Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to briefly respond. First, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for working on this issue. I think we can get it worked out as to how we should proceed on the floor. This is an important issue this country faces in how we are going to deal with marriage. It has not been an issue hastily brought to the floor of the Senate. There have been hearings for at least almost 10 months now on this very issue. We have had four hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the other three scattered throughout other committees, talking about the impact on children and what has happened from a socioeconomic change in countries--for example, Scandinavian countries that have recognized same-sex marriage for some time, how that has deteriorated and the fact there are so many children today born out of wedlock in those countries, whereas before that societal change happened where we define marriage, babies born out of wedlock was not such a high number. In fact, in the Scandinavian countries now, we have a greater incidence of babies born out of wedlock than are born in wedlock. We have countries, such as the Netherlands, just more recently accepting the idea of same-sex marriage which have been recognized prior to that as countries that valued the traditional institution of marriage and actually had a very low divorce rate and very low rate as far as children born out of wedlock. But when we look at the Netherlands now, we see, with the demeaning of the value of marriage, that there are more and more children being born out of wedlock. That is a disturbing trend to many of us. When you go to put together language that goes in the Constitution, it is with a lot of consideration and you have to spend a lot of time visiting with a lot of constitutional scholars. I have done that. This has been debated among our Federal colleagues. There are people who have different views, as with any constitutional amendment that has ever been brought to the Senate or before the Congress. There are always different views on that. I can't recall a constitutional amendment that ever came before the Congress when there was not some debate on it. When you are asking to bring it to the floor, you have to expect there are going to be some differences of views. The preponderance has been that those provisions we have in this particular amendment that I have put together and introduced is the right balance because we define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I don't think there is any doubt about that language. It is very straightforward. We have a second sentence in the amendment that says there is a limited role for the courts. In other words, the courts shall not go ahead and define marriage other than what we have defined here. But we recognize there is a definite role for the States. We allow States to move ahead, through the democrat process, and to deal with issues such as civil unions and domestic partnerships and the benefits that may accrue with those types of classifications through the legal system. This has been carefully thought out. We have individuals over here who have sort of the Federalist philosophy. I have sort of a Federalist philosophy. I don't want to see the Government messing around in State affairs, so we have kept that at a very minimum. All we do is define marriage at the Federal level. Then we say it is up to the States now to decide how they want to deal with civil unions and domestic partnerships. We needed to do that in order to limit the power of the courts. This is a constitutional amendment. It deserves a lot of thought and debate. I am very pleased to have a number of cosponsors. The hearings have gone very well. I do wish that in our hearings we had had more participation from the Democrats. In fact, I can recall a number of hearings where nobody showed up from the other side. There were two hearings held where there was a lot of participation from the other side, but at the other five hearings there wasn't any participation at all. So this is an opportunity for people to participate. Anytime you talk about some kind of rule that you are going to put forward in the Senate where you limit debate, limit people's ability to participate, it is always going to be somewhat controversial. I don't think the assistant minority leader should be particularly alarmed at the fact we are having some discussions about how we should move forward. The last time I looked, I think there were some four bills that have been blocked from becoming major bills--such as the energy bill, for example--from coming to the floor of the Senate because of a filibuster. We have a number, I think about four bills or so that have passed the Senate and are not allowed to go anywhere because the other side has not appointed conferees. We have had the obstruction going on with the judges. That is well known. I don't need to go over that, what has been debated. We spent a couple of all-nighters in the Senate talking about the obstruction of the judges and how it is important that we fill those positions. My hope is we can move forward and come up with a reasonable rule, where everybody feels comfortable. That is what we are trying to do on this side. The two meetings that had such good participation were both in the Judiciary Committee. At the first one we had, I and a number of other individuals had an opportunity to testify in front of the committee. Another was with Governor Romney from Massachusetts who came forth to testify. He pointed out to the committee the complications they have had in their State as a result of this debate, how it needs to be clarified, and that he came down in support of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. There were a lot of implications that I think came out of his testimony and needed to be debated and brought out. I hope we will be able to have an opportunity--in fact, if nobody does it, I plan on putting his testimony in the Record. I thought it was very good testimony. So here we are, and we have before us now, after the initiation of the debate last Friday, this amendment that talks about marriage. Again, I want to make clear that everybody understands the language. It says: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence is: Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. That language came about after a lot of deliberation, which included staff and members of the Judiciary Committee. Even though it wasn't voted formally out of the committee, there has been a considerable amount of debate and a lot of scholarly thought about it, and constitutional experts have been approached as far as what would be the best language. I think we need to move forward with the debate. I am looking forward to hearing from the other side on this important issue. So far, we have had red herring arguments and them wanting to talk about something else other than this amendment and the issues it brings up. I hope we can now settle down and get a good debate from the other side about why they don't think marriage ought to be defined as a union between a man and woman, or why they don't think this is a good amendment. So far we have heard argument on procedure and that doesn't get to the meat of the debate. I urge my colleagues on the other side to step forward. Let's hear their views and have this debate on this most important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 3 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We have had this issue before us not only this year a number of times but last year a number of times, and even the year before that to one degree or another. Whether it is intentional, the net effect of these types of amendments is it delays the programs and it adds to extra costs. We have had a lot of debate on all these issues that have been in this particular amendment. I think it is time for the Senate to move forward. I will point out in response to the question that was raised by my colleague from Michigan that we had testimony in the full committee from the chief tester who says he believes we are in full compliance with the law. I do not think anything else needs to be said. We have that testimony. It is on the record in the committee. I urge my colleagues again to join both Senator Warner and myself in opposing this particular amendment. We do have some different testing procedures. That is because this is a different program, unlike the many other programs we have had. So we have to deal with it a different way. The bottom line again is the chief tester is happy with the way it is progressing. He has had access to the program that has been unprecedented. He is satisfied with the cooperation between the program office and the test community. I have a letter, again, that I submitted for the Record in the past that indicates he is fully satisfied. I will read specifically from the letter. It says: My office has unprecedented access to GMD, and I am satisfied with the cooperation between the program office and the test community. I will continue to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Director of MDA on the BMDS test program. I will also provide my characterization of system capabilities and my assessment of test program adequacy handling as required by Congress. In my view, it is time we move on. In effect, when we go for the formal testing that is being advocated in this particular amendment, we add an extra year of delay. It breaks up the manufacturing lines. We have had this discussion at a previous date. The net effect is subcontractors have to be requalified, workers need to be retrained, and then the manufacturing process has to be relearned. It takes time, up to 2\1/2\ years, and money--some have estimated as much as adding $250 million to the cost. So I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Warner in opposing this Reed amendment. It has the net effect of adding costs to the program, delaying the program unnecessarily, and we do have adequate testing now.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I rise to strongly oppose the Levin amendment. Senator Levin proposes to cut $515 million from missile defense and shift funds to a variety of homeland security and counterterrorism provisions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment on a number of grounds. First, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and homeland security. Missile defense is quintessentially homeland security. That is right, missile defense is homeland security. It protects our homeland from long-range missiles and the most destructive weapons on the planet. Second, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and counterterror. Throughout the cold war, we were concerned with the balance of terror. Rogue nations with missiles and weapons of mass destruction will use those missiles and weapons to threaten and terrorize the United States, our allies, and our friends. Third, it would do serious harm to the Missile Defense Program. The $515 million cut in the Levin amendment is for the next 10 ground-based midcourse defense interceptors. Cutting these funds would break the production line for these missiles. It would cause the loss of key personnel, expertise, subcontractors, and suppliers, and then they would have to start all over again, with lead-in delays and extra costs to the program. The Missile Defense Agency would have to reconstitute the production, requalify and recertify subcontractors and suppliers, and it would have to restart production. Losing these funds for a year could result in a long delay in fielding the next 10 interceptors--between 2 and 3 years after we would have fielded them, I am told--and result in restart costs of nearly $300 million. Those who oppose missile defense obviously would like to delay. That is what we have been arguing over the last few days. They would like to add costs and then come back and say how this program is not proceeding the way it should. This is an essential program. We should not have delays. We should do everything we possibly can to cut down unnecessary costs because of time delays. Fourth, it would do serious harm to the defense of the Nation against long-range missile threats. The Missile Defense Agency's assessment is that delaying the next 10 interceptors would leave us critically short of assets in the 2007 timeframe to defend against known and potential threats. We cannot talk about all the information that is available that informs Senators and how that judgment comes about, but it is available to all Senators, and if they have any questions about that, I urge them to get that information and review it. And fifth, this amendment is inconsistent with national policy established in legislation and signed into law by President Clinton. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 established a national policy to deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically feasible. It is feasible, and these additional interceptors are important to that effort. The Senate approved that act by a vote of 97 to 3, I remind Members of the Senate. Furthermore, this amendment would move the funds to accounts that are already well funded. Again, I remind my colleagues in the Senate, this missile defense is homeland security. I want to talk a little bit about these funds. For example, the President's budget includes $47.4 billion for homeland security activities, not including ballistic missile defense throughout the Government, an increase of $6.1 billion, or 15 percent, compared to last year, a $26.8 billion increase to fiscal year 2002. Being on the Budget Committee, I had an opportunity to do a comparison. Homeland security is getting far more percentage increase than any other agency the President proposed in his budget. Now we are piling in on top of that. Funding for the Department's activities to counter terrorism has more than doubled in 3 years to $10.2 billion. Of that amount, the President's budget request included $8 billion in DOD programs for homeland defense. The committee's mark added more than $300 million above the budget request. All of the programs for which Senator Levin proposes to add funds in his amendment were funded either at or above the amount of the President's budget request. Many of the recommendations for increased funding in this measure are simply flawed. For example, one of the first items recommends an increase of $50 million in Air Force research and development to be allocated to NORAD for low altitude threat detection and response technology. This item appears to be directed at cruise missile defense, but it is not clearly enough defined to know how the proposed funding increase would be used. A $50 million increase for ill-defined purposes would not be executable. I note that the proposal was apparently justified on the basis that the NORTHCOM integrated priority list includes cruise missile defense. This proposed amendment also reduces one of the highest NORTHCOM priorities on its list--that is ballistic missile defense--by $515 million, again reminding the Members of the Senate that missile defense is homeland security. Finally, I have a letter that was sent to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from Admiral Ellis, commander of the Strategic Command at Omaha, NE, the head military integrator for missile defense, who expresses his opposition to any cuts to missile defense funding. I will read this letter for the benefit of my colleagues. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express concern about possible efforts to cut funding from the President's FY05 budget request for continued fielding of missile defense capabilities, including additional Ground-based Interceptors. As the operational lead for Global Missile Defense, USSSTRATCOM supports the continued appropriate development of missile defense capabilities that will be incrementally fielded and improved under the evolutionary approach of Concurrent Test and Operations. It is especially important to our early success that we have funding support for the production of ground- based interceptors at a rate and quantity sufficient to sustain the evolutionary developmental approach, testing milestones, and our initial defense operational capabilities. A reduction of interceptor funding would: (1) limit the capability and capacity of the Ballistic Missile Defense System to defend the U.S. against long-range missile attack, and (2) limit the opportunity to gain operational test experience as it will reduce the number of interceptors available to replace deployed interceptors subsequently used in operational testing. He goes on to say he further appreciates the chairman's support to both develop and provide the Nation with a rudimentary missile defense capability and indicated that this letter was also forwarded to the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So the sponsor of this amendment has seen this letter, which is from an individual whom I have had before my committee and somebody whom I highly respect. So there we have it, somebody who is part of STRATCOM giving us a clear reason for why we need to have those additional missiles. In response to what the sponsor of the amendment said about whether all the missiles are going to be used, that was addressed in a full committee hearing on March 9 in which Senator Levin himself, the sponsor of the amendment, asked General Kadish, after he commented about the fact that the missiles would work: How many of the Fort Greeley ones would be launched? General Kadish answered--and this is not new evidence or new facts that have been brought before the Armed Services Committee or even before the full Senate. General Kadish said: Eventually, all of them. That response was further pursued by my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, who asked: They would be moved somewhere else, is that it? General Kadish said: No. Well, they may--this is part of the ongoing planning. That is why we all get frustrated from time to time when we change our plans. The current plan is to use all of those out at Fort Greeley.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. I will respond to the concerns that were raised by the sponsor of the amendment about what he referred to as ``loose nukes,'' and from that same report which he quoted, I would point out that in the report it says the probability that a weapons of mass destruction armed missile will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold war. This is a real threat, and we should not be saying we have a higher priority on homeland defense or a higher priority on missiles. The fact is we are vulnerable in all areas. We need to address that, and we have been adequately addressing it with our funding for homeland security. Now we need to take care of missile defense and make sure we have adequately taken care of the threat with weapons of mass destruction through missiles that might be launched. In response to a hearing we had earlier on the need for a missile defense test bed, I will share with my colleagues some testimony by Admiral Ellis, who is the commander of STRATCOM. I asked Admiral Ellis: Do you support the use of the missile defense test bed to provide limited operational capability, yes or no? Admiral Ellis replies: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Then I asked him a further question: Does such a capability contribute to deterrence? Admiral Ellis says: Absolutely. Then I responded back: Does such a capability provide a useful strategic option? Admiral Ellis says: Yes, it does. Then I further questioned: Does such a capability raise the nuclear threshold? Admiral Ellis says: It certainly does. The fourth point I would like to talk about is the funding of the nonproliferation initiative. The biggest portion of Senator Levin's proposal adds $211 million for a new nonproliferation initiative in the Department of Energy, but DOE cannot spend the funding it has already for nonproliferation. Right now, DOE has $735 million in unobligated balances for nonproliferation programs, and Senator Levin's amendment would push that total up to nearly a billion dollars. In summary, we are on the right track. The Armed Services Committee has received testimony both in my subcommittee as well as in the full committee and the testimony indicates we have a real need in missile defense and we are taking care of homeland security. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Levin amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on Tuesday, June 15, I received some very sad news, that Jessie Roberson had announced her resignation as the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at the Department of Energy effective July 15. I have known Jessie since I was first elected to the Senate in 1996. At the time she was the site manager for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site in my State of Colorado. Through our common interest at Rocky Flats, I got to know her quite well. She not only impressed me with her depth of knowledge but here innovation and determination in making sure that Rocky Flats would be one of the first major DOE sites to close. Under her watch from 1996 to 1999, the Rocky Flats closure date went from 2015 to 2006. I know it was her leadership that moved this ambitious plan forward. When President Bush was elected in 2000, it was that same leadership and determination that convinced me to put her name forward knowing that she would be the best person for the job of Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at the Department. And I can say, unequivocally, that she has not disappointed. When I met with her shortly after being confirmed, I told her that the environmental management program was broken and in need of major reforms. I added that this would not be easy and that some people would not like the changes which are necessary to make the program work. She agreed and she promised that she would work hard to effect change. While she later told me that it has not been easy, she kept the course and has transformed the program from one of just motion to true action. The Department has made tremendous progress in getting sites closer to closure. I can honestly say that what some people did not think possible 3 years ago is closer to happening; and that is that sites will be closing. I can only attribute this to the leadership of this extraordinary woman. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 16, I inserted into the Record a Denver Post editorial entitled ``Roberson a Top Flight Pick'' and quoted one line from the editorial. It said: The Department's environmental management job is in fact one of the toughest positions in the Federal Government. There likely is not a better person around to tackle the task, than Jessie Roberson. I believed that statement then, and after 3 years on the job, she proved that statement to be true. She has done a tremendous job not just for President Bush and Secretary Abraham, but for the entire country. She has made our country safer by accelerating the cleanup of some of the world's most dangerous places. She is making sure that our children and grandchildren are not going to have to bear the burden of these contaminated sites. While I am saddened to see her leave her post at the Department, I know that she has nothing but the brightest future ahead of her. I am proud to call her my friend and I wish Jessie and her daughter Jessica all the best. Thank you, Jessie Roberson, for your service.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. That should do it, yes.

Mr. ALLARD. I rise in strong opposition to Reed amendment No. 3353, which fences the funds for ground-based midcourse interceptors pending completion of initial operational test and evaluation. In effect we have already had that debate, and I find it perplexing that here we are, having that same issue introduced again in the form of another Reed amendment on the floor of the Senate. I think we adequately addressed it yesterday when we had a Reed amendment at that particular time where he put in some requirements for operational testing, and we second-degreed that with the Warner amendment where we talked about modifying that in a way so that we maintain flexibility with the Secretary of the Department of Defense, yet had some accountability. There was a policy set forward where we could move forward with the missile defense issue and still show the accountability we needed. We had that vote and the Warner amendment was adopted as a second-degree amendment on the Reed amendment. We resolved that issue. But here again we are talking about the same issue. I certainly don't quarrel with the need to conduct operational realistic testing. We recognized that yesterday. Everyone supports that, so much so that this body voted, as I said, strongly. They didn't just vote for it, they strongly voted in favor of the Warner amendment yesterday, which requires such a test to be conducted next year so we can get that behind us and move on. We address it in terms of realistic testing instead of operational testing, which would be much more restrictive. But this amendment would cause serious harm to the effort to defend our Nation from missile attack. It is a delay in our moving forward. In fact, it would disrupt the production lines to a point where it may even put the total program in severe jeopardy. By fencing these funds, the amendment would prevent obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2005 funds for the next ground-based midcourse missile interceptors until completion of initial operational test and evaluation. I know some Senators have maintained this is not a cut to the program. To plan, conduct, and assess a formal operational test--just one test--would take the Missile Defense Agency and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation a year or more. The fact is, the fiscal year 2005 funds requested could not be executed in fiscal year 2005. That is the problem. In effect, this is a deep cut to a very important effort. This reduction would cause serious disruption in the effort to acquire additional interceptors. The contractors making the interceptors would have to interrupt their efforts. Subcontractors would be lost. Key personnel would be lost. Valuable manufacturing experience and processes would also be lost. Requalifying, then, these subcontractors and retraining workers and relearning the manufacturing process takes time and money. The projections are it would delay the program up to 2\1/2\ years and cost taxpayers more than $250 million extra. Ironically, the loss of expertise and experienced personnel, and the effort to retrain and requalify, inevitably involves increased technical risk, exactly the opposite result which I know Senator Reed hopes to achieve. Let me make several key points. First of all, the GMD effort is threat driven. North Korean ballistic missiles already pose a serious threat to the United States. The justification for the additional 10 interceptor missiles is to defend the country. It is clear for all those who want to look at the evidence. Delay will leave us critically short of assets to defend ourselves. Second, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command has expressed concern with efforts to reduce the number of GMD interceptors. He supports the early exploitation of the operational capabilities inherent in the BMD test bed and believes the GMD element provides him with a useful military capability and enhances deterrence. Third, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Department's chief tester, as I like to refer to him, wrote in a letter to me that operational testing for a GMD element is premature and would not be helpful to the program. I have introduced that letter into the Record in previous debates. This is in direct contradiction to the direction of this amendment. The Director, Mr. Christie, has testified that he supports the BMD test program and how it is being conducted, that the testing of the ground-based midcourse element is appropriate, and that he provides operational assessments on a continuing basis. Fourth, this amendment offers no real benefit to the GMD test program. It is characteristic of a spiral development program such as the ballistic missile defense development effort to incorporate both developmental goals and operational goals and testing. The GMD testing already incorporates operational goals in each of its tests and, as I noted, the Director of OT&E already provides operational assessments based on this testing. I believe this amendment provides no benefit, absolutely no benefit to the GMD effort and, in fact, will do significant harm to our national defense. I urge my colleagues to oppose this Reed amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Senator Kyl was on the Senate floor. I thought I would go ahead and give him an opportunity to make some comments. I would like to make some comments following his remarks.

Mr. ALLARD. I do. If you take down the test bed, you in effect are going to stop the progress of the missile defense program. The real issue is, if you take down any part of it, it is so intertwined and interconnected, you slow down and stop the whole system. Your comments are very pertinent. They are very much in order. I have tremendous concern that this in effect is going to undo what the Congress has worked so hard to do. If you remember, initially the legislation directed that we move forward on missile defense as soon as technologically feasible. We are ready to move ahead, and we need to. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for his statement. I recognize in a public way his great work on this particular issue, and his comments are very enlightening. I will yield myself 6 minutes. I rise in strong opposition to the Boxer amendment. Today, we face a clear threat from long-range missiles in North Korea. Iran has made no secret of its intent to develop long-range missiles. We may have to deal with that threat in the not-too-distant future. That is the truth. Consequently, I have great concern about this amendment, which seems relatively straightforward but it is potentially devastating to the effort to defend our Nation from long-range missile threats. I say ``seems straightforward'' because I can actually read this amendment three different ways. None of these readings seem useful to the defense of this country. If I focus on mission, I would note that Admiral James Ellis, Commander of Strategic Command, has testified to our committee that the ground-based midcourse element of the ballistic missile defense system enhances deterrence and provides him a militarily useful capability. On that basis, perhaps the Secretary could provide the certification required by the amendment, even at this stage of the testing. I don't believe that is what the Senator from California has in mind. If I focus on operations, I might read this amendment to say we can deploy all we want, but we cannot use what we deployed operationally. Taken literally, that would mean if North Korea or some other nation would launch a missile at us, we would be forbidden by law from trying to defend ourselves. I don't believe that is what the Senator has in mind either. Of course, to be able to try to intercept such a missile, the ground-based midcourse element would have to be on alert and operationally ready. This is precisely why Admiral Ellis strongly supports taking advantage of the operational capabilities of the missile defense test bed. That brings us to the third reading focusing on deployment. If I read the amendment correctly, it would impose a prohibition on any deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. Any additional deployment would be prohibited until the Secretary of Defense certifies that operationally realistic testing has demonstrated that the ground-based midcourse defense element can perform its mission. If that is the Senator's intent, as I read this, if this amendment were to become law at the beginning of the new fiscal year, no further fielding of ground-based midcourse interceptors, radars, battle management facilities, command and control facilities, or communications assets would be permitted. These are the components of the BMD test bed on which the initial defense capability of the GMD element are based. This has the potential to cause extraordinary harm to the GMD effort by disrupting ongoing efforts to acquire assets for the BMD test bed, including all of the assets I just mentioned. Recovering from this disruption, depending on how long fielding of capabilities were to be suspended, could take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But beyond that, as a consequence of this disruption, and the consequent harm to the BMD test bed, it is not clear to me at all how the Missile Defense Agency could achieve the operationally realistic testing that all of us support. Furthermore, I believe this amendment fails to grasp the essentials of how the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency are attempting to field missile defenses as effectively and expeditiously as possible. The ballistic missile defense program is a spiral development effort. That means, in essence, develop missile defenses and field those defenses if the warfighter believes the capability has military utility without necessarily waiting for the 100-percent solution. Further development then allows those defenses to be improved in subsequent spirals. This amendment does not seem to take account of this spiral development, that the ground midcourse defense system element will be able to perform at a certain level early in its fielding and will improve in its capabilities over time or that continued testing will demonstrate new capabilities as they are developed. Testing, which already incorporates operational goals and some measure of operational realism, gets more realistic and more rigorous with time. This method of development, testing, and fielding does not seem to me to be compatible with the one-time certification by the Secretary. We all support operationally realistic testing, but banning deployment until a certification appears to me to be self-defeating. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a quote by Christie, who is the Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation Program: I continue to strongly support the construction and integration of the BMDS test bed. This test bed will provide the elements that make up the initial defense operations or. . . . the architecture of the missile defense system. Who is this director? He is the chief tester. This is what the chief tester himself is saying about how important it is that we move forward with spiral development where we can operationally show in a test bed the dual capability.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield--how much time does the Senator from Alabama wish?

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLARD. On the Defense authorization bill? We have no objection.

Mr. ALLARD. And I will make just a brief closing comment for about a minute or two. Why don't we go ahead. The Senator can make his statement, then I will make my brief statement, and we will move forward to a vote. I think we may have to go into a quorum call briefly before the vote and get things in order.

Mr. ALLARD. We are ready to proceed to the vote, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Alabama is here. I appreciate Senator Sessions serving on the Strategic Subcommittee with me and serving on the Armed Services Committee. He works very hard on that committee. The defense of this country is important. He agrees with that. He brings a stroke of common sense to our deliberations which I, for one, truly appreciate. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLARD. Does the Senator from Rhode Island wish to draw this to a close and move to a vote?