January 4, 1973
Page 226
By Mr. BROOKE (for himself, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. CASE, Mr. COOK, Mr. HART, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PELL, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. SCHWEIKER, Mr. STEVENSON, and Mr. WEICKER)
S. 48. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with respect to the availability of funds for military assistance and military operations in Indochina. Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
THE VIETNAM DISENGAGEMENT ACT OF 1973
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators CRANSTON, CASE, COOK, JAVITS, HART, MATHIAS, McGOVERN, MCINTYRE, PASTORE, PELL, PROXMIRE, RANDOLPH, SCHWEIKER, STEVENSON, WEICKER, and myself, I introduce, for appropriate reference, the Vietnam Disengagement Act of 1973.
Senators will recognize the basic provisions of this measure, for they are virtually identical to those contained in the so-called Brooke amendment adopted by the Senate on July 24, 1972, and August 2, 1972.
This bill provides that no money shall be spent for any U.S. military action in Indochina, except for the withdrawal of our forces and their protection during the withdrawal. This measure requires that the total withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia be completed within 2 months of its enactment.
The restriction on funding and the disengagement deadline is conditioned solely on the release of our prisoners of war and an accounting of our missing in action by the North Vietnamese and their allies.
The Vietnam Disengagement Act of 1973 differs from the amendments adopted last summer in only one respect: the length of time afforded for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Indochina. While last year the Senate approved a 4-month timetable, I propose we now enact a 2-month deadline for an end to our participation in the war in Indochina.
This 2-month timetable coincides with that revealed in Presidential Adviser Henry Kissinger's October 26 statement. He said:
U.S. forces would be withdrawn within sixty days of the signing of the agreement ... and all captured military personnel and foreign civilians (would) be repatriated within the same time period as the withdrawal – that is to say, there will be a return of all American prisoners – military or civilian – within sixty days after the agreement comes into force.
From Dr. Kissinger's statement, it appears the formula contained in this bill is diplomatically feasible. Logistically, too, I would argue that this timetable is possible because there are at the present time only 24,000 U.S. troops in Indochina. And we have in the past withdrawn this many and more within a 2-month period.
Mr. President, we were told in October that peace was at hand. But for reasons not adequately explained, the agreement was not reached. Peace slipped from our grasp. The talks stalled and the war accelerated with devastating fury.
Within the past 3 weeks, the U.S. Command in Saigon has reported the highest American casualty rate in over 2 years; 109 Americans have been reported killed, missing, or captured. Seventeen B-52 bombers at a cost of $10.9 million apiece, have officially been listed as shot down by the enemy; many other planes have been lost as well.
Despite official claims that we have aimed only at military targets, American bombing raids have resulted in the destruction of schools and hospitals in Hanoi. Our bombing has been the most intensive in the history of warfare, and has been called a "campaign of terror" against the North Vietnamese. According to the Hanoi government, 1,316 North Vietnamese have been killed and another 1,256 wounded in recent attacks. Amid the rubble that was Hanoi lay the world's hopes for peace by year's end.
Now the intensified hostilities have subsided and the talks are scheduled to resume January 8. We pray for success in the talks in Paris and for peace in Southeast Asia. And we are also hopeful that we have seen an end to escalation as a military or diplomatic tactic.
These are our hopes. But our hopes have been raised before. And past experience has proved hope to be an insufficient foundation for public policy.
For too long the President has assumed the full burden of authority in the conduct of this tragic war. It is time that we in Congress assume our responsibility and share the burden of bringing an end to the war. Our constitutional and moral responsibility is clear. Congress has no more compelling obligation than to bring and maintain peace. In the days ahead, we must do all within our power to fulfill this obligation. And I ask that all of my colleagues consider Vietnam Disengagement Act of 1973 as an appropriate means toward that fulfillment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAXBE). The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the bill, as requested by the Senator from Massachusetts, will be printed in the RECORD.
S.48
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may be cited as the "Vietnam Disengagement Act of 1973".
SEC. 2. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"SEC. 659. LIMITATION UPON USE OF FUNDS IN INDOCHINA.– Funds authorized or appropriated under this Act or any other law for United States forces with respect to military actions in Indochina may be used only for the purpose of withdrawing all United States ground, naval, and air forces and protecting such forces as they are withdrawn; and the withdrawal of all United States forces from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia shall be carried out within two months after the date of enactment of this Act: Provided, That there is a release within the two-month period of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government, and an accounting of all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces."
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I am pleased to yield to my distinguished partner who worked very closely with me in the Brooke-Cranston amendment in 1972.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, for yielding. I thank him also for once again reminding the leaders on this side of this matter, and I am delighted to join with him in seeking to take the necessary steps to end the American involvement in this war in view of the failure of two Presidents in a row to end our involvement in this tragic conflict.
I announced while I was in California on December 21 that I would seek the first legislative opportunity to cut off funds for American military operations in Vietnam if U.S. forces are still engaged in the fighting when Congress reconvened.
American forces are still engaged in the fighting. This is the first legislative opportunity for me to do what I can to try to help stop this madness. I am taking advantage of that opportunity.
It seems clearer now than ever before that Congress must refuse to continue to provide funds for the Vietnam war no matter what happens at those off-again, on-again, peace-at-hand negotiations in Paris.
Whether we expect those negotiations finally to succeed or once again to break down should in no way affect our actions.
If the negotiations should break down, we in Congress must not finance any renewal of the bombing. If on the other hand the negotiations at long, long, long last succeed – and we all hope and pray that they will – then additional bombing money will obviously no longer be needed.
In either case – in any case – America cannot, America must not continue to support the Thieu government through hell, high water, endless bombing, endless killing, and endless spending.
If the President and his advisers cannot end our military involvement in this war, the Congress must.
I say enough of this war. Enough of this madness. Enough, enough.
Mr. President, I would like to ask our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, if it is not his hope that we can get this proposal before the Senate in a way that can be truly meaningful by seeking to attach it as an amendment to the foreign aid bill which is now pending before the Foreign Relations Committee and which must come before the Senate rather soon.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, in response to the question of my distinguished colleague, I have already talked with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relation's Committee, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), and consideration will be given by the committee to the bill. This bill could be attached as an amendment to the foreign aid bill which is, of course, permanent legislation.
I think that in this matter we might get the bill before the Senate as an amendment within a short period of time. I think that time is of the essence, as I said in my prepared text.
I am very hopeful that there will be success in the negotiations at Paris. Nevertheless, we have the constitutional responsibility to act.
I am hopeful that this bill will come before this body, that it will be passed by this body, and that this time the House of Representatives will join also in passing this legislation, which too long we have delayed.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I shall join with him in seeking to persuade the Foreign Relations Committee to adopt this measure as an amendment to the foreign aid bill. It will then be of greater strength, attached to a measure of which a veto is less likely to occur, than simply as a bill standing on its own, and in any case we will then be in a far stronger parliamentary position to exercise our strength, our will, and the right of Congress to end this war. I look forward to working with my colleague night and day to achieve that end.
Mr. BROOKE. I certainly agree with the Senator from California that this is perhaps the best parliamentary procedure we can take, and I am very gratified to have his continued support, because his support has been invaluable in having the Senate pass this amendment twice in 1972.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my staff assistant, Miss Marilyn Dexheimer, be permitted to remain on the floor for the purpose of this discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAXBE). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, with the election behind us, it is the responsibility of every Member of Congress to examine once again his stance and his conscience in regard to the Indochina conflict. I, for one, agree with Senator MANSFIELD's recent remarks to the Democratic Conference that–
It remains for the Congress to seek to bring about complete disinvolvement. We have no choice but to pursue this course.
Accordingly, this morning I agreed to join Senator BROOKE as cosponsor of a bill designed to "restrict the use of funds for U.S. military operations in Indochina solely to the withdrawal of all our forces from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia," with the spending restriction and withdrawal deadline conditional only on a full accounting of all Americans missing in action.
Accordingly, I also supported Senator KENNEDY's resolution at the Democratic Conference to make it Democratic policy in the 93d Congress that–
No further public funds be authorized, appropriated or expended for U.S. military combat operations in or over Indochina and that such operations be terminated immediately, subject only to arrangements necessary to insure the safe withdrawal of American troops and return of American prisoners of war.
Thus far, the President has rejected all efforts by the Senate, and especially the Foreign Relations Committee, to become informed with respect to the Paris negotiations, with respect to the breakdown in negotiations, with respect to the reasons for the unprecedented and shocking bombing in North Vietnam which has taken place in recent weeks. Without such information, it is impossible for the Congress and for this Senator to comprehend the rationale for the President's policy in Vietnam.
Nevertheless, the American people have the right to expect the Members of Congress to take a stance on our continuing involvement in the Indochina conflict. My position remains clear. I believe our involvement must be ended. I reject the President's policy of bombing the North. I do not believe it is required by any rational assessment of America's security interests. I believe the time for debate on our involvement in Indochina has passed.
It is for these reasons I support Senator MANSFIELD's statement about the need for the Congress to bring about complete disinvolvement. It is for these reasons I supported Senator KENNEDY's resolution at the Democratic conference. And it is for these reasons I am cosponsoring Senator BROOKE's bill on the total withdrawal of our forces from Indochina.