[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10691-S10692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     RUSSIAN STATEMENTS REGARDING THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the National Missile Defense Act makes it 
the policy of the United States to deploy a limited national missile 
defense system as soon as the technology to do so is ready. This act 
was passed by large margins in both Houses. Because the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile or ABM Treaty prohibits such a system, that treaty must be 
modified.
  That point was made in the debate on the National Missile Defense Act 
in the Senate, and it is the reason why administration officials have 
engaged the Russian Government in discussions on modifying the treaty. 
These discussions began last month in Moscow, and I am pleased that 
staff members of the Senate's National Security Working Group were able 
to attend and be briefed on the progress of those talks. Deputy 
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is in Moscow for further negotiations 
on this and other important issues.
  But I am very disturbed by reported comments of Russian officials on 
this subject. Today, for example, it was reported that Mr. Roman 
Popkovich, Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian Parliament, 
said that if the United States builds a missile defense system, Russia 
may respond by ``developing an entirely new kind of offensive weapon.'' 
Mr. Popkovich was also quoted in this story as saying, ``No anti-
missile defense will be able to stop our new missiles.''
  His are not the first such comments we have heard about modifying the 
ABM Treaty. The lead Russian negotiator, Grigory Berdennikov, said the 
mere raising of the issue meant ``the arms race could now leap to outer 
space.'' Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of International Cooperation in the 
Russian Ministry of Defense, said that modifying the treaty ``would be 
to destroy the entire process of nuclear arms control.''
  I don't know the motivations for such statements, but I believe they 
deserve a response. There should be no misunderstanding of our Nation's 
intentions with respect to national missile defense. We face a real and 
growing threat of ballistic missile attack from rogue states or outlaw 
nations. That threat is advancing, often in unanticipated ways. The 
U.S. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from this threat.
  It is our policy, which is now set in law, to deploy a system to 
defend against limited attack by ballistic missiles as soon as 
technologically possible. The system we intend to deploy in no way 
threatens the strategic retaliatory force of Russia. The ABM Treaty, an 
agreement between two nuclear superpowers engaged in an arms buildup in 
1972, prohibits such a system and must be modernized. I am sure Russian 
officials know all of this. They have been briefed repeatedly on the 
U.S. assessment of the threat. They have been briefed repeatedly on 
U.S. plans for national missile defense and know as well as we do that 
the system we contemplate is not directed at Russia and poses no threat 
to its forces.

[[Page S10692]]

  So the statements of Mr. Popkovich and the other Russian officials 
essentially threatening an arms race if the U.S. does what it must do 
to protect its citizens are very disappointing. They sound like 
something from the past, an echo of the cold war that is over.
  The United States has embarked in good faith in discussions about the 
need to modernize the ABM Treaty. We negotiated in good faith with 
Russia when it demanded changes to the Conventional Forces in Europe 
Treaty in order to enable Russia to adapt to changed circumstances. It 
would be unfortunate if the United States were put in the position of 
choosing between defending its citizens and adhering to an outdated 
agreement because we have already determined that we will defend 
ourselves.
  I am confident the Senate will not accept an arrangement in which the 
U.S. continues to be vulnerable to new threats because of a 27-year-old 
agreement that is so clearly out of date. What is needed now is for the 
rhetoric to be cooled, for threats about arms races and new missiles to 
be set aside, and let serious and fruitful discussions proceed. It is 
in not only our interest for that to happen but Russia's as well.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________