In light of the unparalleled effort at compromise which S. 2662 represented, the Committee was surprised by the decision to veto the bill. Those Members of the Committee who had worked most actively with the Executive Branch believed that it provided for an appropriate congressional role in arms transfer matters without derogating from the authority of the President as our country's chief foreign policy negotiator and executor.

In his veto message the President stressed that S. 2662 "would seriously obstruct the exercise of the President's Constitutional responsibilities for the conduct of foreign affairs." In this connection the Committee notes that the provisions to which the President had objected related clearly to authorities which the Congress itself had granted, and which it therefore may modify, rather than to Constitutional prerogatives of the Office of the President.

The President also lodged Constitutional objections to a series of provisions in S. 2662 by which the Congress could review certain Executive actions and disapprove them by enactment of concurrent resolutions. This issue was discussed in detail in the original report on S. 2662 (Senate Report 94-605) which included the following view which the Committee now reaffirms:

Clearly, the Congress could prohibit altogether certain government-togovernment sales or the granting of certain commercial licenses (sec. 213.). Instead of withholding those powers altogether, the Congress, by enacting S. 2662, will merely have withheld a part of those powers by subjecting their use to the condition that Congress does not disapprove. It will have given the executive branch an opportunity to formally propose specific action which could not have been taken had no portion of those powers been delegated. The attachment of such a condition, the Committee believes, is necessary in S. 2662 for the same reasons it was necessary in the Reorganization Act: to make use of executive branch expertise and provides some flexibility while at the same time avoiding an undue delegation of legislative discretion to the executive branch.

Coming as it did near the end of the fiscal year the veto of S. 2662 has jeopardized the orderly administration of a number of important fiscal year 1976 assistance programs which were authorized in the bill. Among these was the Middle East program. Moreover, the veto action cast uncertainty over the formulation of the fiscal year 1977 program, authorizing legislation for which must be reported by May 15.

In view of these considerations the Committee wished to avoid a prolonged confrontation over Constitutional issues and on sharply differing views over public policy.

Accordingly, the Committee reviewed its earlier work and the conference action of S. 2662. It decided to eliminate two provisions of the latter which originated in the House: an annual ceiling on arms sales and the temporary lifting of the embargo on trade with North Vietnam.

The Committee also reviewed the so-called "legislative veto" provisions of the conference bill utilizing the concurrent resolution. Among these are two which the Committee considers central: Congressional review of major government-to-government sales and review of certain

important commercial arms sales. The present bill retains these features intact as a means of ensuring adequate Congressional oversight of all sales of major defense equipment over $7 million and of all sales of defense equipment over $25 million. This action reaffirms the earlier position of the Senate and merely expands on an existing provision of law that had been approved by the President.

In two instances the Committee recommends that concurrent resolution provisions contained in S. 2662 be replaced by joint resolutions. These sections of the bill will enable the Congress to declare a recipient government ineligible for further assistance or to terminate assistance to a government which the Congress determines to be a gross violator of human rights. In both instances the Committee has recommended that any such joint resolutions be handled in accordance with expedited parliamentary procedures, described in the bill.

The Committee believes it is essential to retain a strong human rights provision in this bill which provides a mechanism that not only calls attention to the importance Americans attach to a regard for basic human rights but also to forewarn military assistance recipients of the consequences of flagrant violations of basic human rights. Previous expressions of Congressional sentiment without teeth have been ineffective in motivating either the Executive Branch or foreign government to take seriously this basic concern of the American people.

Two of the concurrent resolution procedures contained in the earlier bill have been eliminated. Instead of allowing for formal Congressional review of proposed third country transfers of U.S. supplied military equipment, the Committee recommends a provision requiring that the Congress be notified thirty calendar days in advance. In place of providing for the termination by concurrent resolution veto of assistance to governments harboring terrorists, the present bill requires the President to report promptly to the Congress when an aid recipient is providing such sanctuary.

The Committee has made these changes and deletions with the greatest reluctance and only to facilitate prompt passage and final approval of this legislation. The essential elements of the original legislation remain intact. The Committee believes that this measure will provide a more coherent framework for the implementation of arms export policy by the Executive Branch. Likewise, it provides the Congress with procedures to review the implementation of that policy.

Export arms sales are an increasingly important and sensitive aspect of our relations with other nations and of overall U.S. security policy. They cannot be regarded as the inviolate province of either the private sector or the Executive Branch. The time is long overdue for the Congress to devote more attention to arms sales. This bill will enable the Congress to exercise that responsibility in a manner which safeguards the legitimate interests of U.S. industry and the coordinate prerogatives of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government.

In the course of reconsidering S. 2662 and including the fiscal year 1977 authorizations, the Committee added three important new pro

visions. The first of these was an authorization of funds for the implementation of the southern Africa policy enunciated by Secretary of State Kissinger at Lusaka, Zambia, on April 27, 1976. Frequently in recent years the Committee on Foreign Relations has called attention to the urgent need for U.S. policies more sensitive to the views of the African nations. By providing funds in this bill for programs of the general sort described by the Secretary at Lusaka, the Committee hopes to contribute to the opening of a new era in U.S. relations with the key states of southern Africa.

Second, the Committee believes that the time has come for drastic action to demonstrate the sharp disapproval of the U.S. Congress of excesses of the Pinochet regime in Chile. Accordingly, the Committee adopted an amendment, sponsored by Senators Humphrey and Kennedy, placing a total embargo on arms sales and deliveries to Chile to take effect on October 1, 1976.

Finally, the Committee adopted an amendment sponsored by Senator Symington to deny U.S. assistance to governments involved in the sale and purchase of nuclear reprocessing material unless such transactions are subject to adequate multilateral safeguards against diversion to weapons use.

The Committee believes that uncontrolled nuclear proliferation is, without question, one of the most serious problems facing the world today. The Committee is alarmed at the prospect of certain countries transferring or receiving nuclear enrichment or reprocessing equipment, essentially the key ingredients in developing nuclear weapons, without certain international safeguards and controls.

The Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Organizations and Security Agreements has held extensive hearings on the subject. It became abundantly clear in these hearings that few barriers exist to discourage widespread nuclear weapons proliferation. The ways and means remain open for nations to agree to dangerous bilateral deals in which the essential elements leading to nuclear weapons production can be transferred without adequate controls and safeguards. In searching for solutions, several witnesses, including Secretary Kissinger, repeatedly supported the concept of encouraging the development by several nations of centralized reprocessing and enrichment facilities for sound economic and security reasons. These witnesses also emphasized the need to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and to extend IAEA safeguards more widely.

The aid cut-off provided by this amendment would apply to both the supplier and the recipient of nuclear processing or enrichment equipment, materials and technology, unless they place all such technology under multilateral auspices and management, whenever available, and apply international safeguards to all materials included in the transaction. In the Committee's judgment, the United States

'Department of State Bulletin, May 31, 1976, pp. 673–674.

should not directly or indirectly underwrite the efforts of other nations to acquire the nuclear weapons option.

House International Relations Committee Report on the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 [Extracts], May 14, 19761

COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT'S OBJECTION TO S. 2662

H.R. 13680 is a followup bill to S. 26622 which the President vetoed on May 7. S. 2662 was a historic initiative by Congress to phase out grant military assistance and to increase the exercise of its oversight powers with respect to the rapidly growing arms sales program.

H.R. 13680 does not retreat from those basic reform initiatives. H.R. 13680 contains those provisions that the committee considers to be the most important and worthwhile reforms of S. 2662. Following careful consideration of the objections to S. 2662 raised in the President's veto message, the committee did delete some provisions and soften others in response to what were considered to be the most valid objections of the President.

Specifically, on the major issues raised in President Ford's veto

message:

-H.R. 13680 retains the $9 billion ceiling in S. 2662 on the annual volume of arms sales.

-H.R. 13680 deletes the provisions relating to a temporary lifting of the trade embargo on Vietnam.

-H.R. 13680 reaffirms the U.S. policy of opposing discrimination against U.S. citizens for reasons of race, religion, national origin, or sex by countries receiving U.S. arms aid. However, the requirement to terminate aid and sales to such countries has been deleted.

-H.R. 13680 retains the provisions terminating the grant military assistance programs and all military assistance advisory groups by the end of fiscal year 1977.

Of the seven provisions providing for a congressional veto of Executive actions by concurrent resolution, H.R. 13680 retains two and deletes five.

H.R. 13680 retains congressional authority, through the passage of a concurrent resolution, to disapprove the sale of major defense equip

1H. rept. 94-1144, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 3, 8-13. For the Presidential veto message on the earlier version of this bill, see ante, pp. 288-291. For the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report on the revised Senate bill, see supra. For the Conference report on the revised bills, not printed here, see H. rept. 94-1272, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., June 1976. The act approved by the President, a substitute for both bills, is printed post, pp. 386-430.

2

For the text of S. 2662, see the Congressional Record (daily), Apr. 6, 1976 (vol. 122, no. 51), pp. H2952-2964.

ment sold through government-to-government channels, and congressional authority to terminate assistance to countries engaging in a consistent pattern of gross violation of internationally recognized human rights.

H.R. 13680 drops five concurrent resolution provisions relating to— -Disapproval of third-country transfers of U.S.-origin arms; -Termination of assistance to countries affording sanctuary to international terrorists;

-Veto of the issuance of licenses in connection with commercial sales of "major defense equipment" valued between $7 and $25 million; and

-Termination of assistance and sales to countries believed to have committed substantial violation of the conditions for the use of U.S.origin arms (2 provisions).

SUMMARY OF MAJOR POLICY PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

A. GRANT MILITARY ASSISTANCE

The bill makes substantial changes in U.S. policy with respect to the grant military assistance program (MAP). For the first time since the inception of such programs in the days immediately following the Second World War, the committee has taken positive action to phase out grant MAP. To accomplish this the bill

(1) Terminates the authority to furnish grant military assistance effective September 30, 1977, unless specifically authorized by the Congress in specific amounts and for specified countries (sec. 105);

(2) Provides for the termination of military assistance advisory groups, military missions, or other organizations of U.S. military personnel performing similar duties under the Foreign Assistance Act effective October 1, 1977, unless specifically authorized by the Congress (sec. 104); and

(3) Establishes grant military education and training as a separate authority (sec. 106).

The bill also prohibits the furnishing of security assistance to any foreign government which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, except in exceptional circumstances justified to the Congress (sec. 301).

B. FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

Enactment of this bill will also restructure U.S. arms sales policies to provide for increased congressional supervision and review of all aspects of the foreign military sales program. Specifically, the bill

(1) Places an annual ceiling of $9 billion on the aggregate value of defense articles and defense services which may be sold by the