[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10353-H10354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES REACTION TO ACTIONS IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of theHouse, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address briefly the incidence 
and pattern of behavior with regard to our reaction to Saddam Hussein's 
latest actions in Iraq, and I want to preface it by saying that I have 
defended the President's decisions in Missouri with my constituents. I 
think it is important, given the history we have had with Saddam 
Hussein, to show him that the action we clearly regard as aggressive 
and the world regards as aggressive not be something he can get away 
with easily.
  This is the kind of person who keeps pushing and keeps pushing until 
he is stopped. it is better to try to stop him, to stop him at the 
early stages, rather than to wait until you have some kind of a general 
conflagration.
  I felt the President was right in responding. I did not want to 
second-guess the particular tactics that he chose. However, I think it 
is also important to be sensitive now to the kinds of concerns that my 
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] raised with regard 
to the fact that we are no longer dealing with a single response to a 
single incident.
  We are now dealing with a chain of responses, an ongoing pattern of 
behavior, and a policy that is being developed, a policy that involves 
ongoing and perhaps intermittent but ongoing military strikes. Even 
apart from the legalities of the War Powers Act, it would, it seems to 
me, to be both prudent and, as a matter of comity, an important thing 
for the President to consult at least with the bipartisan leadership.
  My understanding is that this has not been done. The longer this goes 
on,

[[Page H10354]]

the more questions are going to be raised about it, the more important 
it will be to have unity within the Congress and the country as a 
whole.
  I do not understand, completely apart from the politics, completely 
apart from the War Powers Act, I do not understand why the President 
would not want at least on a quiet basis to be consulting and informing 
the bipartisan leadership of the Congress better than he has. It would, 
it seems to me, be a prudent thing to do.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding 
to me.
  Let me just state, in response to the previous gentleman who spoke, 
nobody questions the United States responding to air strikes against 
our planes protecting the no-fly zones. No one is questioning that.
  We are not asking the President to come in. That was an original, 
original action as a result of the U.N. resolutions that were passed 
and the cooperative nations supporting our action agreed to establish 
no-fly zones. No one in this body is questioning whether or not we can 
respond if the Iraqis fire missiles at our planes protecting those no-
fly zones. But that is not what we are talking about now.
  First of all, even though those no-fly zones were a result of the 
U.N. resolutions, they have now been changed. The definition lines have 
been expanded. Now we are sending over F-117's for other strikes, for 
deep-strike bombing strikes. We do not know what this new mission is 
because it was not in the original U.N. resolutions, which is the 
reason why we are there in the first place.
  The point we are making, Mr. Speaker, is we have a whole new set of 
issues now that appear to not even be consistent with the U.N. 
resolutions, appear to be far beyond the original mission that was a 
multinational effort, and which the Congress has not been consulted on. 
The urgency is that as we adjourn today, this weekend our young pilots 
are flying F-117's over, to apparently be based in Kuwait. I think we 
should at least know that.
  I am a strong supporter and friend and defender of Kuwait, but I 
would like to know if that, in fact, is the case, and if they are in 
Kuwait, is this going to be their base of action? If they are there, 
why are they not placed in one of the airfields we are currently 
involved in in Saudi Arabia? Is it because, as the media are saying, 
that the Saudis have turned us down? None of these questions have been 
answered.
  Mr. Speaker, mark my words, if there is a casualty of an American, we 
are going to hold this President accountable. We are talking about our 
kids. We are not trying to disrupt what the President wants to do or 
interrupt his foreign policy. But there is a role constitutionally for 
this Congress to be involved in, and that has not occurred.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. TALENT. It leads me to wonder, Mr. Speaker. I think there would 
be very strong support on both sides of the aisle for any plausible 
plan to respond on an ongoing and consistent basis to the depredations 
by Saddam Hussein. I know I would be very receptive to that.
  I repeat, I have been defending the President. I wondered at the time 
when this was occurring why the press was so interested in my comments 
back home. I think it was because, here I was a Republican defending 
what the President was doing, but I thought his response was very 
appropriate.
  If we are having difficulty getting the Saudis to go along, we know 
we have had difficulty getting the Europeans to go along, all the more 
important that we be consulted here, and that we be able to act in a 
united way between the executive and legislative branches.
  I am not saying this, inviting the President to come in, so we can 
step on what he is trying to do. I think probably we would be 
supportive if it was a reasonable plan. But if he does not do that then 
certainly he exposes himself to the criticisms.

                          ____________________