[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 73 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5638-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.'')

                          ____________________