Combating Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Additional ViewsAdditional Views of Senator J. James ExonI generally endorse and applaud the findings and recommendations of the Commission inall sections of the report with the exception of portions of the Executive Summary andChapter 2 regarding line authority and reporting requirements of the National Director forCombating Proliferation.I dissent to those sections and urge the President and the Vice President to pursue asomewhat different and more comprehensive course of action to solve the obviousproblems. I suggest the assigning of a more direct involvement and responsibilities toCabinet-level officials, granting more authority to the National Director, and providing asunset provision. My “Task Force” approach is briefly outlined below.After finding that “weapons of mass destruction (WMD) pose a grave threat to U.S. citizensand military forces, to our allies and to our vital national interests in many areas of theworld” the Commission has, in my opinion, settled on an executive solution that is short ofthe necessary.In essence the Commission has recommended heavy new responsibilities for the VicePresident, named a National Director for Combating Proliferation, and provided that thatofficial chair a Combating Proliferation Council consisting of what I consider assistantsecretaries from each of the agencies of government involved. The National Director isassigned the duty of supporting the President and Vice President and would hold the titleof Deputy Assistant to the President. However, the National Director would report to thePresident and Vice President through the National Security Advisor!What has been crafted, in my opinion, is another lower-level “working group” chaired by anassistant to the National Security Advisor with an impressive title but who chairs only acouncil consisting of officials from the many agencies involved. My concern is that theestablishment will tend to give a “wink and nod” to such a council and continue the statusquo.If the problem is as critical and serious as the Commission has defined it to be, then itdemands the immediate priority attention of the top most officials at every level ofgovernment. At this juncture time is of every essence. Relegating the solution back towhere it principally now resides, in the National Security Council, is at best a half measure.Inserting the National Director under the National Security Advisor is no bold movedemanded by the threat.In my view the National Director must be an individual of national standing, one highlyrespected by Cabinet secretaries, visible previously in this area, and with a provenreputation for getting things accomplished. This individual should be prepared to obligatehis or her full-time talents, at the request of the President, for a period of at least two years,to jump start this vital task. The President would not likely attract someone with the169