READ THEIR LIPS: NEW HILL LEADERSHIP TELLS CLINTON TO STOP FORECLOSING MISSILE DEFENSE OPTIONS

(Washington, D.C.): In an important indication of the
new Republican congressional majority’s security policy
priorities, its leadership chose the issue of missile defense as
the first national security-related gauntlet thrown down before
President Clinton. Seventeen top members of the House of
Representatives — including House Speaker Newt
Gingrich, Majority Leader Richard Armey, the chairmen
of the House International Relations, Armed Services,
Appropriations, Intelligence and Judiciary Committees (Reps.
Benjamin Gilman, Floyd Spence, Bob Livingston, Larry Combest and
Henry Hyde, respectively) — wrote President Clinton
suggesting that

“…Further negotiations on either the demarcation
[between strategic and theater missile defenses] or
multilateralization efforts, or any other efforts that
bear on the viability of the ABM Treaty, be suspended
until the new Congress has had an opportunity to examine
these questions with care.” (Emphasis added.)

This 4 January correspondence, a href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=95-P_02at”>copy of which is attached, draws
an historic line in the sand: It demands an end to negotiations
that are effectively foreclosing critical options for defending
the American people and their troops and allies overseas from
missile attack — something the Republican “Contract With
America” pledges to do “at the earliest possible
moment.” It follows strongly worded letters sent prior to
the election by a bipartisan group of thirty-two Members of
Congress and thirty-nine Senators.⁽¹⁾

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the Clinton
Administration — which ignored the previous expressions of
congressional sentiment — is intent on doing the same with this
one, notwithstanding its signatories’ powerful positions and
their electoral mandate. The Center for Security Policy has
learned that, subsequent to receiving the House leadership
letter, Administration officials have informed congressional
staff that Mr. Clinton remains determined to complete with the
Russians and others a new agreement that directly contravenes its
wishes.

Indeed, the Clinton Administration intends to try to complete
negotiations on both the “demarcation” and
“multilateralization” issues as early as the next round
of the Geneva-based Standing Consultative Commission scheduled
for March, 1995. What is more, these officials have reaffirmed
earlier assertions that they are not obliged to submit resulting
agreements to the Senate for its advice and consent — even
though the FY1995 Defense Authorization Act’s Section 232
expressly requires that such substantial changes to the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty must be ratified by the Senate.

The Center commends the signatories of the latest
congressional letter for signalling their intention to oppose
efforts to, in President Clinton’s words, “enhance the
viability of the ABM Treaty.” It urges them, however, to
seek an early opportunity — perhaps the FY1995 Defense
supplemental — to put such direction into law and thus
prevent Mr. Clinton from negotiating away those options for
missile defense that his Administration has not otherwise
eviscerated by truncating programs and gutting their budgets.

(1) For more on the two congressional
letters of 19 September 1994, see the Center for Security
Policy’s Decision Briefs: Giving Away the Store? The
Emerging Anti-Theater Ballistic Missile Treaty (21 September
1994, No. 94-D95) and Summit
Post- Mortem: Clinton Does Give Away U.S. Missile Defense Options
(3 October 1994, No. 94-D98).