Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects and to say goodbye to a man who was bigger than life itself. John Jordan ``Buck'' O'Neil passed away on Friday, October 6, in Kansas City at the age of 94. Buck was a gifted baseball player, a veteran of the U.S. Navy, a devoted community leader, a role model for young and old and a good friend he was and will always be an American Hero. I count myself as truly fortunate to have known Buck and will always cherish the opportunities I had to visit with him. When I think of Buck, I think of a great and loving man with a heart as big as Kansas City who believed that love and education could heal all wounds. I think of his near mythical baseball career, a career that spanned seven decades, making him a foremost authority of the game and one of its greatest ambassadors. I think of his contributions to his community as a role model and to society as a leader in the civil rights movement. Buck's contributions to the game of baseball and society will be everlasting. I'd like to take a few minutes to tell you a little bit about Buck's life. Buck O'Neil, the player, was a first baseman and manager for the Kansas City Monarchs from 1937 through 1955. His achievements include hitting .353 and leading his team to the 1942 Negro World Series Title. His career batting average of .288, included four .300-plus seasons winning batting titles in 1940 and 1946, hitting .345 and.353 respectively. Buck played in the 1942, 1943 and 1949 East-West All-Star Classics and barnstormed with the Satchel Paige All-Stars during the 1930s and 1940s. Buck O'Neil, the manager, led the Monarchs from 1948 through 1955. His achievements as a manager include sending more Negro League players to the Major Leagues than any other manager in baseball history, including Ernie Banks, Elston Howard, Connie Johnson, Sweet Lou Johnson, and Satchel Paige. He led the Monarchs to league titles in 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1953 and he managed the West squad in the East- West All-Star game in 1950, 1952, 1954 and 1955--the West won all four contests. In 1956, Buck was hired by the Chicago Cubs as a scout paving the way for him to make history 6 years later when he became the first African American to coach in the Major Leagues. As a scout he discovered such superstars as Lou Brock and Joe Carter. In 1988, after more than 30 years with the Cubs, he returned home to Kansas City to scout for the Kansas City Royals. The work Buck did after his retirement from the game are arguably more significant to the history of baseball than his exploits on the field as a player, scout and manager. Buck's true passion over the past 16 years was to share with the world the contributions that Negro Leagues players made to our National Pastime and more importantly to society through his work as chairman of America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City. Buck's tireless work led the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY, to hold a special election this spring to induct Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues candidates into the Hall. In July, 17 legendary players, managers and owners were inducted into the Hall. This induction was bittersweet for many of us as its most visible legend, Buck O'Neil, did not receive the necessary votes. Although many of us viewed this as an outrageous oversight, Buck graciously viewed this as one of the greatest days in Negro Leagues history. That was Buck in his truest form. He was always about doing the right thing. No matter what doors had been closed to him; he always picked himself up and did what was right, never what was easiest or most beneficial to himself. What was most important to Buck was his true love for the Negro Leagues, the Negro Leagues players and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum--he poured all of his life and energy into seeing that their stories were told and never forgotten. Buck reminded us that these Leagues and their players are significant on so many levels: they represent a triumph of the human spirit, tremendous sportsmanship, high quality of play, were of vital importance to the African American community, and they led directly to the integration of the Major Leagues, which was the first in a series of major civil rights landmarks that eventually led to the progress we have achieved today. Buck was significant in so many ways and on so many different levels in his own right--he played an important part in shaping the America we live in today. Buck's remarkable life reminds me of a favorite poem, Game Called, by Grantland Rice. I'd like to read it into the Record: Game Called. Across the field of play the dusk has come, the hour is late. The fight is done and lost or won, the player files out through the gate. The tumult dies, the cheer is hushed, the stands are bare, the park is still But through the night there shines the light, home beyond the silent hill Game Called. Where in the golden light the bugle rolled the reveille. The shadows creep where night falls deep, and taps has called the end of play. The game is done, the score is in, the final cheer and jeer have passed. But in the night, beyond the fight, the player finds his rest at last. Game Called. Upon the field of life the darkness gathers far and wide, the dream is done, the score is spun that stands forever in the guide. Nor victory, nor yet defeat is chalked against the players name. But down the roll, the final scroll, shows only how he played the game. There is little question that Buck played the game with all his heart and lived his life to the fullest. Buck, you will be missed but not forgotten. Our Nation is better by virtue of your play on the field and service off the field. The principle by which you lived your life will carry on through all who knew you. The freedom for which you fought endures. May God bless you with a splendid room within His house. He has certainly blessed me with the privilege of having known you.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, my great friend and colleague from Missouri has an Intelligence Committee meeting to go to. So he went ahead and did his kind tribute before I give my speech, and those who are not aware of that may have thought that maybe they would be able to get in short tributes and avoid the long farewell speech. That is not true. I will devote my time to a substantive and very important subject-- the appropriate level of funding for America's military. It is an issue that I have worked on and fought for since I went to the House of Representatives in 1993. I am grateful for my friend's remarks, and I want to say that I have always enjoyed serving in legislatures, in part because of the collegial nature of the service. When you are done, yes--it is the legislation that you worked on that you want people to remember, but what you remember are the friendships and the associations and the bonds that you have made. And, fortunately, those do not end with your service. I look forward to continuing to visit with my friends in the Senate for years to come. I hope to be able to work with them in other venues on issues of importance to America. Nothing is more important for America than her security. Mr. President, America has the most capable military in the world by a large margin; in fact we have the best military that has ever served any nation at any time in human history. We should be proud of that; we should especially be proud of the men and women who make America's military what it is. But it would be wrong for us to believe that because our military is the best in the world or even the best ever, that it is as capable as it needs to be. True, America is many times stronger than other nations, but its responsibilities are many times greater as well. If Denmark's military is inadequate, it doesn't matter that much, even to Denmark; if America's military is inadequate, it matters tremendously, first to America, but also to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world. We must understand the importance of this issue very clearly, without the distortions of ideology, politics, expediency, or wishful thinking. Like it or not, the progress of the international order towards peace and democracy depends on the reality and perception of American power. Like it or not, America is the first defender of freedom in the world and therefore always a prime target for those who hate freedom. And like it or not, while there are many tools in the basket of western diplomacy, the underpinning of them all is an American military establishment which the world knows is capable of swiftly, effectively and at minimal cost defeating every substantial threat to our security and to our freedom. Judged by this standard--the only appropriate standard--the situation is very grave. I have substantial doubt--as good as the men and women are--whether our current military establishment is strong enough. Because of decisions over the last 15 years driven more by budgetary than military considerations, our Army and Navy may well be too small, and much of the equipment in all the services is too old and increasingly unreliable. Whatever the current status of the military may be, there can be no doubt that without a substantial increase in procurement spending beginning now and sustained over the next 5 to 10 years--an increase, I suggest to the Senate today, that must be measured not in billions but in tens of billions of dollars above current estimates every year--our military will be set back for a generation. We will not be able to modernize our forces to the degree necessary to preserve our security with the necessary margin of safety. I said that our current military is too small and inadequately equipped to execute the national military strategy. I will not go into detail on this point because my main focus is on the future, but a brief explanation is warranted. The world is, on balance, at least as dangerous today as it was at the end of the Cold War. And we may thank God we are no longer in danger of a massive nuclear attack from the former Soviet Union, nor is a major land war in Europe likely. Against this, however, we are engaged in a global war on terror that will continue for years to come. The end of the Cold War led to the emergence of dangerous regional conflicts, such as the conflicts in the Balkans. We are in greater danger today of a rogue missile attack than ever been before, and China is emerging as a peer competitor much faster than anyone believed. These conditions either did not exist, or like the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, were suppressed, during the Cold War. As a result, the operational tempo of our conventional forces--and that means the rate, intensity and duration of their deployment--was far higher beginning in the mid-1990s, even before September 11, than it had ever been during the Cold War. Yet at the beginning of the 1990s, our forces were 30 to 40 percent bigger than today. For example, the active-duty Army was cut from 18 divisions at the time of Desert Storm to only 10 divisions by 1994. Don't we wish that we had those additional divisions today to relieve the pressure in Iraq. The Navy has gone from 576 ships in the late 1980s to 278 ships today. At the same time, procurement budgets have been cut substantially, far greater than the cuts in force structure warranted. The contrast in the average annual procurement of major equipment from two periods-- 1975 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2000--is startling. For example, we purchased an average of 78 scout and attack helicopters each year from 1975 to 1990, and only 7 each year from 1991 to 2000. We purchased an average of 238 Air Force fighters each year from 1975 to 1990, and an average of only 28 each year from 1991 to 2000. We purchased five tanker aircraft each year from 1975 to 1990, an average of only one per year from 1991 to 2000. The implications for these dramatic reductions are profound. Older platforms--that is what the military calls ships, planes, and vehicles--are rather tired and not replaced, which means that force structure is reduced. Military capabilities are reduced. If platforms are not replaced, the average age of the fleet increases, readiness levels drop, and the cost of maintaining the smaller, older inventory climbs rapidly because maintenance costs increase. For these reasons, I suggest that the current force today is too small and its equipment too old, relative to the requirements of our national military strategy. That strategy calls for a military capable of defending the homeland, sustaining four peacekeeping engagements, and fighting two large-scale regional conflicts, at least, at approximately the same time. We are supposed to be able to do all that at once. I believe the requirements of our military are actually greater than this, but in any event, we cannot execute even these commitments, and we certainly will not be able to do so in the future, within an acceptable level of risk, unless at least the Army is made bigger and unless all three services have the money to robustly recapitalize their major platforms with the most modern equipment. For years, the various services, in response to pressure from political authorities to reduce the budget below what they needed, have delayed or cancelled new programs. They have been reducing the number of new ships or planes they say they need, kicking crucial decisions down the budgetary road, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and otherwise trying to avoid confronting the approaching funding crisis. That crisis is upon us now. We are entering the crucial phase of recapitalization. Beginning with the next budget and intensifying over the next 5 to 10 years, the services are scheduled to bring online the new platforms that will anchor American security for the next generation. No one can say these programs are unneeded. The Navy must buy new destroyers, must ramp up procurement of Virginia-class submarines, must finalize the design and buy large numbers of Littoral Combat Ships and design and build a new CG-X cruiser. The Air Force must buy large numbers of the F-22. That is our new air-superiority fighter. We must maintain the ability to have complete air superiority over any combat theater. The Air Force must buy large numbers of Joint Strike Fighters or equivalent aircraft. In addition, the Air Force must buy out its airlift requirement. That is how we transport personnel, equipment and supplies from one place to another in the world. It must build a new generation of tankers, must design and build a long-range strike bomber to replace the B-52. Our B-52 inventory is 45 years old. The Army must rebuild, modernize or replace almost its entire capital stock of ground combat and support vehicles including many of its tanks. The current procurement budget for all three services is $80.9 billion. Simple budgetary mathematics tells us that the services cannot possibly meet their crucial requirements without an average budget over the next 5 to 10 years that I estimate is at least 30 billion dollars higher than what we are now spending. Perhaps I have gone into more detail than the Senate is willing to indulge me in already, but I want to look in some depth at the situation of the Navy. Here I speak from what I know because I have been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower for the last 4 years. Currently, there are 278 ships in the U.S. Navy. The Navy shipbuilding plan calls for 326 ships by the year 2020, eventually settling down to an average of 313 ships. The plan actually calls for fewer aircraft carriers, a substantial drop in attack submarines, and fewer major surface combatants, but it attempts to make up for these reductions with modern destroyers, more capable submarines and what it calls pre- positioning ships that allow us to establish sea bases, from which to project forces ashore, as well as a whole new class of smaller multi- mission modular vessels called Littoral Combat Ships. There is no margin whatever for error in this plan. It is, at best, the minimum necessary for our security. The Chief of Naval Operations--that is the admiral who leads the Navy--has estimated the plan will require a shipbuilding budget of $13.3 billion for fiscal year 2008, the upcoming budget year. That is $5 billion more than what was spent this year on ship building. His plan calls for that figure to escalate to $17.5 billion by 2012. I believe these figures are too conservative. It is a good-faith effort to calculate what we need but too conservative. I think the plan will require billions more each year to execute. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service agree. In any event, I say on my oath as a Senator, that it will be utterly impossible, at current levels of defense spending, for the Navy to reach and sustain the $13.3 billion figure, to say nothing of the even higher sums required in the outyears of the 5-year defense plan and beyond. Beginning no later than 2009, there will be a growing shortfall in the ship-building accounts, in addition to an annual shortfall of $1 billion to $2 billion in Navy aviation procurement. I expect the total deficiency to be no less than $45 billion over the fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2016 period; and remember, this assumes that the 313-ship Navy is sufficient to protect American security, an optimistic assumption. Lest the Senate get lost in all the figures, let me sum it up this way. The Navy, responding to budgetary pressure, has formulated a plan for a 313-ship Navy in the future which, frankly, may be inadequate; the Navy estimates a figure for funding the plan which independent authorities, using long-term historical cost data, believe is far too low. And yet without substantial increases in the Navy's procurement budget, it is a dead certainty that even that figure cannot be sustained. As a practical matter, the expected shortfall means the sacrifice of two to three attack subs and two to three surface combatants, a reduction in purchases of the Littoral Combat Ships, and delays to the Sea Basing Program and the new CG-X Cruiser Program, which is necessary for missile defense. The short of it is that the Navy needs at least an $8 billion increase per year in procurement above current estimates. The Marines need about $3 billion more. It is not necessary to go into the same level of detail with regard to the budgetary picture for the other services. The pain has been spread fairly evenly across the service, so they are in roughly in the same situation. That means a procurement shortfall over the next 10 years of at least $30 billion per year adjusted for inflation. Most independent experts believe the number is far higher. For example, the CBO estimates that the overall defense budget shortfall will be no less than $52 billion per year. We should add to this the fact that the active-duty Army is clearly too small, as we have learned in Iraq. Even in an age of transformation and nonlinear battlefields, there are still times when America needs to put large numbers of boots on the ground, particularly in the post-September 11 period. The United States needs the ability to carry on sustained, large-scale peacekeeping or low-intensity combat operations, without having to send the same units three or four times to a combat theater over the duration of a mission. A nation of our size and strength should not have to use essentially its whole active-duty Army, much of its Marine Corps, and many of its Reserves to sustain 130,000 troops over time in a combat view. In 1992--which was right after Desert Storm--the Defense Department stated a requirement of 12 Active-Duty Army divisions. That was before the increases in operational tempo of the 1990s and before the global war on terror. The Army should surely be at least 12 divisions today. It costs approximately $2 billion to stand up and sustain an addition to the Army or Marine Corps of division strength so we need to invest $4 billion per year in increased force structure for the Army, in addition to the $30 billion more in new procurement funding. So to sustain our military over the next generation at the appropriate level, we need to increase procurement spending and spending on the size of the Army by about $34 billion per year. And that is above current baseline estimates. It would have to be sustained over the life of the current defense plan and beyond. I want to emphasize that this is, of necessity, a ballpark figure. It is always difficult to predict precisely the cost of new programs--some of which are in the design phase, particularly given the uncertainties associated with developing technologies. We will be acquiring this equipment over the next 10 to 20 years and needs in technology are going to change. We must confront the fact that whatever the necessary amount turns out precisely to be, the procurement budgets we are projecting today are fundamentally inadequate. We have to ramp up spending. We must begin now. And we have to accept the fact that it will not be cheap. I, also, want to make clear that this additional $34 billion must come from an increased overall defense budget. There may be some who say that it is possible to cannibalize the rest of the defense budget to produce all or most of this additional procurement funding. That is a dangerous fantasy. The money cannot come from the supplemental appropriations bills. Those are necessary to pay the day-to-day costs of the war and may not have been adequate to do that. The money cannot come from reducing the readiness budget because that budget is overstressed already. It cannot come from reducing the number of service personnel because the military is already too small. It can't come from reducing salary and benefits. We have to retain the best people. Besides, Congress is far more likely, and properly in my view, to increase personnel benefits rather than reduce them. Take a look at the last 7 years. Total spending on defense health care, for example, increased from $17.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $37 billion in fiscal year 2006--an increase of more than 100 percent over the last 7 years, appropriately so. The men and women of America's military deserve good salaries and benefits, and so do those who are retired. The savings from base closing is not going to supply the additional funds. Those are highly speculative. They will not occur, if at all, for many years, and they are unlikely to be more than a billion dollars per year. Some say we can save money by reducing congressional earmarks or additions to the defense budget, and within limits that is true. But the total of such earmarks is no more than $3 billion to $4 billion per year. Realistically, Congress is not going to give up all of them, and at least some number of them are clearly justified because they simply restore to the budget items that our service chiefs desperately wanted and omitted only because of budgetary pressure. Still others will say we can get the necessary additional funding by lowering the cost of new programs through procurement reform. I am all for procurement reform. I have been for it ever since Secretary Bill Perry, who was a great Secretary of Defense, proposed it over 10 years ago. We have had several waves of procurement reform since then. Several Defense Secretaries have all championed its virtues. We continue to hold oversight hearings to pressure the defense industry to lower costs. We keep trying to catch people in the Department who might be violating procurement regulations. I have chaired some of those hearings. Meanwhile, the cost of new programs keeps going up. I suggest the reasons have less to do with deficiencies in the procurement system, bad as it is, than with the stress on the industrial base and on the military caused by the budgets that are consistently too low and unstable. One of the arguments supporting reductions in force in the past has been that transformational technology and tactics can empower the military to do more with less. The idea is to make each servicemember, each plane, ship, and vehicle less vulnerable so we lose fewer of them, and more lethal so we need fewer of them. Within limits, that is sometimes true. But the best technology costs money, and changing technology, tactics, and doctrine makes it more difficult to fix stable requirements. Program instability costs money, too. Here is an example. The Navy originally planned to procure 32 DD(X) next-generation destroyers. The ship has a truly advanced design. It is a marvel of transformational technology. But its unique capabilities have driven the per ship cost to about $3 billion. As a result, the Navy plans to procure only seven new destroyers. The problem is that the complexity of the ship's design, the unprecedented capabilities of the vessel, and the high price of the best technologies, have all driven up cost to the point where the ship is impossible to procure in sufficient numbers at current budget levels. Another example, the Air Force desperately needs more air lift, and it also needs a new tanker aircraft. The Air Force shoulders much of the mobility mission, and it also performs the mid-air refueling mission. Normally, the Air Force would simply buy more C-17 aircraft. It is a perfectly good, modern cargo aircraft. Then the Air Force would design and procure a new tanker. But because the service is under tremendous pressure to save money, it has decided to develop a cargo- tanker, combining the two missions into one aircraft. The service assures us that it is not going to have any bells and whistles on the new plane, and the aircraft will be low in cost. Surely, the concept of a cargo-tanker allows the Air Force to claim that it will be able to perform both of these missions while relieving some of the pressure on its budget. But, again, reality must and will eventually bite. As requirements build and changing technologies force changes in design, the odds are very high that the cost of the new aircraft--if it is to do the combined mission it is supposed to do-- will go up substantially. The problem of cost is exacerbated by the stress on the defense industrial base. Procurement budgets have been too low for 15 years and because of budgetary pressured they constantly change. The Department regularly projects what it intends to procure in the outyears of its defense plan but then often makes last-minute cuts and changes. Under those circumstances, it is no surprise that contractors are not investing sufficiently in the defense industrial base. It is shrinking, and it is undercapitalized. That means fewer competitors, more sole- source contracts, less research, and, therefore, higher costs. No amount of oversight, reform, or pressure on procurement officials can change that. The good news is that a robust and consistent commitment to adequate funding would soon begin to reverse these trends. Again, I am all for improvements in the way we design and build new systems, and those improvements can save money. But they cannot work miracles. Sufficient and stable funding is not only consistent with transformation and efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars, it is necessary to both. If Congress were to commit to my proposal, for example, the service chiefs and the defense industry would know that substantial new money was coming--enough to make it at least plausible they could produce and acquire the systems they need. They could budget for the long range, knowing that funding would be stable. They could work together in a way that would reduce costs instead of trying to pull money away from other services or maneuver year to year just to keep vital programs alive, and often, in a way, that ends up costing the taxpayers more in the long run. We must stop thinking that facing reality and funding our military adequately is beyond the reach of this great Nation. Yes, the Federal Government has fiscal problems. Yes, the two major parties have very different views on what to do about those problems, but nobody can or does claim that the defense budget is the cause. Right now, we are spending 3.8 percent of our gross domestic product on the regular defense budget. That is a very low percentage historically, far less than we spent at any time during the Cold War. Under President Carter, we spent 4.6 percent of the GDP on national defense. If we spent only 4.2 percent now, we could easily fund what I have proposed. We would have a fighting chance to support our service men and women with the equipment they need and deserve. We could sustain the military power that the last two Presidents have used to protect our freedom and stabilize the post-Cold-War world. We would send the clearest possible message to both our friends and enemies, and to those nations who are deciding now whether they are going to be a friend or enemy, that whatever happens, whatever the direction our foreign policy takes, the United States has the ability to sustain our freedom and the hope of freedom for the world. To those who worry about the price of strength, I say there is a greater price to be paid for weakness. How many conflicts will we invite, how much instability will we engender, if we allow this restless and troubled world to doubt America's ability to defend herself? Let's look at the risks of alternative courses of action. If we adopt the course I suggest, and it turns out that I was wrong, all we will have lost is a fraction of our wealth wealth that would be spent in this country on products produced by our workers, for a margin of safety that, in the end, we did not need. But if we stay on our current course, and it turns out that I was right, how much will we pay then in lost lives and treasure, fighting in conflicts that a policy of strength would have deterred? How big will the deficit become then, in a world made less stable by American weakness? What effect will that have on the economy, and not just the economy, but on the hopes and opportunities of the next generation--our children and our grandchildren--who have the right to expect that we are looking out for them? Twenty-five years ago, our country was also in a difficult situation. Our enemies doubted American resolve. They were challenging us on a number of fronts. We had just gone through a period of chronic underfunding of the military, probably worse than what has happened recently. As a result, the force was hollow, unable to reliably perform the missions necessary to protect America. That is why the tragic Desert One mission went so wrong in the desert during the Iranian hostage crisis. When President Reagan assumed office, he faced the situation squarely and honestly, and with the support of a Democratic House and Republican Senate, he secured two double-digit increases in the overall defense budget, and reasonable increases for several years thereafter. On the strength of that bipartisan commitment, America's service men and women and America's defense industrial base transformed our military into the truly dominant force that fought and won Operation Desert Storm. A united government sent the message to friend and foe alike that whatever our differences about foreign policy, America was still willing to pay the price of freedom. It is not too much to say that the decisions made in 1981 and 1982 laid the basis for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the success of Operation Desert Storm, and the benefits of peace and security that we enjoyed throughout the 1990s. With this speech, I bring my career in the Senate to a close. I believe I can do no greater service to my country than to urge Senators not to be dissuaded by the counsels of those who say that what I have proposed cannot be done. At the beginning of my remarks I stated that America's service men and women are the finest who have ever served in any military on behalf of any nation at any time. I should have included their families as well. I realized that when today, just a few hours ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Dana Lamberson and her two children, Kelsi and Evan. Mrs. Lamberson's husband, SFC Randall Lamberson, was killed in Iraq only 8 months ago. Mrs. Lamberson told me that before her husband deployed, their family openly discussed the sacrifice which he, and they, might be called on to make. I asked her how she was able to bear her grief with such grace and fortitude. She told me that when she was tempted to be discouraged, she remembered what her husband had always said when times were tough: that ``life is only as difficult as you make it.'' Mr. President, I have met thousands of Americans over the last 4 years like the Lamberson family, not just soldiers and their families, but people from every walk of life, who live each day with courage, resilience, and optimism. Because of them, I believe with all my heart that America's time of leadership is not done. I ask the Senate to honestly face the true cost of defending this Nation. If we do, if we carry that burden with confidence, we will find the weight of it to have been a small thing compared to the blessings of peace and liberty we will secure for ourselves, and the hope we will give to freedom-loving people all over the world. Mr. President, I cannot close without thanking my dedicated staff who served the people of Missouri so well over the last 4 years, who have kept me going, kept me on time, who are largely responsible for the many pieces of legislation which Senator Bond was kind enough to mention. I just ask the Senate to indulge me for another moment or two because I am going to read their names. I think they deserve it: Mark Strand, my chief of staff; Cortney Brown, my scheduler; Les Sealy, our great office manager who always got us what we needed; Brian Anderson, our IT manager. I am glad he understood it because I never do. I thank our legislative staff: Brett Thompson, legislative director; Faith Cristol, our great legislative counsel; and my legislative assistants: Lindsey Neas, Katie Smith, Heath Hall, Jesse Appleton, Katie Duckworth, Christopher Papagianis, Shamed Dogan, and John Cox, who works so hard and so well on veterans issues, a man who has served this country in many different venues; Andy Karellas, Martha Petkovich, and Sarah Cudworth, who did legislative correspondence, grants and case work; Peter Henry, who managed the mail; Sarah Barfield, my staff assistant; two great Navy Fellows: CDR Dan Brintzinghoffer and LCDR Lori Aguayo, two patriots and both outstanding officers; and Mark Hegerle, my Energy Fellow who came over from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission just in time to help me make a real difference on the Energy bill. I want to thank our press shop: Rich Chrismer, my great communications director; Erin Hamm, and Andrew Brandt. Casework--we handled over 10,000 cases. I am a big believer in casework. This is a big government, and navigating it is hard, and if we could help, we wanted to help. I thank Nora Breidenbach, Jenny Bickel, Abby Pitlick, Debbie Dornfeld, and Jessica Van Beek. And the State staff, we always tried to integrate the work of the State staff and the Washington staff, and I think we did it. I thank Gregg Keller, our State director; in St. Louis: Kacky Garner, my district director; Peggy Barnhart; Rachel McCombs; and Angel McCormick Franks; in Kansas City: Joe Keatley, my great district director; Danny Pfeifer; Emily Seifers; Greg Porter; and Erick Harris; in Jefferson City: Donna Spickert, who was the State capitol director; and Becky Almond, my instate scheduler, as well as a great staff assistant; in Springfield: Terry Campbell, the district director; Christopher Stone; and Coriann Gastol; and in Cape Girardeau: Jeff Glenn, who directed that office; and Liz Mainord. I also want to thank, as other Senators have done, my family, my wife, obviously, in particular, who has shared the highs and lows of this job, and my wonder kids. Mr. President, it remains only for me to thank my colleagues in the Senate for the many kindnesses, personal and professional, which they have shown me and my family over the last 4 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the efforts of a good friend and to highlight his service to our Nation. Thomas R. Etling, of Chesterfield MO, is privileged to have served for 26 years as an adjunct faculty member of the Saint Louis Community College at Florissant Valley. In his years in the Business and Human Relations Division, he has taught a variety of subjects ranging from statistics, to marketing and human relations. Throughout Mr. Etling's career, he has been honored with several distinctions for his hard work and dedication in the classroom. During the 2001-2002 academic year, he was selected as Adjunct Faculty Member of the Year. In 2004, Mr. Etling was named the Business Teacher of the Year, the first adjunct faculty member to be so honored. Outside the classroom, Mr. Etling has continued to dedicate his time to serving the academic community. He has served on several committees, most notably as a member of the Academic Council and the Assessment Committee. Currently, he is working with the dean of the business division to develop a mentoring program to assist students who have the entrepreneurial spirit to help them develop their ideas. For this program, he has recruited a number of successful local business leaders and other faculty members. Mr. Etling looks forward to continuing to work for the success of the students and the college. I thank him for setting such a great example for us all.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which can certainly be described simply that it will open a portion of the gulf to exploration for oil and natural gas. I don't want to be understood as criticizing or begrudging anybody their opinions in opposition to the bill, but it seems to me that given what the country has gone through and is going through because of the high cost of energy, it should not be a difficult debate to allow the United States to explore for oil that is within or close to its borders, doing that in a way that is sensitive to the environment and to other considerations in order to produce more oil and natural gas that will lower costs, ease the pressure on our consumers, and allow our economy to grow and continue to produce jobs. How difficult is it in a time such as this to decide that we are in favor of getting more oil and natural gas? I speak as a person who offered the renewable fuel standard in committee. I am cochairman of the renewable fuels caucus. I am a huge believer that ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable fuel attained through those feedstocks and other feedstocks is the future of this country in terms of energy. It is the way we are going to get energy independence and reduce dependence on foreign oil in the long term. But our people need relief now, or as soon as we can get it to them. Natural gas prices set record highs last winter. They exceeded $15 per thousand cubic feet. We are paying much higher than our competitors are paying and, as a result of that, according to the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, since 2001, natural gas prices have significantly contributed to the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs and the shifting of future investment overseas. I know this is true. There are people who have come to my office and told me they don't want to send jobs overseas, but they cannot compete because of the high cost of natural gas. The Government has encouraged industry to use natural gas and utilities to use natural gas in producing energy because natural gas is a clean fuel. We have all heard the commercials--and it is true--that natural gas is environmentally very friendly. It makes no sense to pass laws and otherwise encourage producers to rely on natural gas and then not to explore for the natural gas we have available. It is hurting the American farmer. It hurts the farmers for a lot of reasons. Farmers have to absorb the high energy costs just as any other consumer, but, specifically, most of the price of nitrogen fertilizers--90 percent of the price of nitrogen fertilizers is due to the cost of natural gas, because natural gas is a feedstock in the production of virtually all commercial nitrogen fertilizers manufactured in the United States. It is not just used to power the facilities that produce fertilizers; it is actually part of the fertilizer itself. So in 2002, farmers were paying $250 per ton for anhydrous ammonia, and in 2005, $415 per ton, an increase of well over 50 percent. Why is this happening? Why is the price of natural gas and oil going up? It is because supply relative to demand is going down. Demand is expected to grow--demand for natural gas--by over 30 percent. Yet, since 1998, even though we are drilling more for natural gas, production has declined by 1.5 percent. That shows we are getting all we can out of the available fields. Yet that is not enough. We must have access to domestic resources and specifically to the easily recovered oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. Energy is vital to any economy. We all know that. We have learned in the last year or two that high energy prices are certainly not a good thing. That is something most of us knew as a matter of common sense, but we have now learned that as a matter of experience. We can make a difference with this piece of legislation and we can make a difference soon. Resource estimates for the area that would be opened indicate that there are 1.26 billion barrels of oil there and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The natural gas supply made available by this compromise legislation would be enough to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years. I don't know why they use 6 million homes for 15 years as a measurement, but that surely seems a lot to me, and certainly it is a lot more natural gas than we now have available. I have listened to the arguments offered against the legislation. A lot of them have centered around where the revenue from the natural gas exploration is going to go. A lot of it is going to go to the coastal States under this compromise. I certainly would be willing to consider something that directed that revenue somewhere else. But the reality is this is what we have to do in order to get the oil and natural gas in the first place. If we cannot pass this legislation, there is not going to be any exploration. If there is no exploration, there are no revenues. So I am certainly willing to support the legislation on that basis. It will help ease the energy situation for the employees of my manufacturers in Missouri. It will help ease the price of fertilizer for my farmers. It will help ease the energy crisis in this country. Clearly, it seems worth doing to me. It is certainly not all we need to do. We should not structure our energy policy on the assumption that we can continue to rely on oil and natural gas indefinitely, because we cannot. That is why the Energy bill last year encouraged a production of so many other different kinds of energy--nuclear, renewables, coal, wind. It is all important to the future, but this is important to the future as well. So I am pleased to support the legislation. I congratulate the Senators who have worked so hard on a bipartisan basis. I know it has not been easy. Certainly, it has been nowhere near as easy as it should have been given the common sense that I think underlies this piece of legislation. I am glad they put it together. I have wanted to do something such as this for some time. It makes no sense when our manufacturers are crying for energy, our farmers are crying for energy, our consumers need energy, to turn down the opportunity to explore for the energy we have right offshore and that we can get in a way that fully protects the environment and other concerns. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for its indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak on the measure without counting against the time on this side.

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of the Voting Rights reauthorization legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to protect the voting rights of all Americans, and I am pleased that the Congress is reauthorizing this important legislation. The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy and a fundamental right to our citizenry. Before the Voting Rights Act was passed, however, a great percentage of American citizens were denied that right. The Voting Rights Act rectified that wrong by prohibiting the enactment of any election law that would deny or abridge voting rights based on race or color and provided the right to challenge discriminatory voting practices and procedures. This legislation has been extended and amended four times since its passage and has resulted in a tremendous growth in the ability of minority citizens to fully participate in the American political system, both as voters and candidates. At the time the act was first adopted, only one-third of all African Americans of voting age were on the registration rolls in the specially covered States compared with two-thirds of White voters. Now African Americans' voter registration rates are approaching parity with that of Whites in many areas, and Hispanic voters in jurisdictions added to the list of those specially covered by the act in 1975 are not far behind. Enforcement of the act has also increased the opportunity of African Americans and Latino voters to elect representatives of their choice. Virtually excluded from all public offices in the South in 1965, African Americans and Hispanic voters are now substantially represented in the State legislatures and local governing bodies throughout the region. Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation that literally changed the landscape of the American political system, and I am extremely pleased to cast a vote in favor of its extension.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman for yielding and compliment him and Senator Bond for their work in getting the Water Resources Development Act on the Senate floor finally. It has been literally years getting it here. I think it is a very important measure. Transportation infrastructure is very important. If we are going to maintain our global competitiveness, our economic growth, we have to be able to get goods from one place to another. We have to be able to protect people from natural disasters. We have to control and use the water resources this Nation is blessed with, and we cannot do it without this bill. I want to address specifically the provisions in the bill that authorize the modernization of locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River--locks and dams which, if they were people, would be old enough to collect Social Security; locks and dams which are so small relative to the needs of modern transportation that barges must routinely be broken down into two halfs, in essence, before they can go through the locks and dams; locks and dams which are in such need of maintenance that you can take a picture of one and then come back and take a picture of the same lock a month later and you will find that concrete has literally fallen off it. The case for river transportation is so strong, it is a matter of common sense. It is a cheap, environmentally sound method of moving goods. I say inexpensive because it costs roughly a third of the cost of shipping by rail; environmentally friendly because one medium barge tow can carry the same freight as 870 traffic trail trucks. So obviously, by fixing locks and dams, we can relieve highway congestion, reduce shipping costs, reduce fuel consumption, and we can reduce air emissions. We will also create jobs. The construction of new 1200-foot locks and lock extensions will provide more than 48 million man-hours of employment over the next 10 to 15 years. We can also move the country's goods more efficiently. Sixty percent of the country's corn exports, 45 percent of soybean exports go on the Mississippi River to their destination. It is absolutely important to the transportation of coal, steel, and concrete. We have a new concrete facility going into Sainte Genevieve, MO. It was a number of years before they were able to begin building it, but they have. The reason that plant is going in there is because the river is there, because they can bring products in and they can move products out. It is vitally important that we do this. We have been waiting a number of years. We are at least going to be able to authorize doing it in this bill. We then have to fund it. I want to say a few words about what I think is the most important issue regarding our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and that is less about how we prioritize than whether we are going to build it at all. Transportation infrastructure is absolutely crucial to the competitiveness and future of any economy. Other nations know that. That is why they are building it. Brazil, for example, which is certainly not a country with an economy as prosperous as ours, is building water transportation infrastructure. I know people are concerned about the revenues of the Federal Government and about the deficit. I certainly am as well. But that is not a reason to avoid investments in capital infrastructure. If you are a homeowner and you have a hole in your roof, you have to fix the hole in the roof. You have to fix it somehow because it doesn't go away if you don't fix it. It gets worse. Then it costs more when you finally do decide to fix it. We have been talking about priorities. It is certainly reasonable to discuss how we are going to prioritize the projects that we have backlogged. But I note with interest that both sides seem to agree that after this bill passes, if it passes, we will have $70 billion in backlogged projects and evidently $2 billion a year to spend on them. I wonder if anybody else noted the irony of that. We are arguing about how to prioritize $2 billion, when we have $70 billion in backlog. Perhaps we ought to be arguing about how we can reduce the backlogs faster by finding more money. Unless somebody is aware of some technology that is going to allow us to transport goods across the country other than through rivers or rail or trucks, we had better figure out how we are going to fix this, and we had better figure it out fast. A lot of people who are concerned--I don't mean here in the Senate so much but over in the Office of Management and Budget--about passing trade agreements will reassure us that it is OK to have trade agreements with other countries, even though they have lower wage levels, because they say we are competitive anyway because we have a better financial system, a better telecommunications systems, and we have a better transportation system. Then the same people begrudge every attempt to invest in the transportation system. The reality is that however we prioritize the money, we are falling behind every year. In 10 or 15 years from now, maybe sooner, we are going to have fallen so far behind, we will never be able to catch up. When the next generation does not have the transportation infrastructure they need to be competitive, as we had because the earlier generation gave it to us, I don't think we will be able to explain it away by saying we were arguing over how to prioritize it. I think they will want to know how we are going to build it. Because right now, however you prioritize it, we have a heck of a lot more priorities than we have money to spend. I hope we can put a little bit of the energy that we are now putting into prioritization-- and I don't begrudge anybody the debate over this--into how we are going to fund the transportation infrastructure that this generation and the next generation needs before the Chinese fund theirs and the Third World countries fund theirs, and our people are out in the cold. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his efforts and for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. That will be fine.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I ask my friend if I could have just a few minutes? It sounds like the unanimous consent takes up all the time, and I just wanted to speak for 4 or 5 minutes on the bill, which I would want to do before we got into that.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, earlier this year I came to the Senate floor in opposition to human cloning and in support of new stem cell alternatives that could allow us to get exactly the stem cells we want to relieve human suffering without creating, destroying, or cloning a human embryo. I said during that speech that it appears that the very advances of science that have caused the ethical dilemmas in this area of stem cell research may now be providing a solution. The alternatives bill, S. 2754, seeks a genuine way forward that all Americans can wholeheartedly endorse. One year ago, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a report entitled ``Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.'' This report outlined four proposals for obtaining pluripotent stem cells-- those with the same properties and potentials as embryonic stem cells-- using techniques that do not involve the destruction of human embryos. In the year since that report, major advances in each of these approaches have been documented in peer-reviewed research articles published in leading scientific journals. Two of these ``alternative methods'' offer the possibility of obtaining superior stem cells with potential scientific and medical advantages over those that could be obtained by destroying embryos. Altered nuclear transfer and direct reprogramming would permit the production of pluripotent stem cell lines of specific genetic types. This would allow standardized scientific studies of genetic diseases and possibly patient-specific or immune-compatible cell therapies. So it is important to recognize that this alternatives bill, S. 2754, could encourage advances in stem cell biology unlike any current law or pending legislative approach. And it could do so in a way that would sustain moral and social consensus for full Federal funding of this research. I note that the bill will pass with an overwhelming vote-- exactly the kind of consensus which I hoped for. For all of these reasons, I will vote enthusiastically for the alternatives bill. I will oppose H.R. 810, which uses tax dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of human life at its earliest stages. The Federal Government has never funded such research before, and that is not a line I wish to cross--especially since, as the alternatives bill shows, it is possible to fund every type of stem cell research without cloning or destroying human embryos. In fact, the stem cells which the alternatives can provide are superior--because they are ``patient specific'' genetically--to the stem cells which science can get from destroying embryos. I should add that the promise of the alternatives is speculative, but so is the promise of the research which would destroy human life. All of this research has potential, it is all speculative, and it all involves essentially the same science. My sense is that either all of it or none of it will prove to be possible and that the right balance is therefore to seek the win-win solution that gives us the best chance to relieve human suffering while protecting human life. We are entering a promising new era in biomedical technology, but as our power over human life increases, so does the seriousness of the moral issues. We should all want to advance biomedical science while sustaining fundamental principles for the protection of human life. This is why I am also voting in favor of the prohibition against fetus farms. Biomedical science should be a matter of unity in our national identity: No one should enter the hospital with moral qualms about the research on which their therapies had been developed or resentful that positive possibilities for the best therapies were not explored. The differences within our Nation can be a source of strength as we seek to open a way forward for biomedical science. The alternatives offer us just such a path to progress.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Why is it not permissible to regulate something that is clearly an act that strikes at the heart of the American consciousness and that leaves unregulated a vast area of expression? I would daresay, if the average American decided to participate in the political process and try to get his or her views out, they might very well join a grassroots group and get involved in a campaign. Yet it is evidently consistent with the first amendment, according to the Court, to regulate that, yet not consistent to prohibit a particular action that has one narrow area of expressive overtones. We should at least understand what this debate is about. It is about how much you value the flag. I do not begrudge anybody their views about expression or the Constitution or the role of this body in regulating the one or amending the other. But I believe this debate is about how great a significance you attach to the flag of the United States. I believe it is important. People have fought under it. They have died for it. There are literally billions of people around the world who see the flag as a symbol for all that is good about their hopes for the future. I believe it is important that we have this debate. I hope the Senate will think clearly and deeply and thoughtfully and not on a partisan or political basis and decide it is consistent with America's traditions and that it will sustain the balance between diversity and unity for us to pass this amendment and protect our flag. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the proposition before us and on the importance of protecting the American flag. The American flag is a unique symbol in the Nation's consciousness. America, unlike many countries, actually had a birthday. There was a day when the Colonies became States and the States became a nation and they were organized explicitly around certain beliefs about human dignity and freedom: the belief that people have certain inalienable rights that inhere in them as human beings and that because of those rights the Government is the servant and not the master of the people. It is also a nation that cherishes diversity but balances against that, unity. It is no accident that the national motto is ``out of the many, the one.'' We are not a country with a monarchy. We rebelled against a monarchy. We are not a country with an established religion. We rebelled against that as well. We are a country with only a few unifying symbols, chief among which is the flag. That is why it is so uniquely important to America's conception of itself to protect the flag. In protecting the flag, we are affirming the basic beliefs of the country. I believe that there is in the Constitution a narrow power on the part of the States and the Congress to protect the flag from public desecration. In passing this amendment, if the Senate chooses to do it, we will simply affirm those underlying ideals. We are not saying you can't criticize those ideals--you can. You can attack them. You can attack the flag if you want. But there ought to be a power to protect the flag from public desecration, and I think the amendment comes down simply to that proposition: How much do you value the flag as a symbol of what this Nation has stood for and what the people of this country have sacrificed for and in some cases have died for? There are arguments that have been raised on the floor against the amendment. One of them is that we should not amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court has amended the Constitution. Until recently, it was the common understanding that this power existed. There were 48 States that had laws against the desecration of the flag. The Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional. In effect, the Court updated or amended the traditional understanding of the Constitution to say that. Whatever you think of the Court's power to amend the Constitution or update it according to the opinions of the Justices, surely the people ought to have the power to amend the Constitution. If the Court can do it, the people ought to be able do it. That is another basic American ideal--the right of the people to govern themselves, to decide for themselves what their own organic law says. If the people are to have their will carried out in this respect, the only way they have left to do it is by amending the Constitution. If you say we should not amend the Constitution under these circumstances, you are saying, in effect, that the courts can change the Constitution when they think it is important to do it, and the people have no response. They cannot pass a statute because the Court would say it is unconstitutional, and they cannot pass a constitutional amendment because so many in this body say they should never amend their own Constitution. Another argument against the amendment is that it regulates expression. It does not. Burning the flag is an act. It is an act with expressive overtones, surely, so we should be careful before doing it, but it is an act, and it is fully within the tradition of the first amendment to allow the regulation of actions that have speech overtones. It was only a few years ago that this body passed comprehensive campaign finance reform that most certainly regulated not just acts but expressions. According to that legislation, it is unlawful for grassroots groups to sponsor political advertisement in the last 60 days of an election that mentions the name of a candidate. I cannot think of anything more closely related to the core of what the first amendment was passed to protect, yet the Court said that was constitutional. If it is permissible to regulate speech in that context, why is it not permissible to regulate action that has speech overtones? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 2 minutes to finish my remarks.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and appreciate his and Senator Levin's work on this amendment.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to go ahead of him for a moment or two. I do want to take a few minutes to talk about an amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Nelson of Florida that passed the Senate in the Defense bill and that addresses a problem which has been growing and which is affecting the readiness of our Armed Forces. The fact is, predatory payday lenders are targeting American troops and are trying to make a buck off of their service to our country. We rely on the military to protect us, and we have just taken a significant step to protect them from predatory lenders. The Nelson- Talent amendment limits the annual percentage rate that payday lenders can charge soldiers and their spouses to 36 percent or about 1\1/2\ to 2 times what credit cards typically charge. I recognize that payday lending can be a risky business, but a triple-digit interest rate, which is commonly charged today, is simply too much. Some estimate that the average APR on a payday loan today is over 400 percent, and there have been reports of payday loans with more than 800 percent interest rates. This is a national problem. Predatory payday lenders set up shop near our military bases throughout the country and prey on our servicemembers. We know about this problem in Missouri. We have the unfortunate distinction of having a relatively large number and high density of payday lenders around our largest military base, Fort Leonard Wood, in Pulaski County. It is a great base with a lot of service men and women in it. As a result, there are a lot of payday lenders around. St. Robert, which is a small gateway town near the base, only has 5,200 residents but has eight payday lenders. Examples such as St. Robert led professors at the University of Florida and California State University to say that ``irrefutable geographic evidence demonstrates that payday lenders are actively and aggressively targeting U.S. military personnel.'' Military families pay an estimated $80 million annually in payday loan fees. The problem not only affects military families' financial well-being, it directly impacts troop readiness because these young men and women, many of whom are just out of high school, are not financially sophisticated and fall way behind in these payments. They have to go bankrupt, and then that affects their ability to get security clearances. In this month's issue of Seapower magazine, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, said, ``A sailor's financial readiness directly impacts unit readiness and the navy's ability to accomplish its mission . . . I am concerned with the number of sailors who are taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, the most common of which is the payday loan.'' The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, John Molino, has also said this problem ``affects unit readiness.'' Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Terry Scott, has said ``the No. 1 reason our sailors are forced from one job to another is because they lose their security clearance . . . and the No. 1 reason they lose their security clearance is because of financial difficulties.'' The number of security clearances of sailors and Marines that were revoked or denied due to financial problems have soared from 124 in FY 2000 to 1,999 in 2005. The total for the 6-year period is 5,482. And, that's just for one of the departments. The impact on readiness is one of the serious ramifications of this problem. But, another consequence is that some servicemembers have ruined their financial lives by taking out payday loans--that automatically rollover--at exorbitant rates they can never payoff. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason Withrow, stationed on a nuclear submarine at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, took a $300 payday loan in summer 2003. He borrowed more to service the fee, and by February 2004, he'd paid about $5,000 in interest on $1,800 in payday loans at four different lenders. Army Specialist Myron Hicks, stationed at Fort Stewart, GA, borrowed $1,500 for a car repair. He paid back $3,000--twice what he borrowed. I could give a hundred stories like that. Cristie Worrow, a 29-year-old petty officer second class at the Naval Air Reserve in Jacksonville, FL, took out a $500 payday loan in 1998. Over 3 years she had two more loans and was paying fees that sometimes reached $200 per month. Eventually, she had paid $2,400 in fees. Our troops deserve uniform, national protection against abusive financial practices that target them. This is clearly a step in the right direction. An impressive list of military and veteran service organizations, with over 5.5 million members, support the legislation. The Military Coalition includes the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Navy League of the United States (NLUS), Air Force Association (AFA), and Marine Corps League (MCL). The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu, has expressed his support for the legislation. He has said the legislation ``provides reasonable and appropriate limits.'' Numerous consumer groups like the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, and Institute of Consumer Financial Education also support the bipartisan amendment. Mr. President, I feel strongly that we can hold this amendment in conference. I thank the chairman and ranking member. They know how bad this problem is. I am grateful for their help in getting this in the bill. Chairmen Craig and Shelby of the Veterans' and Banking Committees were cooperative in getting this on the bill. I trust our colleagues and friends in the House will understand the importance of holding this amendment. This abuse of payday lending is compromising the readiness of the U.S. military. The problem has become that big. It is ruining the financial lives of thousands of our service men and women who unknowingly, because of their lack of sophistication, get into debts from these abusive lenders, far greater than they are able to pay. We have put a stop to that with this amendment. We need to hold it in conference committee. I am confident we will be able to do that. I look forward to working with the Senate and the House to pass this provision into law on behalf of our troops. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 22. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be 60 minutes of debate divided as follows: Senator Warner in control of 30 minutes, Senator Levin in control of 15 minutes, Senator Kerry in control of 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following the 60 minutes, the Democratic leader be recognized for up to 15 minutes to close, to be followed by the majority leader for up to 15 minutes to close. Finally, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate proceed to the vote on the Levin amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Kerry amendment, with no amendment in order to the Kerry amendment, to be followed by the vote on invoking cloture. Further, I ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for allowing me to explain briefly, this evening, why I will be voting to stay the course in Iraq until the progress we are making there now ripens into complete victory. And I want to put that conflict in context. The United States is in a war against a transnational army of fanatical extremists who routinely use terror against civilians its a weapon. The terrorists began attacking us before September 11. They attacked us in the 1980s and in the 1990s, when they bombed Khobar Towers, attacked the USS Cole and our embassies abroad, and first tried to bomb the World Trade Center. Our government did not recognize the threat and did not respond vigorously until after they escalated the war by the attacks on September 11. We know who the terrorists are--an interlocking network of highly trained, deadly, and adaptive terrorist organizations funded largely by the Saudi Wahabbists and Iran. We know what their goals are from the al-Zawahiri letter which was intercepted in July of 2005. They want, first, to radicalize Islam by converting, suppressing, or killing those Muslims who resist their twisted and extreme interpretation of that religion. They want to exclude the principles of enlightenment thought from Islamic countries and set up a series of Taliban-like caliphates throughout the Muslim world. Those regimes would be run by religious thought police who would ruthlessly suppress free expression, religious dissent, social pluralism, political activity, and women's rights. We know that such regimes are possible; one existed in Afghanistan before America intervened, and another exists in Iran today. We know the tactics they will use. The terrorists are patient, in the sense that they think generationally. They infiltrate mosques and they feed off the discontent and hopelessness many young Muslims feel. They see Western democracies as weak and feckless; they hope that with time and intimidation they can control the policies of these countries. They hope to gain control of sources of energy on which the West depends. And, the terrorists want to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Since they have no national base and no concern whatsoever for innocent human life, traditional means of deterrence--the threat of a counterattack-- would be unlikely to prevent the terrorists from using such weapons should they get them. The point is that the terrorists are trying to achieve these goals, and they are not going to stop voluntarily. There is no conceivable acceptable accommodation we could reach that would cause them to leave us alone. We must therefore counter their efforts, and to be effective we must fight on three ``fronts,'' as it were, at once: we must rebuild our intelligence and covert operations capability, we must deprive the terrorists of national bases of support, and we must work with mainstream Islam around the world to show Mideast Muslims in particular that there is a future for them in the principles of liberal democracy. The operation in Iraq is a central part of all three of these ``fronts.'' Our goal there was, first, to remove Saddam Hussein. His regime was an organic threat to world peace; he had twice invaded his neighbors and was systematically violating the commitments he made after Desert Storm. He had harbored and trained terrorists; more fundamentally, he was a tyrant who wanted weapons of mass destruction and was obstructing the war against the terrorists. Second, the United States, in cooperation with mainstream Iraqi leaders from all parts and ethnic groups in the country, is building a multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq that will be a strong ally in the war on terror and will confront and confound the vision of the terrorists for the Muslim world. The terrorists know how important the struggle in Iraq is to the overall war. That is why they are trying so hard to disrupt the new government. Yet they are not succeeding. The sacrifice and hardships endured by all the soldiers and families whose loved ones are serving in Iraq have resulted in major achievements for the Iraqi people. In the 3 years since Iraq was liberated, the Iraqi people have assumed sovereignty over their country, held free elections, drafted a democratic constitution, approved that constitution in a nationwide referendum, elected a permanent representative under the new constitutional framework, and formed a government with representatives from all sections and religious groups within the country. The Iraqi Government has become more capable of providing essential services to its people. The 2005 per capita GDP was more than double the 2003 amount, and exceeds the prewar 2002 amount by more than 30 percent. There are over 100 independent newspapers and magazines, 44 commercial television stations, and 72 commercial radio stations now operating in Iraq. America continues to actively fight the terrorists, while building and training capable and effective Iraqi security forces, which eventually will take the lead in the fight and take responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens. Over 250,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped, which is an increase of 123,500 troops from January 2005. In addition, there are now more than 100 ground combat battalions of Iraqi military and special police forces conducting operations against the insurgency. I do not begrudge anyone their discontent with how some of our operations have been conducted in Iraq. There have been mistakes. The administration underestimated how long it would take to stabilize the Sunni triangle; our active duty army is too small and this has strained Reserve components; we have relied too much on technology and not enough on intelligence in counteracting the improvised explosive devices. Wars are messy and failures are inevitable; yet the Bush administration has had the authority for the last 5 years, and I do not blame anyone for holding the administration accountable for the operational mistakes that have been made. Yet I do ask everyone to recognize that this war is serious and necessary and must be won. I believe the decision to invade Iraq was, whatever mistakes have been made operationally, the only possible strategic choice. President Clinton was, quite properly, building the case for action against Saddam during his last years in office, even before the attacks on 9/11. I was in the House at the time and I remember clearly that Secretary Albright, Vice President Gore and the President himself repeatedly warned that Saddam was a major threat. In short, the war in Iraq, like the global war on terror of which it is a part, is America's war, which we must fight and win to protect our safety and freedom and to preserve from violence and oppression hundreds of millions of innocent people around the world. And we will win it, despite the mistakes, provided that we do not let strategic incoherence, partisan politics, or personal disaffection with the administration divide or discourage us. For many of us, the hardest thing about war is not the physical or monetary sacrifice. It is the burden of having to confront unpleasant realities, choose consistently from unpalatable options, and sacrifice objectives that apart from the war would justifiably claim a priority. But if we really do value freedom, safety, pluralism, and justice, we must all resolve that we will shoulder this burden for as long as it takes. Our service men and women are doing their duty magnificently, and will continue doing it until they have won. They have shown by their sacrifice how much they value the safety of their families and the freedom of their country. We need to back them up. That means, among other things, resolving to stay and fight in Iraq until the battle is won. To pull out now or to set an artificial timeline on withdrawal--especially after the victories of the last few weeks--would imperil everything the sacrifice that our service men and women has gained. It would encourage the enemy to struggle even more tenaciously and ruthlessly in the hope that America could be made to quit. It would demoralize our friends and it would convince those who have yet to take sides that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its commitments. I want to encourage everyone about the progress we have made. We are winning, not just in Iraq, but in the larger global war on terror. We have allies now we didn't have 5 years ago--in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq--and we have cooperation and support throughout the Muslim world that a few years ago would not have been possible. The operation against Zarqawi shows the value of our alliance with the new Iraqi Government and the increasing sophistication of our intelligence. In short, there is no question that the United States, with its coalition partners, has the power to win in Iraq. The question is whether we have the resolution to win. Most wars are combat operations with psychological components. Wars against terrorists might better be described as psychological operations with combat components. They are struggles between leaders, peoples, and ``narratives'' of the world. By that, I mean ways of looking at or judging the worth of human beings and the fundamental principles of human society. I know the American people have the strength and resolution to prevail, as they have prevailed in similar struggles for freedom throughout our history. I know our ``narrative'' of the world--our belief in the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings--is right and strong. I trust our leaders will be resolute in the struggle as well, and that by its votes tomorrow, the Senate will signal that we too have confidence in the success of our efforts, the worth of our sacrifice, and the justice of our cause.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that second-degree amendments be filed no later than 10:30 a.m. on Thursday.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 519, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. TALENT. I am glad the Senators from Texas were not here, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today, we have had lengthy debate on the Levin and Kerry amendments on Iraq. Tomorrow morning, we will have approximately 90 minutes for closing remarks before a series of votes. We will be voting on the Levin language, the Kerry language, and finally on cloture on the Defense bill. Under the provisions of rule XXII and the previous consent, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments will be at 10:30 tomorrow. We hope cloture will be invoked and that we can then work toward completing this vitally important Defense authorization measure. Additional votes are expected during Thursday's session.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.