Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I will object to any such deletion, Mr. President. I think the responsibility is clearly established.

Mr. NUNN. Within reason. [Laughter.]

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Michigan such time as he may desire.

Mr. NUNN. It is also my hope that would be their view. I would say to my friend, I know there are other provisions in this bill and the appropriations bill that concern both the White House and the Secretary of Defense. So I can make no statement here that indicates their feeling on the overall product we now have. I am sure they will be heard from as we move into conference. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. Thurmond addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Virginia that I talked to Secretary of Defense Perry about this amendment, and I think it is fair to say that he believes it is a dramatic improvement over the original version. I would not be able to portray to the Senator from Virginia that I conveyed this or that I have discussed it in any kind of detail with the White House. And I cannot give any message about how they view either this authorization bill or the appropriations bill which was passed. There are a number of other areas that do not concern this that have been of concern to the White House and the Secretary of Defense, including, in the bill we just passed, the appropriation bill, the elimination of some very important funding that the Secretary of Defense had undertaken under the Nunn-Lugar program for working to reduce the Russian military establishment. That is a concern to Secretary Perry; it also is a concern to me, that funding was eliminated both in the appropriations bill in the House and Senate. But as far as this particular provision is concerned, I have no doubt that Secretary Perry feels it is a great improvement, and I would assume, without having directly talked with the President about it, that he would also view it in that way.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need at this point, and I do not intend to make long remarks at this point to give each of my colleagues a chance to lay down their views and to make their remarks on this amendment, which is a very important amendment. Then I will conclude with other remarks as we proceed through this debate. Mr. President, at the request of the majority and minority leaders, Senators Cohen, Levin, Warner, and I spent the better part of the week preceding the August recess meeting intensively addressing issues raised by the proposed Missile Defense Act of 1995, as set forth in S. 1026, the pending Defense authorization bill. The goal of our effort was to develop an amendment establishing a missile defense policy that could be supported by a broad bipartisan group of Senators. On Friday, August 11, we filed a bipartisan substitute amendment reflecting our best efforts to meet the objective, and I hope that all Members have had an opportunity during the recess to review this bipartisan amendment. I want to express my thanks to my three colleagues, Senator Warner, Senator Cohen, and Senator Levin, for the diligence, tolerance, and good will each of them showed throughout the long and at times very difficult negotiations that occurred over a very intensive period of about a week that led to the agreement embodied in the substitute amendment that is now reported and pending. I believe the amendment is a significant improvement to the version in the bill, and I support its adoption. Mr. President, the revised version of the Missile Defense Act of 1995, if passed in this amendment as set forth in this substitute, serves three very important functions. First, it clarifies the intent of the United States with respect to decisions about future missile defenses. Second, it diffuses a potential constitutional contest and confrontation between the executive and legislative branches. And, third, it makes clear to the international community our policy toward the ABM Treaty. Under the bipartisan substitute, the policy is no longer stated as a binding commitment to deploy a missile defense system. That is a decision that will be made in the future. Instead, the national missile defense policy, and section 232 of this substitute, is to ``develop for deployment.'' The substitute adds several important qualifiers such as the system must be ``affordable and operationally effective.'' This requirement appears in section 232 and is reemphasized throughout the amendment. And the system is limited to addressing only ``accidental, unauthorized or limited attacks.'' That qualification, which is set forth in section 232, is repeated throughout the amendment. One of the most important qualifications under the substitute is the requirement in section 2333 for ``congressional review, prior to a decision to deploy the system, of development or deployment of (a) the affordability and operational effectiveness of such a system, (b) the threat to be countered by such a system, and (c) ABM Treaty considerations with respect to such a system.'' These vital issues will all be considered before we take a step in the future to authorize and appropriate funds for deployment of a national missile defense system. Mr. President, perhaps the most important qualification, both in terms of arms control and the separation of powers, is section 2338, which requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out the policies, programs, and requirements of the entire Missile Defense Act ``through processes specified within or consistent with the ABM Treaty which anticipates the need and provides the means for amendment to the treaty.'' Mr. President, finally, let me address the theater missile demarcation provision briefly. Section 238 of the bill as reported would have established in permanent law a specific demarcation between theater and strategic missile defenses and would have prohibited the President from negotiations or other actions concerning the clarification or interpretation of the ABM Treaty and the line between theater and strategic missile defenses. The bipartisan substitute amendment strikes all of section 238 and provides in the bipartisan substitute a limited funding restriction with the following provisions concerning the demarcation or the definitional distinction between theater and national missile defenses. First, the funding restriction applies only to fiscal year 1996. Second, this substitute restriction applies only to the implementation of agreement with the successor states in the Soviet Union, should one be reached, concerning a demarcation between theater and strategic defenses for the purposes of the ABM Treaty and additional restrictions on theater missile defenses going beyond those in the demarcation. In addition to being limited to 1 year, the substitute funding limitation in section 238 has three exceptions. The limitation does not apply ``to the extent provided in a subsequent act'' to implement that portion of any such agreement that implements specific terms of the demarcation set forth in the amendment, to implement an agreement that is entered into pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President under the Constitution. Mr. President, there are many other changes that improve the overall thrust of this subject matter in the bipartisan substitute. I believe that the bipartisan substitute amendment provides a useful statement of congressional policy and is intended to be presented in a framework that makes clear that we seek a negotiated set of changes with the Russian Federation [[Page S 12583]] to allow for more effective defenses against limited missile attacks than either side is permitted today. I believe the bipartisan substitute amendment is not, and should not be seen by Russia as, a threat by the United States either to abandon the ABM Treaty or to reinterpret a treaty unilaterally to our advantage. Both we and Russia face the threat of ballistic missile attacks. It is not simply the United States; it is also Russia. The threats may be somewhat different, but the need for defenses should be clear to both sides. What we have to do is arrange for both sides to be able to deploy more effective defenses than in use today against accidental, unauthorized, and limited attacks while maintaining overall strategic stability and while making it plain that neither side seeks to combine offensive capability with defensive capability thereby giving either side what has for years been feared as a first-strike capability. Some people use that term in connection and synonymously with the term ``strategic stability.'' Some people use the term ``strategic stability'' in a broader context. But, nevertheless, it is my view that, if we are going to proceed to enjoy the benefits of 20 years of work and negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons under the treaties that have been entered into, like the START I Treaty or treaties now pending like the START II Treaty, it is very important that both sides understand that strategic stability is being maintained, that neither side is intending to combine offensive striking power with defensive abilities so that either side would be tempted at any point in the future--whatever developed--to develop anything resembling a first-strike capability. That is the scenario that the ABM Treaty was originally designed to prevent. It has some relevance today. But it needs changing in some very important but modest aspects. Mr. President, it is important that whatever we do with defenses--and I favor going forward with both the theater missile system and also a national missile system against limited and unauthorized attacks and third-country attack--whatever we do we should make sure that we continue to carry out the reductions of the armaments that have been most threatening against the United States for the last 20 years, the heavy missiles. And those missiles are part of both START I and START II reductions. It is enormously important that we not send signals to the Russian Parliament, the Russian leadership, to the Russian people that they in any way should fear for their own security and that they, therefore, should not go forward with the reductions of the missiles that they have either agreed to or that are pending in the START II agreement. Mr. President, that is what this is all about. I know there will be some who will agree with the changes. There will be some who may not agree with the changes. But this does represent the best effort that Senator Levin and I on the Democratic side, together with Senator Warner and Senator Cohen on the Republican side, were able to put together in an effort to achieve these goals that I have enumerated.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe there is an amendment, No. 2425, which is an amendment to the Missile Defense Act, pending at the desk. I ask that amendment be reported.

Mr. NUNN. Yes.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Army to convey 4.2 acres of real property at an Army Reserve facility in Gainesville, GA, in exchange for an 8 acres of land in the Atlas Industrial Park, Gainesville, GA. The exchange is for fair market value. I believe this has been cleared. It is an important amendment to the people in Gainesville, GA, as well as to the Army Reserve, which is going to get a larger piece of land and also a new reserve facility in exchange for an existing piece of land at fair market value. I urge its adoption.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe that amendment is being worked on by staff. I think it is either worked out or very close to being worked out. So I anticipate that we will be in a position to deal with it tomorrow.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the administrator of the General Services Administration to convey the William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant, 9.77 acres of real property, to the city of Rolla, ND. DOD declared the property in excess to its needs in July. GSA conducted a screening of the property and found there are no other Federal interests in the facility. I believe this has been cleared on the other side.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Dorgan and Conrad and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment would repeal conflict of interest laws applicable only to DOE and not other agencies. It sets forth a sense of the Senate that executive branch officials should not be held criminally liable for failure to implement an environmental cleanup requirement where the failure is attributable to insufficient funding. I believe this has been cleared by the majority.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Johnston and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NUNN. On behalf of Senators Harkin and Boxer, I urge its adoption.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I can assure the Senator from California that the conferees will look very closely at the House provision. I understand the importance of this issue to the people of Monterey County and thank the Senator for her amendment.