Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief question and observation?

Mr. NUNN. I think the Senator from Michigan stated----

Mr. NUNN. I cannot speak for the Senator from Michigan. Of course, he is on the floor to speak for himself. What I hear the Senator from Virginia say is his main purpose is to protect the theater missile defense systems and to have a demarcation point of definition between those systems and the strategic systems that would be affected by the ABM Treaty. Assuming that is the Senator's main objective, it seems to me we can reach some agreement on this because that is not the language that gives me the problem. I do not think it is the language [[Page S 11251]] that gives the Senator from Michigan the problem. It is all language that basically states we are going to deploy national missile defenses with multiple sites without any negotiation and without any regard to the ABM Treaty, which has nothing to do with theater missiles. That is all strategic and it is all clearly involved with the ABM Treaty. But if the Senator's main goal is to protect the theater missile defense system and have a demarcation more than a definition, as long as there is some flexibility for the administration so that there is not an absolute ruling out of any administration efforts--because somebody has got to negotiate this demarcation point no matter what we say--if that is the Senator's goal, I agree with him on the demarcation point. I think that is a very sensible point. If that is the Senator's goal, then there is no reason we cannot find a way, whatever happens on the Levin amendment, to deal with this language, because that is not the language we are trying to take out of this bill.

Mr. NUNN. I say to my friend from Virginia, I think we ought to inquire of the Senator from Michigan as to his intentions. We talked about a time agreement. The Senator from Michigan informed me he would prefer to come to the floor and determine how many people wanted to speak on this amendment. I welcome a time agreement. I hope we can reach one. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan could give an indication of his feeling at this point.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, that is correct. I have a brief statement I would like to make on behalf of the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Could I get another minute?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the way I see this, I do not intend to vote for this amendment. I believe the money that is added here, the $300 million, which puts this budget back on national missile defense, about where it was when President Bush left office, I think the money is consistent with a limited thin defense but an effective defense against limited attack against accidental launch or against third countries that may develop a limited capability against the United States. What is inconsistent with that is the language in this bill which will be the subject for the next amendment which puts us in a position of anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty, will be read like that in Russia, with no reason to be in breach because we do not have any programs in the next fiscal year that would in any way contravene that treaty. So we are going to be paying a huge price for nothing because of the language in this bill. So I will not favor the money striking because the money is needed. I will favor though the amendments that will try to correct this language. If this language goes forward as it is, we are going to pay a big price, probably not only in the failure of ratification of START II but also in the Russians not complying or continuing to comply with START I. So we are buying ourselves perhaps 6,000 or 8,000 warheads pointed at America by the language in this bill. And I hope people recognize that when we get to the next amendment. But I do not believe the answer is to strike the money which everybody agrees at some point we are going to need some kind of limited defense. The administration agrees with that.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, it is cleared as long as that word is ``maximum'' value.

Mr. NUNN. I urge it be adopted.

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. NUNN. Would the Senator yield for a brief observation? I remember that evening very well. And I do not want to say this with much humor. There is not much humorous about anything regarding a Scud missile attack. The Senator said we were not in danger. If the Senator would amend that by saying we were not in danger because the target was where we were, the Ministry of Defense, and the Scud missiles are notoriously inaccurate. So we were probably in a safe place. But the target was the Ministry of Defense, we found out.

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2102 (Purpose: To change a date in section 712)

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

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. [[Page S 11314]] Amendment No. 2101 (Purpose: To revise section 723, relating to the applicability of CHAMPUS payment rules to health care provided by CHAMPUS providers to members of the uniformed services enrolled in a health care plan of a Uniformed Services Treatment Facility)

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

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have another amendment by the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka. This amendment would require a review of awards to Asian-Americans and native American Pacific Islanders during World War II. It requires the review of awards to African-Americans to determine whether they should be upgraded. The Army has undertaken a review of World War II awards of the Distinguished Service Cross to determine whether any should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor. The review is requested based on a concern that some awards may have been downgraded due to prejudice. The amendment requests a similar review of awards to native American Pacific Islanders in view of the possible prejudice at that time against these groups.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment establishes congressional findings concerning the potential for overlooking meritorious acts by those whose activities necessarily require secrecy. This establishes a 1-year period for review of recommendations and requests for awards for the period from 1940 to 1990. While the bill recognizes that persons deserving of awards may have been overlooked because their intelligence activities were necessarily secretive, it contains no provisions for review of existing procedures which are time consuming and not oriented toward cases which contain a presumption against reviewing cases more than 3 years old. The provision establishes a limited time of 1 year and limits review to those requesting or recommended for such a review. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this side. I urge the Senate to approve the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2097 (Purpose: To ensure the preservation of the ammunition industrial base of the United States)

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

Mr. NUNN. We are doing our best to work it down.

Mr. NUNN. If the leader will yield, we are working on that list. We will have a copy of it in another hour or so.

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

Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2106 (Purpose: To make the authority under section 648 subject to the availability of appropriations)