Opposition to the National Security and Revitalizaion Act, H.R. 872 - Warren Christopher, Secretary of State; William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense, Feb. 13, 1995 - Transcript

Dear Mr. Speaker:

This week the House of Representatives will consider legislation that would undermine this and every future President's ability to safeguard America's security and to command our armed forces. The National Security and Revitalization Act, or H.R. 872, is deeply flawed and, if adopted, would endanger national security.

First, it would prematurely commit to deploy an expensive and uncertain national missile defense system at the expense of military readiness. Second, it would recklessly accelerate what is now a steady, deliberate and responsible process to enlarge NATO's membership. Third, H.R. 872 would deal U.N. peacekeeping a lethal blow, forcing the United States to respond to crises alone or not at all. We are committed to working with Congress in a bipartisan fashion. If, however, H.R. 872 passes Congress in its current form, we have told the President we would recommend that he veto it.

The most objectionable parts of the bill include the following: the findings are in a number of instances both inaccurate and injurious to the national security. In particular, we object to the characterization of the United States military as on the road to "hollow forces." Such declarations are not only inaccurate but encourage our adversaries to make false calculations, and create doubts in the minds of our friends and allies. General Shalikashvili, the Service Chiefs and the U.S. Commanders-in-Chief in the field have all recently confirmed that our forces are at a high state of readiness today, and the proposed defense budget is sufficient to keep them there.

The bill's first flaw is that it would force the United States onto a crash-schedule deployment of a National Missile Defense that is not justified by an existing threat. Such a deployment would divert billions of scarce defense dollars and resources from more pressing needs, particularly in the area of theater missile defense.

We are building effective theater missile defense systems to protect U.S. forces abroad, our allies, and the ports and airfields we both use, from threats posed by rogue states such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran. While the continental United States does not foresee a ballistic missile attack from these states, we are not complacent toward this prospect. 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 would establish a commission that would unnecessarily duplicate work that already is done properly by the Department of Defense and Congress, that would infringe on the responsibilities of the President and the Secretary of Defense, and could disrupt the productive defense dialogue between the legislative and executive branches.

Third, the bill imposes 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 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. By restricting that flexibility, H.R. 872 would undercut our ability to get the international community to respond to threats.

Fourth, H.R. 872 would effectively abrogate our treaty obligation to the U.N. to pay our share of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations which we have supported in the U.N. Security Council. The bill would require us to reduce our peacekeeping dues dollar-for-dollar by the costs of operations we conduct voluntarily and in support of U.S. interests. These operations include enforcement of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, sanctions enforcement against Serbia and Iraq--constraining their ability to threaten their neighbors--and humanitarian relief to Kurds in northern Iraq.

If we deduct the cost of our voluntary actions against our U.N. dues, it would cancel our entire peacekeeping account. Other nations--Japan and our NATO allies--would surely follow. This would end U.N. peacekeeping overnight. The effect would be to eliminate peacekeepers from important potential flashpoints like the Golan Heights, the Iraq-Kuwait border, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Cyprus. In short, this bill would eliminate an effective tool that every President from Harry Truman to George Bush has used to advance American interests. It would leave the President with an unacceptable choice whenever an emergency arose: act alone.

Fifth, H.R. 872 impedes progress toward U.N. reform by imposing unworkable requirements upon the U.N.'s Inspector General, who has only been in office since November. Failure to meet these requirements would preclude any voluntary contributions for peacekeeping and force major withholding from our U.N. regular budget and assessed peacekeeping contributions. It would also bar payments to the U.N. unless the Defense Department has been reimbursed fully for prior actions.

Sixth, H.R. 872 unilaterally and prematurely designates certain candidates for NATO membership. NATO should and will expand. 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 approach to NATO expansion is designed to ensure that each potential member is judged fairly and individually, and 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 reformers in countries not named and fostering complacency in countries that are. Indeed, the effect of H.R. 872 could be to further instability in the very region whose security we seek to bolster.

Effective American leadership abroad requires that we back our diplomacy with the credible threat of force. To this end, President Clinton is determined that the U.S. military will remain the most powerful fighting force in the world--as it certainly is now.

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 H.R. 872. But in each case, what is at stake is fundamental: the authority of the President to protect our national security and to use every effective option at his disposal to advance the interests of the United States. In its present form, H.R. 872 unwisely and unconstitutionally deprives the President of the authority he needs to make the right choices for our nation's security.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER Secretary of State

WILLIAM J. PERRY Secretary of Defense

COPYRIGHT 1995 U.S. Government Printing Office
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group