June 20, 1995
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you move toward your markup of the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill, I would like to convey to you and your colleagues a number of concerns regarding provisions in the legislation passed by the House, especially several provisions that would undermine the ability of the President and the Department to protect America's national security interests.
By denying nearly half our request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, the House undercut one of our most important means for directly reducing dangers to US security, through the elimination of foreign nuclear systems and prevention of weapons proliferation. For example repeal of the Defense Enterprise Fund would stop DOD's efforts to decrease weapons at their source -- where they are produced. Moreover, the House's restrictions could bring the CTR program to a complete halt. I urge continued support for the modest CTR preventive measures we plan, which would be much less expensive than defending against new nuclear powers or against a heavily-armed, resurgent Russia.
The House provision to limit the President's ability to place US forces under UN command would infringe upon his authority as Commander-in-Chief. The discretion to place US military units under limited, temporary operational control of foreign commanders has been part of our nation's security policy since its founding. Our uniformed military leadership agrees that this House restriction is an unnecessary step, which would damage US flexibility.
The bill also raises serious concerns about the President's ability to carry [out] foreign relations to protect vital U.S. interests. In particular, the bill imposes restrictions on the ability of the President to conduct contingency operations that are essential to the national interest. The restrictions on funding available to the Administration to commence a contingency operation and the necessity to submit supplemental requests to continue an operation are unwarranted restrictions on the authority of the President.
House action regarding US policy toward the ABM treaty is very damaging to both program and policy. The administration is fully committed to both advanced Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and to the ABM treaty. Calling into question the ABM treaty would jeopardize START reductions and is unnecessary to the realization of our TMD goals. The House language would not accelerate our technical progress toward TMD deployments, but would dampen the political prospects for TMD deployment, and hinder our ability to oversee compliance with the ABM treaty. Additionally, this legislation raises major international legal issues. as well as constitutional issues regarding the President's authority to apply treaties.
I am troubled by the bill language that appears to prohibit DOD staff support to the US-PRC Joint Defense Conversion Commission. The Commission promotes important US defense goals -- providing access to an important sector of China's of our national security community, permitting us to observe the progress of Chinese defense conversion activities. and promoting commercial opportunities for US companies. Its purpose is not to transfer technology to China, nor to enhance Chinese military capabilities.
I also strongly oppose termination of the third SEAWOLF submarine. The DOD plan to build a SEAWOLF in FY 1996 before shifting to the New Attack Submarine beginning in FY 1998 is the lowest cost way, with acceptable risk. to shift to affordable and capable attack submarines to counter advanced nonnuclear and nuclear submarines of a potential adversary nation, and to sustain the industrial base. It is also the best plan to preserve the option for competition for submarine construction.
Denying finds for purchase of two, and refit of four, urgently required Roll On/Roll Off (RO/RO) ships for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) would also be damaging. RRF ships are critical to our near-term readiness to meet surge sealift requirements. The House's acceleration of new sealift ship construction will not affect our current sealift shortfall for about five years, whereas our proposal would begin to impact the shortfall next year.
The Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP) remains a high priority of the President and the Department. The TRP stretches the defense technology dollar by requiring matching funds on a competitive basis for technology projects with both defense and commercial value. I urge continued] congressional support for this valuable program.
The House's total funding exceeds what will likely be available. Its budget resolution increases the President's FY 1996 defense request by $10 billion, whereas the Senate resolution provided the level requested. My concern is that when the final funding allocations are made for Defense, DOD's underlying program will be cut and the House add-ons will be retained. We especially do not want to have readiness sacrificed in order to find many new adds such as the B-2, which cannot be paid for without damage to our basic plan.
Regarding the B-2, I believe that the continuing improvement of troop readiness is a more pressing requirement than the marginal increases in capability offered by procuring additional B-2 bombers. The results of the FY 1995 Heavy Bomber Force Study argue favorably and soundly for continuing the Department's initiatives to acquire modern conventional capabilities for the entire heavy bomber force. Those initiatives include the fielding of the 20 B-2 bomber aircraft program, as well as the B-1B conventional mission upgrade program and the B-52H conventional mission enhancement program. This add also represents a very troubling trend, i.e., the incremental finding of procurement programs, which allows supporters to buy into a program that cannot be afforded within projected future budgets.
I am opposed to the House's increased funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program. Our requested program proceeds at a sound pace with Theater Missile Defense, and it includes sufficient research and development finds for National Missile Defense. Our BMD program is a prudent and affordable blueprint for protecting US forces and achieving readiness to deploy a national defense system in a few years, if the threat requires.
I do not agree with the numerous House modifications to Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) policies and procedures, which have been developed in consultation with the Congress over the past four years. Current policies, including decentralized DBOF cash management and the removal of some programs from DBOF are the result of the hard-won experience after several years of testing the DBOF concept. Implementing House direction would cause the Department to revert to policies and procedures initiated at the time [when] DBOF was established four years ago and would negate many of the improvements and savings associated with full visibility of costs. Moreover, the provision to end advance billing is unworkable and will seriously degrade force readiness.
Finally, I am very troubled by numerous provisions in the bill that would undermine my ability, and the ability of any future Secretary, to execute the duties of this office. Most notably, the unrealistic timetable for making a 25 percent cut in the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and several other personnel provisions would impair operations within the Department, and obstruct our acquisition reforms and other initiatives to improve those operations. For example, the mandated near-term cuts in the DOD acquisition workforce would paradoxically prevent achievement of the longer term personnel savings toward which we have been progressing. I remain strongly committed to continuing to reduce DOD infrastructure and unneeded staff; and my new Deputy Secretary will emphasize that as well. I urge the Congress to support our efforts -- e.g., by approving our requested acquisition reform provisions -- rather than impede them with provisions that seek to predetermine the personnel savings that might be achieved or attempt to micromanage DOD operations. In a similar vein, I highly recommend a rolling back of some of the numerous reporting requirements in the House bill. Many of these are very burdensome and would seriously hinder our reform efforts.
As you and your colleagues debate this important bill, I urge you to take into account the above concerns. There must be no illusions about the Administration's seriousness in this regard. Many provisions in the House bill are totally unacceptable. Unless they are eliminated or radically modified, they threaten the prospects for the bill itself. I do not make this statement lightly. It is in everyone's interest to have a defense bill passed and signed. To that end, I will continue to do everything possible to facilitate that goal, which we all share.
Sincerely,
William J. Perry
cc: Honorable Sam Nunn
Ranking Democrat