[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9955-S9956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO IRAQI AGGRESSION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate now is Senate 
Resolution 288, offered by the majority leader and minority leader 
regarding the United States response to Iraqi aggression. There are 2 
minutes equally divided.
  The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle who deserve our gratitude for the effort put forth 
in the last couple of days to bring us to this point. I will not name 
them now. I will name them later.
  Let me simply read the resolving clause:

       The Senate commends the military actions taken by and the 
     performance of the United States Armed Forces, under the 
     direction of the Commander in Chief, for carrying out this 
     military mission in a highly professional, efficient and 
     effective manner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader for framing a very difficult compromise which has, 
given the proximity to a Presidential election, a great deal of emotion 
associated with it.
  I believe this resolution achieves the goal that we seek of 
expressing our appreciation and our gratitude for the outstanding men 
and women who serve in the military. It is obvious that those men and 
women serve under the Commander in Chief, and that is appropriate to be 
mentioned in this resolution.
  Mr. President, I don't know how this whole situation is going to 
evolve, nor do we know exactly what has taken place. But I do know, as 
always, we can thank and be grateful and in our prayers be grateful 
that we have the finest men and women that this world has ever seen 
serving in our military who, again, responded to the call of the 
Commander in Chief in such an outstanding fashion.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this 
resolution. When the President, in his unique capacity as Commander in 
Chief, orders our Armed Forces into action, Congress has an obligation 
to both affirm our support for the men and women of the United States 
military who have been ordered to undertake the mission, and our 
respect for the President as the constitutional officer responsible for 
the conduct of our military and foreign policies. This is the purpose 
of the resolution before us,

[[Page S9956]]

and it is wholly appropriate that the Senate adopt it without dissent.
  Such an affirmation does not, however, signal Congress' intention to 
relinquish our responsibility to make critical judgments about the 
President's decision, the goals which his decision are intended to 
achieve, and the efficacy of his administration's policies to secure 
United States security interests in the Persian Gulf region. Political 
custom and the importance of assuring our servicemen and women of 
Congress' support, as well as the necessity of presenting a united 
front to America's adversaries oblige Members of Congress to refrain 
from criticizing the administration while military operations are 
underway. But, we are not expected to permanently defer our 
constitutional responsibility to either concur with or oppose the 
President's policy.
  I have never shied away from criticizing administration policies in 
the Persian Gulf or elsewhere when I found them wanting. Neither have I 
refrained from offering my support to this administration when I 
believed such support was warranted. I am on record criticizing 
administration policies for Iraq and the region prior to the initiation 
of the recent military operation there. I stand by that criticism, but 
will refrain from elaborating it further until I am confident that the 
immediate military exigency has passed.
  I will reserve judgment on the efficacy of these strikes, and the 
advisability of the President's subsequent policies in the region until 
the administration has provided Congress with sufficient information 
upon which to base an informed judgment.
  Toward that end, Mr. President, let me suggest that the 
administration in briefings and testimony before Congress be prepared 
to answer certain obvious and basic questions about its purposes and 
policies in the region beyond simply providing bomb damage assessments 
and analyses of Iraqi responses to our missile strikes.
  Speaking for myself, and, I suspect, many of my colleagues, the 
necessity of taking some military action against Iraq is apparent. 
Whether the action ordered by the President was the appropriate 
response to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein cannot be determined 
until we have a much fuller understanding of the administration's 
overall strategy for reducing instability and countering threats to our 
security interests in the region.
  The administration should explain what precise purposes our cruise 
missile strikes were intended to serve. Were they intended to compel 
Iraq's complete withdrawal from the Kurdish city of Irbil in the north 
of Iraq and to cease all aggression against Kurds? Were they intended 
to persuade Saddam against contemplating renewed aggression against his 
neighbors to the south? Were they intended to foment opposition to 
Saddam within the Iraqi military? Was the limited dimension of this 
operation dictated by the opposition of our allies in the region or 
does it represent some other consideration which the administration has 
yet to disclose?
  Should Saddam test American resolve further by continuing hostilities 
in the north, launching new operations against the Shiite minority in 
the south, flaunting the new no-fly restrictions, firing missiles at 
U.S. and allied warplanes, or again threatening the territorial 
integrity of U.S. allies in the region, is the administration prepared 
to take significantly greater military actions? Will they rebuild the 
coalition of Desert Storm allies that will almost certainly be 
necessary if we are obliged to increase our military response? Without 
the use of bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, our military options are 
obviously very severely limited.
  Most important, Mr. President, what are the geopolitical 
circumstances which the administration wishes to obtain in the Persian 
Gulf region, and what is its overall, coherent strategy for achieving 
them which integrates our bilateral policies for all the countries of 
the region? Until these basic questions are answered, neither I nor any 
Member of Congress, nor the public we serve can judge not only the 
efficacy of these strikes, but the administration's ability to protect 
our most vital security interests in the region, interests for which 
this country has already paid a very high price to defend.
  Mr. President, let me reiterate that none of these unanswered 
questions cause me nor should they cause any Member of Congress to 
withhold his or her support for our military personnel tasked with 
executing the President's decision. Nor should we begrudge the 
President our respect for his authority or our prayers for the success 
of his policy. This is the time to give voice to that support as I am 
confident we will do when we shortly vote on this resolution. The time 
for critical analysis also begins now. Our conclusions must await 
another day. That day, however, will not be too distant.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Gorton
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Murkowski
  The resolution (S. Res. 288) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 288

       Whereas the United States and its allies have vital 
     interests in ensuring regional stability in the Persian Gulf;
       Whereas on August 31, 1996, Saddam Hussein, despite 
     warnings from the United States, began an unprovoked, 
     unjustified, and brutal attack on the civilian population in 
     and around Irbil in northern Iraq, aligning himself with one 
     Kurdish faction to assault another, thereby causing the 
     deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians; and
       Whereas the United States responded to Saddam Hussein's 
     aggression on September 3, 1996 by destroying some of the 
     Iraqi air defense installations and announcing the expansion 
     of the southern no-fly zone over Iraq. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the United States Senate, That: The Senate 
     commends the military actions taken by and the performance of 
     the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of the 
     Commander-in-Chief, for carrying out this military mission in 
     a highly professional, efficient and effective manner.

  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  
                            ____________________