[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1161-E1162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              ACDA IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

                                 ______


                          HON. JAMES P. MORAN

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, June 6, 1995
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency as an independent agency and to urge 
that we consider how important arms control continues to be for our 
national security. This is also the conclusion of a recent editorial 
from the News & Observer, from Raleigh, NC. H.R. 1561 would abolish 
this small federal agency which has proven itself to be an economic 
bargain. Not only does the operation of the agency come with a modest 
price tag of under $50 million, its efforts have saved the Government 
millions, if not billions, of dollars in defense outlays over its 30-
plus years of existence.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage of H.R. 1561. We should not 
merge ACDA and the other separate foreign service agencies with 
separate missions into the State Department. The U.S. ACDA is pursuing 
the biggest and broadest arms control and nonproliferation agenda in 
history. As the following article makes clear, now is not the time to 
be dismantling the agency that is charged with getting these agreements 
negotiated, implemented and verified.
                [From the News & Observer, May 30, 1995]

                        Foreign Policy Meddling

       A proposal to reorganize foreign affairs agencies has 
     consequences beyond mere streamlining. Some in Congress would 
     like excessive control over foreign policy, a bad idea in 
     today's unstable world.
       Overhauling the nation's foreign policy agencies, as 
     proposed by Senator Helms, seems on first glance to make 
     sense. Separate organizations tend to be inefficient, and as 
     long as the rest of government is being ``reinvested,'' 
     foreign affairs shouldn't be exempt.
       But a closer look unveils flaws in the proposal, which is 
     advanced in pending legislation in both the Senate and the 
     House.
       For one thing, the assorted foreign services agencies don't 
     all have the same mission; merging them into the State 
     Department risks diluting their influence in the sea of a 
     single mighty bureaucracy. In a recent visit to The N&O, John 
     Holum, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
     made a strong argument along this line for preserving his 
     office as a separate expert voice.
       As Holum pointed out, the agency's advocacy of arms control 
     and nonproliferation is crucial in the face of new threats 
     from the spread of weapons. His worry, and it comes across as 
     legitimate, is that the arms-control quest could become 
     secondary to the State Department's concerns for smooth 
     diplomacy and maintaining good relations with other 
     countries. [[Page E1162]] 
       His reasoning tracks the case others have put forward for 
     retaining the independence of the two other agencies that 
     Helms wants to consolidate: the U.S. Information Agency, 
     which uses cultural, educational and broadcast means to 
     explain the United States to people overseas; and the Agency 
     for International Development, which distributes foreign aid.
       Another cause for skepticism is that the proposed 
     reorganization is bound up with an attempt by Helms and his 
     like-minded colleagues to limit greatly the president's 
     discretion in foreign policy.
       While Congress of course should have a say, carried too far 
     this becomes a dangerous proposition that baffles the 
     country's friends and foes alike. Yet some members of 
     Congress have gone haywire lately in trying to impose a host 
     of foreign policy directives on the Clinton administration, 
     all the while seriously cutting foreign affairs budgets.
       These measures are especially dubious when they originate 
     with lawmakers who, like Helms, yearn to dismantle the 
     multinational, cooperative efforts that are crucial to 
     international stability. For the sake of peace in the world, 
     Congress in this instance needs to step back.
     

                          ____________________