So that it is not limited to development testing, so that operational testing will take place on this 2004 system?

So therefore, the 2004 system can't be tested as a complete system with a realistic long-range target.

I do not know that anybody has officially told us that. Is that in fact correct?

I know the classified number. I will leave it at that.

We are not going to be able to test the 2004 system that is being fielded as a complete system with a realistic, actual long-range target.

So there is not a long-range target suitable to be used for that test; is that correct?

I think the steps taken by our President, and supported by the witnesses before us, are very prudent and the correct steps.

Prior to the decision to deploy, did Secretary Rumsfeld ask you for advice regarding the military utility of the national missile defense system as it would exist in 2004?

I want to just ask General Shinseki about his reference to the missile defense system.

We know that the debate about whether to go to war and if so, whether we should go with or without authorization of the United Nations, is part of a debate in a democratic society.

I have been one that is more than willing to look at that as an option, but I just do not want to mislead my good friend from Kansas by my silence.

Do you know what its intent is? Have you asked the people who put the language in here what its intent is?

But you did not have an intent. As I understand.

Regardless of what the positions are that Americans take and under what conditions we should initiate an attack, there is going to be total unity in this country.

The North Koreans admitted that they have a secret uranium-based nuclear program, in contravention of four existing agreements.

The President has now decided to end the diplomatic effort.

That is the intent of this language?

What the regional nations are telling us, every one, after we consult with them multilaterally, is that we ought to have direct talks with North Korea.