Congress: To Vote or Not to Vote

On January 7, the first day of the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats skipped the usual niceties and immediately challenged a stingy Republican plan to compensate out-of-work Americans. A week later, they offered a series of amendments to the Omnibus Appropriations bill–a cobbling together of 11 individual appropriations bills left over from last year–to stake out Democratic positions on homeland security funding, education, low-income energy assistance, and other issues.

These early moves indicate that Senate Democrats learned some lessons from the 2002 elections. After the Republican triumphs in November, there was a widespread consensus that the Democrats had not presented clear alternatives to George W. Bushs domestic and economic agenda. But whether they will apply the same lesson to national security issues is unclear.

After the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the public rallied around the president and endorsed his war on terrorism. When issues like Iraq, missile defense, and international relations were raised in the 2002 campaign, the Democratic strategy was to change the subject back to domestic issues–the sagging economy, health care, and education.

Voters most concerned about terrorism and homeland security reacted to this flawed strategy by voting overwhelmingly Republican.

A number of Bush administration national security positions should provoke major legislative fights this year. For example, the administration and the Republican Congress have given short shrift to programs to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Their primary approach to dealing with weapons proliferation appears to have been to drive Saddam Hussein from power.

Loose nukes. The administration has been less than enthusiastic about the most important non-proliferation agenda–the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs designed to secure and eliminate the former Soviet Unions nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. The administration tried to cut the programs funding in 2001,  and left restrictions in place that limited their effectiveness in 2002.

There could also be a fight to strengthen and accelerate these programs in Russia and in the rest of the world by waiving permanently the restrictions–and by prodding the White House to appoint a high-level program coordinator. And there could be a move to increase funding toward the $3 billion annual spending level recommended a few years ago by a prestigious panel headed by former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker and former government official Lloyd Cutler.

National missile defense. Another major fight could take place over national missile defense. In December 2002, the administration announced a deployment plan to place 10 interceptors in Alaska and California by 2004, with another 10 a year or two later. Moreover, after first indicating that space-based missile defenses were a low priority, the Pentagon has decided to proceed with a test bed facility in space–kinetic-kill vehicles placed permanently in space, something akin to the Reagan-era Brilliant Pebbles scheme.

These missile-defense deployment plans are blatantly political, timed to convince the conservative Republican base that Bush is fulfilling a 2000 campaign priority. Some Democrats, like presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, immediately endorsed the rushed decision, which came just days after another failed national missile defense test. But other senators may try to eliminate funding for deployment and increase congressional and Pentagon oversight over all missile defense programs.

Last year, Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats cut missile defense funding by $800 million during the committees consideration of the annual Pentagon spending bill, but ultimately agreed to restore the money–offering the president the choice of spending it on either missile defense or terrorism. But the administrations plan to deploy should galvanize Star Wars opponents this year.

New nukes. Another major fight could develop over the administrations plans to begin research on building new nuclear weapons and to move toward an eventual resumption of nuclear explosive testing. Last year, the administration requested $15.5 million for work on a new nuclear weapon to destroy deeply buried bunkers–the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Senate at first eliminated the funds, but Congress ultimately authorized the money, restricting its spending until after an administration report is submitted to Congress.

Even more aggressive advocates of nuclear weapons than President Bush can be found in the House of Representatives, which voted to fund research and design work on low-yield nuclear weapons and on a nuclear-tipped missile interceptor. Fortunately, their provisions were dropped in the final House-Senate agreement.

Nuclear testing. Congress approved an administration study that would examine the cost and requirements for resuming nuclear testing on an accelerated schedule. While few expect the president to break the decade-long American nuclear testing moratorium before the 2004 election, political restraints would disappear in a second Bush term.

The fight over all of these issues may continue in 2003. The administrations Nuclear Posture Review and actions of the House Armed Services Committee suggest that the push for new nuclear programs will continue. Opponents argue that support for new nuclear weapons and weapons testing is low, both within the Pentagon and among the American public, and they may attempt to halt forward movement on all three related issues.

The Moscow Treaty. The nuclear arms agreement signed in 2002 by Presidents Bush and Putin may provide an early opportunity for further debates. The agreement, which the Bush administration boasts is the last arms control agreement ever, is a treaty in name only. There is no timetable for retiring nuclear weapons, no requirement for their destruction, little verification, and other flaws. Last year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the treaty and began drafting some conditions to strengthen it, but never formally considered them. Michigan Democrat Carl Levin promised a fight on the treatys provisions for easy exit. The Bush administration is pushing for a prompt ratification of the treaty in 2003, with no conditions. But the Senate, even under the leadership of Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, is going to be forced to compromise.

Funding for verification. There could be other battles. One of the last vestiges of the unratified treaty barring nuclear explosive testing is the U.S. contribution to funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, to continue building and help maintain a comprehensive worldwide verification system. While the amount of funding is small (less than $20 million), test ban opponents may try to eliminate it.

North Korea. If there is an agreement between the United States and North Korea over dismantling its nuclear weapons program, conservatives may try to block funding for electrical power and other kinds of assistance that are likely to be elements of the deal. In early 2003, Arizona Republicans John Kyl and John McCain, joined by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, offered legislation to bar all assistance to North Korea. A non-binding version was added to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

Alternative strategies. Opponents of the administrations unilateralist and preemptive military policy may try to beef up alternatives to war, including the diplomatic budget within the State Department, foreign assistance, and international peacekeeping. They will have to do so over the objections of powerful isolationists like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

“This is one for not making a preemptive strike against against anyone questioning our authority to make pre-emptive strikes.”

These potential fights are likely to be overshadowed by the military confrontation with Iraq and an expanding nuclear confrontation with North Korea. If the United States is involved in an extended war with Iraq, a number of these issues may fade to the background.

The question remains: Will Democrats challenge the Bush administrations national security policies? At an arms control conference held in West Virginia in January, two senior Senate staff aides suggested that the absence of Senate votes in past years on military spending, missile defense, nuclear weapons–or almost any other national security issue–was no fluke. Democrats preferred to avoid confrontation on national security issues. The aides further suggested that they would like to avoid votes in the next two years as well. Should that happen, the Democrats will once more cede national security issues to the president. They may also cede the 2004 elections.