Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for arranging the debate on this amendment. I call up an amendment we have at the desk, Talent-Lieberman amendment No. 3011.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Carper as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is a rather simple one. It raises the number in the budget for defense up to what the administration proposed. The budget resolution, as it came out of committee, would have reduced the amount of money requested for national defense by $3 billion. This restores that. It is in my judgment, as I said often on the Senate floor, not all we need to do but it is a first step.

We have to understand context here. The number the President submitted was itself almost $4 billion the President submitted was itself almost $4 billion less than what only a year and half ago the President and the administration said they would need for fiscal 2007.

Under the pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense has had to reduce its request for the last 2 fiscal years by an amount totaling almost $10 billion and, at the same time, has reduced the amount it said it is going to request for the next 5 years by almost $670 billion--this while we are in a war and this while our responsibilities around the world and even outside the global war on terror have never been greater is a mistake.

I think the first step to correcting that mistake is to pass this bipartisan amendment and restore at least what the President has requested for fiscal 2007.

Let me give some history, some context. We need to go back to the early 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

At that time, there were concerns about the budget as well and the Government took those concerns out on the national defense. All throughout the 1990s, the Defense budget shrunk. It was the only part of the budget that shrunk. There were some years it shrunk in normal dollars, not even just as against inflation. There was a belief at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union that we were in an era of peace and we would not need to spend as much on the national defense. Certainly, that was true with regards to certain parts of the national defense. Unfortunately, it turned out not to be true with the Defense budget. I will explain that in a minute.

First, in order to accommodate those shrinking budget there were reductions in the force structure. The number of people we have in the Department was cut across the board by anywhere from a quarter to a third.

The problem with that is we anticipated we would need the men and women in America's military less with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it turns out that we needed them more. It turned out that history had not ended--it had been frozen during the time of the Cold War, and it thawed out with a vengeance. All the regional and ethnic rivalries that had been submerged in the bipolar nature of the Cold War era came to the surface. We had to deploy our men and women in conventional exercises of one kind or another far more in the 1990s than we

had to do in the Cold War decades in the years before.

What happens when you have fewer people and you use them more? You stress the force, you stress the people, you stress the equipment, you increase the operation and maintenance budgets.

In an era when we thought we would be able to save money on defense, we actually had to spend more, and increasingly the urgent crowded out the important.

Money was put in O&M in order to keep the tip of the spear sharp, if you will, while the rest of the spear rusted.

We took, for many years as a practical matter, a procurement holiday. We did not buy the equipment we needed to buy to recapitalize the platforms, which is what we in the Armed Services Committee call the weapons, the trucks, the support equipment that the men and women in America's military use.

In the 15 years from 1975 to 1990, we typically bought 78 scout and attack helos. In the years from 1991 to 2000, we bought, on average, seven. Whereas, we would buy 2,083, tanks, artillery, and other armored vehicles; we bought, on average, 145. In some cases we acquired about 10 percent of the platforms that we had bought in the 15 years previous to 1990. As a result, the capital equipment that the military is using is old.

Let us talk about some of our aircraft: B-52 bombers are 44 years old; C-130 transports, 33 years old; and KC-135 tankers, 43\1/2\ years old. I could give similar statistics for the other parts of the services as well.

The number of ships we have is going down. In the 1980s we aimed at a 600-ship Navy, and we are now below 300. If we continue at the current shipbuilding levels, we will get down to 200 or below. That is not consistent with the national security of the United States.

But what happened? The Bush administration took over, and to their credit, they raised Defense spending above inflation. There were modest increases in the early part of this decade, and part of the hope was we could recapitalize the infrastructure and make up for that procurement holiday. For a lot of reasons, that didn't happen. The operational tempo continued to grow.

We all know about the military employment level in the global war on terror. There has been what we call mission creep in other areas as well. Think about the tsunami that occurred about a year and a half ago. It was American military forces that were the structure through which we delivered that relief.

We have increased the homeland security mission, the international humanitarian relief operation, special operations, ongoing training operations. The operational tempo was at a historic high, and that ate up a lot of the increases.

Personnel costs: We have great men and women in the military. They are very highly skilled people. There is no such thing as a ``grunt'' anymore in America's military. Today, you have highly skilled people, and we owe it to them, and we must pay them accordingly.

Personnel costs are now $17 billion more per year, adjusted for inflation than in 1999. Seventeen billion dollars more comes out of the hide of the rest of the budget.

China is 5 to 10 years ahead of schedule in what we figure would be a rearmament process. I am not saying China needs to become an enemy of the United States. I hope that doesn't happen. I believe it need not happen. But they are clearly attempting to develop a military capability to exclude the United States from the Western Pacific, should she choose to do so. And the thing that is more likely to encourage them in that ambition than anything else is the reality or even the perception of American weakness.

In addition, we now have the new generation of platforms coming on line. Remember, platforms are ships, planes, tanks, trucks, and other kinds of support equipment.

For the generation of platforms that the new generation of servicemen and women are going to be using to replace the old ones, it is essential that we complete the development of these programs and that we buy out the platforms that we have proposed to buy. The DDX destroyer and the Joint Strike Fighter combat systems, which is the heart of America's Army, its F-22, air-to-air superiority fighter, the new aircraft carriers, the submarines which are essential to our national defense strategy both for intelligence and also in the western Pacific, all of these are coming online in the next few years.

Even with the President's submitted proposal, we cannot purchase the required new generation of platforms.

For all of these reasons, I have been urging for months--in fact, my advocacy on this point goes back to 1993, when I was a new Congressman in the House--I have been warning that we needed to spend more on defense.

I need to point out to the Senate that this is an obligation of the United States we cannot escape. It is similar to the basic capital assets of a company. You have to keep it up. It is not optional to allow the military equipment that our men and women use to age and eventually to collapse. We are going to pay this bill. The longer we wait, the bigger the bill will be.

That is one of the reasons why the investments which the President has proposed and which this Congress has provided in the last 5 years have not been enough even to allow us to tread water. We have continued to slip backward because we did not do what we needed to do in the 1990s.

What do we need to do now? There are a number of us on both sides of the aisle who are proposing, first of all, to restore the number the President has proposed.

I would like to see us go above that in this fiscal year, about $3 billion more than what the President has proposed. That is the amount that the Department of Defense said it needed for fiscal 2007 in the fall of 2004. That was the last budget projection we got from the Department of Defense that was unaffected by the stricture of the OMB. I think we need to go to that point. I said that in speeches on the floor of the Senate last fall. A number of us sent a letter to the President urging him to submit a budget at that number. That is about $443 billion apart from the spending on the Department of Energy that is also included in the defense budget.

Then I think we need to take next year for a searching and honest review of what the Defense budget needs to be in the near future.

I am not the only one who has proposed that. There are a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle and the Armed Services Committee who suggest that we need a systematic increase in the Defense budget. It is now about 3.7 or 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product.

Let me emphasize that. I don't want that figure to slip by without people marking it.

We are spending about 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product on national defense. That includes the supplemental, 3.8 percent in a time of war.

Whatever else is causing the deficit--and there are obviously disagreements on the floor of this body, and we just witnessed an eloquent debate highlighting those disagreements--whatever else is causing it, the Department of Defense and military budget is not. That figure is historically very low. It is much lower than the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was President.

To try to save money on defense, to believe that you are saving money by reducing the Defense budget below the minimum, is a classic example of being pennywise and pound foolish because the bill comes due. We do not have the option of not meeting our responsibilities in the world today.

The reality, the perception but much less the reality of American weakness encourages instability in the world. Instability in the world is antithetical to the kind of security that people need for economic growth. So I can put it on as low a level as possible. If we do not adequately support the national defense, we are certainly going to get ourselves into bigger economic trouble.

American weakness leads to conflict abroad, conflict abroad can lead to war, and war is very bad for the national deficit.

So we need this searching review. We can have that. We can decide where we need to be structurally beginning next year. I think the Armed Services Committee is going to do that.

I want to close on a hopeful note. This is well within our capability. This is a great nation, a strong nation.

If the Government will meet its obligations and do what it is supposed to

do, the people will drive the prosperity of this country. They will produce the wealth on which they depend, on which this Government depends, to sustain those programs that are necessary to protect our security and also help the weak and the helpless among us.

We had a funeral for President Reagan in the recent past. He laid in State. And I thought Members of both parties did a wonderful job eulogizing him.

We should learn the lesson of history that his administration taught us. He understood the importance of American power in the world.

When he became President, we also had gone through a time when the forces had become hollow, when that shaft of the spear, if you will, had rusted. President Reagan dealt with it decisively. He proposed two double-digit increases in the national defense, which the Congress sustained him on. And it was that action which was a key factor in winning the Cold War because the rest of the world saw America's commitment, America's willingness, America's strength, America's confidence in the future and eventually decided that freedom and democracy was the future of the world because we were leading in that direction. We were willing to make the commitment necessary to walk that path.

Let us do the same thing today. This is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Lieberman and I are offering it.

I have been handed a note that Senator Graham wishes to be added as a cosponsor.

I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

We can do this.

Yes, we have to resolve the other problems in the budget that are causing the deficit, but defense is not that area. Defense has given at the office. Now it is time to tend to American security and American needs. For that reason, I offer the amendment. I hope the Senate will sustain it and support our men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Sure.

The Senator is correct.

The function 920, as I understand, is essentially the overhead across the board from a number of different agencies. So it comes out of administrative overhead, travel, et cetera, and I believed that funding these essential programs for the military was more important than that. So I challenge the agencies to find that funding to support this amendment.

It is similar to what has happened in the past. We had several amendments last year that took substantial amounts out of function 920 in order to increase programs.

No. I am willing to ask all the agencies to sacrifice travel budgets and expenses in order to fund the national defense.

I say again, this has happened in the past to support other important programs. The Coleman amendment last year, for example, increased CDBG funding by $2 billion with a function 920 offset. I am telling the Senator what he knows. The Senator is an expert on the budget.

So we have gone into administrative overhead in the past, where necessary, to support important programs. I cannot think of anything more important than giving the President at least what he has asked for for national defense. This is a question of whether we will fund the national defense in time of war at the President's request, at least.

Who has the floor, Mr. President?

Again, I thank the Senator and admire very much the sincerity with which he confronts these budgetary problems.

Perhaps in view of the Senator's question, it would be good for me to emphasize the point I made during the speech. There are certain functions of the Government which, if we do not perform at least at a minimal level, have the opposite effect that people want when they seek to reduce the deficit. This is one of them. These bills must be paid, and the longer we wait to pay them, the more they will cost.

For me, it is deja vu all over again. I said this in the 1990s. We were successful as a Congress in the 1990s in the latter part of the decade in getting more money into the budget above what the Clinton administration requested, but we did not get enough in. So those bills which were not paid have accumulated, with compound interest, at very substantial amounts.

It is true that an increase which is slightly above inflationary rates, which would have been adequate if we had done it in the 1990s, is not adequate anymore. And if we do not do something of the nature I am talking about now--not just with this budget but next year's budget as well--then the bill will grow and grow and grow, and 2 and 3 and 4 years from now, it will be even greater. My friend and the Senator from New Hampshire are going to have an even bigger problem to confront in trying to deal with the budget deficit.

It is not an option to not sustain the national defense. To the extent America is perceived as weak, much less to the extent that America is weak, it promotes instability and conflict in the world. Apart from the threat to human freedom, I will say to those who are concerned about the budget, that is very bad for the deficit. That is really negative for the deficit.

Let us sustain the national defense. I encourage the Senator to continue working with his friend and my friend from New Hampshire to solve these other structural problems in the deficit and would be happy to support some bipartisan resolution. Let us not take it out on defense.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Given the time available, I did not speak as long as I could on this subject, but the Senator is referring to what the Pentagon calls resetting the force. In other words, after a war, we pay through the supplementals for the equipment that is actually destroyed. But a lot of the equipment is not destroyed; it is either left there or it suffers what a business would call accelerated depreciation. It comes back, but it only has a few years of useful life.

The Senator is correct, we have that bill to deal with, as well.

I think I had half an hour. How much time remains?

Mr. President, I will not take the whole 11 minutes. I will do the Senate that favor, anyway.

First of all, the Senator is tremendously knowledgeable about the budget. I respect very much what he is saying. I am pleased he recognizes the importance of the underlying thrust of the amendment. My understanding is the function 920 line has about $11 billion in it, so what I am calling for is a reduction of about a quarter in our overhead expenses, travel expenses. That has been done in the past in order to fund important programs.

We are in agreement that there is a shortfall in defense. Nothing is more important across the board right now than sustaining at least the President's request. I argue, and perhaps will argue further in this process, that we need to do a little more this year, but we should at least do this, and we can do this with a reduction in overhead that occurs all the time in the private sector. I think we should.

Now, the Senator mentioned various efficiencies we can use to make the money go further. I have been a strong supporter of those on the Armed Services Committee. I think there are efficiencies we can gain in terms of leasing and other kinds of measures. I would not want to leave the floor this morning leaving the Senate with the impression that is going to be enough to meet the obligations we have before us for national defense and national security.

Remember, we are talking about the security of our homes, our families, our jobs. Remember what the attack on 9/11 did to the economy. We just saw numbers about how revenues were off in the early part of the decade. Well, that was not unrelated to the fact we were attacked. I am not saying we would not have been attacked had we been stronger throughout the 1990s; I am saying that right now, we are too far out on a margin of risk. The further you go on that margin of risk, the greater instability, the greater the lack of confidence in the world, and that hurts our economy.

I said substantially the same thing a couple years ago when we were debating the highway bill. I was arguing in favor of bonding for infrastructure investment. Investment in defense, like investment in infrastructure, is not an optional expenditure of the Government. We have, if you want to look at it this way, a deficit in the national defense. As bad as the budget deficit is, I would argue the deficit in the national defense is worse because that deficit imperils both the national security and the economic security of the United States.

So we need to make some tough decisions. I agree with the Senator when he says that. We can at least take this decision now. This amendment is offered on a bipartisan basis. And this concern is bipartisan in the Armed Services Committee. When we had what we call our posture hearing, looking at the posture of defense, Senator Inhofe, Senator Dayton, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and I all raised the issue of whether, going forward, we needed a structural increase in the national defense.

We are not asking for that here. We are not asking for that this year. We want to do a study of this issue. We want to look at it in a searching and bipartisan way and then report back, I hope next year-- early next year--to the Senate on what we need to do. But right now, we need at least to give the President what he has asked. I would hope we could find a way to go a little further than that in this budget and give the President what he asked for in the fall of 2004, before the Office of Management and Budget got at the Defense projections. That is why I am offering the amendment.

I very much appreciate the spirit in which the Senator has responded. I hope he can stretch a point and perhaps find a ``yes'' vote for this amendment, and then debate, in as bipartisan a fashion as possible, the other structural issues we are dealing with with the deficit.

I thank the Senate again, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I am very grateful.

Mr. President, I am more than happy to yield back.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, to provide additional funding for the COPS Hot Spots Program.

I am grateful, also, for Senator Cantwell's work in this area and her commitment to provide additional funding to help our law enforcement officers in fighting methamphetamine. As my colleagues know, last week President Bush signed into law the most comprehensive antimethamphetamine legislation ever offered in the Congress, much less passed. I am pleased we were able to pass an initiative that is going to reduce the number of methamphetamine labs around the country and therefore the number of methamphetamine addicts and kids who are raised in settings where there are toxic meth labs. That legislation is going to reduce the number of fires related to methamphetamines but this is not a fight that is ever over.

Methamphetamine is the most deadly, fiercely addictive, and rapidly spreading drug America has ever known. The drug is not only sold and consumed in our neighborhoods--that would be bad enough--it is made there as well using a toxic process that combines cold medications with harmful chemicals such as iodine, ammonia, starter fluid, drain cleaner, and rubbing alcohol. The hazardous byproducts of meth production threaten the health and life of those making the drug, but also their families, the communities around them, as well as law enforcement officers who respond when somebody spots the meth lab.

These makeshift chemistry laboratories are found in homes, in hotels, even the trunks of cars. In addition to the risks of those around the labs, these kinds of laboratories create a huge amount of environmental waste. Cleaning up even one of the laboratories can cost $10,000 or more. That cost alone is devastating to the budgets of State and local governments around the country.

That is one of the reasons the National Association of Counties lists methamphetamine as the No. 1 problem counties are confronting.

Among the many provisions in the Combat Meth Act that was passed as part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization last week is a provision that authorizes an additional $99 million per year for the next 5 years under the COPS Meth Hot Spots Program, which is a program designed to train State and local law enforcement to investigate and lock up meth offenders, and also to expand the funding available for personnel and equipment for enforcement, prosecution, and environmental cleanup. This additional $99 million is meant to supplement the $63 million that is already authorized under the Hot Spots Program.

I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, to restore full funding to that account. This assistance to State and local agencies has a national impact in importance.

I know many of my colleagues have seen firsthand the immense need for and benefit of this funding. State and local law enforcement personnel are fighting on the front lines in the struggle to stop drug trafficking. They need our help.

I urge the Senate to vote in favor of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Lincoln, Smith, Biden, Cantwell, Kohl, Harkin, Bayh, Wyden, Johnson, Dole, and Coleman.

Mr. President, as the Senate can see, methamphetamine is not a partisan issue. There is strong support on both sides of the aisle for fighting this drug and for this amendment.

I urge the Senate to support it.

Senator Feinstein has done great work in this area. I know she would like to be here to speak. I do not know if she will be able to get down to speak on it. I congratulate her again on her leadership in this field.

Mr. President, this is the amendment which I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner.

This amendment raises the top line for Defense in the number which the President requested to an approximately $3 billion increase. It is paid for. In time of war, the minimum we ought to do is have the Defense top line at the number which the President requests.

It is a bipartisan amendment. I ask the Senate for its support.

I have no objection to the Senator from Washington going ahead because she was here.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss and Senator Dayton, to congratulate them on their efforts in this important area to restore funding for the justice assistance grants, which we have known in the past as the Byrne grants, and the local law enforcement program to the fiscal year 2003 level of $900 million. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the important amendment.

The amendment is almost identical to what was offered on the relevant appropriations bill last fall. That amendment passed unanimously. It raised the funding amount at that time to $900 million. Unfortunately, as Senators have noted, the final appropriations more than stripped the amendment. It cut Byrne/JAG grants by 34 percent from fiscal year 2005 which resulted in only $416 million for the program. It is even more unacceptable that the administration has zero funded the program in its 2007 budget request.

Justice assistance grants fund a number of local drug education and drug law enforcement programs. These include the crucial multijurisdictional task forces which are especially important in combating the rising rates of methamphetamine production and distribution in communities across the country. Over the past 5 years, funding for Byrne grants and the local law enforcement block grants, which again are JAG predecessors, have been cut significantly despite the fact that State and local law enforcement have not only been saddled with the additional burden of homeland security but also with fighting the methamphetamine scourge that has grown in rural and urban communities across the Nation.

These grants are an essential component of statewide efforts to address violent crime and drugs in my State of Missouri. They funded vital projects in the State, including a multijurisdictional task force program that worked to integrate Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors for the purpose of enhancing interagency coordination and intelligence.

To cut this funding would severely damage law enforcement's ability to address the methamphetamine crisis in Missouri and would place communities at risk across the country. That is why major law enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the National Police and Peace Officers, and the National Narcotics Coalition have all endorsed the amendment.

In short, the funding is crucial in fighting the Nation's war against methamphetamine and other drugs and necessary for keeping America's neighborhoods safe. So I congratulate Senator Dayton and Senator Chambliss for offering this amendment and urge the Senate to approve it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the following nominations: Dr. Gale Buchanan to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics; Mr. Marc Kesselman to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture; Mr. Boyd Rutherford to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; and Ms. Linda Strachan to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony from combatant commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Joint Strike Fighter F136 alternate engine program in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. James S. Simpson, of New York, to be Federal Transit Administrator of the Department of Transportation; and Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be president of the Government National Mortgage Association.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Wireless Issues and Spectrum Reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Wall Street Perspective on Telecommunications.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Monday, March 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Administrative Challenges Facing the Social Security Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Consolidation in the Oil and Gas Industry: Raising Prices?'' on Tuesday, May 14, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.

Panel I: Tom Miller, Attorney General for the State of Iowa, Des Moines, IA; David Boies, Chairman, Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY; Joseph M. Alioto, Partner, Alioto Law Firm, San Francisco, CA; Severin Borenstein, E.T. Grether Professor of Business Administration and Public Policy, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA; and Tom Greene, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of California, Sacramento, CA.

Panel II: Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX; Mr. Ross Pillari, President and Chief Executive Officer, BP America, Inc., Chicago, IL; Mr. James Mulva, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ConocoPhillips, Houston, TX; Mr. Rex Tillerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ExxonMobil Corp., Irving, TX; Mr. David O'Reilly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron Corp., San Ramon, CA; and Mr. Bill Klesse, Chief Executive Officer, Valero Energy Corp., San Antonio, TX.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Judicial and Executive Nominations on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 3 p.m. in Senate Dirksen Building Room 226.

Panel I: Members of Congress, TBA.

Panel II: Michael A. Chagares to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; Gary Hampton Miller to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; Sharee M. Freeman to be Director, Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice; Jeffrey L. Sedgwick to be Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``GSA Contractors Who Cheat On Their Taxes and What Should Be Done About It.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 14 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the President's proposed budget for the National Parks Service for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on health benefits and programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that Dan Brintzinghoffer of my office be permitted the privilege of the floor during the duration of his service with my office.

Mr. President, today I wish to salute Captain Thomas M. Jackson and Sergeant Stacey Murley, Missourians who have valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strive every day to make their community safer from this drug menace. I commend each of them for their exemplary service, and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring them for their efforts.

Sergeant Murley, under the command of Captain Jackson, has run a chemical diversion task force that has disrupted the precursor market for meth cooks throughout the country. In the past 4 years alone, the task force has accounted for the seizure of over 300,000 cold tablets that were undoubtedly going to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. These cases have led to nearly a thousand arrests and hundreds of State and Federal cases. The members of the task force work daily to identify meth cooks as they shop at hundreds of stores throughout St. Louis County for common household items used to manufacture meth. Because of their dedication, these officers have been able to locate hundreds of clandestine labs in Missouri and Illinois.

Mr. President, the efforts of Captain Jackson and Sergeant Murley have been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share their accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish them all the best for the future.

Sheriff John J. Jordan

Mr. President, I also salute Sheriff John J. Jordan, a Missourian who has valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strives every day to make his community safer from this drug menace. I commend him for his exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring him for his efforts.

In 2000, Sheriff Jordan worked to establish the Missouri Sheriff's Methamphetamine Relief Team, MOSMART, in cooperation with Missouri sheriffs and regional task forces to fight the growing problem of methamphetamine in Missouri. The project continues to offer vital assistance to sheriffs and rural drug task forces in their fight against clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.

This program has helped to hire officers throughout the State and train them to investigate and dismantle thousands of labs across Missouri. Sheriff Jordan's advocacy has been instrumental in providing rural sheriffs' departments and local task forces with the resources they need to tackle the meth problem.

Mr. President, the efforts of Sheriff Jordan has been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share his accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish him all the best for the future.

Captain Kevin M. O'Sullivan

Mr. President, I now salute Captain Kevin M. O'Sullivan, a Missourian who has valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strives every day to make his community safer from this drug menace. I commend him for his exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring him for his efforts.

Captain O'Sullivan is the head of the Metro Meth Task Force, one of the oldest methamphetamine lab task forces in the State. This task force has been working meth labs for over a decade and has been a leader for other task forces in the State. The Metro Meth Task Force has formed great partnerships with numerous State and local agencies in Missouri and has worked with the State of Kansas in tracking meth lab operators across State lines. The Metro Meth Task Force is a shining example of cooperation in the fight against meth labs.

Mr. President, the efforts of Captain O'Sullivan has been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share his accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish him all the best for the future.

Chief Bradley W. Harris

Mr. President, I also salute Unit Chief Bradley W. Harris, a Missourian who has valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strives every day to make his community safer from this drug menace. I commend him for his exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring him for his efforts.

In order to address concerns from multiple law enforcement agencies around the State about the problems associated with cleaning up meth labs, Chief Harris developed a State meth lab cleanup program that has developed into a national model. After securing funding from the EPA, Chief Harris established a program to ensure that the State of Missouri safely and legally removes and destroys the hazardous waste removed from meth labs. This program allows State and local officers who have received training to safely transport hazardous waste to 1

of 20 containers in the State that are operated by local fire and law enforcement officials and maintained by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Since the first container was opened in October 1998, the 20 containers have processed meth lab waste from 9,525 labs across the State. This accounts for 378,491 pounds of hazardous waste and has saved the State approximately $22 million over conventional waste handling.

Mr. President, the efforts of Chief Harris has been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share his accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish him all the best for the future.

Sergeant Jason J. Grellner

Mr. President, I wish to salute SGT Jason J. Grellner, a Missourian who has valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strives every day to make his community safer from this drug menace. I commend him for his exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring him for his efforts.

Sergeant Grellner, in his work for the Franklin County Sheriff's Office and the Franklin County Narcotics Enforcement Unit, has been influential in efforts to curb meth production. His unit within the sheriff's department has implemented many local and statewide programs aimed at stopping meth labs as well as ending and preventing addiction to substance abuse. These programs include CHEM, Companies Helping Eliminate Meth; PARTY, Peers Acting Responsibly in Teenage Years; the Franklin County Families in Transition Program; and the Anhydrous Ammonia Tank Lock Program.

Sergeant Grellner has contributed to the vigilant enforcement of meth laws in Franklin County, leading to the investigation and seizure of over 650 labs. As part of several State task forces and State and national coalitions, he has helped to bring together prevention, rehabilitation, and law enforcement experts to fight to keep Missouri safe from meth labs.

Mr. President, the efforts of Sergeant Grellner has been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share his accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish him all the best for the future.

Sergeant Sonya Zimmerle

Mr. President, I salute SGT Sonya Zimmerle, a Missourian who has valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strives every day to make her community safer from this drug menace. I commend her for her exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring her for his efforts.

In her current assignment with the Franklin County Sheriff's Department, Sergeant Zimmerle has assisted in the creation and maintenance of the Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force and Drug Endangered Children Task Force, which have served as vital resources for numerous law enforcement and government officials in Missouri. Additionally, Sergeant Zimmerle has been an integral component of a multistate working group that has sought to address the proliferation of methamphetamine throughout the country and is responsible for disseminating significant information shared by the group's members and maintaining cohesiveness as the membership continues to grow.

Mr. President, the efforts of Sergeant Zimmerle has been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share her accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish her all the best for the future.

Major James F. Keathley

Captain Ronald K. Replogle

Mr. President, I also wish to salute MAJ James F. Keathley and CPT Ronald K. Replogle, Missourians who have valiantly fought against the meth epidemic and who strive every day to make their communities safer from this drug menace. I commend each of them for their exemplary service and join the Office of National Drug Control Policy in honoring them for their efforts.

As the current and past directors of the Missouri State Highway Patrol's Division of Drug and Crime Control, Major Keathley and Captain Replogle have been instrumental in bringing much needed training to State and local officers regarding the safe investigation and handling of hazardous materials involved with methamphetamine labs. Through a partnership with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri State Highway Patrol has been able to provide clandestine methamphetamine lab training to over 800 law enforcement officers throughout the country. They have been instrumental in securing funding to help fund local multijurisdictional task forces throughout the State.

As members of State and Federal narcotics agents' coalitions, they represent officers throughout the country who have been on the front lines of the meth battle for over a decade. Through this involvement, they have influenced the national debate on comprehensive methamphetamine legislation and assisted in passing the Combat Meth Act.

Mr. President, the efforts of Major Keathley and Captain Replogle have been essential in fighting the proliferation of methamphetamine in Missouri and throughout the United States. I am honored to share their accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish them all the best for the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, in a colloquy regarding the intent of the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005.

Section 701 of the PATRIOT Act of 2005 establishes restrictions on the sales of precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine. As you know, the methamphetamine abuse and trafficking problem is growing in our country, and this legislation will help to combat the epidemic.

The methamphetamine control provisions of the act are intended to address those precursor chemicals sold without a prescription.

I know that Chairman Specter and I agree that exempting pseudoephedrine products provided via a legitimate prescription is critical. Physicians and other health care providers sometimes prescribe pseudoephedrine products in amounts that could violate the daily and monthly limits included in this legislation.

Patients who need more pseudoephedrine than the law would allow need the option of getting pseudoephedrine under a prescription, and Senator Specter and I agree that the methamphetamine provisions should not impede the care of legitimate patients. Our new requirements focus on products purchased outside the current prescription process. We are seeking to stop the bad actors from manufacturing and trafficking methamphetamine and have no desire to prevent proper patient care. Many States that have enacted laws to combat the methamphetamine epidemic have also included this type of exemption. It just makes sense.

I thank the distinguished chairman for this clarification.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak for no longer than about 20 minutes as if in morning business and that the time be charged postcloture.

I thank my friend from Wisconsin for letting me have the floor to do this. I am happy to yield back the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 4 p.m., in executive session to consider certain pending military nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on `` consideration of regulatory relief proposals.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 1 at 9:30 a.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the state of the economies and fiscal affairs in the territories of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on the status of the Yucca Mountain Project on Wednesday, March 1 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 3 p.m. for a hearing on ``Fighting the AIDS Epidemic of Today: Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled ``The Department of Homeland Security's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2007.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a joint oversight hearing with the House Committee on Resources on the Settlement of Cobell v. Norton.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Larry Craig, United States Senator, [R-ID]; The Honorable Mike Crapo, United States Senator, [R-ID].

Panel II: Norman Randy Smith to be the United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Patrick Joseph Schlitz to be United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``The Nomination of Eric Thorson to be Inspector General of the Small Business Administration'' on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, beginning at 2 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Army

transformation and the future combat systems acquisition strategy in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction be authorized to meet on March 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Winter Storms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Active component, Reserve component, and civilian personnel programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 1 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the roll of the Forest Service and other Federal agencies in protection the Health and Welfare of foreign guest workers carrying out tree planting and other service contracts on National Forest System Lands, and to consider related Forest Service guidance and contract modifications issued in recent weeks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Federal Strategies to End Border Violence'' on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 9 a.m. in Dirksen 226.

Panel I: The Honorable Paul K. Charlton, United States Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; David Aguilar, Chief of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; and Marcy Forman, Director of Investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Panel II: The Honorable Larry A. Dever, Sheriff of Cochise County, AZ; The Honorable Wayne Jernigan, Sheriff of Valverde County, TX; Lavogyer Durham, Manager of El Tule Ranch, Falfurrias, TX; and T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Campo, CA.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I will so modify my request.

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

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

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. 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.