Dan Coats: “I will conclude, so that my colleague, Senator Levin, may proceed, simply by saying that we asked for the Department of…”

“I will conclude, so that my colleague, Senator Levin, may proceed, simply by saying that we asked for the Department of Defense response to this amendment. They reported back. The Department of Defense says: The Department has no objection to the proposed amendment in general. The Department is concerned that paragraph (2) under Sense of Congress could be misinterpreted as a weakening of US resolve and commitment to the process initiated under the Dayton Agreement. While the Department agrees that there should not be a permanent US presence in Bosnia, the timing and nature of discussions on withdrawal of the international coalition should be driven by our continued progress on the ground and not by artificial deadlines. And The New York Times reported the following on June 13, 1996: There has been no change in the President's view of the current IFOR mission. It will last about a year.--Michael McCurry, White House spokesman, New York Times, 6/13/96. The Washington Post reported on July 25, 1996 the following: There is no successor mission. . . . We're not anticipating any such thing.--Vice President Albert Gore, Washington Post, 7/25/96. I agree in terms of their discussion about 'artificial deadlines.' But I want to point out that the Dayton agreement clearly stated that the presence of the military was necessary to accomplish the military task. And I believe that military task has been accomplished.”