Washington, DC. August 2, 1995.

Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to you to express my deep concern over certain provisions in S. 1026, the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996. Specifically, S. 1026 contains missile defense and ABM Treaty related provisions that raise serious constitutional, foreign policy and national security concerns. Unless these provisions are removed or modified I will oppose this bill.

If enacted into law, the provisions related to missile defenses and the ABM Treaty would put the U.S. on a path to violate the ABM Treaty by developing for deployment a non-compliant, multi-site National Missile Defense (NMD) by the year 2003. Such a program is unnecessary and would place the START I and START II Treaties at risk.

Successive Administrations have supported the continued viability of the ABM Treaty as the best way to preserve and enhance our national security. Not only has it been critical to preventing an arms race, but it has also made possible the extraordinary progress that both Republican and Democratic Administrations have made in reducing strategic offensive arms. Our allies, including Britain and France, also view the ABM Treaty as crucial to strategic stability and the viability of their own independent nuclear deterrents.

Another provision seeks unilaterally to impose a solution to the on-going negotiations with the Russians on the ABM /TMD demarcation. By prohibiting the obligation and expenditure of funds to implement Article VI(a) of the ABM Treaty according to any interpretation except the interpretation specified in the bill, the bill would infringe upon the President's exclusive responsibility for the execution of the law and would impair the conduct of foreign relations consistent with U.S. treaty obligations.

Further, such actions would immediately call into question the U.S. commitment to the ABM Treaty, and have a negative impact on U.S.-Russian relations, Russian implementation of the START I Treaty, and Russian ratification of the START II Treaty. This would leave thousands of warheads in place that otherwise would be removed from deployment under the two Treaties, including all MIRVed ICBMs such as the Russian heavy SS-18.

There is no need now to take actions that would lead us to violate the Treaty and threaten the stabilizing reductions we would otherwise achieve--and place strategic stability at risk. We have established a treaty-compliant approach to theater missile defense that will enable us to meet threats we may face in the foreseeable future--and one that preserves all the benefits of the ABM , START and START II Treaties.

I hope that you will join with me to ensure that future generations enjoy the benefit of these treaties and remove these provisions that place these benefits at risk.

Sincerely,

Warren Christopher.