable to go. That is the 
best way we can show our support for our troops. Should it wind up, 
however, that they have to go, we must ensure that we give them, and 
pay for, the best logistical support. We want them to be as well 
equipped as possible so that they will be able to finish the mission 
and return home as quickly as this President may permit.
  Mr. Chairman, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for the sake of 
America's sacred military honor and lives, we must pass H.R. 2770 and 
pass it tonight.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Pursuant to 
section 2 of House Resolution 304, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 218, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 856]

                               YEAS--210

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Burr
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     
[[Page H14849]]

     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     McInnis
     Riggs
     Tucker
     Velazquez

                              {time}  2029

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 856, I was unable to be 
present because of a prior family commitment. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                              {time}  2030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Pursuant to 
section 3 of House Resolution 304, it is now in order to consider House 
Resolution 302.


   relating to deployment of united states armed forces in bosnia to 
                        enforce peace agreement

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 304, I call up 
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, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 302 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 302

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The House of Representatives finds the following:
       (1) On October 30, 1995, the House of Representatives 
     agreed to H. Res. 247, which expressed the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that in the negotiations of any peace 
     agreement regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina there should not be a presumption that United 
     States Armed Forces would be deployed to that country to 
     enforce such an agreement, and that in any event, no United 
     States Armed Forces should be deployed on the ground in the 
     territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to 
     enforce such an agreement until the Congress has approved 
     such a deployment.
       (2) On November 17, 1995, the House of Representatives 
     passed H.R. 2606, which provided that none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of 
     Defense could be obligated or expended for the deployment on 
     the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina unless funds for such deployment were 
     specifically appropriated by law.
       (3) Despite the expressed will of the House of 
     Representatives heretofore mentioned, the President has 
     chosen to proceed with the deployment of approximately 20,000 
     members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in 
     the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to 
     enforce the peace agreement among the parties to the conflict 
     in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina initialed in 
     Dayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995.

     SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.

       The House of Representatives declares that--
       (1) it reiterates serious concerns and opposition to the 
     President's policy that results in the deployment of 20,000 
     members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in 
     the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
       (2) it is confident that the members of the United States 
     Armed Forces, in whom it has the greatest pride and 
     admiration, will perform their responsibilities with 
     professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary 
     courage;
       (3) the President and the Secretary of Defense should rely 
     on the judgment of the commander of the United States Armed 
     Forces that are deployed in and around the territory of the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in all matters affecting 
     the safety, support, and well-being of such members of the 
     Armed Forces;
       (4) the President and the Secretary of Defense should 
     ensure that the commander of the United States Armed Forces 
     that are deployed in and around the territory of the Republic 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina is furnished the resources and 
     support that he needs to ensure the safety, support, and 
     well-being of such members of the Armed Forces; and
       (5) the United States Government in all respects should be 
     impartial and evenhanded with all parties to the conflict in 
     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as necessary to assure 
     the safety and protection of the United States Armed Forces 
     in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
304, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes. The 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] will be recognized in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many in this body, both Republicans and 
Democrats, who fundamentally agree that the President's policy in the 
Balkans is ill-conceived, poorly defined, and highly dangerous. The 
House has been heard on this issue.
  It is ill-conceived, because the President 2 years ago promised 
25,000 U.S. troops to enforce a future peace agreement without knowing 
what the situation would be on the ground. This commitment of 25,000 
United States troops on the ground also is ill-conceived because the 
United States has lost the protection of neutrality after having bombed 
Bosnian Serbs and promising to arm and train Bosnia Moslems. The United 
States troops could become targets and casualties.
  The implementation has been poorly defined in that the President has 
set a date certain as an exit strategy. If there are vital national 
security interests to place troops on the ground in the Balkans, then 
that is what is used to define your exit strategy. What is the success 
and what is the failure? You see, there are also other concerns, 
whether it is mission creep, whether it is the issue of the Nation-
building exercises.
  Let me also state this: The implementation plan we all understand 
will be highly dangerous, but it makes no sense to place U.S. troops on 
the ground that have lost the protection of neutrality.
  Many of recognize the threat to the U.S. forces will not come from 
actual company or battalion size or platoon size attacks upon U.S. 
forces. It will come through cowardly acts of terror, whether it be by 
sniper, whether it be by bombings, whether it be by booby traps or 
accidents.
  Let me share that this House has already been heard on this issue 
twice. First, we sent an overwhelming message, a bipartisan message, in 
that 315 Members of this body said ``Mr. President, do not negotiate a 
peace agreement based on the precondition that the U.S. troops will be 
there to implement whatever agreement you sign.'' He ignored that and 
he went forward. Then we had the Hefley amendment, and again the 
President ignored the Hefley amendment and proceeded anyway.
  So now what we are doing here today is sending another message to the 
President: ``Mr. President, we reiterate our prior positions and also 
oppose United States ground troops in Bosnia.''
  It is now our congressional oversight responsibility to narrow the 
parameters, and that is exactly what we do. We are saying as to matters 
on the field, listen to the commanders, give them the resources they 
need, make sure that we protect our force by making sure they are 
impartial and evenhanded to the conflict, and also we have the 
confidence in the U.S. Armed Forces to do their mission.

[[Page H14850]]

  Mr. Torricelli. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, we have heard colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, but particularly the Republican side of the aisle, 
say that the United States has not been forceful. We have been hearing 
for the past 3 years that the United States has not been forceful, that 
we have left the European allies to do the job in Bosnia, and they have 
been doing it ineffectively.
  Now the President takes the bull by the horns and hammers out an 
agreement in Dayton and we are second-guessing and undermining and 
playing totally politics with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one of the Democrats that crossed party lines and 
supported President Bush during the Persian Gulf war. I did so because 
I believed that it was in the best interests of America not to 
undermine the President of the United States at such a crucial time in 
foreign policy. I believed that then, and I believe it now.
  I would no more undermine President Clinton than I would undermine 
President Bush. We have been watching for nearly 4 years now, and we 
have seen visions of a new Holocaust rearing its ugly head in Europe 
again, 50 years after the end of the worst Holocaust in world history. 
We have seen ethnic cleansing, emaciated people, rapes, pillages. I 
think America does have a moral obligation to act. I do think that the 
stability of Europe is certainly in the vital interests of the U.S.
  The NATO alliance is certainly important. If we were to do nothing 
now, the NATO alliance would be rendered impotent and go down the 
drain. So I do think we have a vital interests there. We are the 
leaders of the free world and we have to lead. We have seen in other 
parts of the world that things do not move until the U.S. acts, in the 
Middle East, South Africa, and Ireland. If we do not act, war will 
break out again, and it could such more countries into a greater war. 
We saw what appeasement did in the 1930's with Hitler, and when the 
United States and other nations did not step in, it led to a larger 
war.
  When we talk about the Persian Gulf war, I remember my Republican 
colleagues at that time saying support the President, support the 
President. My God, during the Persian Gulf war we sent 50,000 troops to 
fight in a war, and the Republicans cheered. This is 20,000 troops to 
keep a peace. All the warring factions have invited us in. The mission 
is clearly defined, and the Pentagon, which is usually skeptical about 
peacekeeping, supports this and says it is doable and will be 
successful.
  The same people who predicted doom and gloom in Haiti and were wrong 
are predicting gloom and doom again. So my colleagues, let us not 
undermine our troops, let us not undermine our President. We are the 
leaders of the free world, not an isolationist nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the Buyer resolution and support the 
Hamilton resolution, which supports our troops. The button I am wearing 
says blessed are the peacemakers, and blessed are the peacemakers. 
Blessed are our brave men and women, blessed are our troops, and 
blessed is our Nation in the undertaking we are about to do. Nothing 
could be more noble than what this country does, and nothing can be 
more noble than to end the carnage in Bosnia.
  We are coming in as peacemakers. We are making peace. We are not 
fighting a war. We are giving that nation a chance to put itself 
together. In doing so we are strengthening NATO and we are 
strengthening ourselves. This is not the time to turn to isolationism. 
We accept the leadership of the free world. Nobody anointed us with it. 
We wanted it. We have it. We are to act like leaders, and here in 
Congress, no matter what the polls say, we are elected leaders, and we 
have to lead.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what is going on now is in the best defining 
interests of our country. This is a great Nation, it has always stood 
for what is right, and as the President says, what we are doing is the 
right thing to do. Defeat this resolution. Support Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as many of my colleagues before me have done, 
with grave reservations about the President's policy towards Bosnia and 
particularly has commitment to deploying at least 20,000 American 
service men and women to police the Bosnian peace agreement.
  We all condemn the brutality perpetrated against innocent civilians 
in Bosnia, but President Clinton has yet to clearly explain to the 
American people what direct United States interest is at stake that 
warrants risking the lives of our servicemen and women. And, had none 
of our soldiers already arrived in Bosnia, I would stand here before 
you and argue that, without the full support of the American people 
behind sending United States troops to Bosnia, one lost life is one too 
many.
  Let us not forget that, although the United States is attempting to 
be neutral as this peace goes forward, the United States was heavily 
involved in the NATO airstrikes that debilitated Serbian forces and led 
them to take a seat at the negotiating table. How can we be sure that 
American forces will not be targeted for retaliation by angry Serbians? 
Moreover, any attempt on our part to arm and train the Bosnian Moslems 
in preparation for our departure would directly contradict our spoken 
neutrality and put our troops at a much greater risk than that which 
they already face.
  If our purpose in policing this peace agreement is to allow for the 
rebuilding of Bosnia, how can we put an arbitrary time limit of one 
year on United States occupation? This will accomplish little more than 
the unnecessary and unjustified loss of American lives, and could very 
well lead to a resumption of fighting once our troops are withdrawn. 
The ethnic and religious hatreds, in Bosnia have caused civil war and 
bloodshed for over 500 years. Ending this bloodshed would require an 
occupation force of unlimited duration, not merely 12 months. And, the 
argument that the war would spread to other parts of Europe without 
United States involvement does not carry much weight in my eyes, for 
how much has it spread over the past 4 years?
  Congress has already voiced its overwhelming opposition to putting 
American ground troops in Bosnia by passing legislation that prohibits 
sending United States forces abroad unless Congress approves the 
appropriate funds for the operation.
  However, the President has decided to send 20,000 servicemen and 
women to Bosnia over the objections of both Congress and the American 
people. We have a responsibility, a moral obligation, to support our 
Armed Forces in order to ensure that we in no way undermine their 
efforts but hopefully expedite their safe return home. We must offer 
unwavering support to the men and women of our United States forces, 
the greatest military in the world. Anything less on our part risks 
damaging the morale of our soldiers and, as we all know, strong 
unwielding morale is essential to unit coherence and success.
  My colleagues, in closing, let me say that any of us can oppose the 
President's decision, as I most certainly do, but all of us must 
support the mission of our American forces.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri, the Honorable Ike Skelton, coauthor of this amendment, who is 
well respected in this body.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it has been said the more emotion, the less 
reason. Emotion reigns. The cry is, stop the bloodshed. Fine. But it 
should be done right, not in a way that defies common sense and puts 
our troops at a high and unacceptable risk.
  On November 11 I set forth eight conditions under which American 
forces could go to Bosnia. Two of those conditions have not been met by 
the U.S. policy.
  One, there is no clear and understandable exit plan or policy. This 
gives me great concern that we could find ourselves stuck like flies 
stuck to flypaper. Second, the United States has formally guaranteed to 
arm and train the Bosnian Moslems. The United States has formally 
agreed to coordinate the arming and the training of these Moslem 
forces. This policy defies common sense, because it will cause U.S. 
troops to be viewed as favoring one side over the other. It will 
destroy our impartiality and puts our troops in danger.

[[Page H14851]]

  The Americans will be seen as the enemy by the Serbs; the Moslems 
will expect a wink and a favor, and when they do not get it, they will 
be angry. This policy causes our troops to become targets of anger and 
vengeance. This policy of arming and training Bosnian Moslems, even 
though through a third party but guaranteed and supervised by us, 
concerns me.
  There are three points to be considered. First, already there exits a 
parity between the warring factions, the Serbs on the one hand and the 
Croat-Moslem federation on the other. Note the recent battlefield 
successes by the federation.
  Secondly, our allies and our military leaders in this country are not 
in favor of arming and training the Moslem forces. The French and 
British in particular are against it.
  In order to have peacekeeping work, there must be trust. Trust of the 
former belligerents, of the impartiality of the peacekeepers. This 
trust and confidence will not exist so long as our government pursues 
the policy of supervising the arming and training of the Moslems. The 
U.S. field manual regarding peacekeeping states peacekeeping requires 
an impartial evenhanded approach. I have raised this issue with the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, we are sending our troops into Bosnia and putting them 
into an atmosphere of hostility. Serbian President Milosevic told the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Mrs. Danner] the following: ``Provisions to equip and train 
Bosnian Muslims are not part of the Dayton agreements. Such an effort 
would not be evenhanded and would be a mistake for the U.S.'' He went 
on to say, ``I would ask the U.S. to reconsider the equip and train 
effort, as it will have no positive effect and be a waste of money. It 
will establish the wrong psychology in the area, preparing for war 
instead of preparing for peace.''
  Mr. Speaker, the only resolution before us to address this issue of 
the United States arming and training the Moslems is the Buyer-Skelton 
measure. It calls for the United States, in all respects, to be 
impartial. This present U.S. policy is placing our soldiers into the 
snake pit of the Balkans and angering half of the snakes. Our troops 
deserve to be put in an atmosphere that they expect, that of 
impartiality, as evenhanded peacekeepers; an atmosphere where all the 
warring sides will see the soldiers wearing American flags as truly 
impartial, where the warring sides will not see Americans as enemies 
and put targets on their backs.
  Mr. Speaker, this policy is putting the American corporal, who is 
trying to settle a problem between a Serb soldier and a Moslem soldier, 
in an impossible and dangerous position. I urge a strong vote for the 
Buyer-Skelton measure.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, tonight this House faces a choice. We can 
choose to support the President of the United States in his decision to 
help end the tragic war in Bosnia, in his decision to act with our NATO 
allies to stop the killing in Europe for the third time in this 
century, in his decision to nurture a peace that, without question, 
will be fraught with its own risks and dangers. Or, we can choose to 
desert the President at this time of challenge to American leadership, 
to seek moral comfort for this country in the failure of Europeans to 
end the slaughter, to watch the war resume, content that the vital 
interests of the United States might, this time, escape the blight of 
war in Europe. As between a problematic peace and a horrific war, I 
choose to support the President's courageous work for peace.
  Mr Speaker, 10 days ago, in Sarajevo, with the gentleman from Indiana 
and 13 others, we encountered a moving scene outside the presidential 
palace in Sarajevo. The long-suffering people there, tears flowing from 
the eyes of an older woman who had lost her son in the war, pleaded 
with us that only America could solve this disaster. It was a poignant 
reminder that this is not a problem that can be solved by Europeans 
without American leadership.
  At lunch the next day, with Army troopers in Germany, another 
poignant reminder, as I listened to one young Army Specialist who told 
me he had taken his Thanksgiving leave to visit Dachau. And he said, 
``Congressman, if this country has the power to prevent that from 
happening again, we must do what we can.'' Another reminder of an 
earlier problem that could not be solved by the Europeans without 
American leadership.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that this is not just 
about Bosnia. Other actors around the world are watching these events 
and will be taking their cue. If leaders of dispossessed ethnic groups 
elsewhere in Europe and in the new states of the Soviet Union see the 
international community unable to act effectively here, they may well 
challenge the compromises that have been worked out in their states 
and, eventually, we may lose much of what we had won in the Cold War.
  This President has shown courage for taking on this difficult 
responsibility in the face of political risks and public opposition. A 
vote for this resolution to oppose this mission will only serve to 
encourage both the enemies of peace in Bosnia and the enemies of United 
States leadership in the pursuit of a decent international order.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California. [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Buyer-
Skelton resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Buyer/Skelton resolution 
regarding the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Bosnia. I am 
concerned, however, that this resolution could provide a blank check 
for the further deployment of U.S. forces beyond the 20,000 we have 
been told are being sent.
  It should come as no surprise to you that I share the strong 
skepticism and opposition of many of my Colleagues with respect to the 
commitment of United States ground forces to Bosnia. I voted for the 
Dornan resolution because I felt that the most emphatic way to express 
my opposition to the President's decision was to deny any funding for 
sending our troops to Bosnia before they actually began arriving in 
that country.
  I believe the Buyer-Skelton resolution is acceptable because it does 
express our opposition to the President's decision while at the same 
time saying that the House will support the troops once they are 
deployed.
  Even the Hamilton resolution can be acceptable because it goes 
directly to the issue of supporting our troops whether we agreed with 
the President or his decision or not.
  I do not share our Commander in Chief's position. However, I do 
appreciate the dilemma he faces as a full partner in the NATO alliance 
and the responsibilities which come with that partnership.
  While I agree with the President's claim that we have an interest in 
the future of Bosnia, I see absolutely no vital national security 
interest, domestic or military, being served by sending American troops 
into this hostile and volatile place.
  Make no mistake, our troops, which will be heavily armed and expertly 
trained, are not going into Bosnia to keep the peace. They are going in 
to enforce the peace. And the act of enforcement often comes at a 
price. This deployment is especially dangerous because many Serbs will 
see our troops as being there, not as impartial arbiters, but as 
protectors of the Muslims.
  Mr. Speaker we are at the point where the deployment of U.S. ground 
forces is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, it is our duty to the citizens 
of this nation to express our views on this matter and my view is that 
we should not be sending our troops to Bosnia.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my friends, the 
gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, and the gentleman from Indiana, 
Major Buyer. And for me, obviously, I support the troops and I will be 
there with them at Christmas. Join me.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Molinari] who accompanied me on a trip to the Balkans.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution very clearly, 
because it does clearly state our opposition to the policy that has 
brought us here today.

[[Page H14852]]

  This is a policy which began with an unfair, uneven arms embargo that 
left a people crippled, at war. It continued with a policy that reneged 
on the threats of air strikes to stop an aggressor waging war against 
civilians, and it has become a policy that allows the most vicious of 
war criminals to remain in the region with our troops in harm's way.
  Nevertheless, despite Congress' prior stands against this policy, our 
troops will be in the region within a week. So tonight we are not only 
reiterating our opposition to that flawed policy that brought us here; 
we are also saying to our troops, Godspeed with your mission. It is a 
terrible policy, but it is a noble mission that may bring peace to a 
region that has not known peace and hope to a people afraid now to 
hope.
  But, Mr. President, we are also saying in this resolution that we 
will be watching to make certain that everything possible is being done 
to ensure the safety of our troops and to see that the civilian side of 
rebuilding stays on course. So, you see, since there is nothing 
Congress can do to change the President's course, I think we have an 
obligation to make sure that our troops are not caught in the middle of 
two wars, one in Bosnia and one in Washington; and I believe that the 
Buyer resolution, as opposed to the other resolutions, fulfills that.
  Last and most importantly, this resolution clearly states to our 
troops that regardless of our position on policy or on mission, that we 
are with them; that we are proud of them; that we are cheering for 
them; and that we are praying for them.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I had three serious questions I needed 
answered when I went to the Balkans 2 weeks ago. Do the people, 
including the leadership of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia, really want 
peace? Has our military mission been planned to minimize every possible 
risk to our men and women who are going there? And is this mission, 
this policy, the right thing for America?
  I felt strongly the first two questions were answered affirmatively, 
but it is the third question, the question of policy, which I want to 
address. And it was on the streets of Sarajevo that the rightness of 
this policy became clear to me.
  A crowd gathered around us in the street in front of the President's 
office; an elderly lady in tears, pouring out her heart, was telling us 
of her whole family being killed, of the babies in the building where 
she lived being killed by mortars.
  In the anguish of an elderly man, standing not far from her, came 
these words. He said, ``Do you not understand that only America can 
ensure the peace? Only if America comes will we have peace. We trust 
America.''
  Mr. Speaker, I was an 18-year-old kid in Korea, 32 years ago, 12 
years after the war, with the First Cav Division keeping the peace in 
Korea. I remember walking around the streets of Munsani and Yongigo, 
and the Korean people coming up to us and saying, ``Thank you for being 
here. If not for America, we would have no peace.'' I remember 
understanding very clearly then what America meant to people who want 
peace and freedom.

  For the past 32 years, I have intellectualized the role of America in 
the world. I voted on authorizations and appropriations for foreign 
policy and military policy, but not until the streets of Sarajevo was I 
reminded again of what America means to people who are without hope.
  Why did they say that only America can ensure the peace? Why did they 
say, standing there in the midst of ruins, knowing that 250,000 of 
their people were killed, that 2 million were homeless, why did they 
say they trust America?
  What do they trust? Our superior military forces? Yes. Our leadership 
of the free world? Yes. Our democratic institutions? Yes. But more than 
that, they trust the experience of America. They trust the history of 
America, which no other country can match.
  Look around this Chamber. We have come to this country from every 
nation in the world, from every background, every ethnic, every 
religious, every racial background.

                              {time}  2100

  And we have shown the world that we can live together in brotherhood, 
tolerating our differences and finding common ground, rather than 
battlegrounds, upon which to build.
  We have chosen to live together, to overcome our differences, and 
they know that. If we, among all nations, cannot send one division 
among all the divisions we have in Europe to Bosnia to enforce a peace, 
to give people a chance to live again with one another, then what 
Nation will stand in our stead? What nation will give others the hope 
that only America can give?
  If we think people, given the chance in Sarajevo, cannot live 
together in peace and overcome the forces of hate which inflame 
passions of ethnic and religious pride, then I tell my colleagues, look 
at Belfast, look at the Middle East. We cannot go to Sarajevo and fail 
to understand the faith that people have in the experiment and the 
experience that is America.
  Mr. Speaker, the tears of that grandmother on the streets of Sarajevo 
are the tears of every grandmother for all time who has lost her son or 
daughter to wars of injustice. But they are only, in part, tears of 
regret. They are also tears of hope that at some time in the future 
someone else's grandson or granddaughter will be walking down the 
streets of Sarajevo glad that years ago America came and peace came 
with her. Oppose this resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
last speaker. I would say that foreign policy must be guided by our 
heads, not our hearts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Evans] in the spirit of bipartisanship that brings 
the Buyer-Skelton amendment.
  (Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose sending ground troops to Bosnia and 
support this resolution and hope that my colleagues will also.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the decision to send ground forces to Bosnia 
because it will put our soldiers in the middle of an ethnic powderkeg 
that could explode again at any moment.
  Neither the Dayton Agreement nor military force can erase the 
centuries of ethnic unrest and dissension that has fueled this 
conflict. This hatred will not cease. Even as the warring parties 
prepare for the implementation of the agreement, different factions 
have burned and looted property that will be turned back to their 
opponents. Can we expect the peace to last considering this level of 
animosity or the history of the region?
  This leads me to believe that this agreement will unravel. If it 
does, our soldiers will be in the middle of the conflict. But even if 
it does last, this operation is a risky proposition. Our soldiers will 
face the dangers posed by some 6 million landmines, many of them 
scattered indiscriminately throughout the unforgiving terrain of the 
region. And numerous armed terrorist groups, who may not be easily 
controlled by the signers of the agreement, may attack our forces for 
their own political gains.
  Considering the history of the region and the many threats our 
soldiers face, I cannot support this mission. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I was told today that the reason the 
President is sending troops to Bosnia is to ``break the cycle of 
violence.'' This, alone, is not an acceptable reason to risk the lives 
of young Americans.
  Four conditions must be met before we commit United States ground 
troops anywhere: First, there must be a vital national interest at 
stake. Mr. Speaker, there is no vital national interest at stake in 
Bosnia. Second, there must be a clear mission and a reasonable change 
of success Mr. Speaker, there is no clear mission and no reasonable 
chance of success. Third, there must be a clear exit strategy. Mr. 
Speaker, a time line to withdraw before the next election is not an 
exit strategy.
  Fourth, and most importantly, we must have the support of the 
American people, whose husbands, wives, sons, and daughters are asked 
to sacrifice their lives to achieve the mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this evening and I have 
heard not one member of Congress even pretend that the American people 
support this deployment.
  During this season of peace on earth and good will towards men, I can 
understand the desire to bring peace to a 

[[Page H14853]]
war torn nation. However, Mr. Speaker, I have two sons in their 
twenties and a daughter who just turned 18. I would not send them to 
die in the snows of Bosnia in support of this policy, and therefore I 
cannot, in good conscience, support asking other parents to do so.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, like the majority of my colleagues, I wish 
that our Bosnia policy had been focused and clear 4 years ago, before a 
quarter of a million people died and 3 million more became refugees.
  Mr. Speaker, two presidents hesitated and the results were an arms 
embargo that ratified arms imbalance, a hobbled U.N., and a belated 
bombing campaign. Another Holocaust was occurring, but the world held 
back.
  Time and again the Congress warned the President, and I did too. 
``Lift the arms embargo,'' we said. ``Do not make a commitment of 
troops a precondition to peace,'' we said, but he chose otherwise. Now, 
the options are fewer, but I am clear on what course is morally 
correct. We must support peace.
  The Dayton accord, though far from perfect, is the last option for 
peace in an exhausted region. I too was there last weekend and Sarajevo 
broke my heart. I gave my word to General Bill Crouch, Commander of the 
U.S. Army in Europe, to Admiral Layton ``Snuffy'' Smith, Commander of 
the NATO operation, and to Corporal Patricia Villa, Sergeant Marie 
LaRue, and Private First Class Don Bradley, all of California, that I 
would vote to support them.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a resolution that sends a confused 
message. I cannot vote for a resolution that prevents a separate effort 
to achieve military parity so the future aggression will be deterred.
  I would prefer a more just peace, but it is not available. This is 
the peace we can achieve, and it is unpardonable to let it pass by.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am directing this to those Americans who 
are watching. I want to clear up what this debate is about. Is it about 
America's leadership? Absolutely not. Our leadership brought the 
warring factions of this evil war to Dayton in an attempt to resolve 
their differences, but diplomacy does not include sending American 
troops.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must address his remarks to 
the Chair, and not to people watching on television. The gentleman may 
proceed.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, diplomacy does not include sending American 
troops--our finest men and women--into danger. Deployment of troops 
relates to national security and I don't believe a national security 
risk exists in the Balkans.
  To be the leader of the free world does not require our troops to 
face a brutal winter in a war zone that is littered with as many as 6 
million land mines.
  Is it about supporting our troops--NO. I will not, nor should one 
Member of this Congress, allow our troops to be left to hang out to 
dry. I will fight to ensure that we have no more tragedies like 
Somalia.
  This deployment is a 2-year-old promise that the administration made, 
and I believe it has made our troops a bargaining chip in the 
negotiations.
  I oppose sending Americans to Bosnia and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if NATO had acted and punished Serbian 
aggression when it first occurred 4 years ago, we would not be here 
tonight; the West would not have repeated the mistakes of Munich; and, 
more than 200,000 people would not have died.
  After almost 4 years of NATO drift, Croatian military success and 
NATO bombing of Serbian forces have enabled the Clinton administration 
to stop the killing and negotiate a peace. I steadfastly opposed the 
use of American ground forces there during the wartime situation, but 
our troops and our allies' troops are now going to police a peace.
  Mr. Speaker, if they go under the Buyer approach, we will be sending 
a signal of uncertainty that will in my view increase the risk of 
attack on our troops by those who read congressional opposition as a 
signal that if they just kill a few Americans, we will pull the plug, 
just as we did in Somalia.
  If my colleagues vote for Buyer, it seems to me they logically should 
have voted for Dornan in order to prevent the financing of the 
operation in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to lay down that uncertain 
trumpet and pass the Hamilton amendment clean without Buyer. Send a 
clear message that we will leave no doubt about the strength of our 
resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, but by the grace of God, our souls at birth could have 
been infused into a body born in Bosnia rather than one born on 
American soil. Only an accident of birth makes us lucky enough to live 
out our lives as Americans.
  Now our troops are going to make peace, not war in an act of mercy 
toward many of our fellow human beings on this globe. Do our duty 
tonight. It may not be popular, but it will be right and it will make 
our troops safer.
  Support Hamilton clean, defeat Buyer. That is the best way to help 
our troops.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Buyer bill, 
supporting the troops, opposing the President's policy.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. BLUTE].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, we all have concerns and trepidations about 
the President's ill-defined policy in that war-torn part of the world. 
But we have had two votes in this House that sent an unequivocal 
message on where we stand on that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me tonight we are way beyond that now, and 
for those of us who believe that the President has the constitutional 
authority to deploy these troops, and who oppose the War Powers Act as 
unconstitutional and abrogating the President's power, we must support 
the Buyer-Skelton resolution.
  We must recognize that as we speak tonight, the planes are landing, 
the troops are on the ground, and many thousands more are en route. 
Young Americans in harm's way. Regardless of our criticism of this 
policy, it is time tonight to rally behind our troops and send them and 
any potential adversary, the message that we stand behind them 100 
percent and the Congress of the United States is behind them in their 
mission.
  Vote for Buyer-Skelton and vote for our young men and women in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, Americans have seen in CNN 
detail the concentration camps and the ethnic cleansing and the 
systematic slaughter of civilians. Who dares forget the mass slaughter 
of the males in Srebrenica, thousands of men and boys, when that U.S.-
designated safe haven, swelled with refugees, was overrun by the Bosnia 
Serbs, all because the United Nations proved that it could not and 
would not stop the genocide.
  Events have shown that the United States is the only power in the 
world that can stop such crimes. To secure peace, President Clinton has 
courageously put himself and America's conscience on the line. America 
led NATO to stop the war, America led the negotiations for peace, and 
now America must lead NATO in securing the peace so that wounds can 
heal and justice can evolve.
  The United States wields such power morally as well as militarily 
because of how the world perceives us. As has been eloquently written, 
America is seen as a ``good and tolerant country; a country that leaves 
people alone, but does not leave evil alone; a country 

[[Page H14854]]
that will find the courage to act where the courage to act is wanting. 
We are not the world's policeman, but we are not the world's innocent 
bystander. To do nothing about Bosnia would steal the meaning from the 
American victory in the cold war.''
  In the year that NATO will be in Bosnia, boundaries will be secured, 
warring factions separated, and 2 million refugees who want to return 
to their homes will be secured in their return.
  Those are NATO's purposes. But the purpose of America's presence and 
participation with NATO is stability in Europe and peace in Bosnia to 
give Bosnia the opportunity to become again the multireligious, 
multicultural society that this tragic manufactured war was designed to 
destroy.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a wonderful photo in the New York Times this 
past Sunday. Mr. Speaker, 3,000 Sarajevans, Bosnians of Catholic and 
Moslem and Orthodox faith, demonstrating in unity to show that after 
all the suffering and horror of 4 years, the idea of a multiethnic, 
multireligious Bosnia has survived.
  The ultimate test for peace is whether Bosnians will use wisely the 
opportunity provided by the 1-year NATO mission to grow those 3,000 to 
30,000 to 300,000 and beyond in rebuilding Bosnia. This is our time to 
act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Buyer resolution and 
to pass the Hamilton resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] has 
18 minutes and 10 seconds, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli] has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Buyer-
Skelton resolution.
  I have long opposed the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. 
I have twice voted against such a deployment, and have written the 
President, urging him not to send troops.
  I believe that our Nation's interests in Bosnia are important. I have 
supported the involvement of our sea and air forces, our intelligence 
and logistics assets, and our most diligent diplomatic efforts. But I 
have never felt our interests were so vital that they warranted putting 
our ground troops at risk.
  Accordingly, I voted for the Dornan measure to oppose the provision 
of funds to carry out this mission.
  However, while I supported the Dornan legislation, I recognize that 
the President will disregard it. Thus, I will also vote for the Buyer-
Skelton resolution. If our troops are going to go--and there is no 
doubt that they will--the first are already there they should be 
certain of our commitment to ensure they have every resource necessary 
to accomplish their mission.
  I urge the House to support this measure.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], chairman of the Committee on National Security.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members say on the floor this 
evening that we should support peace. When I think back, we have 
supported peace all over this world in recent times. We supported peace 
in Lebanon, in Somalia. We had people killed in both places because of 
it. We withdrew.
  It is easy for Members to get up here and say that they have concern 
for people who are being killed in other places throughout the world. 
Somehow or another they divorce that from the killing of our own people 
in the process. Mr. Speaker, I do not represent those people in Bosnia. 
I represent people back here. The lives of our people are more 
important than the others. It just comes down to that.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Buyer-Skeleton resolution.
  Bosnia, a name, that up until a few years ago, was rarely mentioned 
on the House floor, and most of us probably couldn't have found it on a 
map. Yet, today, U.S. troops are going there to help make sure it 
continues to exist because it has suddenly become in our national 
security interest to do so.
  None of use who've searched our hearts can say that there haven't 
been crimes against humanity in Bosnia. None of us want to see those 
crimes ever happen again.
  The President has decided that committing the United States and our 
NATO allies will put a stop to the slaughter of innocent Bosnians. 
Perhaps, but for how long?
  However, when committing a democratic government, such as ours, to a 
policy, Congress too has to show a commitment. In the last Congress, we 
urged the President to lift the arms embargo. In this Congress, we've 
told the President on several occasions not to send ground troops 
unless he gets our approval first. Yet, the President took no action on 
the embargo and ignored us regarding the troops.
  We're being asked now to support this policy because the troops are 
on their way to Bosnia.
  This begs the question: Can we support the troops knowing that the 
policy they, and we, are being asked to uphold is wrong? Can a civil 
war that has been raging for centuries be cured by a 1-year stay of 
foreign forces?
  The White House has claimed the President is showing leadership, that 
as the leader of NATO we, as a nation, must also show leadership, that 
as the only remaining world's superpower, we must show leadership.
  But, is being lead into a swamp with no clear path out leadership? 
Will NATO remain intact when this policy fails? Will the world question 
our leadership even more when we pull out and Bosnia resumes its bloody 
civil and ethnic war?
  Our troops could end up paying the price of our leadership with their 
lives. Our troops must understand that we will support them, as we've 
always done, but that we have no confidence in the President's policy 
that put them there. This message must be made crystal clear to the 
President and our troops.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], a very respected Member of 
this institution.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
Buyer-Skelton resolution that expresses opposition to the President's 
policy to deploy 20,000 members of the United States Armed Forces to 
Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support putting American forces on the ground 
but since the deployment has begun, I agree with the Buyer provisions 
that say that the President and Secretary of Defense shall rely on the 
judgment of the United States commander in Bosnia.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, makes it very clear that despite our 
opposition to the President's mission, we stand behind the brave men 
and women who serve in Bosnia and, also, God bless these great 
Americans.
  I point out to this group tonight, they are all volunteers and they 
are serving under the American flag.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan, [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if I might, let me share what I learned in 
Bosnia. First, Dayton is a declaration of peace, not war. Second, there 
are serious self-interests on the part of all the three parties. The 
Dayton agreement was reached but not primarily made in America. For 
each of those parties, there is a clear self-interest.
  Third, the U.S. military is supported. As one general said to us, we 
can do the job. It is a task defined, limited and achievable, and they 
have authority to take whatever force is necessary to protect our 
troops.
  If Members vote to reject Dayton, what they are saying is not only no 
to the Commander in Chief but no to the military leadership of our 
nation. They helped draft this plan.
  There is some risk in peace. There is also risk in renewed war, the 
risk of a renewed war in Europe spilling over beyond Bosnia and the 
renewed risk of genocide.
  I would like to say to my friend from Indiana, yes, we have to make 
policy with our heads, hard-headed ways. 

[[Page H14855]]
Americans also have a heart, and the prospect of renewed genocide is 
something that should not be ignored.
  Finally, I want to say there is an exit strategy. It is very clear. 
If the parties who have chosen peace continue on that path, we will 
help them. If they choose to renew war, we are going to get out and get 
out fast.
  I urge support of Hamilton and that we vote against Buyer.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] a comrade of mine from the Gulf war.
  (Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's 
policies and in support of the troops.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Buyer-Skelton 
resolution. This is not a Tonkin Gulf resolution. The situation we are 
debating here is not about Beirut. It is not about Somalia. It is not 
about Haiti.
  There are risks in this policy of our intervention. There are 
profound unknowns. Does the military, and this is the question we need 
to ask, have the force necessary to meet those risks, to meet those 
unknowns? We want to make sure that they do. Is there a chance in this 
situation for a profound change in a positive way in this world as a 
result of our efforts? The answer should be yes, can be yes, must be 
yes.
  The policy up to this point, in my judgment, has been haphazard and 
indecisive. The Buyer-Skelton resolution allows us from this point on 
to be decisive, clear. And as we go through this dark tunnel together, 
let us all hold this torch high to light the way and chase away the 
demons.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are at a very important point 
in the history of the United States of America, the point that many 
would not have chosen to come upon. But now is that moment and we must 
involve ourselves. Why?
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this Chamber, Shimon Peres, Israel's prime 
minister, appealed for American leadership in the world. Today, as we 
debate the appropriate use of American power in bringing an end to 4 
years of bloodshed and suffering in Bosnia, we would do well to 
remember the prime minister's words. ``You cannot escape that which 
America alone can do,'' he said. ``America alone can keep the world 
free . . .''
  We are, as is frequently observed, the world's only superpower. We 
possess a potent combination of military and moral authority. But 
possession is not enough: we must also exercise our authority when the 
occasion demands it. This administration has done that.
  American leadership brought the warring parties to the peace table, 
and American leadership must ensure that this peace process survives. 
Failure to lead would guarantee the continuation--even the expansion of 
bloodshed. It would endanger the future of NATO, an organization that 
has brought nearly four decades of peace to Europe.
  But perhaps worst, failure to lead would undercut our reputation for 
steadfastness in the pursuit of peace throughout the world. It would 
signal that we shrink from our responsibilities, instead of shouldering 
the burdens that accompany leadership.
  We must demand more of ourselves. As President Clinton said, ``We 
cannot stop all 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.''
  In the three wars that shaped this century--World War I, World War 
II, and the cold war--America achieved victory because we were willing 
to exercise leadership. Now we have another opportunity to lead--this 
time to shape the peace that will govern the next century. I urge my 
colleagues to shoulder this responsibility and seize this opportunity. 
I will oppose the Buyer resolution which does not support this 
opportunity to preserve a lasting peace. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Hamilton resolution and ensure that peace will remain in 
Bosnia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The Chair would 
advise that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] has 14 minutes and 
10 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Buyer-
Skelton resolution which recognizes the fact that the American public 
still has reservations about the President's policy in Bosnia but 
wholeheartedly supports our troops who are there. There are serious 
reservations about what the precise mission of our forces is, what are 
the specific rules of engagement, what will happen when NATO forces 
leave and what is our national interest there. While questions remain 
regarding these questions I have raised, we support our troops, our 
sons and daughters that have been sent to Bosnia. We completely back 
them to make sure that they have equipment, the resources and tools 
that they need. We need to make sure we protect them so that the 
mission will be speedily and successfully handled.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that we will soon see a 
permanent end to the hostilities and atrocities, relief for the war's 
victims, justice at the war crimes tribunal, and the safe and speedy 
return of our brave soldiers. Support Buyer-Skelton.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], former naval commander.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in very strong support of 
the Buyer resolution. I think it is very clear, despite the opposition 
of many of us, that the President is going to put the troops in Bosnia 
and that the votes today are not here to avoid that happening.
  I want to join with my colleagues in supporting our men and women in 
uniform over there. I believe while they are there we owe them that 
obligation. But that in no measure means that I, nor many of you, 
believe they should be there. It is a very dangerous and I think highly 
inappropriate use of military force. It is dangerous because our troops 
on the ground in Bosnia are going to be the subject and targets of 
radical Moslem terrorists who have another agenda, and it is 
inappropriate because there is no vital United States military interest 
there.
  We cannot afford to be the policemen of the world. And there is no 
realistic expectation that when our troops leave, there will not be a 
resumption of the civil war over there. I believe in supporting our men 
and women, but I simply cannot condone nor support the operation that 
is going on over there. I think the Buyer resolution strikes the right 
balance under the circumstances tonight. I strongly support it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], prospective and former Army sergeant.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, observation. Our troops are going 
and there is nothing we are going to be able to do about it. One of the 
things that concerns me is that we do not profit from history.
  We went into Beirut and we lost 241 Marines blown all to heck, trying 
to solve their problems that are of an age-old nature. We went into 
Somalia and got involved in a civil conflict there and guys driving 
around on pickup trucks with machine guns in the back drove us out of 
there. Aideed, the tyrant, the tribal leader, is still in power over 
there and we spent hundreds of millions of dollars. And we pulled out 
and we did not solve that problem.
  And now we are going into a quagmire much greater than either one of 
those, believing that we are going to solve those problems. We are not 
going to solve those problems. A year from now we will probably pull 
out and the war will go on and people will continue to die and we will 
have lost a lot of young men and women unnecessarily.
  So tonight all I want to say, because this is a fait accompli, is God 
bless those soldiers and God bless their parents and loved ones.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H14856]]

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the president's 
plan to deploy United States troops to Bosnia.
  While I am opposed to sending troops to enforce a fragile peace in a 
region plagued by war and mired in ethnic conflict, I do want to be 
clear that I am fully supportive of the troops that will be on the 
ground.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the troops on the ground need and 
deserve our full support, so that as they head into harm's way they 
will have the assurance that the thoughts of those at home are with 
them.
  Offering support for the troops, however, does not mean that Congress 
has no role in the troop deployment or is relinquishing its role in the 
area of foreign policy.
  Mr. SPEAKER. I would also like to mention that my constituent, Sgt. 
Mathew Chipman, of Beardstown, IL, was one of the first army personnel 
to set foot on Bosnian soil.
  His picture was in the front page of every newspaper in the country.
  Sgt. Chipman is a long time veteran of the army with many years of 
service. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of Sgt. Chipman and his family. 
He will be in our thoughts and prayers.
  Indeed, Congress does have a role in foreign policy. At the very 
least. It is incumbent on the President to come before both Houses of 
Congress and present his plan on deploying troops to the former 
Yugoslavia, as well as his plan defining the mission and exit strategy 
for those troops.
  Historically, before committing large numbers of U.S. troops to 
crisis areas overseas, it has been customary for the President to seek 
the consent of Congress before initiating a deployment of military 
forces.
  In this case, the President has not sought approval of Congress for 
his actions, yet, the President intends to fly to Paris today for the 
purpose of signing a treaty that will obligate over 20,000 troops for 
operations in Bosnia.
  If the President, with or without Congressional approval, intends to 
place American troops in harm's way--and it appears that this is what 
he intends to do--then I urge the President, in consultation with 
Congress, to articulate a clear mission statement and to define an 
achievable exit strategy.
  Our troops on the ground need to know precisely what it is that they 
are being asked to do--and Congress deserves a role in making that 
determination.
  Mr BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia, [Mr. Chambliss], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult decision 
that we have had to deal with, the deployment of troops to Bosnia. I, 
along with the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Skelton], and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], have sat in the Committee on 
National Security over the last several weeks and we have asked very 
serious questions of the administration.
  Those are the same questions that have been alluded to by Mr. Skelton 
earlier. Those questions simply have not been answered. I voted in 
favor of the Dornan amendment earlier. That vote by me in favor of the 
Dornan amendment was a statement. It was a statement that, Mr. 
President, you have not provided the information satisfactory to this 
Congress to authorize this Congress to vote in favor of deploying 
troops to Bosnia.

                              {time}  2130

  In spite of that, that decision has been made. That decision is 
behind us now, as the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Burton], just said. 
It is time now to move on. When we move on, we must leave this House, 
leaving nothing unturned, but giving our unconditional support to the 
troops, the brave men and women in Bosnia. The Buyer-Skelton resolution 
does that. I urge support of that resolution.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago when the reality of the holocaust came to 
light, people of conscience said never again to ethnic cleansing and to 
genocide. These abhorrent actions have continued despite this promise. 
I believe that the world can no longer turn a blind eye to Bosnia and 
the tragedies that are there. That is why I commend President Clinton 
for his leadership, support the troops for their courage, and will 
support the Hamilton amendment.
  I rise in opposition to the resolution on the floor at this time, 
because I believe our country can be proud of the leadership in 
bringing the warring parties to the conflict in Bosnia to the 
negotiating table and for the successful conclusion of the Bosnian 
peace talks. Now we should join with other nations in ensuring that the 
peace agreement can be implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States does have a national interest in peace 
in the former Yugoslavia. As the world's lone superpower, we have the 
obligation to lead. Several hundred thousand innocent children, men and 
women have died in the conflict in Bosnia. The war must stop.
  At stake if the United States does not participate in the Bosnian 
peace process are the role of the United States as a world leader, the 
future viability of NATO, and the risk of reigniting the conflagration 
in Bosnia. A continuing Bosnian conflict threatens to spread killing 
and destruction to other European states. The terrible acts of ethnic 
cleansing and brutal atrocities challenge the conscience of us all.
  Is the Bosnian mission without danger and risk? No. With strong 
leadership, there are always risks. These risks have been minimized, 
and they are risks for peace, risks for ending years of bloodshed, 
risks for freedom. We risk far more by failing to act. We risk far more 
if we allow the tenuous peace to collapse and watch the flames of war 
ignite again.
  For this reason I oppose this resolution, urge support of the 
Hamilton resolution, and commend President Clinton for this leadership.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for the perspective of a former Army infantry 
first lieutenant.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to have a summary of what 
the Buyer-Skelton resolution really does for I think it is being lost 
in some of the rhetoric here. It has two parts.
  First is a reiteration of votes that the House has already taken on 
October 30 and November 17. The second is a policy statement which I 
think all Members should be able to support. First of all, it is an 
expression of confidence, pride and admiration in members of the U.S. 
armed services.
  Second, it reinforces the need to respect the judgment of the 
military leadership in the field. After Somalia, that kind of debacle 
suggests this kind of policy advice from the Congress is essential.
  Third, it reinforces the policy that proper weaponry and logistical 
support must be provided to our troops in the field. Again, after the 
Somalia debacle, that kind of advice from the Congress is entirely 
essential and appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no vital interest for the United States in 
Bosnia. I very much approve of the Buyer-Skelton resolution, and ask 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution 
as one who has spoken out for the last 4 years urging that we do the 
one thing that would enable the people of Bosnia to defend themselves 
against organized aggression, violence, rape, torture and genocide; 
lift the arms embargo. This was not done. Tragically, the war and the 
mass murders continued.
  By maintaining the arms embargo, which prevented the Bosnians from 
defending themselves against aggression and genocide, we incurred a 
heavy moral burden. We now have one final chance to meet that burden, 
to end the killing, to stop the genocide, and to restore peace. Let us 
meet the obligation we incurred, least it be said the United States did 
nothing to stop the genocide. Let us give peace a chance, let us 
support the President, let us support the Hamilton resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman 

[[Page H14857]]
  from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to 
close, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Laughlin] a present colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.
  (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I supported the Dornan amendment because I 
believe the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, has 
not given us the vital national interest reasons to put our troops in 
Bosnia.
  On the very day President Kennedy stopped the Russian troops off the 
coast of Cuba, many of my classmates and I signed our contracts to be 
members of the U.S. Army. History proved President Kennedy right.
  Later my three brothers and I volunteered during the Vietnam era. All 
three of my brothers went to Vietnam. I was sent elsewhere. History 
proved us wrong when we believed vital national interests were involved 
there.
  Later I supported the Persian Gulf war. History proved us right on 
vital national interests there.
  Today we are asking young men and women of America to become targets 
of opportunity for a civil war in Bosnia, and history will provide 
those of us who oppose this policy right. The President of the United 
States, our Commander-in-Chief, has not demonstrated any vital national 
interest for the brave young men and women who have risked their lives 
in defense of freedom to go to Bosnia. I ask support of the Buyer-
Skelton resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] a comrade of mine from the Persian Gulf war, 
for the perspective of a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps.
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Buyer-Skelton 
resolution. As I have listened to the oppositions voiced by many of my 
good friends and colleagues, I have to wonder whether they have read 
the resolution. In fact, there are two elements, Mr. Speaker, contained 
in this resolution.
  The first element is one of opposition to the policy. The simple fact 
of the matter is the vast majority of the Members of the House opposed 
the decision to deploy. But the second element is far more important. 
Let me speak with passion on that issue. A few days ago I watched an 
interview on CNN of a lieutenant colonel named Bronco Lane, and he said 
whatever people think of the mission, he urged support for his men, for 
his soldiers.
  We are a good and powerful Nation, and whatever may divide us in the 
House this evening, the message we communicate to Colonel Lane and to 
those who might inflict harm upon his soldiers is that once Americans 
go to war, we come together as a Nation. The resources necessary to 
accomplish the mission, those requested by the field commander, will be 
provided. Those are the elements of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for our soldiers. I urge an 
affirmative vote on the Buyer-Skelton resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Buyer-Skelton 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Buyer-Skelton 
resolution. The President has developed a policy committing our troops 
without the consultation of Congress or the consent of the American 
people. Young men like Kempty Watson and Todd Beeson, both from 
Arkansas City, KS, have been required to go above and beyond the call 
of duty.
  Mr. Watson and Mr. Beeson, are not defending the border of this great 
country. Nor are they being required to defend the Constitution of the 
United States of America. There is no vital American interest in 
Bosnia. This mission is truly above and beyond the call of duty. They 
are heroes, as is every American who served in Bosnia. They serve 
regardless of the policy.
  Watson, Beeson, and others, like those men and women who serve in the 
1st Armored Division, follow the Commander in Chief and do so 
professionally like no others in the world.
  This resolution supports all our fine men and women in the U.S. Armed 
Forces, 100 percent.
  But this resolution also strongly opposed the policy the President 
has forced on the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, I disapprove of the President's policy. There are many 
ways to lead the world, lead NATO, present peace, without putting our 
troops in harm's way.
  Therefore I support the Buyer-Skelton resolution and our troops.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a play on words 
with the issue that is now before this body. Mr. Speaker, I was moved 
by the remarks earlier made by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham]. We share a similar sense of anger and frustration in our 
experiences as Vietnam veterans, although I was not a war hero like my 
good friend from California. But all I know is that we could have been 
among the 58,000 dead soldiers and sailors whose names are honored at 
the Vietnam Memorial.
  Mr. Speaker, our problem with Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia was not 
because we did not have the resources to protect and sustain our 
troops. it was because of poor military planning and execution by both 
our civilian and military leaders here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope to God we will not have another Secretary of 
Defense make a confession to the world and to the American people that 
it was wrong for us to be in Vietnam. I consider it an insult to the 
names of every soldier who died in Vietnam to tell that to the faces of 
the parents and relatives of those who died there in Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Dayton agreement is not perfect. Our 
President has spoken well, given leadership. I ask that we sustain the 
Hamilton resolution with caution, as expressed by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make a play on words with the issue that 
is now before this body.
  I believe it is appropriate that Congress fulfills its constitutional 
responsibility by deliberating the merits of the resolution now before 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the remarks expressed earlier by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. We share a similar sense of 
anger and frustration in our experiences as Vietnam veterans, although 
I was not a war hero like my friend from California. But all I know is 
that we could have been among the 58,000 dead soldiers and sailors 
whose names are honored at the Vietnam Memorial.
  Mr. Speaker, our problems with Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia was not 
because we did not have the resources to protect and sustain our 
troops.--It was because of poor military planning and execution by both 
our civilian and military leaders here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope to God we will not have another Secretary of 
Defense make a confession to the world and the American people--and 
that is after the fact, that the United States was wrong to be in 
Vietnam. I consider it an insult to the names of every soldier who died 
in Vietnam. Perhaps former Secretary McNamara should tell that to the 
faces of the parents and relatives of those brave soldiers who gave 
their lives because of misguided policies that our political leaders 
dreamed up here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Dayton agreement is not a perfect 
document, and I sincerely hope our President will not be blinded by the 
concerns appropriately addressed by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Shelton].
  Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that our President is not running an 
opinion poll or is trying to compete in a popularity contest. I commend 
our President for his global leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Hamilton resolution, 
but to recognize also the concerns raised earlier by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Shelton].
  Mr. Speaker, without United States leadership and participation, no 
peace is possible in Bosnia.
  For nearly 4 years, a horrifying war has torn Bosnia apart. The world 
has witnessed the murder of 250,000 innocent men, women, and children 
there, while over 2 million people have been forced from their homes 
and made refugees.
  Yesterday, like many other members, I was deeply touched by Israeli 
Prime Minister Shimon Peres' address before Congress. Prime Minister 
Peres noted the United States has saved the world 

[[Page H14858]]
from three of its greatest menaces: German Nazism, Japanese Militarism, 
and Soviet communism.
  In honoring America, Prime Minister Peres stated, ``You did it. You 
brought freedom. You defended it. Even in this very day, as Bosnia 
reels in agony, you offered a compass and a lamp to a confused 
situation like in the Middle East. Nobody else was able or ready to do 
it. You enabled many nations to save their democracies even as you 
strive now to assist nations to free themselves from their 
nondemocratic past.''
  ``America,'' stated Prime Minister Peres, ``In my judgment, cannnot 
escape what history has laid on your shoulders, on the shoulders of 
each and every one of you. You cannot escape that which America can 
alone do. America alone can keep the world free and assist nations to 
assume the responsibility for their own fate.''
  Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Peres has it right. Throughout history, 
America has always stood for peace and freedom and what is right. In 
Bosnia, we and our allies are not going to fight a war, but to protect 
a peace.
  Without American Leadership, there would be no peace agreement. 
Without American troop participation, this peace agreement will not be 
carried out. As the leader of the free world, America cannot shirk its 
responsibility to end the suffering in Bosnia, to stop the spread of 
war to Europe, and to ensure a lasting peace.
  The President has committed the United States to the Bosnia mission. 
As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently stated, ``I now 
believe that if we do not honor the President's words, the threat to 
our security would be greater because nobody would believe that we are 
capable of conducting a serious foreign policy.
  Mr. Speaker, with American leadership and credibility on the line, we 
cannot just cut and run from our duty to lead. It is time that we 
support our President and our troops in providing light and hope to 
this dark part of the world.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the gentleman who has served as 
the conscience of this Congress on the carnage in Bosnia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
Maryland is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded 
Kuwait. The President, a few days later, determined that he would 
deploy troops to oppose aggression in the Persian gulf, and we as a 
Nation and as a Congress were united in that deployment. That 
deployment occurred during August, September, October, November, and 
December, and over 400,000 troops were sent. The Democratic leadership 
and the Republican leadership stood together in support of that 
deployment to oppose aggression.
  We did so as a united nation. Yes; there was a vote in January as to 
whether to go to war, and in a bipartisan vote we determined that the 
President would have the authority to do so. The President acted, and 
the Congress shortly thereafter, some few days, passed a resolution, 
with over 400 of us voting to support the troops and their success.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in our national interest to participate 
in the effort in Bosnia for several reasons. First, our President has 
told our allies and the warring parties that we would do so. America's 
credibility and our leadership in the world would be severely 
undermined if we do not.
  The risk for peace is one that the Western alliance and the United 
States should be willing to take now and in the future. The NATO 
alliance under United States leadership remains, my colleagues, the 
stabilizing force in Europe, and it must be kept ready, united, and 
maintain its will to deter aggression and establish peace.
  I suggest to you, my friends, it would be immoral to stand by in the 
face of the carnage and the rape and the murder and the genocide and 
the tragedy that is Bosnia.
  My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, my fellow 
Americans, if you will, President George Bush recently stated:

       It is in our national interest to maintain the integrity of 
     the United States; credibility in the world. If the President 
     shifts direction now or if it is seen that the President does 
     not have the support of Congress, our standing as leader of 
     the free world and the standing of NATO would be dramatically 
     diminished.

  President Bush concluded his remarks by saying ``That must not 
happen.''
  I will oppose the Buyer-Skelton resolution. They are men of 
integrity, and they serve their people well. But I am not opposed to 
the President's policy. It is not my policy. I wanted to lift the arms 
embargo. I wanted to give to the Bosnian people the right and the 
ability to defend their homes. I think President Bush and President 
Clinton were wrong in not supporting that policy. But the issue today 
is that the President has chosen a policy, and it is not Somalia, where 
there was no agreement among the warring parties, it is not Lebanon, 
where there was no agreement among the factions. It is a place in this 
world where parties brought together by the President of the United 
States have agreed on peace.

                              {time}  2145

  I believe it is worth a risk for peace.
  I hope many of my colleagues were here yesterday. Shimon Peres spoke 
to a joint session of Congress. He said to us, as a country, that we 
saved freedom. He went on to say that wars did not cause us to lose 
heart, triumphs did not corrupt us, and we remained unspoiled because 
we rejected the spoils of victory.
  He then talked about the risks for peace taken by his friend Yitzhak 
Rabin and his country, and he observed that just a few years ago he 
could not have conceived of reaching out to Yasser Arafat, a 
Palestinian, his enemy of centuries. Not the Arab and the Jews. For 
centuries. And now he believes there is a chance for peace, and he said 
that it was worth risking peace because it was more important to win 
the peace than to win elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is the decision our President has made. 
That is the decision I will support, and that is why I will oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Skelton], for a dialog.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he agree 
with me that there has been no credible answer or response to my 
raising the issue of arming and training the Bosnian Moslems, which 
puts our troops at risk?
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would respond 
to the gentleman that there has been no credible response in this 
debate to his question.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois, Henry Hyde, for the perspective of a former commander of the 
naval reserves, a hero of World War II.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, very simply, this is a good resolution. It 
does two things: It expresses the dissent that so many of us feel from 
the policy implemented by the President in Bosnia. That is all it does.
  It does not cut any funds, as the Dornan resolution did. In fact, it 
supports giving our troops all of the resources necessary to carry out 
their mission safely. So it fully expresses my own views, although I 
did support the Dornan resolution as the last, best, and only 
opportunity to keep our young men from going into this morass of ethnic 
and religious hatred that has been simmering for over 500 years on the 
off chance that they are out of breath now and they have a cease-fire.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution perfectly states my views in opposition 
but in support of the troops. So I strongly support and urge my 
colleagues support for the Buyer-Skelton resolution.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me extend a compliment to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for his 
demeanor and his statesmanlike conduct in how he has handled the 
debate. Just let me compliment the gentleman for that.
  This is a debate about two very distinct views of foreign policy. 
There are those of us who tie the use of military 

[[Page H14859]]
to vital national security interests because we believe that placing 
troops in harm's way on foreign soil is of no ordinary magnitude. The 
other is the Clinton administration would like for the United States to 
become the world's policeman and the guarantor of global security.
  U.S. troops should only be used on the ground to ensure regional 
security, not to intervene in civil wars which have no real threat of 
spreading to that instability of a region. While I have heard the 
argument, it rings hollow.
  The United States, as the world's only superpower must exercise a 
policy of restraint in our involvement in conflicts overseas. Ours is a 
responsibility to provide overall military and economic security to 
regions of the world. If the United States intervenes in 
intracontinental conflicts, regional powers are allowed to escape their 
responsibilities.
  When will Europe take a role in policing its own region? The answer 
is when Europe no longer has the expectation that the United States 
will be there to rescue them whenever they have a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, we are closing this century now. For the fourth time, 
the United States will be on the ground in Europe. Think of that, for 
the fourth time. Truly, Europe can be a quarrelsome bunch and the 
United States leadership in NATO unifies and strengthens Europe. But as 
my colleagues know, the United States must send a message that the 
post-cold-war policies and doctrine for the security of Europe must 
reflect 1995, not 1945.
  The United States has a key and vital role to play in the peace 
process, and I compliment the President of the United States for 
bringing the parties to the table. The role for which we should play is 
do not put troops on the ground.
  The United States should act responsibly in the cohesion of NATO; the 
IFOR commander should be a commander from Europe, not the United 
States. The United States should supply our air power, our seapower, 
our airlift, our sealift, our intelligence, the architecture of 
intelligence from the sky and our satellites and logistics, but not 
that on the ground. However, when U.S. forces deploy on the ground as 
peacekeepers, we go there without the protection of neutrality, and 
they become targets and casualties.

  There are those who have claimed the moral obligation. Well, let me 
say this. When we view disasters in this country, whether it be by 
tornado, hurricane, earthquake, fire, you name it, we see that 
destruction and it is repulsive to us, but we understand it because we 
say it is a natural disaster. However, when we look and view what 
mankind can do to one another, it is violent to our values. But if we 
permit our foreign policy to be guided by our hearts, then the United 
States will find our troops in over 67 hot spots throughout the world.
  If we want the United States to become the world's policeman, just 
say so. I do not believe that the United States can be the world's 
policeman.
  When I was in Sarajevo, a mother, yes, cried and wept in my arms to 
communicate to me that she lost a son. That is moving to me. But it is 
also just as moving when I go to the funerals of American soldiers and 
have to be able to look into the eyes of an American mother and be able 
to communicate to her that her son or her daughter has given that life 
to protect vital national security interests. That is why we tie 
foreign troops' commitments to vital national security interests, 
because we cannot be everywhere in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very clear. It is clear because we 
say we are reiterating a policy from before, where we stated we oppose 
U.S. ground troops. We want to intervene, but we do not agree with that 
policy. We believe we have the confidence in these troops that they 
will do their job. They are gallant, they are brave and they are 
courageous.
  We also do not want a repeat of Somalia. I have spoken with a father 
who lost his son. We do not want that.
  We want the President and the Secretary of Defense to rely upon the 
field commanders when they make military decisions. We also want to 
make sure they get the resources and the equipment they need to do 
their job.
  Last is a paradox, and that is if we are going to arm and train the 
Moslems, then we should take sides. And if we do that, then we do not 
go on the ground. If we want to go on the ground, then we do not arm 
and train the Moslems. But to do both or to claim that somehow we will 
get other countries to do it, and our pawprints are all over it, 
subjects and opens our American soldiers to become targets and 
casualties, and it is wrong.
  Please support the Buyer-Skelton resolution. God bless us all.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the tragedy of the Balkan conflict has 
unfolded before us in the newspapers, on television, and here, on the 
floor of the House, I have spent many hours talking with constituents, 
talking to colleagues, and thinking through the appropriate United 
States response, as well as the appropriate role for Congress. I 
continue to believe that the deployment of U.S. ground troops is the 
wrong approach. I do think the United States has an interest in 
stopping the fighting and in preserving NATO. But I also believe that 
military instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina presents tantamount risk 
to our ground troops and throws into question the achievability of our 
mission there. A more appropriate U.S. role might have been limited to 
logistical support and providing air cover.
  It is, of course, crucial that Congress voice its support for our 
troops, for our young men and women who are already in Bosnia. And as 
much as I disagree with President Clinton about some of his foreign 
policy decisions, I think when you elect a President as Commander in 
Chief, you have to give some flexibility.
  Tonight I will reluctantly vote against H.R. 2770, Representative 
Doran's bill to cut off all funding for our troops, primarily because I 
think it is not fair to our men and women in uniform who are already 
there. It would be irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the safety 
of those already deployed and the thousands more that are in the 
process of being deployed--regardless of this vote--in the coming 
weeks. I think of Annah Castellini, a constituent and graduate of West 
Point, who is headed to Bosnia soon as a platoon leader. Remembering 
the Vietnam era, she worries about whether the American people will 
support her.
  Further, I do feel that the passage of H.R. 2770 begins to infringe 
on the President's power as Commander in Chief and could threaten 
confidence in U.S. leadership. I think it would be unwise at this time 
to send conflicting messages to the factions of the Balkan conflict and 
the rest of the world.
  In my opinion, the Buyer resolution, House Resolution 302, strikes a 
better balance between opposing the decision to send them, yet 
supporting our troops in their duties. I will support Buyer. I cannot 
support House Resolution 306, the Hamilton resolution, because it 
implicitly expresses support, not just for the troops, but also for the 
President's decision to send them.
  Former President Bush said recently, ``Sincere people can have honest 
differences as to whether President Clinton has made the right 
decision. I am nevertheless certain in my mind that at this point we 
must support our troops--and that support should come from Republicans 
and Democrats alike.'' I agree. As one who believes President Clinton 
made the wrong decision, I nonetheless will support our troops in any 
way I can and pray for their safe return.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the 
resolution offered by my colleagues from Indiana and Missouri.
  Earlier tonight, I voted against the resolution sponsored by my 
colleague from California because it sent the wrong message to our 
troops already in Bosnia, as well as those on their way in the coming 
days. We cannot take away their ability to defend themselves.
  I strongly support the Buyer-Skelton resolution which expresses our 
opposition to the President's Bosnia mission. Yet, this resolution does 
so without undermining our troops already there, and those troops that 
will be there by the time this resolution is agreed to by both the 
House and Senate. This resolution specifically states that our troops 
in Bosnia will have the resources and support they need to protect 
themselves until we bring them home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). Pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 304, the previous question is ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287, 
nays 141, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page H14860]]


                             [Roll No. 857]

                               YEAS--287

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--141

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bateman
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Lucas
     McInnis
     Tucker
     Velazquez

                              {time}  2214

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed his 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.


                             general leave

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the resolution just considered, and that I may include extraneous 
material for the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bunning). Pursuant to section 4 of 
House Resolution 304, it is now in order to consider a resolution 
offered by the minority leader, or his designee.

                          ____________________