[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S522-S523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      THE PEACE POWERS ACT OF 1995

 Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
S. 5, the Peace Powers Act of 1995, introduced by Majority Leader Dole. 
This is a much-needed piece of legislation, in that it not only unties 
the President's hands in those instances where he needs to act to 
ensure American interests, it also enacts important reforms in the 
manner in which the United States participates in U.N. operations.
  First, S. 5 repeals the unworkable--and probably unconstitutional--
War Powers Resolution. This is long overdue. I, like many of my 
colleagues, have always believed that the Framers of the Constitution 
always intended that the President should be able to act with dispatch 
to protect American interests in his capacity of Commander in Chief of 
the U.S. Armed Forces. While Congress retains the power of the purse, 
and the continuing right to cut off funds at will, there is no clear 
right for Congress to preemptively subject the President to a drop dead 
date in the conduct of military operations. This bill does retain the 
consultation and reporting provisions of the War Powers Resolution, 
which have not been controversial and with which all administrations 
have complied, in the spirit of cooperation between the executive and 
legislative branches.
  A major provision is section 5 of the bill, which amends the United 
Nations Participation Act to prohibit the President from placing any 
element of the U.S. Armed Forces under the command or operational 
control of any foreign national in any UN peacekeeping operation. This 
is a matter that commands strong support among the American public, who 
do not want to see our service personnel placed willy-nilly under the 
control of non-Americans, exposed to dangers in operations that may 
have little if any relation to American interests. I am pleased to 
point out that this provision is very similar to an amendment that I 
attempted--unsuccessfully, at that time--to add to the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill in 1993. However, as President Clinton has 
shown himself more and more willing to delegate his constitutional 
power to international bureaucrats at the United Nations, the wisdom of 
this prohibition has become more and more apparent. I look forward to 
its becoming law in the very near future.
  Finally, S. 5 includes provisions to reform the way U.N. peacekeeping 
is 
[[Page S523]] paid for. With passage of this legislation, costs 
incurred by the Defense Department in U.N. peacekeeping operations will 
be credited to the United States against our assessments to the United 
Nations. No more would the United States be, in effect, stuck with the 
bill twice: the first time, when the Defense Department expends 
resources to support a U.N. mission, and the second time when the U.N. 
bills us for our share of the same mission.
 Also, the Peace Powers Act requires that advance notice of funding 
sources for peacekeeping operations be identified before the U.N. 
Security Council votes to establish, extend, or expand U.N. 
peacekeeping operations. This would prevent ``deficit voting'' by the 
Clinton Administration--which has treated peacekeeping, in effect, as a 
sort of ``international entitlement program,'' where we commit to an 
operation and only worry about paying for it afterward.

  The Peace Powers Act is the start of what I hope will be a major 
reexamination of U.S. priorities in the national security area. In 
particular, the Clinton Administration, in the view of many of us, has 
not approached its responsibilities in this area with sufficient 
seriousness. For example, we have seen the way in which the Clinton 
Administration has completely mishandled the nuclear crisis involving 
North Korea. In fact, while the Clinton Administration claims that 
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a top 
priority, its actions, as evidenced by the October 1994 nuclear 
agreement with North Korea may do more to promote nuclear 
proliferation.
  The agreed framework commits the United States to provide North Korea 
with immediate economic, political and security benefits in return for 
Pyongyang freezing its nuclear complex.
  What signal does this send to other would-be proliferators? That 
building a nuclear weapons complex, in violation of an international 
accord--namely, the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty--is the best way to 
get economic aid, political concessions, and national security 
assurances from the United States. Here is what Iraqi foreign minister 
Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf [sah-YEED sah-HAHF] had to say about the United 
States-North Korean deal: ``What does North Korea get for its 
refusal?'', [referring to international inspections of two sites 
suspected of holding nuclear weapons-related materials] ``They get a $4 
billion light-water reactor, get a couple billion dollars in addition, 
plus unlimited oil deliveries. What do we get? We get nothing.'' [As 
related to the Washington Post by Rolf Ekeus [EH-kyoos], director of 
the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq.]
  Under the agreed framework the United States will: Immediately 
provide North Korea with close to $4.7 million worth of heavy oil; 
establish liaison offices with North Korea; begin relaxing trade 
restrictions; and cancel the annual United States/South Korean military 
exercise ``Team Spirit.'' And North Korea's shooting down of a United 
States helicopter that accidentally strayed north of the snow-obscured 
border-line--and then holding the surviving pilot prisoner--has not 
diluted this Administration's eagerness to deal with North Korea.
  But even more astounding is that despite months of North Korean
   intransigence over allowing international nuclear inspections, the 
Clinton administration agreed to provide these valuable assets without 
ensuring international inspections. Only after about 5 years into the 
agreement's implementation, and close to the completion of the first of 
two light water reactors, is North Korea required to come into full 
compliance with the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits the 
diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful purposes to weapons use 
and obligates signatories to accept ``safeguards'' to monitor and 
verify compliance. And it is only at this point that the special 
inspections of the two nuclear waste sites will be allowed.

  To give another example, I applaud the proposal of my colleague, 
Senator McConnell, the incoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, to take a new look at our foreign aid to Russia and other 
states of the former Soviet Union in light of some of the things that 
are happening there. Senator McConnell has called for cutting aid to 
Russia upon evidence that Moscow is directing or supporting the 
violation of another nation's sovereignty. In addition, I am sure my 
colleagues feel as I do about the disturbing television pictures we are 
seeing from Chechnya [chech-NYAH], and the actions of Russian forces 
there. While Chechnya is legally part of Russia and not a neighboring 
country, I am concerned what these actions may indicate about the 
direction of the Russian Government and its commitment to democratic 
reform.
  So, as I have said, Mr. President, there are many issues for us to 
take a look at in the 104th Congress. The Peace Powers Act is an 
excellent beginning. I hope it will rapidly be enacted.


                          ____________________