[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14860-H14872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2215
     SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES TO BOSNIA

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 304, I offer 
a resolution (H. Res. 306) expressing the Sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the deployment of United States Armed Forces 
in Bosnia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 306 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 306

       Whereas the President of the United States pledged to 
     commit the United States Armed Forces to participate in 
     implementing a peace agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
       Whereas the United States hosted Proximity Talks in Dayton, 
     Ohio, from November 1, 1995 through November 21, 1995, for 
     the purpose of allowing the negotiation of a peaceful 
     settlement to the longstanding conflict in the former 
     Yugoslavia;
       Whereas the Proximity Talks concluded with the Presidents 
     of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of 
     Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia initialing a 
     General Framework Agreement for Peace on November 21, 1995;
       Whereas the Presidents of the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia have requested a NATO-led 
     implementation force with United States participation and 
     have pledged full cooperation with this force;
        Whereas some Members of Congress have questions and 
     concerns about certain aspects of the peace implementation 
     process; and
       Whereas the Congress joins the President in wanting to 
     minimize the risks to the United States Armed Forces helping 
     to implement the peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia by 
     ensuring that they have the necessary resources and other 
     support to perform their mission effectively: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives unequivocally 
     supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces 
     who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, 
     dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 
304, the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Hamilton], and the gentleman from 
New York, [Mr. Gilman], each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support House Resolution 306. It is a very 
simple and straightforward resolution. Its purpose is simply to support 
the troops and to praise them for the work they are doing and will do. 
It does two things in its operative clause. It gives unequivocal 
support to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and 
praises them for the work that they are doing and will do in support of 
peace in Bosnia. The resolution is intended to be silent with regard to 
policy, and the whereas clauses of the resolution merely recite facts. 
The resolution is intended to be silent with regard to policy, neither 
for the policy 

[[Page H14861]]
nor against it. It recites the historical facts without editorial 
comment.
  The resolution does mention that all Members of this body have 
questions and concerns about the effort in Bosnia. It emphasizes that 
we want to do all that we can to minimize the risks to U.S. forces by 
ensuring that they have the resources necessary to perform their 
mission. So it only calls for unequivocal support of our troops. With 
all of the doubts and the questions and uncertainties that exist in 
this Chamber and in the country with respect to Bosnia, the effort here 
is to come forward with one certainty. That certainty is that we 
support the troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I feel constrained to speak against this in 
light of the fact that the last vote passed and it passed 
overwhelmingly. If this should happen to pass, we would have the most 
mixed message going out to America possible.
  These are nice words. Paraphrasing them, they are pabulum. But we 
support the troops more than adequately in the previous resolution. We 
stated more correctly when we speak of their courage and of their 
professionalism in the previous resolution. This one would have no 
effect except to confuse the people we represent and of course confuse 
those wonderful troops that are going to be in Bosnia. I am 
constrained, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there has been an issue in 
my 3 years here that the depth of feeling has been such as there is on 
this movement into Bosnia. I spoke to a group two Mondays ago and had a 
senior gentleman walk up to me, a businessman. He said, when the first 
person dies and comes back in a body bag, it will be because of what we 
did not do yesterday. I said, what was that? He said, you did not speak 
out in opposition.
  This is a very, very dicey prospect. I have heard Members compare 
this movement to what happened in Vietnam 20-plus years ago. I said 
this is not Vietnam. This is Afghanistan. It is much, much more 
dangerous. This war has been going on since 1389. C.B. Hackworth, the 
most decorated military officer still alive in this Nation, led a 
group, he said recently on television, into this very area for 1 year, 
for 1 year in 1949, and they came out 9 years later.
  I honestly listened to the President's speech on this subject with an 
open mind a couple of Monday nights ago because I had to speak about it 
on radio the next morning. I thought he gave a good speech, but he 
always gives a good speech. So the next morning I got up early and I 
read what he said. It was much different in black and white than it was 
on a TV picture tube. What he said essentially was that Americans 
should be for peace. Are we not? I thought that was inane.
  Then he said, we must do this out of respect for NATO. My colleagues, 
NATO is a very large military bureaucracy with nothing to do. It is 
looking for something to do. My judgment, it is time to recognize that 
NATO expired in August 1989. It is time for us to give it a decent 
burial with full military honors and find a new policy and a new 
arrangement because the old threats are no longer there.
  I read the Hamilton resolution. I understand the purpose of it. But 
if it is anything different in terms of support for the troops than we 
just voted for, why does it not say, we support the policy? Why does 
not the President's own party say, we support the policy? Does anybody 
support the policy?
  It does not say that, but there are fine words in here that would let 
the President tomorrow draw an inference that indeed we do. It says 
here that the House unequivocally supports the men and women of the 
United States Armed Forces carrying out their mission in support of 
Bosnia. I am absolutely convinced that the President can construe that 
to mean tomorrow that we support the policy. My colleagues, this is not 
our time. This is not our place. This is not our war. This is the wrong 
resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], distinguished whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of emotion on this floor 
tonight and it is not hard to understand why. The decision to commit 
troops is one of the toughest decisions any of us will have to make. 
And none of us takes it lightly.
  There comes a time when America-- and only America--can lead. Now is 
one of those times.
  For 4 long years, we watched as 250,000 people were killed, 16,000 
children were slaughtered, and nearly 3 million people were left 
homeless in Bosnia.
  And through it all, there has been very little reason to hope. But 
finally, peace is at hand.
  Finally, we have a real chance to end the bloodshed. For the first 
time in 4 years, there is hope in Sarajevo because there is faith in 
America.
  And I, for one, am proud of the fact that American troops are saving 
lives tonight in Bosnia.
  For 220 years we have sent American men and women overseas, not just 
to defend American interest, but to defend American values. To stand up 
for freedom and democracy and human rights.
  And if those things are not worth defending any more then I do not 
know what America stands for.
  The people of Bosnia are tired of war. They want peace, but they need 
help to keep the peace. America is not undertaking this mission alone. 
But only America can lead it.
  As Shimon Peres said from the podium behind me yesterday: Only 
America can provide the compass and the lantern that the world so 
desperately needs in Bosnia today.
  This century began with bloodshed in Sarajevo. And we have it in our 
power today to make sure that it does not end with bloodshed in 
Sarajevo.
  I would hate to think that someday, historians will look back on this 
day and wonder why, when we had a chance to keep the peace in Bosnia, 
the House of Representatives turned its back and let the killing begin 
again.
  We can avoid that fate here today. I urge my colleagues: support our 
troops. Support the President. And support this resolution.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the distinguished minority whip, 
this resolution is much more or much less, depending on one's point of 
view, than an expression of support for our troops. As someone in the 
delegation that just returned from Bosnia last night, I have to say 
that that trip to that incredibly war-torn region raised more questions 
in my mind than it answered.
  That is the problem with the Hamilton resolution. It glosses over 
those questions in one more ``whereas'' clause. Until we honestly 
address those questions and concerns, I do not see how this House can 
vote for the Hamilton resolution.
  Let me just say what I think are the questions which absolutely need 
addressing in a forthright manner by every Member of this body. First 
of all, it is not clear if we have defined that criteria for ending 
this mission successfully, and I think we all know that an exit date is 
not an exit strategy.
  Second, there is a very real concern in talking to the leaders of 
these three countries whether they are doing everything at this moment 
to stop war crimes as they promised to do in Dayton. Just look at the 
scorched Earth policy that the Croatians are carrying out in the areas 
they promised in Dayton to turn over to the Serbians.
  There is also a very real concern whether we will be able to achieve 
greater equality between the heavily armed Serbian and Croatian forces 
and their underarmed Bosnian counterparts. That military parity, that 
greater equality, is absolutely essential to a lasting peace.
  Lastly, we are in for an untold open-ended financial commitment here. 
The American people need to be told the true cost of this peacekeeping 
mission, all that it entails, including the economic and humanitarian 
assistance necessary to rebuild Bosnia.

[[Page H14862]]

  So the Hamilton resolution comes up short. It does not address these 
questions and concerns. It glosses over them with another ``whereas'' 
clause, and the American people deserve better.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are defining who America is and 
who we will be in the 21st century. Clearly we are a blessed Nation, 
protected on both sides by oceans, rich with natural resources, and, 
more importantly, rich with the diversity of immigrants driven by their 
pioneer spirit. But to whom much is given, much must be expected.
  The Bosnians have cried out for American involvement for three and a 
half years, partly because we have more military capability than all 
the nations of Europe combined. But, far more importantly, they look to 
us because of our heroic character because they know that it was 
America's heart that saved Europe's soul; because they know that it was 
our grandfathers and our fathers who were willing to risk their lives, 
not for any selfish materialistic cause, but for the noblest of 
reasons, for the cause of human freedom, democracy, justice, and 
religious and ethnic tolerance.
  It is precisely these same cause that are at stake in Bosnia today. 
We should not, in fact, we must not, profane the legacy of our 
grandfathers who saved Europe in World War I, or the legacy of our 
fathers who saved Europe from fascism in World War II and then set up 
NATO to prevent a World War III. But we would profane their legacy if 
we let the affluence and the comfortable security that their sacrifice 
has brought us weaken our resolve to uphold the principles that still 
define America.
  Heroic leaders do not shrink from their moral instincts because their 
own personal security is not directly threatened. They act when they 
know that only they can make a difference. They act, because it is the 
right and the principled thing to do.
  After a quarter of a million people have been slaughtered, 40,000 
women have been raped, and 2.8 million people have been driven from 
their homes, it is the right and the principled thing to do to put a 
stop to this ethnic cleansing, the slaughter that will clearly 
continue, unless America shows its heroic character once again.
  Our troops are the clear expression of our national heroic character, 
and that is why we should support them by voting for the Hamilton 
resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, having just returned from Bosnia and having 
met with each of the three Presidents and many of the other leaders of 
the different factions there, I came away convinced that the leaders do 
not understand the peace agreement, the Dayton accord, the same way. 
Each of them looks at it differently. There are serious 
misunderstandings among the leaders that put their initials on the 
accord and will be signed perhaps tomorrow.
  Those differences are major and significant differences. If they 
exist among the leaders, they surely will exist among the people. The 
expectations of the people and the leaders there of the United States 
is that we will be much more involved in the cost, the payment, and the 
providing of different activities than what the peace accord calls for.
  Some of them feel that we will be responsible as Americans to pay for 
many things that we have no responsibility to do. The refugees, the 
rebuilding, the building of the infrastructure, the paying for the free 
elections and for the many commissions that this peace accord calls 
for, they expect the American people, the American taxpayers, to 
support all of these functions. Yet that is not the intent of the 
accord and the American people are not expected to do so.
  These confusing understandings from the leaders are not going to lead 
to a peaceful condition there. I foresee that peace will not come to 
that region, with or without the American troops. I do not understand 
how they can have peace with the feelings that they have. There are 
some that are today rejecting the peace accord.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a tragedy and a mistake for us to 
send troops there. I do not support the President's policy. This 
resolution implies support of the President's policy.
  Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, for the past 4 years, we have witnessed 
systematic ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. The United States 
and its allies have done precious little. It is an outrage to humanity 
that Europe and the United States stood on the sidelines, watching the 
aggressors willfully violate international standards of human rights.
  It can be argued that it is too late to help the people of Bosnia. 
That Sarajevo lies in rubble. That Europe is primarily to blame for the 
failure to act. That the United States should have exercised its 
leadership earlier. In my opinion, all of these concerns are true.
  However, it is never too late to act to stop human atrocities. 
President Clinton deserves the international community's appreciation 
for bringing the warring parties together.
  Although all of us hope these recent peace efforts will succeed, I 
have serious questions about this NATO mission. The territorial 
boundaries that have been agreed upon lack historical confidence. The 
will of the leadership in the former Yugoslavia for peace is uncertain. 
Yet, this agreement presents the only hope for peace and an end to the 
massive human rights abuses.
  There are those who believe that we have no national interest in 
Bosnia. I disagree. Stability in the Balkans is important to a stable 
Europe and a stable Europe is important to the economic and security 
interests of the United States. It is also in the national interest to 
speak loudly against the continuation of ethnic cleansing.
  Others say correctly that the United States cannot act in all parts 
of the world when human rights are violated. However, that should not 
be a justification for failing to act when we can.
  Mr. Speaker, I have serious reservations about the military strategy 
of this mission. I am concerned as to whether the time table is 
reasonable and as to whether we can achieve peace. I am disappointed 
that the President has chosen not to precede under the war powers act, 
to seek congressional approval to send our troops to a foreign hostile 
area.
  In addition, the house leadership has regrettably failed to allow us 
to consider a resolution, similar to what is being considered by the 
other body, which speaks to an appropriate exit policy. An appropriate 
exit policy clearly would ensure the arming and training of the Bosnian 
Moslems, the primary victims of aggression, It is imperative for NATO 
forces to exit the region with the Bosnian Moslems adequately prepared 
and knowing that a long-term NATO presence is not necessary because 
there is an equal military balance among the formerly warring factions.
  However, the three resolutions that are before us today do not speak 
to these military concerns. Therefore, I voted against the rule in 
which these resolutions where made in order.
  It is clear from court decisions that the President has the 
constitutional authority to commit U.S. troops to this mission. All of 
us, regardless of our views as to whether the President should commit 
the United States to the NATO implementation force, stand behind our 
troops, therefore, the only resolution that I can support is the 
Hamilton resolution which speaks to the support of our troops and 
points out concerns raised by Members.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Members before 
voting take their responsibility seriously enough to read the Hamilton 
resolution. The Hamilton resolution states where we are. It states that 
the President has committed the troops. This House has refused to cut 
off the funding to place troops in the field by failing to support the 
Dornan resolution, the Dornan legislation, and so today before us the 
only solid support for the troops in the field comes from the Hamilton 
resolution.
  Now, there are debates about the policy. I for one think the policy 
has succeed to date. The fighting has stopped, America has used its air 
power, as many argued that it could not, to bring the sides to the 
peace table. The President brought them to the United States and to 
Ohio, and achieved a ceasefire.

[[Page H14863]]

  All of us are concerned about casualties. That is the only question 
that remains. If the Congress, House, and Senate, wanted not to send 
troops to Bosnia, they needed to vote to cut off the funding to make 
sure no troops would go there. In the Senate that was rejected some 70 
votes to less than 30. In the House it was rejected as well.
  So tonight, as we look at the opportunities for peace in the former 
Yugoslavia republic, the debate before us is a simple one: Do we or do 
we not support the troops as they enter that field of operation?
  The Hamilton resolution resolves that the House of Representatives 
unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed 
Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of the peace in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedication, 
patriotism, and extreme bravery.
  General Scowcroft and former U.N. Ambassador Fitzpatrick agree with 
that posture. They believe that America must fulfill this commitment. 
But today it seems some would like to have it both ways. They would 
like to wring their hands about the policy, say that they support the 
troops, but, on the other hand, take no real action.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the only real action before us that we 
can consider today and seriously give support to our troops is not one 
that wrings its hands about the potential dangers that we are all 
concerned about. But if you read that Resolution 302 that was read, it 
does not state strong support for our military. I know the Members that 
voted for it meant to do it, but they have not done it, unless they 
vote for the Hamilton resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do tonight. The question of 
the security and safety of our men is one that will stay with each and 
every one of us for the time they are in the field. But the right thing 
to do as they go off is to give them the support of this Congress as 
this Congress gave its troops support as they entered Desert Storm.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has been carefully crafted. I 
urge my colleagues to read it throughout. Although carefully written, I 
believe it is flawed. Not so much for what it says, but for what it 
fails to say. It fails to state what a majority of this House 
believes--that our troops are being deployed on a seriously flawed 
mission.
  We all fully support our troops, strongly unequivocally. the vote we 
just concluded unmistakably demonstrates that.
  I urge our Members not to weaken that message. Accordingly, I submit 
that the Hamilton resolution is redundant and should be defeated.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, voting whether or not to send American 
troops abroad is the most difficult decision that any Member of 
Congress will ever face.
  I still have questions and concerns about our exit strategy and about 
the dangers our troops will face on the ground in Bosnia. The peace 
agreement we will help enforce is not perfect. The risks and the 
dangers are real.
  But what is the alternative?
  We have all been horrified at the events in Bosnia over the last 
several years. Mass executions. Torture. Systematic rape. Ethnic 
cleansing.
  For the past 3 years, we called for an end to the horrors. We 
condemned. We impose sanctions and embargoes. We bombed.
  And finally the prestige and the armed might of America brought both 
sides to the negotiating table to achieve peace.
  So what now, now that peace is won?
  Will we turn our heads and look the other way as Central Europe 
descends further into barbarism? Will we shut our eyes to the ethnic 
cleansing and the genocide? Will we walk away and doom this peace 
agreement to failure?
  We dare not. Make no mistake: Refusal to send United States troops to 
Bosnia will end the peace. There will be no peace without the 
leadership of the United States.
  Some argue that we have no national interest at stake in Bosnia. I 
must disagree.
  We have a national interest in assisting and supporting our NATO 
allies. We have a strong national interest in preserving peace in 
Central Europe. And we have a compelling national interest in stopping 
ethnic cleansing and genocide.
  At stake today is whether the United States will continue to assume a 
leadership role in the world, or whether we will retreat into 
isolationism. This debate is about our national character, our moral 
leadership
  Mr. Speaker, the United States still stands for something very 
special in this world. Since World War II this Nation has maintained 
freedom's watch around the globe. We have paid a heavy price for our 
vigilance--but that is the price we must pay to ensure the success of 
liberty. We are the world's moral leader--and we must not shirk that 
leadership.
  Our troops are the world's best. They are brave--and they are ready.
  Mr. Speaker, we must help bring peace to Bosnia. The United States 
has the ability to respond, we have the obligation to respond, and we 
must respond.
  Let's support this resolution. Let's support our troops.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak here on 
this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, our foreign policy is flawed. The State Department told 
us that the people of Yugoslavia could not get along, so we had to 
divide Yugoslavia. We set up Croatia, we set up Bosnia and we set up 
Macedonia. We broke up Yugoslavia because the people there could not 
get along.
  But in Bosnia, the map makers, not unlike the gerrymanderers that ran 
this place for 40 years, drew an intricate map in Bosnia and said, 
these people are all going to live under each other and they will live 
in harmony and peace. And the killing goes on.
  And the folks in Sarajevo took a poll, and the Serbians, who comprise 
about 33 percent of Sarajevo and have for 500 years, said we will not 
live under the Moslems. So they do not like the plan.
  The Mujahedian, who have been imported from the Middle East, 4,000 
strong, are there to protect Islam. And they do not care about us and 
they do not care about the Croatians and they do not care about the 
Serbians. They have a different agenda. But our state Department says, 
we are going to recognize this new central government and, by golly, 
they are all going to live in peace, and we are going to go there and 
enforce this peace. It is a flawed foreign policy.
  If we really believe these people can live in peace, go back to one 
Yugoslavia and at least give them some territory, where Croatia, Serbia 
and the Muslims can live with some distance between them.
  We used to have a resolution that said the President has asked us to 
support his policy and, mysteriously, that was dropped out of the 
resolution because now we have nothing left but pretty words. Now we 
say, we, some Members of Congress, have questions. We have 
reservations.
  I cannot get up the first question when I try to make a list of 
questions, and that is, how the heck do we get out of here? How do we 
keep from being enmeshed in this quagmire that has gone on for 500 
years? How do we save the lives of our young men and women? This 
Democratic alternative is a fig leaf under any word.
  Please vote no.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution, 
and I think the Members of this body ought to support it, too.
  We had our vote on cutting off the funds; and we said we did not want 
to cut off the funds. Now we are suggesting we are going to send a 
mixed message. I suggest some in this body want to have it both ways.
  We suggest that we want a peace accord that has no risk. If there 
were no risk, we would not need military troops in Europe; we would 
certainly not need them in Bosnia.
  Surely, there is risk involved in this, but the fact is, we did not 
start this 

[[Page H14864]]
foreign policy in November of 1995, such as the resolutions that many 
Members referred to were initiated at that point. In fact, of course, 
the commitments in this particular instance, in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, go 
back to the former administration, and certainly at least 2 years with 
this administration.
  No, the right posture here is to vote for this resolution to provide 
the type of support and to understand that, indeed, there are risks. 
There are going to be incidents. There are going to be accidents. We 
should be very concerned about it, but the goal they are trying to 
accomplish is a reasonable one and one that this Nation should stand 
behind, Mr. Speaker.
  I rise today to support both our peace-meeting troops and the 
decision to commit them in support of the Bosnian peace agreement. The 
conflict in Bosnia has brought many images of pain and suffering. 
Reports indicate that over 200,000 people have been killed in the 
conflict, mostly civilians as well as military personnel. Millions of 
people in Bosnia were forced to leave their homes in this war on 
civilians and cities. In fact an estimated half the population are 
refuges. Now with American leadership, and the demonstrated re-
energized military capacity in Croatia and Bosnia this past spring, 
negotiations have led to a peace agreement that offers hope to the 
people of the Balkans. In order to monitor this agreement and create 
the basis for a lasting peace, the United States and its NATO allies 
have been asked by the parties involved to contribute a peacekeeping 
force and have agreed to enforce the peace.
  Because of the instability caused by the Balkan conflict, 
repercussions from a continued conflict go far beyond the Balkans and 
threaten United States interests in all of Europe, Greece, and Turkey. 
This area has been freed from the control of communism and now faces 
the re-emergence of ethnic and religious tensions, and an unpredictable 
and dangerous nationalism. The harsh conflicts among peoples and 
nations in this region seriously risk the new found liberty and the 
hope of a lasting peace. In such a situation, an opportunity to bolster 
peace cannot be discarded, especially in light of the past 4 years of 
suffering.
  The Dayton peace agreement gives the U.S.-led NATO forces the ability 
and authority to accomplish their mission of peace. I support this 
peacekeeping operation as it is truly a peacekeeping mission. Our 
peacekeeping forces will be in a dangerous environment, but one in 
which the parties have agreed to a peace settlement. This separates and 
establishes a distinct difference with the deployments in Lebanon or 
Somalia, and the Persian Gulf action, which in essence was a full 
fledged action to repel Iraq.
  The Dayton peace agreement provides for the withdrawal of foreign 
parties, the removal of heavy weapons, and the reduction in the numbers 
of forces and such material. Important negotiations will further define 
and limit armaments and armed forces in the region. Hopefully the 
militaries can be built down to an improved parity; instead of built up 
for future instability and conflict.
  Ironically, the insistence by some to condition their support on 
United States assurances of supplying and training of the Bosnian 
Moslems may in fact compromise the neutral role that the United States 
seeks to offer as peacekeepers. This factor could indeed raise the 
risks associated with the U.S. peacekeeping role, and that apparent 
risk initially has caused significant angst by the same Members of 
Congress who promote the training and supplying proposal. This confuses 
and tends to contradict the issue they advance.
  The decision to send U.S. troops is not one to be taken lightly. Each 
soldier's life is important, for family, friends, and our Nation. The 
troops being sent will have the ability to defend themselves. Their 
training has prepared them for this situation. No doubt there will be 
accidents and some incidents in which soldiers lives may be lost. I am 
very concerned but am hopeful that the Dayton protocols will work to 
prevent the loss of peacekeepers lives.
  The mission of peace, given the circumstances shaped with American 
participation and support, is important and justifies this U.S. 
peacekeeping role and contribution. U.S. leadership is necessary to 
move the peace that has been started into a new future for the people 
of the region. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution offered 
by Representative Hamilton.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
consumed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bunning of Kentucky]. The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman] has 19\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has 15 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  [Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say why I oppose the 
well-meaning, but I think flawed resolution of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. It will be interpreted as fully supporting the 
President's policy. Even though it does not say so, and wisely so, I 
think that is the way the press is spinning it, as the Dornan 
resolution, cut off all the funds, a middle ground expressing 
opposition but supporting the troops in the Buyer-Skelton resolution; 
and this is the other edge of the spectrum, namely supporting the 
President.
  But having voted for Buyer-Skelton and having voted for Dornan, 
mostly I cannot support this because purporting to cover the 
waterfront, it is very benign as to objections the whole policy. The 
language is, Whereas some Members of Congress have questions and 
concerns about certain aspects of the peace implementation process. I 
do not have questions or concerns, I oppose it, and so do most of the 
people; in fact, everybody who voted for Buyer-Skelton, because it 
said, we oppose the policy.
  So to say we have questions and concerns is just too mild. It is too 
gossamer. It just does not cover it. So for that reason, I cannot 
support it, although otherwise it has good language supporting our 
troops; but the Buyer-Skelton resolution did that, too.

  Now, clearly, Mr. Speaker, I oppose putting 20,000-plus troops in 
extreme and certain danger during what I believe to be a time-out in a 
series of wars that have been fueled by ethnic and religious hatreds, 
spawned centuries ago. But the key to all this is our national 
interest, our national interest.
  Now, somebody has decided our national interest is not at play in 
Rwanda, even though millions of people have been killed, even though 
there is no democracy there, but our national interests are not 
involved. The same thing is true in the Sudan. Millions of people have 
been killed there, refugees, dislocations, starvation, racial and 
religious hatreds, but our national interests are not involved there.
  So that becomes very important. And so we look at Bosnia-Herzegovina 
and we say, where are our national interests there?
  By way of comparison, we look at Desert Storm and our national 
interests were clearly involved. We had a defined enemy, a potential 
nuclear power with other weapons of mass destruction out waging an 
aggressive war against Kuwait and putting at risk the major petroleum 
reserves in the world in the Persian Gulf. If Kuwait had fallen, Saudi 
Arabia would have fallen and the economies of the world would have been 
in the vice-like grip of Saddam Hussein.
  So, for me, and I am not a particularly bright fellow, I could see 
our national interest bristling in that situation. And the President 
saw it and the President wanted to commit troops over there. But those 
of us with some institutional memory, not all, I am sure, remember the 
vote of January 12 of 1991 where we got 86 Democrat votes yes and 179 
no, and not one Democrat leader supported President Bush.
  I am not going to take the time, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the bills of 
impeachment, three of them, that were brought against President Reagan 
and President Bush by various people, as well as litigation. I have the 
bills of impeachment and I have the complaints in my office. But I 
would like to note parenthetically that one of the charges in the bill 
of impeachment against Reagan was the abuse of the United States press 
in perpetuating a disinformation campaign against Colonel Qadhafi of 
Libya during the summer of 1986. That, I think, is classic.
  In looking over the Congressional Record at the debates over Desert 
Storm, and I grant Members they are not identical at all, one was war 
and this is peace, sort of. Sort of. We are going in with lots of 
armament, though, to protect. To enforce, not protect the peace. But 
our national interests, in my judgment, others may wish what they want 
or think what they want, were directly involved in Desert Storm.

[[Page H14865]]


  Let me read from the debate what one of the gentlewomen from Michigan 
had to say, and I quote, and this is January 12, 1991, the 
Congressional Record. I will give Members the pages if they want them, 
but here is what she said.

       In a time of limited resources to rebuild our cities, feed 
     and house our homeless, educate our young, why is this 
     administration so eager to spend billions in a far-off land 
     that will have no meaningful impact on resolving the social 
     and economic problems confronting every American every day 
     right here at home?

  Another gentleman, who was recently a senatorial candidate in the far 
west, in a primary, says:

       Today, a large American force sits uneasily in the Arabian 
     desert. They do not have a clear idea why they are there, the 
     American people do not have a clear idea why they are there, 
     and Congress does not have a clear idea why they are there. 
     Mr Speaker, if we learned anything from the military 
     misadventures of the last 40 years, it is that U.S. military 
     might should not be committed to battle without a clear 
     statement of U.S. objectives and the broad support of the 
     American people.

  Another senatorial candidate from a State very near and dear to me. 
Here is what he had to say:

       I certainly do not know that I could go up and tell someone 
     who has lost a husband that it was more important for this 
     Congress to show unity than patience. But I would hope that 
     this Congress would not squander its constitutional birth 
     right over some ambiguous possibility or partisan loyalty to 
     any President, Democrat or Republican.

  The ranking member on the Committee on International Relations was 
very clear when he said in that debate, ``We have a constitutional 
responsibility to vote at the time when and if the President concludes 
force is necessary. That decision must be made jointly.''
  Then we have a gentleman from California, a long-standing member of 
the Congress, who said, and I quote:

       I have not heard any of you say a single thing for which I 
     would vote to send even one American to die. The only valid 
     issue is whether to give Bush authority to order thousands, 
     even tens of thousands to their death. For those who persist, 
     it should suffice to point out the United States is 
     insolvent. To increase our deficit and debt by over $50 
     billion should turn the most aggressive warriors away from 
     combat.

  Now, we have a man from Massachusetts, who is skilled in the field of 
telecommunications and others, and very articulate, and here is what he 
said:

       No one could explain to me what the war in Vietnam was all 
     about. I swore then that if I were ever in any position of 
     power, I would do everything I could to assure that before 
     any young persons were asked to lay down his or her life for 
     our country, we would be able to explain to that young man's 
     friends and family the reasons why. So far I have not heard 
     any explanations that would satisfy the loved ones of the new 
     generation who now stand poised to fight in the Persian Gulf. 
     It is a shame.

      Modification to House Resolution 306 Offered by Mr. Hamilton

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be modified by deleting the preamble and all of the test 
before the resolved clause so that the resolution be modified by 
deleting the preamble and all of the text before the resolved clause so 
that the resolution would simply read, ``Resolved, That the House of 
Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United 
States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of 
peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated 
patriotism, and exemplary bravery.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman who objected 
would permit me to explain why I made the request.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think we can save a lot of 
time by saying in the Buyer resolution we have done this.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman permit me to explain?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). Objection is heard.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a wrenching decision. It is a 
decision that will have to be made this evening in its purest sense. I 
beg to differ with my colleagues, because they are skating the issue. 
This is a weighty decision. I can respect the disagreement of 
colleagues; I cannot accept the hypocrisy.
  The gentleman rose just a few minutes ago to ask that we go on record 
standing here tonight unequivocally supporting the men and women headed 
to Bosnia. The resolution just passed was one of hypocrisy, albeit I 
respect the diversity of opinion and certainly do respect all who would 
not want to put those in harm's way, but nowhere in the Buyer amendment 
did it say unequivocally, with no question, do we support the troops 
going to Bosnia.
  I do not know about my colleagues, but I am not going home to my 
constituents, to the American people, for me to tell them that Shane 
Hadley and Dwayne Case and Jeffrey Burkette, Texans who are on their 
way to Bosnia, do not have my support.
  So, I would ask those who have a difference of opinion than I might 
have who may have gone to Bosnia, as I did, who may have talked to the 
people there who said Americans are the only ones who could give peace, 
and my colleagues may not have gone, I simply say to my colleagues that 
we have a serious decision to make.
  I would ask that my colleagues follow a little child. The Holy Ghost 
Catholic School, on December 11, in Houston, TX, asked me to join them 
to pray for our troops. They asked me as a Congresswoman to take their 
words to this House as they lit candles and prayed. They said, ``We 
support our troops. Will you do that, Congresswomen?'' And I said to 
them, as I said to our troops in Germany, unequivocally, this Congress 
will go on record.
  My colleagues, I ask you to simply put aside the partisan politics. 
Let us join together and unequivocally support our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my strong 
support for our young men and women who will be serving in Bosnia. They 
deserve our utmost support and admiration. They are on a mission of 
peace that is in the true spirit of what our country was founded on: 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  For the past several years, all Americans have been horrified by the 
atrocities that have occurred in the Balkans. Over this time, many 
different cease fires and peace agreements have come and gone. We all 
prayed for a European solution, but none was forthcoming. The time for 
American leadership has once again arisen.
  As the leaders of the free world, we need to be part of maintaining a 
stable and secure Europe. We stepped in and made a difference in World 
War I. And, we saved Europe, and the world from tyranny by defeating 
Hitler in World War II. Now, as the 20th century draws to a close, our 
Nation must once again enter the European theater and promote freedom. 
We must learn the lessons of history and speak firmly and act 
decisively to create a lasting peace.
  I was part of the first bipartisan delegation to visit Bosnia, and 
have seen first hand the devastation there. I was told by the citizens 
of Sarajevo about the 3.2 million refugees, the over 200,000 people 
that have been murdered, and the over 6,000 elderly who have been left 
homeless. I am confident that our military will be able to meet the 
challenges that will be faced in Bosnia. I am confident because when I 
personally met with those troops who were in Germany and headed to 
Bosnia, they said that they were ready. However, they also said to me, 
``We want the American people behind us.'' To those troops and the 
troops from Texas in particular--Shane Hadley, Dwayne Case, Jeffrey 
Burkette--I promise that I will work for that support.
  The peace agreement has been negotiated with NATO as the military 
enforcer. As the leading power in NATO, and in the world, we have a 
moral and duty-bound obligation to work with our European allies in 
ensuring peace in Bosnia. This is not another Vietnam, and our troops 
will be able to defend themselves. We are the only Nation that has the 
technology and ability to deploy the large numbers of forces that are 
necessary to set up a large-scale military operation in a short amount 
of time. The Germans, the French, the British, and the Belgians have 
all failed. The citizens of Bosnia want us to help.
  As 20,000 American troops prepare to depart for Bosnia, let us give 
our full support to this mission that is about peace, leadership, and 
stability. While our troops will work with 

[[Page H14866]]
soldiers of other NATO countries, they will be under the leadership of 
an American commander at all times. Some would argue that we must 
ignore the problems of the world. But I say, let us be a part of a 
larger battle; the battle for human rights and justice.
  I want to applaud the children of the Holy Ghost Catholic School in 
my home State of Texas who in their wisdom came together December 11 to 
pray for our troops. The children read letters, praying for peace. 
That's the true American spirit. I thank them for their courage, 
sincerity, and love of what America stands for.
  We in Congress have a very difficult decision to make tonight, but it 
is not a decision to send troops to war. It is rather a decision to 
uphold the ideas of democracy, to stop the shooting and the slaughter; 
to clear the way for peace.
  Like the children of the Holy Ghost School, we should stand up and 
give our troops our support tonight. And we should pray for peace and 
pray for the safety of our young men and women.
  My colleagues, I implore you to support our troops, support the 
President, support what is morally right, and above all, put an end to 
the madness. Support the Hamilton resolution, House Resolution 305.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana knows that I have 
high regard for him. So I took your last resolved clause, and I 
personalized it. Because I am going to vote against the amendment, but 
I am going on the record with a single, ``I person'' version of your 
resolved.
  ``I, Congressman Robert K. Dornan, unequivocally support the 151 
men,'' there are no women in there yet, ``of the United States Armed 
Forces who are carrying out this near-impossible mission in support of 
temporary peace in a gang fight in Bosnia and Herzegovina with their 
Reagan-trained professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and 
exemplary bravery, that they will be called upon to show if they start 
stepping on land mines or start taking sniper fire.''
  That is about it. I support that. I just came back from the Senate. 
Only 7 Republicans out of 53 voted against the amendment offered by Kay 
Bailey Hutchison and Jim Inhofe. Only seven. Mr. Speaker, 46 voted for 
it, and 1 Democrat who has a tough election coming up.
  Over here, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], 
287. That is about as strong a support for the troops as the gentleman 
from Missouri, Ike Skelton, whom the troops love, chairman of 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, exemplary Member, loves the men and 
women in uniform. And the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is not 
only supporting the troops, he is one of the troops. He has been with 
them in dangerous areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues tomorrow to get that top 
intelligence briefing, and I want my colleagues to look at this this 
way. If you were a young man in Bosnia and you were a Moslem and you 
had a country in the United Nations that the United States and the 
European Union recognized as a nation on April 7, 4 years ago this 
coming April, and suddenly your country is cleaved in half, 
partitioned, and your sister was raped for 3 days by 50 people and then 
set on fire and burned alive, are you going to write it all off and 
keep the peace? I would not, and neither would my colleagues. And 
grudges are going to be filled out, these blood debts, after we are 
gone.
  I predict we will keep some sort of a peace for 10\1/2\ months and 
then they will all come home, and Clinton will roll the dice trying to 
get reelected.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hamilton 
resolution.
  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 strong support of the Hamilton 
amendment. The deployment of American troops in Bosnia is a very 
serious undertaking. It is a very risky action. As policymakers, it is 
appropriate that we move with reluctance and hesitation, but this 
serious risky action is a vitally necessary action.
  Military criminals, thugs with weapons of mass destruction, should 
not be allowed to butcher innocent thousands of civilians as they 
recklessly grab for power. On Tuesday in this Chamber, Prime Minister 
Shimon Peres of Israel paid tribute to America with the following 
words:

       As the end of this twentieth century is nearing, it can 
     verily be described as the American century. The United 
     States has built strength and used it to save the globe from 
     three of its greatest menaces: Nazi tyranny, Japanese 
     militarism, and the Communist challenge. You saved freedom. 
     You enabled many nations to save their democracies, even as 
     you strive now to assist many nations to free themselves from 
     their nondemocratic past. You fought many wars. You won many 
     victories. Wars did not cause you to lose heart. Triumphs did 
     not corrupt you. You remained unspoiled, because you rejected 
     the spoils of victory.

End of quote by Shimon Peres.
  The American people and its armies should not again and again be 
called upon to make great sacrifices in order to save the civilized 
world. Our Nation should make it known that American resources and 
American soldiers will not always be available for every just cause.
  But Bosnia, we have a most appropriate time to respond. This is a 
landmark in modern civilization. Our troops are being deployed within 
the context of a well-developed blueprint for peace. Our troops are 
being deployed to smother and contain the virus of ethnic cleansing and 
racism. Our troops are being deployed to provide an opportunity to 
survive for hundreds of thousands of grieving men, women, and children. 
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hamilton amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
consumed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman fro New York [Mr. Gilman] has 
9-\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I have a high respect for our ranking member 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], but I rise in opposition to 
this resolution.
  We are missing the discussion here tonight.
  First, it goes without saying that everyone in Congress strongly 
supports America's troops.
  In every speech and in every resolution we have passed about Bosnia, 
this Congress has gone on record of providing unquestionable support 
for our troops.
  We just passed a resolution with the same language supporting our 
troops.
  This resolution does not address the underlying policy issue. But, 
while I support our troops, I have serious reservations about the 
underlying policy that is sending these troops to Bosnia.
  By silencing any policy concerns, this resolution is sending a 
confusing, mixed message. It might be used by some to claim that there 
is congressional support for this Bosnia questionable adventure. That 
claim would be totally inaccurate--but they would cite this resolution.
  This resolution does not address 3 important questions:
  First, why should the United States provide over one-third of all the 
NATO troops? Many NATO countries are sending as few as 500 troops. Why 
20,000 Americans, the lion's share?
  Second, why don't we just provide logistical and support troops like 
Germany--and Germany is only sending 4,000 supporting troops.
  Third, why are we sending troops to Bosnia when the American public 
is overwhelmingly opposed to this operation? In my office alone, the 
calls are 100 to 4 opposing the deployment of troops.
  Again, we all strongly support the troops, it's the policy we 
question and we cannot afford to send a mixed message as this 
resolution would surely do.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I think, unfortunately, some with this 
obsession to embarrass the President are 

[[Page H14867]]
going to cause the House to embarrass itself. When the American troops 
land in Bosnia, there is going to be no doubt by those who face some 
20,000 well-armed, well-trained American troops what American policy 
is. We only confuse ourselves by this action that we are engaged in 
this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would support the resolution in 
front of us. It is difficult to understand the contradiction where we 
could stand and give a round of applause to the Prime Minister of 
Israel as he talked about taking risks for peace, and then given our 
own opportunity here this evening, we would muffle our message about 
what our role is in Bosnia.
  The President has taken the leadership. This Congress has refused to 
eliminate funds for those troops. Therefore, the result is that our 
troops are going to be there. They are there to enforce a peace and 
that peace is well worthy of the best of America's efforts.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 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 am opposed to the Hamilton resolution, not 
because those who are supporting it voted against the Defense 
Appropriations Act, but I am voting against it because it is going to 
be misinterpreted as supporting the President's policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support the President's policy. I sat in Zagreb 
in a hotel after being in Bosnia, in Sarajevo, and I talked to Marine 
Lt. Col. Mark Sifford and his wife, Marianne. They have 3 children. He 
is going to spend his Christmas in Sarajevo away from his family. The 
question that his children have are, ``Why is Daddy not going to be 
home?'' Why are we sending our parents of these kids at Christmastime 
to a war-torn country? What is the reason? What is the vital American 
interest? Why are we defending this?
  I think there are many ways to lead the world, but sending our men 
and women is not one of them. We can lead in many ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I have with me this coin from the 1st Armored Division. 
It was given to me by Sgt. Kempty Watson. He has a mother that has been 
crippled by a car accident. He is the only son that she has. We are 
sending American sons to defend them. It is a failed policy. I oppose 
the policy. Vote against Hamilton, because it will be misinterpreted.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, in a few moments when this debate ends, 
the lights are dimmed across the country, thousands of American 
families are still going to sit in fear for those they love who are in 
our Armed Forces. They need to know that we are a proud and a very 
grateful Nation. They also need to understand the historic nature of 
this mission.
  When the 20th century concludes, Mr. Speaker, we will close the 
chapter on nearly 300 wars. Despite all of our science and our culture 
and the advances of our times, this has been the most deadly period of 
human history. Our troops go to Bosnia to preserve the peace, to end 
the genocide, but also because they are the best hope that the future 
is going to be different from the past. In the Persian Gulf we proved 
that the world could fight together for justice. In Bosnia we proved 
that we can stand together to preserve the peace.
  Mr. Speaker, we all wish that it could be different. But the lessons 
of European wars still burn in our memory. And there have been too many 
nights in too many churches and too many synagogues where we prayed 
that never again would the world experience genocide. Now we are left 
with the question, did all of that have meaning? Those memories stay 
with us for a reason. Yet my colleagues argue that it is not fair, it 
is not right that America should bear the burden.
  Mr. Speaker, it has never been fair. It was not fair in Flanders. It 
was not fair in Okinawa or Normandy.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not everybody else. We are Americans. We have 
never accepted history. We have changed it. Others might accept 250,000 
people dying in their homelands. Other people might see genocide and 
slaughter and learn to look away. We are different. That is a 
difference that I am grateful for every day.
  The determination of those who sat in this Chamber before us, 
colleagues who were here before us, led to a triumph of democracy in 
the world in the 20th century. My colleagues, if we have the same 
determination, if we have the same strength, we can lead to the triumph 
of peace in the 21st century. That judgment, Mr. Speaker, holds in the 
balance.
  Mark Twain once said that in a world where physical courage is so 
common, it is tragic that moral courage should be so rare. Our troops 
have the physical courage to answer the call of our Nation. In the 
Hamilton resolution we determine whether we have the moral courage to 
lead, whether, indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are equal to those who answer 
the call of our country tonight.
  I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this measure asks us to ignore the policy. My 
colleagues, how can we ignore the policy? How can we ignore this 
ultimate policy failure of this administration and this President? How 
can we ignore the failed policy of Somalia that turned a humanitarian 
mission into a nation-building fiasco that left dozens of Americans 
dead and United States taxpayers still paying billions?
  How can we ignore the failed policy of Haiti, where we sailed into 
Port-au-Prince Harbor, retreated, imposed an embargo on the poorest of 
the poor, sat by while the opposition was exterminated? We destroyed 
any shred of the economy and we spent and we are spending billions and 
billions, only to watch 1,100 flee just in the last few weeks and 
dozens die at sea because of our policy. And we are still paying 
billions.
  How can we tonight ignore the failed policy of Rwanda where this 
administration ignored Butros Bugalis who begged and pleaded for action 
to avoid a slaughter of three-quarters of a million people and they 
died. And then we sent troops and then we spent millions.
  How can we tonight deny and ignore a failed policy where for 3 years 
Bosnians begged us to change our policy? This week is Sarajevo, a 
Bosnian leader said to me, we did not ask for your troops. We asked for 
the policy to allow us to defend ourselves.
  Where was our policy when 12,000 Sarajevo men, women and children 
were slaughtered? I saw the countless graves across the landscape of 
Sarajevo just in the last few days and another quarter of a million 
people were killed in the Balkans. Where was our policy?
  Bosnians ask me, where was our policy when the U.N. told Bosnian 
citizens at Srebrenica to lay down their arms and their women and 
children are slaughtered. How tonight can we ignore this policy?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has 6 minutes remaining and has the right to 
close, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, because this Congress must stand for a 
clear policy, I rise in support of the President's policy to keep the 
peace in Bosnia, and I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night near midnight, I said 
goodbye to several dozen soldiers from my district leaving their 
families to go to Bosnia. It was not easy. It was not easy for me to 
say to them face to face that I had serious reservations about this 
mission.
  To their credit, they were not bothered by that admission from me. 
Because I said one thing they could count on is just as Congress after 
a vote on Desert Storm came together and in support of our soldiers, 
you could be assured that Congress, after our votes on conscience, 
would come together to support our troops.

[[Page H14868]]

  Yet I am ashamed that because of the action of one Republican Member 
of this House tonight we will be denied the opportunity to show 
unanimous support for our troops.
  Let me read to the American people what that one Member kept us from 
being able to vote on tonight.

       Resolved that the House of Representatives unequivocally 
     supports the men and women of the United States armed forces 
     who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, 
     dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.

  It is shameful we will not have the opportunity to vote on that 
tonight.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the earlier proponents of 
the President's policy used the word ``hypocrisy'' when referring to 
some of the statements on the Republican side of the House. The word 
``hypocrisy'' called to attention something of interest to me; that is, 
how do we really support the American troops?
  The real vote in supporting the American troops, the soldiers of our 
Nation, wherever they might be, came when we voted on the 
appropriations bill to pay for their training, to pay for their 
technology, to pay their salaries, their health care, their educational 
benefits, their quality of life. That is where we voted to support the 
American troops.
  Hypocrisy, one after the other on this side who come here now to 
support the President's policy, most of them are the very Members who 
voted against funding training, technology, quality of life for our 
troops, and refused to support the troops, but they want to send them 
to Bosnia to get involved in a war.
  Another of the speakers mentioned history. Let me say something about 
history. I read a statement to the President in the Cabinet Room a 
short time ago at a meeting. Subsequently that same day my 
distinguished minority leader read the same statement on the floor. Let 
me read it again just for a few seconds.

       No language can describe adequately the condition of that 
     large portion of the Balkan peninsula, Serbia, Bosnia, 
     Herzegovina, and other provinces, political intrigues, 
     constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit, 
     hatred of all races, animosities of rival religions and an 
     absence of any controlling power, nothing short of an army of 
     50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order 
     in these parts.

  History, my colleagues. That was said by British Prime Minister 
Benjamin Disraeli in the House of Lords in August 1878, and history 
proved his wisdom.
  Pray God that history does not prove this a disaster with Americans 
in Bosnia. We support our troops wherever they might be.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose this resolution. 
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke told me that to get this 
treaty signed he had to twist arms.
  There is a statement in this resolution that is at the heart of my 
objections to the treaty. That has to do with full cooperation. As 
earlier this evening I said, after my visit to Bosnia, I had some 
serious reservations about the commitment. My impression is that there 
is a difference of commitment by the signers of this treaty on how to 
handle the refugees.
  My impression is that there is clearly unhappiness by the 
participants about the territorial provisions. My impression is that 
there is major disagreement that will lead to significant lack of 
cooperation related to the rearming of the Bosnian Serbs.
  Maybe this is why President Milosevic over cocktails with the 
Assistant Secretary, is quoted in the news magazines as saying, 
``Richard, you are a BS artist.''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand here and support my 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana. I cannot because his resolution 
obfuscates the issue. I can understand also why my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] came to the floor here upset because 
he also understands that all these whereas clauses in the Hamilton 
resolution makes it a flawed resolution. That is why so many are upset 
here today. This is not just one of these issues of just support the 
troops. This bill has a lot of flawed statements in it. We understand 
that.
  Let me share with my colleagues, we have voted on this issue. We just 
voted on it. Let me tell Members what it says. It says that this 
Congress is confident that members of the U.S. armed forces in who it 
has the greatest pride and admiration will perform their 
responsibilities with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, 
and exemplary courage.
  We have just voted to support these troops. We will support these 
troops. We grow the defense budgets and provide for them every day and 
we will continue to do that in the future.
  Do not support this resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I simply wanted to explain why I was offering the unanimous consent 
that I did. The objection on the other side of the aisle has been that 
our resolution sent a mixed message, implied support, was redundant, 
obfuscated. None of those charges have been spelled out in language, 
but I take them as genuine concerns on the part of the other side.

                              {time}  2330

  So I wanted to strip all of that out and leave simply the language of 
unequivocal support.
  Now, the striking thing about the Buyer-Skelton amendment is that the 
word support does not appear in it. Expressing confidence in the troops 
is not the same the Congress supporting the troops. If we finish our 
work tonight with the Buyer-Skelton resolution adopted and the Hamilton 
resolution defeated, we will have not supported the troops by a 
specific resolution of this Congress.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, who served 6\1/
2\ years in a prison in Vietnam.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. First of all, let me say to my friend from 
Missouri, I did vote for the appropriations bill, so what I say is with 
that kind of support to the troops.
  I served in Vietnam for a long time. I did not have a unanimous or, 
if you will, magnanimous, unequivocal support from this Congress while 
I served in Vietnam. The troops that are going to Bosnia will not have 
one either because of one objection. We have missed an opportunity to 
do a bipartisan, unequivocal support of our troops in Bosnia.
  The only thing, incidentally, that General Crouch asked us to give 
him when we were in Freiburg, we asked what can we do for you? He said 
``Give me something I can give to my troops that says you support 
them.''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said there was nothing in the Buyer 
resolution to show support. On page 4 of that resolution, it says, `` * 
* * is furnished the resources and support that he needs to ensure the 
safety, support, and well-being of such members of the Armed Forces.''
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say to the 
Members tonight, I think we have gone up and down the hill of whether 
this says support. The real important vote tonight was whether or not 
we would cut off the funds, and I know there were many Members in the 
body that voted to do that. I respect their vote.
  Once that decision was made, we then had a resolution which set out 

[[Page H14869]]
  people's concerns about what was happening and did, I agree, set out a 
measure of support for the troops.
  Our intent in presenting this resolution was not to change the 
editorial content, not to go back over the decision of whether or not 
we would cut off the funds but, as we did after the Persion Gulf debate 
in 1991, try to get a bipartisan, unanimous if we could, expression of 
this body that we support the troops, so that the people in the field 
leading the troops could have a piece of paper that would say 
unequivocally that the people of the United States, however they may be 
divided on what was happening and how it was happening, supported, 
without question, what they were doing.
  We passed almost identical wording in 1991, 399 to 6. And I would ask 
the gentleman from Indiana, if we have an opportunity before we quit, 
to ask unanimous consent again, and I would ask the Members who wanted 
to object to rethink it, because I think it would be a good thing for 
us as a Congress tonight to say to our people there, who will be in 
harm's way, everybody agrees, we hope no one dies, we hope no one is 
injured, but that Congress in a bipartisan way wants to unequivocally 
say tonight, after all of our disputes have been settled one way or the 
other, that we stand behind our troops.
  Let me just say one thing in closing, and then I will try to get out 
of the way so the gentleman can perhaps try to do this again. Alexis de 
Tocqueville once talked about America's morality. He said this:

       I sought for the greatness and generosity of America in her 
     commodious harbors and ample rivers, and it was not there. I 
     sought for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless 
     Constitution, and it was not there. Not until I went into the 
     churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with 
     righteousness did I understand the secret of her generosity 
     and power. America is a great country because she is good, 
     and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to 
     be great.

  Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, this is a good country, and it 
is a great country, and for all of our differences tonight on what is 
happening, we have made a choice not to stop this deployment. I ask the 
Members to try to come together tonight in a bipartisan way and in an 
unequivocal way to say to our troops, however we may differ about what 
is happening, we stand behind each of you through every minute and day 
of this great exercise.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr.Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. No member of this body takes 
lightly the decision to place the lives of American troops at risk. In 
this case, I believe President Clinton has done his best to minimize 
the risk and there is strong justification for joining the NATO 
peacekeeping force.
  People in the Balkan region have suffered greatly over the last 4 
years as a result of the Bosnian conflict. In the quiet of our living 
rooms, we have seen and read about many of the horrors of the war. The 
killing of civilians, mass executions, and shortages of food, shelter, 
and other basic necessities have evoked outrage and sympathy from 
around the world.
  Over the past few months, United States negotiators have succeeded in 
persuading the warring parties in Bosnia to agree to a peace plan. Now 
is not the time to turn our backs on the important role we play in the 
success of this agreement. The parties have agreed to tough 
compromises, yet it is the presence of the NATO peace implementation 
force that gives each party the confidence that the others will uphold 
their parts of the agreement. The United States must join its NATO 
allies in an effort to give the people of Bosnia the chance to 
peacefully coexist, build s democracy, and ensure that the horrors of 
war do not reoccur.
  The United States has a vital interest in ensuring that peace in the 
region is sustained. Renewed war would not only exacerbate the 
suffering of the Bosnian people, the conflict could spread to nearby 
nations. Expansion of the war may draw us into a future conflict that 
requires a greater U.S. commitment--one which might not be limited to a 
peacekeeping role.
  As a leader in the world and NATO, the United States must show 
willingness to work with our allies. Our participation in NATO has 
contributed to stability in Europe and to our victory in the cold war. 
NATO is an integrated military structure whose effectiveness depends on 
the United States, its largest member. Neglecting our leadership role 
in efforts to end the Bosnian conflict could erode our standing with 
our international partners and call into question our commitment to 
longstanding allies. We cannot afford to undermine those alliances.
  The safety of U.S. military personnel on this mission is of paramount 
importance. I have been impressed with the administration's efforts to 
pursue a peace agreement that our military could implement and enforce. 
The mission has been narrowly defined and the President has ensured 
that the troops will be able to react with force if threatened. While 
there are risks to this mission, efforts have been made to minimize the 
possibility of harm.
  We are all aware of the atrocities committed in this war. The United 
States has been actively involved in the peace process. Participation 
in the NATO peacekeeping is a final step we must take to give the 
parties in the Bosnian conflict a chance to live in peace.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker; I rise in support of the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. This 
well-considered resolution offers unequivocal support for the men and 
women of the U.S. Armed Forces as they prepare to carry out their 
mission in Bosnia.
  My colleagues, over the last 4 years, more than half of Bosnia's 
prewar population has been murdered, starved, or driven out of their 
homes. With American leadership, a cease-fire has finally been brokered 
which will bring an end to Bosnia's suffering.
  The Hamilton resolution acknowledges the questions and concerns that 
many members of the House have about this policy, but it affirms 
congressional support for our troops.
  If we fail to keep our commitment in Bosnia, the credibility of our 
leadership elsewhere in Europe and throughout the world will be called 
into question.
  I urge my colleagues to support our troops in Europe by supporting 
the Hamilton resolution.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
Hamilton resolution on American troops in Bosnia.
  My decision on what is the proper course of action for the United 
States to take in this Balkan conflict is the most difficult one I have 
faced since coming to Congress. I have searched my conscience to do 
what is best for my country, understanding that many of my constituents 
do not support American troops in the Balkans.
  I have been horrified by the violations of human rights that have 
taken place in Bosnia--the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, 
the rapes, the mass murders, the wanton military attacks against 
unarmed civilians.
  At the same time, I could not support the provision of American arms 
for the Bosnian Moslems or Croats, because I feared it would lead to 
more killings, more disregard for human rights and human life.
  This is a crisis that has defied easy answers. If there were a simple 
solution to bringing this bloodshed to an end, our European allies 
would have accomplished it.
  They were not able to bring an end to this war and, are a result, the 
United States has lead the effort for peace, bringing the parties in 
conflict, at their request, to the negotiating table.
  The President, in his capacity as Commander in Chief has exercised 
his constitutional authority. The Congress will now decide whether or 
not we will support American Troops, already being deployed on the 
Ground.
  American troops deserve the unequivocal support of the Congress in 
this effort for peace, for peace, not war.
  I recognize fully that there are risks attendant to this peace 
mission, but the United States of America must be on the side of peace 
and lead--demonstrate to the world that we can and will live up to our 
great heritage and place a moral force for peace on the blood-stained 
soil of the Balkans. The pursuit of peace must rise above the pursuit 
of reelection.
   Two of the resolutions before us tonight do not provide complete 
support for American troops. The Dornan resolution purports to back our 
peacekeepers, but refuses to give them funds to do their job. The 
Buyer/Skelton resolution expresses confidence in our forces but 
undercuts the justification for their deployment.
  Anything less than our total commitment to backing the women and men 
of the United States Armed Forces at a time when they are trying to 
bring peace to Bosnia injects politics, not statesmanship. While the 
United States of America cannot be a policeman of the world, we cannot 
be bystanders either. The exhortation ``Blessed are the peacemakers'' 
moves me to support this effort.
   Only the Hamilton resolution expresses our support clearly and 
without reservation and I support it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight America stands at a crossroads. 
Tonight we must decide whether we are going to honor our global 
commitments and responsibilities, or are we going to retreat into the 
muddy waters of isolationism, turning our back on our friends and 
allies. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, this body 

[[Page H14870]]
must decide if we are going to stand firmly behind our troops or are we 
going to point fingers and make a stance for political gain?
  The choice is simple, Mr. Speaker, tonight we must act to honor our 
global commitments and stand firmly behind our American troops.
  Mr. Speaker, the case for United States military involvement in 
Bosnia is clear, it is compelling, and it is credible. First, the 
Dayton Peace Accord is an American brokered peace agreement. Failure by 
the United States to participate in enforcing this agreement will 
greatly diminish American leadership and call into question the 
viability of NATO. Second, faith in our democratic ideals obliges us to 
act. Over 250,000 men, women, and children have died in this war, while 
2 million more have been forced into becoming refugees through ``ethnic 
cleansing'' and torture. Third, American troops will make up one-third 
of a much larger contingent of British, French, German, Russian, and 
other troops whose mission it will be to enforce a peace agreement that 
the Presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have willingly entered 
into. Accordingly, the risk to these troops will be much less than if 
they were being used as combatants to militarily impose an American 
solution. Fourth, American participation now, will prevent the war from 
reigniting and spreading into neighboring NATO allies and struggling 
new democracies. Widespread conflict in Europe would threaten our 
security and require a far different and more costly American 
intervention in the future.
  At stake, Mr. Speaker, is nothing less than the ability of the United 
States to influence, shape, and guide the complex forces that are 
tearing at the seams of not only the United States, but of the world. 
For, make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, a failure of the United 
States to share in the burden of enforcing the peace in Bosnia will be 
a direct abrogation of American leadership--leadership, that we have 
earned through the sweat and blood of hundreds of thousands of our 
young men and women, who died and sacrificed so that we may know peace 
and prosperity.
  However, as I have said before, placing the lives of American 
soldiers at risk is something that should never be done lightly. They 
are the living embodiment of our collective desires and dreams for a 
better tomorrow. As the symbolic custodians of the public will, this 
body has an obligation to ensure that these young men and women are 
supported and that they are given the very best chance to successfully 
fulfill their mission. The Dayton Peace Accord does these things.
  Mr. Speaker, Bosnia is a test. It is a test of our willingness to 
lead in an uncertain world. And, it is a test of our commitment to our 
NATO and Russian allies.
  Some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, will argue that the conflict in 
Bosnia does not threaten our vital national security interests 
sufficiently enough to merit risking the lives of 25,000 American 
soldiers. But, I ask, who among us, Mr. Speaker, does not believe that 
the viability and vitality of NATO as an entity will be called into 
question if the United States fails to act now, at this crucial period 
in our history when Europe is experiencing its most brutal conflict 
since World War II? Who among us does not believe that our enemies will 
be emboldened to act in the face of American inaction and indecision? 
Who among us, Mr. Speaker, believes that the United States will be able 
to influence and coerce other nations to act when we ourselves are 
unwilling to commit our own sons and daughters?
  Mr. Speaker, leadership requires much more than words--it demands 
action. Through American-led NATO airstrikes and consistent American 
diplomacy, the Presidents of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia came to Dayton, 
OH, to pursue peace. It is that peace agreement that we must now act to 
enforce. History has taught us that in the absence of American 
leadership and involvement in Europe, aggressive regimes rise to 
threaten, not only the security of European neighbors, but our own 
vital national security interests. American inaction now, Mr. Speaker, 
will without doubt bring to an end the fragile peace that we are now 
witnessing blossom in Bosnia. Have we forgotten the horrible pictures 
of the malnourished and underclothed men waiting to die in the 
concentration camps spread across the remains of Yugoslavia? Have we 
forgotten the testimony of the thousands of women who were viciously 
raped or helplessly watched as their young sons, brothers, husbands, or 
fathers were dragged from their homes and villages never to be seen 
again? By doing nothing, Mr. Speaker, do we condemn these people to 
relive the horror of the past 4 years? Peace is at hand, Mr. Speaker, 
and leadership demands that we act to protect and foster it.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Bosnia is a test. But, it is a test that we can and 
we must pass! The political and military objectives are clear. Unlike 
Vietnam, American troops will not be acting to militarily impose an 
American solution, but rather, they will be working in tandem with 
40,000 Russian, British, French, German, and other European troops over 
a limited timeframe to enforce the terms of a negotiated peace--a peace 
that the Presidents of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia, have agreed upon. 
Neither, Mr. Speaker will our forces suffer the same fate as the United 
Nations Protection Force--left ineffective and ultimately irrelevant, 
unable to defend themselves let alone protect United Nations designated 
safe areas. Our forces and their European and Russian counterparts will 
have the military capability and authority to repel any threats to 
their security or violations of the Peace Agreement.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, American troops will not be asked to mediate a 
centuries-old ethnic conflict, rather, we are intervening with our 
allies at the behest of the warring parties themselves, to conclude 
this most recent and bloodiest chapter of that conflict. Through our 
actions, we are giving the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats time and space 
to nurture and foster peace. It is incumbent upon them to build upon 
this peace and shape a society in which different ethnicities and 
religious beliefs are seen as strengths and are embraced, rather than 
as weaknesses and rejected.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, let us not, in our rightful concentration 
on our own domestic problems, abrogate our global responsibilities and 
leadership. Let us not, Mr. Speaker, forget about the 250,000 Bosnians, 
Serbs, and Croats who have lost their lives in this bloody conflict and 
the countless others who have been wounded or have been forced to flee 
their homes because of ethnic cleansing. Let us not, in our desire to 
protect our brave sons and daughters, allow this war to spread beyond 
its current constraints and threaten Macedonia or Greece. Let us not, 
Mr. Speaker, forget about the lessons of history that have taught us to 
carefully guard ourselves against naive calls for isolationism. For we 
have learned, through the sweat and blood of our young men and women 
that freedom is not free and leadership requires more than words--it 
demands action.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
offered by Mr. Hamilton to express the support of Congress for the 
United States troops who will be deployed to Bosnia.
  The deployment of U.S. troops is one of the most solemn and difficult 
decisions a country must make. Even when the mission is not to do 
battle but to preserve peace as is the case in Bosnia, the deployment 
of our Armed Forces involves inherent risk. No President and no Member 
of Congress could ever lightly consider the question of sending U.S. 
soldiers overseas in support of our national interests.
  I would have preferred that the implementation of the Bosnian peace 
accord would not have required the deployment of U.S. troops. However, 
the President has made the commitment of our forces and, tonight, 
several hundred United States troops are in Bosnia and several thousand 
more are on their way. The choice for the House is whether to support 
those troops and the mission they seek to accomplish.
  In my view, the Hamilton resolution is the only option before us that 
provides clear and unambiguous support for the brave American men and 
women who will be serving in Bosnia. While acknowledging that members 
of Congress continue to have concerns about the implementation of the 
Dayton Peace Accord, the Hamilton motion says that our soldiers deserve 
the unequivocal support of the U.S. Congress and the American people. 
Only the Hamilton motion sets aside the differences in policy that have 
brought us to this point and simply tells our troops that we support 
you and the job you are being called to do.
  The actions of this House have real consequences for both our foreign 
policy and our troops who will serve in Bosnia. If we reject our proud 
tradition of bipartisanship in foreign relations, we will dishearten 
our friends and embolden our enemies. If, as some suggest, we say to 
U.S. troops that we support you as individuals but reject the job you 
are trying to do, it is an empty gesture. What's worse, an equivocating 
message from Congress that calls into question U.S. resolve threatens 
U.S. troops by encouraging isolated rogue elements who would resort to 
violence to derail the peace agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hamilton resolution.


      modification to house resolution 306 offered by mr. hamilton

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be modified by deleting the preamble and all of the text 
before the resolved clause, so that the resolution would simply read 
``Resolved, that the House of Representatives unequivocally supports 
the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are carrying 
out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with 
professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?

[[Page H14871]]

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. 
On page 3 of the Buyer resolution, it says without any equivocation 
that the House of Representatives declares; Second, it is confident 
that the members of the U.S. Armed Forces, in whom it has the greatest 
pride and admiration, will perform their responsibilities with 
professional excellence, dedicated pratriotism, and exemplary courage.
  Paragraph number 4 was written by the staff of the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and that has already been referred to earlier. 
We have covered this over and over.

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. Reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Buyer-Skelton 
resolution which specifically puts the Congress of the United States on 
record in support of the troops. The gentleman correctly points out 
that we express confidence in those trooops, and that is an important 
thing to do. In the clause mentioned by my friend, the gentlemen from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], where he uses the word ``support'' a couple of 
times, that refers not to the Congress, but to the President and the 
Secretary of Defense ensuring that the commander of U.S. forces that 
are deployed in and around the republic, that they are furnished 
resources and support. That does not put the Congress on record in 
support.
  My friends, I think this is an important matter. We have troops in 
the field. We have all kinds of differences in this body about the 
policy. They have been very well debated in this institution today. But 
I beg you, let us conclude on a unanimous note with a simple support of 
the troops. We will strip out all other language that raises quesions 
for Members on the other side.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, respectfully reclaiming my 
time, both paragraph 4 which the gentleman read and which mentions 
``support'' three times, on line 4, page 3, the House of 
Representatives declares that. Then it goes to four and says it 
supports, supports, supports.
   I am very respectful of the gentleman's original resolution which 
states the following: ``Whereas the President has asked the people and 
the Congress of the United States to support the placement of United 
States Armed Forces on the ground,'' et cetera.
  The gentleman rightfully struck that. That was the original intent of 
this resolution, sir, not thanking the troops. The Buyer resolution 
thanks the troops.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my firend from Indiana, and 
this perhaps has already been pointed out, but line 20 on page 3 says 
the President and Secretary of Defense should rely on the judgment of 
the commander of the United States Armed Forces 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.
  Then, four, the President and the Secretary of Defense should ensure 
the commander of the U.S. Armed Forces that are deployed in and around 
the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina are furnished 
the resources and support that he needs to ensure the safety, support 
and well-being of such members of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
greatest way to support our troops would have been to keep them home. 
We lost that by five votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, does any Member of the House of 
Representatives who supports the troops in this matter have the right 
to seek modification, such that he or she could make a representation 
that they wish to request unanimous consent that we do exactly what the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] set forth?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state that that is not a 
parliamentary inquiry.


                           order of business

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow 
morning the first order of business be the Senate resolution sponsored 
by the majority leader, Mr. Dole.
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the objector has to stand so we know who it 
is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman who objected will please 
stand.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa] stood.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, point of order. The gentleman did not stand 
and object. He sat and objected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa] 
objected.
  Pursuant to section 4 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. 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 190, 
nays 237, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 858]

                               YEAS--190

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--237

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     
[[Page H14872]]

     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bateman
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gillmor
     McInnis
     Tucker
     Young (AK)

                              {time} 0002

  So the resolution was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________