[Senate Document 109-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
From the Senate Documents Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
From the Senate Documents Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
S. Doc. 109-35
TRIBUTES TO HON. JAMES M. TALENT
James M. Talent
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
TRIBUTES
IN THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES
James M. Talent
Tributes
Delivered in Congress
James M. Talent
United States Congressman
1993-2001
United States Senator
2002-2007
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2007
Compiled under the direction
of the
Joint Committee on Printing
CONTENTS
Biography.............................................
v
Farewell to the Senate................................
xiii
Proceedings in the Senate:
Tributes by Senators:
Alexander, Lamar, of Tennessee.................
4
Allen, George, of Virginia.....................
5
Bond, Christopher S., of Missouri..............
8
Bunning, Jim, of Kentucky......................
17
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, of New York...........
11
Collins, Susan M., of Maine....................
18
DeWine, Mike, of Ohio..........................
11
Dodd, Christopher J., of Connecticut...........
11
Dole, Elizabeth, of North Carolina.............
20
Durbin, Richard, of Illinois...................
6
Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming...................
14
Frist, William H., of Tennessee................
18
Hagel, Chuck, of Nebraska......................
3
Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah.......................
12
Hutchison, Kay Bailey, of Texas................
17
Kyl, Jon, of Arizona...........................
11
Landrieu, Mary L., of Louisiana................
11
Nelson, Bill, of Florida.......................
5
Reed, Jack, of Rhode Island....................
4
Salazar, Ken, of Colorado......................
6
Snowe, Olympia J., of Maine....................
16
Stevens, Ted, of Alaska........................
18
Warner, John, of Virginia......................
7
Biography
Senator Jim Talent was born and raised in Des Peres, MO.
He graduated from Kirkwood High School in 1973 and
attended Washington University in St. Louis, where he
received the Arnold J. Lien Prize as the most outstanding
undergraduate in political science. He graduated Order of
the Coif from the University of Chicago Law School in 1981
and clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of
Appeals from 1982 through 1983. Jim and his wife, Brenda,
were married in 1984. They have three children: Michael,
Kate, and Chrissy.
In 1984, at the age of 28, Senator Talent was elected to
the Missouri House of Representatives, where he served for
8 years and succeeded in passing numerous pieces of
legislation, including legislative efforts to build roads,
toughen drug laws, secure taxpayer rights and reduce
taxes. At the age of 32, Senator Talent was unanimously
chosen by his colleagues as the minority leader, the
highest ranking Republican leadership position in the
Missouri House. He served in that capacity until 1992 when
he was elected to Congress from Missouri's Second
District.
As a freshman Congressman, Jim Talent introduced the
Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994, which subsequently became
the basis for the historic bipartisan welfare reform bill,
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996. The legislation has resulted in 4.2 million people
moving from dependency on the government to jobs and self-
sufficiency.
Senator Talent served for 8 years on the Armed Services
Committee. In that capacity, he waged a long battle
against both the Clinton administration and budget hawks
in his own party to protect America's armed forces from
cuts in size and funding. Also as a freshman, Senator
Talent formed a special congressional committee to address
the decline in readiness of America's military.
Senator Talent was a member of the House Armed Services
Committee in 1997 when, in order to save money, the
Republican leadership of that committee attempted to
discontinue production of the Missouri-built F-18 Super
Hornet. This carrier-based aircraft was the Navy's top
acquisition priority for a number of years running and was
considered the key to the ability of the United States to
project power through its aircraft carriers in the decades
to come. The effort to discontinue the aircraft succeeded
in subcommittee, but Senator Talent led an initiative
against his own party leadership to restore the aircraft
in full committee. That effort succeeded on a close,
bipartisan vote, as the full committee overruled its own
chairman and subcommittee--a highly unusual outcome in
Congress.
The F-18 Super Hornet has since exceeded all
expectations and has become the linchpin of naval
aviation. The aircraft continues to earn the wholehearted
praise of Navy pilots for its performance off the USS
Abraham Lincoln and in the skies over Iraq. The Super
Hornet directly employs nearly 10,000 people in Missouri
and Senator Talent's initiative helped sustain and create
thousands of jobs for Missourians.
For 8 years, Senator Talent served on the House Small
Business Committee. In 1997, he was named chairman of the
committee where he was the youngest chairman in Congress.
In that capacity he fought successfully for tax and
regulatory relief for small business people across
America. In particular, he succeeded in permitting small
business men and women to deduct the cost of their health
insurance, restoring the tax deduction for those operating
businesses at home, helping women start their own
businesses and bolstering loan programs to help
individuals who want to start their own small businesses.
During this period the Congress also took the first steps
toward eliminating the estate tax--one of Senator Talent's
priorities.
He twice passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives
Association Health Plans legislation that would permit
small business people to join together and buy health
insurance through their trade associations--legislation
that would reduce by millions the number of uninsured
people in the country without any cost to the taxpayer.
Under Senator Talent's leadership, the Small Business
Committee became the most bipartisan in the House. Senator
Talent constantly promoted the idea that small business is
the avenue of opportunity for people of all backgrounds
and socio-economic status. In addition, as chairman,
Senator Talent was scrupulous in respecting the
prerogatives of all the members of the Small Business
Committee, including those of the other party. As a
result, the committee passed an overwhelming number of
bills without a single dissenting Democrat vote, which
made Senator Talent's committee one of the most effective
in the 106th Congress.
Senator Talent fought to preserve and protect Social
Security and voted to strengthen and save Medicare. He
voted to make prescription drugs affordable and available
for all seniors. In addition, Senator Talent was an
original co-sponsor of the first Patients' Bill of Rights
that passed the House in 1998, and was selected to serve
on the Patients' Bill of Rights conference committee in
2000.
For 6 years Senator Talent served on the House Education
and Workforce Committee. He was a consistent advocate of
safe schools and empowering parents and teachers through
greater local control. In 2000, Senator Talent passed
legislation to allow public school authorities to remove
from the classroom students who possessed or used illegal
drugs or committed aggravated assault in school.
Senator Talent believes that the American dream is real
for everyone, and he has worked to keep the commitment
made to veterans for their service to America. Senator
Talent introduced legislation that now offers small
business loans to more than half a million Missouri
veterans and 24 million veterans nationwide. He championed
the Missing Service Persons Act that expanded the legal
rights of the families of POWs and the missing in action,
so that the Department of Defense must on a regular basis
reexamine each individual case.
Senator Talent joined with former Representative J.C.
Watts (R-OK), former Representative Floyd Flake (D-NY),
and Representative Danny Davis (D-IL) to design the most
comprehensive anti-poverty initiatives ever considered by
Congress. The Community Renewal Act was crafted to empower
local neighborhood groups, pastors and community leaders
by providing the tools they need to create good jobs,
decent housing, new businesses and safe neighborhoods.
After 5 years of hard work, the legislation was signed
into law by President Bill Clinton who lauded Senator
Talent for his bipartisan efforts to reduce poverty in
America.
Senator Talent led the effort to allow our producers to
add value to their commodities through innovative
agriculture enterprises. He fought for agriculture
assistance centers and tax incentives that would aid our
producers, help bolster the economy and create jobs in
rural America.
Senator Talent has been a leader in the fight for
important transportation and infrastructure projects in
Missouri and he has succeeded in raising the visibility of
the road issue as a safety issue. He spearheaded efforts
to secure the construction of four Missouri levees and to
improve Mississippi River infrastructure in the State's
Second Congressional District.
Senator Talent campaigned for the U.S. Senate on a
platform of health care, job creation, economic growth and
national defense. Missourians elected him to serve the
State in the U.S. Senate in November 2002. Previously,
Senator Talent served 8 years in the U.S. House of
Representatives (1993-2001) and 8 years in the Missouri
House (1985-1992). During his service in the Senate,
Senator Talent passed over 30 pieces of bipartisan
legislation into law.
Senator Talent served on four key Senate committees:
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; Armed Services;
Energy and Natural Resources; and the Special Committee on
Aging.
As a freshman Senator, he held numerous Senate
leadership positions. Senator Talent was the chairman of
the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee and the chairman
of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Marketing,
Inspection, and Product Promotion. In addition, Senator
Talent was a member of President Bush's Export Council,
the Senate Republican Task Force on Health Care Costs and
the Uninsured, and he was elected to serve as a deputy
whip.
As Missouri's health care Senator, Talent introduced the
Small Business Health Fairness Act to increase access to
health care for small business owners and their employees
through Association Health Plans (AHPs). The bill would
provide health insurance for millions of uninsured
Americans by allowing small business men and women to
purchase health care plans for themselves and their
employees through trade associations.
To help more than 70,000 individuals, mostly African
Americans, with Sickle Cell Disease, Senator Talent and
Senator Chuck Schumer passed into law the Sickle Cell
Disease Treatment Act to help expand treatment and
services for patients with this disease. This legislation
was called the most significant Sickle Cell Disease
legislation passed in a generation.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Talent led efforts to increase defense spending and
provide for our men and women in uniform.
Senator Talent and Senator Lieberman led the successful
fight to save the C-17 Globemaster Program. The C-17 is
the finest military transport in the world. It is able to
carry troops, vehicles and supplies to any point on the
globe making its reliability and versatility unmatched.
The Senators worked across the aisle to secure $2.1
billion for the purchase of 10 additional aircraft to
extend the production line, saving thousands of Missouri
jobs.
In addition, Senator Talent, along with Senator Hillary
Clinton, passed the Military Health Readiness Act which
required pre- and post-deployment screenings for our
troops. This law addresses a major health care issue that
arose from the first Gulf war, in which some service men
and women returned home with symptoms of an illness
commonly referred to as Gulf war illness. The Talent-
Clinton measure provides a before and after snapshot of
the medical fitness of every service member deployed to a
theater of war so the results can then be compared to help
determine whether or not an individual, or their unit, was
exposed to a dangerous substance or pathogen.
Senator Talent and Senator Bill Nelson passed into law
the Servicemembers Anti-Predatory Lending Protection Act
which stops predatory payday lending practices targeted at
our service men and women by limiting the rate that payday
lenders can charge soldiers and their spouses for a loan.
A coalition of more than 75 veterans, civil rights, and
consumer organizations supported the legislation.
To ensure our Nation is able to produce the most up-to-
date equipment for the men and women who defend the United
States, Senator Talent introduced and passed legislation
directing the Army to develop a comprehensive plan to
modernize the munitions production facilities in the
United States. Much of the materiel and manufacturing
equipment at our Nation's munitions facilities is more
than 60 years old. This legislation called on the Army to
develop a strategic plan to modernize these important
manufacturing facilities to increase capacity, further
improve quality, and ensure their continued reliability.
Senator Talent sought to increase transportation
infrastructure funding by partnering with Senator Ron
Wyden to push their $50 billion Build America bonds
legislation. They successfully included $15 billion in
highway infrastructure bonds in the 2005 highway bill,
which will provide innovative financing for some of the
Nation's most challenging and critical transportation
projects.
A member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator
Talent was a champion of measures to encourage the
production of alternative fuels to decrease America's
dependence on foreign oil and encourage investment and job
creation in rural America. Senator Talent and Senator
Blanche Lincoln passed legislation expanding the small
ethanol producer tax credit to those who produce up to 60
million gallons of ethanol annually and establish the tax
credit for small biodiesel producers who make up to 60
million gallons of biodiesel per year. He also worked
closely with Senator Barack Obama to pass a law to
encourage greater availability of alternative fuels.
As a member of the Energy Committee, Senator Talent
supported a pro-jobs, pro-growth energy bill to help
stimulate the economy, reduce energy prices, and increase
our energy independence. In summer 2005, Senator Talent
led the fight to add a renewable fuels standard to the
energy bill. Senator Talent succeeded and now 7.5 billion
gallons of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel must
be added to the Nation's fuel supply by 2012, decreasing
America's dependence on foreign oil and creating thousands
of jobs.
Working with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Talent
succeeded in passing the toughest, most comprehensive
anti-methamphetamine bill ever enacted into law. The
Combat Meth Act restricts nationally the ingredients
needed to cook methamphetamine. It also provides critical
tools to help law enforcement fight meth in our
communities. The President signed the Talent-Feinstein
Combat Meth Act into law in 2006.
Senator Talent successfully passed a measure as part of
the bankruptcy reform law that prevents corporate officers
who commit fraud in running a corporation and others from
defrauding their creditors in so-called ``asset protection
trusts.'' Prior to the passage of Talent's law, if a
corporate executive was convicted of a crime, victims were
virtually helpless to go after resources transferred into
a trust. Talent's amendment allowed victims to go after
any resource transferred into the trust by a corporate
criminal, preventing fraudulent transfers to these trusts.
Senator Talent and Senator Christopher Dodd introduced
and passed out of the Senate the Emmett Till Unsolved
Civil Rights Crime Act to create a ``cold case'' unit
within the Department of Justice to investigate and
prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. The
legislation was supported by civil rights leaders
including Alvin Sykes and the family members of victims
who have actively sought justice in these cases.
Minority small business owners who have often been on
the losing side when it comes to competing for Federal
Government contracts got some relief due to legislation
sponsored by Senator Talent and signed into law. Senator
Talent's legislation saves minority small business owners
thousands of dollars by lifting a very significant
paperwork burden off of minority contractors who wish to
do business with the Government. Because of Talent's
efforts, once a disadvantaged small business is certified
at the Federal level it no longer will have to go through
recertification at the State and local levels. This new
law specifically applies to small businesses who qualify
for the Small Business Administration's Section 8(a)
Program, a business development program to help small
disadvantaged businesses compete in the American economy
and access the Federal procurement market.
Senator Talent successfully fought to reauthorize the
Nation's welfare programs based on the sound values of
healthy families and work participation. The
reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
passed in 2006 and increased work participation by
requiring 50 percent of the current caseload to be engaged
in work activities. Most States had met the targets of the
1996 law and by 2006 had no incentive to extend the
benefits of work to able-bodied people who remain on the
rolls. This enhancement would help more individuals
achieve independence through work. The law also provides
millions for healthy marriage promotion over the next 5
years, strengthening American families.
Farewell to the Senate
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, my great friend and colleague
from Missouri [Mr. Bond] has an Intelligence Committee
meeting to go to. So he went ahead and gave his kind
tribute [see page 8] before I give my speech, and those
who are not aware of that may have thought that maybe they
would be able to get in short tributes and avoid the long
farewell speech. That is not true.
I will devote my time to a substantive and very
important subject--the appropriate level of funding for
America's military. It is an issue that I have worked on
and fought for since I went to the House of
Representatives in 1993.
I am grateful for my friend's remarks, and I want to say
that I have always enjoyed serving in legislatures, in
part because of the collegial nature of the service. When
you are done, yes--it is the legislation that you worked
on that you want people to remember, but what you remember
are the friendships and the associations and the bonds
that you have made. And, fortunately, those do not end
with your service. I look forward to continuing to visit
with my friends in the Senate for years to come. I hope to
be able to work with them in other venues on issues of
importance to America. Nothing is more important for
America than her security.
Mr. President, America has the most capable military in
the world by a large margin; in fact we have the best
military that has ever served any nation at any time in
human history. We should be proud of that; we should
especially be proud of the men and women who make
America's military what it is. But it would be wrong for
us to believe that because our military is the best in the
world or even the best ever, that it is as capable as it
needs to be. True, America is many times stronger than
other nations, but its responsibilities are many times
greater as well. If Denmark's military is inadequate, it
doesn't matter that much, even to Denmark; if America's
military is inadequate, it matters tremendously, first to
America, but also to the hopes and aspirations of people
throughout the world.
We must understand the importance of this issue very
clearly, without the distortions of ideology, politics,
expediency, or wishful thinking. Like it or not, the
progress of the international order toward peace and
democracy depends on the reality and perception of
American power. Like it or not, America is the first
defender of freedom in the world and therefore always a
prime target for those who hate freedom. And like it or
not, while there are many tools in the basket of western
diplomacy, the underpinning of them all is an American
military establishment which the world knows is capable of
swiftly, effectively and at minimal cost defeating every
substantial threat to our security and to our freedom.
Judged by this standard--the only appropriate standard--
the situation is very grave. I have substantial doubt--as
good as the men and women are--whether our current
military establishment is strong enough. Because of
decisions over the last 15 years driven more by budgetary
than military considerations, our Army and Navy may well
be too small, and much of the equipment in all the
services is too old and increasingly unreliable.
Whatever the current status of the military may be,
there can be no doubt that without a substantial increase
in procurement spending beginning now and sustained over
the next 5 to 10 years--an increase, I suggest to the
Senate today, that must be measured not in billions but in
tens of billions of dollars above current estimates every
year--our military will be set back for a generation. We
will not be able to modernize our forces to the degree
necessary to preserve our security with the necessary
margin of safety.
I said that our current military is too small and
inadequately equipped to execute the national military
strategy. I will not go into detail on this point because
my main focus is on the future, but a brief explanation is
warranted. The world is, on balance, at least as dangerous
today as it was at the end of the cold war. And we may
thank God we are no longer in danger of a massive nuclear
attack from the former Soviet Union, nor is a major land
war in Europe likely.
Against this, however, we are engaged in a global war on
terror that will continue for years to come. The end of
the cold war led to the emergence of dangerous regional
conflicts, such as the conflicts in the Balkans. We are in
greater danger today of a rogue missile attack than ever
before, and China is emerging as a peer competitor much
faster than anyone believed.
These conditions either did not exist, or like the
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, were suppressed during
the cold war. As a result, the operational tempo of our
conventional forces--and that means the rate, intensity
and duration of their deployment--was far higher beginning
in the mid-1990s, even before September 11, than it had
ever been during the cold war. Yet at the beginning of the
1990s, our forces were 30 to 40 percent bigger than today.
For example, the active-duty Army was cut from 18
divisions at the time of Desert Storm to only 10 divisions
by 1994. Don't we wish that we had those additional
divisions today to relieve the pressure in Iraq? The Navy
has gone from 576 ships in the late 1980s to 278 ships
today.
At the same time, procurement budgets have been cut
substantially, far greater than the cuts in force
structure warranted. The contrast in the average annual
procurement of major equipment from two periods--1975 to
1990 and from 1991 to 2000--is startling. For example, we
purchased an average of 78 scout and attack helicopters
each year from 1975 to 1990, and only 7 each year from
1991 to 2000. We purchased an average of 238 Air Force
fighters each year from 1975 to 1990, and an average of
only 28 each year from 1991 to 2000. We purchased five
tanker aircraft each year from 1975 to 1990, an average of
only one per year from 1991 to 2000.
The implications for these dramatic reductions are
profound. Older platforms--that is what the military calls
ships, planes, and vehicles--are rather tired and not
replaced, which means that force structure is reduced.
Military capabilities are reduced. If platforms are not
replaced, the average age of the fleet increases,
readiness levels drop, and the cost of maintaining the
smaller, older inventory climbs rapidly because
maintenance costs increase.
For these reasons, I suggest that the current force
today is too small and its equipment too old, relative to
the requirements of our national military strategy. That
strategy calls for a military capable of defending the
homeland, sustaining four peacekeeping engagements, and
fighting two large-scale regional conflicts, at least, at
approximately the same time. We are supposed to be able to
do all that at once. I believe the requirements of our
military are actually greater than this, but in any event,
we cannot execute even these commitments, and we certainly
will not be able to do so in the future, within an
acceptable level of risk, unless at least the Army is made
bigger and unless all three services have the money to
robustly recapitalize their major platforms with the most
modern equipment.
For years, the various services, in response to pressure
from political authorities to reduce the budget below what
they needed, have delayed or cancelled new programs. They
have been reducing the number of new ships or planes they
say they need, kicking crucial decisions down the
budgetary road, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and otherwise
trying to avoid confronting the approaching funding
crisis.
That crisis is upon us now. We are entering the crucial
phase of recapitalization. Beginning with the next budget
and intensifying over the next 5 to 10 years, the services
are scheduled to bring online the new platforms that will
anchor American security for the next generation. No one
can say these programs are unneeded. The Navy must buy new
destroyers, must ramp up procurement of Virginia-class
submarines, must finalize the design and buy large numbers
of Littoral Combat Ships and design and build a new CG-X
cruiser.
The Air Force must buy large numbers of the F-22. That
is our new air-superiority fighter. We must maintain the
ability to have complete air superiority over any combat
theater. The Air Force must buy large numbers of Joint
Strike Fighters or equivalent aircraft. In addition, the
Air Force must buy out its airlift requirement. That is
how we transport personnel, equipment and supplies from
one place to another in the world. It must build a new
generation of tankers, must design and build a long-range
strike bomber to replace the B-52. Our B-52 inventory is
45 years old.
The Army must rebuild, modernize or replace almost its
entire capital stock of ground combat and support vehicles
including many of its tanks.
The current procurement budget for all three services is
$80.9 billion. Simple budgetary mathematics tells us that
the services cannot possibly meet their crucial
requirements without an average budget over the next 5 to
10 years that I estimate is at least $30 billion higher
than what we are now spending.
Perhaps I have gone into more detail than the Senate is
willing to indulge me in already, but I want to look at
some depth at the situation of the Navy. Here I speak from
what I know because I have been the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Seapower for the last 4 years. Currently,
there are 278 ships in the U.S. Navy. The Navy
shipbuilding plan calls for 326 ships by the year 2020,
eventually settling down to an average of 313 ships. The
plan actually calls for fewer aircraft carriers, a
substantial drop in attack submarines, and fewer major
surface combatants, but it attempts to make up for these
reductions with modern destroyers, more capable submarines
and what it calls pre-positioning ships that allow us to
establish sea bases from which to project forces ashore,
as well as a whole new class of smaller multi-mission
modular vessels called littoral combat ships. There is no
margin whatever for error in this plan. It is, at best,
the minimum necessary for our security.
The Chief of Naval Operations--that is the admiral who
leads the Navy--has estimated the plan will require a
shipbuilding budget of $13.3 billion for fiscal year 2008,
the upcoming budget year. That is $5 billion more than
what was spent this year on shipbuilding. His plan calls
for that figure to escalate to $17.5 billion by 2012. I
believe these figures are too conservative. It is a good-
faith effort to calculate what we need but too
conservative. I think the plan will require billions more
each year to execute. Both the Congressional Budget Office
and the Congressional Research Service agree. In any
event, I say on my oath as a Senator, that it will be
utterly impossible, at current levels of defense spending,
for the Navy to reach and sustain the $13.3 billion
figure, to say nothing of the even higher sums required in
the out-years of the 5-year defense plan and beyond.
Beginning no later than 2009, there will be a growing
shortfall in the shipbuilding accounts, in addition to an
annual shortfall of $1 billion to $2 billion in Navy
aviation procurement. I expect the total deficiency to be
no less than $45 billion over the fiscal year 2008 to
fiscal year 2016 period; and remember, this assumes that
the 313-ship Navy is sufficient to protect American
security, an optimistic assumption.
Lest the Senate get lost in all the figures, let me sum
it up this way. The Navy, responding to budgetary
pressure, has formulated a plan for a 313-ship Navy in the
future which, frankly, may be inadequate; the Navy
estimates a figure for funding the plan which independent
authorities, using long-term historical cost data, believe
is far too low. And yet without substantial increases in
the Navy's procurement budget, it is a dead certainty that
even that figure cannot be sustained.
As a practical matter, the expected shortfall means the
sacrifice of two to three attack subs and two to three
surface combatants, a reduction in purchases of the
littoral combat ships, and delays to the Sea Basing
Program and the new CG-X Cruiser Program, which is
necessary for missile defense.
The short of it is that the Navy needs at least an $8
billion increase per year in procurement above current
estimates. The Marines need about $3 billion more. It is
not necessary to go into the same level of detail with
regard to the budgetary picture for the other services.
The pain has been spread fairly evenly across the service,
so they are in roughly in the same situation. That means a
procurement shortfall over the next 10 years of at least
$30 billion per year adjusted for inflation. Most
independent experts believe the number is far higher.
For example, the CBO estimates that the overall defense
budget shortfall will be no less than $52 billion per
year. We should add to this the fact that the active-duty
Army is clearly too small, as we have learned in Iraq.
Even in an age of transformation and nonlinear
battlefields, there are still times when America needs to
put large numbers of boots on the ground, particularly in
the post-September 11 period. The United States needs the
ability to carry on sustained, large-scale peacekeeping or
low-intensity combat operations, without having to send
the same units three or four times to a combat theater
over the duration of a mission. A nation of our size and
strength should not have to use essentially its whole
active-duty Army, much of its Marine Corps, and many of
its Reserves to sustain 130,000 troops over time in a
combat view.
In 1992--which was right after Desert Storm--the Defense
Department stated a requirement of 12 active duty Army
divisions. That was before the increases in operational
tempo of the 1990s and before the global war on terror.
The Army should surely be at least 12 divisions today. It
costs approximately $2 billion to stand up and sustain an
addition to the Army or Marine Corps of division strength
so we need to invest $4 billion per year in increased
force structure for the Army, in addition to the $30
billion more in new procurement funding.
So to sustain our military over the next generation at
the appropriate level, we need to increase procurement
spending and spending on the size of the Army by about $34
billion per year. And that is above current baseline
estimates. It would have to be sustained over the life of
the current defense plan and beyond.
I want to emphasize that this is, of necessity, a
ballpark figure. It is always difficult to predict
precisely the cost of new programs--some of which are in
the design phase, particularly given the uncertainties
associated with developing technologies. We will be
acquiring this equipment over the next 10 to 20 years and
needs in technology are going to change. We must confront
the fact that whatever the necessary amount turns out
precisely to be, the procurement budgets we are projecting
today are fundamentally inadequate. We have to ramp up
spending. We must begin now. And we have to accept the
fact that it will not be cheap.
I also want to make clear that this additional $34
billion must come from an increased overall defense
budget. There may be some who say that it is possible to
cannibalize the rest of the defense budget to produce all
or most of this additional procurement funding. That is a
dangerous fantasy. The money cannot come from the
supplemental appropriations bills. Those are necessary to
pay the day-to-day costs of the war and may not have been
adequate to do that. The money cannot come from reducing
the readiness budget because that budget is overstressed
already. It cannot come from reducing the number of
service personnel because the military is already too
small. It can't come from reducing salary and benefits. We
have to retain the best people. Besides, Congress is far
more likely, and properly in my view, to increase
personnel benefits rather than reduce them. Take a look at
the last 7 years. Total spending on defense health care,
for example, increased from $17.5 billion in fiscal year
2000 to $37 billion in fiscal year 2006--an increase of
more than 100 percent over the last 7 years, appropriately
so.
The men and women of America's military deserve good
salaries and benefits, and so do those who are retired.
The savings from base closing is not going to supply the
additional funds. Those are highly speculative. They will
not occur, if at all, for many years, and they are
unlikely to be more than a billion dollars per year.
Some say we can save money by reducing congressional
earmarks or additions to the defense budget, and within
limits that is true. But the total of such earmarks is no
more than $3 billion to $4 billion per year.
Realistically, Congress is not going to give up all of
them, and at least some number of them are clearly
justified because they simply restore to the budget items
that our service chiefs desperately wanted and omitted
only because of budgetary pressure.
Still others will say we can get the necessary
additional funding by lowering the cost of new programs
through procurement reform. I am all for procurement
reform. I have been for it ever since Secretary Bill
Perry, who was a great Secretary of Defense, proposed it
over 10 years ago. We have had several waves of
procurement reform since then. Several Defense Secretaries
have all championed its virtues. We continue to hold
oversight hearings to pressure the defense industry to
lower costs. We keep trying to catch people in the
Department who might be violating procurement regulations.
I have chaired some of those hearings.
Meanwhile, the cost of new programs keeps going up. I
suggest the reasons have less to do with deficiencies in
the procurement system, bad as it is, than with the stress
on the industrial base and on the military caused by the
budgets that are consistently too low and unstable.
One of the arguments supporting reductions in force in
the past has been that transformational technology and
tactics can empower the military to do more with less. The
idea is to make each service member, each plane, ship, and
vehicle less vulnerable so we lose fewer of them, and more
lethal so we need fewer of them. Within limits, that is
sometimes true. But the best technology costs money, and
changing technology, tactics, and doctrine makes it more
difficult to fix stable requirements. Program instability
costs money, too.
Here is an example. The Navy originally planned to
procure 32 DD(X) next-generation destroyers. The ship has
a truly advanced design. It is a marvel of
transformational technology. But its unique capabilities
have driven the per ship cost to about $3 billion. As a
result, the Navy plans to procure only seven new
destroyers. The problem is that the complexity of the
ship's design, the unprecedented capabilities of the
vessel, and the high price of the best technologies, have
all driven up cost to the point where the ship is
impossible to procure in sufficient numbers at current
budget levels.
Another example: The Air Force desperately needs more
air lift, and it also needs a new tanker aircraft. The Air
Force shoulders much of the mobility mission, and it also
performs the mid-air refueling mission. Normally, the Air
Force would simply buy more C-17 aircraft. It is a
perfectly good, modern cargo aircraft. Then the Air Force
would design and procure a new tanker. But because the
service is under tremendous pressure to save money, it has
decided to develop a cargo-tanker, combining the two
missions into one aircraft. The service assures us that it
is not going to have any bells and whistles on the new
plane, and the aircraft will be low in cost.
Surely, the concept of a cargo-tanker allows the Air
Force to claim that it will be able to perform both of
these missions while relieving some of the pressure on its
budget. But, again, reality must and will eventually bite.
As requirements build and changing technologies force
changes in design, the odds are very high that the cost of
the new aircraft--if it is to do the combined mission it
is supposed to do-- will go up substantially.
The problem of cost is exacerbated by the stress on the
defense industrial base. Procurement budgets have been too
low for 15 years and because of budgetary pressure they
constantly change. The Department regularly projects what
it intends to procure in the out-years of its defense plan
but then often makes last-minute cuts and changes.
Under those circumstances, it is no surprise that
contractors are not investing sufficiently in the defense
industrial base. It is shrinking, and it is
undercapitalized. That means fewer competitors, more sole-
source contracts, less research, and, therefore, higher
costs. No amount of oversight, reform, or pressure on
procurement officials can change that.
The good news is that a robust and consistent commitment
to adequate funding would soon begin to reverse these
trends. Again, I am all for improvements in the way we
design and build new systems, and those improvements can
save money. But they cannot work miracles. Sufficient and
stable funding is not only consistent with transformation
and efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars, it is
necessary to both. If Congress were to commit to my
proposal, for example, the service chiefs and the defense
industry would know that substantial new money was
coming--enough to make it at least plausible they could
produce and acquire the systems they need. They could
budget for the long range, knowing that funding would be
stable. They could work together in a way that would
reduce costs instead of trying to pull money away from
other services or maneuver year to year just to keep vital
programs alive, and often in a way that ends up costing
the taxpayers more in the long run.
We must stop thinking that facing reality and funding
our military adequately is beyond the reach of this great
Nation. Yes, the Federal Government has fiscal problems.
Yes, the two major parties have very different views on
what to do about those problems, but nobody can or does
claim that the defense budget is the cause.
Right now, we are spending 3.8 percent of our gross
domestic product on the regular defense budget. That is a
very low percentage historically, far less than we spent
at any time during the cold war. Under President Carter,
we spent 4.6 percent of the GDP on national defense.
If we spent only 4.2 percent now, we could easily fund
what I have proposed. We would have a fighting chance to
support our service men and women with the equipment they
need and deserve. We could sustain the military power that
the last two Presidents have used to protect our freedom
and stabilize the post-cold-war world. We would send the
clearest possible message to both our friends and enemies,
and to those nations who are deciding now whether they are
going to be a friend or enemy, that whatever happens,
whatever the direction our foreign policy takes, the
United States has the ability to sustain our freedom and
the hope of freedom for the world.
To those who worry about the price of strength, I say
there is a greater price to be paid for weakness. How many
conflicts will we invite, how much instability will we
engender, if we allow this restless and troubled world to
doubt America's ability to defend herself?
Let's look at the risks of alternative courses of
action. If we adopt the course I suggest, and it turns out
that I was wrong, all we will have lost is a fraction of
our wealth that would be spent in this country on products
produced by our workers, for a margin of safety that, in
the end, we did not need. But if we stay on our current
course, and it turns out that I was right, how much will
we pay then in lost lives and treasure, fighting in
conflicts that a policy of strength would have deterred?
How big will the deficit become then, in a world made
less stable by American weakness? What effect will that
have on the economy, and not just the economy, but on the
hopes and opportunities of the next generation--our
children and our grandchildren--who have the right to
expect that we are looking out for them?
Twenty-five years ago, our country was also in a
difficult situation. Our enemies doubted American resolve.
They were challenging us on a number of fronts. We had
just gone through a period of chronic underfunding of the
military, probably worse than what has happened recently.
As a result, the force was hollow, unable to reliably
perform the missions necessary to protect America. That is
why the tragic Desert One Mission went so wrong in the
desert during the Iranian hostage crisis.
When President Reagan assumed office, he faced the
situation squarely and honestly, and with the support of a
Democratic House and Republican Senate, he secured two
double-digit increases in the overall defense budget, and
reasonable increases for several years thereafter. On the
strength of that bipartisan commitment, America's service
men and women and America's defense industrial base
transformed our military into the truly dominant force
that fought and won Operation Desert Storm.
A united government sent the message to friend and foe
alike that whatever our differences about foreign policy,
America was still willing to pay the price of freedom. It
is not too much to say that the decisions made in 1981 and
1982 laid the basis for the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the success of Operation Desert Storm, and the benefits of
peace and security that we enjoyed throughout the 1990s.
With this speech, I bring my career in the Senate to a
close. I believe I can do no greater service to my country
than to urge Senators not to be dissuaded by the counsels
of those who say that what I have proposed cannot be done.
At the beginning of my remarks I stated that America's
service men and women are the finest who have ever served
in any military on behalf of any nation at any time. I
should have included their families as well. I realized
that when today, just a few hours ago, I had the privilege
of meeting with Dana Lamberson and her two children, Kelsi
and Evan.
Mrs. Lamberson's husband, SFC Randall Lamberson, was
killed in Iraq only 8 months ago. Mrs. Lamberson told me
that before her husband deployed, their family openly
discussed the sacrifice which he, and they, might be
called on to make. I asked her how she was able to bear
her grief with such grace and fortitude. She told me that
when she was tempted to be discouraged, she remembered
what her husband had always said when times were tough:
that ``life is only as difficult as you make it.''
Mr. President, I have met thousands of Americans over
the last 4 years like the Lamberson family, not just
soldiers and their families, but people from every walk of
life, who live each day with courage, resilience, and
optimism. Because of them, I believe with all my heart
that America's time of leadership is not done.
I ask the Senate to honestly face the true cost of
defending this Nation. If we do, if we carry that burden
with confidence, we will find the weight of it to have
been a small thing compared to the blessings of peace and
liberty we will secure for ourselves, and the hope we will
give to freedom-loving people all over the world.
Mr. President, I cannot close without thanking my
dedicated staff who served the people of Missouri so well
over the last 4 years, who have kept me going, kept me on
time, who are largely responsible for the many pieces of
legislation which Senator Bond was kind enough to mention.
I just ask the Senate to indulge me for another moment or
two because I am going to read their names. I think they
deserve it: Mark Strand, my chief of staff; Cortney Brown,
my scheduler; Les Sealy, our great office manager who
always got us what we needed; Brian Anderson, our IT
manager. I am glad he understood it because I never do.
I thank our legislative staff: Brett Thompson,
legislative director; Faith Cristol, our great legislative
counsel; and my legislative assistants: Lindsey Neas,
Katie Smith, Heath Hall, Jesse Appleton, Katie Duckworth,
Christopher Papagianis, Shamed Dogan, and John Cox, who
works so hard and so well on veterans issues, a man who
has served this country in many different venues; Andy
Karellas, Martha Petkovich, and Sarah Cudworth, who did
legislative correspondence, grants, and case work; Peter
Henry, who managed the mail; Sarah Barfield, my staff
assistant; two great Navy fellows: CDR Dan Brintzinghoffer
and LCDR Lori Aguayo, two patriots and both outstanding
officers; and Mark Hegerle, my energy fellow who came over
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission just in time
to help me make a real difference on the energy bill.
I want to thank our press shop: Rich Chrismer, my great
communications director; Erin Hamm, and Andrew Brandt.
Casework--we handled over 10,000 cases. I am a big
believer in casework. This is a big government, and
navigating it is hard, and if we could help, we wanted to
help. I thank Nora Breidenbach, Jenny Bickel, Abby
Pitlick, Debbie Dornfeld, and Jessica Van Beek.
And the State staff, we always tried to integrate the
work of the State staff and the Washington staff, and I
think we did it. I thank Gregg Keller, our State director;
in St. Louis: Kacky Garner, my district director; Peggy
Barnhart; Rachel McCombs; and Angel McCormick Franks; in
Kansas City: Joe Keatley, my great district director;
Danny Pfeifer; Emily Seifers; Greg Porter; and Erick
Harris; in Jefferson City: Donna Spickert, who was the
State capitol director; and Becky Almond, my in-State
scheduler, as well as a great staff assistant; in
Springfield: Terry Campbell, the district director;
Christopher Stone; and Coriann Gastol; and in Cape
Girardeau: Jeff Glenn, who directed that office; and Liz
Mainord.
I also want to thank, as other Senators have done, my
family, my wife, obviously, in particular, who has shared
the highs and lows of this job, and my wonder kids.
Mr. President, it remains only for me to thank my
colleagues in the Senate for the many kindnesses, personal
and professional, which they have shown me and my family
over the last 4 years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
TRIBUTES
TO
JAMES M. TALENT
Proceedings in the Senate
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President ... As we recognize, it is a
distinct privilege and high honor to serve our country in
any capacity, and certainly none higher than in uniform.
But it is especially important that we recognize those who
have given years of their lives, sacrificing their
families, their own time, to help make a better world for
all of us. I know of no capacity in which we serve our
country that has given those who have had this rare
opportunity to serve in the Senate anything more noble
than trying to shape a better world from this Senate.
These individuals who will leave the Senate, some on
their own terms, some on the terms of the election, but,
nonetheless, in their own specific way have contributed a
great deal to this country.
I take a few minutes to recognize each. ...
Senator Jim Talent from Missouri has had 14 years of
service in the House and Senate. I worked very closely
with Senator Talent on his bill, the Combat
Methamphetamine Act. I believe it is one of the most
significant, relevant, important bills to pass the 109th
Congress. He, too, will be missed. No one worked harder
than Jim Talent for the interests of his State. He
understands agriculture, he understands energy like very
few in his State. He began his service to his country and
to the State of Missouri at the age of 28, when he was
elected to the House of Representatives. We will continue
to hear more from Jim Talent. ...
Mr. President, in conclusion, it is not easy to put
one's self on the firing line and offer one's self as a
candidate for any office. It takes a certain amount of
courage and, I suspect, a little dose of insanity. But
nonetheless individuals who believe deeply enough to
commit themselves to a cause greater than their own self-
interests need to be recognized. Having nothing to do with
me or you or any one individual, but it is the essence of
our country, it is the very fabric of our democracy that
makes it all work and probably gives rise to, more than
any one reason, why we have been such a successful nation
for over 200 years--because people from all walks of life,
in every community, in every State, offer themselves for
office. Whether it is a mayor, a Governor, city
councilman, county official, a sheriff, these individuals
deserve recognition.
We all make mistakes. That is who we are. But in the
end, it is not unlike what Teddy Roosevelt once referred
to in his magnificent quote about the man in the arena.
And it is the man and the woman in the arena who change
our lives. It makes a better world that shapes history,
that defines our destiny. And for these individuals who
will no longer have that opportunity to serve our country
in the Senate, we wish them well, we thank them, and we
tell them we are proud of them and their families and wish
them Godspeed.
Mr. President, I thank you for the time and yield the
floor.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is an opportunity to
recognize the service of several of our colleagues who are
departing from the Senate. To Senator Jeffords, Senator
Frist, Senator DeWine, Senator Talent, Senator Santorum,
Senator Burns, and Senator Allen, let me express my
appreciation for their service to their States and their
service to the Nation and wish them well. ...
To all my colleagues who served and conclude their
service, let me once again express deep appreciation for
their friendship and for their service to the Nation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are coming to the end
of the session and 10 of our colleagues are retiring. I
want to say a word about them ...
Or Jim Talent, who was the outstanding political science
student at Washington University in St. Louis when he was
there. No one would be surprised to learn that. ...
When the most recent class of Senators was sworn into
office nearly 2 years ago, in the gallery were three
women. One was the grandmother of Barack Obama. She was
from Kenya. One was the mother of Senator Salazar, a 10th
generation American. One was the mother of Mel Martinez,
the new Republican National Committee chairman, who, with
her husband, put her son on an airplane when he was 14
years old and sent him from Cuba to the United States, not
knowing if she would ever see him again.
In a way, each one of us who is here is an accident.
None of us knew we would be here. Each of us is privileged
to serve, and one of the greatest privileges is to serve
with our colleagues. We will miss them and we are grateful
for their service.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, as the time for my departure
from the Senate draws near, on behalf of the greatest
blessing in my life, my wife Susan, and on behalf of
myself, I thank all of my colleagues for their many
courtesies and friendships that have been forged during
the past 6 years. I offer a few concluding reflections
about our time here together, as well as about the future
of our Republic. ...
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I see others who
wish to speak, and I will make a couple of brief comments.
In the comments of the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
Allen], his final couple of comments recalled for me a
statement made in the closing of the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia, when on the back of the chair
of the presiding officer was a sunburst. Someone opined in
that Constitutional Convention: Dr. Franklin, is that a
rising sun or is it a setting sun? And Franklin ventured
to say that with the birth of the new Nation, with the
creation of the new Constitution, that he thought it was a
rising sun.
Indeed, it is that hope of which the Senator from
Virginia has just spoken that motivates this Senator from
Florida to get up and go to work every day, and to look at
this Nation's challenges, not as a Democratic problem or a
Republican problem, but as an American problem, that needs
to be solved in an American way instead of a partisan way.
We have had far too much partisanship over the last
several years across this land, and, indeed, in this
Chamber itself. And of the Senators who are leaving this
Chamber, I think they represent the very best of America,
and on occasion have risen in a bipartisan way. It has
been this Senator's great privilege to work with these
Senators: Allen of Virginia, Burns of Montana, Chafee of
Rhode Island, Dayton of Minnesota, DeWine of Ohio, Frist
of Tennessee, Jeffords of Vermont, Santorum of
Pennsylvania, Sarbanes of Maryland, Talent of Missouri.
As the Good Book in Ecclesiastes says: There is a time
to be born and a time to die. There is a time to get up,
and a time to go to bed. There is a time for a beginning,
and there is a time of ending.
For these Senators who are leaving, it is clearly not an
ending. It is an ending of this chapter in their lives,
but this Senator from Florida wanted to come and express
his appreciation for their public service, to admonish
those where admonishment is needed when this Chamber,
indeed, this Government, has gotten too partisan, but to
express this Senator's appreciation for the quiet moments
of friendship and reflection and respect in working
together, which is the glue that makes this Government
run.
Whether you call it bipartisanship, whether you call it
friendship, whether you call it mutual respect, whatever
you call it, the way you govern a nation as large and as
complicated and as diverse as our Nation is--as the Good
Book says: Come, let us reason together--that is what this
Senator tries to be about. And that is what this Senator
will try to continue to do in the new dawn of a new
Congress. So I wanted to come and express my appreciation
for those Senators who will not be here, for the great
public service they have rendered.
Mr. President, I am truly grateful for their personal
friendship and for their public service.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. ... I wish all of my colleagues who are
retiring well as they begin the next chapters of their
careers.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell
to several of my friends here in Washington. Too often we
get caught up here in the back-and-forth of politics and
lose sight of the contributions of those with whom we work
every day. It is only at moments such as these, at the end
of a cycle, that we have a moment to reflect on the
contributions of our colleagues. And while we may not
always see eye to eye, this Senate is losing several
admirable contributors who have made many sacrifices to
serve our democracy. ...
A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
will be departing in January, as well. There is our
colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, who wears, in my
opinion, the second best pair of boots in the Senate.
There is Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, whose passion
is admirable and whose energy is always enviable. Also
leaving us is my colleague in the centrist Gang of 14 that
helped bring this Senate back from the abyss; Senator
DeWine of Ohio, who will head back to the Buckeye State
with my respect and admiration; and my friend Senator
Talent from Missouri, with whom I spent many hours in the
Agriculture Committee working to level the playing field
for America's farmers and ranchers. We will miss Senator
Chafee of Rhode Island's independence and his clear voice
for fiscal discipline in Washington. And we will miss
Senator Burns of Montana, who shares my passion for rural
America and who is headed home to Big Sky Country, back to
the Rockies that I know we both miss so much. ...
America, when held to its finest ideals, is more than a
place on the globe or a work in progress. It is the
inspiration to those around the world and here at home to
seek out excellence within themselves and their beliefs.
It has been a pleasure to work alongside each of these
gentlemen, who have helped me as I have found my way,
sometimes literally, through the halls of the Senate, in
the pursuit of these greater ideals that we all share:
security, prosperity, and an America that we leave better
than when we arrived. These ideals will resonate here long
after we all are gone and another generation stands in our
place making the decisions of its day.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of
being here for the 28th year beginning shortly. I
calculated not long ago that I have served with 261
individuals. I am not about to try and review all of the
many magnificent friendships I am privileged to have
through these years. Indeed, if one looks at the rewards,
of which there are many serving in this historic
institution, the Senate, it is the personal bonds, the
friendships that we so firmly cement and that will last a
lifetime as a consequence of our duties of serving the
United States of America and in our respective States.
We are called ``United States'' Senators. I often
believe it is the first obligation, our Nation, the
Republic for which it stands. ...
I would also like to pay tribute to nine other U.S.
Senators who will retire from the Senate in the coming
days. ...
Now, I would like to take a few moments to salute our
majority leader, Senator Frist, as well as Senators
Chafee, Burns, Santorum, DeWine, Jeffords, Talent, and
Dayton. Each and every one of these U.S. Senators has
served his State and his country with great distinction.
Without a doubt, I could speak at-length in honor of
each of these outstanding individuals. In light of time
constraints, however, and the fact that so many of my
colleagues wish to similarly pay tribute, I shall endeavor
to keep my remarks brief. ...
Over the past 4 years, I have been fortunate to have
been given the opportunity to work closely with Jim Talent
on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Since his first
day on the committee--Jim Talent has been one of the
hardest working committee members.
As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, Senator Talent
has been at the forefront of the committee's efforts to
strengthen the Navy's shipbuilding program, working
closely with the Chief of Naval Operations in the
formation of the CNO's plan for a 313-ship Navy. He showed
steadfast determination in working with the administration
and the Congress to secure the funding required to build
the future Navy; spearheading the effort to raise the top-
line for shipbuilding by over 20 percent during the course
of his tenure as Seapower chairman.
Senator Talent has also been passionate in his support
for the needs of our brave men and women in uniform;
championing quality-of-life and quality-of-service
initiatives. Most notably, he has been a strong advocate
for legislation that will put an end to predatory lending
practices against military personnel and their families.
...
In conclusion, over the years I have served with each of
these 10 Senators, each has not only been a trusted
colleague, each has also been my friend. I will miss
serving with each of them in the Senate but know that each
will continue in public service in some capacity. I wish
each and every one of them well in the years ahead.
Mr. President, I see a number of colleagues here anxious
to speak, and I have taken generously of the time the
Presiding Officer has allowed me to speak.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise on the floor to pay
tribute to my very good friend and colleague, Senator Jim
Talent, who will be leaving the Senate next month.
I have known Jim for over 20 years, since he was
minority leader in the Missouri House of Representatives.
Throughout all these years, when he was in the State
legislature and in the House as chairman of the Small
Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small
Business Committee, I found Jim to be unfailingly a man of
honesty, integrity, and hard work. He has been a wonderful
friend and colleague.
I am going to miss him very much, and many people in
Missouri are.
We all know that Washington can change a person, but it
hasn't changed Jim. Jim still has the same commonsense
Missouri values he brought with him to Washington. He
still has the same calm, polite demeanor. He still has
strong convictions and a work ethic. As I said to our
folks back home in Missouri, in an arena of show horses he
has been a work horse.
I was with him on the night he got the news that he lost
the campaign. He was a man of unfailingly good humor and
courage. And still, he thanked his Lord, his friends, and
graciously accepted his fate.
I have a feeling and hope that public service will see
much more of Jim Talent somewhere, sometime. And whatever
he decides to do in the public or in the private sector,
the qualities he has demonstrated to so many of us in the
Senate will carry with him.
He served in the Senate for only 4 years, but when you
look at his record of legislative achievements, he has had
so many positive impacts on people's lives it is hard to
believe he could cram all of that into 4 years.
He has been a leader on national security, energy, and
criminal justice.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim
worked to extend production of the C-17 line, allowing
30,000 workers across the country to keep their jobs, and
more important, to give our military strategic lift
capability which they need to move troops and equipment to
very difficult to reach places.
Jim also cares about our troops in battle. He sponsored
legislation to end predatory lending to active service
members and their families. The new law just took effect 6
weeks ago. Some of our soldiers were paying almost 400
percent interest on money loaned to them. Thanks to Jim
Talent, the rates are now capped at 36 percent. I trust
that applies to the Marines as well.
Last year, Jim worked very hard to include a renewable
fuel provision in the energy bill. On a bipartisan basis,
under his leadership, the United States will produce up to
7\1/2\ billion gallons of renewable fuels with ethanol and
biodiesel. That will be implemented by 2012.
Jim's work in this area will only become more important
as we see in the future America continuing to face high
energy costs and our attempt to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil.
Another accomplishment Jim will be known for is
something which is extremely important in our State of
Missouri, and this work--again on a bipartisan basis with
the Senator from California--was to fight meth. Meth is a
drug that has been destroying lives and communities across
our State for many years and now even across the country.
The Combat Meth Act has helped stop the supply of meth
ingredients to dealers through the ban on over-the-counter
sales. You see a significant reduction in meth lab busts.
It shows that we are finally beginning to make progress
against this drug.
Obviously, I have to mention his other bipartisan
successes, such as the sickle cell disease bill and the
Emmett Till bill.
On a narrow focus, Jim and I have worked together on
many transportation and economic development projects to
serve our State of Missouri, including the Liberty
Memorial in Kansas City, the Page Avenue Extension in St.
Charles, and countless others throughout the State.
I should also mention that my friend Jim Talent has put
forward some terrific proposals that he has been working
on that have been enacted. His effort to allow small
business employers to pool together to form association
health plans comes to mind, and those of us who have been
working to change the law so that small business employees
and their families will have access to the same kind of
insurance benefits that employees of major corporations
have will not give up the fight. We are going to continue
with his great leadership in mind.
I am sure the next Congress will follow up. This idea
should be central to any discussion of expanding health
care coverage to the uninsured.
Jim, as we prepare to say goodbye to you now from this
floor, thank you for your years of devoted service to our
State, to our Nation. With heartfelt gratitude, on behalf
of my wife Linda and I, we wish you, Brenda, and your
children the very best in future endeavors. And I know for
a fact that there will be great successes ahead.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. ... Finally, I also wish the very best to
my Republican colleagues who will leave the Senate at the
conclusion of this Congress. The Senate, at its best, is a
body that promotes bipartisanship, deliberation, and
cooperation, and the dedication to shared values. It has
been a privilege to work with my departing colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Ms. LANDRIEU. ... To all of our retiring Members, I say
thank you. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of my
State when you were needed and thank you for your service
to America.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I also will say a word about a
couple of my colleagues who are leaving, and I will be
brief. ...
Jim Talent from Missouri is another colleague from the
House of Representatives. He is another serious and
dedicated public servant whom I suspect we will see more
of in the future. ...
I know we all move on at some time and that none of us
is irreplaceable. But by the same token, these colleagues
of ours who will be leaving will be missed and they will
be remembered for their great service to the Senate, to
their States, and to the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. ... Mr. President, I want to wish the best
to all of my fellow Senators who were defeated this fall
or who are retiring this year--Senators Frist, Santorum,
Talent, Burns, Allen, Chafee, Dayton, and Jeffords. They
are all good people and all good friends. I wish them
well. ...
Mr. DODD. ... Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my
departing colleagues who have, for a time, lent their
talents, their convictions, and their hard work to this
distinguished body. I may have had my disagreements with
them, but the end of a term is a time for seeing
colleagues not simply as politicians, but as partners who
have ``toiled, and wrought, and thought with me.'' Each,
in his own way, was distinctive; and each, in his own way,
will be sorely missed. ...
I would also like to recognize Senator Jim Talent.
Senator Talent has been a lifelong resident of St. Louis;
and even when he was attending Washington University in
his hometown, his outstanding intellect was on display as
he was named the most outstanding undergraduate in
political science. It was a sign of success to come. Jim
Talent was elected to the U.S. House in 1992 and served a
total of 12 years in Congress, the last 4 representing
Missouri in the Senate.
I was especially proud to work with Senator Talent on
legislation of the utmost moral importance: a bill that
would establish new offices at the Department of Justice
and FBI to investigate and prosecute civil rights-era
murders. This legislation would help ensure that those who
took the lives of civil rights workers, and have thus far
escaped justice, never have another peaceful night of
sleep. Senator Talent said it eloquently:
We want the murderers and their accomplices who are
still living to know there's an entire section of the
Department of Justice that is going after them. We need to
unearth the truth and do justice because there cannot be
healing without the truth.
Senator Talent was also known for his work for renewable
energy, his opposition to predatory lending, and his solid
social conservatism. And though we didn't always agree, I
am sure everyone who served with him has respected his
intellect and his outspokenness. May he and his wife
Brenda have many more years of happiness. ...
Mr. HATCH. ... Mr. President, I rise today to pay
tribute to the accomplishments of Senator Jim Talent from
the great State of Missouri. I feel privileged to have
worked with Jim on different pieces of legislation, and I
greatly admire his dedication to his constituents and
respect his many accomplishments during his time in public
office.
Jim's official political career started when he was only
28 years old, after he was elected to the Missouri House
of Representatives. He went on to serve for 8 years in
that position, and he worked diligently to pass meaningful
legislation which benefited the people of Missouri.
In 1992, Jim was elected to the House of Representatives
from Missouri's Second District. Jim wasted no time in
tackling important issues and introduced the Real Welfare
Reform Act of 1994. Much of the ideas from this
legislation were phased into the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which I joined Jim in
voting for. This historic piece of bipartisan legislation
has had a profound positive impact and dramatically
changed the way that this country helps its neediest
citizens. According to the Department of Health and Human
Services, welfare caseloads in this country have declined
58 percent since the enactment of this legislation. These
results show that, even as a new Senator, Jim had
tremendous foresight in crafting meaningful ideas which
addressed a serious problem in this country.
Jim also served on many important committees during his
time in the House, including the Armed Services Committee,
the Small Business Committee, and the Education and
Workforce Committee. During his time on these committees,
Jim continued to utilize his tremendous work ethic in
reviewing and drafting important initiatives which
benefited American citizens. In addition, Jim worked
endlessly as an advocate for small business, which he
recognized as the financial backbone of our country.
In November 2002, Jim began the next phase of his
service after being elected to serve as Senator for his
State of Missouri. Being born and raised in Missouri, Jim
had a great knowledge base of the State and thus the
background to recognize important issues which affected
his constituents and the State as a whole.
I can truthfully say there has been no Senator in the
history of this body who has worked harder to represent
his State than Jim Talent.
Jim served on four diverse Senate committees:
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Energy and Natural
Resources; Aging; and the Armed Services Committee.
During this Congress, Jim and I worked together on the
joint resolution which proposed an amendment to the
Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States. Jim and I
were in complete agreement on this subject, and I greatly
respected his steadfast support of this proposed
legislation. During debate of this topic, Jim continually
provided insightful commentary that showed his heartfelt
support of a very important topic. Jim summed up his
feelings with the following sentiment:
The flag is the unifying symbol of our Republic. It
represents that common history and heritage which holds
America together notwithstanding religious, cultural, or
political differences. Physical and public desecration of
the flag degrades those values and coarsens America far
more than any speech or political dissent possibly could.
We were both sorry to see the amendment narrowly miss
passage, but I will always admire and respect Jim's
unwavering support on this important topic.
A final item I would like to draw attention to is the
Combat Meth Act that Jim drafted along with Senator
Feinstein. Recognizing the disastrous effects that have
been wrought on American neighborhoods and families due to
this horrible drug, Senators Talent and Feinstein wrote
this new law aimed at making the ingredients used to cook
meth less available to lawbreakers. While we didn't always
agree on the approach to this effort, we were united in
efforts to stop the insidious damage inflicted by this
drug. I applaud Jim's efforts in drafting an incredibly
important law that we all hope will have a significant
impact on decreasing the amount of toxic meth labs in our
communities.
As Jim embarks on the next phase of his career, I wish
him luck in all of his future endeavors. I also want to
extend my congratulations and appreciation for Jim's
legislative achievements during his time in Congress. I am
confident that his character and attributes will continue
to steer him toward a life of accomplishment and benefit
to those around him. ...
Mr. ENZI. ... Mr. President, soon the last remaining
items of business on the legislative calendar for the
current session of Congress will be completed and the
current session will be brought to a close. When it does,
several of our colleagues will be returning home and
ending their service in the Senate. We will miss them, and
we will especially miss the good ideas and creative energy
they brought to their duties in the U.S. Senate.
Jim Talent is one of those individuals we will miss
because of his can-do spirit and his determination to make
a difference. He cares a great deal about our country, and
he came to the Congress determined to make this a better
place for us all to live--especially our children and our
children's children. That is why he has always been so
focused on the future of our Nation and the need to solve
the problems that face us before they overwhelm us.
I first met Jim when he was the chairman of the House of
Representatives Small Business Committee. Coming from a
small business background myself, I was determined to do
everything I could to eliminate the redtape that too often
serves to discourage instead of encourage the growth of
our small businesses throughout the country.
At the time, Jim was working on a number of issues in
his committee that I was working on with the Workplace
Safety and Training Subcommittee of the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee. Together we began to focus
on some OSHA issues and other matters affecting the
workplace that needed our attention. We came up with a
plan to work them incrementally, and by taking them up
piece by piece, bit by bit, we were able to get some
things done that might have otherwise been put off for
another day. Over a couple of years, we were able to pass
into law some of the first changes in the history of OSHA.
Each step was a small victory for the workers of America.
Taken together, the results gave us both hope that we
would collaborate on bigger and bigger things in the
future.
Back then, Jim had a decision to make. He was very
popular back home and he probably could have stayed in the
House for quite a long time, but he decided he wanted to
run for statewide office. That call eventually led him to
run for the Senate. It was a difficult battle, but Jim
emerged with a well-earned victory.
I was delighted by his decision to run for the Senate
and even more enthused by his victory. It proved what I
had always thought about Jim, that he is a hard worker and
he is always there to fight for what he believes in.
During his service in the Senate, Jim has been a
champion for the people of his State and an expert on
health plans for small businesses. When he was in the
House he had served on the conference committee for the
Patients Bill of Rights. He got the health plan
legislation we wanted in the report, but the report was
never voted on. Now that he was in the Senate, he was
working on a number of issues but none as hard or as
focused as he was on passing the small business health
plan into law that he had helped shape and draft.
In the end, we were able to get 56 votes in the Senate
for our plan, but it takes 60 to force a matter to a vote.
That meant we were just four votes short of the total we
needed to pass this legislation and address the issue of
health care for small businesses and people all across the
country.
I know we will miss Jim's participation when we take up
this issue next year, but I expect he will find a way to
keep our feet to the fire and remind us that the people of
this Nation are expecting us to get something done to help
address their health care needs. I look forward to hearing
from him with his suggestions and thoughtful comments
about the bill that emerges from committee next year--how
to improve it and, more important, how to pass it.
In the years to come, I know I will miss Jim and his
creative ideas and enthusiasm for getting things done.
Jim's greatest asset has always been his ability to listen
to all sides of an argument and create ways around the
obstacles that were preventing us from taking action. He
is a leader, an innovator, and most of all, a friend to
all who have come to know him.
Thanks Jim, for your dedication, your persistence, your
courage, and the many capabilities you brought to your
work on the Senate. You will be missed around here. Good
luck in whatever you choose to do in the days to come. You
will always have our support and our appreciation for your
determination to make this country's health care system
work as it should.
Ms. SNOWE. ... Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to
Senator Jim Talent, my colleague and friend whose capacity
for being a catalyst on issues that he holds dear is truly
remarkable--and he will be missed in the U.S. Congress.
In his first term in the U.S. Senate from Missouri,
otherwise known as the Show-Me State, Senator Jim Talent
has shown--not just me--but his colleagues and his
constituents that he is a person who cares about health
care, small business, economic growth, and defense.
Whether during his 8 years in the U.S. House or his 4
years in the U.S. Senate, Jim Talent has demonstrated the
fortitude and will necessary to meet challenging issues
with national implications.
In the U.S. House, as a freshman Congressman, he
introduced the Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994, which
became the basis for landmark, bipartisan welfare reform
legislation. Never one to turn from a challenge, then-
Congressman Talent also managed to get association health
plans legislation passed out of the U.S. House, not once
but twice. And he built on that success by working on that
same issue in the U.S. Senate--indeed, Senator Talent was
an essential proponent of this important effort to allow
small businesses to pool their resources to lower
skyrocketing health insurance costs.
I saw firsthand how the same indefatigable energy that
was indicative of his commitment in the House was very
much on display in the Senate as he worked tirelessly with
our leadership, Labor Secretary Chao, the National
Federation of Independent Business, and so many others on
this critical issue. As we go forward to identify a path
forward on this vital matter, Senator Talent's acumen and
will to move this issue will be missed in our Chamber.
I wish Jim Talent and his entire family all the best for
what I am certain will be a successful next chapter in his
life. ...
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute
to the Republican Members of the Senate who will not be
returning in the 110th Congress. Senators George Allen;
Conrad Burns; Lincoln Chafee; Mike DeWine; Dr. Bill Frist;
Rick Santorum; and Jim Talent have served their
constituents with honor and distinction during their
tenure here in the U.S. Senate. All care very deeply for
this great Nation and I hope they will have continued
success in their future endeavors. ...
Majority leader Bill Frist has run the Senate through
difficult and trying times and he has done it well.
Senator Mike DeWine, my neighbor to the north, has
represented the Buckeye State with great distinction and
has committed over 30 years of his life to public service.
Senator George Allen represented the Commonwealth of
Virginia in the U.S. Senate for 6 years, and he worked
closely with me to make America safer by helping usher
through important legislation to arm cargo pilots. Senator
Jim Talent has had a great career in Congress and wrote
the blueprint to the welfare reform bill of 1996. And
Senator Lincoln Chafee has continued the proud legacy set
forth by his father and my friend, Senator John Chafee.
Mr. President, I would like to again commend all of our
departing Republican Senators. I am proud of what they
accomplished here in the U.S. Senate. They will all be
missed, and I wish all of them the very best.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. ... Mr. President, Jim Talent has a long
and honorable history of service to the people of
Missouri.
In the House of Representatives, he introduced the bill
that laid the foundation for historic welfare reforms.
In 1997, he became the youngest chairman in the House
when he was named Chairman of the House Small Business
Committee. Under his leadership, the committee passed many
crucial reforms for small business owners, including tax
relief and health insurance provisions.
When Jim joined the Senate in 2000, he continued serving
his State while emerging as a powerful force for the good
of his State and the Nation.
His work on the Energy Committee has shown great
foresight and has galvanized our fight for energy
independence.
I am proud to have served with Jim these past 6 years.
I expect great things from his continued efforts on
behalf of the Midwest. ...
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--TRIBUTES TO RETIRING SENATORS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the tributes to
retiring Senators be printed as a Senate document and that
Senators be permitted to submit tributes until December
27, 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Mr. STEVENS. ... Mr. President, Senator Jim Talent has
served the people of Missouri with great distinction. He
is a hard worker, and while he never sought the spotlight,
Jim quickly earned the respect of his colleagues in the
Senate.
It has been my privilege to work with Jim on a number of
issues. He understood the threat methamphetamine poses to
our Nation and helped establish the Senate's anti-meth
caucus to fight this epidemic.
Jim has also been a determined leader on defense and
energy issues. We worked together to secure the funding
required to modernize the Department of Defense and sought
to ensure our troops have the resources they need. Jim
also understands the importance of diversifying our energy
resources. His leadership on renewable energy greatly
benefited his constituents and the rest of our Nation.
We will all miss Senator Talent's intelligence and
knowledge of the issues. I wish him the best of luck in
all of his future endeavors. ...
Ms. COLLINS. ... Mr. President, as the 109th Congress
draws to a close, I want to say thanks and farewell to one
of its hardest working and most dedicated Members, Senator
Jim Talent of Missouri.
I have had the privilege of working with Senator Talent
as a member of the Armed Services Committee and its
Seapower Subcommittee, which he has chaired.
Working with Senator Talent has always been rewarding.
He has been a prodigious Senator and brings to bear on
defense issues both detailed knowledge and long-range
vision. His final speech on the floor of the Senate
displayed those qualities, as he surveyed the state of
readiness and equipment in our national defense, and
persuasively warned of the dangers of under-investment in
personnel and material.
Senator Talent's focus on seapower issues may seem to go
against type. Missouri does not spring readily to mind in
a word-association test for ``Navy'' or ``shipbuilding,''
as Maine or Mississippi might. But the Senator from
Missouri has been as dedicated to working through seapower
issues as any coastal Senator.
Senator Talent was a key player in settling on a dual-
lead shipyard strategy for the Zumwalt-class DDG-1000
destroyers, formerly known as the DD(X). As a Senator from
a shipbuilding State, I am naturally well pleased with
this policy. But as a U.S. Senator, I also share Senator
Talent's conviction that it is a wise national strategy to
preserve shipbuilding capabilities in multiple locations.
He has also been a leading voice in deliberations on the
CGX ship class that will constitute our next generation of
guided-missile cruisers.
Senator Talent brought extraordinary intellectual gifts
to the Senate. After distinguishing himself in
undergraduate work at Washington University and in legal
studies at the University of Chicago, he clerked for Judge
Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit and taught at the
Washington University School of Law.
His academic prowess was reinforced with practical
political experience. After winning a seat against long
odds in the Missouri Legislature, he established himself
as a popular and respected political figure. Moving on to
the U.S. House, he was an early and influential voice in
the debate that ultimately led to a fundamental reform of
Federal welfare law. This combined 16 years of legislative
service served him well when he took his seat in the
Senate.
Besides his dedication to chairing the Seapower
Subcommittee, Senator Talent has been a leading advocate
for promoting alternative energy, for helping small
businesses form associations to buy health insurance, and
for expanding the Federal fight against sickle-cell blood
disease. To these and other issues he brings a powerful
combination of intellect, research, deliberation, and
collegiality.
In November, Senator Talent lost a close contest for
reelection in a difficult campaign year. We cannot quarrel
with the decision of the voters, but we can respectfully
regret that the Senate will lose the benefit of Jim
Talent's wise and gentlemanly presence. I join my
colleagues in wishing him and his family well, and in
expecting many more contributions to the public good from
this man of many gifts and accomplishments.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, it is an honor indeed to pay
tribute to a number of fine individuals who I am fortunate
to call not just my colleagues, but also dear friends:
Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Conrad Burns, Lincoln
Chafee, Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum and Jim Talent. ...
Senator Jim Talent has been an outstanding
representative of the people of Missouri. A dedicated
public servant, he served for 8 years in the State House
of Representatives, as well as 8 years in the U.S. House.
Jim was the lead author in the House of the landmark 1996
welfare reform bill that has moved more than 1 million
Americans off welfare and into work and self-sufficiency.
Jim is man of impeccable character and a natural leader,
and in the Senate he held a number of leadership posts in
his freshman term--as the chairman of the Armed Services
Seapower Subcommittee, as the chairman of the Agriculture
Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product
Promotion, and as a deputy whip. He also demonstrated a
remarkable ability to make things happen legislatively,
with many of his bills passed by Congress and signed into
law. Jim's amazing legislative record reflects not just
his abilities but also the respect he earned from his
colleagues.
Jim delivered on his promises to Missourians to help
create jobs, grow the economy and strengthen our national
defense. He also worked to improve health care, and he
advocated on behalf of those who suffer from sickle cell
disease and breast cancer.
It has been my pleasure to serve with Jim on the Senate
Armed Services Committee. I have seen him in action and
know that there is no one more committed to ensuring that
our country's defenses remain strong. I was proud to work
closely with him to enact legislation to prevent predatory
lenders from targeting our brave men and women in uniform
and their families. There is no question that he is a
steadfast supporter of our service members, their
families, and their livelihood.
This Chamber needs more Members like Jim, who understand
that the only way to really make a difference is to put
partisan concerns aside and work across the aisle.
Throughout his public service career, Jim Talent has
certainly made a positive difference, and he will surely
be missed in the U.S. Senate.
As these men--Bill Frist, George Allen, Conrad Burns,
Lincoln Chafee, Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum and Jim
Talent--conclude their service in the U.S. Senate, let me
say that I am so proud to have worked with individuals of
such character, strength, and intellect. Our Nation is
grateful for their many contributions. And as they each
will undoubtedly continue to contribute to our country's
greatness, their leadership and vision will be missed here
in the U.S. Senate.