Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Now, what if we were in Somalia? At night we used mines around the bases in Somalia to protect our troops. Would that be barred?

Mr. NUNN. Because of the international border?

Mr. NUNN. The first year of application would be what year?

Mr. NUNN. Would that be a fiscal year calculation or calendar?

Mr. NUNN. The other question I would ask my friend from Iowa is, who is the responsible party to pay for this? Is this an alliance requirement? Is this the whole NATO alliance that would be required to pay this, or is this country by country?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. NUNN. I have no objection to that. The majority leader entered into the agreement. I think it probably needs to be cleared with him.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just close out. That is the last question. The 25,000 would be the level below which the Senator would not go even if there was a total failure of them to pay the burden share?

Mr. NUNN. Claymore mines are excepted. We have mines around Guantanamo Bay, would that be excepted?

Mr. NUNN. My counsel says those are not exceptions. Your counsel says they are. I hope this legislative record will help clarify that. The Senator is saying the DMZ would be excepted, and Guantanamo Bay would be excepted?

Mr. NUNN. When we were in the Persian Gulf war and we had an exposed right flank, we laid down a considerable number of mines to prevent the Iraqis from hitting our exposed right flank. Would that be precluded under the Leahy amendment?

Mr. NUNN. What about antipersonnel?

Mr. NUNN. Antitank mines are excepted but antipersonnel mines are not?

Mr. NUNN. Could the Senator tell us the difference between a claymore mine and any other?

Mr. NUNN. My counsel says that is not excepted in this amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, there is considerable confusion about this amendment. Whatever happens on this vote, I think we are going to have to do some work on it in conference, if it passes.

Mr. NUNN. But those mines did not cause the Kuwaitis any problem because they self-destructed.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will make brief remarks on this amendment. I support the Senator from South Carolina and his position. Savannah River has been the tritium production complex since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has the infrastructure, it has the trained work force, it has the experience, it is a logical place for the new tritium facility, whatever technology is being chosen. [[Page S 11375]] We do not have in this bill now, as I understand this amendment--I have not been a part of working on this amendment--but as I understand it, there is nothing in the bill now, after this amendment is adopted, that would tell the Secretary of Energy what kind of reactor to have. She still has that choice--the light-water reactor, the gas reactor, the multipurpose reactor, heavy water or even the accelerator. All of those technologies are available. The Secretary of Energy said she is going to make this decision sometime in late summer or early fall. That means that this bill is bound to be in conference in September, and if the Secretary of Energy makes any other decision, other than Savannah River, then certainly we will have a time to study that carefully and to react to that in conference. So I support the Senator from South Carolina on this. I urge the defeat of the second-degree amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment of the Senator from California has been cleared on both sides. I believe she wants 5 minutes of discussion. I do not think we will need over 1 minute, so we could get a unanimous-consent to have that in order, with about 6 minutes on it, and have a rollcall vote. We could do that, and perhaps even have a 10-minute rollcall vote after, following either the Kohl rollcall or the McCain rollcall.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2107 (Purpose: To require a review and report on United States policy on the security of the national information infrastructure)

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. NUNN. I believe I was to ask a question. That is a question mark at the end.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I think it is important, and I state this only for my own view and the Senator from Michigan can respond. There is a difference in making a finding and saying that this is where the Congress thinks the demarcation line ought to be and passing a line saying this is the way it is. Passing a law knocks out the executive branch of Government, if they sign the law and if it is constitutional, in any kind of negotiation. So you do not even have the ability under this bill, the way I read it now, for the President to say to the Russians or his Ambassador to say to the Russians, this is what the Senate passed. I believe the bill is so sweeping in its denial of executive authority to have any negotiations on this point that I do not think they would be able to inform the Russian Duma or the Russian leadership, Yeltsin and others, as to what the Senate did. If the Senator wants to say this is where we think the line ought to be, and this is what we believe the administration ought to negotiate with the Russians, and this is what we think the Russians ought to accept, or these are the sensible findings we make, that would be a totally different matter. It is when you put it in law so it knocks out not only the Russians from having any say whatsoever in it, no negotiations, no say, no response, it knocks out even the President and the executive branch. First of all, I do not think this will become law, but if it does, you will have almost an absurd situation. In fact, there is some language in here that is so broad that it might be interpreted if this became law to preclude the U.S. Senate from even debating it again. It says no Federal official. We are Federal officials, last time I got my paycheck. We are included in that, too. We cannot even talk about it once it is passed. I think the Senator's language goes much further than the Senator's intent. That is what I think we need to work on, and if we can make findings on demarcation and urge the President forward and urge him to take this position, then I believe we can reach some [[Page S 11252]] consensus. It is the law part of it that bothers me.