TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION WITH SPAIN (Provisions of the Treaty and Implementing Legislation) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1976 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, MILITARY AFFAIRS, The subcommittee met at 2:28 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FASCELL. The subcommittee will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on International Political and Military Affairs resumes hearings on the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Spain and on legislation which will be required to provide funds for implementation of the treaty. On June 8, the subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the Departments of State and Defense on the strategic importance of Spain and the military and political rationale behind. United States use of base facilities. This afternoon the subcommittee will consider the specific elements of the treaty and particularly those portions which involve the expenditure of U.S. funds which will require separate legislation by both the House and Senate as specified in the resolution ratifying the treaty which has been reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Our witnesses scheduled for today are: The Honorable Clement Zablocki, distinguished ranking majority member of the full committee and certainly a leader and a champion of the prerogatives of the Congress as a whole and of the House, particularly in the entire field of foreign policy; the Honorable Bella Abzug, the Chairperson of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights who has demonstrated a keen interest in a wide variety of foreign policy and defense issues; The Honorable Robert J. McCloskey, Ambassador at Large and Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, U.S. Department of State, who headed the U.S. delegation which negotiated the treaty with Spain; and Mr. Harry E. Bergold, Jr., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs and formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and NATO Affairs; and Mr. Bruce Laingen, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. Congressmen Zablocki has advised us that he will not be able to appear personally. Without objection we will place his statement in the record at this point. [Mr. Zablocki's statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be given the opportunity of testifying before you this afternoon on H.J. Res. 927, to authorize the President to implement the provisions of the Spanish Bases Treaty. You and your Subcommittee are to be commended, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time to air this important matter before the House. I am especially pleased to be here because it gives me an opportunity to explain why the Chairman of our Committee, with my own whole-hearted support and the support of others on this Committee, protested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about some of the provisions of this Treaty as negotiated by the Executive branch. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs and as co-sponsor of the Case-Zablocki Act, regarding transmission of international agreements to the Congress, I have a special interest in matters involving the authority of the Executive branch to enter into international agreements. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I was particularly disappointed by the conduct of the Executive branch toward the Congress and its procedures in the negotiation of the Spanish Base Treaty. This Treaty, as negotiated, demonstrated, in my opinion, an alarming disregard by the Executive, of the power of the purse granted to the Congress under our Constitution. There is an unprecedented attempt in this Treaty to authorize the appropriation of security assistance funds by treaty provision, rather than by authorizing legislation as has always been the case in the past. Thus, the Executive branch has given us a clear and alarming signal in the present instance. That signal is that they regard the legislative authorization process as something which can be separated from the essential spending power or power of the purse of the Congress and something which can be dispensed with at will and replaced with a treaty provision when it so pleases the treaty makers. I must say with all due respect to the Executive, that the framers of the Constitution clearly intended for the Representatives of the taxpayers, alone, to have the authority to decide how to spend the taxpayers money, both at home and abroad. To confine that power simply to the requirement for appropriations legislation is, to say the least, weakening the spending power of the Congress. Appropriation bills are an inadequate vehicle for the full power of the purse of the Congress. The Congress cannot put anything of a legislative character in an appropriations bill. We would not be able to place any conditions, or policy instructions upon the spending of the funds therein appropriated. We would simply be able to say yes or no to making available a specific sum of money or to cut the sum. And the authorizing Committee, the substantive Committee wherein such foreign policy expertise as the Congress has been able to acquire would logically be expected to reside, would be left out of the process. There are, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, many reasons to disapprove of the authorization provisions of this Treaty apart from the clear intent of the framers to check the power of the Executive by lodging the power of the purse with the Congress. One of the reasons is the growing recognition that the House should play more of a role in foreign policy than in the past. This has been expressed by Secretaries of State, by Senators and in general, has been endorsed by the increasing practice of the Executive branch to obtain the approval of both Houses to important international agreements to which the support of both Houses is clearly essential. Further, the new Budget Act procedures would be subverted and frustrated by the authorization of appropriations through treaty provision rather than legisla tion. This new mechanism which the Congress has carefully set up to keep spending within certain budgetary targets will not work properly without authorization legislation. Now, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there is precedent for the authorization of appropriations by treaty provision as in the case of the Panama Canal Treaty and some other obscure treaties. But this is a limited precedent. It does not mean that all appropriations can be authorized by treaty provision rather than legislation. Clearly situations where there is little or no political sensitivity, where the House does not care to bother each year with passing authorization legislation for routine payments, should be distinguished from the present situation with the political sensitivity and importance to our national security of the Spanish Bases Treaty. It is true that in the Treaty now under consideration the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has added language to their Resolution of Advice and Consent which aims to meet the request of Chairman Morgan and those of us concerned with safeguarding the spending power prerogatives of the House and this authorizing Committee. It is not totally clear what the legal effect of this language is but it is at least a gesture in the right direction. That language states that the sums referred to in the Treaty "shall be made available for obligation through the normal procedures of the Congress, including the process of prior authorization and annual appropriations . . ." Of course this resolution has yet to pass the Senate. Needless to say, I am not totally satisfied with this solution, and want to make clear that it shall not serve as a precedent. Further, I sincerely hope that the Executive branch does not again seek to expand upon or even repeat their attempt to belittle the spending prerogatives of the House as they have in the Spanish Treaty. We will be watching the upcoming base agreements with Turkey, Greece, the Philippines, and Portugal for any such signal. Certainly there must be a more satisfactory way of negotiating agreements with foreign nations whereby their legitimate concerns can be satisfied in compliance with our own governmental procedures in the legislative branch. Let us work together rather than behind each others back to solve this problem. Mr. Chairman, in closing just let me add that I am not opposed to the substance of the Spanish Treaty. I believe we should bring Spain as close as possible to ourselves and our other NATO allies in Europe. The Spanish military capabilities are especially needed on NATO's weakened southern flank. And we need those base rights in Spain. But let us not disregard, in the long run, the more vital integrity of our Constitutional system. The Department of State, unfortunately, seems more attuned often to the monetary demands of foreign nations with whom they find themselves in negotiations, rather than to the needs and prerogatives of other parts of their very government. If the Executive can reduce the power of the purse of the people's representatives to a crude and often ineffectural device, then we approach once again that unhappy state of taxation without representation, which lies at the very heart of the American Revolution two hundreds years ago. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for your patience and attention. Mr. FASCELL. Congresswoman Abzug has been delayed and we will hear her testimony following the departmental witnesses. Mr. Ambassador, I know you have a prepared statement, so why don't you proceed. FOR STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. MCCLOSKEY, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking you and this subcommittee for the continuing interest you have shown for the development of our relations with Spain at an important historical juncture. I had the honor of appearing before you last fall, while the negotiations on the new treaty were still in progress, and I have also con sulted with individual members of the committee since that appear ance. We appreciate your interest, we have benefited from your views, and we are glad to be with you today as you consider legislation to authorize funds under the treaty. The committee already has access to much of the material that the administration has provided in the course of seeking Senate advice and consent to ratification of the treaty. This includes Secretary Kissinger's report to the President, the President's letter of transmittal to the Senate, and my testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 3. Since that time, the Senate committee issued the record of the hearings on the treaty and its favorable report of May 20. We are hopeful that the Senate floor vote will take place soon and we look for a strongly favorable vote. I shall be happy to answer any questions about specific provisions of the treaty, but for now I would like to describe the entire package in its general terms. As we see it, this agreement is important and advantageous because it provides a stronger framework for our relations with Spain as that country develops a new internal order and assumes a larger international role. We are confident that, by enriching the relationship with Spain, we will not only further our direct national interests, but also facilitate the long-overdue association of Spain with Western democracies and eventual participation by Spain in the institutions which further democratic principles. The political dimension of the treaty is therefore very important and has been reinforced by the the most successful state visit to the United States by King Juan Carlos and his Queen Sofia last week. I believe that the King's appearance before the joint meeting of Congress provided a valuable opportunity for all Members to hear directly the King's ideas and purposes for the Crown as the guiding element in Spain's orderly progress toward democracy. We in the administration are naturally heartened by the positive developments that have taken place in Spain since the King assumed power last November. There is a new atmosphere of optimism in Spain; concrete political reforms are being implemented; and progress toward democratic elections has taken place without debilitating disorder. President Ford and Secretary Kissinger have made clear to the King and his government that Spain can count on our firm support. And the treaty is a clear manifestation of that support. The treaty is more than a political document. The set of relationships it enhances includes military, economic, and other areas of bilateral cooperation. Under the treaty, we will continue the longstanding cooperative defense arrangements which permit us to use military bases and other Spanish facilities. In general terms, our rights under the new treaty will be about the same as we had under the previous base agreement of 1970. We have agreed, as a result of negotiations, to remove the tanker wing from Spain, leaving only a small detachment at the base at Zaragoza, and we will also withdraw the nuclear submarines from the base at Rota by July 1, 1979. Such changes will modify our military presence, but will not lessen significantly the value of the Spanish bases for our overall force posture in that strategically important area of the world. Looking beyond the bases, I would like to emphasize that the conceptual basis for the defense relationship reflects our strong conviction that Spain is a natural and logical component of the Western defense system in the North Atlantic area. Accordingly, the treaty is intended to extend beyond our bilateral defense efforts in the direction of Spain's participation in the NATO framework, The new combined coordination and planning staff will be a major instrument to achieve that objective, and we are confident that this objective will, in time, gain full acceptance within the alliance. While the military implications of the treaty have been rather well covered by Mr. Bergold, I should add that there is nothing in the agreement which constitutes a commitment to defend Spain. This point is thoroughly understood and accepted by the Government of Spain. On the nonmilitary side, the agreement includes provisions on cooperation in economic relations, in science and technology, as well as education and cultural exchanges. These provisions call for new institutions to oversee specific bilateral programs and for expanded funding, necessary to strengthen the programs begun under the 1970 agreement. If I may summarize the funding involved, for each of the 5 years of the initial term of the treaty, we have agreed to provide the following amounts: $120 million or $600 million total in U.S. Government guarantees of credits for purchases of U.S. military equipment; $15 million or $75 million in total in grants for military equipment; $2 million or $10 million in total in grants for military training; and $7 million or $35 million in total for grants for programs in education, culture, science, and technology. In addition to these annual levels, we have also agreed to provide $50 million total for the U.S. Air Force's share of the program to modernize the jointly used air control and warning system in Spain.. Finally, the treaty includes a reference to $450 million that the Export-Import Bank has been prepared to commit in loans and guarantees to Spanish companies for the purchase of U.S. goods and services. In nonmonetary assistance, the treaty provides that we will help Spain to acquire five naval vessels, to lease military aircraft for the near term, and to facilitate acquisition of lightweight fighter aircraft later on. When the treaty is ratified, the United States will have accepted the obligation, along with the rights it gives us, to provide the forms of assistance outlined above. The administration fully recognizes the responsibilities of the Congress regarding money matters and does not challenge the view that this assistance is to be provided via normal authorization and appropriation procedures. 75-099-76-3 |