Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank all staff who worked so hard to make this bill possible and to assist Senators during the deliberation of the bill, particularly those who have worked as members of my staff on this side of the aisle for the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Agriculture: Rebecca Davies, who is the chief clerk; Martha Scott Poindexter; and Rachelle Schroeder. I also want to commend a member of my personal staff who was on the floor and contributed in a very important way to the work on this bill, Hunter Moorhead. Without their good assistance it would not have been possible to have such a good work product as this bill represents. It was a pleasure working for the first time with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin as chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl. He did an excellent job, he and his fine staff, particularly Mr. Fountain, with whom we have worked for several years, and the others. We appreciate very much their cooperation and their excellent professional assistance. I hope Senators appreciate the fact that without the staff we have, their talent, their hard work, and their experience, it would have been impossible to get to the point we did tonight for final passage of this bill. For that, I am very grateful to all of them.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the catfish industry in the United States is being victimized by a fish product from Vietnam that is labeled as farm-raised catfish. Since 1997, the volume of Vietnamese frozen fish filets has increased from 500,000 pounds to over 7 million pounds per year. U.S. Catfish farm production, which is located primarily in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, accounts for 50 percent of the total value of all U.S. aquaculture production. Catfish farmers in the Mississippi Delta region have spent $50 million to establish a market for North American Catfish. The Vietnamese fish industry is penetrating the United States fish market by labeling fish products to create the impression they are farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese ``Basa'' fish that are being imported from Vietnam are grown in cages along the Mekong River Delta. Unlike other imported fish, Basa fish are imported as an intended substitute for U.S. farm-raised catfish, and in some instances, their product packaging imitates U.S brands and logos. this false labeling of Vietnamese Basa fish is misleading American consumers at supermarkets and restaurants. According to a taxonomy analysis from the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, the Vietnamese Basa fish is not even of the same family or species as the North American Channel Catfish. This amendment will prevent the Food and Drug Administration from allowing admission of fish or fish products not taxonomically in the same family as North American farm-raised catfish. U.S. catfish farmers have invested millions of dollars to develop a market for the North American catfish. This amendment will help ensure that fish products are properly identified so that consumers are not deceived by the improper labeling.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I also with to support the recommendations from the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished subcommittee chairman. audubon sugar institute

Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing this important project to the committee's attention and also hope the agency can find a way to do the feasibility study on this project. agricultural research service

Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senate bringing this to our attention. We will look into it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am constrained to say a few words in defense of the committee's decisions with regard to the total overall spending in this bill. It is below the President's budget request. Twenty-two percent of the funds in this bill are discretionary; 78 percent of the funds in the bill are mandatory--mandatory, meaning there is legislation directing the spending be made to those that are defined as eligible for the benefits under the law, under statutes that have been passed by Congress and are now the law of the land. So the subcommittee, in working to identify the appropriate levels of funding, has to look at the law, provide the funds that the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the other agencies funded in this bill say will be due and owing by the Government under statutes that require the money to be paid. Here is an example of one of the programs. It is the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program. The participation in that program is defined by law. The eligibility for participation is defined by law. If someone is eligible and presents themselves to a facility where the program is administered, they are entitled to the benefits. They are entitled to medical care. They are entitled to food supplements. And the funding for that has to be appropriated. So this bill contains funding for the WIC Program. I mentioned, in earlier comments, that we may have to appropriate more money in a supplemental later on for the WIC Program because participation is outstripping the predictions. So far this year, in this new fiscal year that started October 1, we can see the trend is such that we may not have appropriated enough money for that program. The Senate will approve that request if it comes from the Department, if it comes from the President, for a supplemental for that program. Food Stamps is another program. Because of higher rates of unemployment than we had last year, the Food Stamp Program participation has begun to increase. So there are increases for those program activities. There are farm programs, as the Senator correctly described, that require the payment of dollars to those who are eligible for support in agricultural production. That also is defined by law. We don't decide how much each person gets in this appropriations bill. That has already been decided when we passed the farm bill. This bill provides the funds to the Department to make the program dollar payments that are required by law to the eligible beneficiaries. On the discretionary funding side, the 22 percent of the funds in this bill over which we did have total control, we came in under the President's budget request. That is the point I wanted to make on that. On the part of the budget the Congress controls and on which this Appropriations Committee is making decisions with respect to dollar amounts, we are under the President's budget request. So to accuse the committee of throwing money around that is not needed, funding programs that are not justified, doesn't hold up when we look at the exact spending levels compared with the budget request, compared with the economic conditions, compared with the statutes that require funding for specific purposes under the law. The committee has done a good job, in my opinion. That is why the Senator from Wisconsin and I are proud to present this bill to the Senate today, and we hope the Senate will support it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Joint Resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, Senators Frist and Leahy are cosponsors. The Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recently recommended the following distinguished individual for appointment to a six year term effective December 8, 2001: Patricia Q. Stonsifer of Washington. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of her biography be included in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Joint Resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, Senators Frist and Leahy are cosponsors. The Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recently recommended the following distinguished individual for appointment to a six year term effective December 8, 2001: Patricia Q. Stonsifer of Washington. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of her biography be included in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the catfish industry in the United States is being victimized by a fish product from Vietnam that is labeled as farm-raised catfish. Since 1997, the volume of Vietnamese frozen fish filets has increased from 500,000 pounds to over 7 million pounds per year. U.S. catfish farm production, which is located primarily in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, accounts for 50 percent of the total value of all U.S. aquaculture production. Catfish farmers in the Mississippi Delta region have spent $50 million to establish a market for North American catfish. The Vietnamese fish industry is penetrating the United States fish market by falsely labeling fish products to create the impression they are farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese ``basa'' fish that are being imported from Vietnam are grown in cages along the Mekong River Delta. Unlike other imported fish, basa fish are imported as an intended substitute for U.S. farm-raised catfish, and in some instances, their product packaging imitates U.S. brands and logos. This false labeling of Vietnamese basa fish is misleading American consumers at supermarkets and restaurants. According to a taxonomy analysis from the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, the Vietnamese basa fish is not even of the same family or species as the North American channel catfish. The trade agreement with Vietnam, unfortunately, will allow the Vietnamese fish industry to enhance its ability to ship more mislabeled fish products into this country, and under the procedure for consideration of this agreement it is not subject to amendment. However, I hope the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration will review its previous decisions on this issue and take steps to ensure the trade practices of the Vietnamese fish industry are fair and do not mislead American consumers.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. The resolution before the Senate should be considered by those who have planned and perpetrated the heinous attacks in New York City and Washington as more than a warning. It is a promise that will be kept. We pledge today our whole hearted support for President Bush and his commitment to hunt down those responsible for these atrocities and to punish them in a way that is commensurate with their horrible acts. At the same time we are committing ourselves to provide the resources our government and our President may need as Commander in Chief to wage a war to eradicate terrorism. I am pleased the Senate is united in this resolve to help ensure that we will do all we are able to do to ensure these tragedies are never repeated. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to make some observations about some of the discussions I have read in recent days in various news articles and have heard from Senators who have commented on these articles relating to missile defense and the President's efforts to discuss with Russia and other friends and allies around the world our intentions with respect to the development of missile defenses to protect the security interests of the United States. For some reason or other, in recent weeks there have been some misinterpretations made of comments that have appeared in news articles. Some have suggested that the administration, for example, is going to abandon the ABM Treaty or is developing plans and asking for funding in this year's appropriations bills to conduct tests and do development projects for missile defense which would violate the provisions of the ABM Treaty. It is clear from everything the President himself has said that he would like to replace the ABM Treaty, after full discussions with Russian officials, allies, and friends around the world, with a new strategic framework that more closely reflects the facts as they exist now in the relationship we have with Russia. The ABM Treaty was written, as we know, in 1972. It was written in an atmosphere where the prevailing doctrine of national security was mutual assured destruction where we would actually have, as a matter of national policy, a plan to annihilate or destroy cities with innocent civilians in retaliation against a nuclear missile strike against the United States from the Soviet Union. And the mutual assured destruction doctrine was very troubling in and of itself, but it was the only thing we had. Deterrence was a way of life--and also a promise of a way of death in case someone decided to authorize a strike against the other. This was an agreement that was entered into at a time when each side seemed to be intent on building new and more sophisticated and more lethal weapons systems targeted to military targets in the other's nation state. But times have changed. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Even though the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate a succession agreement, it has never been submitted to the Senate for ratification. The succession agreement lists Russia, Belarus, and another nation state as the successor states to the Soviet Union. Think about that. I am sure the Senate would discuss that very carefully and probably at great length, and whether or not the Senate would advise and consent and permit the ratification of that treaty, to permit it to go into effect and have the force and effect of law, is problematical. But that is just one indication of how times have changed. The Clinton administration continued to respect the ABM Treaty to the extent that it would not undertake testing of even theater missile defense systems if the Russians objected. And in the discussions with our representatives in Geneva and elsewhere, talking on these subjects, it became clear that this country was going to be inhibited in its testing programs of theater missile defense systems because of provisions of the ABM Treaty. By now, it ought to be very clear that there are threats to our soldiers and sailors who are deployed around the world from these very theater missile offensive systems that we saw Iraq use in the desert war--in the war that we helped organize and wage against them to liberate Kuwait. Twenty-eight or twenty-nine members of a National Guard unit lost their lives in Dhahran as a result of a Scud missile attack. We cannot tolerate being inhibited and subject to the approval of another country to test and develop and deploy a system that would protect soldiers in that circumstance in the future. We have already, as a matter of fact, developed follow-on systems to the Patriot system, which was the only thing we used to try to counter the Scud missile attacks. And we continue to upgrade and make progress in developing systems that will offer the kind of protection against those missile attacks in the future. The PAC-3 program, for example, has had a succession of successful tests, using the hit-to-kill technology of a defensive system. There are other examples of theater missile programs. The Army's High Altitude Air Defense Systems--the acronym is THAAD. It sounds like my name is a system that offers protection against missile attack. But to hear some Senators and look at the authorization committee's mark right now, you would think these theater systems were the same as the national missile defense system. We saw reports in the paper that the chairman had presented the Armed Services Committee with a committee print of a military authorization bill for the next fiscal year, and it cuts $1.3 billion out of missile defense. This is being described in the newspapers, and by Senators, too, as a reduction in the amount of money that would be authorized for national missile defense. When you look at the exact dollar amounts in the bill--and it is not national missile defense--approximately $347 million is cut from the Navy theater-wide program in the chairman's mark, along with $210 million for the THAAD program and $80 million from the airborne laser program. These are not long-range missile programs. These are not missile programs designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missile threats to our country; these are designed to protect men and women in the military service of the United States who are deployed all over the world right now. And they are now under threats from the same kind of missile weapons systems that were used by Iraq. Now they have been modernized, we hear from our intelligence sources, and are more accurate and more reliable and more lethal than they were in the desert war. These programs should not be cut in the name of trying to restrict the President from using funds that the Congress appropriates for national missile defense. These are intermediate-range defensive systems, the testing and deployment of which were not intended to be covered by the ABM Treaty. And even though the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Russians our rights to test in developing these programs--to some degree at least--it is not the subject of the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty wasn't designed to deal with these threats at all. So what I am suggesting is that the Senate ought to be on early warning that we are seeing an effort being developed here--at least in the Armed Services Committee--to lay groundwork for restrictions on funding, for restrictive language, which I understand is also included in the chairman's mark, which would more closely restrict the President and the Department of Defense in their effort to fully explore the use of technologies that would help defend our service men and women when they are in harm's way around the world today. There are some other programs that are cut in this bill that I understand are in the chairman's mark. One is the space-based infrared system, which will provide satellites to track missiles after launch-- $97 billion is cut from that program. So there is a pattern here of undermining the entire effort to develop our defenses to the capability they need to be to fully assure the security interests of the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with the ABM Treaty, in my view, but that is being used as an excuse to hold back these programs. The chairman's mark cuts $350 million from a program previously known as national missile defense, though in reality the number is far higher, as the administration has sought to remove the artificial barriers between the labels ``national'' and ``theater'' missile defense. The President is talking about missile defenses. We need to have an aggressive, robust testing program so that we can fully understand how these technologies can be harnessed to fully defend our country's interests and protect the security of our Nation. The chairman's mark even cuts funds that would be used for cooperative missile defense modeling and simulation with Russia. We are hearing a lot about trying to interact more in a positive way with Russia. Here is an example of a program that would give us an opportunity to do that more successfully, and that is proposed for cutbacks in the Armed Services Committee. There are various legislative restrictions, one of which will provide the Defense Department's missile activities can proceed only in accordance with the ABM Treaty. That is redundant, isn't it? Or it suggests that the President is planning to undertake something that is inconsistent with the treaty. He has said he is not going to do that. He recognizes the treaty is an agreement that is legally binding. The President has said that. He is hoping to replace the treaty after negotiations with the Russians with a new strategic framework, but everybody is pronouncing that around here as dead on arrival. Give the President a chance at least to discuss it fully with the Russians rather than rushing over and getting some Russian official to make some derogatory statement about the process and then quoting it as if it is national policy in Russia. We should give the negotiators a chance. That is what I am suggesting. So writing a bill here that presumes the President is going to violate the ABM Treaty is not getting us off to a good start, particularly if this sends a signal to the Russians: You do not have to worry about negotiating with the President of the United States in good faith because the Senate is going to take over, the Senate is going to make it impossible for the President to negotiate an agreement. We should not undermine the President's capacity to negotiate a better agreement that will serve our national security interests in a more effective way and replace an outdated, outmoded treaty, a cold war relic, when we could, if we are successful under the President's leadership, negotiate a better agreement that more fully protects our country's national security interests. This kind of provision is needless piling on, making it more and more difficult for our President. I hope the Armed Services Committee will look very carefully at these provisions. There are a lot of other concerns that I have. I know there may be others who want to discuss issues on other subjects of great national concern, but they are talking about now in one other line of articles that I have seen--and this was discussed in our Defense appropriations hearing yesterday by some Senators--the fact there was a quote in the paper from an administration official saying: We were not bothered by China's buildup, the modernization of their nuclear weapons capability and whether they were going to do that or not would not have any effect on our decisions with respect to missile defense programs. Secretary Rumsfeld made it very clear at the hearing, responding to one Senator's question, that neither he nor Secretary Powell nor Dr. Condoleezza Rice had made any statement of that kind, and they knew of no one in the Department of Defense or the Department of State or at the White House who had said anything like that. There is no quote attributed to any particular individual, but yet not only the press have taken that and made stories out of it and repeated them, but now Senators are repeating them as if it was a fact. The fact is, China has been modernizing its military for years. They did not just start a new generation of nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missile technologies and systems after we began improving our missile defense capabilities. China is going to make the decisions they make based on their own considerations of what is in their interests. I am hopeful, of course, as everyone in this administration and in this Congress, we will be able to have a stable and friendly relationship based on mutual respect with China. Efforts are being made in discussions by the Secretary of State and many others with Chinese leaders in order to develop an understanding, trying to resolve problems as they develop, and we know what they are. The incident with the surveillance plane in the area presented its own special set of problems, but we worked our way through that with calm and thoughtful leadership and decisionmaking by the President and his Cabinet officials. The whole point of this is, we can be a party to inciting the passions of those who worry about the capacity of our country's leadership to function to protect our security interests, and we can do more harm than good by the things we say and the way we discuss these issues and the way we handle bills that come through this Senate. We should take very seriously the provisions that are in the chairman's print of this authorization bill before the Armed Services Committee, and all Senators ought to notice what is beginning as an official part of our legislative responsibility: an effort that is clear to undermine the President's leadership capacity in developing missile defense systems that will protect our soldiers and sailors and the security interests of our country. Those who say he is going to abandon the ABM Treaty need to look at what the President said. He is trying to replace it with a new framework, a new agreement. I have suggested to some that we ought to consider having a peace treaty as a replacement to the ABM Treaty. We are not at war with Russia any longer. They do not profess to be at war with us. The cold war is over. When wars end, peace treaties are signed. Let's sign a peace treaty with Russia. That would supplant the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty locks into law the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. We do not want to destroy Russia. They should not want to destroy us. So why perpetuate that doctrine with that treaty? Let's work to develop a new framework that more clearly defines the real relationship we have with Russia now. That is what the President wants to do. Why can't the Senate join with the President, applaud that initiative, support that effort, pass legislation to fund the efforts to strengthen our military forces so we can do the job of protecting the security of this country? I am not going to suggest these are political games that are being played because I know there are serious differences of opinion on this and other issues that come before the Senate. I am not questioning anybody's motives. I am just saying I hope Senators will take a careful look at the facts. As we proceed through this process of authorization and appropriation for our defense needs, let's try to work in harmony and unity as much as possible so we will not create any misunderstandings in Russia, in China, or among potential adversaries out there, the so-called rogue states, that continue to acquire technology, that continue to acquire systems, missiles, other means of developing intercontinental ballistic missile capability. It is a dangerous place out there, and we need to be sure we are doing what we can do and ought to do to protect our security interests in this environment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Sense of the Senate Resolution honoring the memory of Eudora Welty, the famed Mississippi author who died last week. Senator Lott has joined me in sponsoring this resolution renaming the Regional Humanities Initiative at the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH, the Eudora Welty Regional Humanities Initiative. One of the great themes of Miss Welty's writings is a sense of place. It is fitting then that the Regional Humanities Initiative that honors the places from which we come and will preserve our history and culture for future generations be named for her. In fact, a quote from Miss Welty's work is used in the NEH guidelines for this initiative and I would like to share those words with you: ``It is by knowing where you stand that you grow able to judge where you are. Place absorbs our earliest notice and attention. It bestows upon us our original awareness: and our critical powers spring up from the study of it and the growth experiences inside it. . . . One place comprehended can make us understand other places better. Sense of place gives us equilibrium; extended, it is sense of direction too.''

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. My request was to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hosted a briefing for interested Senators by Dr. Condoleezza Rice on Monday afternoon in the Capitol during which she discussed with almost 20 Senators who were present the recent meetings she had with Russian leaders in Moscow. I was impressed with the steadfast resolve of the President during his meetings with President Putin in Genoa in moving beyond the confrontational relationship with Russia and replacing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction with a new framework that would be consistent with our national defense interests as they now exist rather than as they existed in 1972. Two years ago, Congress debated and passed the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which enunciated the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible a system to defend the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized, or intentional. That bill was passed with overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress and signed into law on July 23, 1999. The National Missile Defense Act became necessary because of two unfortunate facts: The emergence of a new threat to our Nation and our lack of capability to defend against that threat. The threat stems from the proliferation of the technology to build long-range ballistic missiles. Our inability to defend against that threat is tied to the ABM Treaty of 1972. The changes that have occurred in the world since the cold war had not been reflected in our national policy until the enactment of the National Missile Defense Act. President Bush is moving ahead to fulfill both the letter and spirit of the National Missile Defense Act. He has restructured the Missile Defense Program from one that was carefully tailored not to conflict with the 1972 ABM Treaty into one which will provide the best defense possible for our Nation in the shortest period of time. He has properly focused the Missile Defense Program on the threat we face rather than the ABM Treaty, and he has clearly stated he intends to move beyond the cold war ABM Treaty and into a new era in which the United States does not base its security on pledges of mutual annihilation with a country with which we are not at war. The President has personally carried this message to our allies, friends, and former adversaries, and his efforts have met with impressive success. Not all critics have been persuaded and some never will be, but many who were skeptical now support our efforts, and some, such as the Premier of Italy just last week in Genoa, have enthusiastically endorsed them. Perhaps the most striking change has occurred in Russia. When the previous administration proposed modifications to the ABM Treaty, the Russian Government refused even to entertain the notion, but in the face of the resolve demonstrated by President Bush, the Russian Government has agreed to his suggestion to enter into talks to establish an entirely new strategic framework to guide the relationship between our countries. The developments of the past few months are truly changing the international political world we have known for so long. At the same time, our Missile Defense Program, which for years had been underfunded, is continuing to recover and is making substantial technical progress. That program has faced formidable obstacles-- besides the technical challenge of reliably intercepting ballistic missiles. It has faced the constraints of an old treaty that was intended specifically to impede and prohibit the development and deployment of such missile defenses. Congress has taken the lead over the past few years in helping to get the Missile Defense Program back on its feet by increasing the funding available for the work on defenses against both shorter range and longer range ballistic missiles, and those programs have demonstrated great progress. The Patriot PAC-3 system has succeeded in 7 out of 8 intercept attempts against shorter range ballistic missiles, such as the Scuds that caused such destruction and took 28 American lives during the gulf war. After some early testing failures attributed to quality control problems, the longer range THAAD system finished its initial testing with consecutive successes, and our defense against long-range ballistic missiles was successful the very first time it was tested in October of 1999, and that success was repeated in another intercept test just a few weeks ago. The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program testified recently that the ground-based missile defense system now in testing no longer requires that anything be invented, only that it be correctly engineered. Clearly, the advanced technology required for reliable intercept of ballistic missiles is rapidly deteriorating. But there is far more that we can and should be doing. Unfortunately, despite the success that has been demonstrated, missile defense work has been confined to the technology superficially permitted by the 1972 ABM Treaty. That agreement prohibits some of the most promising technologies and basing modes available, including air-, space-, sea-, and mobile land-based systems, as well as those based on new capabilities like lasers. The ABM Treaty impedes the development and deployment of these missile defenses. This was its central purpose when it was crafted three decades ago as a reflection of the political relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States known as the cold war. President Bush has declared his determination to leave the cold war behind. He has backed up his declaration with concrete actions and his leadership has generated real progress, despite the sniping of some critics. I believe the rapid progress of the last few months is a result of leadership of President Bush and his determination to do what is necessary in this modern world to defend our Nation. It is important to consult with our allies, as he has done, and it will be helpful if we can work out an agreement with the Russians to leave the cold war and its trappings behind. Our moving forward to defend ourselves against these new threats cannot depend on the assent of others. President Bush has made it clear that he believes this, and I think his resolve is exactly the reason we have seen attitudes change. But our determination to defend our Nation cannot be contingent on someone else's permission. I suppose it was predictable that the more momentum is generated, the more wild the claims of the critics would get, and we have seen that, too, in recent days. Those who would prefer America be vulnerable to missile attack have taken a variety of approaches in their efforts to ensure that remains the case. One is to say we should go slow, don't rush the technology, don't do anything diplomatically risky. But timidity is a good part of the reason we face such an urgent situation now, with a real and serious threat but nothing yet in the field to defend against it. The ones who have always said ``go slow'' are the same critics who will say that the slowness of the program's progress is evidence that missile defense is not yet mature. Our failure for years to do enough to counter this problem is why we must work with urgency today. The critics also assert that our long-range missile defense capability will be easily defeated by simple countermeasures. These assertions are based on wild claims from people who would have us believe that building a missile defense is too difficult a task for the United States--which possesses the most sophisticated missile and countermeasure capability in the world--but defeating a missile defense is a simple task for those who are just now acquiring the capability for long-range missiles. Such arguments are unpersuasive. The critics also tell us that deployment of missile defenses will create an arms race, even though the Russians have neither the resources nor a reason to engage in a buildup in strategic offensive arms. Even if they did, with whom would they race? President Bush has announced his intention to dramatically reduce the offensive nuclear forces of the United States, regardless of what the Russians do, and has taken the first step toward doing so by announcing the deactivation of our multiple warhead Peacekeeper missiles. A situation in which one side builds up its missiles while the other reduces is certainly not an arms race. I think the Russians understand this, too, and will recognize the futility of spending scarce resources to counter a missile defense system that does not threaten them. As for China, while the previous administration was devoting itself to--in its words--``strengthening the ABM Treaty,'' China was modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces. So China has already demonstrated that assessments of its own national security interests are unlikely to be affected by what the United States does or doesn't do with respect to missile defenses. Moreover, those who suggest we forgo defenses so as not to ``threaten'' China are implying that China has some sort of right to threaten us with its missiles. I reject such a suggestion. Defenses are not provocative, no nation has a right to threaten the United States, and the United States has no obligation to guarantee any country's right to do so. There are other criticisms of our missile defense efforts, most even less convincing than those I have just mentioned, and other arguments in its favor which I have not discussed. I'm sure other Senators will address many of them in the course of the next few days. But the discussion has moved far beyond where it was 2 years ago when we stood here and debated the National Missile Defense Act. Thanks to the actions of Congress, there is no longer any question about whether the United States will defend its citizens against missile attack, only about the methods we use and how fast we will field them. And thanks to the efforts of President Bush there is no longer any question about whether we will continue to be held hostage by an obsolete agreement from another era. I welcome the progress that has been made on all fronts, and I look forward to supporting the achievement of genuine security of the United States and its citizens.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased the Senate has confirmed the nomination of Jim Zigler to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He is well suited for this job, and I am sure he will discharge the responsibilities he is undertaking with a high level of competence and dedication. Jim once served on the staff of Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi whom I succeeded when he retired from the Senate in 1978. One of Senator Eastland's interests and responsibilities when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee was the work of INS. I can recall his very close supervision of the work of his agency when I was a Member of the House. I know Jim Eastland would be very proud indeed that his former protege, Jim Zigler, has been confirmed today as Commissioner. I'm proud of Jim, too, and wish for him much success and satisfaction in this important new job.