Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand from both sides that those who are listed under the order to permit them to offer amendments do not intend to offer the amendments, and I know of no other Senators who are seeking recognition. I would suggest that we have come to the time when we could have third reading of the bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I think Senator Stevens is planning to speak. I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum. Here is our colleague from Michigan. He may want to use some time on the bill. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we were trying to nail down a time for a vote on final passage at 2. Why don't you go ahead and use whatever time you want to use.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, I thank him for discussing the amendment with managers before offering it. As I understand the amendment, it calls for a report on a wide variety of threats facing the United States. S. 257, the pending legislation, is intended to address one of these threats--a limited ballistic missile attack against us for which we have no defense. While these other threats are important, they are not the subject of this bill. We have tried to keep this bill focused on a specific policy question--whether the United States will defend itself against ballistic missile attack. We have tried not to entangle this question in the details of other defense issues, however important they may be. If a report on the many other threats from weapons of mass destruction would be useful, the defense authorization or appropriations bills would be appropriate vehicles for directing such reporting requirements. As a matter of fact, it is our understanding that a similar requirement for a study is being conducted and is being complied with in response to a directive in the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1999. In conclusion, just because there are some threats that we cannot defend against perfectly doesn't mean we should not defend against others. So, while being sympathetic with the suggestion that the Senator is making, we think this can be accomplished; the goal can be accomplished that he has pointed out by using the vehicles of the Intelligence Committee authorization, as is now being done to some extent, and the authorization and appropriations bills that will later be considered by the Senate this year. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I appreciate his allowing me to comment further. So the Record is complete, I would like to read into the Record some comments that I wrote down after considering the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. This bill is intended to establish a broad policy, stating the intent of the United States to defend itself against limited ballistic missile attack. It does not seek to micromanage the Defense Department's conduct of the program. It gives the Department of Defense flexibility in determining whether the national missile defense system is effective and technologically ready for deployment. That decision will be made with congressional involvement and oversight provided by the appropriate committees. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology has stated in testimony before the Armed Services Committee that the criteria to be used by the Defense Department in making such determinations are tailored to the needs of individual programs and the urgency of the threat they are intended to address. So I think with those further statements we show what we consider to be the meaning of the bill, the effect of the bill, and its relationship between the Congress and the administration.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, it seems to me clear from the language in the bill that we contemplate the development of a system that is effective. We use that word--an ``effective'' ballistic missile defense, and that the deployment would take place when it is technologically possible. So when the technology is matured, it is proven to work, and we know the missile system would be effective to defend against ballistic missile attack. That is what the sentiment is. That is the policy that is reflected in the language that is used in the bill. So that is consistent with the intent that this Senator has, as an author of the bill. And in discussing it with other cosponsors, I think that is the sentiment of the Senate and would be reflected in future authorization and appropriations measures. That is another part to this as well. And one of the concerns, I think, with the amendment that the Senator has sent to the desk is that it could be construed, with a delegation of authority to the executive branch, to remove Congress from the decisionmaking process. We think Congress has a very important role to play in oversight and also in the authorization of deployment and the funding of deployment decisions that will be made in this weapons system development and deployment. So those are my reactions, my sentiments. I hope that they are not inconsistent with the concerns of the Senator from New Mexico. And I really do not think they are.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con. Res. 42 be placed on the calendar.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. and begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the missile defense bill, with a limited number of amendments remaining in order. The leader has expressed his hope that the Senate can complete action on the bill by early afternoon on Wednesday. For the remainder of the week, the leader has stated that the Senate may consider a Kosovo resolution and/or the supplemental appropriations bill. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes during Wednesday's session and throughout the reminder of the week.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 257, the national missile defense bill, under the provisions of the unanimous consent agreement reached earlier today.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 17. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Voinovich, 15 minutes; Senator Grassley, 10 minutes; Senator Schumer, 10 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 10 minutes; Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, 15 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 63, introduced earlier today by Senators Moynihan, Lott, and others.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, knowing of no other Senators seeking recognition on the bill, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in light of this agreement limiting amendments, there will be no further votes this evening, and I thank all colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only amendments remaining in order, that they be subject to first- and second-degree amendments where applicable, and they must be relevant to the first-degree they propose to amend. I further ask that all first-degree amendments be limited to 1 hour, equally divided in the usual form for debate, and any second-degree amendments limited to 30 minutes in the usual form. I further ask that following the disposition of the listed amendments, the bill be immediately advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without intervening action or debate, and that no motions be in order other than motions to table. The list is as follows: a Bingaman amendment on operational success of system; Conrad amendment, space-based missile defense; Dorgan amendment on NMD deployment; a second Dorgan amendment on NMD deployment; Harkin amendment on study on relevant risks, and a second amendment on condition on relevant; Kerry amendment, relevant; a Levin amendment, relevant; a Robb amendment, relevant; and a Wellstone amendment, relevant.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we understand that it is possible to reach an agreement on the identity of amendments that are yet to be offered to the bill. I will, on behalf of the leader, propound a unanimous consent request regarding the amendments that would be in order to the bill and a time agreement on each, in the hope that we can complete action on this bill tomorrow and have final passage. If we do get the agreement, we would then proceed to hear any further statements that Senators might have on the bill tonight. Senator Ashcroft, I know, is here and available to speak on the bill, but there would be no further votes on amendments tonight. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and thank her for her contribution to strengthening the legislation. Like the statement of policy already contained in S. 257, this is a straightforward statement of an important national security goal. The high levels of strategic forces deployed during the cold war are no longer necessary in today's vastly changed strategic environment. Already our two countries have reduced levels significantly through START I and will reduce them further under START II. Both policies articulated here, our determination to deploy a missile defense against limited threats and our continued interest in further offensive reductions, are in our interests. Of course, inclusion of both in this bill does not imply that one is contingent upon the other, but that is completely consistent with what we have been saying all along--that defensive and offensive reductions are not incompatible. I urge all Senators to support the amendment. I also urge Senators, if they have other amendments, to let us know about them. I am hoping that we can get an agreement that would identify any other amendments and that we can have a time limit agreed upon with respect to those amendments. If there are no other amendments, it would be our expectation that we could go to third reading within a short period of time. Senators communicating that to the managers or their intentions to the managers would be appreciated very much so we could go forward with the expeditious handling and conclusion of the bill. I yield back whatever time remains, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes for debate on the pending amendment, with the debate divided as follows: 10 minutes for Senator Levin; 5 minutes for Senator Landrieu; 5 minutes for Senator Cochran. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on, or in relation to, the amendment, with no other amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, has anyone propounded the unanimous- consent request?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to see a vote around 4:30, or 4:45 at the latest. But we don't want to cut any Senators off. If others want to speak on this amendment, then we want to encourage them to come over and let us hear their remarks. This is an amendment we are prepared to recommend be approved by the Senate. We think it is a good amendment, noncontroversial, helps the bill, strengthens the bill, and I compliment the distinguished Senator for offering it. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

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.

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. 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.