Congress Rejects Effort to Deny Bosnia Funding : Balkans: Vote seen as victory for Clinton. But many lawmakers still oppose deployment of U.S. troops.

Congress rejected efforts Wednesday to block funding for the 20,000 American peacekeeping troops bound for Bosnia, ending threats that lawmakers would scuttle the mission and doing so on the night President Clinton departed for Paris to witness today’s signing of a Balkan peace agreement.

In the Senate, the measure to cut off funds for deployment of the troops failed on a vote of 77 to 22. The House vote of 218 to 210 reversed a Nov. 17 vote by that chamber to cut off funds.

The actions were a victory for Clinton, who had pledged to send the troops as the U.S. contribution to a 60,000-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization peacekeeping force and then found himself fighting lawmakers at home--mostly Republicans--to live up to that commitment.

“Having voted overwhelmingly not to shut off funding is in a sense a verdict on the president’s judgment,” White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said.

Yet despite the votes, many lawmakers remained unwilling to endorse the deployment outright.

Late Wednesday, both chambers were considering resolutions denouncing Clinton’s policy on the peacekeepers while at the same time expressing support for the troops themselves.

The resolutions were intended to put lawmakers on the record in opposition to the deployment--even if they failed to go so far as to undermine it by cutting off funding.

Among those urging the Senate to allow the funding to go forward was Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who has prodded reluctant lawmakers to support the mission since the peace agreement was initialed in Dayton, Ohio, on Nov. 21.

Dole said Wednesday that denying funds would undermine U.S. troops in and en route to war-torn Bosnia-Herzegovina.

“While I understand opposition to and disagreement with the president’s decision to send American ground forces to Bosnia, I believe that action to cut off funds for this deployment is wrong,” Dole said. “It is wrong because it makes our brave young men and women bear the brunt of a decision made not by them but by the commander in chief.”

The senators--21 Republicans and one Democrat--who voted to deny funding for the troops said they do not see a vital U.S. security interest in Bosnia and would have no explanation to offer the loved ones of any Americans who die there.

“I could not justify such sacrifice,” Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former secretary of the Navy, said after voting to deny funding.

They also stressed that the conflict in the Balkans reflects hundreds of years of hatred and cannot be resolved as a result of a yearlong NATO mission.

While the Senate was largely unified in allowing the funding to go forward, Dole and most Democrats broke with most Republicans on the resolution denouncing Clinton’s policy.

Dole and the Democrats, joined by some Republicans, favored an alternative measure urging Clinton to “fulfill his commitment to deploy United States armed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina for approximately one year,” under conditions that the mission be limited to carrying out the military provisions of the agreement and that the United States take a lead role in training, arming and equipping the Bosnian Muslims to establish a “military balance” in the region before NATO troops withdraw.

The administration has been backing a low-profile role in arming the Bosnian Muslims in an effort to ensure the impartiality of the U.S. force.

The resolution pointedly does not endorse the president’s decision to send troops to Bosnia, but it says the government should follow through on the commitment.

Many Republican senators, however, said they could not support the resolution because of their firm opposition to Clinton’s decision to send troops into a hostile environment where they see no U.S. security interest. Most of those senators said they would support a second resolution, sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), that denounces the president’s decision but voices full support for U.S. troops.

“We believe we are supporting our troops in the most effective way by opposing the mission,” Hutchison said.

Democrats said the Hutchison resolution would hinder the efforts of U.S. forces in Bosnia.

“The Hutchison resolution undercuts the troops,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “It’s designed to give the president a back door to pull the rug out from under them. . . . We can’t have it both ways. If we support the troops, we should support the policy.”

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) warned that the resolution would send a “muddled message to every one of our troops” and to the militants on the ground who want to see the peace agreement fail.

“It tells the war criminals who don’t want peace to come that they can work their mischief against American forces,” Lieberman said. “Why would we want to do anything to give them hope that they could sabotage the peace effort?”

In the House, a measure resembling the Hutchison resolution was expected to pass late in the evening, while an alternative Democratic resolution endorsing the president’s policy in Bosnia was expected to fail.

The rhetoric in the House--where Republicans have opposed the president bitterly--was emotional and fiercely partisan.

Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said the measure to cut off funds for the mission “is a cruel resolution. It will say to the men and women whom we ask to get up tomorrow morning, to dress in a military uniform and go to Bosnia that we don’t stand behind them.”

Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Ida.) snapped back: “The . . . resolution is not a message to our boys. It’s a message to our president, who is acting like a dictator.”

Public opinion polls continue to show resistance to sending troops, although support appears to be building.

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 49% of Americans believe that Congress should not approve sending troops, while 43% believe that Congress should offer its approval.

In October, however, before the White House stepped up efforts to win public support for the mission, a poll found that 65% of Americans wanted Congress to oppose the deployment.

Several hundred U.S. troops--mainly from the Army and Air Force--have already arrived in Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary as part of an advance party sent to set up headquarters facilities and communications and to prepare airports and railheads for logistics support.

The first elements of the U.S. force are expected to begin moving into Bosnia within 72 hours after the Bosnian peace accord is signed today at a ceremony in Paris.

Pentagon planners hope that the full U.S. contingent can be in place within two months.

The United States has also had several thousand pilots and air crews stationed at air bases in Italy and naval personnel and Marines on ships in the Adriatic Sea.