Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003 at 11 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of Janet Hale to be Under Secretary for Management, Department of Homeland Security; the Honorable Clark Kent Ervin to be Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; and Linda M. Springer to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, February 27, 2003, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 27, at 3 p.m., to receive testimony regarding S. 246, a bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico; S. 32, a bill to establish institutes to conduct research on the prevention of, and restoration from, wildfires in forest and woodland ecosystems of the interior west; S. 203, a bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining; S. 278, a bill to make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, and for other purposes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on U.S. involvement in aerospace research.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Federal Highway Administration's FY 2004 budget. This meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the two largest newspapers in Colorado--the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post-- have both called for the Democrat leadership not to filibuster this judicial nominee?

Mr. ALLARD. Is the Senator aware that the Denver Post, which endorsed Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election, wrote: ``To use a filibuster is to impose a new requirement that judges be confirmed by a supermajority''? And is the Senator aware that the Rocky Mountain News wrote in an editorial: ``Keeping others from voting their conscience on this particular matter is simply out of line''?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, anybody who might have been watching the debate this evening has to come to the realization that we are in a filibuster. Personally, I am very concerned about the kind of precedent it is going to set for this body as we move forward in future years. I think that forcing 60 votes in order to get to a vote up or down on a judicial nominee is a very difficult position to put this body in. I am disappointed that we were not able to get a straight up-or-down vote this evening on Miguel Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I realize that watching the Senate on television is probably not the most popular pastime for many Americans, but it should come as no surprise to any of my colleagues or students of Congress that the current debate and unprecedented filibuster over the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, President George W. Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit Court, has citizens from across the country tuning in and paying close attention. From California to Colorado to New York and beyond, Americans have closely watched the DC Circuit Court confirmation, because they realize that justice is not issued by an individual court or judge, but rather collectively, the integrity of the law depending on the ability of each court to function within the whole. In the midst of the Democrat-led filibuster, the Senate finds its business completely disrupted, unable to proceed to other important issues such as prescription drugs and economic relief. The Constitution commands that Federal judges are to be appointed with the advice and consent of this body. Yet today, thanks to the obstructionist tactics of the Democratic leadership, we face a very real possibility of shifting this authority in a manner the Framers never intended, fundamentally altering the amount of votes required to confirm judicial nominations. It is clear that the obstructionists are not interested in an up-or- down vote on this nomination. Instead, they prefer to hold the majority and the American people hostage to an unacceptable game of entrenchment and politics. Their reasons to prolong debate may be enough to justify a vote against Miguel Estrada, but I am still waiting for a reason that is sufficient to deny a vote entirely. Television programs, talk show radio, and newspaper editorials across the United States are demanding that the Democrats allow a vote on Miguel Estrada, that they proceed to a simple up-or-down vote. The media is simply echoing the statement of an outraged public. They have rejected this tyranny of the minority, and their demand for a vote must be acknowledged. The call for a vote has reached the editorial pages of both major newspapers in Colorado. The Rocky Mountain News, in an editorial entitled ``Democrats Turn Ugly on Estrada,'' states the filibuster is irresponsible. Their editorial also undermines many of the various arguments that are being used to prolong the confirmation, saying the arguments that we do not know enough about Miguel Estrada is implausible because he has a well-known and rather amazing life story. Estrada immigrated to this country from Honduras, graduated with honors at Columbia College, and was editor of the Law Review at Harvard Law School. Then he was a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice and argued before the Supreme Court 15 times. He received the highest possible recommendation of the American Bar Association. The editorial concludes: The Democrats have no excuse . . . keeping others from voting their consciences on this particular matter is simply out of line. I ask unanimous consent that the article by the Rocky Mountain News be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. The News is not the only newspaper to decry the treatment of the President's nominee. The Denver Post, which, by the way, endorsed Al Gore over George W. Bush for President, in an article captioned, ``Give Estrada His Day in Court,'' states those Senators who think Estrada is too conservative should vote no. Those who think he was unresponsive should vote no. The key point is there should be a vote. To do otherwise, to use a filibuster, is to impose a new requirement that judges be confirmed by a supermajority. The paper agrees the Constitution never intended such a requirement and that an up-or-down vote is in order. I ask unanimous consent that the Denver Post editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Another article that appeared in the Denver Post was written by Al Knight, which states that if the obstructionists succeed, there will only be two kinds of nominees in a Republican administration: Those who can be opposed because they have said something suspect about a touchy topic, and known conservatives who have not said anything inappropriate. The second category can be opposed, however, precisely because they have not furnished their opponents with a basis for opposing their nomination. The article concludes that the Estrada filibuster is a lamentable departure from the past. I ask unanimous consent that the Al Knight article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, challenging times are at hand. While I believe a full and fair debate of Presidential nominees is of paramount importance, obstructing an up-or-down vote fails the public trust and is a disservice to our system of justice. The Senate must resist temptations to alter the basic tenets of the Constitution. Instead, the Senate must move forward with the business of the Nation and can start by voting on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Again, we ought to look at the chart and remind ourselves of the key point in the editorials. The Denver Post said: The key point is that there should be a vote. . . . A filibuster should play no part in the process. The Rocky Mountain News says: The Democrats have no excuse for keeping others from voting their consciences on this particular matter. It is simply out of line. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I have heard some on the floor try and imply that somehow Mr. Estrada has a hot temper, a short fuse. First, I would have to say that seems inconsistent with the many letters from those who know him. That includes such people as his former colleagues in the Solicitor General's Office, Ron Klain and Seth Waxman, who all praised his personal demeanor. But beyond that, is the Senator as troubled as I am by the use of these code words that perpetuate stereotypes about Hispanics and makes you wonder if we are debating Ricky Ricardo or Miguel Estrada? I see high praise in a New York Post article that describes him as a great American success story. I wonder if the Senator from Utah would respond to that question.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I need about 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to share an observation made by my colleague on this side of the aisle--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch from Utah--that, like him, I believe there is a double standard. Last week, I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Last week, I had my statement focused on the late Byron White, Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. During my comments, I pointed out that Justice White's judicial career began in a manner very similar to that of Miguel Estrada. Justice White was nominated by President John F. Kennedy when he was only 44 years old. He went on to serve his country for three decades, without having any judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. And he did an exemplary job on the bench. Yet opponents of Miguel Estrada have pointed to his lack of judicial experience as the ``poison pill'' to his nomination. This is an unacceptable double standard. This experience litmus test, as I call it, is nothing but an obstructionist argument that is intended to undermine the entire judicial nomination process. It is wreaking havoc with our constitutional duty to confirm the President's nominations. To say that Mr. Estrada, one of the best appellate court lawyers in the country, should not be confirmed because he lacks prior judicial experience is simply ridiculous. Justice White, a great Coloradan, would never have been confirmed had he faced such a strenuous litmus test; nor would another great Coloradan, Carlos Lucero, have been confirmed had that test been applied to him. Judge Lucero was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton on March 23, 1995, and was confirmed by the Senate on June 30, 1995. Three months is all it took. Like Justice White and Miguel Estrada, Judge Carlos Lucero had never served as a judge prior to joining the court. Regardless of this fact, within 3 months of his nomination, the Judiciary Committee, then under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, held a confirmation hearing for Mr. Lucero. At no point during the confirmation hearing--not even once--did a member of the committee discuss his lack of judicial experience; nor did they consider it to be an impediment to his nomination. Instead, the Judiciary Committee moved forward with the nomination in a Republican-controlled Senate. Judge Lucero had served as a staff assistant to a U.S. Senator. He had served on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clerked for Judge Doyle of the Colorado District of the U.S. District Court, and practiced law in the private sector prior to joining the Federal bench. Let's look at Miguel Estrada. He was a graduate from Harvard Law School with high honors. We have a lot of his qualifications listed on the board behind me. He served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he worked as an Assistant Solicitor General of the United States in both the Bush and the Clinton administrations. Neither Carlos Lucero--now Judge Lucero--nor Miguel Estrada had judicial experience at the time of their nomination. They both had a breadth of legal experience that ensured success on the bench. Miguel Estrada's outstanding record of accomplishment and real-life experiences prove that he will be no different than Judge White or Judge Lucero and that he will perform his judicial duties with great conviction and enthusiasm. Within 3 months, Mr. Lucero was nominated, confirmed, and seated on the bench of the Tenth Circuit, becoming that court's first Hispanic judge. Somehow, the fact that Mr. Lucero had no judicial experience did not stop a Clinton appointee from being confirmed, but that is not the only ironic argument. The Lucero nomination points out a second double standard being put forward by his opponents that Miguel Estrada is too political. Carlos Lucero was a two-time candidate for the Senate and a member of one of President Carter's advisory committees. Yet he still was confirmed without a concern being voiced by a single Senator that he was involved in a Senate race which was hailed by local newspapers as a bitter interparty slugfest, and the opposition to Miguel Estrada wants to complain about politics. Upon his confirmation, Judge Lucero correctly stated it was ``an unfortunate vestige of history'' that it had taken so long for the Tenth Circuit to seat a Hispanic judge. It certainly was not because of delays in a Republican Senate. With the nomination of Miguel Estrada, the Senate has an opportunity to place the first Hispanic judge on the bench of the DC Circuit Court, a man who came to this country at age 17 as an immigrant from Honduras, and a man who is well equipped to serve as the Nation's second most important court, certainly a success story of America and one that I like to herald time and again. When Judge Lucero was before the committee, he was not asked his position on one issue, and yet my colleagues just saw my colleague from Utah show the Members of this Senate three pages of facts and testimony that had been collected on Miguel Estrada. There were a couple questions in committee. I have them right here. This is the committee record on Lucero. We saw the 3-inch committee record on Miguel Estrada. When Judge Lucero from Colorado was on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, they asked him two questions: No. 1--it was an open-ended question--give this committee some idea why you think you qualify to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was an open-ended question, a softball. No. 2--it was intended to be somewhat humorous and bring some levity to the committee hearing--they simply kidded him with a question: Is it easier to become a Senator or is it easier to become a judge? That was the extent of the questions, other than a few introductory remarks that were made in committee on Carlos Lucero. Yet we have information collected of an extremely qualified candidate, Miguel Estrada. I have to tell you, there is a double standard. Unlike Judge Lucero who was nominated by President Clinton, Miguel Estrada has been forced to put his life on hold while special interests play games with our system of justice, delaying his confirmation and perpetrating an unfortunate status quo. Miguel Estrada's nomination has been pending since May 9, 2001. That is nearly 2 years, and this is simply ridiculous. Judge Lucero was nominated and confirmed in 3 months. Miguel Estrada has been waiting for 2 years. Judge Lucero ran for the Senate twice. Miguel Estrada is far less political than Judge Lucero. Judge Lucero clerked for a U.S. district judge but had no judicial experience. Miguel Estrada served as a clerk to Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, Assistant to the Solicitor General, assistant U.S. attorney, and deputy chief of the appellate section, and law clerk to Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Lucero practiced law in Colorado. Miguel Estrada practiced law in front of the U.S. Supreme Court where he argued 15 cases. Mr. Estrada's qualifications are clear and abundant. The obstructionist charade must stop. Over the past 2 years, many of my colleagues have come to the floor to make statements regarding the sad pace of judicial nominations during the last Congress. They have made excellent points, but I believe the most telling statistic is simply that more appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing in President Bush's Presidency than in the last 50 years combined. Let me repeat that. The most telling statistic is simply that more appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a hearing in President Bush's Presidency than in the last 50 years combined. The stalemate on the Bush nominees must end. In the wake of September 11, we now understand the somber reality that the most basic of our country's values and traditions are under attack. That is why it is so important that we move the nomination process forward and provide the judiciary branch of Government the tools that are necessary to carry out its constitutional duty. We cannot continue to allow partisan politics to interfere with principled jurisprudence that is intended to serve justice on those who have done us harm. Justice cannot be delivered from an empty bench. Miguel Estrada's life story defines the very notion of our Republic. Like Judge Lucero and Justice White, he is an American success story, building his success by combining energy and opportunity with self-respect and integrity and values. It is time for the confirmation process to move forward and for a vote on the floor of the Senate. At least we can have a vote on the floor of the Senate. And it is time to drop the double standard and to confirm this very highly qualified nominee. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I have some information for Senators. The Senate will resume debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada this morning. We had a productive debate on the Estrada nomination on yesterday afternoon, and it is the majority leader's objective to arrive at an agreement with the other side of the aisle regarding the consideration and vote on the nomination in the near future. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. It is anticipated that the Senate will adjourn around noon. Therefore, Senators who wish to speak on the Estrada nomination are encouraged to make arrangements to do so earlier in the day.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, it is ironic that one of the arguments against Miguel Estrada, the President's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court, center around prior judicial experience. This argument is nothing but hollow political rhetoric aimed at obstructing the Senate's constitutional duty to confirm judges. It is also a double standard of the highest order. To illustrate this point, I bring a Colorado legend to the attention of my colleagues. Byron ``Whizzer'' White may have passed away almost a year ago, but the Centennial State will forever feel his commanding presence. Mr. White was born in Fort Collins, CO, not far from where I live and where my family lives, and was raised in nearby Wellington. He went on to become his high school's valedictorian, All-American football star, college valedictorian, Rhodes scholar, professional football player, and a decorated World War II soldier. Noting his many significant achievements, President John F.Kennedy nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1962, saying, Byron White ``excelled at everything he has ever attempted.'' White, at only 44 years of age, ascended to the bench of our Nation's highest court and went on to serve for three decades. Why is this significant? It is significant because had President Kennedy adhered to such a rigid litmus test, Byron White would never have been seated on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Adherence to the experience litmus test would mean that five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit would not have been confirmed because they had no previous judicial experience--including two of President Clinton's nominees, Merrick Garland and David Tatel, and one appointed by President Carter, Judge Harry Edwards, who was younger than Mr. Estrada currently is. It is obvious that the opposition to Miguel Estrada is not concerned with merit or intellect. They are more concerned with partisan politics. Their work is concentrated on holding our Nation hostage to their rigid ideology, unprecedented in the consideration of judges. While caseloads in the Federal courts continue to increase dramatically and filings reach all-time highs, the opposition pursues an agenda of obstruction, aimed at disrupting the justice that is guaranteed by our Constitution, and creating a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently warned that the current number of vacancies, combined with the rising caseloads, threatens the proper functioning of the Federal courts. This is a time in our Nation's history when our courts ought to be fully up and functioning. It is a time when there are lots of national security concerns centered around terrorist threats. These extraordinary delays must end. Miguel Estrada is a highly qualified and respected individual who deserves the Senate's consideration. Mr. Estrada is a man of legal experience, a man of keen intellect and strong character. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and has served both as a Federal prosecutor and Assistant United States Solicitor General. If confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic to serve on the DC Circuit. I think that is significant. And he will be a principal asset to our system of justice. Miguel Estrada has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. He has received strong support from those who know him the best--the Hispanic legal community, including the Hispanic National Bar Association. I believe he has earned a vote in the Senate. He has earned my respect and my support, and I plan to vote for Miguel Estrada. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, following the attacks of September 11, many Americans found themselves feeling, perhaps for the first time, a sense of vulnerability. Terrorists had successfully infiltrated our country, hijacked four of our jetliners, and committed mass suicide. Using simple tactics and superb coordination, they singlehandedly changed the American mindset in a matter of minutes. President Bush recognized that our way of life changed drastically on September 11. During an address to a joint session of Congress and the American people 9 days after the attacks, President Bush said the following: On September 11, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars--but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war--but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks--but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this brought upon us in a single day--and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. For nearly 10 years prior to that, our country enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity. The economy grew at an unbelievable rate. We were at peace with our neighbors. We focused on health-care, welfare, education, and other domestic priorities. The fall of the Soviet Union eliminated the threat to our Nation. Our defense budget shrank; our intelligence resources dwindled; and our homeland defenses remained virtually nonexistent. The biggest problem our military faced was not how best to invade Iraq, but how to keep enlisted families off food stamps. Our mind simply was elsewhere. A number of blue-ribbon commissions tried to get our attention. The Bremer Commission pointed out the deficiencies of our intelligence collection efforts. The Gilmore Commission revealed how disconnected, disparate, and dysfunctional our homeland security efforts were. And, the Hart-Rudman Commission discussed how much our Federal Government needed to be restructured to better combat terrorism. Yet many of the recommendations from these commissions were pushed aside as being impractical, too expensive, or unnecessary. As it turns out, they were right, and on September 11, we paid the price. Since that dreadful day, we have made considerable progress. We have rid Afghanistan of its terrorists-run government, disrupted terrorist operations around the world, and taken steps to improve our homeland defenses. I was pleased last November when the Congress, after 3 months of debate, approved legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This Department will pull together 22 agencies and nearly 200,000 Federal employees. It will not be an easy task. Tom Ridge, the new Secretary of the Department, will have his hands full for many years to come. The Department of Defense has also taken a number of measures to improve our homeland defense. The establishment of Northern Command was a significant organizational step toward fighting terrorism at our borders. The new commander, Air Force Gen. Ed Eberhart, will be responsible for the defense of the United States, including land, aerospace and sea defenses. NORTHCOM will also provide military assistance to civil authorities, including crisis and subsequent consequence management operations should such assistance be necessary. This past year the Congress went further when it created a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security within Department of Defense. The assistant secretary will be responsible for providing guidance and planning assistance to the various combatant commands, including NORTHCOM. The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing today on the President's nominee, Paul McHale, for this position. Despite our efforts to build stronger homeland defenses, our country finds itself confronted by numerous threats on several different fronts. As we speak, thousands of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines are being deployed around the globe in such remote places as Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Horn of Africa. Just last week, 4,000 soldiers from Fort Carson, CO, were given orders to deploy overseas. The war against global terrorism continues to require substantial resources and considerable foreign cooperation. The administration has made enormous progress in this area, but more remains to be done. Many al-Qaida operatives are at large, and several nations continue to support terror groups. We must remain vigilant and proactive if we are to prevent future terror attacks. With regard to Iraq, as the President said during his state of the union address, Saddam Hussein continues to hide his weapons programs, despite an aggressive weapons inspection regime. To many, the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration given to the United Nations last December was duplicative of previous declarations and revealed little of value. It only served to highlight Saddam Hussein's determination to retain his weapons of mass destruction. The reports earlier this week by the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, further demonstrated that Iraq remains unwilling to give up its weapons programs. In his statement to the United Nation's Security Council, Hans Blix emphasized this point. He said, Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. Iraq has hedged, delayed, and avoided complete disarmament for over a decade. There comes a time when diplomacy and sanctions become exercises in futility. There come a time when only military action will succeed where negotiations have repeatedly failed. There comes a time when the President of the United States, as leader of the free world, must say enough is enough. Several press reports indicate that some U.S. allies, most notably France and Germany, may oppose military action against Iraq at this time. We should certainly take their thoughts into consideration. Our alliances should be both respected and preserved. At the same time, though, the President has an obligation to our country to do what is best for the United States--his primary responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. It is my hope that our friends and allies will recognize our determination to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programs and support our efforts in the Persian Gulf. Just as we prepare to confront Iraq's growing arsenal of destruction, we cannot ignore the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Bush administration has sought to form a global consensus to deal with North Korea's WMD ambitions. Press reports indicate that the President wants the United Nations Security Council to deal with this threat to East Asia. I think this is a good first step. In many ways, the North Korean issue is different from the situation involving Iraq. There haven't been any U.N. resolutions calling for the disarmament of North Korea, nor have North Korea's allies, China and Russia, shown much interest in resolving this issue. A global consensus is now beginning to form. Our allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, are only starting to realize the danger North Korea's WMD efforts pose to the region. Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States. I think that is worth repeating. Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States. This test ended a debate as to whether our country was vulnerable to ballistic missile attacks from countries of concern. It became of question of what we were going to do about it. Finally, after much debate, the Congress authorized in 1999 the development and deployment of a national missile defense system ``as soon as it was technologically feasible.'' Since President Bush's election in 2000, the Department of Defense has made considerable progress on a missile defense system. With additional funding and less restrictions, the Missile Defense Agency has launched a broad effort to evaluate all potential options for missile defense, including ground-based, sea-based, and even space- based defenses. The MDA now has a number of high-profile missile defense systems in development and is making progress in developing sophisticated sensors capable of detecting incoming missiles. As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Programs and Operations, including missile defense, I have assisted the President in developing these systems. Last year, the Congress provided nearly $8 billion for missile defense. I am pleased that a number of projects are now nearing completion. The PAC-3, an enhanced version of the Patriot missile used during the gulf war capable of intercepting short and medium-range ballistic missiles, has entered into production. The Army's Theater High-Altitude Air Defense--THAAD--a system to counter medium-range ballistic missiles, is nearing production. And, perhaps most significantly, the ground-based mid-course interceptor system, which provides the United States with a limited defense against ICBMs, is scheduled to be deployed in 2004, as announced by President Bush on December 17 of this past year. Missile defense is not the only program that has received increased attention since President Bush's election. The DOD budget as a whole has grown substantially over the past 2 years. Last year, the Congress authorized over $390 billion in funding the department, an increase of nearly $40 billion from the year before. While much of this increase went to support our military operations overseas, some of this money was used to shore up our counter-terrorism efforts, improve our intelligence capabilities, and develop new technologies to counter the growing threats to our Nation. The department is expected to request similar funding for the upcoming fiscal year. The President and the Congress have worked hard over the past 2 years to reduce the threats to our Nation and prevent future attacks. It has not been easy. Partisan politics, divergent personalities, and conflicting perspectives frequently interrupt the process. I believe the President deserves much of the credit for this progress. He has stepped up and led our country in a very difficult time. His message has clearly resonated with the American people. Increased vigilance and enhanced security are essential in a time of uncertainty and perceived vulnerability. I share this message and will continue to work in the Senate to see that measures that are enacted actually increase the security of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

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