On the recordJuly 12, 2000
if I may address my colleague on my time and his reply can be charged to his time, I wish to associate myself with the response of my distinguished colleague from Michigan with regard to 2005. He is absolutely correct. The threat exists today. The warhead content is a different subject for a different time, but it is a part of this equation in calculation of time. I am pleased the Senator from Massachusetts said on the floor tonight that he supports going forward with the concept of what we call the Cochran bill which was signed by the President of the United States. That is my understanding of what he said. He did vote for it. But he said collectively, we, and he opened his arms. The record also shows that the other two colleagues on this amendment did not vote for the Cochran bill and were two of the three who voted against it. The ``we'' I think we want to make a little clearer. Here is my problem with this amendment, and I find myself in somewhat of an awkward position. I am defending Bill Cohen, my good friend, the Secretary of Defense of the administration with which my colleagues pride themselves with a long-time association. Fine. Here is what it says on page 4 of the amendment: Independent Review Panel.-- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall reconvene the Panel on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Program.…
Source
govinfo.gov




