[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2756-S2757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                THE NATIONAL SECURITY REORGANIZATION ACT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every Member of the Senate is concerned 
about the national security of our country. I know each of my 
colleagues give serious thought and consideration to the details of how 
best to provide for our national defense and the strength and well-
being of our Armed Forces.
  And for that reason call to the attention of my colleagues a recent 
article by the Secretaries of State and Defense, entitled ``Foreign 
Policy, Hamstrung,'' which appeared in the February 13 edition of the 
New York Times. Secretary Warren Christopher and Secretary William 
Perry have joined together to present what I believe is a most cogent 
and informative analysis of the National Security Revitalization Act, 
legislation which the other body is considering today and tomorrow.
  Secretaries Christopher and Perry point out that this act which is 
part of the so-called Contract With America that the Republican 
leadership of the House is rushing to pass, is in its current form, a 
deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is their considered opinion that 
the measure would undermine any President's ability to safeguard our 
national security and to effectively exercise his or her constitutional 
role of commanding our Armed Forces.
  I believe we should give serious consideration to the concerned views 
expressed by these two able Cabinet officers, who are directly 
responsible for overseeing the day-to-day work of guiding our Nation's 
foreign and defense policies.
  They believe that the act's first major flaw is that it would return 
the United States to a crash-schedule deployment of a costly national 
missile defense system designed to protect against a nonexistent 
credible threat to our national security. They correctly point out that 
such an unwarranted and expensive system would not only divert billions 
of scarce defense dollars from other more urgent defense needs, such as 
the readiness and well-being of the men and women of our Armed Forces, 
but that the unnecessary expenditure of funds on continental defense 
against a nonexistent ballistic missile threat would also be 
detrimental to the ongoing development of an effective theater defense 
system.
  It is indeed ironic that while some on the other side of the aisle, 
both here and in the House, loudly proclaim the need for increased 
spending on a multibillion-dollar star wars program to defend against a 
theoretical intercontinental ballistic missile attack, they are, at the 
same time, unwilling to support the necessary funding for the Nunn-
Lugar program to reduce the threat of nuclear attack by working 
cooperatively with Russia to dismantle the missiles and nuclear 
warheads which were once aimed at our cities.
  Secretaries Christopher and Perry also point out that the proposed 
act unilaterally designates certain Eastern European states for NATO 
membership without consideration of the concerns and desires of other 
NATO members, or the readiness of the designated states to assume the 
military and political obligations inherent in NATO membership.
  Furthermore, they contend that, by its restrictive language this act 
would effectively abrogate our U.N. treaty obligations to pay our share 
of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The end result of such short-sighted 
restrictive action would be the elimination of the availability to the 
United States of U.N. burden-sharing resources.
  We in the Congress must be extraordinarily careful not to permit 
overzealous partisanship to encourage the hurried enactment of 
legislation which restricts the ability of this, or any future 
President of the United States, to carry out his fundamental 
constitutional duty to protect the national security of our Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article by Secretary Christopher and 
Secretary Perry be printed in the Record, and I commend it to my 
colleagues' attention.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 1995]

                       Foreign Policy, Hamstrung

              (By Warren Christopher and William J. Perry)
       This week Congress is to consider legislation that would 
     undermine this and every future President's ability to 
     safeguard America's security and to command our armed forces. 
     The measure is deeply flawed. It is called the National 
     Security Revitalization Act, but if adopted it would endanger 
     national security.
       We are committed to working with Congress in a bipartisan 
     fashion. But if this measure is passed in its current form, 
     we have told the President we will recommend that he veto it.
       The bill's first flaw is that it would return the United 
     States to a crash-schedule deployment of a national missile 
     defense, designed to protect the U.S. from missile attacks. 
     That deployment is not justified by any existing threat to 
     our nation's security, and it would divert billions of scarce 
     defense dollars and other resources from more pressing needs, 
     particularly in the area of theater missile defenses.
       We are building effective theater defense systems; they 
     will protect U.S. forces abroad, and the ports and airfields 
     they use, from Scud-like missiles in the hands of rogue 
     states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran. The continental U.S. 
     does not now face a ballistic missile attack from these 
     states. But we are not complacement. We are conducting a 
     broad research and development program that will, in a few 
     years, be able to deploy a national missile defense system 
     whenever a threat emerges.
       Second, the bill unilaterally and prematurely designates 
     certain European states 
     [[Page S2757]] for NATO membership. NATO should and will 
     expand. NATO expansion will strengthen stability in Europe 
     for members and nonmembers alike. But new members must be 
     ready to undertake the obligations of membership, just as we 
     and our allies must be ready to extend our solemn commitments 
     to them. Our present steady and deliberate approach to NATO 
     expansion is intended to insure that each potential member is 
     judged individually, according to its capacity to contribute 
     to NATO's goals.
       That approach gives every new European democracy a strong 
     incentive to consolidate reform. But if we arbitrarily lock 
     in advantages now for some countries, we risk discouraging 
     reforms in countries not named and fostering complacency to 
     countries that are. Indeed, the effect of the measure before 
     Congress could be instability in the very region whose 
     security we seek to bolster.
       Third, the bill would effectively abrogate our treaty 
     obligation to pay our share of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping 
     operations that we have supported in the Security Council. 
     The bill would require us to reduce our peacekeeping dues 
     dollar for dollar by the cost of operations we conduct 
     voluntarily in support of U.S. interests. These operations 
     deter aggressors, isolate parish states and support 
     humanitarian relief in places like Bosnia and Iraq.
       If we deduct the cost of our voluntary actions against our 
     U.N. dues, it would cancel our entire peacekeeping payment. 
     Other nations--Japan and our NATO allies--would surely 
     follow, and U.N. peacekeeping would end. Under current 
     circumstances, it would end U.N. peacekeeping overnight.
       That would eliminate peacekeepers already stationed at 
     important flash points like the Golan Heights
      on the Israel-Syria border, where U.N. forces support 
     progress in the Middle East peace process. It would pull 
     U.N. forces from the Iraq-Kuwait border, from Cyprus and 
     from the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. In short, 
     this bill would eliminate an effective tool for burden 
     sharing that every President from Harry Truman to George 
     Bush has used to advance American interests. It would 
     leave the President with an unacceptable option whenever 
     an emergency arose: act alone or do nothing.
       The measure would also impose unnecessary, unsound and 
     unconstitutional restrictions on the President's authority to 
     place our troops under the operational control of another 
     country--even a NATO ally--for U.N. operations. Our forces 
     always remain under the command authority of the President, 
     and we already apply the most rigorous standards when we pass 
     even the most limited responsibility to a competent foreign 
     commander. But the Commander-in-Chief must retain the 
     flexibility to place troops temporarily under the operational 
     control of officers of another nation when it serves our 
     interests, as we did so effectively in Operation Desert Storm 
     and in most other conflicts since the Revolution. By 
     restricting that flexibility, the bill would undercut our 
     ability to get the international community to respond to 
     threats.
       Effective American leadership abroad requires that we back 
     our diplomacy with the credible threat of forces. When our 
     vital interests are at stake, we must be prepared to act 
     alone. And in fact, our willingness to do so is often the key 
     to effective joint action. By mobilizing the support of other 
     nations and leveraging our resources through alliances and 
     institutions, we can achieve important objectives without 
     asking American soldiers to bear all the risks, or American 
     taxpayers to pay all the bills. That is a sensible bargain 
     the American people support.
       This Administration has worked hard to improve our 
     consultation with the Congress on every issue raised by the 
     National Security Revitalization Act. But in each case, what 
     is at stake is fundamental: the authority of our President to 
     protect the national security and to use every effective 
     option to advance the interests of the U.S. In its present 
     form, the bill unwisely and unconstitutionally deprives the 
     President of the flexibility he needs to make the right 
     choices for our nation's security.

                          ____________________