Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a historic event that occurred on Monday. The National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown elected 17 pre-Negro Leagues and Negro Leagues baseball players and executives to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2006. Many of baseball's most noted stars of the past century got their beginnings in the Negro Leagues. Greats such as Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and, of course, Jackie Robinson brought their fast-paced and highly competitive brand of Negro Leagues baseball eventually to the Major Leagues. In fact, there are a lot of people who think that much of the fast-paced style of baseball today is owing to the influence of the Negro League's brand of baseball. Before these greats of the game were given the opportunity to showcase their skills at the Major League level, many African-American ballplayers with equal skill were never allowed to share the same field as their White counterparts. Instead, such players played from the 1920s to the 1960s in over 30 communities located throughout the United States on teams in one of six Negro Baseball Leagues, including Kansas City and St. Louis in my home State of Missouri. The history of this is interesting. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, African Americans began to play on military baseball teams, college teams, company teams. The teams were integrated in those days. Many African Americans eventually found their way onto professional teams with White players. But racism and Jim Crow laws drove the African-American players from their integrated teams in the early 1900s, forcing them to form their own ``barnstorming'' teams which would travel around the country playing anyone willing to challenge them. But then, in 1920, the Negro National League, which was the first of the Negro Baseball Leagues, was formed under the guidance of Andrew ``Rube'' Foster--a former player, manager, and owner of the Chicago American Giants--and was formed at a meeting held at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City, MO. Soon after the Negro National League was formed, rival leagues formed in Eastern and Southern States and brought the thrills and the innovative play of the Negro Leagues to major urban centers and rural countrysides throughout the United States, Canada, and Latin America. For more than 40 years, the Negro Leagues maintained a high level of professional skill and became centerpieces for economic development in their communities. The Negro Leagues constituted the third biggest Black owned and run business in the country in those days. They brought jobs and economic activity to many of the cities around the United States. They played in front of crowds of 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000, and 50,000 people. And those crowds were integrated. White and Black fans came to watch the Negro Leagues, and they sat together. In 1945, Major League Baseball's Brooklyn Dodgers recruited Jackie Robinson from the Kansas City Monarchs, which, of course, made Jackie the first African American in the modern era to play on a Major League roster. That historic event led to the integration of the Major Leagues and ironically prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues because, of course, Major League teams began to recruit and sign the best African- American ballplayers. On Monday of this week, the National Baseball Hall of Fame took a first step in righting a historic wrong when it recognized the distinguished careers of 17 pre-Negro League ballplayers and executives, people who were never given the opportunity to compete in Major League Baseball with their White counterparts. Oh, they often played them, and very often, in barnstorming games or exhibition-type matches, the Negro League players and teams would play the best players of the Major Leagues, and those must have been great baseball games to see. But the Hall of Fame elected those 17 players and executives to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2006. The players elected on Monday were Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Biz Mackey, Effa Manley--the first woman elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, and more on that in just a minute--Joe Mandez, Alex Popez Cum Posey, Louis Santop, Mule Suttles, Ben Taylor, Cristobal Torriente, Sol White, J.L. Wilkinson, and Jud Wilkinson. These legends, not just of the Negro Leagues but of our national pastime, will now join the less than 1 percent of all professional baseball players who have been honored with induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and they will be inducted on July 30, 2006. One of the more historic moments of Monday's selection was the selection of Effa Manley, who was the co-owner of the Newark Eagles. She became the first woman ever elected to the Hall of Fame. In addition to her efforts in baseball, she played an active role in the civil rights movement and promoted such causes as Anti-Lynching Day at Ruppert Stadium, which was the home of the Newark Eagles. Among those elected, several have ties to my home State of Missouri, and it will surprise no one in the Senate that I decided to feature them in my remarks. Willard Brown was an outfielder with the Kansas City Monarchs who often led the Negro American League in home runs and batting average. He was considered by many to be the Negro American League's version of the great Josh Gibson. Andy Cooper was a pitcher with the Detroit Stars and Kansas City Monarchs who had a knack for changing the speed of his pitches. He is among the top ten leaders in career wins, strikeouts, shutouts, and winning percentage in Negro Leagues history. Later in his career he became the manager of the Kansas City Monarchs, leading them to three pennants. Jose Mendez was a right handed pitcher for the Cuban Stars, All Nations, and Kansas City Monarchs who had a career winning percentage just under .700 in the Negro National League. He managed the Kansas City Monarchs to successive pennants from 1923-1925. Mule Suttles was a first baseman and outfielder for the St. Louis Stars, Chicago American Giants, Birmingham Black Barons and the Newark Eagles. He was one of the most powerful home run hitters in the Negro Leagues, ranking third all-time among Negro Leaguers in home runs and RBIs. Cristobal Torriente was a five-tool outfielder with a lifetime batting average over .330 primarily with the Cuban Stars and Chicago American Giants. For those who don't know what a five-tool outfielder is it means he could hit for average, hit for power, run with speed, field with above average skill and display enough arm strength to throw out the fastest players at home plate. He is one of the all-time offensive leaders in Negro Leagues history, ranking in the top 20 all- time in home runs, RBIs and total bases. The record books would have been different had these players been allowed to play in Major League baseball. J.L. Wilkinson was the owner of the Kansas City Monarchs, the All Nations club and one of the first professional women's teams in the United States. He was a pioneer of night baseball, various ballpark promotions, and was the Negro National League's only white owner when it was chartered in 1920. His Kansas City Monarchs were the longest running franchise in Negro National League history and they won an unprecedented 17 pennants, and two World Series. I congratulate all 17 players and executives elected this week, as well as their families and friends. This is an honor long overdue and is sure to lead to a great celebration this summer in Cooperstown. It will be a dramatic moment when these figures are inducted in the Hall of Fame. However, it saddens me that this summer's historic induction ceremony did not take place during the lifetime of these baseball greats. I can only wish that they were still alive today to witness baseball's long overdue recognition of their contributions on and off the field. There is another aspect of this selection process which is disappointing and bittersweet for many of us because one of the legends of Negro Leagues did not receive the necessary votes to be elected to the Hall of Fame. That legend is John Jordan ``Buck'' O'Neil. Buck's illustrious baseball career spans seven decades and has made him a foremost authority of the game and one of its greatest ambassadors. Buck is in his 90s now, and still active, still a leader in baseball and a leader in remembering the Negro Leagues and establishing the Negro League's Baseball museum. I would like to tell you a little about Buck O'Neil the man and Buck O'Neil the player. I had intended to introduce this Resolution earlier this week, but was so disappointed by the exclusion of Buck from those selected that I began to have second thoughts about the process for selecting this class of inductees. I had a conversation with Buck yesterday and he told me that going forward with this Resolution was important not only to recognize this historic event--I mean important in a practical way to the Negro League's baseball museum and the remberance of the Negro Leagues, and to recognize the achievement of these 17 players and executives--but because it was the right thing to do. Buck O'Neil has always been about doing the right thing. No matter what door has been slammed in his face he always picks himself up and does what is right and what is most important to him. In this case what is most important to him is his true love for the Negro Leagues, the Negro Leagues players and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which he helped to found and which he has been so active in promoting in Kansas City. In yesterday's Kansas City Star, columnist Joe Posnanski had this to say about the injustice that occurred to Buck O'Neil on Monday: All his life, Buck O'Neil has had doors slammed in his face. He played baseball when the major leagues did not allow black players. He was a gifted manager at a time when major league owners would not even think of having an African American lead their teams. For more than 30 years, he told stories about Negro Leagues players and nobody wanted to listen. Now, after everything, he was being told that the life he had spent in baseball was not worthy of the Hall of Fame. It was enough to make those around him cry. But Buck laughed. ``I'm still Buck,'' he said. ``Look at me. I've lived a good life. I'm still living a good life. Nothing has changed for me.'' I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of Mr. Posnanski's article printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. TALENT. I thought I would take a few moments of the Senate's time to talk a little bit about Buck's record. I think the Senate would agree with me it would have fully justified his induction. Buck O'Neil the player was a first baseman and Manager for the Kansas City Monarchs from 1937 through 1955. Buck's achievements as a player include leading his team to a Negro American league title and a date with the Homestead Grays in the 1942 Negro World Series. In the series Buck hit .353 and led the Monarchs to a four game sweep of the powerhouse Homestead Grays. Buck sport a career batting average of .288, including four .300-plus seasons. He won batting titles in 1940 and 1946, hitting .345 and .353 respectively. He was named to the East- West All-Star Classic in 1942, 1943 and 1949 and barnstormed with the Satchel Paige All-Stars during the 1930s and 1940s playing countless games against the likes of the Bob Feller All-Stars. I would have given a lot to have seen one of those games. In 1948, Buck succeeded Frank Duncan, as manager of the Monarchs, and continued to manage them until 1955. As the manager of the Monarchs, he sent more Negro league veterans to the Majors than any other manager in baseball history including Ernie Banks, Elston Howard, Connie Johnson, Satchel Paige and Sweet Lou Johnson. He lead the Monarchs to league titles in 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1953 and managed the West squad in the East-West All-Star game in 1950, 1952, 1954 and 1955. By the way, the West won all four of these contests. In 1956, Buck was hired by the Chicago Cubs as a scout. Six years later he became the first African American to coach in the Major Leagues with the Cubs. As a scout he discovered such superstars as Lou Brock, one of my all-time favorite Cardinals, and Joe Carter. Lou called him on Monday by the way, expecting Buck would have been inducted, while everybody was waiting to see the results of the vote. In 1988, after more than 30 years with the Cubs, he returned home to Kansas City to scout for the Kansas City Royals. Today Buck serves as chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum he helped found in 1990. The work of Buck O'Neil and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum led the Hall of Fame to hold this special election of Negro Leagues and Pre-Negro Leagues players. In fact, his work after he had retired from the game as a coach may be even more significant to the history of baseball than his exploits as a player and a manager. Nobody has done more to build that museum and to call the rest of us to remember the significance of the Negro baseball league. It was significant on so many different levels: A triumph of the human spirit, tremendous sportsmanship, tremendously high quality of play, vitally important to the Black community of the time, and it led directly to the integration of the Major Leagues, which was the first in a series of mjor civil rights landmarks in the modern era that has led to the progress we have achieved today. I believe there is no one who meets the criteria for induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame more than Buck. The combination of his statistics on the field as a player, his years as a scout discovering some of the best players of their generation, his years as a manager and coach, including breaking the color barrier as the first African-American coach in the Major Leagues, and his years of tireless advocacy on behalf of the Negro Leagues and its players equals a resume built for election to Cooperstown. I hope that the Baseball Hall of Fame will take appropriate action to correct this oversight. Finally, I would like to congratulate everyone at the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, who worked so very hard for so many years to make this special election a reality. Their tireless advocacy on behalf of these baseball legends is another reason why the Senate should pass legislation that would give a national designation to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, the only public museum in the Nation that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences of the players in the Negro Leagues. I highly recommend a visit to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for anybody who is in Kansas City. Whether you are a baseball fan or not, you will be moved by what you see there. You will be encouraged and inspired in every way by seeing how those players confronted the injustices of their times, and with great spirit and energy and joy even overcame those obstacles. In closing, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his assistance and his support of both the resolution which we introduced today in honor of those athletes who were elected on Monday and also S. Con. Res. 60, which is the national designation resolution. I hope the Senate will swiftly pass our resolution to honor these future Hall of Famers--I guess they are Hall of Famers designees now--for their contributions on the field and for their courage, sacrifice and triumph in the face of segregation. Exhibit 1 Injustice, and then a gutless committee clams up (By Joe Posnanski) The living voice of the Negro Leagues did not even blink when the door was slammed in his face one more time. Buck O'Neil just nodded and smiled a little when he was told that he did not get enough votes to be elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. ``All right,'' he said. ``That's the way the cookie crumbles.'' That's the way baseball crumbles. Monday, an 11-member committee of academics and authors (a 12th member, author Robert Peterson, died two weeks ago) gathered in a room in Tampa and voted 17 deceased Negro Leagues players and executives into the Hall of Fame. Seventeen. To give you an idea of how overwhelming that number is . . . only 18 Negro Leaguers are actually in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It took 30 years of work--most of that Buck O'Neil's hard work--to get those 18 players inducted. But even while doubling the Negro Leagues' Hall of Fame population, the committee could not muster the necessary nine votes for Buck O'Neil, who is 94 and has done more in his life for Negro Leagues baseball than anyone else. One committee member said O'Neil likely fell one vote short. The balloting was secret. When the voting was finished, no one had the guts to explain why Buck O'Neil was kept out. He was an All-Star player in the Negro Leagues. He was a successful manager for the Kansas City Monarchs. He sent more Negro Leagues players to the major leagues than anyone. He was the first black coach in the major leagues. For the past 50 years, he has been--as author Jules Tygiel calls him in Shades of Glory, the Negro Leagues book commissioned by the Hall of Fame-- ``the primary spokesperson for the legacy of the Negro Leagues.'' In fact, two sources said months ago that the Hall of Fame would have a special Negro Leagues vote with the intention of getting Buck O'Neil in. One hall official said, ``I don't think the Hall of Fame is complete without him.'' Thus, for the first time ever, the hall handed over the voting to a panel of baseball historians and scholars with no affiliation to the major leagues or the hall. This was an extraordinary move for the Hall of Fame. They usually protect the hall the way tigers protect their cubs. There was not one former player on the committee and not one person who actually observed the Negro Leagues. The committee was given no boundaries--they were told to vote for as many people as they saw fit. They certainly voted free. By dumping 17 persons into the Hall of Fame, they matched the number of persons inducted into the hall the past seven years. But when it came to why Buck was left out, no one was talking. ``I don't think the individuals are going to be willing to discuss their individual votes,'' said Fay Vincent, who served as a nonvoting chairman of the committee. ``We agreed we would not do that.'' In other words, they decided to hide. After this travesty, you could not blame them. On Monday, when it appeared that O'Neil was short the votes he needed, Vincent apparently made a frantic plea to the committee to consider O'Neil's lifetime achievements and not just his playing days. According to the committee member, he sounded almost desperate. His words held no sway with this committee. They left him out without a word of explanation. They did, however, vote in Andy Cooper, who was (see if this sounds familiar) a fine player and manager for the Kansas City Monarchs. He died in 1941. The book Shades of Glory is 422 pages long, including acknowledgements. Cooper is mentioned exactly zero times. The committee also voted in Effa Manley, the first woman inductee into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Her credentials? She co-owned the Newark Eagles with her husband, Abe, for 14 seasons. The team won one championship. Also, she was outspoken. Also, her biographer, Jim Overmyer, was on the committee. And so on. The injustice of Monday's vote left a trail of disbelief and anger throughout the baseball community, but especially in Kansas City. It had no visible effect on Buck O'Neil, though. He began his Monday morning with a 5:30 a.m. call from a radio show. He came to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum at 10 a.m. and by then he had received more than a dozen congratulatory calls. Everyone seemed sure he was going to get voted in. Buck himself was not so sure. ``I've been on committees like this,'' he said. ``I know that anything can happen.'' Still, he spent much of Monday morning calling friends in his hometown of Sarasota, Fla., telling them that he would visit if the vote went his way. A camera crew filmed his every move. A half-dozen reporters followed him around. O'Neil had been told he would hear something by 11 a.m., but the phone would not ring. Rumors swirled that things were not going well in Tampa, but no one wanted to believe it. While Buck O'Neil waited, Hall of Fame player Lou Brock--whom O'Neil had scouted and signed--called and said he was excited. Soon it was 11:30 and then noon, and the call from the hall had not come. ``You know something?'' Buck said all of a sudden. ``I could play. I was no Josh Gibson. But I could play.'' It was his only sign of cracking. One of the few criticisms of O'Neil's Hall of Fame case leading into the vote had been that, while he was a good player, he was not a Hall of Fame- caliber player. The criticism did not take in account his countless other contributions to baseball, but you could see that Buck was hurting a little. At 12:30, there was no word, and a pall had fallen over the museum. Buck seemed to sense that the vote was going against him. He said, ``I'll be fine either way.'' At 12:34, Bob Kendrick, the marketing director of the Negro Leagues Museum, asked everyone to leave the room, and he said, ``Buck, we didn't get enough votes.'' All his life, Buck O'Neil has had doors slammed in his face. He played baseball at a time when the major leagues did not allow black players. He was a gifted manager at a time when major league owners would not even think of having an African-American lead their teams. For more than 30 years, he told stories about Negro Leagues players and nobody wanted to listen. Now, after everything, he was being told that the life he had spent in baseball was not worthy of the Hall of Fame. It was enough to make those around him cry. But Buck laughed. ``I'm still Buck,'' he said. ``Look at me. I've lived a good life. I'm still living a good life. Nothing has changed for me.'' A few minutes later, when he was told that 17 persons had made it, he shouted: ``Wonderful.'' That's Buck O'Neil. Who else would respond that way to such a shameful vote? No one. I don't know what the July day will be like when 17 persons long dead--10 of the 17 have been gone for more than 50 years--get inducted into the Hall of Fame. It's hard to believe it will be much of a celebration. Who will speak for the dead? ``I don't know,'' Buck O'Neil said. ``I wonder if they'll ask me to speak.'' Would he really speak at the Hall of Fame after he wasn't voted in? ``Of course,'' Buck said. ``If they asked me.''

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this afternoon to speak for a few minutes about a specific provision, a significant provision in the PATRIOT Act, the Combat Meth Act. This is the most comprehensive antimethamphetamine legislation ever to be introduced, much less passed, in the Senate. I am hopeful that it will be passed in the Senate, of course, in this legislation and be sent to the President's desk for his signature and then for implementation. Methamphetamine is the worst drug threat that I have confronted in my 20 years in public life. When I say that, I hope it has some impression on people. But when career law enforcement officers stand up in various forums and say that, I hope people are afraid because this drug should make us afraid. It is almost the ``perfect storm'' of drugs. It is almost immediately addictive. Most people who try methamphetamine get addicted the first time they try it. There is no such thing as casual or recreational use of this drug. It is very damaging to the person who uses it. It changes the structure of the brain. It turns people who use it into more aggressive-type individuals. Other drugs, as bad as they are, tend to make people more passive. Methamphetamine makes them paranoid. I was speaking with another Senator about this bill a few minutes ago over the telephone, and he mentioned to me that in his State one woman who had been a meth user told him that when she was high on meth, she thought her 3-year-old was trying to kill her. This is not uncommon. There is almost no known medical cure for it. Our substance abuse counselors do a heroic job and people have gotten off of methamphetamine, but I do want to state that we don't have a methadone for methamphetamine. On top of all of these things, as bad as they are by themselves, this is a drug which, to this point, has not only been consumed and sold in our neighborhoods, as other drugs are, it has been primarily, in many States, made in our own neighborhoods in local labs. The process for making methamphetamine is highly dangerous and toxic. So in addition to all of the problems that go with addiction to deadly drugs, we have, on top of that, a whole set of other problems that you don't have with other drugs that are caused by the fact that methamphetamine is actually made in our neighborhoods. Since the process for making it is toxic, homes in which methamphetamine is made, or in cars--because sometimes they make it in vans--they become toxic waste dumps, huge environmental waste problems for local officials to clean up. The fact that the drug is made in home labs creates a whole new set of problems for kids. It is bad enough for a kid if they are growing up in a home where drugs are being used, but if methamphetamine is being cooked, the children become contaminated with toxins. When they pull kids out of those environments, they have to decontaminate them. It can cause permanent health problems. I had a St. Louis County firefighting officer tell me that half of the vehicle fires they were fighting were methamphetamine related. Those are chemical fires. It has strained local budgets to the breaking point because our counties, in addition to all of the other law enforcement activity, have had to try to knock down, in some cases, hundreds of labs in rural counties. In many cases, there are more rural counties where they have 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 deputies trying to patrol the whole county. It is the ``perfect storm'' of drugs. The only silver lining in the cloud is the fact that in order to make methamphetamine, you must have pseudoephedrine. There are lots of ways to make it, but you need pseudoephedrine for making it. For local cooks, the only way to get pseudoephedrine is through cold medicines, antihistamines. This opened up the possibility for stopping the local labs that take advantage of this. Before going any further--I only have a few minutes--I have to stop and congratulate and pay tribute to Senator Feinstein. This bill that we are going to pass--I hope and believe--within the next week or 2, stands on the shoulders of the work that she has put in since the mid- 1990s, when she recognized the danger of pseudoephedrine. She and I are the chief cosponsors of the measure in the Senate. She has been a pleasure to work with, and her knowledge and expertise were important in getting the bill this far. I think she can accurately regard this bill as a personal triumph. What does the legislation do? It is a comprehensive approach. There are a number of things in it. It will put pseudoephedrine behind the counters in pharmacies and stores. Legitimate consumers will still be able to get it, but if you are buying medicines containing pseudoephedrine without a prescription, you are going to have to show an ID and sign a log book, and you won't be able to buy more than 3.6 grams of cold medicine at a time, and 9 grams in one month, which is far more than the average use of any adult for cold medicine anyway. The States that have experimented and have had measures such as this-- and Oklahoma is a leader, and Iowa has been a leader, and they deserve credit. My home State of Missouri also has a law. The States that have passed laws such as this have experienced anywhere from a 70- to an 80- percent reduction in local labs. Senator Feinstein and I and all the cosponsors of the bill are hopeful that we will get the same results nationally, and we will protect our people, moreover, from people crossing State lines to buy the pseudoephedrine in jurisdictions that don't have this legislation. We had a case in Missouri recently when a couple of meth cooks left Franklin County, MO, in eastern Missouri, drove across Illinois into Indiana and bought over 100 packages of cold medicine in Indiana, which is about 140 to 150 grams of pseudoephedrine; they were in the process of driving it back to Franklin County to support the local lab structure there, when they were caught by the Indiana troopers. We are grateful for those troopers. That is what is going to go on until we have a national standard. This bill provides a national standard that will be effective 30 days after Presidential signature, and we can expect a 70- to 80-percent reduction in local labs around the country as a result of this. There are a number of other provisions in the Combat Meth Act that are important, which will provide critical resources to local law enforcement to do the cleanup. When you cook meth in a home, it becomes a toxic waste dump, costing thousands of dollars to clean up. Thousands of our deputies and sheriffs and police officers have had to become trained in environmental cleanup because of this drug. We are going to provide additional resources to help them. It will enhance enforcement of meth trafficking by requiring additional reporting and certification from countries that export large amounts of pseudoephedrine. It is going to help local social services help the kids who are tragically trapped in this environment. There is money for drug-endangered children rapid response teams. We can help localities with that. We provide extra tools to prosecute meth cooks and traffickers. It is a comprehensive measure, but it is by no means all that we need to do. This is a significant first step, and Senator Feinstein and I believe it will at least substantially eliminate these labs, which then will eliminate a whole set of enormous problems above and beyond the problems caused by addiction to methamphetamine. We are continuing to work with the State Department, the DEA, and other agencies to try to interdict shipments of methamphetamine or pseudoephedrine from abroad. We need to work with relevant committees to come up with a new kind of methamphetamine technical assistance center in Washington, which can help develop better protocols and assistance to help those people who are on meth and want to get off of it. I think it is an important part of the drug war to say to people: Look, if you are addicted to a drug and you want help, we want to help you. If what you want to do is cook this drug or make it and sell it to our kids, we are going to stop you. That is a piece that we need to work on, and I think we will work on it. We have had assurances from the relevant Committee chairs and ranking members that we can do that. We need to pass this bill now. I am grateful--and I know Senator Feinstein is as well--to the leaders in both parties for their bipartisan leadership and to the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, for allowing us to put this bill on the PATRIOT Act. We are grateful, also, to the Senate for its unanimous support of this bill over the last few months. Mr. President, we can do important things. We can do good things for people, and we can do them the right way. That is how I look at the Combat Meth Act. It is going to make a difference immediately in neighborhoods and communities around the country, and it has been done on a thoroughly bipartisan basis from the beginning, when Senator Feinstein and I cosponsored it. So I am pleased to be here to speak on behalf of the bill as a whole and also on behalf of this specific provision. I hope we can move expeditiously to final passage so that this important legislation can be signed by the President and can become law. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, 9 years ago, scientific advances in the technology of nuclear transfer permitted the cloning of a sheep named Dolly. The immediate reaction of most Americans, and most Members of Congress, was to try to make certain that this process was never used to create a human being, never allowing a human Dolly to be cloned. I remember thinking at the time that I personally did not want to live in a world where I was walking down the street and saw myself coming in the opposite direction. Why this reaction? After all, cloning is an acceptable thing in the agricultural world. The difference, of course, is that human beings have a unique dignity. When parents decide to have a child, they do it for the benefit of the baby, to nurture that new life to live up to the potential and live out the plan which God created for him or her. All of us agree that people should not be cloned because the only reason you clone something is to use it, and human beings should and do exist for reasons of greater dignity than simply to be used by others. I think we all understand that if we were ever to allow a race of clones to be created as workers or body parts warehouses for society, we would cheapen the dignity of humanity to the point where none of the rest of us would be safe in our lives or freedoms. Yet, despite this shared impulse against cloning, it has been 9 years since Dolly was created, and no safeguards against cloning have passed the Congress. Nor are there prospects of any such bill passing in the near future. The reason is that there is an area of overlap between the issues of cloning and stem cells. Many scientists believe that stem cells from a cloned human embryo may have unique advantages for medical research. This part of the scientific community has resisted the total ban on cloning which has been introduced each of the last 6 years in the belief that such a ban would inhibit one important aspect of stem cell research. Both sides have settled into what has now become a rigid stalemate, like the Western Front in WWI. Even though the idea of cloning human beings is morally repugnant to most of us, there is currently no Federal prohibition or even regulation of any aspect of human cloning, or for that matter of warehousing body parts and creating ``fetus farms,'' and no prospect of getting such prohibitions. I have spent the better part of a year researching this issue, meeting with people on all sides: groups who oppose cloning embryos to get stem cells, scientists who support it, parents who don't know who or what to believe but who are desperate for a cure for their children. Many to whom I have spoken have strong opinions about the underlying moral issues. In every case, I respected the sincerity and passion of those whom I spoke with. I have strong opinions of my own. I believe human beings are precious. I am concerned about the tendency of our society to devalue people because they are too old, too young, or too inconvenient to have around. At the same time, I understand the desperation of parents whose children are sick or dying and who are desperate for treatments that will make them well. I often tour neonatal units. It breaks my heart to see children there fighting for life. I also meet with kids who are struggling heroically with chronic disease. I want to find cures for these children--but I also want them to grow up in a society that values them for their inherent dignity, for who they are, regardless of their age, infirmity, or level of achievement in the world's eyes. Just because we are deadlocked about what to do in the present is no reason we cannot agree on what we want the future to be. We find ourselves at the beginning of a great new era of biology. I believe we can and should determine what our children's future will look like, and what objectives we want for our Nation. And, clearly, for all of us this would include progress in biomedicine built upon a solid foundation of moral principles in defense of human dignity. I have come to the floor of the Senate today because there are just such hopeful prospects for the future. As is so often the case, the technology that generates the problem may also provide the solution. Just as recent scientific advancements created a moral dilemma, discoveries that are even more recent may provide a way out. Within a short time, it may be possible to get the exact stem cells researchers say they need without cloning an embryo. This means that we need no longer argue about such important but difficult questions as whether an embryo is fully a person or whether and when stem cell research may actually produce medical cures. The good news is that we can effectively prohibit human cloning and do it with a consensus that heretofore has not been possible; we can honorably reconcile our positions without requiring anyone to compromise their principles-- provided that we are willing to approach the cloning issue humbly and practically, and provided also that both sides really do want what they say they want. Mr. President, one of the difficulties with this issue is that much depends on understanding at least the basics of the science involved, and the science is complicated--especially for those of us who limped through high school biology. So I want to review some of the facts about stem cells and in particular about how stem cell research intersects with cloning. A stem cell is a cell that does not itself perform a physiological or structural function in the body but instead serves as a source for cells that do perform such functions. During early development, stem cells help form the human body; in adult life, stem cells stand in reserve, to be used as needed to create new blood cells, brain cells, liver cells, and many other cells with a specific function in the body. In current scientific language, there are two basic categories of stem cells: first, adult stem cells and, second, embryonic stem cells, which are also called pluripotent stem cells. Adult stem cells exist all over the body. Their purpose is to maintain and repair damaged tissue. Science has known about, researched and used adult stem cells for years. To date, adult stem cell research has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases: over 60 peer-reviewed treatments using adult stem cells exist today. These treatments include autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis and blood diseases such as sickle cell disease. A few years ago, American scientists announced that they had isolated stem cells from human embryos as well. These stem cells, called, naturally, ``embryonic'' stem cells, are the cells that, during the first days of life, begin dividing and differentiating, developing into the various parts of the body. Currently the cells can only be obtained from embryos created through in vitro fertilization, IVF. Once isolated, however, embryonic stem cells are self-replicating, which means an individual embryonic stem cell can produce tens of thousands of additional stem cells. There is an important difference between ``adult'' and ``embryonic'' stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in the developed tissue or organs of the body and they can in general differentiate only to yield the cell types of the tissue or organ from which they came. In general, that means that an adult stem cell can become only one kind of tissue. A heart stem cell, for example, becomes heart tissue; a liver adult stem cell becomes liver tissue, and so on. Remember, the primary roles of adult stem cells are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is considered ``pluripotent.'' That means an embryonic stem cell could develop into any of the different cell types of the body. They could in theory, if properly controlled, be commanded to become any one of a number of different tissues. This is logical, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the very cells in the embryo that are awaiting genetic instructions on what organ or other part of the body they will become. It is important to remember that the major reason science wants embryonic stem cells is because of this pluripotent quality. The fact that pluripotent stem cells come from embryos is a problem rather than a good thing, because of the obvious ethical concerns in extracting a cell from a human embryo and thereby destroying the embryo. Whereas the value of adult stem cell research is accepted by consensus, there is more controversy over the scientific efficacy of embryonic stem cell research. The pluripotency of embryonic stem cells gives them more diverse potential, since they can in theory be ``programmed'' to become any kind of tissue. In practice, controlling pluripotent stem cells enough to produce actual treatments has been very difficult, and researchers to whom I have spoken, while supporting research with these cells, have emphasized that cures are likely to be many years away, if they come at all. Because of this, some have argued that pluripotent stem cell research is of negligible value and that we should feel no compunction about preventing such research. But too many scientists of different backgrounds have insisted otherwise for me to be certain of that conclusion. The truth is that it is simply too soon to know whether science can control pluripotent stem cells well enough to use them for medical therapies; to the extent there is a consensus on this issue, it is that such research is speculative but promising. Even more recently science has determined that a third category of stem cells may be useful. These stem cells are genetically matched to the patients who need the cell therapies. For several years, scientists have believed that it may be possible to derive these genetically matched stem cells through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. In SCNT the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg, which contains 23 chromosomes, is removed and replaced by the nucleus of an adult body cell. The new ``transferred'' nucleus would be genetically complete, containing all 46 chromosomes of the donor cell. This imitates the effect of normal fertilization in which the sperm's 23 chromosomes add to the egg's 23 to make the needed 46. The egg with the transferred nucleus is then stimulated and begins dividing like a naturally fertilized embryo. If all goes well, in 4 to 5 days it gets to a stage of development, called the blastocyst, from which embryonic stem cells would be harvested. These stem cells would be distinct from the embryonic stem cells derived from IVF in that they would genetically match the donor. Proponents of SCNT are hopeful that assuming they can overcome the challenge of controlling the development of any pluripotent stem cell, and assuming that they can successfully complete SCNT at all, these genetically matched stem cells would be superior to other forms of pluripotent stem cells in curing disease. Again, stem cell research in general has nothing to do with SCNT. It is only with respect to one particular type of embryonic stem cell--a stem cell which no one has ever developed but that might have incremental advantages over other embryonic stem cells--that science wants to do SCNT. The reason SCNT is controversial is that it is a form of cloning. In fact, it is the same technique that was used successfully to create Dolly the sheep. Both the proponents and opponents of SCNT agree that, if successful, it would result in the cloning of a human embryo. Some supporters of SCNT, however, argue that a human embryo does not become a human being until it is implanted in a womb, and that unless researchers intend to implant the cloned embryo, SCNT should be permitted. The opponents of SCNT believe just as passionately that a human being does not depend on developmental age, and that a human embryo is therefore a human being from its beginning. From this perspective SCNT is the creation of a human being for purely instrumental use exactly what, in theory, a cloning ban is designed to prevent. But up until now, both sides have assumed that any nuclear transfer procedure which would result in the creation of pluripotent stem cells must first have produced a human embryo. Yet the most recent scientific developments suggest that this is not true. In May 2005 the President's Council on Bioethics released a white paper entitled ``Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.'' In this report, the council outlined four specific proposals for a scientific solution to our current political impasse over stem cell research. In the months since that report was issued, progress in each of these approaches has been reported in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. Research on one of these proposals, altered nuclear transfer, is especially encouraging and suggests that all the scientific and medical goals of SCNT could be realized without the cloning or destruction of human embryos. Remember, with somatic cell nuclear transfer researchers would take the genetic material out of a human egg, replace it with the complete genetic code of the donor, and then shock it so that it starts to divide. In theory, an organism created in such a way--artificially rather than naturally--could divide and grow until it became an adult human being. Altered nuclear transfer is a form of somatic cell nuclear transfer in that it uses nuclear transfer but with a preemptive alteration of the genetic material. To put it simply, the somatic cell is altered prior to being transferred. The resultant entity would be capable of producing pluripotent stem cells but because of the preemptive alterations during the transfer process it would be incapable, from its creation, of the organization and developmental potential that are the defining characteristics of an embryo. Altered nuclear transfer is a broad umbrella concept with many possible specific approaches. For example, one proposed approach using ANT is called ANT-OAR. This form of ANT involves reprogramming the somatic cell to enter directly into a pluripotent stem cell state, without going through any of the normal developmental stages. All of this means that ANT could create genetically matched stem cells without ever having to produce anything with the capacity to be considered a human embryo. This distinction between SCNT and ANT is vital from a moral and legal perspective. Until the last few months, everyone has assumed that nuclear transfer which was successful in generating pluripotent stem cells must first have created a human embryo. The entity which ANT could create would produce pluripotent stem cells from a laboratory- constructed cellular source lacking the developmental potential of a human embryo. In layman's terms, the entity which ANT would create could only develop for a few days and would then ``close down.'' ANT thus transcends the moral dilemma which has heretofore prevented any legislation from passing. It renders moot the question of whether human life begins at creation or implantation of an embryo since the entity that ANT could create would not have at its inception the organizational and developmental capability to be considered a human life. Further exploration of the ANT proposal already has the support of a long list of scientists and ethicists and religious leaders, including the former chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine. The author and most vocal champion of ANT is Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford. Dr. Hurlbut assured me months ago that ANT was technologically feasible and would soon be validated through animal models. And, indeed, just 4 months ago stem cell biologists, Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch, of the Whitehead Institute at MIT, used altered nuclear transfer to produce fully functional pluripotent stem cells from a laboratory-construct that is dramatically different in developmental potential than a natural embryo. In testimony to an October 2005 Senate hearing on stem cells, Dr. Jaenisch explained that this procedure is simple and straightforward and does not involve the creation of an embryo. Dr. Jaenisch said, ``Because the ANT product lacks essential properties of the fertilized embryo, it is not justified to call it an ``embryo.'' That was October 19, 2005 testimony at an Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education hearing on ``An Alternative Method for Obtaining Embryonic Stem Cells.'' This scientific advance was widely reported precisely because it signals the end of the ethical dilemma in this area of research; it suggests that science may soon be able to get this special kind of stem cell--pluripotent stem cells that genetically match the donor/patient--without cloning, creating, or destroying a human embryo. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of the Senate in bearing with me as I wound my way through the scientific thicket. I believe it was necessary to lay this foundation before proceeding, and I suspect that the Senate may already see the practical suggestion which I see as the logical result given the latest technological developments and the current stalemate. Again, to reaffirm my central point, many scientists have resisted a total ban on human cloning because they believed it was necessary to clone human embryos for a narrow purpose: to get pluripotent stem cells which are a genetic match of the person whom they hope to treat medically. However, it now appears that it will be possible to get such stem cells without cloning an embryo. Some may argue that these alternative forms of nuclear transfer and other new technologies are unproven and may never produce usable new discoveries. But the same thing can be said of embryonic stem cell research in general and SCNT in particular. Bear in mind that science has yet to succeed in getting pluripotent stem cells from SCNT at all. Nor, for that matter, is there a single new cure from embryonic stem cells derived from any source. If researchers cannot learn how to isolate and control genetic signals, then pluripotent stem cell research will turn out to have little medical application; if such control does prove possible, then there should soon be no reason to have to get the stem cells by a method that clones or destroys a human embryo. As I mentioned earlier, we appear to be at a legislative stalemate. The key to reaching the proper legislative solution, I believe, is to recognize that the new scientific developments create possibilities for an honorable reconciliation that simply did not exist at the time Senators developed and sponsored the various cloning bills that are currently introduced in the Congress. In effect, the new technology is rendering the approach of those pieces of legislation out of date. For example, the main anti-cloning bill, S. 658, of which I am a cosponsor, would ban the use of nuclear transfer whenever it resulted in the creation of a human embryo or an organism that was ``virtually identical'' to a human embryo. This standard satisfies one of the important principles of the pro-life community, because it recognizes that the dignity of pre-born human beings doesn't depend on their gestational age. But it fails to account for the possibility, created by altered nuclear transfer and some of the other alternative methods, that an entity may be ``virtually identical'' to an embryo in the sense that it has a similar external appearance--and can seem to be developing as it divides--without ever possessing the inherent organizational capability to be rightly considered a human being. Because of this, there is a danger that the language of S. 658, which was adequate when we all assumed that any entity capable of creating embryonic stem cells must be a human embryo, would outlaw or imperil precisely those alternatives which hold the greatest promise of allowing stem cell research while protecting the integrity of human life. I discussed this problem with Doctor Hurlbut and, in a recent letter, he expressed concern that S. 658 as drafted might be misinterpreted to outlaw ANT. He pointed out that the term `virtually identical' is vague and unscientific and, therefore, could be open to misinterpretation either more broadly or more narrowly than intended by the proponents of this legislation. The existence of alternatives like ANT actually strengthens the case of those of us who oppose the cloning of human embryos, since it promises another, ethically untroubling way of getting the same genetically matched stem cells scientists need. But it also shows that there is much about nuclear transfer that we have yet to discover, and it cautions against enacting criminal sanctions, like S. 658, that could have unintended consequences because they presume a scientific equilibrium that simply doesn't exist. Congress should still move effectively to prohibit human cloning but the approach of S. 658 needs to change. At minimum, the ``virtually identical'' language in S. 658 should be discarded, and the bill should specifically define when a cloned entity has the organizational capability and developmental potential to be considered a human being. But, I would prefer to enact a regulatory ban that could be adjusted over time to reflect changes in the science like ANT, perhaps after consultation with the President's Council on Bioethics, and I would couple that ban with aggressive funding of ANT and other alternatives, perhaps in the form of the competitive incentive program I will discuss in a moment. The other main cloning legislation, S. 876, should, in light of recent developments, be equally unsatisfactory to many of its supporters, although for different reasons. S. 876 does not regulate the initial nuclear transfer process at all but simply bans implanting a cloned embryo. This is good as far as it goes, but S. 876 would provide no protection whatsoever to human life before implantation. Under generally accepted medical protocols today, science can't even experiment on animals if other methods of doing the same research are available, yet S. 876 would permit the cloning of human embryos for any purpose and under any circumstances, regardless even of whether the researchers need or intend to use the embryos for stem cell research. The proponents of S. 876 were almost forced into this position to protect the stem cell research they thought necessary, because they believed, as we all did, that the only way to get genetically matched stem cells was through cloning and that any such cloning would necessarily produce a human embryo. But the evidence now suggests that this is not true. I am sure that the supporters of S. 876 are sincere in their belief that a human embryo does not acquire full personhood until some point after it is created. But I respectfully suggest that this view is no longer a reason, given the changing science, to continue supporting a legal standard that affords no dignity whatsoever to human life at its earliest stages. The answer is for both sides to take advantage of scientific changes to find proposals which they can mutually support and which offer advantages to each compared to the current stalemate. To that end, I propose a competition, to be managed by the National Institutes of Health, which would create incentives for our great research institutions to get the genetically matched stem cells we need without risking cloning an embryo. Simply put, the NIH would take applications from research institutions with research plans to accomplish the goal. The exact funding and practical details of this would have to be carefully worked out, but let me put forward a preliminary proposal. Five institutions would be selected for the competition and provided $10 million each to conduct their comprehensive plan. The first institution to successfully harvest genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human embryo would receive a prize of $20 million. NIH would develop the boundaries of the competition with the restriction being that the research could not violate the terms of the Dickey Amendment. Once ANT or one of the other alternative methods was successful and we had a proven means to get genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human being, the NIH could issue regulations requiring science to use that technology in its research. The idea of a competition is not new. They have successfully been used for centuries to educate, inspire, and motivate. For example, Charles Lindberg won a $25,000 prize for the first nonstop flight between Paris and New York in 1927. In 2004, a company called Scaled Composites won a $10 million prize for the first privately funded manned suborbital flight from the St. Louis-based X Prize Foundation. Inspired by the success of the X prize--and with the support of Congress, the President and his Commission on Implementation of U.S. Exploration Policy--NASA has begun a federally funded program called Centennial Challenges that awards prizes to stimulate innovation in technical areas of interest to space exploration. In fact, the program manager at NASA, Brant Sponberg, said they expect to spend $80 million on prizes over the next 5 years. A proposal of this kind moves us forward in a way both sides should be able to support. After all, the sole argument for SCNT is that we need it to get certain kinds of stem cells; the argument against it is that it involves the cloning of human embryos. If we can get the stem cells without the cloning, we render the current controversy scientifically obsolete. Science would have the stem cells it needs in a morally acceptable way that would allow for full Federal funding of stem cell research. The pro-life community would have an effective ban on human cloning. We would turn a zero sum game into a win-win proposition for everyone. 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. It is important to acknowledge that both sides in this difficult debate are defending something important to all of us. We should all want to advance biomedical science while sustaining fundamental principles for the protection of human life. Biomedical science should be a matter of unity in our national identity: no one should enter the hospital resentful that positive possibilities for the best therapies were not explored, or with moral qualms about the research on which their therapies have been developed. The revelation that the South Koreans have not succeeded in obtaining pluripotent stem cells from cloned human embryo returns this research to square one. This presents to our Nation both a challenge and an opportunity: a social challenge to seek a way forward as a unified society, and an opportunity to set a solid scientific and moral foundation for future generations. The differences within our nation can be a source of strength as we seek to open a way forward for biomedical science. Altered nuclear transfer, and the other alternative approaches put forward by the President's Council on Bioethics offer us just such a path to progress. We are at a difficult impasse, but we have extraordinary possibilities. Our current conflict reflects deep differences in our personal perspectives, but our wider goals are similar. Any purely political victory will leave our Nation bitterly divided and erode the social support that is essential for continuing public funding of biomedical science. It is with this recognition that I have put forward this proposal in a spirit of unity. And beneath this spirit of unity must be a spirit of humility: these are difficult issues and no one of us has the clarity of understanding or depth of knowledge to answer them alone. But with mutual good will we can transcend the current paralysis and find grounds for practical progress in scientific research. In his presentation on stem cell research last July to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Dr. Hurlbut said the goal should be to find ``islands of unity in a sea of controversy.'' We can move from one such island to another and end up in a world of progress and decency. There is no reason to continue glaring at each other across the legislative barricades, when the means are at hand to embrace the future of developmental biology without moral qualms or political division?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. How long is the morning business going on, Mr. President?

Mr. TALENT. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. TALENT. I will so modify my request.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, the Lord willing and the creek don't rise, as my mom used to say, I will not use the whole 30 minutes.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to speak in favor of amendment No. 2711, which is at the desk. It is my amendment regarding the child tax credit offered by the majority leader. I will discuss briefly that amendment. I originally hoped I could offer an amendment making the child tax credit permanent, which would help millions of workers and families around the country. I wanted to offer a straight-out extension. The Senate rules preclude that from being offered today. Instead, I will put the Senate on record that this Senator supports a permanent extension of the child tax credit. In 2001, the Congress set in motion legislation which extended that credit to $1,000 per child, but in 2011, unless Congress acts beforehand, the clock will turn back and taxes will go up effectively 50 percent on the workers and families who qualified for the child tax credit. This additional money has made a big difference to families around the country and in Missouri. People like Beth Davis, who is a hairdresser in Kansas City, a single mother of three children, use this money to help pay for necessities for their children. The most recent Treasury Department data shows that 543,000 married couples and single parents in Missouri benefit from the child tax credit enacted in 2001. I believe this child tax credit is supported very strongly in the Senate. I expect the sense-of-the-Senate will be approved. I certainly hope it will so that, at the minimum, we can go on record to support making this projob, progrowth, prochild tax credit permanent. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I offer my condolences on the passing of Coretta Scott King, who passed away at the age of 78. Indeed, I offer these remarks on behalf of all Missourians who have been touched by her legacy and that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A tireless champion and partner in her husband's work, Mrs. King's life represents an American story from which we can all draw strength. She never stopped working toward the prize God called her to achieve. Born in rural Alabama on April 27, 1927, Coretta Scott was the second child of Obadiah and Bernice Scott, hard working parents who wanted more opportunities than they had for their children. An ambitious student, Mrs. King graduated first in her high school class and continued her studies at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. She had a passion for education and music and went on to the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, following her graduation from Antioch. It was in 1952 in Boston where she met the man who would become her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They were married the next year and eventually settled in Atlanta, where they reared their four children, Yolanda, Martin, Dexter, and Bernice. Mrs. King was by no means a bystander in the groundbreaking changes her husband worked to achieve. She was a partner in her husband's historic work to make this country whole. Following the murder of her husband in 1968, Mrs. King could have chosen to retreat into the privacy of her family. Indeed, in the aftermath of that tragedy, she was a widow who had the sole responsibility of raising four young children. But instead, Mrs. King bravely chose to continue her husband's work and his quest for racial equality. She worked tirelessly to have her husband's birthday memorialized as a national holiday and to establish the King Center, a lasting memorial and research institution dedicated to the Dr. King's principles of justice, equality, and peace. Mr. President, Coretta Scott King continued her work to bring this country together until her final days. She never stopped believing that we have a historic responsibility to move America forward and extend the American dream to all those who seek it, regardless of race. Today, as a nation, we mourn Mrs. King's passing. We are thankful for her time here with us, the fruits of her labor, and the profound impact she has left on a grateful country. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to spend a few minutes visiting with the Senate about Judge Alito. Based on my study of his record and my discussions with him, I believe, if confirmed, he will turn out to be one of our best Supreme Court Justices. I do not know that anybody on the floor has contested his professional qualifications. He is certainly exceptionally qualified, at least based on that, to serve on the Nation's highest Court. He has the experience, the temperament, and integrity that America expects in a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Alito has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years. He has served for 15 years as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He participated in the decisions of more than 1,500 Federal appeals. He wrote more than 350 opinions. I think his clerks probably have to work pretty hard, he has been so busy. This is why I wonder why some people say they do not know enough about what he might do. I do not know how any judge, how any candidate could qualify on that basis, if Judge Alito does not. He served as the top Federal prosecutor in one of the Nation's largest Federal districts. He was an appellate advocate for the United States in the Office of Solicitor General. He was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. He received his bachelor's degree from Princeton. I would not hold that against him. He was elected Phi Beta Kappa at the time. He went to Yale Law School, where he served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. That is quite a record. During last week's hearing, Judge Alito answered over 700 questions for more than 18 hours. He was thoughtful and thorough in answering the tough questions. He was humble throughout the process, which is something I personally look for when considering anybody who is seeking a life appointment and particularly a judicial appointment. I think a big dose of ``humble'' is important if you want to be a judge because you are in the position, as a judge, to be rude to people and they cannot be rude back to you. I think you ought to have a temperament where you are not tempted to do that. What does the record and the process reveal about this nominee? Simply that he is one of the finest nominees ever to come before the Senate. We learned a lot about him as a person during this process as well. He is certainly brilliant and hard working. He went before the Judiciary Committee without a note. He is a man of integrity. He is honest. He is devoted to his family. These are all qualities we want in the men and women who serve our Nation on the high Court. These are the kinds of qualities that will move America forward and move the judicial branch forward. He has proven beyond any doubt that he has the qualifications, the temperament, the knowledge, and the understanding of the Constitution to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I do not know how you can prove it, if he has not proven it. I would imagine even those who are going to oppose his nomination for other reasons would agree he has the right kind of temperament and qualifications. He wants to be on the Court because he loves the law. And he is a judge because he wants to serve the United States. Those are the right reasons to want to be on the Supreme Court. I made a point on other occasions about judicial nominations that I think is relevant here. It is, in a way, misleading to talk about a judicial nominee being in or out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence because the truth is there is more than one mainstream. Lawyers are divided over which jurisprudential theory ought to guide judges in interpreting the statutes and in interpreting the Constitution. Just as we in the Senate disagree, legitimately, about political philosophy, lawyers also disagree about jurisprudential philosophy. Oftentimes, there is not any one completely correct answer when you are interpreting a vague provision of the Constitution, but that does not mean there are no incorrect answers. Because reasonable people looking at the history and the text of the document might disagree as to what is exactly the right answer in a given case does not mean there are no wrong answers. And a wrong answer, as Judge Alito said so clearly in his introductory remarks before the Judiciary Committee and throughout his testimony, is an answer that does not respect the rule of law. Here is what Judge Alito said: The judge's only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation-- is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. A wrong answer is one that is based on an idea of the judicial role that allows the judge to do whatever he or she thinks they would want to do if they were in control of the policy involved in an issue. Whatever their theory of interpreting the Constitution is, they should be consistent in applying it. Judges should not work for a particular outcome or agenda. Here is what Judge Alito said on this issue: Results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policy makers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences that we have. As Chief Justice Roberts said when he was testifying before the Judiciary Committee: Judges are umpires. They are not the rule-makers. The people are the rulemakers, through their representatives, in their laws and in their Constitution. In another statement Judge Alito said: I don't think a judge should be keeping a scorecard about how many times the judge votes for one category of litigant versus another in particular types of cases. That would be wrong. We are supposed to do justice on an individual basis in the cases that come before us. But I think that if anybody . . . looks at the cases that I have voted on in any of the categories of cases that have been cited, they will see that there are decisions on both sides. He went on to say: In every type of employment discrimination case, for example, there are decisions on both sides. Because of this respect for the rule of law, the individuals who know Judge Alito best--and that includes Republicans and Democrats, his colleagues on the bar and on the bench--have overwhelmingly supported his elevation to the Supreme Court. I think it is important, when you look at nominees, to make certain they have support from people from all parts of the political spectrum and all parts of the jurisprudential spectrum. Let me quote a couple people. Nora Demleitner is the vice dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Hofstra University School of Law. And to this point I have not cited anybody from Missouri supporting Judge Alito, but I am going to vote for him anyway. She said: Now, since the very early days of my clerkship, I must admit that Judge Alito has really become my role model. I do think he is one of the most brilliant legal minds of our generation, or of his generation, and he is a man of great decency, integrity and character. And I say all of this as what I would consider to be a left-leaning Democrat; a woman, obviously; a member of the ACLU; and an immigrant. This is Dean Demleitner speaking. In addition, Judge Aldisert, who has served with Judge Alito on the Third Circuit, had the following to say: In May 1960, I campaigned with John F. Kennedy in the critical Presidential primaries of West Virginia. The next year, I ran for judge . . . and I was on the Democratic ticket, and I served eight years as a State trial judge. As the Chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters. Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge. The same has been true in the case of Judge Alito, who served honorably in two Republican administrations before he was appointed to our court. Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth. I could go on with other quotes. I am not going to. I suppose everything really has been said about Judge Alito in the Senate, although not everybody said it, so the debate is going to go on for a while. But I do think the first and most basic right we all have as political actors--in the sense that every person who lives in this country shares in running the Government--the first and most basic right we have is the right to govern ourselves through the processes set up in our Constitution. It is not out of a desire to avoid difficult decisions but out of a respect for that right that Judge Alito talked about the rule of law. I want to say this. Whether your views about social policy are on the right side of the political spectrum or whether they are on the left side of the political spectrum, I believe we can all rest easily in leaving the development of our culture and our society to the wisdom and the decency of the American people. The center in this country has held in the past, and it will hold in the future. As President Franklin Roosevelt said: This Nation will endure as it has endured, and not because of the courts, not because of the Congress, not because of the President but because of the people. They will move us in an orderly and decent direction, as they have for 200 years. We do not need to be governed by guardians or dictators, whether they are in the form of judges or anybody else. That is what Judge Alito meant when he was talking about the rule of law. I have said from the beginning of this debate--and I withheld my decision about the judge until I had a chance to meet him and watch the hearings and get a feel for who he is--he deserved a fair and respectful confirmation process, ending in a timely up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I hope he will receive that. I believe, if confirmed, he will respect the Constitution, he will apply a consistent jurisprudence, without imposing his personal views on the law. For that reason, I am pleased to vote to confirm Judge Alito. I am hopeful the full Senate will give this highly qualified nominee a fair up-or-down vote and then send him to service on the U.S. Supreme Court. I thank the Chair and yield back whatever remains of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, as we debate the very important issue of deficit reduction, I want to take a few minutes to discuss a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act. It is an issue of great importance and one that many Senators have been working on for more than 3 years, the reauthorization of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. As a freshman Member of the House, I introduced the welfare reform legislation that subsequently became the basis for the historic bipartisan welfare reform bill, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. Since that time I have viewed welfare reform as a priority issue, an issue of great significance to millions of Americans. Welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare reform legislation made remarkable headway in helping welfare dependents move toward self- sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State welfare case1oads and child poverty, and it increased welfare recipient employment. Welfare reform is based on the understanding that the two best anti- poverty programs are work and marriage. The old welfare system seduced millions of people into poverty by offering assistance on the condition that they not get a job, not get married, and have children anyway. It measured success by how many people it was able to get on welfare. The new system measures success by how many people get off welfare, or never have to go on welfare. The welfare reform bill has been an astounding success. Since 1996, cash welfare caseloads have fallen by more than 50 percent nationwide. The caseload in the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, AFDC, now TANF, has fallen from 4.3 million families in August 1996 to fewer than 2 million in March 2005. States have overhauled their welfare programs to stress work, as required by the reform, and as a result the percentage of working welfare recipients has more than doubled since 1996. The poorest 20 percent of single mother families reported a 67 percent increase in their earnings between 1995 and 2002, after adjusting for inflation, and the next quintile of single mothers saw their average earnings grow by more than $4,000 between 1995 and 2002. The Urban Institute reported earlier this year that single mothers' real wages continued to increase during the 2000-2004 period despite the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. It is better from every perspective for able bodied people to bring home a paycheck rather than a welfare check. If we fail to pass welfare reauthorization and are forced to extend the 1996 law for the 12th time, millions of families will remain on the welfare rolls rather than engaged in productive and self-sufficient jobs. Because most States have met the targets of the 1996 law, they now have no incentive to extend the benefits of work to able bodied people still on the rolls. This reauthorization increases the effective welfare work rate target from zero percent to 50 percent in fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010. It achieves this by rebasing the caseload reduction credit to provide credit only for future caseload declines. The reauthorization also contains important provisions encouraging health marriages. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family. The decline of marriage since the 1960's has been accompanied by a rise in a number of serious social problems. Children born out-of-wedlock are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and behavioral and emotional problems, to have lower academic achievement, and to use drugs more often. Single mother are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence. On the other hand, children whose parents choose marriage, and learn how to form and sustain healthy marriages, are less likely to be depressed, repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems. Not only are healthy marriages good for the family, they are good for society and our economy. Supporting healthy marriage is essential to continuing the success of the original welfare reform. This reauthorization provides $500 million for healthy marriage promotion over the next 5 years. These dollars will be used to fund community-based programs to counsel young women about the benefits of healthy marriage and help them and their children's father build relationship, parenting and communications skills. This program will not just seek to increase marriage rates among target couples, but also will provide ongoing support to help at- risk couples maintain healthy marriages over time and reduce the likelihood of divorce. Although the welfare reauthorization included in the Deficit Reduction Act does not include every provision I had hoped would be included in the reauthorization of the 1996 law, it has a number of important provisions. Welfare reauthorization has been a long time coming. We are rapidly approaching the end of the eleventh extension to the welfare bill on December 31, 2005, and will need to pass a twelfth extension before we leave for the year if we fail to pass the Deficit Reduction Act. This reauthorization contains many of the provisions I included in S. 105, the sonal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005. Most importantly it strengthens the work and marriage provisions, the two best anti-poverty programs. I hope my colleagues will support this measure which will provide many Americans with the resources they need to go from welfare dependency to self- sufficiency.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise to honor approximately 3,000 permanent and supplemental workers, who recently set a new world time record while conducting a safe and successful work outage on AmerenUE's Callaway Nuclear Plant. The Callaway Plant is located in my home State of Missouri and provides permanent jobs to more than 1,000 people. Since 1984, Callaway has generated an average of 8.9 billion kilowatthours of electricity per year--equal to the amount used annually by more than 750,000 average households. The Callaway Plant is owned and operated by AmerenUE, a subsidiary of Ameren Corporation, which provides energy services to about 2.3 million electric customers in Missouri and Illinois. Callaway, along with 102 other nuclear powerplants in the United States, is a critical component of our Nation's energy mix, providing low-cost, reliable, and clean energy from an abundant fuel source. Approximately every 18 months nuclear plants must be shut down for refueling, during which time the employees perform literally thousands of maintenance activities, modifications, and tests. In Callaway's case, the plant supplies nearly a quarter of Ameren's electricity production, thus it is critical that the work be done in a safe and timely manner so the plant can be brought back online as soon as possible. The recent Callaway Plant outage was the most complex in its history, as it included not only refueling and the usual maintenance activities, but also replacement of four massive steam generators, which measure 70 feet tall and weigh 400 tons each, as well as main turbine rotors. The Callaway team set a new world record for such outages, accomplishing their work in 63 days and 13 hours, beating the previous record of 64 days and 17 hours. The combination of the new generators and rotors are expected to add about 60 megawatts of additional generating capacity to the plant using the same amount of fuel. This summer Congress passed an energy bill, which recognizes the tremendous need for increasing our supply of clean energy while reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The high-quality work of the Callaway employees plays a major role in carrying out the objectives of this important legislation. By not only completing the outage in a safe and timely manner, but also increasing its capacity to produce electricity, these workers are doing their part to meet Missouri's--and our Nation's-- growing energy needs. I offer my personal thanks and congratulations for a job well done to all of the dedicated employees and the temporary workers who, as a result of exceptional preparation, teamwork, and execution, successfully completed the most complex outage at Callaway Nuclear Plant. I congratulate the AmerenUE workers and their partners on their achievement. They have set a new standard of excellence in safety and performance and have helped advance the future of the nuclear power industry as a whole.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Present, today I rise to honor the accomplishments of Dick Ford, one of the most respected broadcast journalists in the St. Louis area. After more than 50 years of media service around the country, Mr. Ford will be retiring today, December 15, 2005. He will be greatly missed by viewers in the St. Louis area and in the field of journalism as a whole. After receiving a bachelor of science degree in political science from the University of Pittsburgh and serving on active duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, Dick began his professional career in 1951 and went on to work in a number of States as a reporter, news director, and anchor. After having established himself as a prominent journalist, Mr. Ford came to the St. Louis area where he began working at KSDK-TV. In July 1992, he joined KTVI Fox 2, from which he will retire. In his distinguished career, Mr. Ford has been honored with the prestigious Emmy Award, among other recognitions of his journalistic talent and integrity. The many hallmarks of his career include a training mission in an F-4 Phantom jet, live reports from Rome when Sister Philippine Duchesne was canonized, reports on a nuclear submarine and from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and travels to Saudi Arabia to report on Desert Storm. In addition to his passion for journalism, Dick Ford is a committed father and husband. He is also passionate about the community of St. Louis. Mr. Ford currently works with the USO and the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee, among other St. Louis area organizations. In his work, both as a journalist and a community leader, Dick has won the respect of his colleagues and viewers alike. I have appreciated very much Dick's dedication and professionalism. He sought more than just the story--he wanted to get the story right. In his interviews with me, he never hesitated to ask the tough questions, but he was always fair about it. Dick, congratulations on your many contributions to the great State of Missouri and your tremendously successful career.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I decided to come to the Senate for a few minutes this evening to speak to the Senate because of growing concern over the defense budget and, in particular, the growing likelihood that we are going to see cuts in the defense budget so that next year's budget is lower than what the President had proposed for fiscal year 2007. I am moved especially by a recent ``Inside Defense'' column which reports that because of pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may well require that the service chiefs take $7.5 billion out of next year's budget and $32 billion in cuts over the next 5 years--this at the end of the budget cycle, not as a result of an assessment of military need or necessity. As I will show in a minute, one could hardly in any dispassionate view of our military needs believe we could absorb $7.5 billion in cuts next year because of procedure that is budget driven. When I see that, it reminds me of other things I have been hearing lately. I felt it was deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra might have said. I remember the days in the 1990s when military needs were determined by the budget rather than the budget being determined by military needs. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, our country was justifiably pleased. We believed there was a peace dividend available. The Clinton Administration took a lot of money out of the defense budget. I will go into that in a minute. They took too much out of the defense budget, and left a force that by the end of the 1990s was hollowing out. Our military was not as prepared as it should have been. We have been doing the best we can in the last few years to reconstitute that force, but now we may be headed in the wrong direction. I emphasize, this pressure is not from within the Department of Defense. It is not what the Department wants to do. It is what the Department may be forced into as a matter of false economy. There is no economy more false than depriving our military and our men and women of what they need to defend us. Let me go over a little bit more of a history lesson in some depth. Defense spending actually decreased in real terms every year from 1990 through 1999. In fact, during 3 years in that period, it decreased in nominal terms by almost $50 billion. Actual dollars, or nominal dollars, went down in the defense budget over 3 years during that period by $50 billion, and in every year during that period military spending decreased in real terms. The reason was, some people thought with the fall of the Soviet Union we would need the military less. That was true for the nuclear arsenal, but not true for the people in the military. It turned out we needed conventional forces actually more than we needed them before the fall of the Soviet Union because deployments went up. We found, in the post- Cold War era, that regional conflicts around the world, the ethnic and religious and regional conflicts that had been suppressed by the bipolar nature of world competition, rose to the surface. I remember reading what former CIA Director Gates said about it. He said: History had not ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. It had just been frozen before that. And he said: ``Now it is thawing out with a vengeance.'' Well, when you spend less and less overall, at least as against inflation, and you have to spend more and more on operations and maintenance, on readiness, because you are actually using the troops more and more, something has to give. You cannot take more and more of a percentage for operations and maintenance out of a budget which is less and less, at least as adjusted against inflation, without something giving. And what gave was procurement. We took basically a decade-long ``procurement holiday.'' By the last few years of the 1990s most people realized what was happening and we were able to push more money back into the defense budget, but it was not enough to make up for what had happened before. From 1975 through 1990, we purchased, on average every year, 78 scout and attack helicopters. From 1991 through the year 2000, we purchased 7 per year on average. For battle force ships from 1975 through 1990, it was 19 a year; 7 a year from 1991 to the year 2000. For fighter aircraft for the Navy, we purchased 111 per year from 1975 through 1990. We purchased 42 per year on average in the decade of the 1990s. I could go on and on. For tankers, we purchased 5 per year on average during the 15-year period from the mid-1970s to 1990. In the mid 1990s, we purchased one per year. For tanks, artillery, and other armored vehicles listen to this, the basic platforms the Army uses; tanks, artillery and other armored vehicles--we purchased 2,083 on average every year from 1975 to 1990. But we purchased 145 on average every year from 1991 through the year 2000. What happened is what you would have expected. The average age of the force and the equipment in the force grew. Look at legacy aircraft, the A-10, the ``Warthog,'' 24 year old; the B-52 bomber, 44 years old; the C-130 transport, 33 years old; the KC-135 tanker, 43 years old. The procurement holiday left us with equipment that was too old. Well, what happened? Beginning at the end of the 1990s, Congress and the President at the end of the Clinton administration, and especially with the beginning of the Bush administration--began to respond. The Chiefs complained to the point where people who didn't get it earlier finally saw what we were talking about. The decision was made to increase spending enough to sustain the volunteer force, to recapitalize the basic equipment that we had not bought in the 1990s, and to begin designing and producing the new generation of systems that the men and women in our military would use for decades to come. The plan was to increase defense spending by a modest amount above inflation, beginning around the year 2001, so that these needs could be met. There were many of us who were concerned that was not enough money. The Department of Defense has traditionally been rather optimistic in its estimation of costs. The CBO traditionally has claimed we needed between $20 billion and $30 billion more than even was estimated at that time. But at least we had a plan. It was a beginning. It was based on an actual if perhaps optimistic estimate of need. Unfortunately, the plan has not been as effective as we hoped in achieving its goals, and particularly in recapitalizing the force. There are a lot of reasons for that. One is that op tempo, operational tempo, has been even higher than we expected after what we experienced in the 1990s. It is what the military calls ``mission creep,'' a significantly expanded number and variety of missions that drive up defense costs because they stress the force. Operations and maintenance costs go up, readiness costs go up. Just staying in place, just keeping the force you have and the equipment you have maintained and ready becomes more difficult. But what was the mission creep? The September 11th attacks had something to do with that, and then Afghanistan and Iraq. Our Armed Forces have become global first responders. We have homeland security missions now that we never anticipated. Contingency peace enforcement missions around the world, special ops, and ongoing training operations. Operational tempo is at a historic high. It is likely to remain so. This means not only that we are sucking up more money in operations and maintenance, it means the equipment we have is being used up even faster. Even if you maintain it properly, if you are using it at a greater rate than you anticipated, it is not going to last as long. We face a situation where we are going to have to reset or reconstitute the basic equipment in the force. In addition, personnel costs have been higher than we anticipated because we wanted to do right by the men and women in America's military. We voted for pay raises. And we should have. We have increased housing allotments. We have met the obligations we promised our retirees regarding health care. Those were good things. I supported them. But adjusted for inflation, personnel costs have increased from 1999 to 2006 from $92 billion to $109 billion annually. That alone would eat up any of the real increases we had planned and have been able to give the military in the last 5 years. In addition, we are facing a threat, at least sooner, and certainly more seriously--or a potential threat--than we thought we would have to face; and that is, the rising military power of China. China is engaged in a comprehensive effort to profoundly improve its ability to project naval power and to develop a comprehensive anti-access capability in order to prevent the American military from having access into the western Pacific. I am not saying that China is going to become, or need become, an enemy of the United States. I am saying that China is rising as a world power. It is very deliberately, according to plan, increasing in particular its naval strength. If we are to deter some kind of aggression or conflict, we need to be strong--not provocative, but we need to be strong in response. We did not anticipate, 5 or 6 years ago, that they would grow so strong so quickly. Their most significant advances are in submarines. China will take delivery of 11 submarines in 2005. We are going to buy one. Its fleet includes an increasing number of the following vessels: the Type 93 nuclear-powered attack submarine; Type 94 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, which carries an ICBM with a range of more than 5,000 miles; and Russian-built ``Kilo"-class diesel electric attack submarines. By the year 2010, they may be able to deploy a fleet of up to 50 modern submarines to confront us, should they choose to do so. Remember, they can concentrate that power in the Western Pacific. Among China's surface combat vessels, the most notable is the growing number of Russian-built missile destroyers which carry the SS-22 ``Sunburn'' anti-ship missile, and the Type 72 large amphibious assault ship. In addition, China is developing and producing its own advanced fighter aircraft. It is procuring hundreds of advanced Russian-built Sukhoi fighters. China has deployed over 700 land-attack ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan. It is adding over 100 new missiles each year. I could go on for a considerable period of time. The upshot of that is, by the end of the decade, China may be able to field, as I said before, 50 submarines, all concentrated in the Western Pacific. They are closing the technology gap and working steadily to develop an area denial capability which is aimed directly at American strength. I am not saying they are going to use it. I do believe strongly that the more they believe we are going to be prepared and ready, the more likely they will be to seek peaceful redress of whatever concerns they may have, the more likely it is we are going to be able to avoid developing a confrontational relationship with them. For all these reasons, we have not completed the task of redressing procurement shortfalls from the 1990s. We need 160 aircraft per year to keep the average age in the inventory stable. Instead, we are purchasing 80 aircraft. The current plan is to purchase less than one- half the number of new F/A-22s the Air Force says it needs. This is the superior air-to-air fighter. The Navy is at 283 ships, and that number is going down. We purchased an average of 5.6 ships per year over the past 10 years. You assume a 30-year service life. At that rate, it is eventually going to give us a fleet of 170 ships. The last time the Department of Defense estimated the number of ships we needed to be secure, it was 375. I expect that a reasonable Quadrennial Defense Review, looking at this, will produce a number no lower than 300. We are not purchasing ships at anywhere near the rate we have to in order to sustain the Navy at that level. At that rate, our submarine force will drop below 40 in the next decade. Every recent study identifies the need for 55 to 76 submarines at a minimum. We need to get the shipbuilding budget up, and estimates range from $14 billion to $18 billion a year to maintain a Navy at approximately 300 ships. We are not there yet. Now, additional reductions are being proposed. Those reductions, if implemented, will mean the defense budget again will not grow, at least in real terms. Most of the Department's budget is basically committed. You cannot short operations and maintenance. You cannot short readiness. You must pay your people. You must provide the benefits you have committed to provide. That means any budget cuts must come almost entirely out of exactly the platforms, the ships and planes and tanks and vehicles that we have been designing and developing to provide the new generation of capabilities that our men and women need to be able to defend us. So proposals are afoot and rumors are out that the Army is going to cancel the Future Combat System. That is the Army's system to replace the older tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles, to make sure the technology is adequate, the information technology is networked together. FCS is the system designed to give us the most modern ground combat capabilities. All of this is potentially on the chopping block. The next generation destroyer, the DD(X), may not get built. That is the ship that is going to provide naval surface fire to support troops going ashore. The Joint Strike Fighter, our stealthy air-to-ground strike fighter, which we have been developing for years, is on the chopping block. The new tanker is imperiled. The need for additional airlift is imperiled. This situation is serious. What do we need to do? The Department is engaged right now in a Quadrennial Defense Review. Every 4 years the Department looks at its needs and is supposed to analyze what it needs to defend us and analyze that in terms of military needs, not fiscal constraints. In other words, the way the law reads, they look at what structure of forces, what package of capabilities they need to defend the United States, and then we try to come up with the money to pay for that. Well, I am concerned that the analysis may be the other way around. They may be given a figure, a budget number, and told to come up with a force structure and a package of capabilities that meet that budget number. They must be allowed to assume reasonable inflation-adjusted increases in the defense budget for the future and then be allowed to build the package of capabilities and force structure needed to defend the United States. That Quadrennial Defense Review needs to be military driven, not budget driven. Then, in the meantime, while we wait for that review, we should stick with the planned figure for fiscal 2007. Every year, the Department sends its budget here. And, of course, the key number is the number for the upcoming fiscal year, but it is always a 5-year defense plan. In the first few years of the Bush administration, to the credit of the Department and the administration, they have basically stuck to their projections year by year, with fairly minor deviations. The figure for fiscal 2007 that we were given last year is $443 billion, and that is the figure that should come over. We should not sacrifice our defense requirements for deficit concerns. Whatever your feelings about the deficit and about how we ought to resolve the deficit, it is not caused by the defense budget. The defense budget is 48 percent of discretionary spending. It was just about the same in the Carter era. The defense budget as a percentage of the total budget is 17 percent, which is 6 percent less than it was in the Carter era. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it is 3.6 percent which, again, is less than it was in the Carter era. The military budget has not caused the deficit that we are dealing with today. In fact, if we could just sustain defense spending at 4 percent of the gross domestic product, which would be an historic low, that would be more than adequate for us to build the kind of force structure that we need to defend our country. That is not too big a sacrifice to pay for this Nation's security. I said at the beginning of my remarks that reducing the defense budget in the name of reducing the deficit is a false economy. I ask Senators to consider the world situation today. The stability of the international order in the world depends on the reality and the perception of American military power. The more stable the world is, the more hospitable it is to freedom and to our interests, the faster our economy will grow, and the more money we will have available, not just for defense spending but, indeed, for all other obligations of the Government. That is something President Reagan understood. When he became President in 1981, he began building up America's defenses. He had double-digit spending increases in the military budget. He knew that was a key aspect of winning the Cold War. He got the attention of the Soviets. After a few years, they decided it was not worth it to try to compete with the United States in that arena. That was one of the key factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. And the freedom that resulted from that, the end of the isolation of Eastern Europe, the opportunities that were unleashed on the world are one of the reasons that we had unparalleled economic growth all throughout the 1990s, which then enabled us to balance the budget and eventually get to a surplus. If, as a result of budget-driven decisions, we reduce the defense budget beneath what is minimally adequate, we create a sense of instability in the world, a doubt about our resolution to maintain our obligations and to protect our freedom. If that even minimally increases the possibility of a confrontation somewhere in the world, it will affect our economic opportunities and our economic growth far more than anything we could possibly save by reducing the defense budget, to put it on just as low and cold a level as possible. A strong defense, the perception of American will and resolution is good for the economy. It is necessary if we are going to grow as a country, create jobs, and generate the kind of revenue that will allow us to address the deficit. I offer a personal note on behalf of this issue. The men and women who defend us in our military are the finest people who have ever served in any military service at any time in the Nation's history. They know the obligation that they are undertaking. They undertake it willingly. Over Veterans Day, I attended a few rallies around Missouri. I like to do that in commemoration of the men and women who have served. I was in Lebanon, MO, and met a number of our service personnel who were there. One of them was a recent enlistee in the National Guard, a young man who was proud to wear his country's uniform, proud at the prospect that he might be actively involved, as I am sure he will be, in helping our Nation win the war against terror. We had an opportunity to visit. He understood that in doing that, he was doing something very important, very large. He was sacrificing, and his sacrifice was a measure of the value he placed on the freedom of his country and the security of his family. Those young men and women in America's military will keep faith with us. They are going to do what we ask and expect them to do to protect us. We owe it to them, particularly in the Congress. We owe it to them, to keep faith with them. They protect us. They count on us to protect them, to do what we know is necessary to provide them with what they need to do their jobs. Let's live up to that. Let's have confidence that doing the right thing, meeting our obligations with regard to the national defense, is the best way to approach the future, both economically and as a matter of foreign policy and as a matter of the Nation's security. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I have introduced this amendment which we believe is crucial in providing our Armed Forces with the air transport capabilities they need. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Stevens, Boxer, Feinstein, Cornyn, Chambliss, and a number of others. We have worked with the chairman, the ranking member, and the managers, and are grateful for their help. It has been cleared on both sides. It is an important amendment. I encourage the Senate to agree to it.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work. The Senator from Connecticut and I talked about it. We thought this measure, going to the heart of such an important requirement, was worthy of a rollcall vote. I do appreciate the chairman's patience on that.

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

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are offering an amendment that we believe is crucial to providing our Armed Forces with the air transport capabilities they need. The amendment has been cosponsored by Chairman Warner and Senators Stevens, Boxer, Feinstein, Cornyn, Chambliss, and others. In addition, we have worked closely with the chairman and Senator Levin and committee staff, and the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I am grateful to the managers of the bill for their work on this important legislation. The Defense Department's current intertheater airlift requirement was established by the Mobility Requirement Study, called MRS-05, which was released in December 2000. That study identified the airlift necessary to conduct high-priority missions in support of two major theater wars. That was the national military strategy at the time, to be able to conduct two major theater wars at the same time. Even back in 2001, recently retired TRANSCOM Commander, GEN John Handy, identified the Department's pre-September 11 intertheater airlift requirements as inadequate. He characterized that study, which was a pre-9/11 study, shortly after its release as a historical document, not of great value, because in his judgment it significantly underestimated the true airlift requirements of the Department even at that time. I will expand on this point in a few minutes. We are now learning that the Department's most recent study has completely failed to readjust the airlift requirement in light of all the different missions in which the United States is now and will be engaged for years to come--the global war on terror, international humanitarian relief missions, expanded special operations and training, to say nothing of our need to support the underlying national military strategy needs. The C-17 is the primary intertheater air transport used by the United States to deploy and sustain forces overseas. It has delivered 70 percent of the cargo airlifted into Iraq. It has turned in stellar performances in theaters from Kosovo to Afghanistan to the global war on terror in all its various locations. In addition, the C-17 played a key role in several recent humanitarian relief missions, including the response to the gulf coast hurricanes and the earthquake in Pakistan. The Chief of Staff for the Air Force, GEN Michael Moseley, recently said that the C-17 has ``proven its worth in gold.'' The real question before the Senate is not whether we need additional intertheater airlift but how much more airlift is required. The Air Force's longstanding position, reiterated time and again over the last few years, has been at least 222 C-17s--42 more than the planned procurement of 180 aircraft--are needed to meet growing airlift requirements. General Handy repeatedly testified that 222 C-17s would be the minimum necessary to meet our airlift requirements and that even more may be needed, and this is in addition to other programs for increasing the lift capabilities of the Department. The Department's decision regarding future C-17 production is, we believe, imminent. Senator Lieberman and I believe if we do not procure additional transports, our intertheater airlift capabilities will be inadequate to meet our military's needs. We will lack the lift capability needed to deploy and adequately sustain forces overseas. While our primary responsibilities must be to our military personnel and national security, there is also a significant economic stake for many States. C-17 production generates approximately $8.4 billion in economic activity and is supported by 702 suppliers in 42 States. This is a major industrial base issue. St. Louis is one of the essential suppliers of components for the C-17. I have had the privilege of visiting workers who build parts for the plane. There are over 1,800 people throughout Missouri who help build the C- 17, which generates more than $776 million in economic impact. States such as California, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Connecticut, Florida, and Washington have over 491 C-17 suppliers that generate over $5.5 billion of economic activity in these States alone. Despite the facts I recited before about airlift, it has been reported that the draft version of the new Mobility Capabilities Study recommends no further C-17 production beyond 180 aircraft, at least 42 transports short of the minimum number required. Incredibly, the new Mobility Capabilities Study calls for the same transport force structure planned before 9/11, and it sets forth the same airlift requirement in the pre-9/11 days. Again, even before 9/11, the head of TRANSCOM, General Handy, said the Department's estimate of its airlift requirement was out of date. Yet the draft study doesn't increase that requirement, even given the undeniable additional needs since the global war on terror began. The Talent-Lieberman amendment would accomplish three objectives to protect the lift capability needed to deploy and sustain forces overseas. First, it would authorize a multiyear contract for the purchase of up to 42 additional C-17 aircraft. Second, the amendment urges the Secretary of the Air Force to sustain the production line by procuring a minimum sustaining production rate of C-17s per year at least until further assessment of airlift needs are completed. Third, it requires the Secretary of Defense to certify whether there is a need for additional C-17s by assessing the additional intertheater airlift requirements generated by seven factors which have to be considered but which were not considered, we believe, in the flawed mobility study, including the Army's shift to brigade combat teams, its goal of deploying a brigade anywhere in the world in 4 to 7 days, and a division anywhere in the world in 10 days, our increased involvement in international humanitarian relief missions and deployment back to the United States of forces as part of the Global Posture Review. We cannot pull back from forward bases around the world. We cannot adapt increased requirements for being able to move substantial forces of the Army around the world. We cannot fight a global war on terror everywhere and perform humanitarian relief functions around the world. We cannot do these things without adequate lift. What is at stake is the ability of the United States to project its military power on the world and to project aid where necessary on a humanitarian basis around the world. It is this airlift which enables us to do the other transformational things in the military which are the way we hope to sustain an adequate military force while also having some economies. Senator Lieberman and I offer this amendment because intertheater airlift is the means by which our forces deploy on short notice anywhere in the world and a primary means by which we sustain deployed forces. When the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the recently retired head of TRANSCOM, and others who understand the central importance of airlift for our services tell us about how vital this aircraft is to the military's air transport needs, we believe it is prudent to take their word for it and plan accordingly. It is my understanding this amendment has been agreed to on both sides. We are certainly grateful for that. I appreciate the leadership of the floor managers in being able to reach that agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. That is correct.