[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12341-S12342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                UNITED STATES TROOP DEPLOYMENT IN BOSNIA

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the 
plan to send an additional 5,000 troops to Bosnia over the next few 
days. The report, which first appeared in articles in the Wall Street 
Journal and Washington Post earlier this week, came as a surprise to me 
and I am sure to many of my colleagues. Apparently, members of the 
media learned about this new troop deployment before Congress itself 
had been notified. Now I learn that Secretary Perry will appear before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee--only after the chairman sent him a 
stinging letter of rebuke.
  I have held strong reservations about United States troop deployment 
in Bosnia ever since it was initially announced last year. As many in 
this Chamber will recall, I was one of the few Members of Congress to 
vote against the deployment of U.S. troops to support the Dayton 
accord.
  I said then, and I reiterate today, that I doubted the value of a 
heavy U.S. investment in this region. I felt then, and I still feel 
today, that administration promises to have U.S. troops out of the 
region within a year's time were unrealistic and would not be kept. And 
I questioned then, and still question today, whether or not the Dayton 
plan would truly level the playing field between Serbs and Muslims.
  I recognize that the Dayton accord, and the deployment of the NATO 
Implementation Force [IFOR] to enforce it, has not been without some 
real benefit. We can all be grateful that people are no longer dying en 
masse in Bosnia. U.S. troops, in conjunction with troops from other 
countries, should be applauded for having largely succeeded in 
enforcing the military aspects of the agreement.
  In addition, many of the peacekeeping tasks delegated to IFOR troops 
also have been completed, including overseeing the transfer of 
territory, the demobilization of troops, and the storage of heavy 
weapons.
  Furthermore, while they were not without problems, the September 14 
elections have now created a new political structure in Bosnia, 
although its viability is yet to be tested.
  In the past, I have raised concerns regarding compliance with the war 
powers resolution and the constitutional implications of troop 
deployment without prior congressional authorization. I will not 
revisit that larger issue now. In this case, I understood that there 
was an implicit--if not explicit--understanding between the 
administration and the Congress that the Congress would be consulted 
regarding any proposed changes in the mandate of United States troops 
in Bosnia. Certainly, this deployment of 5,000 more troops would fall 
within that understanding.
  At a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 
September 10, several administration witnesses noted that, even though 
IFOR's mandate will expire in December, it was unclear what the 
security needs on the ground would be in Bosnia at that time. But as 
Thomas Longstreth, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and 
Director of DOD's Bosnia task force, made clear during the hearing, 
further decisions would ``have to be made in concert with our allies 
and, obviously, in consultation with the Congress between the 
[September 14] elections period and the end of IFOR's mandate [on 
December 20].''
  I understood this to mean that the Defense Department would--at the 
very least--let the relevant congressional committees know about any 
troop enhancements before releasing such information to the press.
  On Tuesday, October 1, at a followup hearing in the Foreign Relations 
Committee less than 24 hours before the Washington Post article 
appeared, no mention was made of this specific troop enhancement, but 
only passing references to the possibility that additional troops might 
be needed depending on the security situation on the ground in 
December.
  Instead, at that second hearing, Assistant Secretary of State John 
Kornblum told the Committee that

       ``We fully understand and appreciate the need to work 
     closely with Congress on questions that involve the 
     deployment of U.S. troops. Clearly, the prospects for the 
     success of any such effort, if it occurs, depend 
     significantly on whether we have gained Congressional and 
     public support.

  Mr. President, I do not think releasing information to the press that 
has

[[Page S12342]]

not been released--formally or informally--to the Congress qualifies as 
``working with the Congress.''
  There are a number of questions that I believe must be answered about 
the mandate of these additional troops. How many additional troops are 
being planned for and what will they be doing? Will these men and women 
be an additional part of the U.S. contribution to IFOR? Or will they be 
deployed as part of a post-IFOR force of some kind? Will these new 
troops be under the command of NATO, or of a U.S. commander, and what 
rules of engagement must they abide by? Is the timing of this 
deployment at all related to NATO announcements last week that it was 
studying the anticipated security situation in Bosnia over the next few 
months?

  Then there continue to be questions on the political-diplomatic side. 
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE], the 
international body tasked with implementing the elections, recommended 
the postponement of municipal elections because of security concerns, 
allowing only national elections to take place on September 14. These 
municipal elections are currently scheduled for November, but many 
observers feel they should be postponed until the spring of 1997. My 
question is what kind of U.S. troop commitment will the Administration 
be looking for if the elections are postponed? And when do they intend 
to notify the Congress of their plans?
  I know that many of these questions will be answered at today's 
hearing before the Armed Service Committee. But I also would like to 
remind my colleagues here, and at the Department of Defense, that the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to have a significant 
interest in the details concerning any deployment of U.S. troops. I 
think it is fair to assume that if the Administration expects to have 
Congressional and public support, as it has said in public testimony, 
then it should make some effort to consult with all the relevant 
committees before its plans are announced in the morning newspaper.
  A year ago--in October 1995--I asked whether or not the U.S. would be 
able to withdraw troops from IFOR in December 1996, as the 
administration said then, even if the mission clearly had not been 
successful.
  I had my doubts then that the stated goal--ending the fighting and 
raising an infrastructure capable of supporting a durable peace--would 
be doable in 12 month's time. I foresaw a danger that conditions would 
remain so unsettled that it would then be argued that it would be 
folly--and waste--to withdraw on schedule.
  My concerns and hesitations of 1 year ago can only be compounded by 
the fact that additional troops are being deployed to Bosnia--perhaps 
even as I speak--without the Congress having been notified in 
advance.

                          ____________________