[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5325-S5326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OUR TROOPS IN BOSNIA

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just wanted to share a few thoughts with 
you on something that came up this last week.
  I was quite distressed when I heard that the President of the United 
States--the administration--suggesting that maybe our troops in Bosnia 
are going to be there for a longer period of time than the deadline 
having been established of June 30, 1998. This bothers me a great deal, 
for one reason in particular, and that is, I am chairman of the 
Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back 
when the decision was made in 1995 to send troops to Bosnia, many of us 
felt this was not a good idea--not that we are not compassionate, but 
that we were using our very rare, precious resources, after this 
administration has decimated virtually our defense budget to send 
troops over to areas and endanger their lives where we have no national 
security interest at stake.
  This is something that bothers quite a few of us. So we introduced 
back in November 1995 a resolution of disapproval to stop the President 
from sending troops over to Bosnia. This only lost by four votes, or we 
could have perhaps kept our troops from being sent over to Bosnia.
  I was concerned about this because I went to Bosnia to see what our 
interests might be over there. When I went up to the northeast sector, 
the northeastern part of Bosnia, where it would be under the 
jurisdiction of the support of the United States for our station troops 
to be stationed, I got up there, and when I told the people up there 
that it was going to be 12 months, as the President promised, that our 
troops would be over there--this is November 1995, keep in mind--
General Hoagland, in charge of the northeast

[[Page S5326]]

sector for the United Nations, made this statement. He started 
laughing. He said, ``You mean 12 years, don't you?'' I said, ``No, 12 
months. The President has promised that this is a 12-month operation, 
that if we deploy the troops to Bosnia, they would be back in 12 
months.''

  So nobody really believed rationally that would happen. However, 
because of the President's promise that the troops would be back in 12 
months, they were able to get enough votes to defeat our resolution of 
disapproval. And they sent the troops over to Bosnia.
  Now we are in a position where we will do everything in our power to 
support the troops over in Bosnia. But at the time when he said they 
would all be back by December 1996, all of a sudden, as soon as the 
election was over, we find that the troops are going to be extended 
over there another 18 months, or until June 30 of 1998.
  This is kind of a creeping thing that we go through, such as we 
experienced many years ago with our Marines in Guatemala. We have many 
other examples where we have gone in for a limited period of time. I 
can remember when we sent troops over to Somalia and they were going to 
be over there for a short period of time. And they stayed. It wasn't 
until 19 of our Rangers were murdered and their bodies dragged through 
the streets of Mogadishu that finally there was enough pressure to 
bring our troops back home.
  I am very concerned now because, as I suspected would be the case, 
the President, who, again, has promised the second time that all the 
troops would be back home now by June 30, 1998, has started to renege 
on that. We can't let this happen.
  The cost they talked about for the Bosnian operation initially was $2 
billion. It has now turned out to be closer to $8 billion, as I 
predicted over 18 months ago it would be, and we are at least creeping 
up to $6.5 billion.
  Where does that money come from? We are going to be asked to vote for 
an emergency supplemental. That is to pay for the additional cost over 
there, along with other problems, other flood problems and emergencies 
that existed, and a few cats and dogs thrown into the bill. However, in 
this case, we have to spend the money.
  Where does it come out of? It comes out of our defense budget, which 
is already strained to the point where we can't carry out the minimum 
expectations of the American people, and that is to defend America on 
two regional fronts.
  So we have a second reason. Not only are we endangering the lives of 
our troops over there, but we are also spending money that should be 
going into building and rebuilding our Nation's defense system.
  So, Mr. President, I want to get on record, as I did in Brussels when 
I gave the speech to NATO, that I would do everything, with every fiber 
in my being, to make sure that the troops come back.
  I would suggest this, however. I think the President is in the bully 
pulpit on this. I think he keeps continuing to want to leave them over 
there knowing full well that once the troops leave, it will go back to 
just like it was before. The Croats, Muslims, the Serbs, the 
Mujaheddin, the Arkan Tigers, the Black Swans--all of the other rogue 
forces--will be over there fighting as they were before. And then he 
can say, well, if we had left them their longer, that would not have 
happened. Recognizing that is going to happen regardless, I still say, 
Mr. President, we should all resolve to ourselves that our troops 
should come on the second deadline that we have standing. That is June 
30, 1998.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________