[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4548-4549]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support and am a proud sponsor of 
S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. If enacted, it would 
make the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is 
technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system 
capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited 
ballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized, or 
deliberate.
  As I go around the country and I talk about this issue, people are 
surprised, stunned, to hear that we do not have this missile defense 
capability right now. They think that if there happened to be a rogue 
missile launched, accidentally or even intended, we would be able to 
just knock that out, no problem. When they find out we do not have that 
technology in place now, they are greatly alarmed.
  So I commend the principal sponsors of this bipartisan legislation, 
Senator Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Inouye of Hawaii, for their 
diligent efforts to ensure that all 50 States--indeed, all Americans--
enjoy protection against missile attack.
  My colleagues are aware that similar legislation has been brought 
before the Senate before--twice last year--and twice we failed, just 
one vote short of cutting off a filibuster. I am glad it appears we may 
not have a filibuster this time, that we can deal with the substance of 
this bill and we can vote on amendments and hopefully get to final 
passage, because it is clear there is bipartisan support and the 
realization that we need to move forward.
  I know there are those who are concerned that it could be 
misinterpreted what we are trying to do here and what are the 
ramifications with regard to the ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty. My answer to that is that we should make it clear what our 
intentions are. This is a defensive mechanism; this is to go forward 
and develop the technology, and when we have that technology, then we 
should move to deploy it. But we would have time to explain to one and 
all--whether it is Russia, members of the Russian Duma or the 
federation in Russia, their leadership, or members of the Israeli 
Knesset--what our intentions are.
  To make sure that is done, I have been discussing with the President 
and with Senator Daschle, and with others on both sides of the aisle, 
the idea that we should set up a working group, patterned after the 
example of the arms control observer group that served us quite well 
during the 1980s and early 1990s when we were dealing with the

[[Page 4549]]

SALT treaties and we were trying to get disarmament agreements worked 
out in Europe and with the Soviet Union.
  We had Senators and Members of Congress who met with representatives 
of the then Soviet Government. We went to the Soviet Union. We had them 
come here. We had meetings in Geneva. And I believe that Members of the 
Senate who were involved will tell you it was very helpful. I discussed 
it with Senator Moynihan just yesterday at lunch, and he said clearly 
when he went to Geneva and met with the Russians and explained what our 
intentions were, and they talked about their concerns about cruise 
missiles in Europe, that everybody had a better understanding.
  So what I have advocated is that we set up a group which would be 
entitled something like this, although I am not wedded to a title, but 
the national security and missile defense working group, and that 
Senator Cochran would chair that group. I understand Senator Daschle 
has some Senators in mind on his side of the aisle--it would be equally 
divided--who would be involved in this effort. It would be a follow-on 
to what we are trying to do with the National Missile Defense Act. I 
hope that before this day is out we can set up this group and it will 
represent a broad cross section of the Senate so that everybody will 
understand what is intended.
  There are real dangers here. ``The threat is real, serious, and 
growing.'' That is not my quote. That is a quote of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, an analyst who works in this critical area.
  Let me recite what has happened since March of last year: Pakistan 
launched a medium-range missile that it acquired from North Korea; 
China and North Korea continue to provide Pakistan with technical and 
other assistance on missiles and nuclear weapons; Iran launched a 
medium-range missile. The original design also came from North Korea. 
It was improved by technology that it has been receiving from Russia 
and China. Up to this day, Russian companies are still exchanging 
technology and information with Iran. They are developing greater 
capability. That is extremely dangerous.
  While Congress has expressed its concern about this, the 
administration has even taken actions against certain companies in 
Russia. It continues to this very moment. We know that Iran is 
interested in developing and acquiring a long-range missile that could 
reach--yes--the United States as well as European capitals and that 
Tehran is benefiting from this extensive assistance from Russia and 
from China.
  North Korea is a very nervous situation. That country launched a 
long-range missile last August that demonstrated both intent and 
capability to deliver payloads over extremely long distances. Having 
been advised of this development, the CIA now concludes that the North 
Koreans ``would be able to use the three-stage configuration as a 
ballistic missile . . . to deliver small payloads to ICBM ranges.'' 
With minor modifications, this missile, the CIA notes, could probably 
reach not only Hawaii and Alaska but also the rest of the United 
States.
  The People's Republic of China, PRC, likewise continues to engage in 
a massive buildup of its missile forces both at the theater level--that 
is aimed against our friend, Taiwan, their neighbor--and the strategic 
level--aimed at, perhaps, even the United States.
  Today the PRC has more than a dozen missiles aimed at American 
cities. Yet, we are told on occasion there is not a missile aimed at 
the United States today. That is not true. The Chinese are in the 
process of developing multiple warheads for those and their next-
generation mobile missiles, which are much more difficult to locate.
  Sadly, there is a serious problem here, and it is one that is 
growing. Just recently, of course, is the situation brought to the 
public's attention regarding China's nuclear espionage and how we are 
dealing with that. There are those wanting to know, How did this 
happen? Who did it? Who is to blame? All of that is interesting and we 
should determine that, but here is the real question: Is it still going 
on? Have we stopped it?
  I think Congress should take a serious look at this situation. We 
need to deal with some laws to make it possible for us to stop this 
sort of espionage. Do they need additional money? We would need to have 
the appropriate briefing from the Energy Department and the CIA to 
judge whether or not additional money should be needed.
  This post-cold-war era is a unique time, but it is also a dangerous 
time. It is a time when historically, reviewing what we have done in 
the past, we drop our guard when there appears to be times of calm and 
peace, but I think that is when we are at our greatest danger. Our 
inability to defend against incoming accidental or rogue-launched 
missiles is our Achilles' heel. It is where we are in the greatest 
danger. Would we not act? Should we not begin the process now? The 
truth of the matter is we should have already done it. If we don't, 
there will come a time soon--perhaps early in the millennium--when we 
will, in fact, be threatened and in serious danger.
  This National Missile Defense Act will get us started. It will be the 
kind of progress we need. We will still have to make the decisions 
about the appropriations and when we actually go forward with 
deployment. I sense there has been movement in the Senate on this 
issue. I know there has been movement in the administration on this 
issue. Now is the time to act. I hope the Senate will do it in an 
expeditious and bipartisan manner. I believe we will look back on this 
bill and this vote as one of the most significant votes that we take in 
the year 1999.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________