Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am pleased to call up this amendment. This amendment extends what would now be a sunset on the Department of Defense annual report on the military power of Iran and adds another 10 years to that annual reporting date. Currently, the law would end that annual report in December of 2016. This amendment would extend the reporting time until December 2026. I think this amendment sends a message to the American people that Congress understands the lengths that Iran's military is willing to go to promote instability around the world. Pentagon officials today reported that the United States is monitoring the seizure by Iran of a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship which was reportedly moving through the Straits of Hormuz. Iranian patrol vessels fired warning shots across the bow of the boat. Just yesterday, it was reported by Politico that the commander of Iran's ground forces was of the opinion that America was behind the attacks on 9/11. We currently see Iran's deadly influence in a negative way into other countries, including Yemen, Iraq, and other countries. I think we need to continue to monitor the military strength and the military capacity of Iran. This annual Department of Defense assessment of Iran's increasingly destabilizing military is possibly more important even now than it was when these reports started. Every year, the Department of Defense provides Congress with a review of Iran's military. There is no reason this report should expire at the end of 2016. This commonsense amendment extends the sunset on this annual report we have been having through December of 2026. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1155.

Mr. BLUNT. It is.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. To the surprise of many people, including me, it was unanimously reported, which makes me begin to wonder just how much Iran nuclear agreement review there will be in this act. I was an original cosponsor of the Corker-Menendez bill that would give Congress and the American people a voice in what is likely to be the most significant nuclear arms agreement in this decade. I think the likelihood, as we move toward the agreement, as it appears to be structured, is that it won't be able to contain the desire of other people in the neighborhood--and maybe in other places in the world but certainly in the neighborhood--to be just as capable of producing a nuclear weapon as we allow Iran to be. Supporting this bill does mean that Congress really gives the opportunity for these negotiations to advance, not Congress putting the brakes on these negotiations. Specifically, the bill would give Congress the opportunity to review and weigh in on a deal that has already been made. It does appear to prohibit the administration from removing sanctions while Congress reviews and while Congress votes on a final deal, if that is what Congress decides to do. It doesn't require Congress to vote, as I read it, but I look forward to having the people who unanimously voted for this in the Foreign Relations Committee explain how it really does involve the Congress as the Constitution would suggest the Senate would be involved. This does permit removal of sanctions only if the Congress passes a joint resolution approving the agreement, I have been told. The new bill reported out of committee makes the following changes in the original bill. Under the new bill, the congressional review period isn't going to be 60 days, it would be 30 days. The new bill removes the provision requiring the administration to certify to Congress that Iran is not providing material support to terrorists plotting against the homeland or against U.S. entities. We are continuing to be told: Well, that is a different topic. I don't know why that is a different topic at all. A nuclear-capable Iran that is supporting terrorism is obviously more dangerous than a nuclear-capable Iran that is not supporting terrorism. The weapon that you can see being built, the weapon that would compare to weapons we may have built, and other powers, in the past was perhaps not nearly as dangerous as the weapon being built that could be used by some terrorist. This bill does appear to give Congress the ability to intervene but only to intervene after the parties have made the deal. I am not particularly offended by that. If this were a real treaty, the administration would obviously be negotiating that treaty and then would bring the treaty to the Senate for approval, as the Constitution requires and as has happened over and over again on treaties involving nuclear capacity, nuclear ability, nuclear buildup, or nuclear build- down. That is not a new thing for the Senate to deal with, but apparently nobody in the administration wants this to be this kind of treaty. Now, there is, apparently, a way to weigh in before it is implemented but in a way that I think we are going to have to look at very carefully if and when that legislation comes to the floor. A nuclear-armed Iran, an Iran that is nuclear weapons capable-- whether that is in 6 months or 12 months or monitored or unmonitored-- is a major threat, in my view, to the United States. It is a major threat to our allies in the region. Lifting these sanctions only empowers Iran to have more influence in the region. The sanctions did bring Iran to the negotiating table, but they have been given a lot of breathing room since these negotiations started a couple of years ago. We wouldn't be negotiating, I don't think, if the sanctions hadn't been working. With what has happened to oil prices, those sanctions would have had a more dramatic effect on the economy of a country in which we have every reason to believe the population is inclined to be very friendly toward the United States. They are educated, they are capable, and they have long-term ties with many of their family members in this country. But, of course, the population is not in control of the country; the country is controlled by a small group who has only one view of how the world can work, and, frankly, that small group appears to have only one view of what they think about the United States of America. If you listen to the comments the Supreme Leader, the religious leader, makes over and over again, that view is dependably negative about our country and our people and our system of government and our ability to live side by side with each other. So we should be concerned about that. The agreement would allow them to continue to enrich uranium. It would allow them to retain centrifuges, which we said, by the way, we wouldn't do. That was a point we wouldn't negotiate away. It would allow them to continue to have thousands of centrifuges--something we also said we wouldn't allow them to do. It would allow them to continue developing new and better and more sophisticated ways to enrich uranium, to weaponize, to have the ability to create a weapon. Frankly, it is not even clear what agreement has been agreed to. To listen to our description of the agreement is a very different description of the framework. There is no agreement, everybody agrees to that, but there is supposedly a framework. This framework would build two very different houses. If we listen to their description of the agreement and we listen to our description of the agreement, we are looking at very different things. This week, for example, the Supreme Leader saw this very differently than the President--the so-called deal--with respect to when the sanctions would be removed and what would be happening. President Obama and Secretary Kerry have put a tremendous amount of effort into reaching an agreement--in fact, such amount of effort that it has been clear from the very start of the negotiations who wanted an agreement the most. What hasn't been clear and what isn't clear to me is why we are so eager to just check the box and move on here, and assume that sometime in the next few years Iran will become a friendlier state and will not want to head in a bad direction. Not only does it head Iran in a nuclear-weapons direction, but it heads many other people in the neighborhood in the direction of wondering if they have this capacity, why wouldn't we want to have this capacity? Most Americans don't believe Iran will stick to a deal. Frankly, I have great questions about that myself. Whether the President likes it or not, this is an international agreement with wide-ranging consequences. The Congress and the American people have a role to play here. The Foreign Relations Committee has made a proposal about what that role should be. But it seems to me that proposal is still a long way away from the constitutional protection that should be involved when we reach an agreement of this kind, or when we negotiate a treaty. A number of us sent a letter a few weeks ago which got a lot of attention. I thought the reaction to that letter was pretty interesting. The immediate reaction from the Secretary of State was: Well, this isn't a treaty, it is just an agreement. The Senate doesn't have to approve an agreement. The President would be bound by it, and it would be such a good agreement--according to the Secretary of State--that the next President would want to be bound by it as well. This is a pretty significant moment to decide that we may or may not be bound by what is decided. The Iranian Foreign Minister then was able to give us some sense of his understanding. I think the phrase he said the next day was: We know international law is what really matters here, not the law of any given country. I have been all over my State, as many of us have, in the last couple of weeks. I don't think there is any courthouse, any coffee shop, or any gathering of people in Missouri where they would say: Well, really, international law is what we care about. We don't care about what the Constitution says when we are dealing with other countries. Then 72 hours after that letter was sent, the President's Chief of Staff said: Really, the President would probably want to take this to the U.N., but he probably wouldn't want to take it to the U.S. Senate. We will see how this debate goes on the proposal that the Foreign Affairs Committee is making, but it clearly does not bode in the direction of a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Members of the U.S. Senate. In my view, we are still a long way from a final agreement. There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to what the framework means. But as we move toward that final agreement, our number one priority should be to do everything possible to prohibit Iran--whose influence in the world and the region is already disproportionate--from having the capacity to ever have a nuclear weapon. I hope our negotiators continue to keep that in mind, and I hope there is not nearly as much disagreement about the final agreement as there is about what the framework itself says. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, amendment No. 928. It will create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prohibit a fee or tax on carbon emissions. This vote is important to send a clear message to the administration that Americans cannot afford to pay higher utility bills because of bad energy policies. I thank Senator Thune for cosponsoring this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 928.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment. This amendment is designed to create a point of order against a carbon tax. This point of order would protect American families and workers from attacks on carbon, and attacks on their utility bills, attacks on things that are absolutely essential for families--and for opportunities for families as we look at utilities and energy. A carbon tax would increase the cost on energy. It would kill jobs as it increased the cost on energy, and make life for families more difficult than it needs to be. At a time when we are struggling to see our economy move forward, families and job creators in Missouri and across the country need to be able to continue to count on affordable and abundant energy resources. We have tremendous opportunities and more American energy. We need to use that in a way that benefits families and benefits the future. According to a 2013 Congressional Budget Office report, a tax of about $21 per metric ton on carbon would raise the price of electricity by an average of about 16 percent in the country. In the State of Missouri, my State, it would increase, according to that 2013 CBO report, the utility bill by 27 percent. We are more coal dependent than many of our States, but apparently if the average in the United States is 16 percent, all you have to do is add that to your utility bill to see what kind of problem that creates for a bill that, in many cases, families are struggling to pay already. Twenty-seven percent in the fifth most coal-dependent State, Missouri, where 82 percent of our electricity comes from coal, adds a huge and new burden that wouldn't be there otherwise as people try to respond to this decision that the government could make to decide to make it impossible to have the kinds of utilities that are now available to families. The National Association of Manufacturers, in that same year, 2013, found that a carbon tax would lead to a loss of worker income and, in fact, would lead to the loss of jobs--the equivalent of about 1.3 million to 1.5 million jobs in the first year and as many as 21 million jobs by 2053. Now, more than ever, we need to send a clear message to the Obama administration that we don't support a carbon tax as the administration moves forward with regulations that, in fact, would have exactly the same impact a carbon tax would have. The Congress has said no repeatedly, privately, publicly, over and over again, to a carbon tax, but it doesn't seem to slow down the constant desire to look at a regulation that could produce the same thing. These regulations are regressive, they have the most negative impact on families that are struggling to pay their utility bill now, they have a negative impact on the elderly, they have a negative impact on people on fixed incomes, and they have a negative impact on public institutions such as schools and hospitals. There is nobody but the ratepayer, the person who gets the utility bill--you and I, when we get our utility bill, everybody whom we know who gets a utility bill--there is nobody to pay that utility bill but them. These costs are passed along by the laws of every State. There is no mythical utility company that is going to absorb these new costs if we allow them to happen. The recently proposed clean power plan would, under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, act as a tax on energy by making affordable and reliable means of electricity, such as coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants, more expensive. Also, it would take plants that clearly had lots of life left in them and somebody has to pay for them. If those plants aren't usable, they don't go away. Somebody still has to pay the bill, and the somebody is everybody who gets a utility bill. These costs go directly to ratepayers, they go directly to consumers, and they have a real negative impact on the kinds of things we should be looking for--ways to have a positive impact. These costs ripple through our economy. They inflict damage on consumers at all levels. We saw what happened when gas prices went down just a little bit. The decline in gas prices, with the opportunity we see now with more American energy, suddenly families felt as though they had the first increase that many families have had in the last 6 or 7 years, where incomes have been flat but outgo has been on the increase. When you saw gas prices go down, suddenly people were able to do things they couldn't do before: one more meal out a week, newer shoes quicker than you thought you might get newer shoes for your kids or yourself. Those things begin to happen. But if you increase the utility bill by 17 percent or 27 percent or more than that--if all of your utilities come from coal right now, your utility bill is going to go up higher than that if we go in this direction. A carbon tax would have the same impact. The similarities are clear. They are so clear, in fact, that under the so-called Clean Power Act, regional authorities and States were supposed to come up with their own plan as to how to implement it. One regional transmission organization, the PJM Interconnection, simply created an explicit price for carbon in the models it was using. Whether the administration calls it a carbon tax or not, everybody who looks at how they are going to provide utilities knows that is exactly what it is. If we want to grow our economy, we need to increase rather than decrease. We need to encourage rather than discourage access to low- cost, abundant, available fuels, and find the cleanest possible way to use those fuels. We have seen great progress in this direction. We need to be doing things that encourage that progress to occur rather than things that will absolutely and with certainty increase utility bills for families and decrease job opportunities for young people. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will make a difference. I am certainly grateful that my friend Senator Thune, the chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is cosponsoring this amendment with me. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment No. 350.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Examining the Evolving Cyber Insurance Marketplace.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Patent Reform: Protecting Innovation and Entrepreneurship.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Affordable Care Act at Five Years.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-Africa Leader's Summit Seven Months Later: Progress and Setbacks.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 19, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reining in Amnesty: Texas v. United States and Its Implications.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Regulatory Regime for Regional Banks.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Federal Rulemaking Challenges and Areas of Improvement Within the Existing Regulatory Process.''

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to speak about the bill that I would have thought a few days ago would have passed by now--the bill before the Senate and the bill that addresses this topic of modern-day slavery. This bill came out of the Judiciary Committee in a unanimous fashion before it came to the Senate floor. Then, there was no dissent; we agreed we should get right to the bill and pass it. I am pleased to cosponsor the Victims for Justice of Trafficking Act, which includes sexual trafficking and labor trafficking. This bill would help innocent victims of trafficking by creating grants for State and local governments to develop comprehensive systems to address these problems in every State, we are told, and certainly in almost every city--if not every city--where this is a problem. This bill allows law enforcement to deal with the problem by giving them the tools they need to hold the people accountable who are forcing these violent crimes and violent living conditions and the abuse of people's dignity in so many ways on others. Apparently, approximately 100,000 American children each year are victims of commercial sex and child prostitution and child trafficking, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It is like so many numbers that we think of. I would encourage everybody to think of any city they can think of that has 100,000 people. Most of us would see that as a big community and a lot of people--100,000 children every year--100,000 children every year, not every decade or every century--every year, in the United States of America, not all over the world. I would guess most Americans would assume if this is a problem, it has to be a bigger problem in any other country, but 100,000 children here among us are victims of this tragedy. The Justice Department says there are more human trafficking cases prosecuted by Federal attorneys in Missouri's Western District, the district where the U.S. Attorney's office is in Kansas City, MO, than anywhere else in the country. I hope that means the people in the Western District of Missouri who run that office are doing an extraordinary job, but I think it would be foolish for me to think that this isn't also an extraordinary problem. My house in Springfield, MO, is in that district, as are Springfield, Joplin, and Kansas City. These are places one wouldn't think, what is the No. 1 prostitution area for victims of human trafficking in the country? The Western District of Missouri. St. Louis, MO, is also one of the top 20 cities, we are told, for human trafficking, according to the Department of Justice. These are bad statistics, as every single statistic any of us could look at in our State could be. Of course, one case of human trafficking is one case too many, but we are not, unfortunately, just talking about one case; we are talking about lots of cases. Earlier this month the FBI arrested a person in my State who was charged with transporting a minor across State lines with the intent to engage in prostitution. The FBI reported the man involved was physically abusive, verbally abusive, emotionally abusive, and sexually abusive to this young person he was using for himself and offering to others. This modern-day slavery should not be allowed to continue. The bill that is before the Senate right now, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, has been endorsed by 200 different advocacy groups, including the NAACP, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Exodus Cry, a Grandview, MO, group, Rights4Girls, the National Association to Protect Children, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. We can't vote on it here on the Senate floor? We can't get this bill on the President's desk? Why is that? Why again today did the minority refuse to provide the votes we needed to get from where we are to 60? We did have a few Members from that side join us this week, but we are still short. Let's deal with this problem. They say it is because there is a section of the bill that deals with the Hyde amendment. OK, the Hyde amendment has been around now for part of four decades. What does the Hyde amendment do? It bans taxpayer-provided abortions. One of the things we have done in this country is to say because there is vast disagreement on this--we understand there is vast disagreement. Surely we are not going to take money from some taxpayers who are totally opposed to this and use it to pay for something they are totally opposed to. There is a provision in this bill. It was there when the bill was voted out of committee. It was there when everybody voted to move to the bill. Suddenly, it is a provision that nobody was aware of before. In fact, in committee, there was at least one amendment that amended the sentence right below this sentence. So are we not doing our job? Are we not reading these bills, or, are we just looking for a reason not to get anything done? Surely the Senate in the last half dozen years has proven to the country that the Senate can be dysfunctional. Surely we don't need to continue to make that case. So let's get to work. Let's get down to business. Let's look at what needs to be done here. Let's see what we could do to set an example for the world. Frankly, there were colleagues who had amendments that could have been at least debated that would have talked about what could be done to carry this beyond our borders to deal with this modern-day slavery--whether for labor or for sex--in ways this issue should be dealt with. I would love to see the President step forward and encourage the leaders of his party to get together and get the votes needed to pass this. Let's move to a conclusion and put this on the President's desk. I think without the language that some people now suddenly find objectionable, this bill wouldn't pass the House. But the bill will pass the House as reported out of committee, if the Senate would pass it, and it would be on the President's desk. There is nothing new here. I hope we get this done. I think people are ready to see the Senate work. Let's get this done. Let's get on with a budget for the first time in 7 years, if we could join with the House of Representatives and say, OK, let's present a plan to the country of how we are going to get back to a balanced budget and what our priorities are. But one of our priorities should be to end the nightmare for victims of human trafficking, and we can't do that unless we face reality and get on this bill. Letter on Iran Negotiations Also, Madam President, while I am here, I want to talk a little bit about the letter I signed along with Senator Cotton and 45 others a few days ago. I thought the interesting thing about that letter is that the letter was essentially addressed to the Foreign Minister of Iran but released to every newspaper in America. In many ways it was an idea that is important that the American people understand. I am sure the Iranian Foreign Minister, by the way, already understood it. If one had any interest in reading the Congressional Record or watching C-SPAN or reading any newspaper in the last 6 months, you would have seen that the Senate was very concerned in a bipartisan way that the President was negotiating an agreement with another country and was refusing to come to the Senate and ask for the approval that the Constitution anticipates should be there. I was surprised by the Iranian Foreign Minister's response, which was: Well, really, when you are dealing with this kind of situation, it is international laws that prevail. The laws of any individual country don't matter. Well, we all take an oath when we are sworn in to the Senate that the law and the Constitution of the United States do matter and it is our job to uphold and defend the law and the Constitution of the United States. There was nothing I saw that suggested the Iranian Foreign Minister or anybody else should interpret that for me. The Constitution is pretty clear, by the way, that there is an advise-and- consent responsibility. Frankly, advise means to talk to the Senate while you are negotiating. I read somewhere the other day that, well, it is so presumptuous for the Senate to want to give advice to the President before he has negotiated an agreement. Well, the Constitution says that we are in a position to do that. The traditions of the country say if the President doesn't keep at least the right people in the Senate informed--the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the minority senior person of that committee, the chairman of the defense committee, the Armed Services Committee--if they aren't kept informed, you are not going to bring people along as you should. That is obviously part of trying to make the government work. No matter what the President thinks, the Senate is not just an inconvenience; the Congress is not just an inconvenience. There is a reason for these branches of government. Actually, in another interesting response, the Secretary of State said: Well, obviously this agreement is not binding on anybody but the person who signs it. That is what I have been saying for about a year, but it was interesting that it took this letter for the Secretary of State to say that. This agreement really doesn't bind anybody. If the President signs this agreement, it is an agreement, not a treaty. What does that mean? It means if it is not a treaty, then the government of the United States hasn't agreed to it. Only the President of the United States has agreed to it. President after President have brought agreements about nuclear weapons to the Senate--the START treaty, all the treaties which were approved by the Senate. It would have been unthinkable just a few years ago that one would even think about committing our country to something that involves nuclear weapons potential and not involve the U.S. Senate. So I think getting these issues on the table is a good thing. Frankly, I think a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran is the most destabilizing thing that could happen in the world today. Not only our great ally and friends in Israel, but countries all over the Middle East will immediately be concerned. Countries within reach of those potential future weapons in Europe and other places would soon be concerned. We are headed down a bad path here, negotiating not that Iran will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons but apparently negotiating how long it will be from the moment they start until they can have the enriched material it would take to have a nuclear weapon. There are many countries in the world today that have nuclear power that don't enrich in a way that would allow them to ever have a nuclear weapon. Iran, if it wanted to, could have added itself easily to that list. Iran, one of the most energy-rich places in the world, could easily have added itself to that list, if it wanted to add to all that nuclear energy power. I think it is obvious the shadow that Iran would like to cast over the next decade in the region they are already dominating in a handful of capitals is a shadow of nuclear weapons capability. The United States should be very concerned, and this discussion at the highest levels is the right kind of discussion for the country to be having. I suggest the absence of a quorum.