On the recordJune 7, 2000
I strongly disagree. I don't believe that linkage existed in these negotiations. What is clear is that our President, in good faith--I commend our President--at the summit did the best he could. I am concerned about some of the language he used in regard to the future discussions on the ABM Treaty. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by William Safire, which I think in a very clear and careful way points out the language about which I have a concern. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the New York Times, June 5, 2000.] Mistake in Moscow (By William Safire) Washington.--``We have agreed to a statement of principles,'' President Clinton told a joint news conference in Moscow, ``which I urge you to read carefully.'' Noting that the Russian and American sides disagreed on whether a limited missile defense against rogue states posed a threat to the mutual deterrence of the ABM treaty, Clinton added: ``The statement of principles that we have agreed to I thought reflected an attempt to bring our positions closer together . . . let me say I urge you all to read that.'' O.K., let's read it. The central issue is whether the U.S. will allow Russia to hold us to the ABM treaty negotiated 30 years ago with the Soviet Union. We want to build defenses against the few missiles from terrorist nations, not the thousands held by Russia.…
Source
govinfo.gov




