[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 73 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5637-S5658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES KILLED SINCE END OF VIETNAM WAR
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
[[Page S5639]]
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 94, submitted earlier today by
Senators Cleland, McCain, Levin, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 94) expressing the sense of the
Senate to designate May 28, 2001, as a special day for
recognizing the members of the Armed Forces who have been
killed in hostile actions since the end of the Vietnam War.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on next Monday, May 28, and acting
pursuant to a joint resolution approved by the Congress back in 1950,
the President of the United States will issue a proclamation calling
upon the people of the United States to observe a day of prayer for
permanent peace in remembrance of all of those brace Americans who have
died in our Nation's service. That is how Memorial Day got started and
is what this special day is supposed to be all about.
Whenever Memorial Day comes around, I am reminded of what may well
have been the first, and is still one of the finest, memorials to
fallen soldiers, the Funeral Oration of the great Athenian leader
Pericles, as recorded by the historian Thucydides, during the
Peloponnesian War in the 5th Century BC.
For this offering of their lives made in common by them all
they each of them individually received that renown which
never grows old, and for a sepulcher, not so much that in
which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of
shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally
remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall
call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth
for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the
column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in
every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve
it, except that of the heart.
In that spirit, today I have introduced a resolution calling upon all
Americans to especially dedicate Memorial Day of 2001 to those brave
American men and women who have given their lives in service to their
country since the end of the war in Vietnam. No grand edifices or other
public monuments commemorate their deeds, but their service to their
country was just as strong, their sacrifice just as great, their
families' and communities' loss just as keen as their predecessors in
the two World Wars of the 20th Century, Korea and Vietnam.
As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Personnel
Subcommittee, I have been heavily involved in trying to improve the
quality of life for our servicemen and women through such steps as
increasing pay and enhancing health and education benefits. It is my
deeply held view that not only do we need to take such action to
address some disturbing trends in armed forces recruitment and
retention, but we owe these individuals nothing less in recognition of
their service. Indeed, tomorrow, I will be re-introducing my
legislation to update the Montgomery GI Bill, and to continue its
relevance for the married, family-oriented Armed Forces we have today
by making its education benefits transferrable to the spouse or
children of the service member.
The Senate has passed this measure twice, and with the continued
leadership and support of Senators Warner and Levin, I am hopeful that
this will be the year we provide this valuable recruiting and retention
tool.
As recent events have shown perhaps too clearly, Americans have still
not fully come to grips with the reality of warfare, especially the
Vietnam Conflict. Shortly after World War II--which of all wars in
recent history is most widely regarded as necessary and unavoidable--
General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ``I hate war as only a soldier who
has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility,
and its stupidity.''
Last year, to focus on the reality of war and on other questions
related to the global role of the United States in the post-cold-war
world, I had the great honor of being joined by my friend and
colleague, Senator Roberts of Kansas, in conducting six dialogues on
the Senate floor on these and related questions. At the end, we came up
with seven general principles, three of which have particular relevance
to this occasion:
First, the President and the Congress need to:
Find more and better ways to increase communications with the
American people on the realities of our international interests and the
costs of securing them;
Find more and better ways to increase the exchange of experiences and
ideas between the government and the military to avoid the broadening
lack of military experience among the political elite; and
Find more and better ways of ensuring that both the executive and
legislative branches fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in
national security policy, especially concerning military operations
other than declared wars.
Second, as the only global superpower, and in order to avoid
stimulating the creation of a hostile coalition of other nations, the
United States should, and can afford to, forego unilateralist actions,
except where our vital interests are involved.
Finally, in the post-cold-war world, the United States should adopt a
policy of realistic restraint with respect to use of U.S. military
forces in situations other than those involving the defense of vital
national interests. In all other situations, we must:
Insist on well-defined political objectives;
Determine whether non-military means will be effective, and if so,
try them prior to any recourse to military force;
Ascertain whether military means can achieve the political
objectives;
Determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs--political,
financial, military--and that we are prepared to bear those costs;
Determine the ``last step'' we are prepared to take if necessary to
achieve the objectives;
Insist that we have a clear, concise exit strategy, including
sufficient consideration of the subsequent roles of the United States,
regional parties, international organizations and other entities in
securing the long-term success of the mission; and
Insist on congressional approval of all deployments other than those
involving responses to emergency situations.
Since I came to the Senate, I have been deeply disturbed by the tenor
of many of the debates which have occurred in the Congress and with
both the Clinton and Bush administrations on a host of important
national security issues. Last session, the Senate failed to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after little meaningful debate and no
Senate hearings. This was one of the most consequential treaties of the
decade, and it was sadly reduced to sound-bite politics and partisan
rancor. In addition to the CTBT, the Senate has made monumental
decisions on our policies in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, and the
future of NATO and the United Nations, all without a comprehensive set
for American goals and policies.
And though it is too early to arrive at a firm judgment on this
point, and though there is no individual in the national security arena
that I have more confidence in or respect more than Secretary of State
Colin Powell, I am dismayed by the apparent surge of unilateralism,
without meaningful consultation with Congress, displayed by the new
administration on subjects ranging from Korean security, to defense of
Taiwan, to National Missile Defense, to the Kyoto Accords, to the OECD
efforts to fight tax evasion, all once again occurring without clearly
articulated goals and policies. In my opinion, we--all of us on both
ends Pennsylvania Avenue--have to do better. Simply put, I do not
believe we can afford to continue on a path of partisanship and
division of purpose without serious damage to our national interests.
I spoke earlier about some key quality of life concerns of today's
military, especially education and the GI bill. However, as important
as these other factors are, the ultimate quality of life issue for our
servicemen and women centers in policy decisions made by national
security decision-makers here in Washington relating to the deployment
of our forces abroad. It is these deployments which separate families,
disrupt lives, and in those cases which involve hostilities, endanger
the service member's life itself. This is not to say that I believe our
soldiers, sailors, airmen
[[Page S5640]]
and marines are not fully prepared to do whatever we ask of them. Quite
the contrary, they most assuredly are, as my visits to the front lines
in the Balkans and Korea have clearly demonstrated to me. But we on
this end owe them nothing less than a full and thorough consideration
each and every time we put them into harm's way.
There are 13 military installations in Georgia, and I visit the
troops there whenever I can. When I go to these bases, I see weary and
beleaguered families who are doing their best to make it through the
weeks and months without their husbands or wives. This is a heavy toll
for our military personnel. It is a price they are ready to pay, but
one I want the Senate to understand and appreciate as we continue in
our commitment of troops abroad.
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Article I, section 8,
gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed
forces, while Article II, Section 2 declares the President to be
Commander in Chief. With this division of authority there has also been
constant disagreement, not only between the executive and legislative
branches, but between individual Members of Congress as well, as we
have seen in our debates on authorizing the intervention in Kosovo and
on the Byrd-Warner amendment concerning funding of that operation.
Judging by the text of the Constitution and the debate that went into
its drafting, however, Members of Congress have a right, and I would
say an obligation, to play a key role in the making of war and in
determination of the proper use of our armed forces.
It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the
President full authority to repel attacks against the United States and
makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean
and Vietnam conflicts, however, this country found itself involved for
many years in undeclared wars. Many Members of Congress became
concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when
the United States should become involved in a war or in situations that
might lead to war. On November 7, 1973, the Congress passed the War
Powers Resolution over the veto of President Nixon.
The War Powers Resolution has two key requirements. Section 4(a)
requires the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours
whenever troops are introduced into hostilities or situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances. Section 5(b) then stipulates that if U.S. armed forces
have been sent into situations of actual or imminent hostilities the
President must remove the troops within sixty days--ninety days if he
requests a delay--unless Congress declares war or otherwise authorizes
the use of force. The resolution also provides that Congress can compel
the President to withdraw the troops at any time by passing a joint
resolution. It is important to note, however, that since the adoption
of the War Powers Resolution, every President has taken the position
that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the
President's authority as Commander in Chief, and the courts have not
directly addressed this vital question.
I would submit that although the Congress tried to reassert itself
after the Vietnam war with the enactment of the War Powers Resolution,
we have continued to be a timid, sometimes nonexistent player in the
government that Clausewitz emphasized must play a vital role in
creating the balance necessary for an effective war-making effort.
Since I came to the Senate, it has been my observation that the current
system by which the executive and legislative branches discharge their
respective constitutional duties in committing American service men and
women into harm's way has become inadequate. Congress continually lacks
sufficient and timely information as to policy objectives and means
prior to the commitment of American forces. And then, in my opinion,
Congress largely abdicates its responsibilities for declaring war and
controlling the purse with inadequate and ill-timed consideration of
operations.
Reasons for the failure of the War Powers Resolution and for our
current difficulties abound. I believe that part of our problem stems
from the disputed and uncertain role of the War Powers Resolution of
1973 in governing the conduct of the President, as well as the
Congress, with respect to the introduction of American forces into
hostile situations. Once again, these disputes continue to resound
between both the branches and individual members of the legislative
branch.
In all honesty, however, the realities of our government highlight
the fact that while the legislature can urge, request, and demand that
the President consult with members of Congress on decisions to use
force, it cannot compel him to follow any of the advice that it might
care to offer. With that in mind, as an institution, Congress can do no
more than give or withhold its permission to use force. And while this
``use it or lose it'' quality of congressional authorizations may make
many members leery about acting on a crisis too soon, delays will
virtually guarantee, as Senator Arthur Vandenberg once stated, that
crises will ``never reach Congress until they have developed to a point
where congressional discretion is pathetically restricted.''
I believe that in view of our obligations to the national interest,
to the Constitution and to the young American servicemen and women
whose very lives are at stake whether it be a ``contingency operation''
or a full-scale war, neither the executive or legislative branches
should be satisfied with the current situation which results in
uncertain signals to the American people, to overseas friends and foes,
and to our armed forces personnel. In making our decision to authorize
military action, Congress should work to elicit all advice and
information from the President on down to the battlefield commanders,
make a sound decision based on this information, and then leave
battlefield management in the hands of those competent and qualified to
carry out such a task.
In response to such concerns, last year I introduced S. 2851, a bill
which seeks to find a more workable system for Presidential and
congressional interaction on the commitment of American forces into
combat situations. Today, I am re-introducing this measure. It is a
bill derived from the current system for Presidential approval and
reporting to Congress on covert operations, a system which was
established by Public Law 102-88 in 1991. By most accounts, this system
has been accepted by both branches and has worked very well with
respect to covert operations, producing both better decision-making in
the executive branch and improved congressional input and oversight
with respect to these operations. Since overt troop deployments into
hostilities almost certainly constitute a greater risk to American
interests and to American lives, I believe such a system represents the
very least we should do to improve the approval and oversight process
with respect to overt military operations. It does not bind or limit
the executive branch or military, but offers greater reassurance to
those serving us in the Armed Forces that their service in harm's way
will have the full backing of not only the President, but the Congress
and the American public as well.
Honoring our fallen heroes on Memorial Day is altogether fitting and
proper, as President Lincoln said at Gettysburg. However, it is not
sufficient. We must also honor them by our words and deeds while they
still wear their Nation's military uniforms.
I ask unanimous consent that the list of all American service men and
women killed in hostile action since the end of the Vietnam war be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S5641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.001
[[Page S5642]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.002
[[Page S5643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.003
[[Page S5644]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.004
[[Page S5645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.005
[[Page S5646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.006
[[Page S5647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.007
[[Page S5648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.008
[[Page S5649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.009
[[Page S5650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.010
[[Page S5651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.011
[[Page S5652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.012
[[Page S5653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.013
[[Page S5654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.014
[[Page S5655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.015
[[Page S5656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.016
[[Page S5657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24MY01.017
[[Page S5658]]
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and that any statements and supporting
documents be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 94) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The text of the resolution is located in today's Record under
``Statements on Submitted Resolutions.'')
____________________