[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[SENAT]
[Pages 17601-17603]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    THE NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this morning I noticed in the Washington 
Times newspaper that President Clinton has signed the bill we authored 
here in the Senate, the National Missile Defense Act. This is very 
important legislation which the Senate passed after a lot of debate. 
The House and the Senate then reconciled differences between the House-
passed measure and the Senate bill and sent the bill to the President.
  The President made a statement in connection with his signing the 
bill which raises some questions that I thought should be addressed by 
a comment this morning. After talking about the fact that he is signing 
the bill to address the growing danger that rogue nations may develop 
and field long-range missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass 
destruction against the United States and our allies, he then has this 
to say in his message. He is referring to the fact that authorization 
and appropriations measures will be a part of the process in terms of 
when and how and to what extent the funding is available for national 
missile defense.

       This interpretation, which is confirmed by the legislative 
     record taken as a whole, is also required to avoid a possible 
     impairment of my constitutional authorities.

  The President is suggesting that the bill doesn't mean what it says. 
I think that has to be brought to the attention of the Senate. The bill 
is very clear. It provides that it is the policy of the United States, 
upon enactment of this law, to deploy a national missile defense system 
as soon as technologically possible. That is unequivocal. It does not 
say ``but if.'' It is a change in policy of our Government. It has 
passed

[[Page 17602]]

both Houses by a large majority, and now the President has signed the 
statute.
  It seems to me the President is trying to reinterpret the bill to 
justify changing his position on this issue. He signed the bill; he 
didn't veto it. This is not a veto message. He could have vetoed the 
bill, if he disagreed with the terms, and given Congress an opportunity 
to review that veto message and override the veto or sustain it, as the 
Congress' will dictates.
  I point this out to suggest that it is clear we have changed our 
policy, irrespective of the President's qualms about the new policy, 
and we now are committed as a nation to deploy a national missile 
defense system. We will do so in the orderly course of authorization 
and appropriation bills that we pass, as required. We have an annual 
appropriations bill funding all of the activities of the Department of 
Defense. But it is clear that one of those activities will be the 
continued research, development, and deployment of a national missile 
defense system.
  I think it is very timely to point this out because the Prime 
Minister of Russia is coming to the United States. There will be talks 
this week with the President.
  I am hopeful, and I urge the President to be honest with the Russian 
leadership about the need to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 
because the first part of that treaty says that neither signatory will 
deploy a missile defense system to protect the territory of its nation. 
But we have just changed the law of the United States to say that is 
our intention. We are committed to deploying a missile defense system 
that will protect the territory of the United States.
  So, insofar as that is inconsistent with the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty, the treaty needs to be changed, and our President should say 
that to the Prime Minister of Russia unequivocally--not we ``may'' 
change our mind when it comes time to authorize a deployment or to fund 
a deployment.
  The decision has been made to deploy a system, and when technology 
permits us to deploy an effective missile defense system under the 
terms of this act, we are going to do it irrespective of the provisions 
of that treaty. So we must change the treaty. And we want to assure the 
Russians that we are not targeting them. We are not trying to create a 
new era of tension or competition or to make this a more dangerous 
relationship--just the opposite; we want to be aboveboard, candid, and 
honest with the Russians.
  That is what I hope the President will do as a spokesman for our 
country.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the statement 
by the President at his signing of the National Missile Defense Act be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        White House Briefing Room,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                   The White House, July 23, 1999.

                       Statement by the President

       I have signed into law H.R. 4, the ``National Missile 
     Defense Act of 1999.'' My Administration is committed to 
     addressing the growing danger that rogue nations may develop 
     and field long-range missiles capable of delivering weapons 
     of mass destruction against the United States and our allies.
       Section 2 of this Act states that it is the policy of the 
     United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible 
     an effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system with 
     funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations 
     and the annual appropriation of funds for NMD. By specifying 
     that any NMD deployment must be subject to the authorization 
     and appropriations process, the legislation makes clear that 
     no decision on deployment has been made. This interpretation, 
     which is confirmed by the legislative record taken as a 
     whole, is also required to avoid any possible impairment of 
     my constitutional authorities.
       Section 3 of that Act states that it is the policy of the 
     United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in 
     Russian nuclear forces. Thus, section 3 puts the Congress on 
     record as continuing to support negotiated reductions in 
     strategic nuclear arms, reaffirming my Administration's 
     position that our missile defense policy must take into 
     account our arms control and nuclear nonproliferation 
     objectives.
       Next year, we will, for the first time, determine whether 
     to deploy a limited National Missile Defense, when we review 
     the results of flight tests and other developmental efforts, 
     consider cost estimates, and evaluate the threat. Any NMD 
     system we deploy must be operationally effective, cost-
     effective, and enhance our security. In making our 
     determination, we will also review progress in achieving our 
     arms control objectives, including negotiating any amendments 
     to the ABM Treaty that may be required to accommodate a 
     possible NMD deployment.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of this morning's report contained in the Washington Times written 
by Bill Gertz describing the issue and the President's actions also be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, July 26, 1999]

   Clinton Signs Bill for Missile Defense--Says He's Not Required to 
                               Deploy It

                             By Bill Gertz

       President Clinton has signed into law a bill that says U.S. 
     policy is to deploy a nationwide defense against long-range 
     missiles as soon as the technology is available.
       The president signed the legislation Friday but issued a 
     statement saying the law does not obligate him to deploy the 
     national missile defense, remarks that will likely upset 
     congressional Republicans in favor of deployment.
       The National Missile Defense (NMD) Act states that it is 
     U.S. policy to deploy ``as soon as technologically possible'' 
     a system of interceptors, radar and communications gear that 
     can shoot down an incoming long-range missile.
       Mr. Clinton said the law on deployment is subject to 
     funding by annual authorization and appropriations for 
     national missile defense.
       ``By specifying that any [national missile defense] 
     deployment must be subject to the authorization and 
     appropriations process, the legislation makes clear that no 
     decision on deployment has been made,'' Mr. Clinton said.
       ``This interpretation, which is confirmed by the 
     legislative record taken as a whole, is also required to 
     avoid any possible impairment of my constitutional 
     authorities.''
       Mr. Clinton said the legislation also calls for continuing 
     to seek negotiations with Russia on reducing nuclear forces, 
     ``reaffirming my administration's position that our missile 
     defense policy must take into account our arms control and 
     nuclear nonproliferation objectives.''
       The president remains opposed to deploying a missile 
     defense because it will upset arms reductions and 
     negotiations with Moscow. Mr. Clinton has said the 1972 Anti-
     Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty is the ``cornerstone'' of 
     strategic relations with Russia and must be preserved.
       The administration announced earlier this year that it 
     would begin talks--not negotiations--with Moscow on changing 
     the ABM treaty to allow deployment.
       The issue is expected to come up this week in talks between 
     senior U.S. officials and visiting Russian Prime Minister 
     Sergei Stepashin.
       Mr. Stepashin will also discuss beginning a new round of 
     arms reduction talks even though Russia's Duma has failed for 
     several years to ratify the START II strategic arms pact.
       The U.S. Senate, which ratified START II in 1996, 
     conditioned its approval on Russian ratification of the 
     treaty and prohibited the United States from cutting its 
     nuclear forces to START II levels until Russia's parliament 
     approves the treaty.
       Many Republicans in Congress have said the ABM treaty is 
     outdated and fails to take into account emerging long-range 
     missile threats from China, North Korea and other nations.
       A special congressional commission on missile threats 
     stated in a report last year that long-range missile threats 
     to the United States could emerge with little or no warning. 
     The commission, headed by former Defense Secretary Donald 
     Rumsfeld, boosted efforts by missile defense proponents and 
     led to bipartisan support for the Missile Defense Act signed 
     by Mr. Clinton.
       Mr. Clinton said in his statement that a decision on 
     whether to deploy a limited national missile defense will be 
     made next year based on flight tests and other developmental 
     efforts, cost estimates and an evaluation of the threat.
       ``Any NMD system we deploy must be operationally effective, 
     cost-effective, and enhance our security,'' Mr. Clinton said. 
     ``In making our determination, we will also review progress 
     in achieving our arms control objectives including 
     negotiating any amendments to the ABM treaty that may be 
     required to accommodate a possible NMD deployment.''
       Mr. Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed 
     during a meeting in Germany last month to hold talks this 
     fall on possible changes in the ABM treaty.
       White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger told 
     reporters at the time

[[Page 17603]]

     that the administration would make no decision on deploying 
     missile defenses until June 2000. Mr. Berger also indicated 
     that ABM treaty changes might be needed to accommodate a 
     missile defense ``if we were to deploy one.''
       Russia has opposed any changes at the ABM treaty, which 
     states that neither side will build missile defenses that 
     cover their entire national territory.
       Russia has a limited, single missile defense site set up 
     around Moscow. The United States has no defense against long-
     range missiles.
       A senior White House official has said that the funding and 
     authorization language of the Missile Defense Act is a 
     loophole that allows that president to avoid having to deploy 
     a national missile defense.
       However, Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican and 
     chief sponsor of the legislation, has said the legislation is 
     unambiguous.
       Mr. Cochran said the administration should be honest about 
     the need for ABM treaty changes.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________