Washington, DC, July 28, 1995.

Hon. Sam Nunn,

Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Nunn: I write to register my strong opposition to the missile defense provisions of the SASC's Defense Authorization bill, which would institute Congressional micromanagement of the Administration's missile defense program and put us on a pathway to abrogate the ABM Treaty. The Administration is committed to respond to ballistic missile threats to our forces, allies, and territory. We will not permit the capability of the defenses we field to meet those threats to be compromised.

The bill's provisions would add nothing to DoD's ability to pursue our missile defense programs, and would needlessly cause us to incur excess costs and serious security risks. The bill would require the U.S. to make a decision now on developing a specific national missile defense for deployment by 2003, with interim operational capability in 1999, despite the fact that a valid strategic missile threat has not emerged. Our NMD program is designed to give us the capability for a deployment decision in three years, when we will be in a much better position to assess the threat and deploy the most technologically advanced systems available. The bill would also terminate valuable elements of our TMD program, the Boost Phase Intercept and MEADS/Corps SAM systems. MEADS is not only a valuable defense system but is an important test of future trans-Atlantic defense cooperation.

In addition, certain provisions related to the ABM Treaty would be very damaging to U.S. security interests. By mandating actions that would lead us to violate or disregard U.S. Treaty obligations--such as establishing a deployment date of a multiple-site NMD system--the bill would jeopardize Russian implementation of the START I and START II Treaties, which involve the elimination of many thousands of strategic nuclear weapons. The bill's unwarranted imposition, through funding restrictions, of a unilateral ABM /TMD demarcation interpretation would similarly jeopardize these reductions, and would raise significant international legal issues as well as fundamental constitutional issues regarding the President's authority over the conduct of foreign affairs. These serious consequences argue for conducting the proposed Senate review of the ABM Treaty before considering such drastic and far-reaching measures.

Unless these provisions are eliminated or significantly modified, they threaten to undermine fundamental national security interests of the United States. I will continue to do everything possible to work with the Senate to see that these priorities are not compromised.

Sincerely,

William J. Perry.