Space

[Page: S2695]

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 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.

[Page: S2696]

END