Cosponsored by the Cato Institute, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, and the National Defense University Foundation
Tuesday, June 27, 2000
8:00 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (Luncheon to follow)
Reserve Officers' Association
101 Constitution Ave., N.E., 5th Floor
(across from Dirksen Senate Office Building)
Washington, D.C.

Featuring Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.); William Schneider, Jr., International Planning Services, Inc.; Ivan Eland, Cato Institute; Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Peter Huessy, National Defense University Foundation; Charles Peña, Independent Missile Consultant; Richard Garwin, Council on Foreign Relations; and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

President Clinton will soon decide whether to deploy a limited land-based national missile defense (NMD) designed to intercept a small missile attack from a rogue state. Also, the president is attempting to renegotiate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia to accommodate such a defense. Some congressional Republicans and Democrats would instead advocate building a sea-based missile defense–the Republicans to shatter the ABM Treaty and the Democrats to preserve it. Some analysts favor building land-, sea-, and even space-based defenses. Instead, opponents of NMD would not buy any such systems. Please join our experts for a wide variety of views on the best path to take on NMD.

PROGRAM
8:00–8:30 a.m.	Registration
8:30–9:15 a.m.	Opening Address Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
9:15 - 10:15 a.m.	Debate #1—How Real Is the Threat and How Major Are the Consequences of a Yes or No Decision on Deployment? Some analysts see the threat of a missile attack from a rogue state as severe and imminent, while others see such a threat as overblown. Ardent proponents and opponents of NMD see major consequences flowing from President Clinton’s yes or no decision on deployment. A midrange view holds the consequences to be much less dramatic. To debate those issues, the panel will feature an enthusiastic proponent, an equally vociferous opponent, and an advocate of the middle-of-the-road position. William Schneider, International Planning Services Inc. Ivan Eland, Cato Institute Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
10:15 - 10:30 a.m..	Break
10:30 - 11:15 a.m.	Address: Congress and National Missile Defense: Another Perspective Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.	Debate #2—Can a Workable National Missile Defense Be Constructed at an Affordable Cost? Proponents of NMD argue that such systems will work and are affordable. Opponents argue the opposite. A midrange view argues that both the success and cost of NMD are in doubt–thereby requiring rigorous testing of any system and limits on its capability and cost. In addition, representatives from each camp will debate the feasibility, desirability, and cost of land-, sea-, and space-based missile defenses. Peter Huessy, National Defense University Foundation Charles Peña, Independent Missile Consultant Richard Garwin, Council on Foreign Relations
12:15 - 12:30 p.m.	Break
12:30–1:15 p.m.	Closing Address Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
1:15 p.m.	Luncheon
	Sponsored by the Jean and Samuel Zacher Foundation

To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or call Kerry Horgan by Monday, June 23, 2000, at (202) 789-5229, fax her at (202) 371-0841, or e-mail to khorgan@cato.org.