[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6001-S6008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S6001]]
   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been following the proceedings 
over the last day or so with increasing concern. As we said last week, 
we all know that this legislation has to be completed this week. I had 
hoped, because of the agreement we were able to reach among leadership 
last week, that we would table nonrelevant amendments, that we would be 
able to move expeditiously with amendments on those issues for which 
there was an interest, and that we would accommodate these amendments 
in a way that would allow us to move the consideration of this bill 
along successfully. I guess I was overly optimistic.
  Frankly, I am very disappointed, in spite of that agreement, in spite 
of the efforts we have made to encourage Senators to come to the floor, 
and in spite of the fact that we know there is so much that still needs 
to be done, that we are at a procedural impasse.
  I, frankly, know of no other recourse but to file cloture. That is 
the only way we can be absolutely certain we will complete our work 
before the end of this week. I have indicated that lament to the 
Republican leader.
  I have noted with some concern to our managers that unless we do, I 
see no really practical way we can complete our work and perhaps 
accommodate other issues and other needs legislatively before the end 
of this week and before the Fourth of July recess.
  Frankly, I don't know what the impasse is now. I thought we had 
reached an agreement on one of the amendments. At the very last minute, 
it appeared that in spite of that agreement there was opposition on the 
other side. And that precluded the opportunity to move forward on at 
least one of these issues.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion have been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 2514, the 
     Defense authorization bill:
         Harry Reid, Jon Corzine, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, Carl 
           Levin, Mary Landrieu, Tom Carper, Ben Nelson, Ron 
           Wyden, Daniel Akaka, Debbie Stabenow, Evan Bayh, Maria 
           Cantwell, Herb Kohl, John Edwards, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Joseph Lieberman.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will indicate to all colleagues that we 
will not leave this week until this bill has been voted on and final 
passage. I hope that won't be the last piece of legislative work we do. 
I hope we will even be able to work on a couple of the nominations. 
There are a number of issues on the Executive Calendar that could be 
addressed. But we can't do anything until we have completed our work 
here.
  Senators should be aware that there will be a cloture vote on 
Thursday morning. That will then trigger a 30-hour period within which 
this work must be completed so that we have a guarantee that at least 
before Friday afternoon the legislative time will have run out and we 
will have an opportunity to vote on final passage. I regret that I have 
to do this, but I see no other recourse.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under leader time to 
respond to the action just taken by Senator Daschle. Having been in his 
position, I certainly understand why he is doing that. I think it is 
the right thing to do in this case.
  We clearly need to move this Defense authorization bill forward, as 
we did the supplemental. We need to get an agreement on that and 
provide additional funds for defense and homeland security.
  We also need to get completion of the Defense authorization bill 
before we leave for the Fourth of July recess. How could we celebrate 
the freedom of the country without having done our work on the Defense 
bill in view of all that we are dealing with at home and abroad?

  So I think the majority leader was in his rights, and I would plan to 
support his cloture motion unless we can come up with some agreement 
that would allow us to save time by vitiating that. But I pledge my 
continued support to try to get this bill done in an orderly fashion at 
a reasonable hour, hopefully Thursday afternoon or early or late 
Thursday evening.
  I just want to be on record that I understand why he is doing it, and 
I think it is the right thing, all things considered, at this time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in light of this development, it is safe 
to announce there will be no more rollcall votes for the remainder of 
the day.
  I yield the floor. And if no none is seeking the floor, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will give a few remarks. If anyone 
needs the floor, I will be glad to yield.
  I think it is important for us to recognize, as we go forward with 
this new national missile defense system, that we are moving into a new 
era.
  We had the ABM Treaty in 1972 that was the cornerstone of a mutual 
assured destruction strategy between the United States and the Soviet 
Union. We both agreed we would not launch missiles against one another 
and we would not, under the treaty, explicitly build an antimissile 
defense system. Not one of us would, leaving each other vulnerable to 
one another.
  The treaty only has six or seven pages. It is in the appendix of this 
book that I have in the Chamber. The reason I want to share it is 
because a lot of people wondered why, 6 months ago, President Bush 
chose to get out of the treaty. And that took effect just a few days 
ago when the 6 months ran from the notice he gave in December.
  This treaty really kept us from defending ourselves. In the first 
article it says:

       Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a 
     defense of the territory of its country and not to provide a 
     base for such a defense, and not to deploy ABM systems for 
     defense of an individual region. . . .

  We basically said we could not deploy one. It says that again in 
several places here.
  Article V says--and this was the conflict we were having, the 
problems we were having:
       Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM 
     systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-
     based, or mobile land-based.

  Much of our new scientific development in recent years indicates that 
sea-based, air-based, space-based has the capacity to help us protect 
our homeland from missile attack.
  Earlier this afternoon I read some quotes from the vice admiral in 
charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency in which he said China was 
developing a mobile-based IBM system. China was not party to the 
treaty; neither was Korea, neither was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. 
They were not a party to the treaty. All those countries are striving 
to develop a missile system.
  China, according to the intelligence report, is, in fact, developing 
a mobile land-based system. According to this treaty we had with the 
Soviet Union--a country that no longer exists--that treaty prohibited 
us from doing that or having a sea-based or an air-based system. This 
was getting really out of

[[Page S6002]]

control. In other words, we had a treaty in 1972 that made sense, when 
we had no other nations, virtually, except the Soviet Union with a 
ballistic missile system.
  We are moving into an age where 16 countries have a missile system. 
Some of those are virulent rogue nations that desire us harm. We had 
this treaty that kept us from preparing a defense to that.
  Some people forgot, also, that under the treaty there were some 
exceptions. We chose one route and the Soviet Union chose another one, 
which was to build a national missile defense around Moscow. They, in 
fact, deployed a missile defense system, under their option, around 
Moscow. But we were prohibited from doing that.
  President Bush took a lot of grief. You remember it. They said he was 
acting unilaterally. And the Socialist left in Europe went up in arms 
that the United States should not get out of this treaty. Some in 
Russia said it was a mistake, and they objected. But the truth is, I 
think they were just negotiating with us for a good deal.
  President Bush was steadfast. He stayed the course. The National 
Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was consistent; she never backed 
off. They made clear that at this point in history the mutual assured 
destruction that existed between us and the Soviet Union was out of 
date. We now hope to have in Russia a friend, not an enemy. It was an 
entirely different nation. What our threat was--and we learned on 
September 11 just how real this was--was from rogue nations. And we 
ought to be able to begin to prepare as to how to defend ourselves from 
that.
  In 1999, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chaired a commission to study 
the threat posed to the United States from ballistic missile attack. 
That was a bipartisan commission. And they studied the issue intensely. 
The commission unanimously voted that the United States was facing a 
threat from missile attack by other nations. They unanimously agreed 
that the threat was coming much quicker than had been predicted 
earlier, and that by the year 2005 we could be subject to missile 
attack from other nations.
  So that is why the Nation decided, in 1999, to go forward. It was a 
dramatic vote in this Senate when we voted 97 to 3, with Senator Thad 
Cochran, who spoke earlier this afternoon, being the prime proponent of 
the legislation. But in addition to Senator Cochran, one of his prime 
cosponsors was Senator Lieberman, the Democratic Vice Presidential 
candidate last year, and one of the leading senior members of the Armed 
Services Committee. They proposed the language that, in 1999, stated we 
would deploy a national missile defense system as soon as 
technologically feasible.

  We made that decision. We funded it. President Clinton proposed a 
$5.3 billion budget for national missile defense to carry out that 
objective.
  President Bush, during the campaign, said he believed we ought to be 
moving more aggressively, that the threat was more real than some 
thought. He wanted to step up the pace, and he did do that. He proposed 
an increase when he became President of about $2.5 billion over the 
$5.3 billion, making it a $7.7 billion national missile defense budget. 
That was passed by this body. We had a dispute in committee, and on a 
party-line vote the increase was not backed in the committee. But when 
we got to the floor, the full amount was affirmed on voting.
  So this year the President asked for a little bit less. He asked for 
a $7.6 billion or so expenditure for national missile defense. He did 
not ask for an increase over last year but actually asked for a small 
reduction as compared to last year's expenditure. But, again, that was 
one issue that we disputed in the Armed Services Committee, and on a 
straight--unfortunately, I thought--party-line vote, $800 million was 
taken out of the national missile defense fund.
  It was taken out in a way that General Kadish, who has managed this 
program with integrity and skill and determination, said would damage 
the program significantly.
  I don't believe we ought to allow that to stand. I believe the full 
Senate needs to review it and replace that money. Let's do what the 
President asked. Let's give him the money he requested. Let's keep this 
plan to build a national missile defense that will include sea-based, 
mobile land-based, multiple land-based, and space-based, if 
appropriate, capabilities that will allow us to hit the incoming 
missiles in their launch phase, midphase, and in the terminal phase, 
all of which we have the capability to do.
  The tests that have been running have been successful. We have been 
able to have head-to-head collision, bullet-hitting-bullet, high-over-
the-ocean, smashing and destroying missiles. We are going to continue 
to test it under the most rigorous conditions. I believe this process 
we are undergoing will be successful, and we will prove that we have 
the capability to destroy incoming missiles even with decoys, even 
under the most hostile conditions. That is what we ought to do.
  The total price of it, the $7.6 billion the President asked, out of a 
$386 billion defense budget that we are putting up this year, is 
reasonable and appropriate. It represents not a step to cold war but a 
step to a new, positive relationship, away from mutually assured 
destruction, away from the hostility we had with the Soviet Union for 
so long, to a new open day in which we are actively engaged in the 
world, but a day in which we don't have rogue nations being able to 
intimidate us, being able to intimidate the President, being able to 
threaten our country with attack that would have to cause him to pause. 
It would have to affect our defense policy, if that were to be the 
case.
  I believe this will move us away from it, give us freedom to act in 
our just national interest. I urge the Senate to move forward with 
approval of our President's budget and the Warner amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I know my friend from Nebraska, the 
distinguished Senator, is here. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be allowed to make a statement on the 
underlying bill, that during that period of time there would be no 
amendments offered to the bill; following the statement of the Senator 
from Nebraska, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business 
for the rest of the evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the senior 
Senator from Nevada.
  I rise today in support of the Warner amendment, an amendment that 
will restore the $814 million cut from the President's request for 
missile defense funding. Last December, President Bush made the 
decision to withdraw the United States from the constraints of the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the ABM Treaty. That treaty went 
out of existence on June 13. The United States is no longer constrained 
by cold-war-era treaty requirements.
  I supported President Bush's actions to withdraw the United States 
from the ABM Treaty, which I believe demonstrates his commitment to 
America's defense. The ABM Treaty was an important treaty. It defined 
the strategic policy of our Nation and defined the strategic nuclear 
policy of an era because at that time in 1972, the ABM Treaty was 
signed by two countries: the Soviet Union and the United States, the 
only two countries that had the capacity to launch all out nuclear war.
  The world has changed--the world is dynamic--since the ABM Treaty was 
signed, and the policy of mutually assured destruction that formed the 
cornerstone of our nuclear deterrent policy is gone.
  Now, as September 11 has made brutally clear, we face varied threats 
from terrorists, individuals, nations, organizations, and those that 
support them. These threats, these challenges come in many forms. 
Currently, 12 nations have nuclear weapons programs; 28 nations have 
ballistic missiles; 13 nations have biological weapons; and 16 nations 
have chemical weapons.
  These new realities mean we must place a greater emphasis on 
defense--all forms of defense. Unfortunately, the defense authorization 
bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee takes a step 
backwards with regard to missile defense.

[[Page S6003]]

  The $814 million cut will have a profound effect on U.S. efforts to 
continue research and important development and eventually deploy an 
effective missile defense system.
  In addition to the proposed cuts in research and testing, nearly 70 
percent of the Missile Defense Agency's civilian jobs and related costs 
could be eliminated if the current legislation we are debating is 
enacted. These cuts would severely hamper the Missile Defense Agency's 
ability to conduct day-to-day business. That means tests. That means 
research. That means development. That means a better understanding of 
the integration of these new defense capabilities into our overall 
national security system.
  This is very important. It isn't one test. It is not one program. It 
is not one system. It is an integration of all these strategic balances 
that now become the dynamic of our national security system: Offensive 
weapons, now defensive capabilities to guard against not just ballistic 
missiles but tactical missiles, nuclear, biological, weapons that can 
be delivered and delivered anywhere in this country.
  We seek a broad array of research, development, and testing 
activities to yield a system as soon as feasible, not any system but a 
relevant, realistic system that in fact has the capability to defend 
this country and our allies. This is not one monolithic umbrella over 
just this country. Our deployed forces overseas, large groupings of our 
deployed forces all over the globe, must be protected. Our friends and 
allies rely on the United States. This is a large, profound, critically 
important project. It cannot be accomplished, defined in a year or 2 
years. But in the interest of our country and its future security, it 
is quite clear that we need a national missile defense system.
  The Armed Services Committee's actions in the bill they reported out 
of committee would hamper this objective. If the current Senate version 
of the missile defense budget were to stand, Secretary Rumsfeld would 
recommend that the President veto this legislation.
  It is important to note how missile defense interconnects with our 
broader security and strategic policies. In February, I visited the 
U.S. Strategic Command in Bellevue, NB, the headquarters of our 
military nuclear strategy.
  At 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, Secretary Rumsfeld will announce 
that Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska will become the new headquarters 
for a merged SPACECOM and STRATCOM facility with new 
responsibilities to face the new challenges and threats of our day.

  Missile defense will be part of that new merged command and will 
bring Space Command and Strategic Command together. When I was at 
Offutt Air Force Base earlier this year, I was briefed on how defense 
policy was moving beyond the cold war nuclear triad of missiles, 
bombers, and submarines.
  One leg of the new triad would consist of our old nuclear capability, 
but it would be supplemented with both conventional military 
superiority and an effective missile defense system--integrating the 
systems. In forging this new triad, the United States could 
significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal, while at the same time 
protecting our country, our troops abroad, and our allies from limited 
missile threats and possible missile blackmail from rogue regimes, 
terrorists, and other nations.
  Today's New York Times ran a story discussing a course that this 
transformation could take. It described a possible new Unified 
Combatant Command that could ``combine the military network that warns 
of missile attacks with its force that can fire nuclear and nonnuclear 
weapons at suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons sites 
around the world.''
  We are in the process of making this new strategic framework a 
reality. It is our highest responsibility--the security of this Nation, 
the security of our men and women around the world, whose only 
objective is the security of this Nation. We have a responsibility to 
our allies. We must recognize that the threats facing our Nation are 
changing, and we must restructure, reorganize, and adapt to these new 
dangerous threats.
  Missile defense will play a significant role in protecting our 
country, our allies, and our deployed forces. I might say, isn't it 
interesting that under President Putin, the Russians are working 
closely with our defense establishment to work through these new 
mutually beneficial strategies and finding ways to cooperate in both of 
our interests.
  The threats to the United States are not unique to the United States. 
These threats are threats to Russia and to nations all over the world. 
A missile defense system for the United States and our allies is not 
mutually exclusive from the interests and benefits of Russia. With 
President Bush's recent trip to Russia, that was formalized in two very 
important documents that were signed by Presidents Bush and Putin.
  So it is not a matter of a unilateral course of action for the United 
States to pursue missile defense. It is in the interest across the 
globe of all peoples who wish to make the world safer, more secure, 
more prosperous, more peaceful. And why is that? It is as much about 
defining opportunities and hope for the world as any one part of this 
equation or this debate. What we are facing in the Middle East, 
Afghanistan, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Asia 
cannot be disconnected from this total development of policy that makes 
the world safer and more secure and more stable for the benefit of all 
people. These are factors that are not often pointed out in this debate 
about missile defense.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at Senator 
Warner's amendment to put this funding into this Defense authorization 
bill--maybe as important a Defense authorization bill as we have seen 
in this country in many years. I hope my colleagues will read through 
what the amendment does. It is very simple: putting the money back in.
  I want my colleagues to take it the next few steps and ask themselves 
the consequences for slowing down missile defense development in this 
country.
  We, too often, get disconnected from the objective of the debate in 
Congress because we get snagged in the underbrush of the nuance, or the 
amendment at the time, or the argument at the time, or the newspaper 
headline tomorrow, or defending an amendment to an amendment; and we 
lose sight of the horizon, where do we go, why, and what is the point, 
and what is the bigger picture, the wider lens that is required? This 
is such an amendment. This is a wider lens amendment.

  I hope Senator Warner, when he introduces his amendment, will get a 
vote on that amendment. I hope this Senate will come forward with the 
votes to support Senator Warner's amendment because it is not just 
about how much damage we would do to the security interests of this 
country; it is about more than just that strategic and military 
dynamic. It is about the future course of our foreign policy, the 
enhancement of our relationships, and the ability to help bring peace 
and stability and prosperity to the world. This is what we debate.
  Defense is not just defense. Defense is about allowing a nation not 
just to defend itself but to prosper and reach out to help other 
nations and make the world safer. That is the big picture. That is what 
we pray for--not the amendment.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to take some time to understand what 
this is about and the consequences of their vote. I am a cosponsor of 
Senator Warner's amendment. I have believed for some time that it is a 
responsible and relevant approach as part of our larger framework of 
interests and, certainly, strategic defense policy for our future.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Warner 
amendment, and I wish to take as much time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise, as I said, in opposition to the Warner 
amendment. The Warner amendment calls for the elimination of about $814 
million in the

[[Page S6004]]

underlying bill that has been directed to much-needed investments in 
the Department of Defense to ward off the many threats that are facing 
our Nation today in a very responsible manner, I wish to add.
  I thank Chairman Levin, the Senator from Michigan, for his 
outstanding work on pulling together this underlying bill. I 
particularly thank our subcommittee chairman, Senator Jack Reed, who 
has worked very hard on this particular provision. I acknowledge their 
good work in this area.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment as a supporter of missile 
defense--not as one of its critics, not as a detractor for the missile 
defense system.
  The Warner amendment is unwise and unnecessary for two reasons, and I 
wish to comment about both reasons.
  First, the thrust of the amendment rests on very shaky fiscal 
parameters. Senator Conrad has spoken very well and clearly on this 
subject, but one of the problems--not substantive but technical 
problems--with this amendment is that it basically taps into revenues 
that do not exist. There is no ``real offset'' for this amendment. 
There is a claim of an offset, but it is going to be very difficult, if 
not impossible, to materialize that offset because of the thrust of 
this amendment.

  It says basically that this money is going to be found by 
anticipating fluctuations in the inflation rate, assuming that the 
inflation rate is going down when it is probably rising. Nonetheless, 
this money is not a real offset. It is based on very shaky fiscal 
principles, and that is one of the reasons I do not think we should 
support this amendment.
  The second reason, however, is a stronger argument, and it is more 
important, although the first argument is something to consider because 
if we do not consider it, then any Member of the Senate could offer any 
amendment to add $100 million, $50 million, $400 million, $600 million 
and say we are going to find an offset because we think inflation is 
going to move one way or the other, and so we are going to guess that 
the money may be available. It is a very bad precedent when we are 
talking about this much money in a time of tightening budgets and 
greater demands on the Federal budget, both domestic spending as well 
as military spending. I think it is a strong argument.
  The stronger argument is that it is wholly unnecessary to restore 
this amendment and claim that it in any way enhances or pushes forward 
and strengthens missile defense, because it does not. I would argue in 
some ways it will weaken our overall Defense bill, which is why I 
oppose it.
  Why do I say that? In the underlying bill, without the Warner 
amendment, we are spending 25 percent more for missile defense than we 
did 2 years ago, up to $6.8 billion, up from $5.1 billion when 
President Clinton was in his last year in office. Let me repeat, in the 
underlying bill, without the Warner amendment, there is a 25-percent 
increase in the Missile Defense Program.
  Democrats and Republicans on the committee, and Democrats in 
particular on this amendment, have supported a robust development of 
missile defense. We want to support the President in a strong Defense 
bill. We have met and exceeded the dollars he has asked for, but what 
we are saying and what I am suggesting is that the committee work has 
rewarded success in this program of missile defense. It acknowledges 
that it is important to develop a missile defense program for the 
United States, not undermining it, not cutting it, not trying to bury 
it, but to support it. That is what the underlying bill does: It 
rewards success, cutting out its redundancies and demanding the 
appropriate oversight that the American taxpayers deserve.
  This, after all, is a $7 billion program--not million; $7 billion. I 
have observed in my time in Congress--Madam President, perhaps you have 
observed this, too--that sometimes we give more scrutiny to a $164 
welfare check or a $1,000 credit card charge or a $2,000 rebate that a 
small business might get from a subsidy, and we go over that with a 
fine-tooth comb to make sure that welfare mother, that small business 
owner, or that person just ``doesn't get away with murder'' with 
spending or mishandling $164 or the $2,000. Yet with a $7 billion 
program, we want to say: Let's not look at the details; this is what 
the President asked for; let's just do it that way exactly; they 
couldn't possibly be wrong even by a percentage point; they couldn't be 
off 1 penny. I think that is very hard, if not impossible, to accept as 
realistic.
  This bill looks carefully at the $7 billion program--and we did this 
in every program in the Defense bill--again, not undercutting it at 
all, matching the President's dollars, but shifting things around to 
make sure we can have a very good missile defense program.
  We could also address some immediate threats that everyone now in 
America, if they did not know it before September 11, knows now, and we 
all know as each week unfolds more and more clearly the other immediate 
threats, chemical, biological, nuclear threats, weapons of mass 
destruction, potentially poised against our Nation.
  The challenge is before our military to invest in their readiness, in 
their equipment, in their mobility, and in their restructuring. We know 
that we are not fighting the cold war anymore and we will not fight the 
cold war ever again, but we will be fighting this asymmetrical threat 
and so we want to have a strong military budget, a robust military 
budget, and allocate these funds accordingly.
  The underlying bill did that. It took a very small percentage of the 
overall missile defense, and as Senator Reed has so eloquently pointed 
out and let me restate, we reward success in the underlying bill. The 
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system has tested well against multiple 
targets. That is part of the Missile Defense Program. It does not pass 
every test.
  Sometimes the critics of missile defense will point out, no, we 
cannot have it; this test failed. Well, in every success there are 
failures. We will fail a time or two, but if we continue to invest, 
continue to be wise and spend our money well, watching our budgets 
carefully but not undercutting this program, we can develop an 
effective missile defense system not only for ourselves but our allies 
and protect America in the future.
  The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system has not passed every test, 
but its future to protect our allies and soldiers looks bright. 
Accordingly, the committee fully funds this part of the missile defense 
system, bringing it closer to deployment.
  Another part of the missile defense is the research program that we 
are doing in conjunction with Israel and others, but primarily Israel, 
the Arab program. It is a theater-wide missile defense system that we 
are developing. It has fared very well to date. Threats against Israel 
and U.S. forces in the Mideast certainly are real. Our committee 
increased funding for this project, again rewarding success, 
identifying what parts of the Missile Defense Program are successful 
and moving forward, using the money wisely and having success. We are 
supporting that.
  The subcommittee made some very smart recommendations. It looked at 
the whole $7 billion and it found in one instance--this is only one 
example--that the administration had asked for $371 million versus $202 
million last year for systems engineering and integration. The request 
is more than the Pentagon can spend on system engineering. In 
committee, in a public hearing, DOD was unable to justify the request. 
Still, the committee added $29 million for a 13-percent increase to 
systems engineering and design, giving the benefit of the doubt but 
thought that would be a good place to move some money into some other 
important things in defense, which is our job as Members of Congress.
  I am proud we met the President's target on defense. I argued, let us 
not give one dollar less. If we can, let us give more. Some people have 
a different view, but I believe we need to support our defense in every 
way possible.
  I think moving this money to fund other activities in the Defense 
bill is not only wise, it sharpens our Missile Defense Program and 
sharpens our overall Defense bill and our budget. There are numerous 
examples like the one I gave about engineering and integration, which 
is what this committee did.

  The Warner amendment is unwise in a fiscal way. It is irresponsible 
to claim revenues that do not exist, to hope

[[Page S6005]]

they materialize, and then, if they do not, the budget situation is 
made much worse.
  But on a deeper level and a more important level, the amendment is 
unwarranted and unjustified because there is a robust budget for 
missile defense in this Defense bill. We have shifted some of the 
money, and I will talk about why we have tried to shift the $814 
million that we identified as unnecessary, redundant, or unjustified to 
other programs in the military because there are, in addition to the 
threat from a missile that might come to this country from Iran or Iraq 
or North Korea or one of the other rogue nations, there are real and 
immediate threats and, I would argue, more present threats.
  Not that I do not believe missile defense is a threat. I do. Not 
everyone in Congress does, but I do believe it could be a threat and we 
need to deploy a system that will be cost effective to the taxpayer as 
well as technologically effective.
  In moving the $814 million to sharpen our Missile Defense Program and 
to sharpen our overall budget, we invested $124 million into hardening 
nuclear facilities against terrorist attacks. We have many nuclear 
facilities in this Nation. We have labs committed to the development 
and exploration of nuclear materials. DOE asked for it in the budget 
submission, but it was turned down.
  We have all seen reports of threats against our nuclear facilities. 
We know that whether one is in New York, in Louisiana, in Arkansas, or 
in some other place where nuclear facilities are present, the community 
is concerned, as they should be.
  Is our Government doing everything it can to protect us, to harden 
these facilities against attack? I think every Member of this Senate 
would like to be able to say we have added over $120 million to our 
nuclear facilities to provide tougher perimeters and systems that will 
protect from a terror attack.
  We have heard testimony not just before my Emerging Threats 
Subcommittee but many of our subcommittees about the importance of 
that. We took part of the savings that we identified and redirected it 
to shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is important to Louisiana. It is not just 
important to Mississippi because Ingall's Shipyard is there. It is not 
just important to Maine because of our colleagues, Senator Snowe and 
Senator Collins. Shipbuilding, ship procurement, and the sustaining and 
maintenance of at least a 310-ship Navy is very important to our 
military strategy. There has not been one committee that I have 
attended since I have been on the Armed Services Committee, whether we 
are talking about the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Caribbean, or other 
places in the world, that the admirals and the generals, the men and 
women in uniform, representing and protecting our Nation, have 
testified to anything other than a 310-ship Navy as an absolute 
minimum.
  There was a point in our history we had 900 ships. Now maybe we 
cannot afford 900 ships. Maybe we do not need 900 ships, but in this 
new world of asymmetrical threats, where we cannot wait for the enemy 
to come to us; we need to go to them, there are only two ways basically 
to get there: either by water or by air. We have to have both. We 
cannot rely only on our Air Force capabilities. We have to have a 
strong, robust Navy to fight on these battlefields wherever they might 
be, to transport our troops, to do it effectively, to do it safely.
  There is not a Member, I do not think, and particularly Senator 
Warner from Virginia, who comes from a huge Navy State, to argue that 
this was a poor or not thought-through reallocation of this money. 
Without it, we cannot build and continue to carry out our LPD-17s and 
other important shipbuilding and procurement that is underway right now 
with the Navy.
  Four thousand sorties have been flown from Navy ships in the Arabian 
Gulf. Our surveillance airplanes, our fighters, and our bombers get a 
lot of attention, but many of those sorties begin by lifting off from 
our aircraft carriers and from places that are bringing this equipment 
and these platforms and giving them a place to take off, refuel and 
take off again, to protect us from the threats of terrorism and other 
threats around the world.

  As we have seen in Afghanistan, we are in an age of war, fighting 
where we cannot forward-deploy our Armed Forces land-based near the 
theater. We are blocked by unfriendly nations from being able to fly 
over or to land at bases. Our Navy provides those places of security, 
those places for our armed men and women, our forces to regroup to get 
ready and take off for battle.
  At a time when the Navy is so vital to our war effort, the Navy could 
in this budget fall below 300 ships. This $690 million readjustment, or 
additional investment, taken from a program, while important, is not in 
the least bit delayed or undermined and will go a long way to 
strengthen our Navy.
  We add money for other counterterrorism priorities in this budget. We 
have moved some money--a good bit of money, but a very small percentage 
of the overall funding--from missiles to other parts of the budget that 
are crying out to be addressed: Our shortage of ships in the Navy, our 
need to secure our nuclear facilities, and there have been several 
other investments in counterterrorism.
  That was a wise decision. I was proud to support it in the committee. 
I urge my colleagues to reject the Warner amendment and to support 
Senator Levin and Senator Reid in this effort.
  I quote Gen. Henry Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, on his view of threats posed by military ballistic missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction. General Shelton is a very decorated leader 
of our armed services. His reputation is without question. He said 
within this last year there are other serious threats out there in 
addition to that posed by ballistic missiles. We know, for example, 
there are adversaries with chemical and biological weapons that can 
attack the United States today. They can do it with a briefcase, by 
infiltrating our territory across our shores or through our airports.
  This underlying bill is attempting to address this real, broad, and 
asymmetrical effect. It can come from missiles, it can come from a 
briefcase, it can come from a container through one of our ports, it 
can come through a bomb planted in the back of a U-haul pickup truck, 
against any number of targets. This city, Washington, DC, our Capital, 
is rich with targets, but so are all the cities, including the home 
State of Washington of the Presiding Officer and my State of Louisiana.
  The taxpayers want us to make sure we are not just spending a lot of 
money on defense but we are spending it wisely, in the right places, 
and we are not overspending in one area and leaving ourselves 
vulnerable in another. Protecting our nuclear powerplants and 
supporting missile defense we can do. Investing in counterterrorism and 
supporting missile defense we can do. Building a strong Navy and 
supporting missile defense we can do. But we have to be smart about it 
and not just with some political slogan that looks good at election 
time. I am afraid that is what this is all about.
  Let's have a strong Defense bill, a smart Defense bill, a bill that 
matches the President more than dollar for dollar but makes good and 
wise choices about how we are spending those dollars.
  As a supporter of missile defense, I argue strongly against the 
Warner amendment and urge my colleagues to support what the committee 
did. This will be a very important vote, along with some other tough 
votes we will have to take regarding transportation and setting good 
priorities in our Defense bill.

  As the article on the secrecy shield in the Washington Post suggests, 
if we are going to spend $7 billion--and I support building the 
program--let's do it in the right way and make sure there is full 
public disclosure. There could be some aspects we do not want on the 
front page of every newspaper, but give the taxpayers the best missile 
defense system. Spend their money wisely. By putting up a secrecy 
shield, which is what this article based on a recent report that has 
come out is claiming, I believe as we move forward with our missile 
defense system, it needs to be done with full disclosure, without 
jeopardizing those features that might have to be kept in a classified 
position, so the taxpayers can be sure we are spending their money 
wisely.

[[Page S6006]]

  In the words of General Shelton, there are many threats facing our 
Nation. The bill we are debating today is about preparing ourselves for 
all of those threats, allocating our resources wisely by making very 
good decisions. Lives depend on it. The strength of this Nation depends 
on it. Our future and the future of our allies depend on the decisions 
we make in the next few days on this very important bill. This is one 
of those decisions.
  Let's say we are going to shift money, strengthen missile defense, 
sharpen it, but also strengthen our other defenses so we can protect 
the people. They sent us here to do no less.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, less than 2 weeks ago America marked the 
historic demise of the ABM Treaty. We did so in accordance with the 
treaty's terms, and with the consent of Russia, acknowledging that the 
strategic rivalry that dominated our relationship for three decades is 
a thing of the past, in word and in deed. I find it remarkable that 
removal of the legal and diplomatic constraints formerly placed on the 
development of America's missile defenses has been replaced by 
political constraints imposed by members of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  As my colleagues know, the committee bill slashed the President's 
budget request for missile defense programs by $812 million. I 
appreciate that missile defense was a controversial issue when it was 
viewed by some as a threat to United States-Russia relations. These 
critics argued that the strategic stability we enjoyed from the cold 
war-era ``balance of terror'' would be put at grave risk by President 
Bush's support for missile defense development unconstrained by treaty 
limitations.
  These critics were wrong. I did not then agree with them, but I 
understood their position. Today, however, we live in a post-ABM Treaty 
world, forged with the cooperation and explicit consent of the Russian 
Government.
  No longer does this arms control agreement regulate our development 
of anti-missile systems. No longer does America's diplomatic 
relationship with Russia require us to pay allegiance to an arms 
control relic of an adversarial past. The President has consistently 
stated that the development of effective missile defenses is a priority 
of his administration, and a requirement in an age of proliferation. 
Most Americans support the construction of missile defenses, especially 
if it is done in a way that doesn't violate our treaty commitments. 
Rather than alienate our friends overseas, America's missile defense 
development, some of which will be coordinated with the Russians and 
our allies, will one day help protect allies in Europe and Asia from 
missile assault. If properly managed, our international alliances will 
be strengthened, not weakened, by these systems. I believe they will 
enhance, not undermine, strategic stability.
  It is troubling that the committee bill would deny the administration 
the resources and flexibility to aggressively pursue a range of missile 
defense programs, at a time when diplomatic and treaty constraints on 
that development no longer restrict our freedom of action. One 
motivation of missile defense critics is their belief that effective 
missile defenses are no more than a Reagan-era fantasy, a political 
project that disregards daunting technological obstacles to 
achievement. But by slashing nearly a billion dollars from missile 
defense development in the coming fiscal year alone, critics create a 
self-fulfilling prophecy. By definition, their denial of requested 
resources makes it nearly impossible for the administration to meet its 
objective to deploy missile defenses as soon as possible. I would 
remind my colleagues that only 3 years ago, 97 United States Senators 
voted to deploy ``as soon as technologically possible an effective 
National Missile Defense System capable of defending the territory of 
the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.''
  Expert studies show that political and funding constraints have in 
fact impeded progress on developing and deploying missile defenses. Of 
the many missile defense programs, one of the most cost-effective and, 
if properly executed, most readily deployable would be a sea-based 
program using the Navy's existing Aegis fleet air defense assets. If 
accorded the proper priority and resources, populated areas along 
America's coasts, forward-deployed U.S. forces, and U.S. allies could 
begin to come under a limited missile defense umbrella before the end 
of the President's first term. Indeed, had the advice of many defense 
experts been followed since 1995, when a blue-ribbon commission first 
called for withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and pursuit of Aegis-evolved 
missile defenses, such protection would likely have been put into place 
before now.
  We are a nation at war. The administration is seriously contemplating 
a military campaign against Iraq, a nation armed with short-range 
ballistic missiles that took their toll on American troops and Israeli 
civilians during the Persian Gulf war. Saddam Hussein is also known to 
be pursuing more sophisticated missile systems. In any military 
campaign, our forces and our allies would be at risk from Iraqi 
warheads containing biological or chemical agents. Iran is pursuing an 
ICBM program and could test it within 3 years, according to our 
intelligence community's consensus estimate. Iran is also aggressively 
pursuing a nuclear capability. Our intelligence community assesses that 
North Korea today possesses the capability to hit the United States 
with a nuclear weapon-sized payload. Many experts believe the North 
Koreans already possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for several 
nuclear weapons.
  America faces the risk of strategic blackmail from nations such as 
these whose possession of sophisticated missile technology puts them in 
a position to restrict our flexibility to deploy military forces where 
and when they are needed. Much of the missile defense debate has 
focused on defense of the U.S. homeland, and this is important. But 
development of effective missile defenses is critical not only to 
protect America, but to preserve our military options overseas, by 
allowing us to meet threats to our interests around the world. 
Effective missile defenses will allow American forces the flexibility 
to operate in regions where the presence of a dangerous regime armed 
with ballistic missiles would otherwise unacceptably constrain American 
military operations.
  America's defenselessness to missile attack, and the vulnerability of 
our overseas forces and our allies to rogue regimes with advanced 
missile capabilities, are the Achilles' heel of American foreign 
policy. Preserving our ability to deploy military forces across the 
globe requires us to protect against threats of missile attack that, 
left unmet, could one day cause us to acquiesce to acts of aggression 
overseas in order not to expose ourselves to attack. Missile defenses 
will reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes.
  The threats are real. The diplomatic foundation has been laid. The 
potential of missile defense technology is clear. The implications of 
rendering America defenseless as a strategic choice are morally 
troubling. The case for missile defense is compelling. The threat of 
terrorism is grave, but the rise of this clear and present danger does 
not diminish the menace that rogue regimes that cavort with terror and 
aggressively pursue weapons of mass destruction pose to America. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Warner amendment to restore the 
President's requested funding for missile defense programs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise in strong support 
of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Warner, to 
restore funding for missile defense.
  The cuts made during markup, while amounting to ``only'' 10 to 11 
percent of the overall missile defense budget, are targeted to 
decapitate the program and destine it to failure. President Bush will 
likely veto the Defense authorization bill if we do not restore funding 
to missile defense.
  I have long been a strong proponent of missile defense. We must take 
the appropriate steps to protect our homeland against all threats. An 
effective missile defense is a key element in homeland security. There 
are those who discount the threat. However, a recent national 
intelligence estimate (NIE) warned that a rogue nation, other than 
China or Russia, will be capable of a ballistic missile attack against 
the United Stats before 2015.
  I believe we will face the threat in the near term, well before 2015. 
The threat is real, and it is now, not in the

[[Page S6007]]

distant future. If this body turns a blind eye to this ominous threat, 
History will condemn us for our lack of action, and question why we sat 
idle while the threat grew. It is important to note that the public 
overwhelmingly supports missile defense. However, the vast majority of 
Americans do not realize that our Nation currently can do nothing to 
stop a ballistic missile attack against the United States. In fact, a 
majority of Americans expressed surprise, disbelief, and anger, when 
told that the United States has no defense against ballistic missiles.
  We need to get serious about developing and fielding a missile 
defense system. We can't wait for another September 11-like event to 
spur us into action. Complacency is our enemy. For the sake of our 
children and our grandchildren, I hope that reason will prevail and 
that we will vote to pass this amendment.
  I commend President Bush for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. The ABM 
Treaty was a cold war relic that deserved to be discarded. I also 
applaud the Bush administration for its new approach toward missile 
defense. Approaching missile defense as an integrated ``system of 
systems,'' with layered defense in phases--boost, midcourse, and 
terminal--is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the cuts during 
markup targeted the critically important systems engineering and 
command and control elements of missile defense.
  In effect, the cuts removed the ``system of systems'' architecture 
that is important to the new approach to missile defense. The national 
intelligence estimate was clear. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and others 
actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and longer 
range ballistic missiles. China already has ICBMs capable of hitting 
the United States and has threatened to use them if the United States 
interceded in a conflict with Taiwan. Effective missile defense is one 
of the most complex technical problems to face our Nation, and one that 
requires innovative solutions.
  I applaud the new approach for the development and rapid fielding of 
missile defense. It is the right approach given the unique challenges 
of the program and the looming threat. There has been much unwarranted 
confusion over the non-traditional approach to defining requirements 
for missile defense, and the review and oversight process. Some allege 
that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has been given cart blanche to 
spend taxpayer money on outlandish technologies with no oversight.
  These allegations are totally unfounded, and are largely intended by 
ideological opponents of missile defense to alarm and confuse the 
public. Developing a missile defense system is, as Pete Aldridge, the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
said, like operating in ``uncharted waters.''
  In order to define the requirements for the system in the face of 
maturing technologies and the unpredictable future threat, the Missile 
Defense Agency will use an evolutionary or ``spiral'' development 
approach. In most complex programs like missile defense, it is 
extremely difficult in the early stages of development to define in 
sufficient detail what the fielded system will look like, how it will 
perform, and what its functional characteristics will be. These items 
are normally described in operational requirements documents, or ORDs. 
However, far too often, the services, with the best of intentions, 
write the operational requirements documents (ORDs) too early in 
development with their ``best guess'' on what the parameters should be, 
and then spend huge amounts of money trying to drive programs to meet 
those requirements.
  In missile defense, these final requirements at this point are 
impossible to determine. Using ``spiral'' development. In other words, 
developing the system in increments and fielding capabilities as soon 
as they are ready will allow the Department of Defense to field an 
effective missile defense as rapidly as possible. Some argue that this 
program will not receive the proper amount of oversight both within the 
Department of Defense and from the Congress. The truth is that this 
program will have more oversight than any other program in the DOD, and 
I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its 
diligent oversight role as well.
  I would like to say a few words about the level of DOD oversight on 
missile defense so the record is clear. A group of senior Defense 
officials, including Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pete Aldridge, 
and the service Secretaries will act as a ``board of directors'' for 
missile defense and will review the missile defense program on a 
periodic basis. In fact, this group has already reviewed the program 
multiple times in the last few months and will continue to do so in the 
future. Keep in mind that the average DOD acquisition program does not 
have this level of oversight.
  In addition, a second oversight group, the Missile Defense Support 
Group, also has been created to review missile defense. This group 
resembles the Defense Acquisition Board, which on traditional 
acquisition programs only reviews the program at key milestones. 
However, the Missile Defense Support Group will review the program on a 
quarterly basis. Furthermore, the oversight panel is supported by a 
staff that will conduct day-to-day oversight to ensure that the program 
remains on track. Of course, the Congress will continue its oversight 
role as before. Nothing has changed in that regard.
  The concerns about a lack of oversight are unfounded. I would like to 
conclude by once again applauding the Bush administration for revamping 
the Missile Defense Program into one that has the highest probability 
for success. Let's get on with the task. Our Nation's security and the 
safety of millions of Americans depend on us.
  I would also like to thank Senator Warner for his leadership on this 
issue, and would encourage all my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to briefly comment on my 
vote against Senator Kennedy's amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill.
  This amendment would have resulted in a fundamental change in the way 
the Department of Defense is structured. It mandated a new policy for 
every new, modified, or renewed contract for all noninherently 
governmental services within the Department of Defense. The 
consequences of such a change at this point in time would not, in my 
estimation, serve the best interests of my State or of this Nation.
  Small businesses are an integral part of Montana's economy. Small 
businesses meet the diverse, everyday needs of Montana's citizens; many 
Montana small businesses also successfully compete for federal 
contracts. The provisions of this amendment would have priced many 
small businesses out of Federal contract competitions. In light of 
Montana's struggling economy, I could not vote for an amendment that 
would have increased small business costs while creating an 
insurmountable hurdle that need not exist.
  I am also keenly aware of the human capital crunch that the Federal 
Government currently faces. The Department of Defense faces particular 
challenges as they seek to maintain readiness while adjusting to post-
cold war and post-September 11 realities. This amendment would have 
resulted in increased personnel costs for the Department of Defense, 
but, more importantly, it would have delayed contract awards and 
adversely affected mission effectiveness. This is not in the best 
interest of our nation's security or economic needs.
  I am a strong supporter of labor standards in both the private and 
public sectors. Upholding labor standards for all Montanans is a top 
priority for me. I also firmly believe that the Federal Government 
needs to secure the best services, whether public or private, for the 
taxpayer dollars it expends. In examining this amendment, I felt that 
it did not uphold these standards. Instead, the amendment held the 
potential to harm Montana's small business viability and exacerbate the 
public-sector federal human capital shortage.


                    MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam. President, I rise today to discuss medical 
research aimed at preserving blood products, human organs, and other 
wound-repairing tissues. As the chairman may recall, last year I 
discussed with Chairman Levin the fact that this research could 
dramatically impact our ability

[[Page S6008]]

to overcome current medical challenges involved in blood and tissue 
preservation.
  Recent U.S. military actions have resulted in stationing troops in 
harsh climates and conditions, such as those experience in Afghanistan. 
Current locations and missions require new capabilities in combat 
casualty care, and these capabilities would include stable blood 
products, organs, and wound repairing tissues that will enhance human 
survivability under conditions of trauma, shock, anoxia, and other 
extreme conditions, including extreme environment. The Department of 
Defense needs to develop tissues with a long shelf life to support 
combat casualty care. Research in this area could develop stress-
tolerant biosystems or tissues that selectively control critical 
metabolic processes by exploiting an enhanced understanding of 
differential gene expression in bio-organisms and systems exposed to 
extreme environments.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Maine is quite correct in her 
observation and assessment that medical treatment, and specifically 
combat casualty care, particularly in a time of war, should not be 
overlooked. Further, the Department of Defense must consider all 
initiatives that could provide our military physicians and medical 
staff the tools necessary to save the lives of men and women whose 
service to our Nation puts them at risk of severe injury.
  Ms. COLLINS. I am hopeful that as our bill moves through floor 
consideration and conference with the House, we can work to ensure that 
this type of research is adequately funded within the Department of 
Defense.
  There are many aspects to consider in taking care of our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines who are sent into harm's way. In times like 
these, preserving the well-being of our men and men in uniform should 
be given the investment necessary to see that research like this gets 
to the field.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for 
highlighting the critical nature of this research. I recognize her 
interest in this particular area and that this research clearly has 
potential for saving lives, both military and civilian. I look forward 
to working with her on this issue as the Fiscal Year 2003 National 
Defense Authorization bill moves forward.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman for her commitment to 
support investments in the well-being of a most precious national 
asset--our men and women in uniform. And I look forward to working with 
her on this important issue. The support of the chairman of the 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee will be critical, and 
welcomed, to see that leading edge medical research is not only 
explored, but deployed in the days ahead.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________