DETERMINED IN THE PENTAGON'S UPCOMING DEPLOYMENT READINESS
           REVIEW WILL BE ASSESSED PRECISELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TEST
           RESULTS, EVEN WORSE, IT WILL BE BASED UPON JUST A FEW TESTS.
           MR. PRESIDENT, THE ADMINISTRATION REQUESTED THAT THE PENTAGON
           PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF WHETHER A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE CAN
           BE DEPLOYED IN FIVE YEARS' TIME. GENERAL KADISH DESCRIBED THE
           2005 TIMETABLE AS -- QUOTE -- "HIGH RISK." HE HAS MADE IT 2

           CLEAR THAT THE TIMETABLE IS MUCH FASTER THAN MILITARY PLANNERS
           WOULD LIKE. AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PENTAGON'S OWN OFFICE
           OF THE OPERATIONAL AND TEST EVALUATION PROGRAM STATED CLEARLY
           THAT DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW IS -- QUOTE -- "STRONGLY" --
           "IS A STRONGLY SCHEDULED-DRIVEN APPROACH RATHER THAN ONE BASED
           UPON RESULTS." MR. PRESIDENT, IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT WE BE

           CERTAIN THAT THIS SYSTEM WORKS BEFORE WE MOVE AHEAD WITH
           DEPLOYMENT?
           THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ASKS. IF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL
           MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IS TO HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF ENHANCING
           UNITED STATES SECURITY, IT MUST WORK AND IT MUST WORK WELL. AT
           PRESENT THE EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE TO PROVE THAT IT DOES. AND THE
           TESTS UNDERWAY TO ESTABLISH THAT PROOF ARE SIMPLIFIED AND
           UNREALISTIC. WE MUST DEMAND THAT ANY DEPLOYMENT DECISION ON

           NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN
           TESTED SUCCESSFULLY AGAINST REAL-WORLD, REALISTIC THREATS. MR.
           PRESIDENT, LAST YEAR I VOTED AGAINST A RESOLUTION URGING THE
           ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE A DECISION TO DEPLOY A NATIONAL MISSILE
           DEFENSE SYSTEM. I BELIEVE THEN, AS I DO NOW, THAT A DECISION TO
           DEPLOY BEFORE IT'S MADE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CAREFUL EVALUATION
           OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM. AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE

           NEED TO LOOK AT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF OVERALL UNITED STATES
           SECURITY NEEDS. THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO INCREASE UNITED STATES
           SECURITY, NOT TO UNDERMINE IT. DEPLOYING A SYSTEM I FEAR NOW
           DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT THREATENS TO DISRUPT THE CURRENT ARMS
           CONTROL REGIME AND TO UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF OUR
           COMMITMENT TO NONPROLIFERATION. DEPLOYMENT OF A NATIONAL
           MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM COULD BE -- I THINK ITOULD BE -- A
           VIOLATION OF THE A.B.M. TREATY. ARE WE PREPARED TO DISCARD THIS ARMS CONTROL REGIME?

           AND I WORRY, AND I THINK EVERY SENATOR, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN
           ALIKE, WORRIES ABOUT PROLIFERATION OF THESE WEAPONS OF MASS
           DESTRUCTION. IF THIS REGIME OF ARMS CONTROL BREAKS DOWN WITH
           RUSSIA, AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, BREAKS DOWN WITH
           CHINA AND THEN THERE'S INDIA AND THEN THERE'S PAKISTAN AND THEN
           THERE'S SOUTH KOREA AND THEN THERE IS JAPAN, I FEAR THE
           DIRECTION THAT WE ARE MOVING IN. MR. PRESIDENT AND COLLEAGUES,
           FOR 40 YEARS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS LED INTERNATIONAL

           EFFORTS TO REDUCE AND CONTAIN THE DANGER FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
           WE MUST NOT NOW RENOUNCE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT
           LEADERSHIP WITH A HASTY, SHORTSIGHTED DECISION THAT WILL HAVE
           LASTING CONSEQUENCES. WE MUST ANSWER A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
           BEFORE WE PROCEED. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO UNILATERALLY DEPLOY A
           SYSTEM NOW IF THE RESULT MIGHT BE TO PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT
           AN EVEN GREATER RISK?
           SHOULD WE WORK -- SHOULDN'T WE TAKE THE TIME TO WORK WITH
           ALLIES AND OTHERS TO FIND A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE NONTHREATENING

           WAY OF PROCEEDING?
           HAVE THE THREATS TO WHICH WE ARE RESPONDING BEEN EXAGGERATED
           AND MORE DRIVEN BY POLITICS THAN ACCURATE THREAT ASSESSMENT AND HARD SCIENCE?
           AND IS THE TECHNOLOGY THERE TO DEPLOY A SYSTEM THAT WOULD
           ACTUALLY WORK IN THE REAL WORLD?
           THIS AMENDMENT SPEAKS DIRECTLY, SENATOR DURBIN AND SENATOR
           KERRY, TO THAT LAST QUESTION. I URGE MILE COLLEAGUES TO DEMAND
           TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE ABOUT THE COMPLEXITIES OF A NATIONAL

           MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM PRIOR IT TO DEPLOYING THAT SYSTEM. AND I
           DON'T THINK THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. THE FAILURE OF
           SATURDAY'S TEST IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE REAL STORY. EVEN A
           SUCCESSFUL TEST WOULD PROVE NOTHING GIVEN THE CURRENT TESTING
           CONDITIONS. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT
           REQUIRING A MORE REALISTIC TESTING OF THE NATIONAL MISSILE
           DEFENSE SYSTEM, RECONVENING THE WELCH PANEL TO INDEPENDENTLY

           E-- EVALUATE THE TESTING PROGRAM AND REQUIRING A REPORT TO
           CONGRESS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE PROGRAM. WE SHOULD NOT COMMIT
           OURSELVES BLINDLY TO A PROGRAM THAT COULD COST BILLIONS OF
           DOLLARS AND COULD VERY WELL DECREASE -- DECREASE -- OUR OVERALL
           SECURITY RATHER THAN ENHANCE IT. OUR FUTURE AND OUR CHILDREN'S
           CHILDREN'S FUTURE COULD DEPEND ON THE DECISION WE MAKE ON THIS
           AMENDMENT. LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING. I HOPE WE CAN HAVE A
           STRONG VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
           

           MR. WARNER: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE COLLEAGUE A
           QUESTION, AND THE TIME ALLOCATED TO THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
           BE CHARGED FOR THE PORTION OF THE COLLOQUY THAT I USE. YOU MADE
           A FAIRLY STRONG STATEMENT OR INDIRECTLY AT OUR FORMER
           COLLEAGUE, SECRETARY COHEN, NOW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THAT HE
           WOULD PROCEED ON THIS PROGRAM, WHICH IS SO VITAL TO THE
           SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, ASSUMING IT, AS YOU SAY, UNDER
           THE CRITERIA THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD ADDRESS GOES FORWARD,

           THAT HE WOULD GO BLINDLY. IS THAT A PURPOSEFUL CHOICE OF WORDS
           DIRECTED AT THIS DISTINGUISHED FORMER COLLEAGUE WHO, IN MY
           JUDGMENT, HAVING BEEN ON THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 22 YEARS
           AND HAVING SERVED 18 OF THOSE YEARS WITH HIM, OR 19, I CAN'T
           IMAGINE SECRETARY COHEN UNDERTAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
           OVERSEE A PROGRAM OF THIS IMPORTANCE AND PROCEED, AS THE
           SENATOR SAID, BLINDLY.
           

           MR. WELLSTONE: I SAY -- MR. PRESIDENT, I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, I
           CAN'T IMAGINE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DOING THAT EITHER. MY
           PLEA WAS TO SENATORS. I SAID WE MUST NOT PROCEED BLINDLY. AND I
           URGE ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS TESTING AND
           TO AT LEAST CALL FOR A THOROUGH EVALUATION TO MAKE SURE THAT
           THE SYSTEM WILL REALLY WORK. MY COMMENTS WERE NOT DIRECTED TO
           SECRETARY COHEN. I WOULD ALSO SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE THAT I DON'T
           BELIEVE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAS MADE A FINAL
           RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT. AND I DON'T --
           

           MR. WARNER: I CERTAINLY AGREE.
           

           MR. WELLSTONE: -- AND GIVEN THE LIGHT OF THE FAILURE THIS PAST
           WEEK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SECRETARY'S DECISION WILL BE. BUT I
           THINK ALL OF US, I THINK, ARE JUST MAKING THE REASONABLE
           REQUESTS THAT BEFORE WE GO FORWARD WITH DEPLOYMENT, LET'S HAVE
           THE KIND OF OPERATIONAL TESTING THAT WILL PROVE THAT THIS
           SYSTEM WILL WORK IN A REAL WORLD AGAINST CREDIBLE THREATS. AND
           LET'S HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION BY THE WELSH COMMISSION
           AND LET'S AT LEAST HAVE A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS. THAT'S REALLY
           WHAT I'M REFERRING TO, I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM VIRGINIA. AND
           I'M GLAD HE ASKED ME THE QUESTION BECAUSE IN NO WAY WOULD I

           DIRECT THESE COMMENTS TOWARD THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
           

           MR. WARNER: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D HAVE TO SAY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
           TO OUR CLEE CLOGEZE, THE INDIRECTLY THIS WOULD SUGGEST THE
           DEPARTMENT IS NOT PROCEEDING IN A PRUDENT AND FULL WAY TOWARDS
           THIS -- THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ON THIS PROGRAM. I HAVE TO TELL
           YOU THAT. I DO NOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC FAULT WITH SOME OF THE
           REQUESTS MADE. BUT MOMENTARILY I'LL HAVE, WHEN I TAKE THE FLOOR
           IN MY OWN RIGHT HERE, I WILL HAVE DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW YOU
           THAT THE WELCH PANEL IS DOING THE VERY THINGS THAT YOU ASKED
           FOR IN THIS. I WILL POINT TO THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY OF

           DEFENSE HAS SAID IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WHAT HE'S DOING ON THIS
           PROGRAM. IN FACT, MR. PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDING OFFICER BEING A
           MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND INDEED THE CHAIRMAN
           OF THE STRATEGIC SUBCOMMITTEE, I ASKED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
           TO COME UP AT HIS EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND REPORT TO THE
           COMMITTEE ON THE ARMED SERVICES, AND HE'S AGREED TO DO SO
           SHORTLY AFTER HIS RETURN FROM HIS TRIP CURRENTLY IN ASIA. AND I
           THOUGHT HE ADDRESSED THE TEST PROGRAM, WHICH DID REGRETTABLY

           END IN A FAILURE. I THOUGHT HE DID A VERY COURAGEOUS AND
           FORTHRIGHT WAY ADDRESS THAT FAILURE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND
           INDEED THE WORLD.
           

           MR. WELLSTONE: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I -- I PROBABLY DO NOT NEED
           TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM VIRGINIA. I APPRECIATE HIS
           COMMENTS. I WOULD JUST SAY ONE FINAL THING IN RESPONSE TO HIS
           COMMENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE LIKED BEST ABOUT
           PREPARING FOR THIS AMENDMENT, 2'S BEEN FOR ME AS A SENATOR THE
           WAY I REALLY IMAGINE SENATE WORK TO BE, WHICH IS I HAVE TRIED
           TO IMMERSE MYSELF IN THIS ISSUE AND GET THE BEST SECURITY
           BRIEFINGS FROM THE PENTAGON, GET OTHER BRIEFINGS FROM OTHER
           PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON, TALK TO A WHOLE RANGE OF EXPERTS. THE

           WELCH COMMISSION REPORT IS A IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND CRITICAL
           OF THE TESTING. WE NEED TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WE ARE
           INVOLVED IN THE KIND OF TESTING THAT WILL SHOW THAT THIS SYSTEM
           WILL WORK BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. THAT IS TRUE. THAT IS
           CERTAINLY -- THAT IS CERTAINLY THE PREMISE OF THIS AMENDMENT. I
           THINK IT'S A REASONABLE ONE, AND I THINK SENATORS OUGHT TO
           RAISE THESE KIND OF QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. AND
           THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT.
           

           MR. WARNER: MR. PRESIDENT, THE WELCH PANEL WAS BEFORE THE ARMED
           SERVICES COMMITTEE LAST WEEK AND TESTIFIED THAT THEY'RE GOING
           TO DO THE THINGS ENUNCIATED IN THIS AM.
           

           A SENATOR: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: YES.
           

           MR. KERRY: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK THE
           SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA -- THAT THE TESTING THAT HAS BEEN LAID
           OUT IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT I'VE SEEN CONTEMPLATES TESTING ALMOST
           EXCLUSIVELY FROM QUA QUADJALENE AND FROM THE COAST OF
           CALIFORNIA AND THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA AND QUADJALENE ISLAND BY
           THEIR OWN ADMISSION THE MILITARY HAS SAID ARE LESS THAN IDEAL
           IN REPRESENTING THE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SOURCES FROM WHICH A

           LEGITIMATE ATTACK COULD COME. SO THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY
           PROTOCOL THAT I'VE SEEN TO DATE SUGGESTS THAT THE TESTING THAT
           WILL TAKE PLACE MEETS THE KIND OF TESTING THAT THE SENATOR FROM
           ILLINOIS IS LOOKING FOR.
           

           MR. WARNER: MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL LOOK INTO THAT. I RECOGNIZE
           THAT THE MILITARY HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS PERHAPS DOESN'T GIVE
           THEM THE DIVERSITY OF TESTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE. BUT I'M
           CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN YOUR COMMENT THAT THIS NATION IS FACED
           FROM A MULTIPLE OF SOURCES TO THE ATTACK, AND THAT CONFIRMS MY
           CONCERN ABOUT THE OVERALL THREAT THAT'S POSED TO THIS NATION BY
           THE ROGUE OR ACCIDENTAL FIRING OF A MISSILE. AND THAT'S WHY WE
           NEED THIS NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.
           

           MR. RRY: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FURTHER FOR A QUESTION?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: YES.
           

           MR. KERRY: THE SENATOR WOULD AGREE, I'M CONFIDENT, THAT WHEN WE
           TALK ABOUT MULTIPLE SOURCES, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SO-CALLED
           ROGUE STATE AND THE TERM ITSELF IS ONE THAT IS PERHAPS
           QUESTIONABLE TODAY, BUT A SO-CALLED ROGUE STATE COULD TAKE A
           RUSTY TANKER, FIT IT OUT WITH THE CAPACITY TO SHOOT, DRIVER IT
           OUT OF A HARBOR TO ALMOST ANY LOCATION IN AN OCEAN IN THE WORLD
           AND DECIDE TO SHOOT FROM THERE. IS THAT ACCURATE?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: THE SENATOR'S CORRECT.
           

           MR. KERRY: SO IF WE'RE STRICTLY TESTING BETWEEN ONE LOCATION,
           ONE DIRECTION AND OUR RADAR SYSTEM, OUR SPECIFICALLY POSITIONED
           TO ANTICIPATE AN ATTACK FROM A CERTAIN LOCATION, IF THAT WERE
           TO BE THE CASE, WE'D FACE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION.
           WOULD WE NOT?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. THE DIVERSITY OF SCENARIOS
           THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST, AND THIS TEST
           PROGRAM, I THINK, WAS DESIGNED IN LARGE MEASURE TO PRIORITIZE
           THOSE SOURCES FROM WHENCE AN ATTACK MIGHT --
           

           MR. KERRY: AND FINALLY I WOULD
           

           ASK THE SENATOR: THE ENTIRE PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY DRIVEN BY A
           DATE ESSENTIALLY ARRIVED AT BY THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
           ESTIMATE THAT SUGGESTED THAT 2005 IS THE FIRST DATE THAT THERE
           MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY OF A MISSILE BEING FIRED. IS THAT
           CORRECT?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: IT IS THE RESULT OF -- THAT IS CORRECT, THE
           NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE.
           

           MR. LEVIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD ON THAT POINT?
           I DON'T KNOW WHOSE TIME WE'RE ON.
           

           MR. KERRY: WE'RE ON THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA'S TIME.
           

           MR. WARNER: FOR PURPOSES OF THE TIME THAT I UTILIZED. MR.
           PRESIDENT, LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR. I THINK IN MY REQUEST THAT I
           SAID THE TIME THAT I CONSUMED WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO MY SIDE.
           

           MR. KERRY: I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE TIME -- THE COLLOQUY WAS TO BE
           --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THAT WAS THE EXCHANGE WITH THE SENATOR
           FROM MINNESOTA. YOU'VE BEEN YIELDING FOR QUESTIONS AND IT'S
           BEEN ON YOUR TIME.
           

           MR. WARNER: LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR THAT FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE
           COLLOQUIES HERE THAT THE TIME CONSUMED BY MR. LEVIN AND MYSELF
           BE CHARGED TO OUR SIDE AND THE TIME FOR RESPONSE BE CHARGED TO
           THE OTHER SIDE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. KERRY: WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, MR. PRESIDENT, I'M AFRAID I
           HAVE TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS COLLOQUY.
           

           A SENATOR: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?
           
           

           MR. WARNER: YES, OF COURSE.
           

           MR. LEVIN: TO MY GOOD FRIEND FROM MASSACHUSETTS, LET ME SAY I
           HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS SUBJECT. WE'RE VERY
           CLOSE, I THINK, IN TERMS OF OUR VIEWS. THERE'S A COMPLETE
           MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE YEAR 2005. THAT IS NOT THE YEAR WHEN
           THE INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE SAYS THE NORTH KOREA WILL BE ABLE TO
           POSE A THREAT.
           

           MR. KERRY: CORRECT. THEY CAN DO IT TODAY.
           

           MR. LEVIN: THEY CAN DO IT TODAY.
           

           MR. KERRY: AGREED.
           

           MR. LEVIN: BUT 2005 IS THE YEAR WHICH THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
           THOUGHT AT THE TIME HE WAS MAKING AN ASSESSMENT SOME TIME AGO
           WOULD BE THE EARLIEST TIME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIELD THE
           NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE. SO, EVERYBODY, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS
           BEEN -- AND THIS IS IN THE MEDIA, ON THIS FLOOR, AND JUST ABOUT
           EVERYWHERE, HAS NOW TAKEN AS COMMON WISDOM THAT THE 2005 DATE
           IS WHAT THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE TELLS US THE THREAT
           WILL ARRIVE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NATIONAL
{END: 2000/07/12 TIME: 21-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}