Last year the Congress in the military authorization bill took the first step on this program, and put money in the bill. The research has already commenced. I think the point of reference, to be accurate, I would say to my good…

I share the sentiments of my distinguished colleague, but I do observe that the delay on this vote, while it was the last vote on this side, there was a vote on the Democratic side not more than 5 minutes before. We share equally the…

I respond to my colleague, with all due respect, I will not try and engage in an evaluation of how the Parliamentarian goes about the votes; that is, determining whether or not each amendment is relevant. But I would say I do not recall in…

I take it from your reply that one Senator thinks it is a matter of enormous importance. Was there a reason it wasn't brought up in the subcommittee of jurisdiction? We have the distinguished chairman here. So those members who, on our…

I do not in any way contest the Senator's assertion that this is an important subject. I simply ask, can't we as a committee better serve our colleagues if we make an assessment first at the subcommittee, where the members are fully…

I think the advantages, if I may say with respect to my two highly esteemed colleagues, are that the second-degree amendment can be understood by anyone who can interpret the English language. When I look at your amendment--I have been…

I oppose the amendment. Research on precision low-yield nuclear weapon design is prudent in today's national security environment. Why would we want to prevent any type of research on weapons that might contribute to improving our national…

First, it has to be removed and nothing has been removed yet. The law of the land remains the same tonight as it has been since 1994. We are endeavoring to see what should be done about it. The bill reported out by our committee on a…

My amendment says, yes, carry forward with the intent of the majority vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee but put in the steps of Congress having to authorize and approve funds for each step subsequent to research.

I do not want to get tangled up in the terminology, but the bill, as passed out by the Armed Services Committee that is pending before us, repeals, in the entirety, the law that was passed in 1994. Then you are coming along and saying: All…

we accept the expression of the will of the Senate on this matter. I had the difficult position to oppose it, which I did. As we look toward the benefits for the Guard and Reserve, they are deserved, richly, in most instances, but there is…

It simply says: Agency, if it is that important in your judgment in reporting, it goes to the very heart of the oversight process. We should have raised it in subcommittee, adopted an amendment of this type, and worked it out. I was told…

I simply say to my colleague that if there was a serious issue in the function of the Missile Defense Agency, in your judgment-- and you attach enormous importance to this--why did we not consider it in the course of the subcommittee…

I am not contesting that. You recognize that. I am just pointing out, in 25 years, how the committee has to do its work.

I suggest maybe a revision in your commentary. It is not in this bill. You keep referring to 'it's in this bill.' Some years ago this bill, by the authorization committee, did contain it. I happen to have been a drafter of it. But it…

I wish we were arguing that case. Both of us were trial lawyers. If you had made that mistake on the floor of a trial courtroom, I would have you nailed right now.

I would not want him to leave the floor under the illusion that if the amendment fails to meet the requirements of the Parliamentarian, that my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, and myself, would begin to sit as a supreme court…

I think in general the Secretary of Defense is on the right track in the sense that when you stop to think, today's military is so different than it was 2 or 3 years or even a decade ago. The total force today is not only the uniformed men…

I feel obligated to be consistent, even though there is a very clear difference between Senator Graham's amendment and that of the distinguished Democratic leader. There is no offset; is that my understanding?

If I could ask a further question? I should examine this report. It is timely. But I am advised there is a provision in the report indicating that 80 percent to 90 percent of the Guard and Reserve have private sector health insurance. Are…

Well, as both my colleagues recognize, this will be, for the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself, our 25th conference, and we know full well at this stage of deliberations on this bill we cannot predict what is going to come out…

The committee's first priority was to enhance the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities to combat terrorism both at home and abroad. In these areas, this bill authorized an increase of $400 million over the…

I appreciate his thoughtful comments, but I guarantee him-- Senator Levin and I have been doing this now for 25 years, but we are no stronger than the members we have on the committee. When the Senator from Georgia joined us, our strength…

I thank the very valued member of the committee, a graduate of West Point, served on active duty. I am not sure I would want to be in that company you commanded; pretty rough character. You are too modest. You referenced the $500 million…

I thank both my colleagues. But before we conclude this very valuable and important colloquy, I ask the Senator from Maine, who speaks with such conviction if we are going try to do something on this bill or is the thought that it is just…