Date: 1982-03-08
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. later today. I shall introduce legislation requiring the President to get specific authorization from the Congress before introducing U.S. combat forces into El Salvador. My legislation amends the War Powers Act which presently allows the President to introduce troops into a foreign conflict for GO days if he notifies the Congress in writing within 48 hours of such a commitment. The legislation would retain Presidential flexibility by allowing combat forces to be sent to El Salvador in those cases where they are needed to protect. and assist in the evacuation of. American citizens. or to protect the territorial integrity of the United States. It is my view that before we proceed any further. all Americans need to debate and evaluate fully the nature of our role in El Salvador. I am taking this step now because of my growing concern over what I perceive to be an escalation of administration rhetoric and an escalation of administration involvement in that Central American country. The following are some of the recent events which have given me pause and led me to take a critical look at the nature of our involvement. In March 1981. the administration asserted the following in the State Departments submission to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as to the applicability of the war powers resolution to El Salvador: The war powers resolution did not apply to U.S. military advisers sent to El Salvador because. contrary to that resolution. first. these personnel were not equipped for combat. and second. they had not been introduced into hostilities or situations of imminent involvement in hostilities. The administration asserted at that time that U.S. personnel would carry only personal sidearms for selfdefense. They also mentioned that the level of fighting had receded since the January 1981 guerrilla offensive. It is obvious that the situation has changed dramatically since the administration last reported to the Congress. The New York Times. reporting on February 20. 1982. quoted Secretary of State Alexander Haig as saying that M16s. a basic combat weapon. would be far more reassuring for U.S. forces. He stated further that U.S. forces in El Salvador needed M16s because they were operating in an unpredictable guerrilla environment. In the same edition of the New York Times. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. in justifying the carrying of M16s by our military advisers. was quoted as saying: Trainers down there have to have some kind of personal protection. The public remarks followed the airing of a Cable News Network film clip on February 11. 1982. showing U.S. military advisers equipped with M16s. walking. through an area recently recaptured from guerrilla control. There have been emanating from our military leaders expressions of growing alarm over the armed conflict in El Salvador. Gen. Wallace Nutting. the head of U.S. Southern Command in Panama. recently in El Salvador. was quoted as saying that the United States would have to rethink its current policy of not allowing U.S. advisers to accompany Salvadoran soldiers on combat missions. General Nutting also stated: There is no quick or easy or cheap solution to the challenge. * Beyond that. no one knows. On February 28. the New York Times quoted a high administration official to the effect that the Presidents senior advisers were not optimistic about the Salvadoran Governments ability to achieve a military victory over the rebels. Finally. at the behest of my distinguished colleague. Senator BIDEN. on March 1 the minority staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmed from the Pentagon that U.S. forces in El Salvador were receiving regular hostile fire pay. Looking at the trend implicit in these events. I am led to the conclusion that now is the time to undertake a full debate on this issue. no matter how remote the possibility might be that the President would feel compelled to commit U.S. troops to El Salvador. In this regard. I have also asked that an independent study and analysis be conducted by the Intelligence Committee of all the available intelligence information concerning Central America. As I indicated in my request to Senator MOYNIHAN. I think it would be useful for the Senate to receive the committees own expert assessment of the situation. especially regarding Soviet and Cuban plans. intentions. and activities with respect to El Salvador. There is growing concern in America over the direction of the administrations policy in El Salvador. We are becoming more and more deeply involved in a country whose history we are not very familiar with and whose culture we do not fully understand. And we know from experience the difficulty in using a foreign military presence to impose a political solution in such a situation. By moving incautiously. we run a great risk of creating a divisive debate which could once again rip the fabric of this countly apart. Before we have committed ourselves to such an extentand I am not saying we should commit ourselves or we should not. I am not voicing any opinion on that matter whatsoever at this time. I am simply saying that Congress ought to be brought into the debate. ought to be brought into the dialog. and that Congress should fulfill its role under the Constitution and should be required to authorize such involvement before such involvement could go forward. It is my hope that this legislation will insure a full debate before we have committed ourselves to such an extent. I feel this is a necessary step because the administration has not clearly presented a welldefined strategy in pursuit of clear and agreed upon objectives. The Congress has yet to be presented with evidence as to the risks to be accepted or the resources to be expended in the long run. for what could be essentially an openended commitment. The policy we finally choose will only succeed if there is a national consensus in support of that policy. The only way to insure that we will choose the wisest course of action. for our Nation is for the Congress to first exercise its responsibility under the Constitution. The Congress is vested with the warmaking powers of our Government. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom established a system of checks and balances to insure. to the extent possible. that the interests of the Nation were protected. It is my belief that in a matter as serious as this. the executive branch must be able to make a very compelling case and that ft is our constitutional responsibility to err on the side of debate and caution before we are confronted with a situation that could cost us so dearly in money. national unity. and the spilling of American blood in the jungles of El Salvador. The War Powers Act. as it now stands. does not address the issue before us. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introduction of U.S. combat forces intn f foreign country. Congress ther has a 60day period in which to either declare war or pass a concurrent resolution forcing a withdrawal of U.S. forces. If one has to balance the risks. I see far worse consequences flowing from an introduction of U.S. combat forces into El Salvador. which the Congress then has to overturn by concurrent resolution. Therefore. if one would argue that my legislation would be foreclosing one of the options available to the President. I would argue that there would be far greater damage to the President and to the national interest. if the scenario I just outlined were to occur. It is my hope that the legislation I am offering today will receive additional cosponsors. that it will open up debate that will insure Congress constitutional responsibilities to be carried out fully. and. finally. that a full discussion will lead to policies the American people can support. I am serious in presenting this legislation and I hope its enactment will ensue. To do less would be to forfeit our responsibility under the Constitution. Mr. President. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.