Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the managers of the bill for their attention to this matter and I'm pleased that they have received assurances that this problem will be addressed fully in the omnibus appropriations act. For the interest of all Senators, I ask unanimous consent that the most up-to-date backlog list provided to me by the Federal Highway Administration be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my ongoing work to protect taxpayers and help students by finally ending a special interest subsidy. As my colleagues know, I have been working to close a loophole that allows some banks to issue new students loans at outrageously inflated rates. These subsides were supposed to have ended more than ten years ago, but they continue today, and taxpayers are footing the bill. Just last year, this wasteful subsidy cost taxpayers $1 billion. Imagine how many students we could have helped if that money went to Pell Grants instead of the special interests. I believe we should close this loophole--immediately and permanently--and use the savings to help more students afford a college education. It is outrageous that taxpayers are paying 30 times what they should for these student loans. Interest rates haven't been at 9.5 percent in years, but new loans--at that inflated rate--are being written every day because of this loophole. On September 15, in the Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to close the loophole. My amendment would have used those savings--about $370 million--to increase grants to college students. My amendment had the support of every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, but unfortunately the chairman and every Republican opposed it. They said they wanted to deal with it later. So Senator Kennedy and I came here to the Senate floor and called on the Department of Education to take action, since our colleagues were not ready to act. Unfortunately, the Department of Education refused. As the Government Accountability Office noted, the Department could have closed this loophole with the stoke of a pen. Last week--seeing that neither the Republican Congress nor the administration--were willing to act, I introduced my own bill to permanently and fully close this loophole and help our students. My bill is called the Student Loan Abuse Prevention Act S. 2861, and I thank Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Reed, Dodd, and Clinton for cosponsoring it. My bill would use all of the savings to increase Pell Grants for students. The day after I introduced my bill, Senator Gregg offered his own bill, which we are considering today. I am pleased that the Republican leaders have finally offered a proposal. I am disappointed, however, that their plan does not fully close the loophole, expires after 1 year, and will not help today's student afford college. Let me say a word about each of those shortcomings. First, the Gregg bill does not fully close the loophole. This subsidy would still live on. My bill says that lenders cannot create new loans at 9.5 percent. No new subsidies--period. And that is important because in the past 2 years lenders have used tricks to extend these outrageous subsidiaries, and we need to put an end to it. But the Republican bill is not a real fix. It does not stop these gimmicks entirely. In many cases, lenders could keep writing new loans at 9.5 percent for decades. Under the Republican bill, the outrageous subsidy will live on. So the first problem with the Republican bill is that it does not fully close the loophole and will still overcharge taxpayers for this lender subsidy. The second problem with the Gregg bill is that it expires after 1 year. My bill will stop the subsidy forever. The Republican bill would expire in a year. I want my colleagues to know that when we work on the Higher Education Act, I will again work for a permanent fix that protects taxpayers--not just for 1 year--but forever. The third problem with the Gregg bill is that it does nothing to help students who are trying to pay for college today. While there are a lot of good uses for this money, I would also like to see those dollars go straight into the pockets of our students so they can pay for college. So the Gregg bill before us has three big problems--it doesn't fully close the loophole, it expires after a year, and it doesn't help today's college student. But--after all the work it has taken to get the Republicans to finally address this--the Gregg bill is a step forward and one we should take while we can. I believe that our students and taxpayers deserve better. They deserve a real fix that is permanent and that helps today's students. But, given the reluctance we have seen so far, given the votes against my amendment last month, and the Bush administration's refusal to act, we should pass this first step and stay on the job until it is done and done right. And I remind my colleagues that we will revisit the Higher Education Act next year, and I will fight to close this loophole fully and permanently. From coast to coast, the price of college education is soaring and parents and students are struggling. I will continue to fight for policies that put students above special interests and that protect taxpayers from these wasteful subsidies.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Valentin J. Riva--a friend and transportation industry leader that was taken from us at far too young an age. Earlier this month, I was shocked and saddened to learn that Val Riva had passed away suddenly as a result of complications from heart surgery. Val was only 50 years old. I and many of my colleagues who work closely on transportation policy will remember Val as a truly visionary leader and trusted colleague. Moreover, Val was an extraordinarily dedicated father and husband. Over the last two decades, Val has held leadership positions in several transportation organizations. Throughout, Val has been an articulate advocate for investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Val served as vice president of government affairs for the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association from 1988 until 1991 and as vice president and general counsel of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association from 1991 until 1997. From August of 1997 until the time of his unfortunate death, Val Riva served as president and chief executive officer of the American Concrete Pavement Association. And in his most recent position, Val not only continued to be a powerful voice in the fight for infrastructure investment, but he also was a strong proponent of making sure that adequate resources were being dedicated to advancing pavement technology and transportation research. We have often heard Members speak on this floor about the deteriorating condition of our Nation's roads and bridges. Val Riva recognized that we not only need to replace and rehabilitate those crumbling roads and bridges but we also need to conduct the necessary research to create new technologies that will help prolong the lifespan of our infrastructure. Val Riva was also respected by his peers in the transportation industry. Best of all, Val had the rare gift of being both thoughtful and funny. He was considered a trusted colleague and, more importantly, a loyal friend to those individuals that had the good fortune to work with him. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky to be one of those individuals. And while Val was very dedicated to his work in the transportation industry, there was no job more important or rewarding to him than being a father to Clare, Michael and David. No one ever had a meeting with Val without hearing about his children and hearing a historical reference. I express my heartfelt condolences to his three children and to his wife, Marti. Val's passing is much more than just their loss. It is a loss to the entire national transportation enterprise and the great many of us that recognized his leadership in it. While we will miss Val's personable nature, his humor and his strength, I and many of my Senate colleagues know that his contributions will live on for a very long time to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly support the intelligence reform bill now before the Senate, and I will vote for it. The 9-11 Commission worked incredibly hard in a bipartisan manner to identify how to better protect our country from terrorism. They have given us a roadmap to protect our people, and we should move forward with it promptly. In their report, the commissioners said we need clear direction for our country's intelligence community. They stressed better coordination as a key area where we can make the greatest difference. The bill on the floor does that, it has bipartisan support, and we should move it forward. As a member of both the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate's 9/11 Working Group, I have looked closely at these challenges. And over the past few years, I have worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security, including the Coast Guard, FBI, TSA, Border Patrol, as well as the National Guard and local law enforcement throughout Washington State. Through our work together, I have learned first hand the difficulties they face every day in defending our country. I especially want to commend the September 11 families who bravely stood up and spoke out. They forced our government to fully examine the terrorist attacks and to find ways to make our people safer. Their brave advocacy has made a difference. Mr. President, this is an important step toward achieving a truly integrated national effort in the global war on terror. I am proud to support it.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. The Department of Education could end this today with a simple rulemaking procedure. Instead they are pointing fingers, saying Congress has to do it. Congress had the opportunity in the Appropriations Committee last week. They said, no, we have to wait for an authorization 6 months from now. Every month that goes by we lose billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and thousands of students don't get access to college. We don't need any more fingerpointing on this. I think the Senator would agree that we don't need the Department of Education pointing to Congress and Congress pointing to the Department of Education. We need to stop this now. The Department of Education can do it by rulemaking and we can do it on any bill that comes before us. But we need to do it and we need to do it quickly.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. This is outrageous. We have the Department of Education pointing fingers at Congress when they can make a ruling and stop this practice today. According to all accounts, the delay of this is costing billions of dollars. If we wait for Congress to act on reauthorization of the act 6 months or longer from now, taxpayers are going to lose $2.8 billion in interest payments. We are in the Senate where we know that access to Head Start is critical, we know access to college is critical, and we know that $2.8 billion sent to the bank today means students are not getting higher education.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about this scandal to which the Senator from Massachusetts alluded. It is mentioned in the New York Times today, ``Banks and the College Loan Loophole.'' I talk to families all over the State of Washington, and they are struggling to pay for college for their kids. They all agree college education is far too expensive for many families. You would think the Federal Government would be doing everything possible today to make college more accessible for all of our families. Sadly, that is not the case. Last week in the Senate we had a chance to help students to get to and get through college. Unfortunately, the majority on the Appropriations Committee blocked my commonsense, student-friendly proposal. Instead of standing up for students, unfortunately the committee stood up for banks and other special interests that have been gaming the system for years, at taxpayer expense. I am on the Senate floor today to say that students should come before special interests. Student loan programs were started to help our students. They were not started to line the pockets of lenders. It is time to end the taxpayer ripoff that is occurring today and do more to help our students afford college. Back in the 1980s, interest rates were high. Many people were concerned that our lenders would stop making student loans, so Congress created a temporary--and I emphasize ``temporary''--measure to keep college loans affordable for our students. At the time, it worked. Lenders kept making loans, and students were able to afford college loans. This was supposed to be, as I said, a temporary measure. In fact, it was supposed to be phased out in 1993, when interest rates started coming back down. Interest rates came down; this subsidy lived on. For the past 11 years, taxpayers have paid these lenders far more than they should have. Taxpayers are actually subsidizing profitable companies to make loans that are far above today's interest rates. Clearly, taxpayers are paying a huge bill while special interests are taking the money to the bank. Who is paying the price? Our college students. This year we are throwing away $1 billion that we could be using to help more students go to college. So in the Appropriations Committee last week, I offered an amendment to finally stop this taxpayer ripoff. My amendment would have used the savings from this ripoff to help 700,000 students get another $3,000 for college. It would have helped the parents of 25,000 low-income students get child care on campus. It would have helped another 200,000 students get $800 in grants. It would have helped 180,000 low-income and first-generation students prepare for college through TRIO and GEAR UP. And it would have helped thousands of migrant students attend college. When I offered my amendment, everybody on the committee seemed to agree that this subsidy should end. But when it came time to vote, every Republican member voted against my amendment. They voted against taxpayers, they voted against students, and they voted against our families. They said they wanted to deal with it later. I am here today to say that taxpayers are getting ripped off every day we delay. If we wait 6 months, as was suggested, taxpayers will lose billions of dollars, and students will not get the help they need. The time to do this is now. I am not willing to waste another dollar that could be in the pockets of our students today, and that is why the Senate needs to act now. The Government is paying 30 times more than it should for these special interest subsidies--30 times more. That is a ripoff. This is as if you walk into a college book store and a textbook on the shelf costs $100. If that textbook had the same outrageous markup as these loans, that student would be paying $3,000 for the same textbook. Taxpayers are paying $3,000 for something that only costs $100 because of this runaway subsidy, and that is outrageous. There is no reason for taxpayers to be paying a markup of 30 times the real cost. We were all outraged when Halliburton charged taxpayers $45 for a case of soda that sells for $7 at the supermarket. Halliburton marked those prices up 6 times. Today, lenders are marking up student loans at a price 30 times higher than they should. No wonder the Washington Post called this a scandal. I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post editorial on this printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for an 2 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts asked unanimous consent to have the New York Times editorial from today printed in the Record. It clearly laid out the case for what is happening today to taxpayers who are paying a tremendous price. And who is losing? It is our students. We have to stop overcharging the American people. We still have time to do it this year and help students get to college at a time when we all know tuition rates are rising. We need to give more to get more students there. I warn the Senate, the clock is ticking. Every Member of the Senate has to decide if they stand with students and families and taxpayers, or if they are going to stand with the special interests. Millions of students and millions of families are waiting for this answer. We have to stop the special interest subsidy today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I just called up has been agreed to on both sides. It simply allows our northern Air Guard to be able to communicate with those on the ground and use available funds. I have talked with the managers on both sides, and I believe the amendment is agreed to. I urge its adoption.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3621 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an amendment that would help make our communities and our Nation's ports safer and more secure. I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Bill Nelson, Clinton, Schumer, Mikulski, Kennedy, Boxer, Cantwell, Graham, and Landrieu.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate that funding for homeland security is significantly higher in this bill than in the President's budget request. It should be noted that under the leadership of Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd, we have made progress since the Rudman report suggested that we are ``dangerously unprepared and underfunded for a catastrophic terrorist attack.'' However, I am still very concerned that the priorities established in this bill are not sufficient to meet the challenges we face in confronting the terrorists who want to do us harm or the homeland security needs throughout the country. It is our duty to protect our Nation, and in order to do that we need to make the right investments. These decisions are critical to ensuring that the American people, the communities they live in, our economy, and our country are safe and secure. The debate we are having could not be more critical to the defense of our country. The bottom line, though, is we have to do more to confront terrorists abroad and defend ourselves at home. Nowhere is this more true than in the areas of port security and securing our trade lanes. This is not only one Senator's opinion; it is the opinion of experts in the field and those brave men and women who defend our Nation. In a recent interview, the commander of NorthCom said: It's just a matter of time before terrorists would attempt a sea-borne . . . a maritime attack on the U.S. The 9/11 Commission report stated: While commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other modes. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation. Steven Flynn, perhaps the most preeminent expert in the field, says this about our Nation's efforts to better secure our ports: ``This is an extremely soft target for America's enemies to exploit'' and that a ``two-week shutdown of U.S. ports would collapse the global trade system. That's what we're talking about.'' Despite this clear evidence, time after time the White House and the rest of the administration have taken the position of limiting investments in many of the policies and security initiatives that would make our Nation safer. I do not say this to criticize Chairman Cochran or his staff, and Senator Byrd has been a true champion every single step of the way in fighting to improve the security of our Nation. Without their efforts, we would be even worse off. But I raise this issue this afternoon to reiterate my strong belief that we have a great responsibility to better secure our country, and it is my own belief we are not doing enough to protect the communities we have been sent here to represent. Specifically, we need to do more to identify and address the threats to our country before they leave foreign shores. That means better intelligence and more personnel dedicated to finding and stopping terrorists. And those are the issues this Senate is currently debating. But we also need to give the people engaged in antiterrorist activities the tools they need to succeed. We also need to harden our port facilities, support the Coast Guard in fulfilling the missions they have been tasked to perform, and facilitate better coordination among Federal agencies, States, and local first responders. In the last several years, we have made steady but slow progress in better securing our port facilities and our trade lanes, and we have learned some important lessons through innovative programs such as Operation Safe Commerce, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Soon the lessons we have learned should be applied in a way to better protect our Nation, and with the support of Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd, the report accompanying this bill directs the administration to create a national standard for cargo security. By February, the Department of Homeland Security is directed to take the data, analysis, and lessons learned from these cargo security programs and create a plan that will ensure that the cargo headed for our shores is safe to bring into our ports. As the author of Operation Safe Commerce, I am particularly proud to report that despite early reluctance by the administration, we are seeing real results through the implementation of this security program. After more than a year of preparation, we launched Operation Safe Commerce. It is a new era of port and cargo security that uses smart technology and the best supply chain systems to protect our ports from those who would do us harm. Only last week, I had the opportunity to visit the port of Tacoma to see how Operation Safe Commerce, our three largest container load centers, and the private sector partners had answered our call. Over the past 5 months, shipments have been tracked from their origination point, whether that was in an overseas factory floor or an agricultural field, to their final destination. The cargo traveled by truck, train, and ship along its journey, and we watched it every step of the way. The security was monitored and analyzed at the origination point, every subsequent transfer point, and on each mode of transportation until it reached the customer. When vulnerabilities were found in the supply chain, solutions were developed to ensure the integrity of the shipments. In many cases, it was discovered that the origination point lacked access, control, and general security. So now we know that cameras, biometric identification technology, and third party inspection are necessary to ensure the product's integrity before it is loaded into a container. In other cases we found that the integrity of container seals was not verified at each point in the supply chain. If the seal had been compromised when it arrived here, it is too late. So several technologies were recommended to ensure that we know if a seal has been broken or a container has been opened. It was learned that the identity used by drivers to transfer the containers between supply chain points was not always easily verified. So the final Operation Safe Commerce report will make recommendations to address that as well. When the 9/11 Commission published its report, it noted that initiatives such as Operation Safe Commerce had just begun to secure shipping containers but that an integrated strategic plan had not been developed. These early findings prove that Operation Safe Commerce is a model for how our Nation can improve port security by identifying dangers before they leave foreign shores and helping to ensure that cargo is safe when it arrives in the United States. This innovative program is an excellent example of industry coming together to share experiences and best practices, and I could not be more proud that my home ports of Seattle and Tacoma, along with Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York, and New Jersey are leading the way to a new standard to secure cargo bound for U.S. ports. While the hard work of these partners has begun to answer the call in defending our Nation and responding to the 9/11 Commission, there is still much more that we need to do. As a few of us in Congress, the 9/ 11 Commission and experts in the field have called for, we must continue working together to develop a cargo security system as a national and ultimately international standard. We must provide the funding necessary to harden and protect our port facilities and the people who live and work near them. I am reminded of the challenge we face to secure these critical assets every time I come home to Washington State. My office in Seattle is located in the Jackson Federal Building. From my office window, I can see the third largest container load center in the country, the largest passenger ferry system in the continental United States, carrying 26 million passengers annually. I can see an ever-increasing number of cruise ships that call on Seattle. I can see active commerce and thousands of people engaged in trade on a daily basis. I can see two professional sports stadiums that hold tens of thousands of people and literally thousands of residences and homes of people who live near our port facilities. Again, this is all in close proximity to the port of Seattle. This view is not much different than the view of other ports in my State and, frankly, all around the country, and that is why I want to make sure all of America's ports are safe. I know every Senator agrees there is nothing more important than protecting our country, and over the next few days I hope we can all work together to do a better job for our Nation, for our States, and the individual communities we all represent. I know unless we make the right decisions in Washington, DC, our security, our economy, and our communities will be threatened. That is why today I am offering the Murray amendment to triple the level of port security grant funding in the underlying bill. While the amount contained in the bill for port security grants is greater than that included in the House bill, I remain concerned that the amount is simply not enough to help our ports with their security needs. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has testified that it will take more than $7 billion, including $1.5 billion this year, to implement the port security plans which were mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. In the last fiscal year, the Department of Homeland Security received nearly $1 billion in requests for port security grants. Since that time, Congress has only provided $275 million in port security grants, $150 million last year and $125 million this year. According to the Coast Guard, that leaves us over $1 billion short of our commitment to these vulnerable assets, and according to the American Association of Ports Authorities, a minimum of $400 million is necessary to safeguard the most critical ports in the country. While I have always known the need for extra port security funding, the urgency was recently highlighted for me at home in Washington State. We have had the terror level raised to Orange six times in the past 3 years, and soon ferry systems across the country will be required to increase their threat posture due to suspicious activity on ferries and at terminals nationwide. While this suspicious activity is not necessarily attributable to the action of potential terrorists, the steps we are taking are a necessary precaution. Protecting our country comes with a price. This means increased vehicle inspections, and for the Washington State ferry system that means each month an estimated 21,000 additional vehicles will need to be inspected before they board our ferries. The ferry system, State patrol, and Coast Guard will incur tremendous additional costs to secure what is essentially an extension of our highway system that are not budgeted for and costs that, frankly, could have been avoided. We could have avoided these extra costs with enough funding to secure those terminals. It seems penny-wise and pound-foolish to scrimp on the port and terminal security so many experts have called for. The Murray amendment would provide a $300 million increase in port security funding for a total of $450 million in fiscal year 2005. This amendment would help put the safeguards in place to ensure that local communities are not forced to pick up the tab for a federally mandated security measure. This increase is necessary to make an honest attempt to cover the Federal share of securing some of the greatest economic engines of our economy and the communities that surround them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask for its consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3596 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are less than 2 weeks away from our summer recess, and we will soon attend our respective parties' conventions. It is important to ask what we have accomplished so far this year. Very little. We have hundreds of thousands of troops getting shot at in Iraq with no plan in place to stabilize that country. We have sky-rocketing healthcare costs with no plan in place to help Americans get the healthcare they deserve. And we have not done our work around the Senate: we have no budget, we have not done our appropriations, and instead of dealing with these real threats to the American people we are taking up the Senate's time on an issue that is not going to create one job, bring one soldier home, educate another child, or get a senior affordable prescription drugs. So what are we doing? A constitutional amendment to ban States and local governments from extending legal marriage rights, responsibilities and obligations to same-sex couples. With all the challenges we as a country currently face, this is one of the last things on which the Senate should be working. This is election-year politics pure and simple, in its crassest and worst form. The proponents of this amendment are trying to rally those who adamantly oppose gay marriage before the fall elections and distract from an inability to deliver on the priorities of the American people. It takes 67 votes in favor of a constitutional amendment for it to pass the Senate. There is no expectation it will pass, yet they are stealing valuable work time from the Senate to play election-year politics. Since this side of the aisle is not in control, we have to take what the majority brings to this floor, so we should address the basic question in this debate, which is, Should we amend the Constitution on this matter? I say we should not. Our Founding fathers made the constitutional amendment process a difficult one. Two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, along with three-quarters of the State legislatures, must approve an amendment. Although it has never occurred, a convention can also be called by the States to amend the Constitution. Since adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has only been amended 17 times. Our Founders wanted to use this process only in pressing matters that were serious crises impacting our Republic. As a result, in the 203 years since the passage of the Bill of Rights, amending the Constitution has always been used to protect and expand rights, not limit them. One exception was prohibition, but we repealed that amendment 14 years after it was ratified. So we have used the constitutional amendment process to address real concerns: to establish our Bill of Rights; to end slavery; to grant women the right to vote; and to establish Presidential succession. These were real-world problems. These were issues that needed to be addressed. The amendment we have in front of us would break with tradition--215 years worth of it--and would restrict liberties and would actually write discrimination into the Constitution. This amendment would restrict the rights not of all Americans but of one specific group. A group to whom this Senate 3 weeks ago extended hate crimes protection to as part of the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Furthermore, unlike the pressing reasons why we have amended the Constitution in the past, invoking the process in this case is based on a hypothetical. One State--Massachusetts--had a State judicial ruling that their State constitution must allow same-sex marriage. Again, despite the rhetoric on the other side, these are State judges interpreting state law. Currently 38 States, including Washington State, prohibit marriage between people of the same sex. Congress passed, and President Clinton also signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, in 1996, which made it clear that on the Federal level marriage is defined between a man and a woman. At least seven States will also decide this year whether to approve State constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The national conversation on this issue is still evolving, and we should not move forward with a constitutional change that would stop this discussion dead in its tracks. This is an issue that should be left to the States to decide. States can choose how they want to define marriage, something they have traditionally done, and DOMA allows one State to reject another State's recognition of same-sex marriage. There is a law on the books that allows States to do as they see fit. Marriage has always been within a State's jurisdiction. There is no good reason, other than politics, to try to change that. I thought the proponents of this amendment claim to be strong State's rights advocates. The hypothetical they have invoked in this process, the supposed constitutional crisis, is that the Supreme Court or a Federal court may rule these State laws or DOMA unconstitutional. That has not happened, nor is there any indication it will happen in the near future. So here we are, using precious floor time, on a hypothetical. Something on which we have never used the amendment process. This is no crisis. There is no constitutional problem. So I reject this amendment. We should not be using the amendment process on this issue. We should not be using the Constitution to restrict rights. What we should be doing is addressing the real issues that impact the lives of Americans. I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Commander Timothy Alan Cook for his service to the United States Senate and his continued service to our country in the United States Coast Guard. Commander Cook has been detailed to be the Coast Guard Liaison to the United States Senate since July 2001, and I am proud to have had the opportunity to work closely with him over the past 3 years. In my leadership roles on the Transportation and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittees, my staff and I have often relied on Commander Cook's tremendous grasp on the inner-workings of both the Coast Guard and the Senate. Commander Cook began his Senate career in 1997 as the Coast Guard Fellow to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee. However, his Coast Guard career began more than a decade earlier as a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Then-Ensign Cook's first tour was as Deck Watch Officer aboard the Medium Endurance Cutter DAUNTLESS (WMEC 624) then stationed in Miami Beach, FL. In 1988 he became Executive Officer of the Fast Patrol Boat MANITOU (WPB 1302) also stationed in Miami Beach, FL. He was selected for the Coast Guard Academy Postgraduate Instructor Program in 1990 and attended Duke University where he received his Master of Arts degree in Public Policy. CDR Cook taught U.S. History and American Government in the Coast Guard Academy Humanities Department from 1992 to 1995. During this period he also qualified as Deck Watch Officer on the Coast Guard Tall Ship EAGLE (WIX 327). In 1995 he assumed Command of the Fast Patrol Boat MAUI (WPB 1304) stationed in Miami Beach, FL. During this time he also completed a Master of Arts degree in Political Science from Brown University. Then, following his service at the Senate Commerce Committee, Commander Cook became Executive Officer of the Medium Endurance Cutter BEAR (WMEC 901) at the mid-point of its 106-day Mediterranean cruise. During his tour he completed numerous patrols in the Caribbean conducting the Coast Guard law enforcement and search and rescue missions. This week, Commander Cook will leave his post as the Coast Guard's Senate Liaison. He will be missed in the United States Senate, but the Coast Guard needs his expertise on the Deepwater Acquisition Program. It has been my pleasure to work with Commander Cook. On behalf of the Senators and staff who have also been fortunate to work with him, I wish Commander Cook, his wife Nancy and their two sons, Evan and Joel, the best in all of their future endeavors.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3427 and ask unanimous consent to have the amendment, which is at the desk, modified.

Mrs. MURRAY. The amendment before us is in support of all activated personnel.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I think it is also important to point out there is no direct spending. It simply authorizes the Secretary of Defense to help geographically dispersed Active-Duty military families.