House Blocks Clinton Plans to Implement New ABM Accords as Evidence Grows of Enormous Public Support for Missile Defense
(Washington, D.C.): Late Wednesday night, as the House of Representatives debated the FY
1999 Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill (H.R.4276), Members took a singularly
important action: A substantial, bipartisan majority prevailed, 220-188, in adopting an
amendment offered by Representatives David McIntosh
(R-IN) and Curt Weldon (R-PA)
which restricts the Clinton Administration’s ability to implement — prior to ratification by the
Senate — new agreements which would significantly compound the deleterious effects of the 1972
ABM Treaty. This momentous vote was taken as Congress considered the latest evidence of
overwhelming popular support for the sorts of effective national missile defenses explicitly
prohibited by that treaty.
Growing Congressional Determination to Defend America
The vote on this amendment appears to reflect, among other things, a growing appreciation of
the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty’s highly questionable standing under international law.
As the Center for Security Policy noted on 21 July, powerful legal analyses have recently been
advanced by former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith
and by the
Heritage Foundation, both of which conclude that the ABM Treaty ceased to bind the
United
States when the other party, the USSR, was disestablished.
The House vote also seems to signal an intensifying sentiment in Congress that — whatever
the
ABM Treaty’s legal status — it has long since outlived its usefulness. In fact, earlier in the day, a
bipartisan group led by Representative Weldon unveiled legislation that would make it
“the
policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.”
the Rayburn Office Building featuring remarks by Congressman Weldon, House Majority
Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), National Security Committee Chairman Floyd
Spence (R-SC)
and the Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the new
select committee
examining technology transfers China, Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), made clear that
this initiative
marked a major departure from present policy: In contrast to the Clinton Administration
insistence that the ABM Treaty is the “cornerstone of strategic stability” and that no commitment
to deploy missile defenses need be taken for at least three more years, Rep. Weldon said his bill
would ensure that: “We’re going to deploy national missile defense, no question about it, we’re
going to deploy it.”(3)
The McIntosh-Weldon Amendment
While House action on Rep. Weldon’s new legislation will await Congress’ return in
September,
the vote on the McIntosh-Weldon amendment puts the Clinton Administration squarely on notice:
It may not proceed with its efforts to begin to implement the terms of accords signed last
September in New York City without Senate ratification — to say nothing of its present effort to
do so prior even to the submission of these agreements to the Senate.
The need for such legislation was made manifest by a 1 May 1998 memorandum signed by
Secretary of Defense William Cohen instructing his Department to begin
planning and preparing
to implement the new missile defense treaties with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus that
would impose additional — and highly undesirable — constraints upon defenses against
shorter-range ballistic missiles. Subsequently, John Douglass, the outgoing
Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition issued a complementary order to his
subordinates, one that would likely have the effect of constraining the Navy’s promising program
for giving the AEGIS fleet defense system anti-missile capabilities. (Presumably, corresponding
directives have been issued by Douglass’ counterparts in the other armed services.)
Specifically, the McIntosh-Weldon amendment addressed the concern that the Administration
will
try to use the upcoming ABM Treaty review conference to be held in Geneva next month as an
opportunity further to advance its agenda of negotiating away U.S. options for missile defense. It
bars the use of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available by H.R. 4276 to implement
the memorandum of understanding agreed to in New York.
Fresh Evidence of Overwhelming Public Support for Defending
America
The fact that these congressional initiatives are clearly consistent with the desires of the vast
majority of the American people was demonstrated by a national poll commissioned last week by
the Center for Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council and the
Claremont Institute. For example, 81% of the 800 voters polled by The Polling Company believe
that “it should be our government’s policy to deploy effective national defenses as soon as
technologically possible.” 86% responded that they favor the deployment of missile defenses —
forty-six percent on an urgent basis — in light of the fact that the U.S. cannot currently stop even
a single incoming ballistic missile.
Importantly, nearly six-out-of-ten voters (57% said they would vote for a
congressional
candidate who believes that the ABM “Treaty should no longer prevent the United States
from having missile defense” since “the Soviet Union no longer exists and other countries
might pose a threat.” (By contrast, only 31% of those polled responded that they would
vote
for a candidate who said “the United States should remain without missile defenses in order to
encourage good relations with Russia and persuade Russia to cut its nuclear forces.”)
posed and the breakdown of responses received in this poll.
The Bottom Line
The Center commends Reps. McIntosh and Weldon and their colleagues on both sides of
Capitol
Hill who are demonstrating by their legislative actions a shared commitment to defend America
against ballistic missile attacks — and to thwart efforts by the Clinton Administration and/or
foreign governments that would either preclude such deployments altogether or, at a minimum,
make them more difficult and expensive.
– 30 –
1. See Critical Mass # 3: America is Vulnerable Today
for Policy, Not Legal Reasons (No. 98-D 139, 21
July 1998) and Critical Mass: Republican Party Joins Burgeoning Effort to Defend
America (No. 98-D 116, 22 June 1998).
2. This language tracks with the thrust of the line of legislation also
offered on a bipartisan basis in
the Senate by Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI). For more on the
Cochran-Inouye bill (S.1873), which is currently being filibustered by forty-one Democratic
Senators, see
Shame, Shame: By One Vote, Minority of Senators Perpetuate America’s
Vulnerability to
Missile Attack (No. 98-D 84, 14 May 1998).
3. Unfortunately, a rather discordant note was sounded at the press
conference by Rep. John
Spratt (D-SC). Rep. Spratt, who has in recent years consistently served as the Democratic
Caucus’ point-man in its opposition to deploying missile defenses, said:
“I’m not for rushing deployment. In fact, I’m for this resolution because it
doesn’t call upon us to deploy by a date certain. We’ve made that mistake before. It
doesn’t call upon us to deploy a system that is sub-optimal, not the objective system.
We made that mistake several times, most recently with the THAAD. We’re not going
to abandon the non-objective system and go back to what we sought in the first
place…. I think we’ve got time.”
4. Regrettably, this is not the only instance of such unconstitutional
behavior. The House recently
voted to stop the Administration from proceeding with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
unless and until that treaty received the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. See in this
connection the William J. Casey Institute’s Press Release entitled
No Implementation of
Treaties without Ratification, Period (No. 98-R
131, 14 July 1998).
- Frank Gaffney departs CSP after 36 years - September 27, 2024
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024