Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, could I inquire of the Chair as to the time agreement now? I understand that we have the Missile Defense Act to be voted on at 9:30.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the bill as reported set forth the proposed policy for future missile defense as outlined here on the floor this evening. It also proposed the demarcation between theater and anti- ballistic-missile defenses, and I am talking about the underlying bill, not the substitute. In my judgment, however, and that of many other Senators, the proposal addressed these vital issues in a manner that unnecessarily presented major difficulties in terms of arms control and constitutional considerations. As Senator Levin pointed out so well, what we want to do is move forward with a missile defense against limited, unauthorized, third- country-type attacks, but what we do not want to do in the process of trying to accomplish that goal, that important goal, we do not want to end up inadvertently and unintentionally ending the reduction of missiles pointing at us that have already been agreed to. It would be the supreme irony if, in dealing with a future threat, we ended up basically negating 20 years of efforts to reduce the current threat, which is, of course, the continuation of very large numbers of [[Page S 12593]] multiwarhead missiles pointing at the United States by Russia, which we have agreed to dramatically reduce both in START I, which has been entered into, and START II, which is now pending and which we hope at some point the Russian Duma, or legislative body, will, indeed, agree to. So, in my floor statement on August 3, I outlined five major problems with the version of the bill that this substitute is intended to correct and I believe does correct. This is the underlying bill. First, I said on August 3, it abandons U.S. adherence to the ABM Treaty. What I meant by that, and what I would mean by that now, is it is an anticipatory breach, the way the original underlying bill is worded. Second, abandoning adherence to that ABM Treaty now is unnecessary. We can conduct an effective missile defense program, developing for deployment, as the substitute called for in the near term, while continuing our adherence to the ABM Treaty. We do not have to make that choice now. So why risk the very large reductions of the threat now aimed toward us that are underway in order to accomplish a goal where we do not have to make that move at this point in time? Third, abandoning adherence now to the ABM Treaty is likely to impose huge costs on us if Russia declines to carry out some of its legal obligations and in response to our anticipatory breach. Fourth, the Senate Armed Service Committee bill abandons adherence by stealth rather than directing the administration to use the legal withdrawal procedures contained in the treaty. Mr. President, if we decide that the ABM Treaty is no longer in our interest--we may get to that point at some point in the future because we may find that we cannot negotiate the modest amendments required to provide for this national defense. I hope that we can because I think it is in the mutual interest of the United States and Russia. But if we get to that point, then we ought to do what the ABM Treaty calls for, and that is to use legal withdrawal proceedings in our national interest, supreme national interest. Of course, we can do that. I believe the timeframe is 6 months. We have the right under that treaty to state that in our supreme national interest, it is no longer in our supreme national interest to be a part of that treaty, and then we withdraw from the treaty in accordance with the terms of treaty. That is the way to do it if we ever have to move in that direction or feel that it is in our interest to move in that direction. Fifth, by failing to use the legal option under the treaty, the Senate would be compelling the executive branch to abandon adherence to the ABM Treaty by usurping certain powers of the executive branch over the conduct of foreign policy, a move that certainly would raise serious constitutional issues. So, Mr. President, this is the underlying bill and the problem with the underlying bill. That is what we are basically correcting with this substitute amendment. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Michigan, who did a superb job on this. I thank my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from Maine, Senator Warner and Senator Cohen, who are indeed not only knowledgeable but they are skillful in their negotiating ability and in their discerning ability to understand the fundamental issues as opposed to some of the rhetorical issues. I think that is the reason we were able to work this out. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, because he was the one who came up with the idea of getting the four of us to work on this proposal and to try to find a way to reach a consensus. He also not only instigated this effort but discussed it with the majority leader and the minority leader. He also constantly gave us both the encouragement and support, and indeed some very timely prodding to get this agreement worked out. So I appreciate the Senator from South Carolina and his leadership. Mr. President, I believe that there are no other remarks after the Senator from Michigan, who may want to conclude. I believe we are about to wrap up the debate. I believe the Senator from Texas wants to take some remarks.

Mr. NUNN. I do. I say to my friend from Virginia that I think it is in the interest of the United States and Russia to both move forward with modest adjustments to the ABM Treaty so both can protect their countries against accidental unauthorized launch or third-country launch. As the Senator from Virginia well knows, I first posed this question to the then head of the Strategic Air Command, Gen. Dick Ellis, a wonderful and fine Air Force general, now deceased. But that was in the early 1980's. I asked him the question, I said, ``General Ellis, what basically is our ability to detect the origin of some limited attack against the United States? Could we know for sure where that attack originated? We would not have the ability to defend against it, and would we know for sure the origin of that attack?'' He said he needed to study that. He did study it. He and his whole team studied it for almost a year and came to the conclusion that the United States, while we had some capability of determining the origin of attack, it was not nearly as good as it should be and the Russians' ability was not as good as ours. Most of that study remains classified. But I came out with a profound not only sense of unease about our ability and their ability to detect the origin of attack, let us say from an underwater submarine which could be from a third country, but we would both assume it was coming, if we were struck, from the other superpower in terms of nuclear arms. I came to the conclusion that neither of us had the capability that we needed in that regard. But more importantly, I came to the conclusion that we both had a mutual stake in the ability of each to be able to detect the origin of an attack and also to be able to defend against that kind of an attack so that we never got into an inadvertent war that no one intended by mistake or by accident. And I still have that conclusion even though the circumstances between the United States and Russia have now changed dramatically. We are no longer in this confrontation. We still have nuclear arms that will be with us for years to come even after we reduce under START I and START II. So that is a long answer to the Senator's underlying question, but I think it is a very important question. And the answer is, yes, I do believe Russia has a similar interest. I think we have many mutual interests. In fact, our interest in terms of nuclear arms, in terms of destruction, the safety, the handling, the prevention of leakage of this kind of material, both nuclear, chemical, biological, as well as technology and the scientists, we have a tremendous mutual type of security interest now with Russia more than perhaps any other nation because we are the two that have these nuclear weapons and the awesome responsibility to deal with them responsibly so that we never, God forbid, have nuclear disaster, not only in this country but in Russia or in the world.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Michigan has some concluding remarks and I would yield him such time as he may desire.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I do not know if anyone is going to want to speak any more on this one on either side. I do not have any more requests on the Democratic side. Mr. President, does the Senator from Michigan know of anyone else who would like to speak on this?

Mr. NUNN. As I understand the time agreement, we will have the vote on this at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Does the Senator from South Carolina know when we will be coming in on the bill? Should we reserve any time in case anyone wants to speak in the morning?

Mr. NUNN. Then we will vote at 9:30.

Mr. NUNN. I think, just in case there is a minute or two someone wants to speak in the morning, we ought to probably reserve 2 minutes on each side and give back the remainder of the time. That would give us a chance if somebody else wants a minute to be heard.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would yield back all of my time except 2 minutes.

Mr. NUNN. I know the Senator from South Carolina would like us to handle several amendments that have been agreed to before we conclude the debate on this Missile Defense Act of 1995 substitute. And, again, I want to thank my friend from Michigan, who did a superb job, and my friend from Virginia and my friend from Maine, who did, I think, a very good job in terms of negotiating what is a consensus, I think a positive step forward, as the Senator from Virginia said, for our Nation.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment. We support it.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Pryor, I offer an amendment which will establish testing requirements for theater missile defense interceptor missiles. This amendment is supported by both the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Pentagon. I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NUNN. The purpose of the provision was to expedite the demonstration project, and it is therefore my view that to proceed without conducting an A-76 study would be consistent with section 816 of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. NUNN. I am familiar with this section. It allowed such municipal services to be purchased notwithstanding section 2465 of title 10, United States Code.

Mr. NUNN. I would be pleased to answer the questions of the Senator from California.

Mr. NUNN. I believe we are prepared to have some of the amendments that have been agreed to now propounded to the Senate.

Mr. NUNN. We will have other amendments that have to be accepted tomorrow morning. We have not worked them out. We will not be able to conclude all of those. We are going to have to have some time--I hope it will not be a lot of time--after the passage of this Missile Defense Act, assuming it passes, before we vote on final passage.

Mr. NUNN. Could the Chair inform the Senate of what takes place after that amendment has been voted on and disposed of? It is my understanding we have several other possible amendments, including an amendment by the Senator from South Carolina that is relevant and an amendment by the Senator from Georgia, myself, that is relevant, as well as a Levin amendment which may or may not be required to be voted on. We will have time for remarks before final passage of the bill. I believe that is what the Senator from South Carolina has made reference to. I do not believe the Senator is going to need more time for speaking on this amendment which we vote on at 9:30. I think we will have other time on the bill before that is concluded.