[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR DEBATE AND CONSIDERATION OF THREE 
         MEASURES RELATING TO U.S. TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN BOSNIA

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. JACK REED

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 13, 1995

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution, 
and in opposition to H.R. 2770 and H. Res. 302. I, like most Americans, 
still have concerns about the deployment of United States troops in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I believe that we need to support our troops.
  I visited the former Yugoslavia in 1993. That visit alerted me to the 
dangers of American involvement in the conflict that has consumed the 
former Yugoslavia for the last 4 years. The animosities are profound, 
the terrain is difficult, and the underlying problems are political 
rather than simply military. Nevertheless, the Dayton Agreement is the 
last chance for a peaceful resolution of this war, and that Agreement 
rests on the participation of NATO as the implementation force. As a 
member of NATO, the United States is faced with a choice between making 
peace work or letting the contending forces slip inexorably back into 
the abyss of war.
  I believe that the vast majority of Americans want us to choose 
peace. But they also want us to ensure that our involvement is limited 
in scope, complementary to the efforts of our European allies and not a 
substitute for their involvement, militarily prudent, and consistent 
with our national security interests.
  Over the past few weeks, I have expressed these concerns to the 
administration. In particular, I have stressed the need for a more 
detailed exit strategy for disengagement of our forces, the need to 
ensure that we do not shoulder a disproportionate burden, the need to 
clearly identify our interests in the region and, most importantly, the 
need to take every reasonable precaution to protect our forces.
  The administration has responded with a more focused and compelling 
discussion of their plans. They have laid out a more detailed exit 
strategy. They have made a more convincing case that the scale of 
American involvement is justified by the mission and by the comparative 
strengths of United States Military Forces versus those of our allies. 
Although I remain skeptical of claims that our national interest is 
implicated because our prestige is on the line or the survival of NATO 
is at stake, I do feel that a resumption of fighting could precipitate 
an expansion of the conflict. Such a development, with its very real 
potential to involve Greece and Turkey, would pose a significant threat 
to our national interest.
  The administration and our military leaders have made repeated 
assertions that the forces are well trained, the mission is well 
defined, the rules of engagement are clear and permissive of preemptory 
action, and that more than adequate resources are available for our 
forces. Moreover, they have stressed that the primary mission of our 
forces is self-protection. These factors, and particularly the 
testimony of professional military officers, strengthens the claim that 
we have taken all reasonable precautions to protect our forces. 
Nevertheless, given the nature of this mission and the hostile 
environment of the former Yugoslavia, no one can rule out the 
possibility of casualties.
  Although the foregoing efforts by the administration to justify the 
deployment of American ground forces have allayed opposition to the 
commitment of American forces, significant concerns remain. It will be 
incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that the limited scope and 
definite duration of the mission is maintained. It will be incumbent 
upon the Congress to ensure that our forces are continuously protected. 
These concerns will persist beyond this vote until our forces are 
withdrawn from Bosnia.
  The Hamilton resolution clearly expresses our support for our forces 
while signaling our concerns. It is the right message to send to our 
forces and to those in the former Yugoslavia that may wish them harm. 
It stands in stark contrast to H.R. 2770 which would cut off all 
funding for United States Forces in Bosnia. This measure would put our 
forces already in Bosnia at risk. It would end any chance of a peaceful 
settlement of the conflict. It is a reckless and politically expedient 
measure unworthy of the American soldiers who are ready to do their 
duty. The Hamilton resolution is also in contrast to H. Res. 302 which 
opposes the President's policy while purporting to support the troops. 
Serious and sincere opposition to a policy requiring the deployment of 
American forces is incompatible with wishing them well on their 
mission. Rather, it represents a political straddle.
  Finally, it is important to note that today's vote is not about 
authorizing the commencement of offensive operations by United States 
Forces. It is about peacekeeping. Our forces are entering a dangerous 
arena, but one in which the parties have already initiated a peace 
agreement. The President's constitutional authority to order our forces 
into Bosnia has not been seriously challenged. Thus, this vote is about 
our support of peacekeeping and our support of our forces. I believe 
that both are worthy of our support and, in the days ahead, our hard 
and unyielding scrutiny to ensure that neither the peace nor our 
soldiers are sacrificed needlessly.

                          ____________________