Zach Nunn: “the way I see this, I do not intend to vote for this amendment. I believe the money that is added here, the $300…”

“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.”