Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Ohio, the Chairman of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Subcommittee of the Senate HELP Committee, to introduce a bill that we believe will bring us closer to helping people who experience chronic homelessness get off the streets, out of shelters and into permanent housing. The Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act (SELHA) will help local communities provide health care, mental health and substance abuse services in conjunction with safe, decent and affordable housing. This bill is another essential component in the continuum of housing and supportive service programs geared towards people who have become homeless in our society.

Nationwide, as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness every year. Between 200,000 and 250,000 of them--including at least 12,000 children--experience chronic homelessness. They live on the streets and in emergency shelters for years on end or cycle between homelessness, jails, emergency rooms, and other institutions. Many also confront mental illness, substance addiction or other serious chronic health conditions. Moreover, because they don't get appropriate and regular care, these people exact a substantial toll on our public health systems.

The legislation the Senior Senator from Ohio and I are proposing today would authorize funding for grants to state and local entities to offer services to individuals and families in supportive housing to help bring them out of the downward spiral of homelessness and onto the road to recovery and self-sufficiency. Permanent supportive housing combines safe, decent and affordable housing with needed services such as mental health, substance abuse, employment, health care, and other services.

Research indicates that supportive housing represents a cost- effective investment toward the goal of ending long-term homelessness. In one California supportive housing program, residents experienced a 57 percent decline in emergency room visits, a 58 percent decline in the number of inpatient hospital days, and a near elimination of their need for residential mental-health facilities. A study in New York City found that each unit of supportive housing saved $16,282 per person per year in public expenditures for emergency care, court and jail costs, and other public services. After deducting the public benefits, the average supportive housing unit in New York City cost only $995 per year. In other words, it costs little more to house and offer supportive services to people than it does to leave them homeless.

These remarkable findings have led the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission, the President's New Freedom Mental Health Commission, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities to endorse the goal of creating 150,000 units of permanent supportive housing.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Housing of the Senate Banking Committee, I am deeply interested in tackling the challenge of homelessness on several fronts. I have been working on a bill to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. My legislation would realign the incentives behind HUD's homelessness assistance programs, while more funding would flow to communities that actually demonstrate a commitment to accomplishing the goals of preventing and ending homelessness. It would also simplify and consolidate the three competitive HUD homeless assistance programs into one program and provide new flexibility in using McKinney-Vento funds.

The Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act perfectly compliments these efforts by making sure that communities offering permanent housing are also able to provide health, education and other supportive services that are so critical to the ultimate success of these efforts.

I believe we have the ingenuity and dedication to ensure that everyone has a safe decent and affordable place to call home. We need to support innovative solutions, and this bill does just that. It gives communities some of the resources they need to develop more supportive housing and move towards ending chronic homelessness, and I am proud to join my colleague from Ohio in spearheading this initiative.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Ohio, the Chairman of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Subcommittee of the Senate HELP Committee, to introduce a bill that we believe will bring us closer to helping people who experience chronic homelessness get off the streets, out of shelters and into permanent housing. The Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act (SELHA) will help local communities provide health care, mental health and substance abuse services in conjunction with safe, decent and affordable housing. This bill is another essential component in the continuum of housing and supportive service programs geared towards people who have become homeless in our society.

Nationwide, as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness every year. Between 200,000 and 250,000 of them--including at least 12,000 children--experience chronic homelessness. They live on the streets and in emergency shelters for years on end or cycle between homelessness, jails, emergency rooms, and other institutions. Many also confront mental illness, substance addiction or other serious chronic health conditions. Moreover, because they don't get appropriate and regular care, these people exact a substantial toll on our public health systems.

The legislation the Senior Senator from Ohio and I are proposing today would authorize funding for grants to state and local entities to offer services to individuals and families in supportive housing to help bring them out of the downward spiral of homelessness and onto the road to recovery and self-sufficiency. Permanent supportive housing combines safe, decent and affordable housing with needed services such as mental health, substance abuse, employment, health care, and other services.

Research indicates that supportive housing represents a cost- effective investment toward the goal of ending long-term homelessness. In one California supportive housing program, residents experienced a 57 percent decline in emergency room visits, a 58 percent decline in the number of inpatient hospital days, and a near elimination of their need for residential mental-health facilities. A study in New York City found that each unit of supportive housing saved $16,282 per person per year in public expenditures for emergency care, court and jail costs, and other public services. After deducting the public benefits, the average supportive housing unit in New York City cost only $995 per year. In other words, it costs little more to house and offer supportive services to people than it does to leave them homeless.

These remarkable findings have led the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission, the President's New Freedom Mental Health Commission, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities to endorse the goal of creating 150,000 units of permanent supportive housing.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Housing of the Senate Banking Committee, I am deeply interested in tackling the challenge of homelessness on several fronts. I have been working on a bill to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. My legislation would realign the incentives behind HUD's homelessness assistance programs, while more funding would flow to communities that actually demonstrate a commitment to accomplishing the goals of preventing and ending homelessness. It would also simplify and consolidate the three competitive HUD homeless assistance programs into one program and provide new flexibility in using McKinney-Vento funds.

The Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act perfectly compliments these efforts by making sure that communities offering permanent housing are also able to provide health, education and other supportive services that are so critical to the ultimate success of these efforts.

I believe we have the ingenuity and dedication to ensure that everyone has a safe decent and affordable place to call home. We need to support innovative solutions, and this bill does just that. It gives communities some of the resources they need to develop more supportive housing and move towards ending chronic homelessness, and I am proud to join my colleague from Ohio in spearheading this initiative.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3908.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment along with Senators Sarbanes, Schumer, Boxer, and Corzine.

This amendment is, in essence, the text of S. 2453, which the Banking Committee reported out unanimously on May 6 and placed on the calendar on May 20.

Since that time, we have sought to pass the bill along with the Commerce Committee's similar rail security bill by unanimous consent, but an objection has, to date, blocked the Senate from passing this bipartisan transit security legislation. Therefore, I rise with my colleagues today to continue this effort to improve the security and safety of our transit systems in the United States which on a daily basis transport 14 million Americans.

Our amendment is straightforward and meets the 9/11 Commission's recommendation on page 391 for improved transportation security, which states in part:

The U.S. government should identify and evaluate the

transportation assets that need to be protected, set risk-

based priorities for defending them, select the most

practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and then

develop a plan, budget, and funding to implement the effort.

The plan should assign roles and missions to the relevant

authorities (federal, state, regional, and local) and to

private stakeholders. In measuring effectiveness, perfection

is unattainable. But terrorists should perceive that

potential targets are defended. They may be deterred by a

significant chance of failure.

In essence, the 9/11 Commission has called for three steps: first, clear responsibility; second, risk-based policies; and third, resources to meet these threats. Our amendment corresponds to these recommendations by the Commission.

First, our amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to clearly accept responsibility for transit security by signing a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Transit Administration. Unfortunately, this is something that the Department of Homeland Security has failed to do, even after numerous Senate inquiries and the passage of a Senate amendment requiring it to do so.

Second, our amendment embodies the kind of risk-based priorities that the Commission recommended by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to review the security assessments conducted by the Federal Transit Administration. DHS would then use these risk-based assessments as the basis for

allocating any funds. The Department would also have to annually update these assessments.

Third, our amendment would authorize real resources over 3 years that are still a fraction of our investment in aviation security for a wide variety of known capital and operating security needs, including surveillance technologies, tunnel protection, chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection systems, perimeter protection, training, and other security improvements approved by the Department.

In sum, our amendment is not overly prescriptive and relies on the wisdom of the Nation's intelligence systems and the Department of Homeland Security to identify the threats, develop solid plans, and invest in those initiatives which will do the most to make our transit systems more secure.

Fourteen million Americans each day rely on transit systems. We only have to recall the horrible and tragic incident in Spain a few months ago to understand that these individuals are the potential targets for terrorist acts. It is incumbent upon us to take these steps today to protect the transit systems for the people of America as we go forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support final passage of H.R. 4278, the Assistive Technology Reauthorization Act of 2004.

This important legislation, the product of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, reauthorizes the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 and provides individuals with disabilities increased access to critical assistive technology devices and services, focusing on where they are needed most--in schools, on the job, and in the community. These devices and services afford individuals with disabilities a greater opportunity to participate in educational programs, employment prospects, and community activities and thereby, assist them in leading more full, productive, and independent lives.

As an original cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I am pleased that some of its provisions on training and research and development which I authored have been included in the final version of the bill before us today. The bill requires states to carry out training activities to enhance the knowledge, skills, and competencies of individuals in local settings statewide, including educators, early intervention, adult service, and health care providers, and others who work with individuals with disabilities. These provisions ensure that local communities will have trained personnel available to meet the specific assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities.

The bill also establishes a new authority for competitive grants for research and development of new assistive technology devices and for the adaptation, maintenance, servicing and improvement of those assistive technology devices already in existence, an issue of great interest to colleges in my State. As such, among the eligible recipients for this research and development funding are institutions of higher education, including the nationally recognized University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service and the engineering programs of such institutions. Regrettably, the compromise restricts the potential funding of this program to a small level that is not sufficient to solve the large and growing need for assistive technology devices, particularly as our population ages. This is a good start, but we must do more to help individuals with disabilities forge ahead and reach their ultimate potential, and so I hope we can grow this funding in the future.

There are other highlights as well. The bill increases the minimum allotment for each State assistive technology program to $410,000 which could mean an increase of nearly $110,000 in funding for Rhode Island as appropriations rise, and it repeals the sunset provision included in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 so that States can continue to be eligible for funding. The bill also shifts emphasis toward getting assistive technology directly into the hands of individuals with disabilities through programs to provide

device demonstration, equipment loan, device reutilization/recycling and financing systems such as low-interest loans for the purchase or lease of assistive technology equipment.

I thank my colleagues, in particular, Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, and their staffs, for their hard work in producing a bipartisan piece of legislation and moving it toward final passage.

A special thanks is also due to Regina Connor, the Project Director of the Rhode Island Assistive Technology Access Partnership, ATAP, which is Rhode Island's Assistive Technology Act Project, and Tony Antosh, Director of the Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities, for their input and recommendations throughout the legislative process and ensuring that the act contained provisions important to Rhode Island assistive technology users, providers, and advocates.

This is significant legislation for people in Rhode Island and across the Nation, and I am pleased to support it. I look forward to the President quickly signing this bill into law which will hopefully signal a turnaround in his support for assistive technology funding to provide individuals with disabilities the increased support they need and deserve.

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

Mr. President, we are today, in this country, convulsed by the situation in Iraq. It is an extraordinary crisis. It is taxing our men and women in uniform, and it is certainly taxing our resolve.

I think one of the problems is that the administration has not focused on the reality on the ground, what is really happening on the ground. They are

hoping, but hope is not a substitute for planning; hope is not a substitute for a very candid and hard look at the situation on the ground. The reality is that there is widespread violence and instability throughout Iraq.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that

over the past 30 days more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents

have been directed against civilians and military targets in

Iraq in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major

population center outside the Kurdish north, according to the

comprehensive data compiled by a private security company

with access to military intelligence reports and its own

network of Iraqi informants.

You would think, given this information, that the administration would begin to reflect on the difficult circumstances on the ground, but that is not the case. They continue to pursue both policies and rhetoric which suggest that all is not well yet it is quickly getting there.

But there is something else they have done which I think is startling, and that is in a related story in the Washington Post, information such as what I just quoted, that data from private security companies is not being recognized and evaluated. It is being suppressed.

According to today's Washington Post, the

USAID said this week that it would restrict distribution of

reports by Kroll Security International showing the number of

daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased.

On Monday, the Washington Post published a front-page story

saying that the Kroll report suggests a broad and

intensifying campaign of insurgent violence. A USAID official

sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: This is the

last Kroll report to come in. After the Washington Post

story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I will let you

know when it restarts.

If we don't have accurate information, if we are not able to tell difficult truth one to another, we will never be able to effectively design a policy for Iraq.

It is concerning to me that the administration would try to respond to the facts by suppressing the facts, but that is just one example of what is going on.

I know this. The country, with some exception, is wracked by violence. The Kurds in the north have had a semiautonomous region for many years. It is under our informal protection and formal protection. That is a part of the country where there is a certain stability, but there is political tension building there because the Kurdish sense of autonomy will invariably clash with the need to create a central government in Iraq.

The focal point of that clash could be the oil around Kirkuk, which is the second biggest source of oil for the country of Iraq. Those oil fields could be in jeopardy as a pawn, if you will, in a struggle between the Kurds asserting their autonomy and the central government trying to maintain its authority.

We also understand clearly that Sunni provinces have ``no-enter zones''--areas in which the United States cannot even send its troops today successfully. One of these areas is Ramadi.

According, again, to a story in the Los Angeles Times on September 28:

The erosion of order in Ramadi illustrates the success of

the insurgents' methods and the serious problems facing the

interim government and its U.S. backers in maintaining

stability in Iraq. It also threatens to thwart plans for a

national election in January. . . . An election that omits

key population centers in the so-called Sunni Triangle

region would have greatly diminished credibility.

In Fallujah, there are similar situations where there are areas we cannot enter. In the Shia South, there is the instability principally generated by Sadr, the young cleric who has defied the central government and also the U.S. repeatedly.

We generally see the violence in Iraq as a function of attacks against our troops, but when we do that we miss a very important reality; that is, this violence is only a small portion of the violence that the Iraqi people feel each day--not from terrorists but from robbers, burglars, rapists, and murderers.

In June, a poll was conducted. They asked the Iraqi people to list their top three priorities. Fighting crime represented one of the top three priorities of 92.8 percent of the people of Iraq. Stopping attacks on coalition forces represented a top priority of 17.5 percent of the people of Iraq. On a daily basis, we are seeing not just attacks against coalition forces and security forces of Iraq, we are seeing a situation in many places which is beyond chaotic to the point which the Iraqi people are quickly beginning to assume that we not only are occupying but we are inept occupiers. We cannot even provide the level of stability that they enjoyed previously. They have already decided we are occupiers. They have decided we must go.

The struggle now politically, I think, is you have to recognize that in this type of conflict it is essentially a political struggle. We can win tactical victories one after another--and we will--but unless we create a political dynamic which will coalesce support around the new Iraqi Government and coalesce cooperation with us, our efforts tactically will be marginal.

What is happening, though, politically in Iraq now is the fact that each of these groups and subgroups have one eye on the current situation, our presence there, but their other focus is on what happens when we go. Will they be in power? Will they survive? Will they succeed? That creates a dynamic that is very difficult for us and very difficult for stability in Iraq.

How did we get there?

It is in some respects a triumph, as I said before, of hope over history, of ideology, of political calculation, arrogance in some cases, ignorance that has led us to enter the country ill prepared.

There is a litany of mistakes that are quite obvious: No real plans for stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq. We should have sensed that.

I can recall in the fall of 2003 and in succeeding days and months leading up to the attack last year where we had a situation where we were trying to get information about stabilization. We didn't have that. We did not have that information.

In addition, there were insufficient forces to stabilize Iraq and we were left unprotected for weeks and months, which today has led to a proliferation of weapons in Iraq, IEDs particularly, the improvised explosive devices that are bedeviling our forces. We cannot secure those. We could not secure the borders. We need more troops.

There was a failure to secure multinational support, not only in the sense of getting the good will, good wishes, and support of the international community, but particular failures.

We were not able to convince the Turkish Government to allow the use of Turkey as a point of entry into Iraq. The Fourth Infantry Division, poised to move through Turkey, to attack in the north, to roll up and envelop all of the Iraqi forces to the north, was rerouted to the south because of that lack of cooperation. The consequence on the ground was literally thousands of Iraqi soldiers were never effectively contested. They gave up, they disappeared, and apparently reformed as insurgents. That is another example of the lack of international cooperation that could have materially assisted us.

We made a significant error in disbanding the Iraqi Army. Rather than disbanding the army, we should have marched them back to their barracks and tried at that point to see if we could, through some type of vetting of officers and senior enlisted people, or some procedure, get them to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. They are part of the problem today. Many of these insurgent leaders, I believe, have roots going back to the army and the military force structure, the security forces of Iraq.

Then we conducted a de-Baathification program that applied across the board. We put that in the hands of Chalabi and others who had no real legitimacy in the country. As a result, for months and months and months we prevented teachers and professionals from working. It did not help in terms of getting schools going quickly. It certainly created this atmosphere among the Sunni community that they were going to effectively be marginalized as people and as citizens of Iraq. That process was a mistake.

Part of that, as I mentioned, was putting misplaced reliance on Chalabi and his colleagues. I recall he sat as a guest of the First Lady at this year's State of the Union speech, yet today is accused of cooperating and perhaps spying for the Iranians. That has been a mistake.

The CPA, Coalition Provisional Authority, turned out to be not up to the great task with which they were entrusted. The administration rejected the traditional agencies of the State Department and their divisions who have experience in stabilization operations in terms of political governments, reconstruction, economic development, and put together an ad hoc group of people who were the architects of what was a lost year of progress that we should have been making with respect to Iraq.

And, of course, there was the failure to recognize this insurgency. We all recall Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks about a few dead-enders. It was much more than a few dead-enders. It has metastasized into a virulent and effective force attacking our troops on a daily basis and attacking the citizens of Iraq.

There was a failure then simply to read the intelligence. We are debating this intelligence bill today because we have to create-- indeed, it is necessary to create--an intelligence system that is more effective. Let me point to an intelligence success. This was the national intelligence estimate. According to a report in the New York Times,

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for

President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence

Council, an independent group that advises the Director of

Central Intelligence. The assessments predicted that an

American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for

political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi

society prone to violent internal conflict.

Very perceptive. It was disregarded by the administration, and I think disregarded for several reasons. They had a view, which was not substantiated by the facts, that we would be greeted with open arms. Principals in the administration said that.

As we debate this intelligence reform, we also have to understand it is not just producing good intelligence; it is having leaders who understand and use that intelligence wisely.

Then one of the most critical issues is that we have wasted a year to train Iraqi security forces. I can recall, as many of my colleagues recall, being briefed over the past many months. It seemed each briefing would contain another pie chart showing the growing, growing Iraqi security forces and the diminishing United States involvement. All of that was an illusion. These forces were untrained, ill equipped, unprepared. It took us a year to recognize that and we are only beginning now to recognize what we have to do to ensure that Iraqi security forces can, in fact, provide for the security of their country.

Part of it was a result of the notion that we could do it ourselves, that this was just a few diehards, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, that we could root them out and we could deal with them with the coalition forces. Then it was reluctance to develop an Iraqi security force because of the fear that they would become another power player in the very complicated politics of Iraq where it seems the only institutions that have any type of strength and coherence are the mosques or the militias, and they sometimes overlap. So for all these reasons, despite the evidence of growing instability, despite the proliferation of crime, we have just gotten down to begin to train an effective Iraqi security force of police, army, national guard, and special operations. That is a year wasted, a year that should not have been wasted. The signs were quite clear.

Indeed, even as we focus on this, there have been reports in the press that General Petraeus, who has been put in charge of this operation, has not yet received his full complement of American personnel to help, another example of a delayed reaction, a reaction based upon hopes that did not materialize. While those hopes were bandied about here in Washington, the situation got much worse.

All of this leads to an Iraq today that is imposing extraordinary costs on this country. One of the most obvious and poignant costs is the loss from American fighting men and women in battle: 1,054 soldiers have been killed and 7,532 soldiers wounded, who have served this country with great fidelity and great courage. Their families deserve our profound respect. We owe them, and we owe their colleagues who still fight, more wisdom and more truth.

That is why it is particularly frustrating to see this example of a reaction where, when the facts are uncomfortable, those facts are suppressed. That is not appropriate given the sacrifices we have seen.

The costs to our Army, particularly, are significant. Personnel costs. We all understand there were misgivings about the full size of the force being deployed. When General Shinseki was asked, he did not volunteer, about the size of the force needed, he said, ``something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers,'' and was immediately castigated by Secretary Rumsfeld, saying this estimate was ``far from the mark,'' and Secretary Wolfowitz, who called the estimate ``outlandish.''

Then in his few remaining days in the Army, General Shinseki was personally shunned by the leadership and made to feel entirely uncomfortable--and I am being very polite. He did not deserve that. This is a professional soldier who was asked his honest opinion and he gave it. I wish there were more folks like him in uniform. Certainly the comments of Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld were very far off the mark. We have over 100,000 troops in place. They probably will be there for years. There is a strong sign that we need more.

This is a great stress on our military, 17 months after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations, with over 138,000 troops still stationed in Iraq. They are there because of a patchwork of different policies the Department of Defense has had to undertake because they do not have sufficient soldiers. Approximately 16,000 active-duty soldiers have already had two tours in Iraq and if they stay in the service longer, they will have another. In order to keep the strength up, they have resorted to stop-loss orders, essentially telling a soldier, once your unit has been alerted, you are there until the unit returns home, even if you can leave the service in that interim. In the words of some, it is a ``backdoor draft.''

Since September 11, DOD has announced six stop-loss policies for the Army, two for the Navy, five for the Air Force, and two for the Marine Corps. Only the Army still has a stop-loss policy in place. That is another way in which to create soldiers by means other than a strictly voluntary approach.

One of the greatest burdens falls on the Guard and Reserves. Today, we cannot continue our mission without the brave men and women of our Army and Air Force Guard and Reserve units. We are asking them to go way above and beyond the call of duty.

Since September 11, 2001, 422,950 members of the Reserve component have been mobilized; 51 percent of the Army Guard and 31 percent of the Air Guard. The average duty days have climbed as a result. Guard and Reserve men and women are now serving, on average, about 120 days a year. In fact, back in 2002, it was only 80, and before that it was much less.

We are looking at a situation which the GAO described as fraught with consequences. In their words:

DOD policies were not developed within the context of an

overall strategic framework. . . . Consequently the policies

underwent numerous changes as DOD strove to meet current

requirements. These policy changes created uncertainties for

reserve component members concerning the likelihood of their

mobilization, the length of their overseas rotations and the

types of missions that they would be asked to perform. It

remains to be seen how these uncertainties will affect

recruiting, retention and the long term viability of the

reserve components.

We have already seen the National Guard report that they have not been able to meet their recruiting objectives for the most current year. So the evidence is beginning to accumulate.

This operation tempo will mean more and more pressure on the military forces, particularly land forces, and, as a result, you will see the stress even more, in recruiting and retention, challenging our military leaders. We need more troops, I believe, as an initial response to the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We should do that honestly and directly. We should not rely upon supplemental appropriations. We should not rely on emergency authorizations for additional troops. We should increase the end strength of the Army and provide for the payment of that end strength through the regular budget process, not by supplementals.

Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment to do this last October. In March, again, Senator Hagel, joined by Senator McCain and I, introduced a bill that would increase the Army end strength by 30,000 troops. In May, we together offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill to increase the size of the Army by 20,000 personnel, a figure the Army says it could absorb in an efficient way in 1 year. This was accepted by the Senate, and it is now in conference with the House.

One point I should make, though, is that, once again, the administration insisted--even though they oppose the end strength--if it was to be put in the bill, it still had to be paid for by emergency funds. That is not the right way to do this. We have to make sure we have a suitably sized Army.

This is not a spike. This is not a temporary situation. Every time the President speaks, he talks about staying the course, our long-term commitment to Iraq. That is not a temporary promise, I do not think. I think that requires a permanent fix to the size of our Army and to our Marine Corps.

Now, one of the things that has happened since our debate on the floor is that the Defense Science Board, a panel of experts appointed by Secretary Rumsfeld himself, stated: ``Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments.'' There are ``inadequate total numbers'' of troops and a ``lack of long term endurance.''

That is the conclusion of experts who have studied this issue, who have looked at all the things the Army is doing through modularity, through technical improvements and technological innovations to minimize the need for additional troops, and they have concluded, as a result of the study requested by the Secretary of Defense, that we need more troops.

It is not only troops. We also need equipment. The Army has sustained $2.439 billion in equipment battle losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presently, the Army has an unfunded requirement for $1.322 billion for munitions.

Last year, the Army spent $4 billion on equipment reconstitution-- resetting it, repairing it, and getting it ready to go again.

The Marine Corps expects to need over $1 billion to reconstitute equipment next year.

The GAO reports that since September 11, the Army Guard has transferred 22,000 pieces of equipment from nondeploying units to units deployed in Iraq. What we have is a huge reshuffling going on, as units back in the United States take their equipment and give it out to units that are deploying forward. It leaves these units back in the United States without equipment. If they are called upon to perform a mission, another international mission, a homeland security mission, or a mission involving a natural disaster, where are they going to get the equipment they deployed overseas? How are they going to be affected?

In addition to the National Guard and Reserves, the Active Army is resetting itself under new battle formations, modularity, which is a concept that I think is ingenious, a concept that should be supported. But as they are doing this, they too are shuffling equipment about. There are some units that are not yet up to speed with all their equipment. They will have it, I am sure, before they are deployed overseas, but it is another example of the turmoil in terms of equipment we are seeing within the military.

In order to respond accurately, correctly, and directly to the situation in Iraq, we have to increase our Army, I believe, and make sure they have the resources to have the equipment they need to do the job.

Now, the funding for our operations in Iraq has been primarily through supplementals. In the past 17 months, President Bush has requested and Congress has appropriated $187 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For comparison, the budgets for the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Interior total $163 billion. So we have been spending in Iraq more money than we allow for discretionary spending for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Interior.

The last supplemental, for $25 billion, was passed in May 2004. At that time, the administration said they would not need the funding until January or February of next year, 2005. Yet it has been reported this week that $2 billion of this fund has already been used, showing the huge, huge pressure, the huge cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week, President Bush announced he plans to divert nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, power, and other reconstruction projects to security, another indication, I think, that the security situation is in very difficult circumstances.

We have been funding these operations with supplementals. But we cannot continue to do that because there will be a point, I believe, at which the American people will be very concerned, when each year we are forced to vote on $60, $70, $80 billion of supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. We know this effort is going to take many, many years. People talk about it as a generational struggle, and I think that is right. We have to prepare for that struggle, but we cannot do it in ad hoc supplemental budgeting.

We also have seen, of course, the terrible incidents of abuse in Abu Ghraib, with too few troops in that prison to do the job, ill-trained troops in that prison to do the job, but it is not just those troops. I think it is wrong simply to single out people we know from photographs who have done despicable things. They will be punished. They are being punished. We have a responsibility to look not only at the young soldiers, but the leadership, the chain of command, the policies they adopted or did not adopt, the confusion they created and did not resolve. We have had several investigations so far. Each one goes a little bit down the road but then seems to stop.

We waited, frankly, for months for the report of General Fay and General Jones, thinking this would be the final authoritative report that would look from the level of three star and four star all the way down. It turns out that for one of the most significant issues, the issue of ghost detainees--those individuals who were not properly recorded by the authorities when they came into our custody--General Jones and Fay had no real answers because they didn't get any cooperation from the Central Intelligence Agency. Now we have another investigation presumably conducted by the IG and the Department of Defense. This is not the way to get to the core of what happened. It might be an effective way of postponing real review and investigation, but it is not the way to get the answers.

These answers are important, not simply because of individual culpability of soldiers up and down the ranks, but because we have to have a military force that understands that they are subject to the laws, that it is not optional for leaders to ignore some or modify them at will. This is the very challenging situation, but it is an example, once again, of the lack of preparedness, the lack of sufficient personnel, and the lack of clear guidance that has plagued our operations in Iraq from the beginning.

I have spent a great deal of time talking about Iraq. The interesting thing in some respects is what we are not talking about. We are not talking about North Korea. But just this week on Monday, at the United Nations, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon said North Korea had been left with ``no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent'' because of U.S. policies that he said were designed to eliminate his country. He stated:

We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed

8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms.

Reprocessing 8,000 rods would extract enough plutonium for as many as eight nuclear warheads. Here is a situation where, as we focused on Iraq, we have sat by as the North Koreans blatantly and boldly opened up the cans in which IAEA sealed the rods and, according to their comments, have reprocessed this material into nuclear weapons. One of the worst possible situations, a nuclear-armed North Korea, may have evolved. We are at this point taking troops out of South Korea to fulfill our requirements in Iraq. What signal does that send to the North Koreans?

It is not a question of deterrence. We have the capability of deterring the

North Koreans from coming south. But it certainly is not aiding us in what ultimately must be our objective of disarming North Korea, hopefully through peaceful means and through negotiations, not just our efforts alone but the world community, because the great fear that we all have, that transcends the current struggle in Iraq, is that terrorists will obtain nuclear material and nuclear weapons.

Here we have a situation where over the last several months the North Koreans have finally said: We have them. Part of our lack of response is an internal debate within the administration that has been going on for months, if not years: Do you negotiate, which means some type of arrangement between the world and North Korea, or do you once again embark on a regime change operation? The difference over the last several months is the growing realization that Iraq has put so much stress on our military forces, that in the event of a need to disarm North Korea, there would be far fewer forces to draw on. So that is another huge cost of our involvement in Iraq.

Then add another development: The Iranians continue to insist they have every right to a full, complete nuclear fuel cycle. Of course, the concern--not just of the United States but the international community--is that if they achieve that cycle, they will be able to obtain material with which to construct a nuclear weapon.

Despite their protestations that that is not their objective, there is a growing suggestion, if not conclusive evidence, that certainly that possibility might exist. And once again, what are we doing? Why have we not focused attention on Iran in a more meaningful and decisive way?

One has to question a strategy that has led us into Iraq, to the instability, to the costs, to the lost opportunity, when there appear to be much more serious threats abroad.

We have an opportunity to be much more candid, much more truthful about what is going on. That is an opportunity I would hope the administration would embrace because unless we operate with the facts and unless we operate with the reality of the situation, there will be no way we can effectively plan to deal with the threats we face.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Porter Goss to be Director of Central Intelligence. I served with Porter Goss in the House of Representatives and I respect him. However, I do not believe he is the best choice for the position in these times.

On September 11, 2001, our country suffered a devastating attack. Now our country is in the midst of a war on terror and a war in Iraq. There have been many examinations of our intelligence leading up to September 11, leading up to the war in Iraq, and as we continue to wage the war on terror. There are many unanswered questions about whether the intelligence was accurate, whether it was manipulated, whether our soldiers and leaders can rely on it each and every day as they make difficult decisions.

I recognize that members of the President's Cabinet, like the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, must weigh political considerations as they develop policy. However, the Director of Central Intelligence is a unique position. It should stand above politics. The citizens of the United States have the right to assume that the Director of Central Intelligence is providing objective information and analysis to allow the President to make the best possible decisions.

When Director Tenet resigned, the President had an opportunity to appoint a nominee who was nonpartisan, nonpolitical. He did not do so. Instead he chose Mr. Goss, who clearly knows the intelligence community well, but is also clearly partisan and political.

The CIA is in turmoil. The hardworking men and women of the Agency need a strong leader who will reform the system to make sure that the information they offer is used in a proper and timely fashion. The people of this country need to know that the U.S. intelligence community is doing its best to protect and serve U.S. national interests.

I do not believe that Mr. Goss is the best candidate to lead the intelligence community through a difficult task of reform and restoring confidence in the midst of a war.

It is important that our intelligence not be partisan, yet Mr. Goss has been partisan in his comments over the past year. He has been fiercely critical of former President Clinton, our colleague Senator Kerry, and the Democratic Party. His comments do not lead me to believe that he will now abandon his partisanship or his political approach as the Director of CIA.

No greater task lies before us today than to reform the intelligence community so that it is effective as the leading weapon in the war on terrorism. Mr. Goss certainly knows the CIA and the intelligence community, but in these times, experience is simply not enough. A leader committed to reform without regard to politics is also critical. Those attributes, I fear, Mr. Goss does not have, and therefore I oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, during Senate consideration of Senate amendments 3615 and 3617, I was attending a memorial service for the father of my Rhode Island colleague, Representative James Langevin. Had I been present for these votes I would have voted against the motion to table amendment No. 3615, and I would have voted to waive the point of order against amendment No. 3617.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to Senator Smith and his family, as yesterday marked the 1-year anniversary of Garrett's passing and today would have been his 23rd birthday. The Smith family has endured a terrible tragedy, but has taken their loss and their pain and committed themselves to raising public awareness about youth suicide and

the need for appropriate mental health services.

Senator Smith has also worked tirelessly these past few months to move the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. During a time of partisanship and divisiveness, a majority of members in the House and Senate have been able to set aside those differences to help expeditiously move this important legislation.

I have had the honor and pleasure of working with my colleague from Oregon on this very personal tribute since the beginning. As my colleagues may recall, this legislation is comprised of two separate legislative initiatives that were introduced earlier this year, the Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Expansion Act, sponsored by Senators Dodd and DeWine and the Campus Care and Counseling Act, which I introduced along with Senator DeWine.

The legislation takes a comprehensive approach to the increasing problem of suicide among our youth as well as providing additional resources to our Nation's colleges and universities as they struggle to offer the kinds of support students need to grow and achieve academically as well as personally. Information, outreach and access to mental and behavioral health services is becoming an increasingly important part of that equation.

The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act contains many important provisions that I hope will help to stem the growing numbers of youth suicides in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide and self-inflicted injuries remain a pressing public health concern. We hope this legislation will help to change this by enabling States, local communities and institutions of higher education to implement effective youth suicide prevention and intervention strategies.

Two months ago, a unanimous Senate passed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. Since that time, the bill has undergone what I would consider to be considerable changes to address concerns raised by Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and others.

I have always been willing to entertain and accommodate issues that have been raised that have related to the substance of this bill. I am deeply concerned, however, by the insistence of some in the other body to inject partisan ideology in this bill.

Just prior to the August recess, a few members of the other body scuttled movement on the bill when they insisted on adding language that would create a new parental consent standard, layered onto one that has been in law, under the General Education Provisions Act, GEPA, which was recently updated as part of the No Child Left Behind Act.

While the majority has made it clear they will not abide changes in other parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, even common sense fixes that school administrators, principals, teachers, and parents have been called for, they insisted on language--which could prevent the very young people we are trying to help from accessing the mental health services they need.

We worked in good faith over the past month to come up with a compromise, and while the language has improved from the version initially proposed, it still raises some fundamental concerns.

I am appreciative of the efforts of Senator Smith to add a clarification that the language has no impact on the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, the language does not include a similar assurance on the standards for parental notice and consent included under sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provisions Act.

As a result, we have created a different standard for assessments, programs, and services in elementary and secondary schools relating to youth suicide, as compared to other health and mental health assessments, programs, and services that occur in our schools. Not only does this language set a new precedent, we are adding a confusing and burdensome layer of requirements on school personnel at a time when they are struggling to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act and trying to do the best they can to help our young people.

However, in recognizing how important the overall bill is to our Nation's young people and college students, and the commitment of the Senator from Oregon to address this language in the future. I support passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. I praise my colleagues in both Chambers for their continued diligence on this bill and appreciate the willingness of the majority and minority leaders to set aside time so that this important piece of legislation can finally move to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished Democratic Leader and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' I would also ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the report by the Joint Economic Committee Democratic staff entitled, ``Rising Medicare Premiums Undermine the Social Security COLA.''

Thank you. Mr. President, Social Security is the bedrock of this country's social safety net and our most effective antipoverty program for seniors and the disabled. A valuable feature of Social Security is the annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which was enacted to ensure that the

real purchasing power of beneficiaries' checks would be preserved, and not eaten away by inflation. I would also point out that such COLA protection is missing from most private pensions.

Sadly, what the JEC Democrats' report has revealed is that large increases in health care costs and the poor design of the new Medicare prescription drug plan have created a situation in which rising Medicare premiums are undermining the Social Security COLA. The problem is already serious, and we have not even begun to experience the impact of the prescription drug premium of the new Medicare Part D program that will take effect in 2006.

The study shows, for example, that in the years 2011-2014, a person with a monthly Social Security benefit of $500 (in today's dollars) would see 69 percent of her COLA consumed by increases in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. That leaves far too little of the COLA to cover increases in prices of other necessities such as food, energy, and other medical expenses. Even people with larger monthly benefits would see their COLAs substantially eroded by the increases in Medicare premiums.

Finally, the study shows that by 2014, if there is no legislation to address this problem, 64 percent of beneficiaries who have their Medicare premiums deducted from their Social Security checks will lose at least 25 percent of their Social Security COLA to increases in those premiums.

The JEC Democratic staff study makes a compelling case that we have a serious problem on our hands. That is why I am happy to cosponsor ``The Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' This legislation will preserve the essential safety net Social Security provides seniors, by making sure that at least 75 percent of their Social Security COLA is protected from increases in Medicare premiums and available to offset increasing cost of other goods and services seniors need in order to maintain an adequate quality-of-life.

Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished Democratic Leader and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' I would also ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the report by the Joint Economic Committee Democratic staff entitled, ``Rising Medicare Premiums Undermine the Social Security COLA.''

Thank you. Mr. President, Social Security is the bedrock of this country's social safety net and our most effective antipoverty program for seniors and the disabled. A valuable feature of Social Security is the annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which was enacted to ensure that the

real purchasing power of beneficiaries' checks would be preserved, and not eaten away by inflation. I would also point out that such COLA protection is missing from most private pensions.

Sadly, what the JEC Democrats' report has revealed is that large increases in health care costs and the poor design of the new Medicare prescription drug plan have created a situation in which rising Medicare premiums are undermining the Social Security COLA. The problem is already serious, and we have not even begun to experience the impact of the prescription drug premium of the new Medicare Part D program that will take effect in 2006.

The study shows, for example, that in the years 2011-2014, a person with a monthly Social Security benefit of $500 (in today's dollars) would see 69 percent of her COLA consumed by increases in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. That leaves far too little of the COLA to cover increases in prices of other necessities such as food, energy, and other medical expenses. Even people with larger monthly benefits would see their COLAs substantially eroded by the increases in Medicare premiums.

Finally, the study shows that by 2014, if there is no legislation to address this problem, 64 percent of beneficiaries who have their Medicare premiums deducted from their Social Security checks will lose at least 25 percent of their Social Security COLA to increases in those premiums.

The JEC Democratic staff study makes a compelling case that we have a serious problem on our hands. That is why I am happy to cosponsor ``The Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' This legislation will preserve the essential safety net Social Security provides seniors, by making sure that at least 75 percent of their Social Security COLA is protected from increases in Medicare premiums and available to offset increasing cost of other goods and services seniors need in order to maintain an adequate quality-of-life.

Mr. President, I commend and thank my colleague Senator DeWine and my colleague Senator Kennedy for this legislation. They have been in the vanguard for many years of protecting the health of all Americans, but particularly protecting the health of children. I have also been active, along with Senator Durbin and others, in this effort.

Actually, in August of 1996, the FDA promulgated rules to regulate the tobacco industry. But these rules were litigated to the Supreme Court. In a very closely divided decision--5 to 4--the Court essentially said: Congress, you must make it clear that the FDA has the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. That is what the DeWine- Kennedy amendment is doing--making it very clear, very explicit that the Food and Drug Administration may regulate the tobacco industry.

Now, there was a question about the law, but there was no question in the minds of the Justices about the effect of tobacco as a public health issue. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, in her majority opinion, that tobacco was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' Justice Breyer, who was in the minority, recognized that the FDA should already have this power because essentially their mandate is ``the overall protection of the public health.'' And this is the gravest crisis in public health we face in terms of a product that is unregulated, certainly in our economy.

The DeWine amendment brings this issue to, I hope, resolution today. I hope we will give authority to the FDA to involve itself in the greatest public health issue that faces the United States; that is, the consumption of tobacco products.

This DeWine-Kennedy amendment also is very timely because less than a month ago a 50-year study was published in the British Medical Journal chronicling the outcomes of almost 35,000 British doctors who smoked.

This detailed, longitudinal study is the first one to clearly link cigarette smoke to lung cancer and show that on average, a life of smoking will be a decade shorter than a life without smoking. Of the 35,000 subjects, epidemiologist Richard Doll reports that almost half of all persistent cigarette smokers died because of smoking, and a quarter died before age 70. Perhaps more striking was a finding that quitting smoking can mitigate or even reverse these effects. For instance, stop smoking by the time you are 30 and you will have the same average life expectancy as a nonsmoker. Stop at 50 and you will lose only 4 years of life instead of 10.

Clearly, there is still time to help, and particularly to help the children of America. But that can only be done if the FDA has the power to regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes.

That is something at the heart of the Kennedy-DeWine amendment. It will ensure that children will not have easy access to tobacco products by restricting tobacco advertising and limiting the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions where the purchaser's age can be verified. It will provide for stronger warning labels and allow the FDA to change their text over time to keep their impact strong. And it would help the 46 million Americans addicted to cigarettes by authorizing the FDA to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, as science allows. These are important provisions that will have a real impact on the health of all Americans, and it is no surprise that this legislation has enlisted the strongest possible support of, among others, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Lung Association.

We understand the dangers of cigarette smoking. This legislation will empower the Food and Drug Administration to confront those dangers head on, to confront the most significant public health problem that faces America. It will allow them particularly to protect children. It is typical of the concern and the conscientious efforts of the two principal sponsors, Senators DeWine and Kennedy. I thank them for their effort, and I join them in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of both the first White House Conference on Library and Information Services and the White House Conference on Library and Information Services Taskforce, WHCLIST, as well as to applaud a booklet, ``Libraries, Citizens & Advocacy: The Lasting Effects of Two White House Conferences on Library and Information Services,'' published by WHCLIST in honor of this occasion.

As a result of the WHCLIST conferences and efforts--which have brought together hundreds of thousands of citizen representatives and library professionals--many Americans have discovered their community libraries for the first time, hundreds of Friends of the Library groups have formed, and a cadre of committed library supporters has emerged. The conferences renewed our Nation's emphasis on libraries and have helped spur my efforts to improve libraries.

The ``Libraries, Citizens & Advocacy'' report, which assesses the outcomes of the 1979 and 1991 White House Conferences on Library and Information Services, concludes that the WHCLIST has effectively focused the attention of the profession, trustees and advocates, and elected local, State, and national officials on the conferences' resolutions and recommendations. In the past quarter of a century, many of these resolutions and recommendations have been realized.

For example, resolutions from the 1979 conference included urging libraries to play a greater role in literacy development; provide improved access for minority groups, individuals with disabilities, and other underserved populations; and serve as a community center that offers recreation, social interaction, and an independent learning center. Delegates to the 1991 conference voted the Omnibus Children and Youth Initiative as the recommendation of greatest priority, including recommendations for school libraries and children's services in public libraries, intergenerational programming, and family literacy partnerships between library and Head Start personnel.

We have made significant progress toward improving the quality of school libraries. Notably, the 1996 passage of the Library Services and Technology Act made school libraries eligible to receive Federal funds for training, networks, and statewide consortium activities, and the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program, which I authored and was included as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, restored categorical funding for school libraries.

I have been proud to lead the way on these pieces of legislation, which ensure access to library and information services for library patrons of all ages, support the training and recruitment of librarians, and help provide the resources libraries need to improve literacy skills and academic achievement. I am honored to continue in the spirit of Senator Claiborne Pell's strong leadership on library issues.

I also wish to acknowledge the immense contributions and passionate advocacy of two other leaders from my home State: Rose Ellen A. Reynolds, current WHCLIST chair, and Joan Ress Reeves, delegate to the 1979 and 1991 conferences and former WHCLIST chair.

Let us recognize the White House Conference on Library and Information Taskforce on this 25th anniversary and celebrate the role it has played in improving our communities' libraries and our Nation's literacy.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment that is before us. First, Congress has already addressed this issue in a statute that has yet to be effectively legally challenged. Second, amending the Constitution should be the last resort and not the first response when it comes to an issue of this type. Third, issues involving family law matters are and have been historically the purview of State legislatures and State courts. Finally, while there is great interest on the part of some in this Constitutional amendment, our Nation faces the far more pressing threat of terrorists committed to attacking us here on U.S. soil. There is so much more we can and should do with respect to that looming threat.

Several years ago in response to developments in Hawaii and elsewhere, Congress, along with then-President Clinton's support, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. DOMA put into Federal law a clear and precise definition of marriage as follows:

. . . the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between

one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word

``spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex, who

is a husband or a wife.

In the face of this clear language in the statute, it is amazing to me we would disregard the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and attempt to enshrine in the Constitution this principle without testing the constitutionality of this statute. Since it was first written and with the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has only been amended 16 times. The vast majority of these amendments dealt with the separation of powers and structure of our Government, the right to vote, power to tax, and other issues that, frankly, are only issues that can be decided through Constitutional amendment. The amendment that is before us today has not yet risen to this level of interest and concern.

First, as I indicated, Congress has already addressed the issue of what marriage is, and that law to date has not been challenged in a meaningful way. So there is no definitive finding of the constitutionality of DOMA. Indeed, typically the first step when one seeks to pursue a constitutional remedy is to determine whether the statutes are adequate. That has not been done.

Second, only one State in our Nation has recognized same-sex marriage, and that decision has yet to impact other States.

I would suggest to my colleagues that now is not the time to play politics in an election year with the Constitution of the United States.

I believe it is also important to note that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom established a Federal system of Government that intentionally left many critical issues to the control of State legislatures and State courts. This system has served our Nation extremely well, and I fear this amendment, if adopted, would lead to a succession of proposals to federalize family law and to federalize other issues that have been the purview of States since the beginning of our country.

Also, it strikes me as a misplaced priority when it comes to all the other issues that face us today--issues of funding homeland security, issues pertaining to health care, issues that are affecting the lives of every family in the country--to be here today and debating a proposal that does not have the majority support of the American public. In an ordinary time, debating any issue might be justified, but this is not an ordinary time.

As we were reminded last week by Governor Ridge and Mr. Mueller of the FBI, there are those who are plotting today to attack us in our homeland, and yet here we are talking about the issue of a relationship between two consenting adults.

We have 30 days left on the majority leader's schedule, and apparently we are going to spend our time on these types of divisive issues. That is not how I think we should properly spend our time. I think we should commit ourselves to dealing with the issues that pertain to every American family--issues of health care, issues of security, both economic and international.

Today we are spending time on an amendment which will not pass, which is not supported by the majority of Americans, and which defers us and deflects us from concentrating on the issues I think can help Americans.

Finally, I know many of my constituents are gays and lesbians in long-term relationships. While I myself believe civil unions are perhaps the best place to begin to publicly acknowledge these relationships, I want to recognize that the impetus behind the push for gay marriage comes from a desire for security and serious, committed relationships by many adult Americans.

In closing, let us heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. The States are simply the correct place for the regulation of marriage, and this kind of election-year politicking, which suggests an intolerance toward many of our constituents and neighbors, is plain wrong.

I yield the floor.