[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 154 (Thursday, November 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S13918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE AND THE ABM TREATY

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, recent comments by several Russian 
Government officials about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and our 
plans to deploy a national missile defense are very troubling to me. 
For example, the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov, was quoted last 
week as saying:

       There . . . cannot be any bargaining with the Americans 
     over the anti-ballistic missile defense.

  This may be a clever negotiating tactic, but it is not a very 
productive one. It unnecessarily pushes the United States to make a 
choice between defending ourselves against limited ballistic missile 
threats and withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We have 
already decided, by the adoption of the National Missile Defense Act, 
that we will defend ourselves as soon as technologically feasible 
against limited ballistic missile attack. We should not be forced to 
withdraw from the treaty.
  The Russians should understand that our system is directed at rogue 
threats and will not jeopardize their strategic deterrent force. We 
have an opportunity to work cooperatively to ensure that we are 
protected, both Russia and the United States, against emerging 
ballistic missile threats without undermining strategic deterrence.
  The ABM Treaty needs to be changed to permit the deployment of 
defenses against limited ballistic missile threats and to allow the 
parties to utilize new defensive technologies. There should be no 
restrictions, for example, on the use of sensor capabilities such as 
the space-based infrared system and cooperative engagement capability. 
We should also be able to take advantage of new basing modes and 
advanced technologies such as the airborne laser.
  The ABM Treaty must be interpreted to allow the parties to use the 
best technologies that are available in their own defense against rogue 
threats. The strategic deterrent of each nation can be preserved at the 
same time limited missile defenses are permitted and considered 
acceptable under the ABM Treaty.
  Another Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said last week:

       Russia does not see as acceptable such an ``adaptation" of 
     this treaty. Russia will not be a participant in destroying 
     the ABM Treaty.

  The Russian Government's contention that adapting the ABM Treaty to 
modern realities is akin to destroying it is unfortunate. In fact, the 
opposite is true. To refuse to adapt this treaty to the new realities 
is to guarantee its irrelevance.
  One reality is the new ballistic missile threat. The other is that 
the United States is going to respond to this threat and protect itself 
by deploying a missile defense system. The sooner the Russians 
understand our commitment to defend ourselves, the more likely it is we 
can agree to sensible modifications of the ABM Treaty for our mutual 
benefit and safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________