Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. last week I announced my opposition to the administrations proposed arms sale package to Saudi Aribia. In the final analysis. as I stated then. It was my Judgment that the sale of five advanced air surveillance airplanesknown as airborne warning and control systems. or AWACSWOUld not serve the best interests of the United States. However. I also expressed deep concern that while -the debate on this arms package had focused on the transfer of AWACS. we were overlooking a potentially more serious technology transfer issuethat of the AIM9L Sidewinder airtoair missile* to Saudi Arabia. I would like to reiterate three other concerns which led me to oppose the sale. First. we are transferring highly sophisticated technology which. If compromised. could be of significant benefit to the Soviet AWACS program. This should be as much an issue of sovereignty for the United States as It Is for Saudi Arabia. Second. we are launching an everesualating round of sophisticated weaponis transfers to a highly volatile region of the world in which the primary focus of concern for the countries in the region remains the ArabIsraeli conflict. not the Soviet threat. And third. we have all but abandoned the Camp David process. leaving the future of the EgyptIsraeli -Peace -Treaty uncertain at best. Mr. President. In my remarks today. I want also to address two particular concerns which I touched upon In my speech last week. These are the proposed sale of the AIM9L Sidewinder missile to Saudi Arabia. and the role of the Congress in the foreign policy decisionmaking processes. According to the report on the proposed AWACS/F15 enhancement sale to Saudi Arabia. compiled by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The AII91L may present a more serious danger of security compromise because of its advanced seeker and fuze technology. The seeker and fuze technology allows this version of the Sidewinder missile to be fired at enemy aircraft from any angle rather than from the rear. while the Soviets are aware of the basic cooling technology Involved. they do not yet have the manufacturing capability to produce a comparable allaspect missile. The AIM9L uses a solid fuel rocket propellant to reach 2 V times the speed of sound. It reportedly has a range of 2 to 4 statute miles. depending on the operating environment. The lethality of the AIM9L has also been increased significantly by improvements to its fusing mechanism and warhead. A new laser Proximity fuse permits the warhead to be detonated nearer the target. The warhead itself Is of the annular blast fragmentation type. which uses two layers of metal rods wrapped around an explosive. On detonation. these rods disperse uniformly. creating a. spherical destruction zone. The rods also tumble to cause Maximum damage. It can home In on such comparatively lowheat sources as the heat generated by the air friction on the leading edge of an aircrafts wing. In sum. it Is a state of the art weapon. The AIM9L Is a Joint Navy and Air Force development that provides both services with a common closein Dogfight missile. It Is standard with the Navy F14 and F4 fighter aircraft. and Air Force F15 fighter aircraft. The missile will be carried by Ithe F/Ala when that. aircraft becomes operational with the Navy and Marine Corps. According to the April 1980.. issue of Defense Electronics Review. the AIM9L. consisting of allaspect launch. increased homing performance against maneuvering targets. and greatei lethality. provided a major jump In the Sidewinder operational capability. The Air Force and Navy are now working on a new generation of Sidewinder. the AIM9M which will be equally significant in improved. capability. Mr. President. what struck me in the article which appeared in the Defense Electronics Review is the fact that many of the improvements found in the AIM9M. which is presently being developed. have: "Also been incorporated in the AIM9L Production program." Mr. President. I am as deeply con-. cerned over the possible compromise of. the technology associated with the AIM9L as I am regarding the proposed transfer of AWACS to Saudi Arabia. In this regard. I want to summarize what I stated In discussing this matter on the floor of tha Senate last week. The AIM9L is a classified technology which Saudi Arabia has not been given security clearance to receive. The consideration of this salb should have gone through the normal procedures established to safeguard its security and protect It from risks of compromise or misuse. These Procedures involve securin~g the approval of the National Disclosure Policy Committee prior to a sales being finalized. The National Disclosure Policy Committee. a group made up of representatives of the Secretary of Defense and the various military branches. Is charged with evaluating the eligibility of various nations to receive classified weapons technology and weighing the risks and rewards associated with the transfer of that technology. In the case of the proposed sale of the AIM9L to Saudi Arabia. however. a deviation from the normal safeguard procedures was made and an exception to the national disclosure policy was granted. The committee was bypassed. Senator LzviN. a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. pressed Secretary of Defense Weinberger as to why these procedures were not followed. The only response Senator LEvrN was able to elicit from the Secretary was one Indicating that the President himself decided to grant the excception to the national disclosure policy In the case of the sale of the AIM9L. As a result of that decision. the Armed Forces were precluded from raising their concerns In the most appropriate forum available to them. the National Disclosure Policy Committee. In light of the impressive nature of the AIM9L technology. it Is no wonder that 12 P15 pilots wrote Representative Tom LANTOS. of California. earlier this year. to protest this sale. These piots expressed concern that the missiles could fall into Soviet hands if they were sold to the Saudis. thus eliminating a critical American technological edge. They wrote: The AIM9L Is so superio .r that it gives the American fighter pilot a believable chance or survival when confronted with the overwhelming numbers of Soviet arcraft we must face. If we. as a military force. are to maintain a credible deterrent defensive posture with a minimum of dollars. why give our technological edge away? Certainly we as pilots cannot be expected to fight against the overwhelming numbers of Soviet aircraft equipped with a compromised version of our AWhOL. whenwe know how effective the missile Is. The Chief of Naval operations has repeatedly raised objections to the proposed transfer of AIM9Ls t6 any neutral or ThirdWorld country. At present only our NATO allies and Israel have access to this technology since they have been given top secret ratings by the National Disclosure Policy Committee. The Navys position has been consistent In asserting that it Is imperative to restrict the sale of this missile only to those countries currently authorized to purchase the AIM9L. In. my estimation. the case for opposing -this package Is made even stronger because of the AIM9L Issue. We have not. rqceived.. any assurances that the 1.177 AIM9L missiles to Saudi Arabia can be secured against compromise. Senator LEviN asked Secretary Weinberger whether the administration had consulted the CIAs counterintelligence risk assessment and the security survey report which are prepared after an onsite investigation. To my understanding. Senator LEvix has not yet received a reply to his question. I am concerned with the cavalier treatment given this highly sensitive technology transfer issue. Security procedures are established to prevent the compromilse of technology which gives us an edge over our primary adversarythe Soviet Union. It is vital to the national security of our nationi that we preserve this technological lead as diligently as we can. This is our technology and we should be saving it for ourselves. The procedures under which state of the art military technology is transferred to other countries should be followed with the highest degree of caution. They should never be discarded or compromised on political grounds. I fear. because of political considerations. these procedures were circumvented In regard to the AIM91L sale to Saudi Arabia. Mr. President. as I argued last week. and I will repeat the same argument today. I do not believe we should be providing top of the line military technology to any country In the world. without - strict controls maintained by tho United States. I believe the United States has not only a sovereign right. but also a Tesponsibiify to maintain the Integrity of all our militar technology. The Soviets are very conscientious regarding possible compromise of their own military technology. They maintain strict controls over the transfer of high technology Items not only to neutral or ThirdWorld nations. but within the Warsaw Pact as well. r do not believe weshould be any less diligent than the Soviets In maintaining control over our high technology military systems. I have serious difficulty with selling our top military technology to nations with which we do not have a treaty or defense relationship. Even if the prospects for compromise of this technology were remote. it is our technology which offsets the Soviet lead In the numbers of planes. tanks. guns. ships. and missiles. I do not think we should PromiscuouslY spread that technology throughout volatile areas of the world and increase the chances of giving away our edge in that technology to the Soviets. The arguments to vote for the sale have been made for all the wrong reasons. They have turned. mainly on fear over the Saudis" reactionI addressed that point In my speech last weekor over concern for .the Presidents prestige. It is that latter istue. that of the prestige of the President. which I nowV want to address. As I noted last week. Mr. President. I believe the decision to provide the AIM9L and AWACS to Saudi Arabia wfis Wrong from the very beginning. .I I believe the. President was illserved by his advisors when he agreed to proceed with this package. I believe the President continues to be illserved by his. advisers in pressing forward with a wrong decision. Finally. I believe the President Is being illserved In. placing so much of the prestige. of his office on the line in an attempt to gain congressional acquiescence for a bad decision. What is the responsibility of the Congress if a bad decision is made by the executive branch which could be detrimental to this countrys national interests? When a wrong decision is made. a decision which could have an adverse Impact on the national interests of this country. It is not only the prerogative. but also the responsibility of the Congress to overturn such a decision. The Congress and the executive branch are coequal partners in the foreign policy formulation of our Government. The framers of our Constitution were very careful in constructing a system of checks and balances among the three branches of Government. As noted constitutional scholar Louis Henking pointed out In his book. "Foreign Affairs and the Constitution": The vast legislative powers of Congress that relate particularly to foreign affairs do not begin to exhaust its authority to make law affecting foreign relations. Congress has general powers that. taken together. enable It to reach virtually where It will in foreign as In domestic affairs. The Commission on the Organization. of Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy was established in 1972 by Congress. The Commission was asked to make recommendations for the improvement of the governmental processes and programs in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy. The report of the Commission was issued on June 28. 1975. and I cite the following from the report: The Commission believes that while the executive branch should continue to conduct our relations with other countries. bath the Constitution and political realities require shared participation and responsibility by the executive and legislative branches of government. Mr. Presiident. the Congress h as enormous Powers which are indispensable to the support of any foreign policy. Moreover. congressional laws made In pursuance of these powers are the "supreme law of the land." The President is bound by the Constitution to faithfully execute these laws. IToday. we are voting on a resolution to disapprove the sale of AWACS and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia. The authority for this congressional action can be found in section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act of 1076. which was signed into law by President Ford. We are told that a vote against the President would unnecessarily damage his prestige and credibility in the conduct of foreign policy. This assertion is predicated upon the assumption that the President made a commitment to Saudi Arabia and the United States has to stick by this commitment. Former President Carter also wrote me regarding this matter. In a letter dated October 11. 1981. President Carter- asserted: In the eyes of most nations a commitment by the President of the United States is considered to be a promise bfour country. A rejection of this commitment. rightly or wrongly. will be considered by our allies and potential adversaries as the breaking of a solemn agreement by the United States. I submit. this line of argument is not consonant with the facts or the law. I am referring specifically to the Arms Export Control Act. Under section 36(4) (1) of the Act Congress states: In the case of any letter of offer to sell any defense articles under this Act for $25.000.000 or more. any design and construction. services for $200.000.000 or more. or any major defense equipment for $7.000.000 or more. before such letter of offer Is issued. the President shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a numbered certificstion. with respect to such offer to sell. Section 36(b) further stipulates: The letter of offer shall not be Issued If the Congress. within thirty calendar days after receiving such certification. adopts a concurrent resolution stating that It objects to the proposed sale. unless the President states In his certification that an emergency exists which requires such sale In the national security interests of the United States. Under the law. the President Is precluded from making such commitments until Congress has acted to disapprove or acquiesce in the letters of offer submitted to it for consideration. The only commitment the President can make is In the form of a letter of offer to a foreign governmnent. Yet. that letter of offer cannot be Issued. under the law. until the 30 calendar days following formal notification to the Congress has expired and a concurrent resolution of disapproval has not. and I emphasize has not. been adopted by the House and the Senate. I agree with the rationale behind the enactment Into law of the Arms Export Control Act. The act was written for tile very purpose we are debating today. If a mistake has been made by the executive branc h on a proposed national sale of arms. the Congress has the opportunity to reverse that error. If we do not stand up now and carry out our responsibility. why did we write this law in the first place? If we are always going to succumb to the argumentand we are always going to hear the same argument. Mr. President. the same argumentthat if Congress does not support a given sale. then the Presidents credibility. the Presidents prestige. Will be impaired? Well. if we are always going to succumb to that argument. right or wrong. why. then. do we not repeal the act? If any President believes that any arms proposal to any country represents a commitment on the part of this Government. does this mean that Congress must refrain from upholding the law? The whole Process will have become a sham. In 1978.. the executive branch made specific and Public assurances to Congress. and through Congress to the American people.. that the AWACS and F15 enhancement package would not be sold to Saudi Arabia. I supported that arms sale package at that time. partly on the basis of the assurances that were given to Congress by the administration then in power. These assurances were instrumental in the Senate approval of the F15 sale to Saudi Arabia. I concede that circumstances have changed in the region. but this administration made the decision to proceed with this sale. unilaterally setting aside the 197a assurances without fully consulting with Congress. We are now told that a commitment has been made. Oh. yes. we were consulted with. when it appeared that the sales package would be rejected. Thenthen and only thendid the administration ever bother to consult with me about the matter. I do not know how it responded to other Senators. but it was then. when the administration found that it was in difficulty for votes. that the administration said to me. "This ought to be a bipartisan matter." I said to Mr. Allen at that time. "Well. I am glad you raised the point. 1. too. think it should be a bipartisan matter." I have consistently opposed making it a party matter. Mr. President. but I suggest that in the future. Congress be brought in on the takeoff and not just on the landing. It appears. Mr. President. that the consultation with Congress only becomes important when votes are needed. In effect. officials of this administration and officials of former administrations are saying that a private promise to a foreign government. which was not revealed at the time. somehow takes precedence over public assurances and commitments made to the American people and their elected representatives. This runs counter to the intent of the Arms Exi~ort Control Act. That the Congress and the Executive share In the foreign policy decisionmakIng Processes should not be in dispute. If a bad decision is made. members of Congress must shoulder the responsibility for reversing that mistakea responsibility vested in us by the people and the Constitution. We should not be a rubber stamp. we should not follow any President blindly. dutifully. and unquestioningly over the precipice of error. I believe the Senate would be abrogatIng its responsibility If It supported such aL decision primarily on the basis of maintaining the prestige of the President. right or wrong. Mr. President. must the destiny of this Nation ride on such a flimsy reed that it -Is Important to the prestige of the President to win for the sake of winning. no matter how wrong a decision might be? The Issue is not the Presidency. The Issue is not the prestige of the President. The issue Is the decision Itself. The world does not look just at the Presidency when It comes to our conduct as a Nation. The world looks at the totality of our economic. military. and diplomatic authority which Is shared by the executive and legislative branches. If any President makes a serious foreign Policy mistake. the world Is more secure in knowing that. under our system of checks and balances. Congress can vitiate a mistaken Judgment. I should think that most of the countries with which the United States must deal would be relieved to know that Congress is capable of exerting Itself when a President makes a mistake. If damage to the Presidents prestige is a factor to be weighed--and I think it should bein the end. the Senate must weigh the potential damage to the prestige of the President against the damage the Nation may suffer through the compromise of our military technology or through an erroneous foreign policy. In the case of this proposed arms sale to Saudi Arabia. the national interest of this country must come first. We must not. and cannot. allow our technology to be compromised. no matter how remote the possibility. Our technology is too important for us in balancing our conventional and nuclear capability with the Soviets. Rather than hindering the Presidents ability to conduct an effective foreign and security policy around the world. the denial of this sale would serve as a potent lesson. and this lesson. it Is hoped. would result in a more coherent and realistic foreign policy for the next 3 years than we have seen thus far in this administration. It also should signal the administration that the only credible foreign policy is one in which the executive an d legislative branches are coequal partners. This means approaching major foreign policy issues In a spirit of serious consultation and thoughtful give and take. If this happens. then the American people. through their elected representatives. can have confidence that our national interests are Indeed being promoted and protected effectively around the world. In the same vein. Mr. President. it seems to me that other countries could be more sure that whenever commitments are made. those commitments have the backing of the legislative branch of Government. and that that backing already had been assured by virtue of adequate consultations between the executive and the legislative branches before commitments are made. We hear now the argumentin support of the salethat if this sale Is rejected. the Israeli lobby will bear the blame. Mr. President. what is more im.portantthe security of the Israeli lobby or the security of the United States? I simply need. In closing. to recall a line from Lincolns Gettysburg address: The world will little note nor long rememnber what we say here. but It can never forget what they did here.