[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4558-4560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 257, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 257) to state the policy of the United States 
     regarding the deployment of a missile defense system capable 
     of defending the territory of the United States against 
     limited ballistic missile attack.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Cochran Amendment No. 69, to clarify that the deployment 
     funding is subject to the annual authorization and 
     appropriation process.


                            Amendment No. 69

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour of debate on the 
pending Cochran amendment No. 69, to be divided equally between the 
chairman and ranking member, or their designees.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, yesterday, we began debate of the 
National Missile Defense Act of 1999. We have reached a point where we 
will soon be voting on an amendment that seeks to more clearly define 
the context for this legislation and the purpose we see that it will 
serve. This legislation is a statement of a new policy for our 
Government with respect to the need to develop and deploy a national 
missile defense system as soon as technology permits.
  It is very clear from recent developments that we identified 
yesterday that we are confronted with a very real threat to our 
national security interests from ballistic missile technology, the 
proliferation of this technology, and the capacity of other countries 
to use it to deliver weapons of mass destruction against the territory 
of the United States.
  Americans today are completely vulnerable to a ballistic missile 
attack. We need to see that that is changed. We need to see that the 
technology that we have available to us is used to develop and deploy a 
defense against ballistic missile attack to protect American security 
interests and American citizens.

[[Page 4559]]

  During the discussion yesterday, there was some suggestion that 
administration officials and military officials in our country were 
opposed to this legislation. I must say that I heard some of these 
officials testify at hearings, and I disagree with that conclusion. I 
think there is ample evidence in the record of our Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee hearings, and in other statements that 
officials have made, both civilian and military officials, to the media 
about their views on this subject, that we can draw a completely 
different conclusion from the conclusion that was expressed yesterday 
by some of those who participated in this debate.
  Let me give you one example. The other day, on March 3, I was in a 
meeting of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We were having a 
hearing reviewing the request for funds for the Department of Defense 
for the next fiscal year. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Hamre, 
was a witness, and we started a discussion about whether or not the 
administration interpreted this legislation that is pending now in the 
Senate to mean that the Department of Defense should disregard measures 
relating to the operational effectiveness of developmental testing in 
determining whether the national missile defense system is 
technologically ready to provide an effective defense against limited 
ballistic missile attack.
  I asked Dr. Hamre, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, what his 
interpretation of that legislation was, and if he read the language in 
a way that suggested we would be deploying an operationally ineffective 
system or would require the administration to do so. Here is what the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense said. I am quoting.

       No, sir . . . I read the language that it says that you 
     would still expect us to be good program managers. You would 
     still expect us to do testing, disciplined rigorous testing. 
     Not slowing things up just to test for test's sake but to do 
     disciplined testing and know that it really would be 
     effective and that it really would work.

  So it is clear from that response to my question that in the mind of 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense this bill does not require deployment 
of a missile defense system that is operationally ineffective. On the 
contrary, he understands clearly, as do the cosponsors of this 
legislation, that we would put in place a policy and a practice that is 
common and ordinary in the acquisition process in our Department of 
Defense.
  Finally, to those who suggest that a deployment decision should wait 
yet another evaluation of the threat, which was one of the four 
additional criteria outlined yesterday by the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, I think a quote attributed to General Lyles, who is the 
Director of the Ballistic Missile Organization, might be helpful. He 
was asked again at a January press conference whether another 
evaluation of the threat would be necessary when the administration 
gave the go-ahead for production of the national missile defense 
system. This is what he said. I quote:

       The key decision will be on the technological readiness. My 
     statement about looking at the threat, that's something we do 
     for all programs all the time. So yes, we will again look at 
     the threat. But as the Secretary stated, we are affirming 
     today that the threat is real and growing, so that's not an 
     issue. But we will always look at the threat to see has it 
     changed, is it coming from a different source, etc.? That's 
     part of anything we do for any program.

  So there is really no question in the minds of the military managers 
and the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense about the 
threat. In General Lyles' view, or in the view of Dr. Hamre, and as 
stated, as Senators know, by the Secretary of Defense, our former 
colleague, former Senator Cohen, it is routine and a matter of course 
that there will be a continued evaluation and a monitoring of the 
threat. But the question as to whether the threat of ballistic missile 
attack exists now against the United States has been more clearly 
demonstrated by the actions of North Korea than any other thing anybody 
can say. The evidence is hard and clear and obvious. There is a 
capability now in North Korea to launch a missile--multiple stage--with 
a solid fuel, third stage, with a capacity to reach the territory of 
the United States.
  As Secretary Cohen said when he came to talk to Senators not too long 
ago, ``We have checked the threat box.'' ``We have checked the threat 
box.'' The threat is clear. It is present. The threat exists.
  That is why the administration's policy of waiting to see whether a 
threat develops to then decide whether we deploy a system that we have 
developed is an outdated policy and needs to be replaced with a current 
policy that matches the facts and the realities of our situation.
  That is why this legislation is needed, and that is why this 
amendment is important, because it restates that the policy will be 
subject to the annual review of the authorization committees, of the 
appropriations committees, as every defense acquisition system is under 
current practices. That is what this pending amendment suggests--that 
we will see the jurisdictional responsibilities for authorizing a 
deployment, and funding the deployment will be constrained by budget 
considerations, by the realities of the threat as it then exists on the 
regular annual processes that this Congress follows each year.
  The administration will have an opportunity to sign those bills, or 
veto them. So we are not changing the policies, or practices, or rules, 
or the laws that govern the appropriations and the authorization 
processes of Congress. That is what this amendment clearly suggests.
  I am hopeful that with this further information that is available to 
the Senate as we proceed to wind up debate on this amendment Senators 
will ask whatever questions they have, and we will be glad to try to 
respond to them.
  We appreciate having the cosponsorship for this amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, who is the senior 
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Warner, who 
is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Lieberman, 
who is also active in the review and assistance on this issue.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend and congratulate my colleague 
from Mississippi for his leadership in this area.
  Most respectfully and candidly, I must say that I have been a bit 
surprised and saddened by the attacks made upon this measure. This 
bill, in my mind, is a wake-up call. It is telling all of us that there 
is a threat. Anyone who studies North Korea, anyone who looks at the 
Soviet Union, anyone who has taken time to study the situation in Iraq 
and Iran, would have to conclude that there is a threat. This measure 
does not deploy any ballistic missile defense system. It just tells us 
it is about time we begin looking to the possibility of deploying a 
system.
  As the author of this measure has pointed out very clearly, we would 
have to go through the regular process of authorization. This Senate 
and this Congress will have an opportunity to have a full-scale debate, 
to debate whether we have the funds, whether the threat is real, 
whether there is a necessity for this system. Then it will have to go 
through the appropriations process. At each level, the President of the 
United States will have an opportunity of either concurring or vetoing 
our efforts. We are not in any way short-circuiting the process that 
has been laid down by our Founding Fathers. We are following the 
process. But we are, in essence, telling our Nation: Wake up. There is 
a threat, and it is about time we look at it seriously.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor, not only of the amendment but of the 
bill itself. It is about time somebody took the leadership to do what 
Senator Cochran has been doing. So I hope my colleagues will reconsider 
their opposition, look at it very objectively, and I am certain they 
will concur with us.
  For those who have been criticizing that this is going to be a very 
expensive bill, there is not a single dollar in this measure--not a 
single dollar. That will have to be determined at a later time if the 
Congress so decides.

[[Page 4560]]

  I hope my colleagues on my side will join us when the final vote is 
taken to support this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that under the order we are going 
to recess at 12:30, and then the order provides for 1 hour of debate on 
this amendment and then a vote at 2:15.
  I am going to recommend--I do not know what the pleasure of the 
leadership will be--that we go ahead and have that vote and yield back 
the time on the amendment. That is going to be my recommendation to our 
leader on this side of the aisle. I don't know that we left anything 
out in our debate yesterday. We had time from 3 o'clock until 6:30 
yesterday evening when we debated this issue and all of the issues that 
were involved. But I am happy to abide by whatever decision the 
leadership makes on that. I am just suggesting, for my part I will be 
happy to yield back our time on the amendment so we can vote at 2:15 
when we resume our session after lunch.
  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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time for this 
introduction be allocated against the time on this amendment but appear 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 623 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________