Jack Reed: “I do not disagree with that point, but I am making a different point, which I will make again; which is, regardless of…”

“I do not disagree with that point, but I am making a different point, which I will make again; which is, regardless of what caused them not to spend the money last year, that money seems to be entirely available this year, together with our proposed funding level, and gives the Missile Defense Agency over $10 billion to spend on missile defense in fiscal year 2003. That is robust funding by any definition. The suggestion that we are cutting out the heart of funding for missile defense is, I think, erroneous. We are supporting very strongly a missile defense program, but we are not supporting it without looking carefully at its components and making tough choices about priorities of spending. That is why, as a result of our proposed reductions, we were able to move significant amounts of money into shipbuilding, which every Member of this body strongly recommends, commends, and supports. In addition, we were able to move some money into Department of Energy security for their nuclear facilities, which is very important. We also have, in fact, provided a bill that robustly supports missile defense.”