Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we debate the very important issue of deficit reduction, I want to take a few minutes to discuss a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act. It is an issue of great importance and one that many Senators have been working on for more than 3 years, the reauthorization of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.

As a freshman Member of the House, I introduced the welfare reform legislation that subsequently became the basis for the historic bipartisan welfare reform bill, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. Since that time I have viewed welfare reform as a priority issue, an issue of great significance to millions of Americans.

Welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare reform legislation made remarkable headway in helping welfare dependents move toward self- sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State welfare case1oads and child poverty, and it increased welfare recipient employment.

Welfare reform is based on the understanding that the two best anti- poverty programs are work and marriage. The old welfare system seduced millions of people into poverty by offering assistance on the condition that they not get a job, not get married, and have children anyway. It measured success by how many people it was able to get on welfare. The new system measures success by how many people get off welfare, or never have to go on welfare.

The welfare reform bill has been an astounding success. Since 1996, cash welfare caseloads have fallen by more than 50 percent nationwide. The caseload in the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, AFDC, now TANF, has fallen from 4.3 million families in August 1996 to fewer than 2 million in March 2005.

States have overhauled their welfare programs to stress work, as required by the reform, and as a result the percentage of working welfare recipients has more than doubled since 1996. The poorest 20 percent of single mother families reported a 67 percent increase in their earnings between 1995 and 2002, after adjusting for inflation, and the next quintile of single mothers saw their average earnings grow by more than $4,000 between 1995 and 2002. The Urban Institute reported earlier this year that single mothers' real wages continued to increase during the 2000-2004 period despite the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. It is better from every perspective for able bodied people to bring home a paycheck rather than a welfare check.

If we fail to pass welfare reauthorization and are forced to extend the 1996 law for the 12th time, millions of families will remain on the welfare rolls rather than engaged in productive and self-sufficient jobs. Because most States have met the targets of the 1996 law, they now have no incentive to extend the benefits of work to able bodied people still on the rolls. This reauthorization increases the effective welfare work rate target from zero percent to 50 percent in fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010. It achieves this by rebasing the caseload reduction credit to provide credit only for future caseload declines.

The reauthorization also contains important provisions encouraging health marriages. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family. The decline of marriage since the 1960's has been accompanied by a rise in a number of serious social problems. Children born out-of-wedlock are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and behavioral and emotional problems, to have lower academic achievement, and to use drugs more often. Single mother are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence. On the other hand, children whose parents choose marriage, and learn how to form and sustain healthy marriages, are less likely to be depressed, repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems. Not only are healthy marriages good for the family, they are good for society and our economy.

Supporting healthy marriage is essential to continuing the success of the original welfare reform. This reauthorization provides $500 million for healthy marriage promotion over the next 5 years. These dollars will be used to fund community-based programs to counsel young women about the benefits of healthy marriage and help them and their children's father build relationship, parenting and communications skills. This program will not just seek to increase marriage rates among target couples, but also will provide ongoing support to help at- risk couples maintain healthy marriages over time and reduce the likelihood of divorce.

Although the welfare reauthorization included in the Deficit Reduction Act does not include every provision I had hoped would be included in the reauthorization of the 1996 law, it has a number of important provisions. Welfare reauthorization has been a long time coming. We are rapidly approaching the end of the eleventh extension to the welfare bill on December 31, 2005, and will need to pass a twelfth extension before we leave for the year if we fail to pass the Deficit Reduction Act. This reauthorization contains many of the provisions I included in S. 105, the sonal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005. Most importantly it strengthens the work and marriage provisions, the two best anti-poverty programs. I hope my colleagues will support this measure which will provide many Americans with the resources they need to go from welfare dependency to self- sufficiency.

Mr. President, I rise to honor approximately 3,000 permanent and supplemental workers, who recently set a new world time record while conducting a safe and successful work outage on AmerenUE's Callaway Nuclear Plant. The Callaway Plant is located in my home State of Missouri and provides permanent jobs to more than 1,000 people. Since 1984, Callaway has generated an average of 8.9 billion kilowatthours of electricity per year--equal to the amount used annually by more than 750,000 average households.

The Callaway Plant is owned and operated by AmerenUE, a subsidiary of Ameren Corporation, which provides energy services to about 2.3 million electric customers in Missouri and Illinois. Callaway, along with 102 other nuclear powerplants in the United States, is a critical component of our Nation's energy mix, providing low-cost, reliable, and clean energy from an abundant fuel source.

Approximately every 18 months nuclear plants must be shut down for refueling, during which time the employees perform literally thousands of maintenance activities, modifications, and tests. In Callaway's case, the plant supplies nearly a quarter of Ameren's electricity production, thus it is critical that the work be done in a safe and timely manner so the plant can be brought back online as soon as possible.

The recent Callaway Plant outage was the most complex in its history, as it included not only refueling and the usual maintenance activities, but also replacement of four massive steam generators, which measure 70 feet tall and weigh 400 tons each, as well as main turbine rotors. The Callaway team set a new world record for such outages, accomplishing their work in 63 days and 13 hours, beating the previous record of 64 days and 17 hours. The combination of the new generators and rotors are expected to add about 60 megawatts of additional generating capacity to the plant using the same amount of fuel.

This summer Congress passed an energy bill, which recognizes the tremendous need for increasing our supply of clean energy while reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The high-quality work of the Callaway employees plays a major role in carrying out the objectives of this important legislation. By not only completing the outage in a safe and timely

manner, but also increasing its capacity to produce electricity, these workers are doing their part to meet Missouri's--and our Nation's-- growing energy needs.

I offer my personal thanks and congratulations for a job well done to all of the dedicated employees and the temporary workers who, as a result of exceptional preparation, teamwork, and execution, successfully completed the most complex outage at Callaway Nuclear Plant.

I congratulate the AmerenUE workers and their partners on their achievement. They have set a new standard of excellence in safety and performance and have helped advance the future of the nuclear power industry as a whole.

Mr. Present, today I rise to honor the accomplishments of Dick Ford, one of the most respected broadcast journalists in the St. Louis area. After more than 50 years of media service around the country, Mr. Ford will be retiring today, December 15, 2005. He will be greatly missed by viewers in the St. Louis area and in the field of journalism as a whole.

After receiving a bachelor of science degree in political science from the University of Pittsburgh and serving on active duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, Dick began his professional career in 1951 and went on to work in a number of States as a reporter, news director, and anchor.

After having established himself as a prominent journalist, Mr. Ford came to the St. Louis area where he began working at KSDK-TV. In July 1992, he joined KTVI Fox 2, from which he will retire.

In his distinguished career, Mr. Ford has been honored with the prestigious Emmy Award, among other recognitions of his journalistic talent and integrity.

The many hallmarks of his career include a training mission in an F-4 Phantom jet, live reports from Rome when Sister Philippine Duchesne was canonized, reports on a nuclear submarine and from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier and travels to Saudi Arabia to report on Desert Storm.

In addition to his passion for journalism, Dick Ford is a committed father and husband. He is also passionate about the community of St. Louis. Mr. Ford currently works with the USO and the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee, among other St. Louis area organizations.

In his work, both as a journalist and a community leader, Dick has won the respect of his colleagues and viewers alike. I have appreciated very much Dick's dedication and professionalism. He sought more than just the story--he wanted to get the story right. In his interviews with me, he never hesitated to ask the tough questions, but he was always fair about it.

Dick, congratulations on your many contributions to the great State of Missouri and your tremendously successful career.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I decided to come to the Senate for a few minutes this evening to speak to the Senate because of growing concern over the defense budget and, in particular, the growing likelihood that we are going to see cuts in the defense budget so that next year's budget is lower than what the President had proposed for fiscal year 2007.

I am moved especially by a recent ``Inside Defense'' column which reports that because of pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may well require that the service chiefs take $7.5 billion out of next year's budget and $32 billion in cuts over the next 5 years--this at the end of the budget cycle, not as a result of an assessment of military need or necessity. As I will show in a minute, one could hardly in any dispassionate view of our military needs believe we could absorb $7.5 billion in cuts next year because of procedure that is budget driven. When I see that, it reminds me of other things I have been hearing lately. I felt it was deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra might have said.

I remember the days in the 1990s when military needs were determined by the budget rather than the budget being determined by military needs. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, our country was justifiably pleased. We believed there was a peace dividend available. The Clinton Administration took a lot of money out of the defense budget. I will go into that in a minute. They took too much out of the defense budget, and left a force that by the end of the 1990s was hollowing out. Our military was not as prepared as it should have been. We have been doing the best we can in the last few years to reconstitute that force, but now we may be headed in the wrong direction.

I emphasize, this pressure is not from within the Department of Defense. It is not what the Department wants to do. It is what the Department may be forced into as a matter of false economy. There is no economy more false than depriving our military and our men and women of what they need to defend us.

Let me go over a little bit more of a history lesson in some depth. Defense spending actually decreased in real terms every year from 1990 through 1999. In fact, during 3 years in that period, it decreased in nominal terms by almost $50 billion.

Actual dollars, or nominal dollars, went down in the defense budget over 3 years during that period by $50 billion, and in every year during that period military spending decreased in real terms.

The reason was, some people thought with the fall of the Soviet Union we would need the military less. That was true for the nuclear arsenal, but not true for the people in the military. It turned out we needed conventional forces actually more than we needed them before the fall of the Soviet Union because deployments went up. We found, in the post- Cold War era, that regional conflicts around the world, the ethnic and religious and regional conflicts that had been suppressed by the bipolar nature of world competition, rose to the surface.

I remember reading what former CIA Director Gates said about it. He said: History had not ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. It had just been frozen before that. And he said: ``Now it is thawing out with a vengeance.''

Well, when you spend less and less overall, at least as against inflation, and you have to spend more and more on operations and maintenance, on readiness, because you are actually using the troops more and more, something has to give. You cannot take more and more of a percentage for operations and maintenance out of a budget which is less and less, at least as adjusted against inflation, without something giving. And what gave was procurement.

We took basically a decade-long ``procurement holiday.'' By the last few years of the 1990s most people realized what was happening and we were able to push more money back into the defense budget, but it was not enough to make up for what had happened before.

From 1975 through 1990, we purchased, on average every year, 78 scout and attack helicopters. From 1991 through the year 2000, we purchased 7 per year on average. For battle force ships from 1975 through 1990, it was 19 a year; 7 a year from 1991 to the year 2000. For fighter aircraft for the Navy, we purchased 111 per year from 1975 through 1990. We purchased 42 per year on average in the decade of the 1990s. I could go on and on.

For tankers, we purchased 5 per year on average during the 15-year period from the mid-1970s to 1990. In the mid 1990s, we purchased one per year. For tanks, artillery, and other armored vehicles listen to this, the basic platforms the Army uses; tanks, artillery and other armored vehicles--we purchased 2,083 on average every year from 1975 to 1990. But we purchased 145 on average every year from 1991 through the year 2000.

What happened is what you would have expected. The average age of the force and the equipment in the force

grew. Look at legacy aircraft, the A-10, the ``Warthog,'' 24 year old; the B-52 bomber, 44 years old; the C-130 transport, 33 years old; the KC-135 tanker, 43 years old. The procurement holiday left us with equipment that was too old.

Well, what happened? Beginning at the end of the 1990s, Congress and the President at the end of the Clinton administration, and especially with the beginning of the Bush administration--began to respond. The Chiefs complained to the point where people who didn't get it earlier finally saw what we were talking about. The decision was made to increase spending enough to sustain the volunteer force, to recapitalize the basic equipment that we had not bought in the 1990s, and to begin designing and producing the new generation of systems that the men and women in our military would use for decades to come.

The plan was to increase defense spending by a modest amount above inflation, beginning around the year 2001, so that these needs could be met. There were many of us who were concerned that was not enough money. The Department of Defense has traditionally been rather optimistic in its estimation of costs. The CBO traditionally has claimed we needed between $20 billion and $30 billion more than even was estimated at that time. But at least we had a plan. It was a beginning. It was based on an actual if perhaps optimistic estimate of need.

Unfortunately, the plan has not been as effective as we hoped in achieving its goals, and particularly in recapitalizing the force. There are a lot of reasons for that. One is that op tempo, operational tempo, has been even higher than we expected after what we experienced in the 1990s. It is what the military calls ``mission creep,'' a significantly expanded number and variety of missions that drive up defense costs because they stress the force. Operations and maintenance costs go up, readiness costs go up. Just staying in place, just keeping the force you have and the equipment you have maintained and ready becomes more difficult.

But what was the mission creep? The September 11th attacks had something to do with that, and then Afghanistan and Iraq. Our Armed Forces have become global first responders. We have homeland security missions now that we never anticipated. Contingency peace enforcement missions around the world, special ops, and ongoing training operations. Operational tempo is at a historic high. It is likely to remain so.

This means not only that we are sucking up more money in operations and maintenance, it means the equipment we have is being used up even faster. Even if you maintain it properly, if you are using it at a greater rate than you anticipated, it is not going to last as long. We face a situation where we are going to have to reset or reconstitute the basic equipment in the force.

In addition, personnel costs have been higher than we anticipated because we wanted to do right by the men and women in America's military. We voted for pay raises. And we should have. We have increased housing allotments. We have met the obligations we promised our retirees regarding health care. Those were good things. I supported them. But adjusted for inflation, personnel costs have increased from 1999 to 2006 from $92 billion to $109 billion annually. That alone would eat up any of the real increases we had planned and have been able to give the military in the last 5 years.

In addition, we are facing a threat, at least sooner, and certainly more seriously--or a potential threat--than we thought we would have to face; and that is, the rising military power of China. China is engaged in a comprehensive effort to profoundly improve its ability to project naval power and to develop a comprehensive anti-access capability in order to prevent the American military from having access into the western Pacific.

I am not saying that China is going to become, or need become, an enemy of the United States. I am saying that China is rising as a world power. It is very deliberately, according to plan, increasing in particular its naval strength. If we are to deter some kind of aggression or conflict, we need to be strong--not provocative, but we need to be strong in response. We did not anticipate, 5 or 6 years ago, that they would grow so strong so quickly.

Their most significant advances are in submarines. China will take delivery of 11 submarines in 2005. We are going to buy one. Its fleet includes an increasing number of the following vessels: the Type 93 nuclear-powered attack submarine; Type 94 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, which carries an ICBM with a range of more than 5,000 miles; and Russian-built ``Kilo"-class diesel electric attack submarines.

By the year 2010, they may be able to deploy a fleet of up to 50 modern submarines to confront us, should they choose to do so. Remember, they can concentrate that power in the Western Pacific.

Among China's surface combat vessels, the most notable is the growing number of Russian-built missile destroyers which carry the SS-22 ``Sunburn'' anti-ship missile, and the Type 72 large amphibious assault ship. In addition, China is developing and producing its own advanced fighter aircraft. It is procuring hundreds of advanced Russian-built Sukhoi fighters. China has deployed over 700 land-attack ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan. It is adding over 100 new missiles each year.

I could go on for a considerable period of time. The upshot of that is, by the end of the decade, China may be able to field, as I said before, 50 submarines, all concentrated in the Western Pacific. They are closing the technology gap and working steadily to develop an area denial capability which is aimed directly at American strength.

I am not saying they are going to use it. I do believe strongly that the more they believe we are going to be prepared and ready, the more likely they will be to seek peaceful redress of whatever concerns they may have, the more likely it is we are going to be able to avoid developing a confrontational relationship with them.

For all these reasons, we have not completed the task of redressing procurement shortfalls from the 1990s. We need 160 aircraft per year to keep the average age in the inventory stable. Instead, we are purchasing 80 aircraft. The current plan is to purchase less than one- half the number of new F/A-22s the Air Force says it needs. This is the superior air-to-air fighter. The Navy is at 283 ships, and that number is going down. We purchased an average of 5.6 ships per year over the past 10 years. You assume a 30-year service life. At that rate, it is eventually going to give us a fleet of 170 ships.

The last time the Department of Defense estimated the number of ships we needed to be secure, it was 375. I expect that a reasonable Quadrennial Defense Review, looking at this, will produce a number no lower than 300. We are not purchasing ships at anywhere near the rate we have to in order to sustain the Navy at that level. At that rate, our submarine force will drop below 40 in the next decade. Every recent study identifies the need for 55 to 76 submarines at a minimum. We need to get the shipbuilding budget up, and estimates range from $14 billion to $18 billion a year to maintain a Navy at approximately 300 ships. We are not there yet.

Now, additional reductions are being proposed. Those reductions, if implemented, will mean the defense budget again will not grow, at least in real terms. Most of the Department's budget is basically committed. You cannot short operations and maintenance. You cannot short readiness. You must pay your people. You must provide the benefits you have committed to provide. That means any budget cuts must come almost entirely out of exactly the platforms, the ships and planes and tanks and vehicles that we have been designing and developing to provide the new generation of capabilities that our men and women need to be able to defend us.

So proposals are afoot and rumors are out that the Army is going to cancel the Future Combat System. That is the Army's system to replace the older tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicles, to make sure the technology is adequate, the information technology is networked together. FCS is the system designed to give us the most modern ground combat capabilities. All of this

is potentially on the chopping block. The next generation destroyer, the DD(X), may not get built. That is the ship that is going to provide naval surface fire to support troops going ashore. The Joint Strike Fighter, our stealthy air-to-ground strike fighter, which we have been developing for years, is on the chopping block. The new tanker is imperiled. The need for additional airlift is imperiled. This situation is serious.

What do we need to do? The Department is engaged right now

in a Quadrennial Defense Review. Every 4 years the Department

looks at its needs and is supposed to analyze what it needs

to defend us and analyze that in terms of military needs, not

fiscal constraints. In other words, the way the law reads,

they look at what structure of forces, what package of

capabilities they need to defend the United States, and then

we try to come up with the money to pay for that.

Well, I am concerned that the analysis may be the other way around. They may be given a figure, a budget number, and told to come up with a force structure and a package of capabilities that meet that budget number. They must be allowed to assume reasonable inflation-adjusted increases in the defense budget for the future and then be allowed to build the package of capabilities and force structure needed to defend the United States.

That Quadrennial Defense Review needs to be military driven, not budget driven. Then, in the meantime, while we wait for that review, we should stick with the planned figure for fiscal 2007. Every year, the Department sends its budget here. And, of course, the key number is the number for the upcoming fiscal year, but it is always a 5-year defense plan. In the first few years of the Bush administration, to the credit of the Department and the administration, they have basically stuck to their projections year by year, with fairly minor deviations.

The figure for fiscal 2007 that we were given last year is $443 billion, and that is the figure that should come over. We should not sacrifice our defense requirements for deficit concerns. Whatever your feelings about the deficit and about how we ought to resolve the deficit, it is not caused by the defense budget.

The defense budget is 48 percent of discretionary spending. It was just about the same in the Carter era. The defense budget as a percentage of the total budget is 17 percent, which is 6 percent less than it was in the Carter era. As a percentage of gross domestic product, it is 3.6 percent which, again, is less than it was in the Carter era. The military budget has not caused the deficit that we are dealing with today. In fact, if we could just sustain defense spending at 4 percent of the gross domestic product, which would be an historic low, that would be more than adequate for us to build the kind of force structure that we need to defend our country. That is not too big a sacrifice to pay for this Nation's security.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that reducing the defense budget in the name of reducing the deficit is a false economy. I ask Senators to consider the world situation today. The stability of the international order in the world depends on the reality and the perception of American military power. The more stable the world is, the more hospitable it is to freedom and to our interests, the faster our economy will grow, and the more money we will have available, not just for defense spending but, indeed, for all other obligations of the Government. That is something President Reagan understood. When he became President in 1981, he began building up America's defenses. He had double-digit spending increases in the military budget. He knew that was a key aspect of winning the Cold War. He got the attention of the Soviets. After a few years, they decided it was not worth it to try to compete with the United States in that arena. That was one of the key factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. And the freedom that resulted from that, the end of the isolation of Eastern Europe, the opportunities that were unleashed on the world are one of the reasons that we had unparalleled economic growth all throughout the 1990s, which then enabled us to balance the budget and eventually get to a surplus.

If, as a result of budget-driven decisions, we reduce the defense budget beneath what is minimally adequate, we create a sense of instability in the world, a doubt about our resolution to maintain our obligations and to protect our freedom. If that even minimally increases the possibility of a confrontation somewhere in the world, it will affect our economic opportunities and our economic growth far more than anything we could possibly save by reducing the defense budget, to put it on just as low and cold a level as possible. A strong defense, the perception of American will and resolution is good for the economy. It is necessary if we are going to grow as a country, create jobs, and generate the kind of revenue that will allow us to address the deficit.

I offer a personal note on behalf of this issue. The men and women who defend us in our military are the finest people who have ever served in any military service at any time in the Nation's history. They know the obligation that they are undertaking. They undertake it willingly. Over Veterans Day, I attended a few rallies around Missouri. I like to do that in commemoration of the men and women who have served. I was in Lebanon, MO, and met a number of our service personnel who were there. One of them was a recent enlistee in the National Guard, a young man who was proud to wear his country's uniform, proud at the prospect that he might be actively involved, as I am sure he will be, in helping our Nation win the war against terror.

We had an opportunity to visit. He understood that in doing that, he was doing something very important, very large. He was sacrificing, and his sacrifice was a measure of the value he placed on the freedom of his country and the security of his family.

Those young men and women in America's military will keep faith with us. They are going to do what we ask and expect them to do to protect us. We owe it to them, particularly in the Congress. We owe it to them, to keep faith with them. They protect us. They count on us to protect them, to do what we know is necessary to provide them with what they need to do their jobs.

Let's live up to that. Let's have confidence that doing the right thing, meeting our obligations with regard to the national defense, is the best way to approach the future, both economically and as a matter of foreign policy and as a matter of the Nation's security.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are offering an amendment that we believe is crucial to providing our Armed Forces with the air transport capabilities they

need. The amendment has been cosponsored by Chairman Warner and Senators Stevens, Boxer, Feinstein, Cornyn, Chambliss, and others. In addition, we have worked closely with the chairman and Senator Levin and committee staff, and the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I am grateful to the managers of the bill for their work on this important legislation.

The Defense Department's current intertheater airlift requirement was established by the Mobility Requirement Study, called MRS-05, which was released in December 2000. That study identified the airlift necessary to conduct high-priority missions in support of two major theater wars. That was the national military strategy at the time, to be able to conduct two major theater wars at the same time.

Even back in 2001, recently retired TRANSCOM Commander, GEN John Handy, identified the Department's pre-September 11 intertheater airlift requirements as inadequate. He characterized that study, which was a pre-9/11 study, shortly after its release as a historical document, not of great value, because in his judgment it significantly underestimated the true airlift requirements of the Department even at that time. I will expand on this point in a few minutes.

We are now learning that the Department's most recent study has completely failed to readjust the airlift requirement in light of all the different missions in which the United States is now and will be engaged for years to come--the global war on terror, international humanitarian relief missions, expanded special operations and training, to say nothing of our need to support the underlying national military strategy needs.

The C-17 is the primary intertheater air transport used by the United States to deploy and sustain forces overseas. It has delivered 70 percent of the cargo airlifted into Iraq. It has turned in stellar performances in theaters from Kosovo to Afghanistan to the global war on terror in all its various locations. In addition, the C-17 played a key role in several recent humanitarian relief missions, including the response to the gulf coast hurricanes and the earthquake in Pakistan.

The Chief of Staff for the Air Force, GEN Michael Moseley, recently said that the C-17 has ``proven its worth in gold.''

The real question before the Senate is not whether we need additional intertheater airlift but how much more airlift is required. The Air Force's longstanding position, reiterated time and again over the last few years, has been at least 222 C-17s--42 more than the planned procurement of 180 aircraft--are needed to meet growing airlift requirements. General Handy repeatedly testified that 222 C-17s would be the minimum necessary to meet our airlift requirements and that even more may be needed, and this is in addition to other programs for increasing the lift capabilities of the Department.

The Department's decision regarding future C-17 production is, we believe, imminent. Senator Lieberman and I believe if we do not procure additional transports, our intertheater airlift capabilities will be inadequate to meet our military's needs. We will lack the lift capability needed to deploy and adequately sustain forces overseas.

While our primary responsibilities must be to our military personnel and national security, there is also a significant economic stake for many States. C-17 production generates approximately $8.4 billion in economic activity and is supported by 702 suppliers in 42 States. This is a major industrial base issue. St. Louis is one of the essential suppliers of components for the C-17. I have had the privilege of visiting workers who build parts for the plane.

There are over 1,800 people throughout Missouri who help build the C- 17, which generates more than $776 million in economic impact. States such as California, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Connecticut, Florida, and Washington have over 491 C-17 suppliers that generate over $5.5 billion of economic activity in these States alone.

Despite the facts I recited before about airlift, it has been reported that the draft version of the new Mobility Capabilities Study recommends no further C-17 production beyond 180 aircraft, at least 42 transports short of the minimum number required. Incredibly, the new Mobility Capabilities Study calls for the same transport force structure planned before 9/11, and it sets forth the same airlift requirement in the pre-9/11 days. Again, even before 9/11, the head of TRANSCOM, General Handy, said the Department's estimate of its airlift requirement was out of date. Yet the draft study doesn't increase that requirement, even given the undeniable additional needs since the global war on terror began.

The Talent-Lieberman amendment would accomplish three objectives to protect the lift capability needed to deploy and sustain forces overseas.

First, it would authorize a multiyear contract for the purchase of up to 42 additional C-17 aircraft.

Second, the amendment urges the Secretary of the Air Force to sustain the production line by procuring a minimum sustaining production rate of C-17s per year at least until further assessment of airlift needs are completed.

Third, it requires the Secretary of Defense to certify whether there is a need for additional C-17s by assessing the additional intertheater airlift requirements generated by seven factors which have to be considered but which were not considered, we believe, in the flawed mobility study, including the Army's shift to brigade combat teams, its goal of deploying a brigade anywhere in the world in 4 to 7 days, and a division anywhere in the world in 10 days, our increased involvement in international humanitarian relief missions and deployment back to the United States of forces as part of the Global Posture Review.

We cannot pull back from forward bases around the world. We cannot adapt increased requirements for being able to move substantial forces of the Army around the world. We cannot fight a global war on terror everywhere and perform humanitarian relief functions around the world. We cannot do these things without adequate lift.

What is at stake is the ability of the United States to project its military power on the world and to project aid where necessary on a humanitarian basis around the world. It is this airlift which enables us to do the other transformational things in the military which are the way we hope to sustain an adequate military force while also having some economies.

Senator Lieberman and I offer this amendment because intertheater airlift is the means by which our forces deploy on short notice anywhere in the world and a primary means by which we sustain deployed forces. When the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the recently retired head of TRANSCOM, and others who understand the central importance of airlift for our services tell us about how vital this aircraft is to the military's air transport needs, we believe it is prudent to take their word for it and plan accordingly.

It is my understanding this amendment has been agreed to on both sides. We are certainly grateful for that. I appreciate the leadership of the floor managers in being able to reach that agreement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

That is correct.

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

Madam President, I congratulate my friend from Oregon for his fine work.

Briefly, as a very strong supporter of exploring for oil in the Arctic, one of the big reasons we are doing it is to enhance our national security and our own domestic oil supply, which is why I support the amendment I am cosponsoring.

I can do it in about 5 minutes.

I thank the Senator for his ingenuous unanimous consent request allowing me to go forward, and I will just take a few minutes to talk about ANWR in general.

I am going to offer an amendment relating to this portion of the bill later, but right now I just want to tick this down for a minute as to what I see as the essentials of this issue.

With the greatest respect to those who oppose this operation, the exploration of oil, I don't understand what coherent philosophy-- regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, I don't understand what coherent philosophy would advocate cutting your own nation off from oil within its borders.

Now, I know I have heard the argument that we need an energy future that is not anywhere near as dependent on traditional sources of energy, and I agree with that. I am the last person in the world to argue with that. I led the fight on this side of the aisle for the renewable fuels standard, which mandates that by the year 2001, 27.5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel be in the Nation's fuel supply to replace oil and gasoline.

I am a huge believer that within a few years we are going to be filling up with fuel that we get from corn and from soybeans and other sources. I think that is the future of our country, but we are still going to need some oil, and certainly in the short term we are going to need oil and, to me, it makes sense to be able to produce it ourselves.

Concerns have been raised about the environment, and if we were not requiring that it be done in the environmentally most sensitive way, I would not support it. But the same people who raise those concerns place tremendous confidence in the ability of American technology to create alternative sources of energy, the technology of which is embryonic--hydrogen or wind. Now, I support those, as well, but if you believe that technology can get us to the point where we can do those things and create a lot of energy in that fashion, and that is a long way down the read, you have to believe the technology is adequate to be able to explore for this oil in a way that will be sensitive to the environment. We are already using that technology here and around the world. If we don't get the oil in the Arctic using the most environmentally sensitive means, we are going to have to import it from countries where I have no confidence in what they are doing to the environment.

Concerns have been raised about the oil companies. Whatever you think we should do with the oil companies, whatever restrictions we should put on them or other kinds of measures to make sure they don't gouge for the price of oil, we still need the oil. Socialist countries explore for oil within their own boundaries.

So I am down to the point of saying, Mr. President, I do not see why we should not do this, and I do know it is going to create jobs. I did want to rise and make that point because this makes a lot of difference to people in Missouri. The Senator from Alaska talked very compellingly about the difference it makes on the ground for people in Alaska. It makes a difference in

Missouri, too. An estimated 14,000 new jobs, good jobs will be created in Missouri alone if we explore for oil in the Arctic because of the collateral-related jobs around the country. That is one of the reasons the Missouri Laborers Council, the Carpenters' District Counsel of St. Louis, that represent, respectively, 13,000 and 22,000 members, strongly support this measure.

Mr. President, we should do it carefully. We should do it with a view toward the concerns that have been raised, but the concerns are not a reason not to do it. I know people have said, well, it is not going to produce much oil. A conservative estimate is 10 billion gallons. I think it will be a lot more than that.

Prudhoe Bay was estimated to hold only 9 billion barrels of oil. The production today is at 13 billion, and it is still producing. I think there is a lot of oil in the ANWR to get, but even if there is not so much there, it is no reason not to get it. We can do it the right way. We should have done it a long time ago, and we certainly should do it now.

I yield back any time I have not used.

Mr. President, let me make a parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I have now?

Mr. President, that is the time remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I understand we are under time constraints, and I will be brief.

I think the Senator from Oregon has made the case very persuasively. I congratulate him for raising this important issue in committee. I was concerned that if we attached this provision in committee, it might subject the whole provision relating to the ANWR part of the bill to a budget point of order, and I did not want to imperil that part of the bill.

As I said before, when I spoke on the Senate floor, I simply do not see any reason why we should cut ourselves off from accessing oil in our own country. But I think the Senator's amendment, and my amendment, is a natural supplement to the underlying purpose of exploring for oil in the Arctic. It is to increase our national security. It is to lower prices in the United States. It is to make certain we have access to oil when we need it.

In order to do that, I think we have to be certain that the oil does not go on the world market but, rather, is reserved for the needs of the United States.

Not only is this right economically because, as the Senator said, it is important, if we are going to meet the budget targets in this bill, that we have access to this oil here in the United States, it is also very important as a hedge against foreign boycotts or threats or oil blackmail that somebody may want to use against the United States. The Senator is correct, this is not something the oil companies are going to like, but this is something that is in the interest of the national security of the United States. I am grateful to him for bringing forward this idea and happy to support him in it and grateful also to the bill managers for their attitude toward it.

I yield back my time.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

As always, the Senator speaks with candor, and I very much appreciate that. I want to hone in on the last point the Senator made. We are not voting on this now, and we don't have to consider it now. If we can keep an open mind to see if there is some way we can work this out in the meantime, I am sure the Senator from Oregon feels the same way. I understand entirely his reservations.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of an amendment that the Senate has agreed to, the amendment offered by Senator Cochran adding $12 million for health care for historically underserved communities, including $2 million to help fund the Sickle Cell Treatment Act that was passed last year.

I thank Senator Cochran for his concern and sensitivity on the issue of funding the Sickle Cell Treatment Act. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for similarly showing sensitivity to the importance of funding this bill and funding health care in historically underserved areas. With this additional $2 million, we will be able to get the program off the ground, begin designating sickle cell disease outreach centers, and provide additional grants for medical treatment, education, and other health care services for sickle cell patients.

I can't emphasize enough how much the leadership of these Senators means to the community of people who are affected by this disease, not just the 70,000 Americans who have it, not just the 2.5 million Americans who have the trait, but their families and friends who struggle every day with this disease. I thank the bill managers for accepting the amendment and thank Senator Cochran for offering it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour under majority control be allocated as follows: 15 minutes for Senator Talent, 10 minutes for Senator Vitter, 15 minutes for Senator Thune, and 20 minutes for Senator Bunning.

Mr. President, it is really a privilege for me to spend a few minutes visiting with the Senate about Judge Roberts. He is probably the most analyzed and evaluated Supreme Court nominee ever. Based on my study of his record and my discussions with him--which have certainly not been extensive but have been enough to help me get a feel for the man--I believe that he will turn out to be one of the best Chief Justices ever.

We have learned a great deal about who he is. We know about his extraordinary professional accomplishments. We have seen the overwhelming bipartisan support that he has earned from his colleagues in the legal profession. We heard from John Roberts himself on the rule of law, on the judicial role, and the kind of service he intends to provide to the Nation as Chief Justice should the Senate confirm him.

I said before he is one of the most analyzed and evaluated Supreme Court nominees. He spent almost 20 hours before the Judiciary Committee while Senators asked him 673 questions. Senators then asked him 243 more questions in writing. And I am sure he thought the bar exam was a struggle. Judge Roberts provided nearly 3,000 pages to the Judiciary Committee, including his published articles, congressional testimony, transcripts from interviews, speeches, and panel discussions, and material related to the dozens of cases he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Judiciary Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of material in the public domain. And as if all of that were not enough, the committee obtained a staggering 82,943 pages of additional material from the National Archives and both the Reagan and Bush Libraries regarding Judge Roberts' service in those administrations.

If you total that up, there was more than 100,000 pages of material on a 50-year-old nominee, which amounts to 2,000 pages for every year of his life.

What did all that material reveal? Simply put, that Judge Roberts is one of the finest nominees ever to come before the Senate. His professional record speaks for itself, but I am going to speak about it for a minute.

He was an excellent student. He graduated from Harvard--I can forgive him that--in only 3 years as an undergrad. I am a University of Chicago lawyer myself. He became the top graduate in law school and became editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review. He served as clerk for Judge Friendly, who was, by consensus, one of the greatest circuit court judges ever. He served as clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He went on to become Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. He became one of the top partners in one of the top law firms in the country and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. In 2003, he was confirmed unanimously by this Senate to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

We learned a lot about him as a person as well. He embodies the idea of being fair, being thoughtful, and being capable. He is certainly hard working. He is certainly brilliant. He managed his testimony before the Judiciary Committee without a note. He is a man of integrity, he is honest, and he is devoted to his family.

Those are the qualities we want in the men and women who serve our Nation on the High Court. They are the kind of qualities that will move America forward and move the judicial branch forward, and more on that in a minute or two.

He has proven beyond any doubt that he has the qualifications, the temperament, the knowledge, and the understanding to serve as America's next Chief Justice. I was particularly impressed by the humility he showed through the process. I think it is very important that judges have a judicial temperament and, for me, that begins with the idea of service.

When you are a judge, the people who come before you have to treat you with respect because of your position. You should conduct yourself in that position so they want to treat you with respect, they feel that is owing to you, not just because of your office but because of how you conduct yourself in office.

I would hazard to say even those who will oppose his nomination for other reasons would agree that he has that kind of a temperament. He wants to be on the Court because he loves the law, and he wants to be a judge because he wants to serve the United States of America. Those are the right reasons to want to be on the Supreme Court of the United States.

We have had this opinion ratified by the individuals who know him the best--by his colleagues on the bar, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have overwhelmingly supported his elevation to the Supreme Court. I think it is very important when you look at judicial nominees to make certain they have support from people from all parts of the political spectrum and all parts of the jurisprudential spectrum.

A point I made on other occasions on this floor about judicial nominations is that it is misleading in a way 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 statutes and interpreting the Constitution. They may differ as to theories or constructs, if you will, as they approach different parts of the Constitution.

There is not one mainstream, and often 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. Just because reasonable people looking at the history and the text of the document might disagree as to what is exactly the right answer does not mean there are no wrong answers.

The wrong answer, as Judge Roberts said so eloquently and so often in his testimony, is one that does not respect the rule of law. 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 in issue. Whatever their theory of interpreting the Constitution is, they should be consistent in applying it. They should be circumscribed by their own jurisprudence. They should have a standard against which they measure their decisions, and that standard has to be other than their own predilections on the underlying issue.

It is one thing to be ruled, to some extent, by judges. We are talking about officers of the Government. So the decisions have the power of law, and we have always, to some extent and in appropriate ways, been ruled by judges. It is another point to be ruled by judicial whim. This is the distinction Judge Roberts made over and over again, for which I think we should all be grateful.

Because of his attitude in that respect, more than 150 Democratic and Republican members of the DC Bar, including well-known Democrats such as

Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman, wrote to the Senate calling Judge Roberts one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the Nation.

The American Bar Association has given Judge Roberts a rating of ``unanimously well-qualified,'' its highest possible rating. As Steve Tober, the chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, explained: Judge Roberts has the admiration and respect of his colleagues on and off the bench, and he is, as we have found, the very definition of collegial. This is another quality that I hope and believe Judge Roberts will bring to the role of Chief Justice. I think he can operate in that Court in a way that pulls the Justices together where their convictions honestly allow them to be pulled together. It is one thing to disagree when you have strongly different opinions on the jurisprudential matters before the Court; it is another to disagree because over time you have become part of one faction or you have become alienated or estranged on some other grounds from some of the other Justices.

That is not good, and I believe, just my gut opinion after talking with him and watching him is that this is a person who can lower the temperature on the Court, who can shed light rather than just heat on many of the issues that are before the Court.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I did not want my eloquence to outstrip the time I had available, Mr. President, so thank you for that.

We have heard a lot from Judge Roberts himself, and maybe it is good for me to close by quoting some of what he has said about the judicial function. I thought he did an excellent job of explaining to people what the judicial role is. Of course, to explain something clearly you have to, to some extent, oversimplify it, and he admitted the times he was doing that.

He talked about the judge being the umpire, and somebody else basically writes the rules. The judge is the umpire. Believe me, that gives plenty of discretion and authority to the judge to develop the law in one direction or another but to develop it within the constraints of an objective rule of law.

Judge Roberts said about this:

If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of

their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and

said, ``Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to

the judges.'' That would have been the farthest thing from

their mind. Now judges have to decide hard questions when

they come up in the context of a particular case. That is

their obligation. But they have to decide those questions

according to the rule of law, not their own social

preferences, not their policy views, not their personal

preferences, but according to the rule of law.

That leaves room for Supreme Court Justices, for the rule of law, to include their views developed over time carefully with respect to colleagues and arguments from litigants about how particular provisions of the Constitution ought best to be interpreted in a range of cases so as to reflect the purposes of the document and the impulses of the Framers.

There is room there for that, but always according to the rule of law, not according to a desire to make the case or make the result be a particular thing, or to make Americans live the way the judge wants them to live, rather than the way they have chosen to live in the decisions they make about their own lives or the decisions they make through their representatives. I think Judge Roberts understands that. He understands that is a judicial role with which we can all live.

He clerked for Judge Henry Friendly. Another great court of appeals judge--he had an interesting name--was Learned Hand. If I had met his parents, I would have asked them why they called him Learned Hand, but they did. Judge Hand said one time, and he was referring to the same thing Judge Roberts was referring to about the rule of law: I would not choose to be governed by a bevy of platonic guardians even if I knew how to choose them, which I most assuredly do not.

The first right, the first birthright of every American, is to participate through the representative process in their own governance. The first and most basic right is the right to govern yourself through the processes set up in our Constitution. And it is not out of a desire to avoid difficult decisions but out of a respect for that right that Judge Roberts talked about the rule of law. He manifested in those hearings a confidence that I think we should all reflect on in the judgment and the decency of the American people. It is OK, whether your views about social policy are on the rightwing or whether they are on the leftwing, whether they are someplace in the middle, it is OK basically to leave the development of our culture and our society to the wisdom and the decency of the American people. The center will hold. The people will move us in an orderly and decent direction as they have for 200 years. We don't need to be ruled by platonic guardians or dictators, whether they are in the form of judges or anybody else. There is plenty of scope, in the Senate, on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and in the Supreme Court building as well, for the exercise of individual leadership and appropriate discretion to try to move the people in a direction that we think is appropriate, with their consent. But there is no reason to feel out of some fit of desperation or panic that courts or anybody else have to make the American people do something they have not chosen the orderly processes to do. That is what Judge Roberts meant when he was talking about the rule of law.

That is why I believe, because of that and also his professional qualifications, he is going to do an outstanding job as Chief Justice of the United States, and that is why I think he will be confirmed by an overwhelming majority of this body.

I thank the Chair, and I yield back whatever remains of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a historically significant anniversary for one of Southeast Missouri's most widely recognized and respected institutions. For the past year, the Southeast Missourian, located in Cape Girardeau, MO, has been celebrating its grand centennial.

Its first issue rolled off the presses on October 3, 1904, with George and Fred Naeter at the helm. The brothers had purchased the small business with hopes of one day transforming it into the thriving company thousands of faithful readers are familiar with today. After a number changes, the Southeast Missourian was formally dedicated on September 11, 1925, at 301 Broadway.

Over the past several decades, the Southeast Missourian has provided timely reporting of the important changes in the region. Much of the area surrounding Cape Girardeau is rural. The Southeast Missourian has been a primary source of information to those readers. They depend on the Southeast Missourian for local, statewide, national and world news.

From the reports on flooding along the banks of the Mississippi River, to the birth announcements in the Sunday edition, the Southeast Missourian has a unique appeal that is difficult to match. They have set a precedent for excellence in print journalism with the underlying theme of community and public service. It's been a personal privilege over the years to be covered by the paper's news department and to discuss ideas with its editorial board.

The Southeast Missourian has been instrumental in collaborating with its host city of Cape Girardeau to strengthen the community through local enterprise. And year after year the newspaper continues to give back countless chartable donations and sponsorships to the community.

I express my sincerest gratitude to the entire staff, past and present, for their contribution and dedication in making the Southeast Missourian the publication it is today. I extend warm congratulations to the Rust family, which has continued to raise the bar year after year in achieving excellence for fair and objective journalism. Joe Sullivan, the editor of the paper, in particular deserves credit for his hard work and professionalism. I hope for the next 100 years, the Southeast Missourian will continue to make a difference for the good in Southeast Missouri.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

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

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, this amendment, which I am offering on behalf of myself and Mr. Pryor, the Senator from Arkansas, is an attempt to address a development within the Department of Agriculture. The Department is proposing closing about a quarter to a third of the Farm Service Agency's local offices around the country, including, as far as we can tell, around 30 out of the 90 offices in Missouri, the object, according to the Department, being to modernize and consolidate functions and to provide better service.

Certainly nobody is opposed to better service. But I want to emphasize something here. The key with regard to how we handle FSA offices has to be service to the agricultural community and to our producers. The idea is accessibility. The idea is responsiveness. The idea is not necessarily somebody's planning in Washington about how they would organize everything in the United States if they could do it exactly the way they wanted.

I am a little concerned about changing our FSA offices when, from what I am told back in Missouri, there has been little or no consultation either with local FSA people or with producer organizations, more particularly farmers or the affected communities. I don't know how we can do this in a way that emphasizes service, acceptability, and accountability without having to talk to the people whom we are trying to serve.

The amendment basically says hold up on this until we have an opportunity for that kind of accessibility and that kind of accountability.

Again, I am not saying--and I don't think Mr. Pryor is saying either--that no consolidation is possible. I imagine it is possible in Missouri. We certainly want to look at how we can modernize these offices so we can perform better service. But we have to remember that these are the offices our producers have to go to any time they want to deal with any of the Government's various programs that affect them. Some of them in Missouri are already driving 30, 40 minutes, or more than that, and if they drive and they don't have all the forms they need, or they left something at home, they have to go all the way home, get it, and turn around and come back.

When you are proposing eliminating some of those offices when they are already difficult to access, in many cases, I think that is something we need to look at. I certainly believe we need more consolidation, at least in Missouri, than we have had now.

That is all this amendment says. I appreciate very much the bill managers working with us. I understand they are going to be willing to accept the amendment. I appreciate that. I pledge to work with them in conference.

This language isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all with regard to this issue. I think they see what Senator Pryor and I are driving at, and I think everybody would agree this is something we want to do with consultation and discussions with the affected communities--in particular the affected producer and producer groups. They are not opposed to making the Farm Service Agency work better. We all know the problems that have sometimes occurred. But we have potentially disaster relief coming down the pike, and I certainly hope so for producers who have been affected negatively by the hurricane, or by drought. We have another farm bill that is not that far away. We need to do this right, if we are going to do it. That is what the amendment says.

I appreciate the support of the Senator from Utah, and certainly pledge to work with him and his ranking member in conference on this amendment.

I yield the floor.