Senate Vote Preserves Funding for Troops

The Senate veered away Friday from voting to cut off money for the military deployment in Bosnia after Majority Leader Trent Lott cautioned against undermining the nation’s newly toughened Balkan policy at a critical moment for U.S. troops.

One day after NATO forces seized one accused war criminal in Bosnia and killed another in a shootout, the Senate stepped back from cutting off funding and voted instead to urge the Clinton administration to withdraw troops by the previously announced date of June 1998. But in a further sign of concerns about undercutting the U.S. effort, the resolution also conceded that some noncombat U.S. presence may be required after the deadline.

The vote came on the same day the Senate adopted a $268-billion defense authorization bill for next year.

The unexpected shift by Lott, a Mississippi Republican, signaled that GOP leaders believe that it would be a mistake for Congress to take any step viewed as an erosion of support for U.S. troops at a time when they could face heightened risks. And according to some analysts, it also suggested that Lott believes that it is a mistake to challenge the administration’s Bosnia policy just after it scored a rare success.

In reality, although the House voted last month to cut off funds for the mission next year, most analysts doubted that a majority of senators would do the same. But there were predictions that Republicans and liberal Democrats would join forces to generate enough votes to embarrass the president badly, while at the same time giving themselves some political insulation if U.S. troops suffer casualties.

On Thursday night, however, Lott surprised fellow senators by urging them to apply a “maximum amount of discretion” because “we have some very sensitive circumstances that have evolved there on the ground.”

*

By Friday morning, lawmakers were huddling to find an acceptable substitute for the cutoff amendment, which was proposed by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.).

Crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the substitute amendment said that after the withdrawal deadline, a smaller U.S. presence “may be needed” in Bosnia to provide transportation, logistical and intelligence support. It also said a reserve force may be required to respond to emergencies.

The amendment calls for U.S. allies in NATO to provide all combat troops for the Bosnia-Herzegovina mission after the deadline--a step the Europeans have strongly resisted. It also urges Clinton to seek congressional approval before he initiates an extension of the mission.

The administration joined in lobbying against a funding cutoff, arguing it would tie U.S. hands and suggest to the Bosnians that the United States lacks resolve.

“A fixed withdrawal date will constrict U.S. commanders’ flexibility, encourage our opponents and undermine the important psychological advantage U.S. troops enjoy,” said a letter from Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Even so, debate on the amendment brought denunciations from each party for the administration’s handling of the issue.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the U.S. attempt to bring order to the country was “like putting your hand in water--and taking it out--and it’s just the same.”

Referring to the arrest of war crimes suspects, Inhofe recalled that 18 U.S. troops were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993 when they mounted a manhunt against a Somali warlord. “I don’t want that to happen anywhere in the streets of Bosnia,” he said.

The defense authorization bill was approved 94 to 4. The measure:

* Provides for a 2.8% increase in military pay, as did the House version passed last month.

* Offers no funding for additional B-2 bombers. The House--against the Pentagon’s advice--called for nine more of the bombers. That would be a boost to some Southern California defense manufacturers, but some House advocates for added spending have expressed pessimism that they can prevail.

* Maintains a ban on abortions at military hospitals overseas, as the House version does.