TITLE V-MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC SEC. 505. Section 302 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(i) In addition to amounts otherwise available under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1976 $1,000,000 and for fiscal year 1977 $2,000,000 to be available only for the International Atomic Energy Agency to be used for the purpose of strengthening safeguards and inspections relating to nuclear fissile facilities and materials. Amounts appropriated under this subsection are authorized to remain available until expended.". INTERIM QUARTER AUTHORIZATIONS SEC. 506. (a) Any authorization of appropriations in this Act, or in any amendment to any other law made by this Act, for the fiscal year 1976, shall be deemed to include an additional authorization of appropriations for the period beginning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, in amounts which equal one-fourth of any amount authorized for the fiscal year 1976 and in accordance with the authorities applicable to operations and activities authorized under this Act or such other law, unless appropriations for the same purpose are specifically authorized in a law hereinafter enacted. (b) The aggregate total of credits, including participations in credits, extended pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and of the principal amount of loans guaranteed pursuant to section 24 (a) of such Act during the period beginning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, may not exceed an amount equal to onefourth of the amount authorized by section 31 (b) of such Act to be extended and guaranteed for the fiscal year 1976. BASE AGREEMENTS WITH SPAIN, GREECE, AND SEC. 507. (a) In addition to any amounts authorized to be appropriated by any amendment made by this Act which may be available for such purpose, there are au 22 USC 2222 note. 22 UCS 1262 note. 22 USC 2751 note. 22 USC 2764. 22 USC 2151 note. thorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 1977 to carry out international agreements or other arrangements for the use by the Armed Forces of the United States of military facilities in Spain, Greece, or Turkey. (b) No funds appropriated under this section may be obligated or expended to carry out any such agreement or other arrangement until legislation has been enacted approving such agreement or other arrangement. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: House Reports: No. 94-1144 (Comm. on International Senate Report No. 94-876 accompanying S. 3439 May 19, June 2, considered and passed House. June 14, considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S. 3439. June 22, House agreed to conference report. June 25, Senate agreed to conference report. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 12, No. 27: July 1, Presidential statement. Statement by President Ford on Signing the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, July 1, 19761 I have signed into law H.R. 13680, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976.2 This measure authorizes appropriations to carry out security assistance and other programs in the fiscal years 1976 and 1977 and makes extensive changes in the methods, organization, and procedures through which those programs are carried out. On May 7, 1976, I returned to the Congress without my approval S. 2662, the predecessor of the bill which I am signing today.3 I did so because that bill contained numerous provisions which would have 1 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, July 5, 1976, pp. 1104–1105. As enacted, the bill (H.R. 13680) is Public Law 94-329, approved June 30, 1976, supra. For text of S. 2662, see Congressional Record, Apr. 6, 1976 (daily), pp. H2952-2964. The President's veto message is printed ante, pp. 288-291. seriously undermined the constitutional responsibility of the President for the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States. That bill embodied a variety of restrictions that would have seriously inhibited my ability to implement a coherent and consistent foreign policy and some which raised fundamental constitutional difficulties as well. The present bill, H.R. 13680, imposes new requirements, restrictions, and limitations on the implementation of security assistance programs. Many of these new requirements are based on congressional desires to increase the flow of information regarding the scope and direction of security assistance programs worldwide. Others impose new substantive restrictions reflecting new policies, or policies not heretofore expressed in law. Most of the unacceptable features of the earlier bill have either been dropped from H.R. 13680 or have been modified into an acceptable form. I am pleased to note, for example, that this bill does not attempt to impose an arbitrary and unwieldy annual ceiling on the aggregate value of government and commercial arms sales, a ceiling which would have served to hinder, rather than foster, our efforts to seek multilateral restraints on the proliferation of conventional weaponry, and which could have prevented us from meeting the legitimate security needs of our allies and other friendly countries. In addition, the provisions on discrimination and on human rights in this bill go far toward recognizing that diplomatic efforts, rather than absolute statutory sanctions, are the most effective way in which this country can seek further progress abroad in these areas of deep concern to all Americans, and that the executive branch must have adequate flexibility to make these efforts bear fruit. I am especially pleased to note that with one exception the constitutionally objectionable features of S. 2662, whereby authority conferred on the President by law could be rescinded by the adoption of a concurrent resolution by the Congress, have all been deleted from H.R. 13680. The manifest incompatibility of such provisions with the express requirements of the Constitution that legislative measures having the force and effect of law be presented to the President for approval and, if disapproved, be passed by the requisite two-thirds majority of both Houses was perhaps the single most serious defect of the previous bill and one which went well beyond security assistance and foreign affairs in its implications. Moreover, such provisions would have purported to involve the Congress in the performance of day-to-day executive functions in derogation of the principle of separation of powers, resulting in the erosion of the fundamental constitutional distinction between the role of the Congress in enacting legislation and the role of the executive in carrying it out. The one exception to this laudable action is the retention in H.R. 13680 of the "legislative veto" provision regarding major governmental sales of military equipment and services. This is not a new pro vision, but has been in the law since 1974. To date, no concurrent resolution of disapproval under section 36 (b) has been adopted, and the constitutional question has not been raised directly. Although I am accepting H.R. 13680 with this provision included, I reserve my position on its constitutionality if the provision should ever become operative. In my message of May 7, I expressed my serious concern that the termination of military assistance and military assistance advisory groups after fiscal year 1977 would result in a serious impact upon our relations with other nations whose security is important to our own security and who are not yet able to bear the entire burden of their defense requirements. That concern remains. H.R. 13680 retains language recognizing that it may be necessary and desirable to maintain military assistance programs and military assistance advisory groups in specific countries even after September 30, 1977. Accordingly, this bill will not deter the executive branch from seeking at the appropriate time the necessary authority for the continuation of such programs as the national interest of the United States may require. H.R. 13680 will require that many changes be made in present practices and policies regarding the implementation of security assistance programs. Some of these new requirements I welcome as distinct improvements over existing law. There are others for which the desirability and need is less clear. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to carry out the provisions of this bill in a manner which will give effect to the intent of the Congress in enacting them. As time goes by and experience is gained, both the executive and the Congress will come to know which of the provisions of this bill will be effective and workable, and which others require modification or repeal. This bill recognizes that security assistance has been and remains a most important instrument of United States foreign policy. My approval of H.R. 13680 will enable us to go forward with important programs in the Middle East, in Africa, and elsewhere in the world aimed at achieving our goal of international peace and stability. Statement by the British Representative (Goronwy-Roberts) to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, July 1, 19761 It is my object this morning to give a comprehensive and definitive account of Her Majesty's Government's view of the disarmament scene as it is developing and to indicate the main policy points for the future as we see them. Most politicians and other public servants are attracted by work which has a clear moral objective. I have yet to meet anyone who declared himself against disarmament in principle. 1CCD/PV.708, pp. 11-20. However, it is one thing to embrace a universally applauded principle. It is quite another to give it practical effect. My Government believes that the CCD's raison d'être is to translate the principle of disarmament, in which we all believe, into practical results, and that is why I am glad to be here. It is a noble task, and a challenging one, calling for a combination of idealism and realism. With that as my guide may I now offer some reflections on the subjects of special interest to this Conference? We live in a world where armed conflict is a daily occurrence, with all the human suffering and waste this means. Nothing can be more important for all of us than to work for a safer and more peaceful world. One way to achieve this is clearly to bring down the level of armaments, and that is our task in this Conference. Most international tension is caused by a feeling of insecurity, at least on one side and often on both; and disarmament measures which increased insecurity would also increase tension. So our work for disarmament must never lose sight of the reason why most nations have arms in the first place to deter aggression by others. There are many cases right up to the present time, where we can see that such deterrence works. It actually keeps the peace. But if the threat were reduced, the counter to it could be reduced as well. We should in fact aim for deterrence at a lower level of forces. It is the balance that matters. In the process of achieving a balance at a lower level of forces we could also save resources, thus improving the conditions of life not only in our own countries but also in others. Turning to specific disarmament issues, I begin with nuclear weapons-the most destructive and terrible in existence. Our ultimate objective must be the elimination of such weapons in a comprehensive disarmament programme. Meanwhile we must do everything in our power to avert nuclear war. The control, reduction and eventual destruction of nuclear weapons requires a very high degree of mutual trust between nations. The facts of the present world balance of power mean that this trust must in the first place be developed between the United States and the Soviet Union. The SALT negotiations therefore are of very great importance. We fully share the hopes expressed by both sides and by many others that they will be able to agree on how best to give effect to the Vladivostok Accords in SALT II and then proceed in important reductions in their nuclear arsenals in SALT III and subsequent stages. While this process continues it is vitally necessary to ensure that we do not complicate the issues further through nuclear proliferation. This was the purpose of probably the most important arms control achievement since the Second World War-the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.3 Many of the States represented here took part in the historic Review Conference of the NPT in this building last year. Since then, and in |