[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 146 (Monday, October 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S13087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MODERNIZATION OF THE ABM TREATY

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I rise today on a substantive issue 
which has caused me considerable concern recently. It has to do with 
the issue of our national missile defense and the fact we passed 
legislation earlier this year on that subject, and we now hear the 
administration discussing its options under the National Missile 
Defense Act. We hear responses from around the world about the intent 
we have that is now in our law to deploy a limited national defense 
system. I want to speak on that subject for a minute or two.
  When we passed the National Missile Defense Act, we all realized, and 
the President did, too, when he signed it, that the ABM Treaty, the 
antiballistic missile defense treaty, that exists between the United 
States and Russia, prohibits the deployment of a national missile 
defense system and that the treaty would have to be amended if it was 
to remain in force.
  Some statements being made on the subject now by our own 
administration, as well as by Russian officials, cause me considerable 
concern. For example, the Secretary of State recently said that the 
administration was examining ``the possibility of adjusting [the ABM 
Treaty] slightly in order to have a National Missile Defense.''
  Since article I of the treaty expressly prohibits a national missile 
defense, the Secretary's suggestion that only a slight adjustment is 
required in the treaty language is a huge understatement, and it is 
likely to mislead the Russians and others as well.
  The National Missile Defense Act acknowledges our policy of pursuing 
arms control arrangements, but it requires the deployment of a limited 
national missile defense which contradicts the initial premise of the 
ABM Treaty.
  A number of Russian Government officials have said they will not 
negotiate changes in the ABM Treaty. A Russian foreign ministry 
spokesman has been quoted as saying it is ``absolutely unacceptable to 
make any changes in the key provisions of the treaty and the Russian 
side does not intend to depart from this position.''
  A Russian defense ministry official has said: ``There can be no 
compromise on this issue.''
  Additionally, it has been reported that Russian and Chinese 
Government representatives have introduced a resolution in the U.N. 
General Assembly demanding the United States forego deployment of a 
missile defense system and strictly comply with the treaty's 
prohibition on territorial defense.
  It is entirely inappropriate for the U.N. to consider seriously a 
resolution that would presume to dictate to the United States what we 
should or should not do in defense of our own national security. 
Ballistic missile threats are real and have caused our Government to 
adopt a policy that requires a deployed national missile defense.
  It is my fervent hope our own Government will acknowledge clearly 
that the National Missile Defense Act means what it says and stop 
encouraging misunderstanding by the Russians, the Chinese, or anyone 
else of our intentions to defend ourselves against ballistic missile 
attack. We also hope the point will be made that we are not trying to 
undermine or threaten Russia's missile deterrent.
  Our relationship with Russia has improved considerably in recent 
years. I hope this new era of mutual respect and understanding will 
continue to be strengthened. We are getting into an unfortunate 
situation, however, where candor and honest exchange of information and 
intentions are taking a back seat to half-truths and bluster. The 
latter course will lead to misunderstanding and possibly disaster. At 
no time in the history of the relationship have honesty and unequivocal 
dialog been more important between Russia and the United States. The 
ABM Treaty is out of date and must be changed to reflect today's 
realities. The sooner everyone acknowledges this fact and gets busy 
negotiating the changes that are required, the better off we will all 
be.

                          ____________________