Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3711, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Air Cargo Security Act as an amendment to the Intelligence Reform Act. This is a measure that we need to pass to answer some of the criticisms in the 9/ 11 Commission Report regarding cargo security.

I am going to talk further about this bill, but I would like to offer Senator McCain some of the time to also talk because he was one of the cosponsors. It went through the Commerce Committee with his chairmanship. We all agree this is a bill that is needed to add to the security that is in the bill in accordance with the 9/11 Commission Report.

I yield to Senator McCain for his remarks, and then I will finish my presentation.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, for adding his support to this bill. We would not have gotten it through the Commerce Committee without his support. I think it adds immeasurably to the bill that is before us today.

Congressional action following 9/11 quickly created the Transportation Security Administration to address the appalling security gaps exposed by terrorists. We took drastic but appropriate steps to considerably increase security of our airports and planes, and 3 years later we are light-years ahead of where we were on that horrific day.

I am pleased that the 9/11 Commission raises issues that are similar to those I have discussed since we enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The Commission report states:

Concerns also remain regarding the screening and transport

of checked bags and cargo. More attention and resources

should be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed

by explosives in vessels' cargo holds.

I have worked since 2001 to enact stringent air cargo security standards and, along with Senator Feinstein, introduced the Air Cargo Security Act to create a comprehensive system to secure shippers, freight forwarders, and carriers. The Senate has twice passed this bill unanimously, but it remains stalled in the House of Representatives.

The bottom line is this: Are we safer than on September 11? Absolutely. But have we done enough? Not yet. So I think we can do more. I think this is an opportunity for us to address this issue.

The Air Cargo Security Act will make a difference in our Nation's air security. One thing we have not provided since 9/11 is security in the belly of the aircraft equal to protections for passenger areas and airports. Cargo is shipped on passenger aircraft, in some cases, without being screened. That is why we need this amendment.

The Air Cargo Security Act would establish a reliable known-shipper program, mandate inspections of cargo facilities, and direct the Transportation Security Agency to work with foreign countries to institute regular inspections at facilities that bring cargo into the United States.

The legislation would develop a training program for air cargo handlers and give TSA the power to revoke the license of a shipper or freight forwarder whose practices are unsound. These provisions will go a long way toward further securing aircraft in our country. All of us want America to have the safest aviation system in the world. Closing the cargo loophole is an important step.

There is no doubt in my mind that the traveling public is considerably safer. We have made changes to ensure our screeners undergo background checks, training, and testing. Checked bags are scrutinized, flight crew training is constantly being improved, and we are traveling in a more secure system. But we must address the cargo issue.

Mr. President, 22 percent of all air cargo in the United States is carried on passenger flights, only a tiny fraction of which is inspected.

Beyond transport on passenger planes, there are other issues in the cargo arena. Identification cards used by workers are generally not secured with fingerprints or other biometric identifiers. Background checks for cargo employees are still inadequate.

Perhaps the weakest link in the cargo security chain is the freight forwarder. These are the middlemen who collect cargo from the shippers and deliver it to the air carrier. Regulations governing these companies are lax, and the TSA is finding security violations when it conducts inspections. Under current law, however, TSA lacks the authority to revoke the shipping privileges of freight forwarders that repeatedly violate security procedures. This air cargo security amendment would give TSA that power.

Air cargo security is not a new problem. In 1988, Pan Am 103 went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, because of explosives planted inside a radio in the cargo hold of a passenger airplane. The 1996 Valujet crash in the Everglades was caused by high-pressure tanks that never should have been put on a passenger aircraft in the first place.

My amendment will strengthen air cargo security on all commercial flights. It establishes a more reliable known shipper program by requiring inspections of facilities, creating an accessible shipper database, and providing for tamper-proof identification cards for airport personnel. It gives TSA the tools required to hold shippers accountable for the contents they ship by allowing the administration to revoke the license of a shipper or freight forwarder engaged in unsound or illegal practices. This is the most important part of the bill. The TSA has told me time and again they need to have this capability in order to revoke licenses when they find an unsafe situation.

I have had the support of my colleagues, such as Senator McCain. Senator Lott, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has worked with me on this bill. We have passed this bill twice in the Senate. It is a bill we have looked at, we have vetted. We have had hearings.

I see my colleague Senator Lott, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, is on the floor of the Senate. He knows this bill. He worked with me to perfect it. If we can put this amendment on this very important piece of legislation, it will add immeasurably to our aviation security. We will have the most secure aviation system in the world with this amendment on this particular legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi. In fact, one of the unanimous consents we had when we took this intelligence reform bill to the floor was that all the amendments would have to be relevant to the 9/11 Commission. The amendment before us is relevant. I think because the Senate has acted on this, it will be a valuable contribution to the bill.

I appreciate the help and counsel of the Senator from Mississippi. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for bringing this bill to the Senate floor. We will pass this bill, and it will be a good bill. We are all going to work together to make that happen, which the distinguished chairman and ranking member have already proven.

I ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time for whenever it can be scheduled along the lines that the chairman and ranking member would schedule.

Mr. President, do I have 1 minute remaining before the vote begins?

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this air cargo security amendment. This is an amendment that the Senate has voted on twice and passed. It will add significantly to the security of our aviation community. The airports and the top of the airplane are very safe. We have done a super job of creating those safe areas, but what we have not done is matched that with cargo security, what is in the belly of the airplane. We want a seamless aviation system, and with this amendment I think we will have the safest aviation system in the world.

I am very proud to have the support of so many of my colleagues, and I hope we send a strong message that this amendment should be added to the final bill. I appreciate the support of the chairman, the ranking member, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and the Aviation Subcommittee as well.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Chief Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr., of the Western District of Texas. Judge Smith has dedicated his life to public service and justice, and I am pleased to commend him on his 20th anniversary on the Federal bench.

Judge Smith was born on October 25, 1940, to Dr. Walter S. Smith and Mary Elizabeth Smith. He grew up in the central Texas town of Marlin. He attended Baylor University where he received his bachelor of arts and his juris doctorate. While in law school, Judge Smith was editor of the law review and served as president of the Phi Delta Phi law fraternity.

Judge Smith began his legal career in private practice in Waco, TX. In 1979, he was appointed by Gov. Bill Clements to the 54th Judicial District Court of McLennan County. Shortly thereafter, Judge Smith was appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Texas.

In 1984, Senator John Tower recommended Judge Smith for an appointment to the Federal bench. President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the position and he received a unanimous Senate confirmation on October 4, 1984. Judge Smith was sworn into office on October 6, 1984, and has served since then as the first and only resident United States District Judge in the Waco Division. Judge Smith was elevated to the position of chief Judge of the Western District of Texas on June 1, 2003, a position he continues to hold.

During his legal career, Judge Smith has remained a member of the Texas Bar Association, the Texas Bar Foundation, the McLennan County Bar Association, and the American Judicature Society.

In addition to being admitted to practice in the State of Texas, Judge Smith was also admitted to practice in Federal district courts for the Western District of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Judge Smith is particularly proud of his participation in the formation of the Abner V. McCall American Inns of Court, for which he served as the first president.

During his years on the Federal bench, Judge Smith has traveled throughout the Western and other Districts of Texas. In addition to Waco, he has held court in Austin, San Antonio, Pecos, El Paso, Midland, Laredo, Corpus Christi and Forth Worth.

Judge Smith is married to the former Brenda Derting. They have two daughters, five granddaughters, and two grandsons. He is an ordained elder in the First Presbyterian Church and has been actively involved in church activities and community service.

During his career, Judge Smith has demonstrated the dedication and patience we seek on our judges. He is respected for his fairness and commitment to justice. Judge Smith has been asked to make rulings on many difficult cases throughout the years and has risen to the many challenges with poise and dignity. His knowledge of the law and experience make him a great judge. His dedication to his community and to the rule of law make him a remarkable public servant. I thank him for his 20 years on the Federal bench in the Western District of Texas.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and

ranking member of the Finance Committee for getting this bill through. These family tax breaks are very important. The most time I have spent on anything in my time in the Senate has been for family tax relief, and particularly marriage penalty relief.

The first bill I introduced on this subject was several years ago to try to stop the penalty that people get when there are two working individuals and they get married because then they go into a higher tax bracket, and they get taxed more than if they had stayed single. That is the worst thing we could do in our society because, of course, we know that marriage is very helpful to family stability. It has been shown that children in families where there is a husband and a wife are less likely to suffer child abuse and more likely to do well in school. It has been shown time and time again that families do better in the area of raising their children when there are two parents in the household. But we have had a Tax Code that has discriminated against marriage. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Last year, with my colleagues and President Bush, we passed a $350 billion tax cut. This is an economic growth package that is working. We have seen the fruits of our labor. The economy is coming back. The stock market has stabilized. Jobs are being created. So we have freed the economic engines of our economy by keeping more money in small business and more money in the pocketbooks of families.

One of the most important provisions provided immediate marriage penalty relief, making the standard deduction double that of single people and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision saved 52 million married couples, 3.6 million of whom are in Texas, up to $600 on their 2003 tax bills.

Enacting the marriage penalty relief was a giant step toward tax fairness. But the bill before us tonight is necessary to keep those tax cuts in place. Since the size of the bill was restricted to $350 billion last year, the marriage penalty relief provision is only effective for 2 years. So if we do not act on the bill tonight, and pass it, marriage could be a taxable event once again in 2005. Without relief, 48 percent of married couples would lose the tax relief they have gained in the last 2 years.

Besides lower taxes, the other thing that is so important for our Tax Code is to have predictable taxes so a family can plan on what they are going to have in their budgets. That is why I hope eventually we will be able to make these tax cuts permanent. But at least today we are going to take a major step in the right direction for predictability of the tax cuts.

Marriage penalty relief will now be able to be counted on from today through 2010, if we pass the bill before us tonight. I think that is a major step in the right direction. Hopefully, between now and 2010 Congress will see fit, working with President Bush, to make this relief permanent. Then our families will know exactly what they are going to have to spend, and they will have more in their pocketbooks as well.

I think it is very important to say this is not something that was easy. We know it was not. There are people who wanted to take the tax cuts away, so acting was very necessary to keep the child tax credit, to keep marriage penalty relief, and to give the overall relief to families in our country. But you can tell it has taken until the last month of this session to do it because many people wanted to put these tax cuts into other spending priorities.

I cannot think of anything better than having the money go back in the pocketbooks of those who earn it so they can spend it for their families the way they want to.

Mr. President, I know my time is expiring, but I just urge my colleagues to pass this bill. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for making sure that marriage penalty relief is in the bill before us tonight so that we can count on now through 2010 that this will be available for people getting married in our country, to raise their families in the way they choose to do it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

How much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California get 2\1/2\ minutes of the majority time.

Mr. President, this is a bill that is cut and dried. My distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein, and I have worked very closely on this bill. We are in agreement on its

priorities. I think it is a good bill for the military construction of our country.

I don't need to go over the details of the bill. Here is the bottom line: We are trying to fund the necessary military construction that will give a better quality of life and better facilities to those who are doing the job we are asking them to do. It is a pretty important job. They are protecting the freedom we enjoy today. It is that simple.

Our bill has prioritized housing, facilities where people will be trained, and especially Guard and Reserve units. In the past, I think we have shortchanged our Guard and Reserve. But we now see how important our Guard and Reserve are, how much they are doing for our country. They are being called in record numbers, and they are stepping to the plate and doing their job. So we have focused on a bill that would give more of our Guard and Reserve better facilities, which they so richly deserve.

We have more child development centers because we have more families in the military than before. We have more hospitals and medical facilities because, of course, we want to make sure we have proper medical treatment for our young men and women who are in our Armed Forces and for their families. So I think we have taken our allocation, which is $10 billion, and we have prioritized it to make a better quality of life for those who are giving their lives for our freedom. I think it is a good bill, and I am proud to ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I yield such time as he needs to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, who did such a wonderful job this week passing our Homeland Security appropriations bill that is going to fund homeland security for all of our country, after which I would like to reclaim the floor for the Military Construction Subcommittee report.

Madam President, I am very pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill. I am also pleased to be joined by the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein from California. We have worked very closely on this bill. That has been our tradition. We have never had a problem with our Military Construction bill. Frankly, we have done some very important work and begun to help the Department of Defense shape the military for the future.

Our bill provides, including $5.3 billion for military construction, $4.2 billion for military family housing; $166 million for NATO infrastructure, and $246 million for base realignment and closure costs.

Although the military construction needs continue to exceed resources available, I am very pleased that the bill provides a significant increase over last year's funding. I believe the bill we have on the floor today attends both to the President's most pressing priorities and to the concerns of Senators.

Since September 11, 2001, we have made great demands on our military personnel as they have waged the global war on terror. The sacrifices have been widely shared, but the demands have been particularly acute for our Reserve components who have faced deployments on a scale and for durations unprecedented in the post-World-War II era. Facilities support for the Guard and Reserve have traditionally failed to keep pace with need.

I am pleased that this year the administration increased the request for Reserve component funding by 68 percent. Even this higher figure, however, is not adequate and the bill adds an additional $194 million or 31 percent more for critically needed projects in the Guard and Reserve. We believe this bill does a very good job of providing the resources needed to accomplish our military mission. But nothing is so critical to the mission as the people who carry it out, particularly in a time in which so much is being asked of them. For that reason, we have paid particular attention to projects that enhance the quality of life of our military members and their families.

The bill provides over $1 billion for construction of new modern barracks, $188 million for design and construction of new hospital and medical facilities, and $11 million for child development centers to serve our military families. It also provides a 9-percent increase over last year for family housing construction operations and maintenance.

Because we are concerned about the quality of life of our military families, I want to comment briefly on a provision that is addressed in our bill and is very important to meeting the needs in the future for military housing. In 1996,

Congress passed legislation to provide the Defense Department with authority to enter into partnerships with private entities for the acquisition and management of military family housing. Because the initiative was unprecedented, the budget authority for the program was capped at $850 million, pending an evaluation of the program's success. The success has been striking.

To date, the Department of Defense has awarded 34 privatization projects comprising 63,200 housing units. Another 63 projects involving 116,000 housing units in 37 States and the District of Columbia are pending. The program has accelerated significantly the elimination of inadequate housing for our Armed Forces and has placed thousands of military families in better housing far sooner than would have been possible otherwise. Customer satisfaction with privatized housing is extremely high, and the Defense Department estimates the program will decrease long-term housing costs by 10 to 15 percent due to more efficient maintenance. The Department expects to reach the statutory cap late this fall, and the cap must be raised or the program would end. However, the Congressional Budget Office has decided to change its methods for scoring the additional authority, counting not just the annual appropriations required to fund the Government's contribution to privatized housing but also all the estimated benefits that accrue to the Government over time.

Effectively, the CBO intends to score the additional authority to enter into partnerships as though there were no partnerships, and the Government was paying for all of the new housing itself and paying for it all this year. That approach, besides seriously overstating the Government's expenditures for housing, negates any advantage of privatized housing over traditional military construction.

Public-private partnerships are relatively new, and we recognize CBO is struggling to account for them properly. We acknowledge the appeal of a theoretically comprehensive accounting of Federal financial activities. But the practical reality of CBO's proposed approach will be prolonged substandard housing for tens of thousands of our military families, with not a dollar difference in the amount of money Government is spending. So we are not going to allow that to stand.

I hope a sensible solution to this issue will prevail. We are going to continue to work with the Budget Committee, CBO, the Armed Services Committee, and in our own Military Construction conference. In the meantime, there is an amendment that is now part of our package that will direct the Defense Department to assess the impact on our military families if we fail to resolve this issue and, by doing so, put a marker down to address the issue in conference if it is not settled elsewhere.

Last year this bill differed from the administration's request in only one significant way, and that was overseas construction. The administration was in the early stages of its global posture review and there were many uncertainties about the future of the U.S. military presence overseas. Today, the Department's vision is clearer. The Department has made significant progress in thinking about the future of our overseas military facilities and, over the recess, began to publicly disclose some of that thinking. They have made a major step in the right direction. The Independent Overseas Basing Commission created by last year's Military Construction Appropriations bill is up and running and has begun its assessment of overseas infrastructure needs. The commission's work will help inform our evaluation of our overseas construction requirements.

I and my colleague, Senator Feinstein, have visited numerous military installations all over the world. I know our colleagues have as well. I am certain they have found the same thing we have--that the needs at these installations almost always outstrip the resources we are able to direct to them. Although most of the needs are eventually addressed, sometimes the urgency of the requirement isn't fully appreciated here in Washington, where the budget requests are being prepared.

This bill provides funding for a number of projects which are badly needed at particular installations and are in the future years defense plan, but which were not included in this year's budget request. All of them have been carefully screened by the military services to ensure that they meet urgent military requirements; all are top priorities for installation commanders, and all have been authorized in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill. A significant percentage of them support our Guard and Reserve forces, and I am pleased we were able to include them in this bill. They are a priority.

The bill before the Senate was approved by the Committee on Appropriations on a unanimous vote of 29-0. I thank my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for her cooperation and counsel throughout this process, and compliment her staff, Christina Evans and B.G. Wright, who have worked so cooperatively with my staff in preparing this bill. My staff, Dennis Ward and Sean Knowles, also have done a terrific job. They have traveled to the bases where we have requests to find out for themselves that these requests are needed and how we can best meet the needs of all of the military installations in our country and where our troops are based overseas. I so appreciate their professionalism and support.

I am pleased to offer the 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill for the Senate's consideration.

I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Feinstein.

Mr. President, this would now be the appropriate time because I know of no speakers.

Mr. President, before Senator Feinstein yields the floor, in case she has anything else to say, I say to the Senator from Delaware that he was very persistent last year. We did everything to try to help him with that last component of the increase in the capacity for Dover. We were not able to do that last year.

Senator Feinstein did make it her highest priority this year. I want the Senators from Delaware to know that. I supported it fully, but we did remember that the Senator had pressed hard.

Every one of us knows the great role that Dover Air Force Base plays in our military. They have one of the hardest jobs in all of our military, and that is the comforting of families when their loved ones are returned home, many times no longer alive in body but certainly in spirit. That is a huge job that is done beautifully at Dover. We appreciate that.

We have added to the capacity of Dover Air Force Base that has such an important place in our military facilities throughout our whole country. We thank the Senator from Delaware for coming to the floor of the Senate to reemphasize that importance. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his very kind words. It means a lot to Senator Feinstein and myself that he would come to the floor and recognize the job we are doing. It is very thoughtful and we appreciate it very much.

Once again, I think we have a good bill that has taken into consideration the priorities of our military, our administration, and the Senators who all came together to put a bill on the floor that would address the needs in a fair and balanced way throughout our country, and I thank my colleague from California. We have a great working relationship, which shows in the bill because it passed unanimously out of the committee, and I think it will pass unanimously out of the Senate. Hopefully we can go forward to start the construction projects October 1, the beginning of fiscal year 2005.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

florida national guard hurricane damage

I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida.

I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this issue to the attention of our committee and the Senate. Contingency funds exist to support the requirements of the Florida National Guard and I am confident they will have what they need when they need it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I commend Michael Schneider to my colleagues. He has had 25 years on the bench, starting as a municipal judge and working his way to the Supreme Court of Texas. He is one of the most respected judges in Texas, and I hope all my colleagues will vote for him.

I ask my colleague, Senator Cornyn, if he wishes to finish this minute.

Mr. President, how much of our morning business time has elapsed?

Mr. President, I want to talk today about the 9/11 Commission report, the war on terror, and the progress we have made since we were attacked 3 years ago in this country.

For years, terrorists have attacked the United States with little or no reaction from us. We have highlighted time and time again the trail of terror that led to September 11, 2001.

In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing 6 people and wounding more than 1,000. It is still not fully solved.

In 1996, terrorists bombed the U.S. military living quarters at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 brave Americans and wounding scores more--never solved.

In 1998, followers of Osama bin Laden attacked U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing and wounding hundreds--never solved.

In 2000, Osama bin Laden's followers attacked the U.S.S. Cole in a harbor in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more--not solved.

Sadly, it took four hijacked airplanes being turned into weapons of mass destruction and the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans and visitors to our country for us to resolve that we had been attacked, our way of life had been attacked, and the United States of America is going to fight back. We are in a war on terrorism.

The 9/11 Commission is going to report on Thursday, and we know there will be blame for everybody about the failure of our intelligence capabilities. The administration of President Bush provided unprecedented access and cooperation to the Commission because the President said we want to know what went wrong so we can make it right. The President himself said:

The 9/11 commission will issue a report this week and will

lay out recommendations for reform of the intelligence

services of the United States. I look forward to seeing those

recommendations. They share the same desire that I share

which is to make sure that Presidents and Congress get the

best possible intelligence. I have spoken about the reforms,

and some of the reforms are necessary--more human

intelligence, better ability to listen and see things and

better coordination among the various intelligence gathering

services.

This is what President Bush said about the 9/11 Commission. He went further to say:

Based on published accounts, we expect the commission

report will show that government institutions failed to adapt

to the threat of terrorism over more than a decade, enabling

terrorists to exploit dangerous weaknesses in our defenses.

We expect the commission to confirm that the blame for the 9/

11 attacks lies squarely and exclusively with al-Qaida. It is

clear as the threat of international terrorism evolved over

more than a decade that our national security and

counterterrorism institutions did not resolve to meet the

threat under both Republican and Democratic administrations,

Republican and Democratic Congresses. The kind of systematic

changes and reform that might have made it more difficult for

the terrorists to strike on 9/11 did not take place.

We have established that we can put the blame everywhere--in Congress, with Republicans, with Democrats, with administrations of the past and administrations of the present. We have taken some steps already as the Commission hearings have resolved.

We have taken the steps of implementing a new policy on terrorism by holding to account terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them and not allowing dangerous threats to gather overseas unchecked. We have cut off their money supply in many instances where we could with cooperation from allies.

We have transformed the FBI into an agency focused on preventing terrorist attacks through intelligence collection and other efforts while also trying to help it perform its traditional role as a world- class law enforcement agency for investigating terrorism and other crimes.

We conducted the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since 1947 by creating the Department of Homeland Security, bringing unparalleled focus and resources to homeland security efforts.

We have dramatically increased security on airplanes and other transportation systems on our borders and in our ports, providing significantly increased support for America's first responders.

We have broken down the unnecessary ``wall'' between law enforcement and intelligence gathering with the USA PATRIOT Act and with internal procedures and guidelines that are reformed so that our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies can do their job without artificial restrictions that would keep them from doing something as simple as tracing through cell phones potential terrorists who are planning some kind of action against innocent law-abiding Americans.

We are going to challenge these security issues. We are not going to ignore them. We are not going to wait for a future tragedy.

Recently, President Bush articulated three commitments in our strategy for peace.

First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We are not sitting here waiting for the enemy to come back to America; we are taking the fight where the enemy is. We are taking the fight to the Taliban resurgents in Afghanistan. We are taking the fight to Iraq where, Heaven knows, we have seen the brutality of Saddam Hussein in his support for terrorists by giving $25,000 rewards to suicide bombers in Israel.

Second, we are protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. We are laser-beam focused in the war on terrorism.

We are working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action for our common security. We are not facing a security threat just in the United States; we are facing a security threat to every freedom-loving country. Every country that lives in freedom is a target. We have seen it in bombings throughout the world, and recently in Spain.

Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy.

It is absolutely proven that in democratic and successful societies, men and women will not allow the malcontent and zealots and murderers to stay among them. They turn their labor to rebuilding and to better lives.

Is there one person in the world who has children who doesn't want the best for them? Is there a person in the world who doesn't want an education for their children so their children will have a better life than they did? Is there one person in the world who doesn't want that? It is clear that the way to get education for every child and a quality of life that would be good for every child to grow up in is democracy and freedom. That is how you get it. That is what we are trying to provide. We are doing it in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq where they haven't known freedom for years. We have some successes.

Look at Afghanistan. Three years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of

al-Qaida, ruled by the Taliban, the most cruel of regimes imaginable. The things they did to women and children are unimaginable in our country. Today, Afghanistan is looking at a presidential election this fall. The terror camps are closed. The Afghan Government is helping us to hunt down the remnants of the Taliban. The American people are safer because Afghanistan is now stabilized with a great President, Hamid Karzai, who wants for his people the same thing that everybody wants-- freedom, democracy, education, good health care, jobs, and an economy. He is trying to provide it, and we are helping him, and we are safer because of it.

Let us look at Pakistan. Three years ago, Pakistan was a country that openly recognized the Taliban. Al-Qaida was active. They were recruiting in Pakistan. The United States was not on really good terms with Pakistan at that time, but today, we see a great ally in Pakistan. President Musharraf is a friend to our country. He is making reforms in Pakistan and trying to root out the same Taliban/al-Qaida network in the remote regions that have terrorized Afghanistan and, in fact, have hurt the people of Pakistan as well. It was Pakistan that helped us capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11 attack on America.

Who could say we are not safer today because we have an alliance with Pakistan and an alliance and a stake in the stability of Afghanistan?

Iraq, 3 years ago; where were the people of Iraq? The ruler of Iraq was an enemy of our country. He was a mass murderer. He had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

Today, we see pictures of him in a system of justice which he never allowed his own people. But he is going to have justice. It is going to be given justice by the people he treated so horribly. The people of Iraq are seeking justice.

The people of America are safer because Saddam Hussein is gone. He is not giving $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber to blow up a bus in Israel and kill children. We are safer because there will be elections in Iraq. By next January, we will see the people of Iraq speaking about their own government. In fact, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has named a career diplomat to the post that has been vacant since suicide bombers blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad last August, killing the last U.N. representative there. America is safer because Saddam Hussein is behind bars and because his sons are no longer torturing and maiming hundreds of people in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia, 3 years ago; Saudi Arabia had terrorists within its midst and they were looking the other way. Today, Saudi Arabia says they are trying to find the attackers. They are finally realizing the growth of these terrorist regimes hurt their people, too. We are going to try to help Saudi Arabia in every way they ask us to help, to root out the terrorists who have fomented in their country.

If there is no place for the terrorists to hide in the Middle East, and if people are starting to see an economy, and if there are democracies emerging in places such as Iraq, it will change the course of the whole Middle East.

Libya, 3 years ago; Libya, a longtime supporter of terror, was spending millions of dollars to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. Today, thousands of Libya's chemical munitions have been destroyed. The Libyan Government finally saw that the civilized world was not going to sit back any longer and let it continue to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Muammar Qadhafi, in Libya, said: We are going to abandon any chance for nuclear weapons to be produced in our country.

We are seeing the breakdown of the terrorist regimes, one by one, in the Middle East. Why are we seeing the regimes go away and the beginnings of democracy come forward? Because our President has been focused. He has not relented in the war on terrorism. He has not relented in his responsibility to protect the people of America. Everything he has done has been with one goal in mind and that is to protect the people of America. That is the President's focus and that is why we are as far along as we are.

Let me read from an AP story about the success of the newly emerging Iraq stock exchange. From the AP on Sunday, July 18:

The miniature Liberty Bell clanged. Elbows flew. Sweat

poured down foreheads. Sales tickets were passed and, with

the flick of the wrist, 10,000 shares of the Middle East Bank

has more than doubled in value.

The frantic pace Sunday of those first 10 minutes of

trading typified the enthusiasm behind the Iraq Stock

Exchange--a new institution seen as a critical step

in building a new Iraqi economy.

In just five sessions, trading volume has nearly quadrupled

and the value of some stocks has surged more than 600

percent. . . .

The exchange's chief executive, as he eyed the activity on

the trading floor, which is housed in a converted restaurant

because looters had gutted the old exchange, looked out and

said: How can I not be excited about this?

The unofficial figures of the day's trade tell the story. Over 10 million equivalent dollars in stocks changed hands, reflecting the movement of 1.43 million shares--although only 27 companies are listed on the exchange.

That is just one more step in the stabilization of Iraq. America is going to stay to help Iraq as they recover from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. As long as we are asked to stay to stabilize, we will be there. When we are no longer needed with the allies that are staying with us, we will happily leave that country in the hands of trained military personnel for security and in the hands of elected democratic leaders selected by the vote of the people.

Today, we see the emerging of the temporary government of Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, working together to create a unified Iraq that will be able to hold elections for that country.

We have more to do. We all know we have more work to do. Our President has done so much in 3 years, rebuilding the areas of New York that were hit by terrorists, building up our security network, spending billions for homeland security, focusing on airline, airplane, and airport security, port security.

We live in a big country. We live in a free country. It is hard to get control in a free country of every potential site that a terrorist might attack. But because we are free, the people of our country are stepping up to the plate, too; they are helping. They are being vigilant. They are looking for things that are strange and reporting them. We believe attacks have been averted because of the vigilance of the President and Congress and the people of the United States.

We must remain a united country. When I hear some of the debates in the political arena, it is as if people are saying, we are two different countries; we are a divided country.

We are not a divided country. We need leaders who recognize we are not a divided country. We are a unified country. We need leaders who will unify America and talk to the people about what we can do together that will make us stronger, standing up and celebrating our diversity, showing how it can work in a free and democratic society. That is what we are proving by leading as unifiers.

We have a President of the United States who is leading for security and unification of our country. We must work with the President as a united Congress to combat terrorism for the security of our people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to honor seven individuals who last year made the ultimate sacrifice. The crew of flight STS-107 was tragically lost aboard the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. Debris from the vehicle was found in several cities and towns in my home State of Texas, where memorials will be raised to the mission's memory.

Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Specialist Michael Anderson, Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown and Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut, admirably exemplified our commitment to human space exploration. These men and women labored for years to join the select group of NASA astronauts. Their 16-day mission was dedicated to research in physical, life, and space sciences. They conducted approximately 80 separate experiments comprised of hundreds of samples and tests, for 24 hours a day in alternating shifts. This selfless toil has repeatedly formed the basis of NASA's significant discoveries about our universe.

The Columbia crew, by participating in this effort, fully endorsed manned space exploration, which has been among NASA's missions since its inception in 1958. Beginning with NASA's earliest Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions which first put men on the moon, to this year's Mars rovers, the benefits of space technology are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American. The work of people like those lost last year has led to myriad tangible benefits here on Earth, such as the life-saving CAT Scan. This very American desire to cross frontiers and explore our surroundings drives critical innovation and development, and it does not exist without people like those we commemorate today.

I believe these cherished husbands and wives, sons, daughters, parents, and friends deserve to be counted among another exclusive number. For their bravery, dedication, audacity, and perseverance, these astronauts should be posthumous recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal, which is awarded as the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. According to convention, this measure must be cosponsored by 67 Senators before it can be considered, and I am certain my colleagues hold the Columbia crew in the same high regard as I do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to honor seven individuals who last year made the ultimate sacrifice. The crew of flight STS-107 was tragically lost aboard the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. Debris from the vehicle was found in several cities and towns in my home State of Texas, where memorials will be raised to the mission's memory.

Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Specialist Michael Anderson, Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown and Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut, admirably exemplified our commitment to human space exploration. These men and women labored for years to join the select group of NASA astronauts. Their 16-day mission was dedicated to research in physical, life, and space sciences. They conducted approximately 80 separate experiments comprised of hundreds of samples and tests, for 24 hours a day in alternating shifts. This selfless toil has repeatedly formed the basis of NASA's significant discoveries about our universe.

The Columbia crew, by participating in this effort, fully endorsed manned space exploration, which has been among NASA's missions since its inception in 1958. Beginning with NASA's earliest Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions which first put men on the moon, to this year's Mars rovers, the benefits of space technology are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American. The work of people like those lost last year has led to myriad tangible benefits here on Earth, such as the life-saving CAT Scan. This very American desire to cross frontiers and explore our surroundings drives critical innovation and development, and it does not exist without people like those we commemorate today.

I believe these cherished husbands and wives, sons, daughters, parents, and friends deserve to be counted among another exclusive number. For their bravery, dedication, audacity, and perseverance, these astronauts should be posthumous recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal, which is awarded as the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. According to convention, this measure must be cosponsored by 67 Senators before it can be considered, and I am certain my colleagues hold the Columbia crew in the same high regard as I do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation creating the childhood drinking prevention semi-postal stamp.

Alcohol is the number one substance used and abused by America's children. Nearly a third of children begin drinking before the age of 13, and forty percent of children who begin drinking by age 15 will develop alcohol abuse or dependence later in life.

I do not believe most parents or adults intentionally ignore this issue, however many Americans do not realize the prevalence and seriousness of childhood drinking. Several national surveys, including those conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, demonstrate the serious consequences associated with early alcohol use.

For example, in 2002, 1.5 million youths between the ages of 12 to 17 needed treatment for alcohol abuse. Early alcohol use is more likely to kill or injure young people than all illegal drugs combined.

If the onset of drinking is delayed, a child's risk of serious alcohol problems could be decreased or even prevented. That is why I am pleased to propose the passage of a semi-postal stamp on childhood drinking prevention. A semi-postal stamp will publicize this important children's health issue in every home, school, and community across the nation.

Profits from the childhood drinking prevention stamp would be dedicated to support education and prevention efforts. I would also provide a further platform for millions of Americans to raise awareness about the importance of keeping children alcohol free.

I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation creating the childhood drinking prevention semi-postal stamp.

Alcohol is the number one substance used and abused by America's children. Nearly a third of children begin drinking before the age of 13, and forty percent of children who begin drinking by age 15 will develop alcohol abuse or dependence later in life.

I do not believe most parents or adults intentionally ignore this issue, however many Americans do not realize the prevalence and seriousness of childhood drinking. Several national surveys, including those conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, demonstrate the serious consequences associated with early alcohol use.

For example, in 2002, 1.5 million youths between the ages of 12 to 17 needed treatment for alcohol abuse. Early alcohol use is more likely to kill or injure young people than all illegal drugs combined.

If the onset of drinking is delayed, a child's risk of serious alcohol problems could be decreased or even prevented. That is why I am pleased to propose the passage of a semi-postal stamp on childhood drinking prevention. A semi-postal stamp will publicize this important children's health issue in every home, school, and community across the nation.

Profits from the childhood drinking prevention stamp would be dedicated to support education and prevention efforts. I would also provide a further platform for millions of Americans to raise awareness about the importance of keeping children alcohol free.

I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about the Federal marriage amendment before the Senate. It is important that we focus on this very important issue and look at the reason we are taking it up.

Some people come up to me and say: Why are we doing this now? We already have the Defense of Marriage Act. Additionally, people say: Is this such a pressing issue that it needs to be discussed right now?

I cosponsored this amendment because if we wait until the Defense of Marriage Act is taken through the courts and potentially declared unconstitutional, questions would arise about what marriage is in our country.

I do not think many would disagree that the traditional concept of marriage is what must be protected. Traditional marriage has been the foundation of our families for generations, in fact, centuries. It is best for our children now, and is the best chance our children have for brighter futures.

Inevitably, single-parent households exist due to death or an inability to keep marriages together. But it is proven, that if possible, a married couple, a man and a woman, raising a family give children the best chance to succeed in their lives.

Today, same-sex couples from 46 States have traveled to Massachusetts, California, and Oregon to receive marriage licenses with the intention of returning to their respective States to challenge their State's laws. Forty-two States have specific laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. My State of Texas has such a law.

Activist judges and lawyers have been using the judicial system to undermine the traditional definition of marriage without public consent or debate. This is not just an attack on our families, but also on our democratic form of government. Elected representatives of the people are supposed to make the laws of our country.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act--it was passed 85 to 14 on the Senate floor--to protect marriage by allowing States to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage.

I have heard arguments that DOMA would not withstand a full faith and credit Constitutional challenge, but we continue to see courts, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and officials in California deny the laws of this country and their particular States.

I do not think the Constitution should be amended lightly. I would like to see our Constitution amended only when it is absolutely necessary to correct a fundamental problem. However, this is one of those times. This is one of those times when we have judges acting as legislators. This must be stopped and can only be stopped by the Constitution.

The full faith and credit clause of our Constitution says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the

public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other

State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the

Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be

proved, and the Effect thereof.

The full faith and credit clause should not be used by the courts to validate marriages because marriages are not legal judgments, they are civil contracts. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a change where activist judges are making laws with their judgments, and the full faith and credit clause faces enormous challenge.

Currently, there are 11 States facing court challenges to their marriage laws. Recent court decisions indicate that neither State attempts to define marriage nor DOMA may be sufficient to protect the ability of States to define marriage. At least seven States will have State constitutional amendments on their ballots in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In my State of Texas where the legislature passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, controversy now exists about how State courts must treat civil unions. The State attorney general has said that Texas does not recognize Vermont civil unions, and, therefore, no divorce or separation must be granted in Texas for this union.

These are just a few of the questions that are beginning to arise because of the acts of judges in Massachusetts and local officials in California.

It is very important that elected representatives make this decision. People must have the right to hear the discussion, talk about it, and be represented by their elected officials. That is the issue here.

I do not think we will have the votes on Wednesday to proceed to this critical issue, but this is an important step toward starting the debate. Marriage between a man and a woman that produces children and strong families is

fundamental to our society and demands this safeguard. This is the core and fabric of our society.

I hope in the next few days, weeks, and months we have a civilized debate. This is not about being anti-homosexual. Not at all. I think everyone believes gays and lesbians should have the ability to lead their lives as they choose, as should all consenting adults. But we don't want to tear down traditional marriage and the American family. We need to protect traditional marriage. We should not allow some States to impose their definition of marriage on other States. States must have the right to accept or reject anything that has not been demonstrated the will of the people through their representatives.

I appreciate being given the time to speak on this issue. It is an important issue for our country, and I hope we will carefully consider the ramifications if we do not take action to protect traditional marriage and the American family.

I yield the floor.