Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2004

Mr. President, I am privileged to represent a State that values families and the tradition of this country as much or more than any State in our Nation. We are the 14th State in the Union. We are a State that values and respects not only our families, but our duties to the rest of the country. In fact, during the current war in Iraq, Vermont has lost on a per capita basis more soldiers than any other State in the country. We are a very special State.

We also have a wonderful constitution, the shortest constitution, I believe, of any State in the Nation. We hold to it as we do the U.S. Constitution. We have provisions in our Vermont State Constitution which

make it very difficult to change, for a reason. It has guided us for well over 200 years, just as our U.S. Constitution has guided the nation as a whole.

When you change the fundamental role of the Federal Government to have it intrude into the lives of our people and into our separate religious institutions, that is wrong. Doing so preemptively, based on the false premise that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, is going to reach out and require States to approve same-sex marriages, is ill founded. Doing so in order to write discrimination into the Constitution is abhorrent.

Instead of a respectful and deliberative process with respect to the U.S. Constitution, we have something else going on here, something that Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold and others spoke of yesterday. None of the various proposed constitutional amendments have gone through the traditional process to help the Senate determine whether a proposed amendment is ``necessary,'' as, of course, the Constitution requires. Changing the fundamental charter of our Nation should not be proposed in this haphazard manner.

Everybody here knows that this is a political exercise being carried out on the fly. It shows little respect for the Constitution or the priorities of the American people.

Instead of taking action against terrorism, providing access to prescription drugs at lower prices, improving the criminal justice system, engaging in oversight to get to the bottom of the Iraq prison abuse scandal, providing a real Patients' Bill of Rights against the HMOs, or just fulfilling the basic requirements of the Senate by passing a budget and determining the 12 remaining appropriations bills on which the Senate has yet to act, the Republican leadership in the Senate has frittered away another week, with only 5 weeks left in the session. We have lost another week, but they know on the vote they will not win.

The American people have felt the need to amend the Constitution only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. You would not recognize that tradition of restraint in looking at this Congress, in which dozens of proposed amendments to the Constitution have been introduced. The Senate has voted to increase the democratic rights of our citizens on several occasions, but we have only voted once to limit the rights of the American people. That was prohibition. We know that failed, and we had to come back in an embarrassed way and vote to repeal it.

This is a motion to proceed to the third version of the Federal Marriage Amendment that has been introduced in this Congress. Senator Daschle and the Democratic leadership offered a fair up-or-down vote on this amendment, but the Republican leaders refused. Instead, they want to have a constitutional convention on the Senate floor, with multiple votes on a variety of versions of constitutional amendments.

Yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, indicated he was not insisting on a vote on his version of a constitutional amendment. I have not heard the distinguished senior Senator from Utah insist on a separate vote on an alternative version. I really do not understand why the Republican leadership wouldn't agree to an up-or-down vote at a certain time on this amendment, as Senator Daschle offered. It almost seems as if the Republican leadership can't take yes for an answer on this procedural matter.

Are we facing crises here in the United States? I suppose that we are, but they are not constitutional crises. They are real-world problems. They have more to do with international terrorism and difficult economic times for America's working families than how the people of the State of Massachusetts will determine how to work out a State constitutional amendment or other approaches to the question of marriage in their State.

No constitutional crisis exists demanding constitutional changes. Look at two of our largest States, California and New York. They have Republican Governors. Their Republican Governors are not asking us to change the Constitution. Many of the Republican Senators in this Chamber know there is not a constitutional crisis, and I commend their courage in opposing this amendment.

I compliment the Log Cabin Republicans for their forthrightness and courage. They are right that marriage is an issue for the States and for our religious institutions within their separate spheres. In fact, they are right that Vice President Cheney and I agree on this, even though the Vice President is uncharacteristically silent at this moment.

I began this debate last Friday by urging that our Constitution not be politicized. I am saddened to see the proponents of this amendment and those trying to make this an election year issue see nothing as off limits or out of bounds, not even the Constitution. They propose turning the Constitution of the United States from the fundamental charter preserving our freedoms into a kiosk for political bumper stickers. They would reduce it to a device--in their words--to ``stand up against the culture.''

The real conservatives, the conservatives of Vermont and other States--know that conserving the Constitution is among the most important responsibilities we have. Our oath as Senators--an oath I have taken five times, and I can remember each one of them as though it was yesterday--is to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Where is the respect for our States here? The Republican-appointed judges in Massachusetts changed their rules on marriage. But Massachusetts can decide for Massachusetts. They can change their constitution. But, of course, what we do here is going to force other States to ignore their own constitution or their own laws. Whether they like it or not, we will tell them what they have to do.

I hear many say Republicans and others on the Massachusetts Supreme Court endangered marriages. If I may be personal for a moment, I have been married for 42 years, to the most wonderful person I have ever known. In my mind, she is the most wonderful wife anyone could have. I sometimes ask myself why she has put up with me for 42 years, but she has. We have three beautiful children, two wonderful daughters-in-law, a wonderful son-in-law, all of whom we love. We were blessed this past weekend with our third grandchild. How wonderful it was to hold her literally minutes after she was born.

Like the former senior Senator from my State, Senator Stafford, I could say that everything I have accomplished in my life that has been worthwhile has been with the help of my wife Marcelle. We do not find our marriage endangered.

I do find a Constitution endangered if we start using it for bumper sticker slogans. That is what we are doing, and we must stop. The Constitution is too great a part of our heritage and our freedoms and our diversity and the democracy we love to tarnish it in this fashion.

When we vote today, we will not be voting to preserve the 42-year marriage of Patrick and Marcelle Leahy. She and I will not be affected by this vote, but millions of Americans will be. Remember those gay and lesbian Americans across the Nation who are looking to the Senate today to see whether this body is going to brand them as inferiors in our society. Those who vote against cloture recognize the fullness of their worth and their citizenship. I will not vote to diminish other Americans in the Constitution. I urge all Senators to vote ``no.''

I have to wonder what Americans are thinking as they watch the Senate devote its limited time to debate the Federal marriage amendment. Do they think the Nation is in a midst of a crisis that only a constitutional amendment can resolve? Are they pleased that the Senate has turned away from legislation that could improve their daily lives to engage in this debate? I doubt it.

Let me review the current legal landscape in America. Massachusetts is the only State in the Union providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and its citizens are in the midst of the State constitutional process to overturn that policy. In addition, Massachusetts has limited same-sex marriage to couples who reside or intend to reside there. Meanwhile, none of the other 49 States has moved to legalize gay marriage during the many months

that have followed the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts.

I think most Americans would agree with me that the sky has not fallen during the 2 months during which same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts. They may support gay marriage, or like me, they may believe that civil unions are the appropriate way to recognize the seriousness of gay and lesbian relationships. Or they may oppose any recognition at all for same-sex couples. But at a fundamental level, they understand that States should have the authority to decide who can marry, and that the relationships being formed between consenting adults in Massachusetts have not harmed their own marriages or their own families.

The Rutland Herald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper in my State, wrote the following in an editorial last month:

[A] remarkable thing has happened since gay marriages began

legally in Massachusetts last month: nothing. Gay and lesbian

couples who have trooped to their town clerks or church

altars have joined in the most significant relationship of

their lives, and it has not been nothing to them. But no

cataclysmic shock to society has occurred. Marriages happen

as a matter of course, and though they are one of the most

significant events in the life of the individual, they are a

routine matter in the life of a community. Now gay marriage,

too, has become routine, at least in Massachusetts.

As The Rutland Herald suggests, most Americans have not felt any effects from developments in Massachusetts, and many are surely mystified and dismayed by the Senate's fascination with the topic.

So why are we here today? We are certainly not here to legislate. Everyone in this chamber knows the Senate will not adopt this amendment. If you listen to Senator Santorum or Senator Hatch, you know they say we are here to ``put people on record,'' apparently including the many Republicans who have expressed reservations about the FMA or oppose it outright.

Obviously, the Senate leadership has decided that forcing a vote in relation to the FMA will benefit the Republican Party politically, from the race for the White House to the Senate races that will determine which party controls the agenda for the 109th Congress.

Ever since President Bush publicly embraced amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, it has been obvious that he considered the issue of gay marriage crucial to his re-election campaign. The President's plan was clear: his right-wing base may have been alienated by his calls for immigration reform or a mission to Mars, but he would win them back by aggressively promoting a marriage amendment. And since the President's opponent is a Member of this body, it was only a matter of time before this amendment reached the floor, regardless of what procedural traditions had to be sidestepped to do it.

Of course, the President has never said what words he wants to be included in the Constitution. His Department of Justice has never testified before the Judiciary Committee of the House or Senate, and has never said what words it believes would be appropriate to include in the Constitution. The President and his administration want the benefit of supporting this discriminatory amendment without getting their hands dirty by delving into the specific and ugly words. This lack of concern about the language of the amendment is of course not limited to the White House. As I stressed in my opening statement, the language of this amendment is rather beside the point for its congressional supporters, too.

The President addressed the issue of gay marriage in his State of the Union address in January. He said, ``If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.'' Yet, on February 24--barely a month after the State of the Union address--and without any additional court anywhere in the country ruling on gay marriage, the President flip-flopped and endorsed putting a ban on gay marriage in the Constitution. I can only assume that something turned up in the White House's polling to prompt such a dramatic about-face. Or perhaps Karl Rove's phone simply would not stop ringing with calls from the hard- right groups that compose the core of the President's support.

In any event, the day after the President endorsed the concept of a constitutional amendment, I wrote him and asked what specific language he wanted us to add to the Constitution. After all, we have only amended the Constitution 17 times since the Bill of Rights. If the President was calling on Congress to amend it for an 18th time, I thought the least he could do is make clear what language he seeks. I have waited in vain for a response.

I am not surprised by the President's conduct in this matter. He has proven himself willing over the last 3\1/2\ years to take whatever measures he finds politically expedient. He has also shown that he is more than willing to play political games with the Constitution, as we see with today's debate and we will see again in the upcoming debate on a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration an issue that Vice President Cheney has been campaigning on recently. The President, the Vice President, and the rest of the administration have withheld information from Congress and the public whenever it suits them. And facts have proven to be awfully malleable things when they have stood in the way of the President's political priorities. For this administration, it is all politics all the time regardless of the truth or the consequences. Let me provide three of the many possible examples.

When the facts got in the way of the President's prewar statements about Iraq, and Joseph Wilson pointed out the flaws in the President's 2003 State of the Union address concerning Iraq's alleged efforts to obtain uranium in Niger, someone in the Administration apparently told the press that Wilson's wife was an undercover agent at the CIA. The President promised that the perpetrator would be discovered and punished. But if he has made any efforts to discover the leaker's identity, we are unaware of them. Instead, he has retained counsel and allowed the investigation to grind on, perhaps in the hope that the issue will not be resolved until after election day.

When the facts got in the way of the President's proposal to expand Medicare to provide prescription drug benefits, his Department of Health and Human Services simply withheld those facts from Congress. When Congress considered the prescription drugs bill last fall, it received an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that the cost of implementing the new program would be about $395 billion. It has since come to light that Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, completed a cost estimate for the Bush administration last fall that showed the new prescription drug benefit would cost $550 billion, drastically more than the CBO estimate. In testimony before Congress, Mr. Foster explained that he was told that if he made his cost analysis public, he would be fired. The Congressional Research Service recently reported that it believes the Bush administration violated the law by withholding Mr. Foster's report and stated that it is clear that Congress has the right to receive truthful information from Federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions. It was a breach of trust with this Congress and with the American people.

And in today's papers we learn that there are administration estimates that when the purported prescription drug benefits are supposed to finally kick in around 2006, what is likely to happen is that almost 4 million retirees will, in fact, lose prescription drug benefits. That means that the Bush administration is now withholding its own estimates that one-third of all retirees with employer- sponsored drug coverage will, in fact, suffer more rather than be helped by the bill they forced through the Congress to benefit large insurance and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our seniors.

Finally, when we in Congress raised legitimate concerns about the administration's policies on the abuse of prisoners abroad and requested documents that would shed light on the administration's policies regarding the treatment and interrogation of detainees, the White House released a small number of self-serving documents and chose to hide the rest. Then it ``disavowed'' the Office of Legal Counsel memo that laid out a strategy for evading the limits of the Torture Convention as if that document, which is legally binding on

the Executive Branch, had been nothing more than the doodling of an overly imaginative young lawyer at the Department of Justice. The administration obviously does not want the Congress or the American people to know the facts about its actions abroad or its slippery commitment to upholding American values.

Let there be no mistake: We are here today because the President wants to distract the American people from the facts of the weakened economy and reduced standing abroad that his administration has produced. He and the Senate Republican leadership prefer a political circus and seek to whip the American people into a frenzy based on the actions of a single State.

I am not so sure their political calculations are correct. I believe the American people regardless of their position on gay marriage--will be disappointed by the majority's overreaching. They will see this debate for what it is--a show produced to benefit Republicans politically while doing nothing to enhance or protect the sanctity of marriage. Senator Chafee predicted months ago that his leadership might bring the amendment up ``just for political posturing.'' He has proved prescient.

As I said at the fourth and final hearing the Judiciary Committee held on gay marriage, this debate is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage. It is about preserving a Republican White House and Senate and about doing so by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans. I oppose this amendment, and I again urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

This debate perfectly illustrates the Senate's priorities. We are spending days on a Federal marriage amendment that we all know does not have the votes to pass the Senate and that the House may never even put to a vote. I have spoken before about the divisiveness of this debate and the contempt that it shows for our constitutional traditions. This debate, however, also demonstrates the Senate Republican leadership's disregard for the needs of the American people and the institutional responsibilities of this body.

The Senate has been unable to get its own house in order. It is mid- July and we have still not passed a budget. The Senate has passed only one of 13 appropriations bills, and the leadership has suggested they may not be able to find the time to pass the others as individual bills. I do not believe we have ever passed only one appropriations bill in the Senate before the August recess, but we certainly seem to be headed in that direction.

A July 7 editorial in Roll Call lamented what it called the ``Big Mess Ahead.'' We are now stuck in that big mess. Roll Call noted that ``July should be appropriations month in the Senate.'' I agree. July has traditionally been when we got our work done and made sure that funding for the various functions of the Federal Government would be appropriated by the Congress as it exercised its responsibilities and the power of the purse. Not this year.

We have not done our part to help American employers create jobs. We have not completed work on a highway bill that could create 830,000 jobs, or on the FSC-ETI bill, subjecting American businesses to retaliatory tariffs that are increasing monthly. At the same time we have dallied on measures to expand the economy, and we have refused to extend unemployment benefits, even as 2 million Americans have exhausted their unemployment insurance.

We have not addressed the health care needs of our citizens. The majority has refused to take up either a drug reimportation bill that has the support of a majority of Senators, or mental health parity legislation that has 68 sponsors. Meanwhile, the Senate has done nothing to address the fact that 43 million Americans have not had health insurance for more than a year.

We have failed those hardworking Americans who struggle every day to make ends meet on wages that barely reach the poverty line. We have not increased a minimum wage that has remained unchanged since 1996. As inflation has risen and the economy has worsened, the working poor must struggle to live on the same wage Congress passed 8 years ago. The core inflation rate rose 2 percent in the first quarter of this year alone. In addition to allowing the minimum wage to stagnate, the majority has abandoned efforts to reauthorize the welfare reform law, leaving thousands of families in desperate need of quality childcare behind.

We have also failed our veterans. This failure begins at the top. The President has consistently proposed underfunding veterans' programs. His budget request for this year failed to maintain even the current level of services. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Principi recently testified that his department asked the White House for an additional $1.2 billion, but that request was denied. Forced to choose between our veterans and the President, the majority has sided against our veterans.

During consideration of this year's budget resolution, Senator Daschle offered an amendment to fund veterans programs at the level recommended by veterans' groups in the Independent Budget. Unfortunately, only one Republican voted in favor of this amendment, and it was defeated. A second amendment, offered by Senator Bill Nelson, would have increased funding for veterans by $1.8 billion. It too was defeated. Not a single Republican supported the Nelson amendment. My friends on the other side of the aisle then offered a ``smoke and mirrors'' amendment on veterans' care. Although this amendment made it seem that the Senate was voting to provide more money for veterans, we all know that this amendment did not add one red cent. The main purpose of this amendment was to provide political cover for the November election.

While the administration is shortchanging VA funding, out-of-pocket expenses for veterans are skyrocketing. Under the Bush administration, these expenses are projected to rise by an incredible 478 percent. Certain Priority 8 veterans are blocked from VA health care altogether, while others cannot receive treatment unless they pay a ridiculously high co-payment. Instead of debating polarizing issues like the Federal marriage amendment, we should be acting to provide real resources for the men and women who served this country with honor.

Unlike in 2000, the Republican majority has not even made the pretense of addressing the priorities of our Nation's immigrants. The majority leader engaged in parliamentary tricks last week to avoid a vote on Senator Craig's immigration reform bill and has found no time for the bipartisan DREAM Act, which would help thousands of immigrant students in our Nation. The prospect of comprehensive immigration reform is even more remote.

Sadly, the list of what we are not accomplishing goes on and on. Roll Call observed in its editorial last week that ``the second session of the 108th Congress is poised to accomplish nothing.'' The way things are going, under Republican leadership this session will make the ``do nothing'' Congress against which President Harry Truman ran seem like a legislative juggernaut.

The days we spend on this amendment could be spent more productively on any of the matters I just mentioned, but instead we are debating the FMA. We have followed this course even though there are only 6 weeks remaining in the Senate's scheduled work year.

I fear that at this point in an election year, floor time is only available for matters that advance the majority's narrow political agenda. This is a sad contrast from 1996, when we passed a minimum wage increase, a welfare reform bill, and other matters in a productive summer during which we occasionally put the election aside and took care of business for the American people. I supported some of those initiatives and opposed others, but I believed they were important matters that deserved the Senate's extended attention.

This summer, the Senate seems content to act as an extension of the President's reelection campaign. Why else would we be considering an amendment prompted by gay marriages in Massachusetts, 2 weeks before Democrats convene in Boston for their national convention? In light of all the talk about potential terrorist activity at the political conventions, we should be spending time passing appropriations bills for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Instead,

this Senate will grind to a halt and ignore its pressing duties to conduct a debate whose outcome we all know.

I am not naive. I know that politics has always influenced Congress. It could not be otherwise. I fear, however, that the Republican leadership has taken the politicization of the Senate to new heights. Have we ever taken up a constitutional amendment that did not have the support even of a firm majority of this body, over the objection of the minority party, without even having the Judiciary Committee consider it?

We should reject this amendment and move on to the matters that make a difference in the daily lives of our constituents.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement. I support the agreement because 8,000 Minnesotan manufacturers, which employ some 350,000 families in my State, list the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement as a top priority in maintaining good-paying Minnesota jobs, and that is important.

Like the JOBS bill, the highway bill, the Energy bill, as well as class action, medical malpractice, and asbestos reform litigation, the Australia Free Trade Agreement is about jobs. I was always fond of saying, when I was a mayor--and I am fond of repeating as a Senator--it is about jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job. Access to health care comes with a job. Jobs are important.

While we have seen the hopes of our Nation's manufacturers dashed time and again on these other top priorities--we are still waiting for the JOBS bill to get done; we are still waiting for asbestos reform legislation to get through; we are still waiting for class action reform legislation to get through a filibuster--the reality is, we still have an opportunity to salvage the hopes of millions of working men and women in this country, men and women who could not care less about who gets the credit for keeping the economic recovery going, just as long as it keeps going.

We have grown over 1.5 million jobs in the past 10 months and in part because of the policies of this administration: the tax cuts that put money in the pockets of moms and dads, the tax cuts that allowed businesses to invest and to reinvest, the increasing expensing operations, the bonus depreciation, those things that lowered capital gains, those things that allowed businesses to say: We are going to invest, we are going to put it back in the business.

In the end, when business grows, when moms and dads have more money in their pockets, they spend that money on a good or a service, and the person who produces that good or service has a job. And that is a good thing.

So we have seen more than 1.5 million jobs in the past 10 months, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels or wait out the results of a Presidential election. The time to act on the jobs agenda, as laid out by President Bush, is now. It is now.

The Australia Free Trade Agreement is just one component of the President's jobs agenda. This agreement builds on the $12 billion in manufactured U.S. exports to Australia and the 160,000 American jobs owing to our trade with that very important friend and ally in the global war on terror.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, by tearing down Australian tariffs imposed against 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports--which accounts for 93 percent of everything we sell to that country--our Nation's manufacturers stand to gain $2 billion a year in increased exports to Australia, giving us a leg up on Europe, Japan, and China.

This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is very real to Minnesotans. I have 6,700 exporting companies in my State. In fact, 1 out of every 5 manufacturing jobs in Minnesota is owed to exports, and Australia is our 10th largest export market.

Let me give you some real-life examples because I think the problem most often with trade is that we vividly see jobs lost or businesses shut down, sometimes due to trade, and we need to understand that, we need to see that, we need to know the impact, and then we need to do those things to lessen that impact. But rarely do we see or hear about the jobs created or the businesses born as a direct result of our trade policy.

It is kind of like talking about tax cuts. We talk about them in abstract. We sound like accountants. We talk about trade and sound like economists. But the reality is, there is a mom or a dad who has a job opportunity because of the trade opportunities we create.

Polaris is a good example. It is a Minnesota company of which I am extremely proud. It is located way up in the northwest part of the State, about 10 minutes from Canada in a town called Roseau. Roseau has about 2,756 people at last count, the most famous being the former Secretary of Agriculture under President Carter, Bob Berglund, who is a very good friend of mine. They also grow a lot of hockey players, really talented hockey players in Roseau, MN.

Talking about former Secretary of Agriculture Berglund, lots of folks, when they get through being a Congressman or a Senator or a Secretary of this department or that department, retire to some beach in Florida, but not Bob Berglund. He went home to give back to the people of Roseau all the support he had received through his years of distinguished service.

Roseau suffered from some terrible floods not too long ago, and there was former Secretary of Agriculture Bob Berglund leading a group of folks in the town, figuring out how to deal with the flooding issue on a long-term basis. So we were not literally sticking our fingers in the dike, but we were looking beyond that. That is Bob Berglund.

In any case, Roseau would not be the town it is if it were not for guys like Bob Berglund, an indomitable spirit that pervades that place and everyone I have ever met there, and a company called Polaris.

I will go back to the flooding. When the flooding happened, the folks from Polaris did not abandon them. They were there working in the community, seeking to make a difference. They have had serious flooding over the years, and we have had to work to rebuild that town. We are still at it, and so is Secretary Berglund and so is Polaris, which is celebrating, just this year, 50 years of business. Here is what the president of Polaris, Tom Tiller, had to say about the Australia Free Trade Agreement:

In 2004, Polaris will do over $10 million in sales to

Australia. While the majority of those sales will be

conducted by Polaris Sales Australia, all of the machinery

sold in that distribution network is manufactured in

Minnesota . . . so increased sales in Australia means more

jobs in Minnesota.

Polaris is especially excited about the opportunity to sell all- terrain vehicles to the Australians under the new access granted under this agreement.

I cannot mention Polaris without mentioning another very important manufacturer in the State of which I am so proud, Arctic Cat. Arctic Cat is also located in northwest Minnesota, maybe about an hour away from Canada, in a town called Thief River Falls. Chris Twomey, with Arctic Cat, points out that:

Due to high tariffs, Arctic Cat sells less than $5 million

in products to Australia. The Australia Free Trade Agreement

makes it a lot easier for us to increase our sales there and

increase our production here at home.

This is another top-of-the-line all-terrain vehicle coming from another top-of-the-line all-Minnesota company. I am proud of those companies. I am proud of the people they employ. And I am proud of the expanded opportunity they will have to sell, to grow jobs, to make profit, to strengthen the lives of their employees and the lives of their communities--all of which are enhanced by the Australia Free Trade Agreement.

My paper and wood products industry is also very important to my State, starting a little west of where Polaris and Arctic Cat call home and extending all the way over to northeastern Minnesota. But for this industry and all the jobs it has provided over the years, northern Minnesota--which has seen some tough times--would have been in dire straits. Minnesota's International Paper and Blandin United Paper Mill are strong supporters of the Australia Free Trade Agreement because it will open the doors of Australia and the Pacific Rim to our paper and wood products industries. Again, those industries are part of the economic lifeblood of those communities. I want them to prosper. I want them to grow. I want them to have expanded opportunity. And they will get that from this agreement.

But it is not just northern Minnesota with a stake in the passage of this agreement. Eagan, MN, a growing suburb just south of St. Paul, also has a stake, as do communities all over my State. The Lockheed Martin manufacturing facility in Eagan had $40 million in international sales last year alone, with a part of that figure owing to the construction and sale of the P-3 Maritime Patroller to Australia. Currently, Eagan is in the running for another contract with Australia worth over $30 million to that community, and, according to Lockheed Martin, passage of the Australia Free Trade Agreement puts us one step closer to securing that contract.

And 3M, which not everyone knows stands for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, a great St. Paul company--in the neighborhoods of St. Paul they call it ``the mining,'' but it is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing--notes that Minnesota companies alone will save some $5 million in Australian tariffs when they come down under this agreement.

This is not an abstract topic for Minnesota. It is very real. The Australian Free Trade Agreement has the potential to sustain and grow real, good-paying Minnesota jobs. For me, that is decisive because jobs are what it is all about. I don't want to oversell this agreement because that has been done too often with respect to trade agreements. That is important to repeat. Far too often on both sides we look at a trade agreement and we oversell it. And then if we don't reach those high expectations, people say: Well, it didn't work; it is no good.

We are talking about moving the ball forward. We are talking about moving the economy. We are talking about more progress, more economic growth, and more opportunity. We are talking about more jobs. I am not going to sell. A lot is promised under these agreements and, frankly, they usually fall somewhat short of the mark.

Let me say what I have heard from my manufacturers, what I have heard from Polaris, Arctic Cat, International Paper, and Lockheed. They have said the Australian agreement means opportunity, give us that opportunity. So today in the United States we have a chance to do just that. We ought to and, fortunately, I expect that we will. We will give them the opportunity when we consider the Australia Free Trade Agreement and get it passed.

Having said that, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to underscore a very important point that I hope is not missed by my colleagues, particularly by those who are in charge of negotiating this agreement or any other trade agreement; that is, the importance of U.S. agriculture to trade. Their success is mutually and inextricably linked. I do not believe U.S. agriculture can succeed without moving forward on trade, nor do I believe that trade can move forward without U.S. agriculture.

With Minnesota in the top 10 among States for the production of nearly every commodity that can be produced in our climate, the success of my farm families is extremely important to mainstream Minnesota. It is important to me.

Let me begin with sugar. Few folks realize Minnesota is the No. 1 sugar-producing and processing State in the country. Folks sometimes think about Florida, Louisiana, and other places, but it is sugar beets which makes the same kind of sugar you buy in your local store. And more sugar is produced from sugar beets than from cane sugar. Minnesota farm families own both the production and processing sides of our

State's sugar beet industry, an industry that is directly or indirectly responsible for $2 billion in economic activity and about 30,000 jobs. The exclusion of sugar from the Australian agreement has been much maligned by folks inside and outside the Chamber, but not by this Senator. Let me tell you why.

The fact is, the reason we are able to stand here now on the cusp of passing the Australia Free Trade Agreement is in part or in whole owing to how this administration wisely handled sugar. Today, the Australia Free Trade Agreement is on the move. The sad reality is that CAFTA is up on the blocks. CAFTA is another great opportunity. We need to work to strengthen our trade opportunities with our friends in Central America. We have seen the flourishing of democracy there. Our Central American friends and allies deserve the benefit of expanded trade opportunity. CAFTA is up on the blocks. We have to figure a way to move it forward and to deal with the sugar problem in CAFTA.

When I say ``deal with,'' this is not about parochialism or protectionism. It is about common sense and equity. Common sense says if you have a world problem, as the distortion in the sugar market most certainly is, you handle the problem in a global context. In other words, the right place to deal with sugar is in the World Trade Organization, not in these bilateral and regional agreements. Equity requires that when our trade team rightly decided that discussions concerning the farm bill's safety net for other commodities, such as corn and soybeans, should be reserved for the WTO and excluded from bilateral or regional agreements, the same should hold true for sugar: Common sense and equity.

In regard to the farm bill, I would point out that this legislation is to our farm families in rural America what the JOBS bill we just overwhelmingly passed is to our Nation's manufacturers. To anyone who has gone to see the new World War II Memorial, you will notice all the wreaths that represent the two pillars of industry and agriculture. Those responsible for both are critical to this country. We must not unilaterally disarm against either in global competition, which today is not always free and not always fair.

As for my State's sugar farmers, they are among the most competitive in the world. In fact, America's sugar farmers are among the top one- third in the world in overall efficiency, as measured by the cost of production. But what they face is a dump market where the average world cost of production per pound is 16 cents while the average selling price per pound is only 6 cents. As the saying goes, something is rotten in Denmark. I don't want to blame the Danes on that, just an expression.

Meanwhile, the U.S. sugar policy has been good to taxpayers and consumers alike. The U.S. sugar policy costs taxpayers nothing and, in fact, the two times in recent history where the U.S. had no sugar policy, consumer prices received the brunt of it when prices spiked to record highs. So my deepest thanks and appreciation go out to the Bush administration and its trade team for doing what is right by America's sugar farmers, right by Minnesota, and right by this Senator. You have a good model now on sugar, one that moves the trade agenda forward. We ought to stick with it.

Dairy is another important industry in Minnesota--we are fifth in the Nation--and here again our trade team deserves thanks for working with me and other interested Senators, as well as our Nation's dairy farm families, in arriving at a more workable although not perfect solution. Maintaining the second tier tariff for Minnesota dairy farmers is an absolutely essential part of this agreement. I am pleased that we have worked with our trade team on this issue. I don't want to get into discussions of the complexity of dairy policy on the floor of this body, but this issue of a second-tier tariff was important to my dairy farmers and dairy farmers throughout America. We managed to make sure that we maintained that second-tier tariff. That was a good thing.

Under the agreement, in-quota dairy imports are estimated to equal only 0.17 percent of the annual value of U.S. dairy production, and only about 2 percent of the current value of imports. Finally, assurances by our trade team that imports will not affect the operation of the milk price support program are extremely important to me and to America's dairy farmers.

Today I have 6,000 hard-working dairy farm families who milk about half a million cows every morning and night, who can breathe a little easier, thanks to the efforts of our trade team. I stress, less than 10 years ago we had about 14,000 Minnesota families. So we have lost over half the dairy farmers in our State. I presume that pattern has been shown in other parts of the country. But those 6,000 hard-working dairy farm families can sleep a little easier tonight thanks to the efforts of our trade team.

Again, it is not a slam dunk. This agreement is not perfect, but it is more workable to my dairy farmers and cooperatives at home because second-tier tariffs were maintained and in-quota imports are expected to be low.

My cattlemen are about where my dairymen are. They are relieved, but I would say our trade team had to overcome a very difficult issue. On the whole, they worked very hard to address the concerns of Minnesota's cattlemen. They phase down U.S. tariffs over an 18-year period and phase up the amount of in-quota access, all the while providing safeguards to protect against import surges that would disrupt U.S. markets. And at the end of the 18-year period, another safeguard is put in place to protect against import surges that would otherwise depress U.S. beef prices.

As a Senator representing nearly 16,000 cattlemen and a State that ranks sixth in beef production, my support for this agreement is couched in part on my reliance that these safeguards for U.S. beef will, in fact, be allowed to work as intended and that any waiver would be undertaken only in the rarest of circumstances, circumstances that I, frankly, can't conceive of now as I speak.

Steve Brake, a good friend of mine, is president of the cattlemen. Whenever I get to cattle country, I touch base with him to where things are. He understands. It is extremely important to him and his fellow cattlemen that we strictly enforce these safeguards. I know I will hear from Steve if we don't. If I hear about it from Steve, our trade team is going to hear about it, too. The safeguards are in place. I have great respect for what has been done, and I think our cattlemen can sleep easier tonight.

I am pleased that the sanitary and phytosanitary issues that stood in the way of our pork producers' access to the Australian market have been favorably resolved, leading to the endorsement of the agreement by more than 6,000 Minnesota pork producers. I will repeat that. These issues have been resolved and have led to the endorsement of the agreement by my more than 6,000 Minnesota pork producers.

I also appreciate the work of our trade team in pressing the issue of the Australian Wheat Board, a monopolistic state trading enterprise whose time has passed. While I am disappointed we were unable to do away with the board under this agreement, I am pleased the Australians have agreed to discuss this issue in the Doha Round of the WTO.

Overall, I believe this administration had a tough job to do and it did it reasonably well--job well done--something evidenced by the likely passage of this agreement. The Australia Free Trade Agreement is a good precursor to the WTO discussions that will take place in Geneva yet this month because it underscores a point: You don't have to give away the farm to negotiate a good agreement, and you may not pass one if you do.

So the Australia Free Trade Agreement that President Bush has sent to Congress is about sustaining and growing American jobs. It is about bolstering support in the economic opportunity of our rural families, our rural communities, and the incredible work they do to produce the safest, most affordable food supply in the world.

So to the President and our trade team, I say: Job well done. To our Members and colleagues in this body, I say: Let us move forward and pass the Australia Free Trade Agreement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when I came to the Senate I learned a new aphorism, referring to the debates and sometimes repetitive arguments you tend to hear by Members of Congress. Someone told me: ``Well, everything has been said; it is just not that everyone has had an opportunity to say it yet.''

Sometimes I wonder if that reflects the fact when we are debating important issues like this, people aren't listening or maybe they made up their minds and they are not open to the facts or persuasion or perhaps some preconceived notion they have about the motivation for legislation is flat wrong, but they have already locked in, they have already gone public, they have taken a position and then it becomes two contending adversaries across some demilitarized zone and we try to fight it out the best we can and then count the votes.

But I think two things are most important about this debate. Despite some of the repetition of erroneous arguments, we have had an important debate. I think two things will come out of this that have been very positive, regardless of what happens in the vote today.

First, we have had a debate on the importance of traditional marriage, the importance of the American family and steps we should be taking in order to preserve the traditional marriage and American family and to work in the best interests of children. That is a debate that has been long overdue. I am told it has been perhaps at least 8 years, since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, since this body has even talked about the most basic building block in our society. I think that has been very positive.

I also think it has been positive that we have been able to direct the American people's attention to the erosion of our most fundamental institutions by judges who seek to enforce their personal political agendas under the guise of interpreting the Constitution.

Now I come to the Senate and hear some of my colleagues, including the Senator from Massachusetts, say this is all part of a right-wing conspiracy, or words to that effect. Surely, when the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by a vote of 85 Senators, an overwhelming bipartisan consensus which defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, that was not the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Indeed, that was the Senate and Congress functioning at its best, coming together to protect the fundamental institution, one we have fought hard and should continue to fight hard to preserve and protect against all challenges.

We have heard and I have read in the press that this side of the aisle has been castigated for not accepting the Democratic leader's offer to go to an up-or-down vote on this amendment. The problem is, of course, that they only tell half of the offer. The other part of the offer was banning consideration of any further amendments that might be offered in the Senate--in other words, constraining the debate, stifling the debate, and limiting the right of any Senator on any piece of legislation, whether it is a constitutional amendment or an ordinary bill, to offer alternatives for the body to consider as a means of advancing the debate.

My understanding is the majority leader countered by saying, okay, we will go to an up-or-down vote, but we are not going to limit our right to offer amendments. The amendment most talked about is the so-called Smith amendment, which is, lo and behold, the first sentence of the amendment offered by Senator Allard hardly a surprise to anybody--which merely defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were apparently afraid to allow the Senate to consider alternatives as a way of advancing the debate because they were afraid an alternative, perhaps along the lines of Senator Smith's amendment, the one-sentence amendment, would garner more votes. I am advised it would garner perhaps as many as ten new votes.

I will gladly yield after I complete my remarks.

It is a bogus offer. It is a bogus argument that somehow by refusing their attempt to stifle the debate and stifle the amendment process that this has somehow become nothing but bare partisan politics.

There are those who would raise their voices, those who would call Members names, Members who believe it is important to defend the traditional institution of marriage, in hopes we would lose the courage of our convictions. In hopes that we would simply be silent while we see the ongoing march of litigation as part of a national strategy to undermine the traditional institution of marriage that we know is the most important stabilizing influence in our society and one that functions in the best interests of our children. But we are not going to lose the courage of our convictions. We are not doing to sit on the sidelines. We are not going to be quiet. We are not going to give up. In fact, regardless of how this vote turns out at noon today, I know of no important piece of legislation considered by Congress that has been successful the first time it has been introduced into the Senate.

What I have learned is probably the most important characteristic of a Member of the Senate is someone who is willing to persevere over weeks and months and even years until ultimately they are able to see the fruit of their labor and the legislation they have sponsored be accepted by the Senate. It is part of a building process, it is part of an awareness process that is very important.

Part of the awareness process is also to knock down some of the unfounded statements that are made during the course of the debate. It was, I believe, the Senator from Massachusetts who said that no court has called the Defense of Marriage Act into question. Perhaps he was not able to listen yesterday when I read a paragraph out of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Goodridge, relying on the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that plainly calls the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act into question. As a matter of fact, you cannot really believe, as the court did, that the marriage laws of Massachusetts were unconstitutional and believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional as well.

To be fair, the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is an argument the Senator from Massachusetts made back in 1996 when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, as did the other Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act then and who stated that if passed, it would be unconstitutional. This has been a consistent theme, although they have some of their facts wrong. I hope that helps clarify.

The question before the Senate today is simple: Do you believe traditional marriage is important enough that it deserves full legal protection? As I said, an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in 1996 voted that it did by passing that statute. President Clinton said as much by signing that legislation into law in 1996.

This debate is important. It is long overdue because we have, in essence, a stealth operation going on today. It is an effort where a handful of courts around the country, as well as those who have engaged in a nationwide litigation strategy, are basically operating off the radar screen of most Americans. The only time the American people know very much about it is when a blockbuster decision is handed down, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court in May of this year, or when they happen to see local officials engaged in civil disobedience, for example, in San Francisco, issuing same-sex marriage licenses and same- sex marriages in that location.

This is not, despite the wishes of some of the people who are opposed to this amendment, something that can be solved at the State level. I believe in the principle of federalism. I believe people at the local level, closest to the problem, are best prepared and are in the best position to try to address that problem. But we have seen how, with one State recognizing same-sex marriage, people have moved now, we know, to 46 different States and how there are lawsuits pending in at least 10 of those States--and no one knows how many there will be in the future--seeking to compel those States, in violation of their current State law, to recognize those same-sex marriages.

Some people have said, don't worry. The Senator from New York, Senator Clinton said, don't worry, we do not have to amend right now, we can wait until after the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is held unconstitutional. In fact, she said no one had challenged it, and I have attempted to clarify that by my earlier statements.

In the interest of completeness, let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the cover sheet from a lengthy petition in both cases, one filed in the Western District of Washington, in re Lee Kandu and Ann C. Kandu, and another complaint, Sullivan v. Bush, filed in Federal court, the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, seeking to hold the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional as a matter of Federal law.

Some have said there are more important issues to debate. Certainly, the Senate has debated and I hope and trust we have passed legislation that has done a lot of good on behalf of the people who sent us here. If we haven't, we have not been doing our job. I believe we have a record we can be proud of when it comes to defending America and the war on terrorism, when it comes to rejuvenating our economy to see it come roaring back the way it has, indeed, providing a prescription drug benefit to senior citizens.

We have done a lot of which we can be very proud. And for someone to stand up and say that preservation of traditional marriage is not important enough for us to talk about, to me, is breathtaking in its audacity and its sense of obliviousness to what the concerns are of moms and dads and families all across this country.

We know for years, for a variety of reasons, the American family has been increasingly marginalized. We know we have a crisis in this country of too many children being born outside of wedlock, too many marriages ending in divorce, and too many children being raised in less than optimal circumstances, putting them at risk for a whole host of social ills for which ultimately the American taxpayer has to pick up the tab. And I have not even mentioned the human tragedy involved, as some child fails to live up to their God-given potential.

I do not believe that we can remain neutral or to remain merely spectators in this further marginalization of the American family. We cannot allow for a process that puts more and more children at risk through a radical social experiment. And if we want to look for the only evidence that we know is available, we can look to Scandinavia, where less people get married, more children are born out of wedlock, and more children become, thereby, the responsibility of the State.

It is not good for them, it is not good for us, and we should not, without letting the American people have a voice in the process, merely sit back while judges radically redefine our most basic societal institution.

Now, let me click through a number of other arguments that have been made.

I know Senator Durbin has said we should not talk about constitutional amendments during an election year. My question to him is: Isn't Congress still in session? Aren't the American taxpayers still paying us to do our job? As a matter of fact, six times Congress has successfully proposed amendments in an election year.

Some have claimed that the text that is before us--Senator Allard's amendment--prevents States from enacting civil unions if they should wish to do so through their elected representatives. Yet the Democrats' own legal expert, Professor Cass Sunstein, answered this very question: Of course not. This amendment does not prevent the States from enacting civil unions should they decide to do so.

Some have even gone so far as to claim that the Allard text would regulate private corporations, churches, and other private organizations. As the Presiding Officer well knows, and as virtually everybody in this body should know, the Constitution regulates State actors, not private actors. These arguments do not hold water. But they do not have to work for our opponents on this issue to say them because that is not the point. The point is, if you cannot convince them, confuse them. Their aim is to distract the American people away from the real question, which is, as I said at the outset: Do you believe that traditional marriage is important enough that it deserves full protection under law?

I would ask the opponents of this amendment, if you believe in traditional marriage--as some of you but certainly not all of you have said you do--but you do not support this amendment, what is your plan? What do you think the American people should do when courts run red lights and act in excess of their authority by legislating from the bench, redefining our most basic institutions? What are you going to do to stand up on behalf of the American family to prevent the increasing marginalization of the American family?

But I am confused by the arguments that are made by some on the other side of this issue. When some of their very own leaders say the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional--such as Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry--when your very own leaders say, as the senior Senator from Massachusetts did yesterday, that traditional marriage is a ``stain on our laws''--repeating the language of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in saying that traditional marriage is a ``stain that must be eradicated'' because it, in essence, represented discrimination--what do the opponents of this amendment think we should do? Do you want the courts to strike down traditional marriage? What you are saying is that you do not want the American people to know about it, much less have a voice in correcting this radical social experiment.

Of course, everyone has a right to file lawsuits. But the American people have rights, too, rights preserved by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides a process of amendment, particularly when courts engage in a radical redefinition of our most basic institution under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, the only way the American people have of responding is through a constitutional amendment. So we have no choice but to offer this amendment by way of response.

I think no one should be fooled into thinking that on this side of the aisle we are afraid of a full and fair debate and a vote on the various proposals that may come to the floor. But, indeed, under the offer made by the Democratic leader last Friday, it would have cut off any amendments, would have stifled a full debate, which I think has been on the whole very positive.

I appreciate my colleague for letting me finish my prepared remarks. I do not know if he still has a question, but I would be glad to respond if he does.

Mr. President, I would be glad to respond to my colleague's question, but I first ask unanimous consent that the time engaged in question and answer be charged to the other side, in fairness.

I thank the Senator.

I would be glad to respond to that because I think that is an important issue. No one has suggested we should not make this discussion about preserving traditional marriage. I would say there was no attempt to try to limit any debate, any amendments that might be offered--for example, the single-sentence amendment, which is the first sentence of Senator Allard's amendment--to amendments that are germane to the preservation of traditional marriage.

So I must say that while I respect my colleague--and he knows that, and, as he said, there are many things we agree on--I simply disagree that our refusal to take the offer that would allow no amendments, whether or not they are germane to the issue of traditional marriage, in no way opens this matter up to non-germane or extraneous amendments.

I would be pleased--at least speaking personally; of course, any Senator could lodge an objection to the unanimous consent request--for us to stay on the subject because I think this has been a very helpful debate.

I would also ask unanimous consent that a letter to Ms. Margaret A. Gallagher dated July 11, 2004, and a letter from the Liberty Counsel dated July 10, 2004, be printed into the Record.

At this point, I yield the floor.

Could I ask for a brief unanimous consent request?

I believe we have been going back and forth to each side. I certainly want to accommodate the Senator so everyone will be able to be heard, but we also have some folks on our side.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be recognized for 5 minutes out of the 25 minutes remaining on our side until the chairman comes to the floor and the leadership time is reserved under a previous consent, and then Senator Santorum be recognized as our next Republican speaker for 10 minutes on our side, and then finally the last 5 minutes of that 25-minute segment, that Senator Sessions be recognized.

Mr. President, we have additional speakers on our side who are ready, but the practice has been to go back and forth, so we would be glad to allow time for our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the issues which are pending before this Senate which are not being considered because the other side of the aisle refuses to take them up. I am going to stay on narrow issues which have not received a lot of public attention.

Obviously, there have been a lot of issues such as medical malpractice, such as the just recent decision not to go forward with the debate on the constitutional amendment, that have received a fair amount of visibility as a result of the obstruction coming from the other side and the other side deciding it does not wish to address those issues, which are quite often critical to the American people. There have, however, been four items reported out of the committee which I have the good fortune to chair, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. It is a committee of fairly disparate views--to be kind. I chair it. I have as my honorable colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. To say that we have a philosophical identity would be an imaginative view.

As we go down the membership of the committee, the differences of opinions relative to philosophy of governance are rather significant. We have some of the best Members of the Senate--obviously, there are many good Members there--but we have some of our most aggressive and constructive Members serving as members of the committee, and I enjoy that. It makes the committee an interesting and challenging place in which to work. But the views are different within that committee, the views of how we approach governance.

Therefore, when we as a committee reach an agreement on something, it means it is a pretty good work product. It means there has been a consensus reached the way consensus should be reached within the Congress, which is that the different parties have sat down, they have recognized the problem, they have brought to bear their philosophies on that problem, their ideologies on that problem, and the practical nature of the way that you can resolve that problem, and they have reached what is, in most instances, a pretty good, commonsense solution to how we should move forward.

In four areas right now pending before this Senate, the committee has reached consensus. It has had a unanimous vote on a piece of legislation. Some of those have even come to the floor. We have had a unanimous vote, for example, on how we should reauthorize and restructure the special education laws of this country. It was called IDEA. It is a very complex issue, a very important issue, especially to children or parents of children who have special needs.

I can't think of anything more important than a parent who has a child who has some unfortunate issues relative to their ability to learn. For that parent and for that child, the most important event of each day is going to school and making sure that child's schooling experience is a positive one, and that it moves that child forward as that child tries to deal with the issues of learning and especially issues of life.

So the special education bill is a critical piece of legislation. It went through our committee with unanimous support. It came to the floor of the Senate. It was debated, debated aggressively, and passed. But it simply sits.

A second bill has been stopped because the other side of the aisle has refused to allow us to appoint conferees. The second bill which falls in the same area is the Work Investment Act. This is basically a bill which came out of our committee again in a unanimous way, worked on primarily by Senator Enzi of Wyoming. He did a great job on it and worked across the aisle with a number of Senators. As a result, it was unanimously passed out of our committee, came across the floor of the Senate, and again this bill has been stopped because conferees have not been appointed.

Then reported out of our committee as another very important piece of legislation relative to education is the Head Start bill. Head Start affects a lot of kids in this country today. It gives low-income kids in our country a nurturing environment during those very formative years and allows them an environment where they get decent health care and they get decent custodial care during the daytime. They have daycare services, and it teaches them socialization patterns. We have taken that concept and we have added to it an education, academic component so the kids going to Head Start will now also come out of the Head Start program after they are 3 or 4 years old moving into kindergarten and preschool. They will hopefully be up to par with their peers academically so they know their alphabet and are ready to learn.

This is an important initiative. This bill is structured to put that new component into Head Start and make that part of that initiative.

Again, this bill came out of our committee unanimously. It came to the Senate and has stopped--stopped. We negotiated to try to get it brought up in reasonable ways, one of which would allow us to give both sides amendments if they wanted them and then move it to conference. No, it hasn't happened, so that bill has been stopped.

The fourth bill which I want to talk about is the Patients Savings Act. We know that there is a problem, unfortunately, in our health care community with mistakes--unintended mistakes, but mistakes--that end up causing people harm because health care is delivered inappropriately or incorrectly to people. In fact, the estimate is that literally tens of thousands--potentially more than 100,000 people--die each year as a result of that type of situation.

One of the ways to address that is to allow the medical community to communicate with each other as to what these problems are so they can learn from each other and so we can set up a regime where if somebody has a system in place which avoids a problem, a mistake or an error occurring, they can share that with other medical providers. If there is, on the other hand, a mistake that has occurred or error that has occurred, the information relative to the investigation of that and how it can be mitigated can be shared with other providers. This sharing of information is absolutely critical if we are going to get control over the issue of how we deliver better health care in this country. Unfortunately, there are antitrust and other laws which limit the ability of that information to be shared. So we have set up this Patients Safety Act which is essentially an attempt to give patients more protection when they are in a health care facility.

This bill again was worked on effectively and aggressively by both sides of the aisle. The thoughts and initiatives were brought together. It was passed out of committee unanimously. This is a very important piece of legislation. We need to get this piece of legislation in place. Unlike the other pieces of legislation which I mentioned--the WIA bill, the IDEA bill, and the Head Start

bill, which already have programs up and running, which are effective, but can be improved significantly by those bills--in the case of patient safety there is nothing out there today which allows these medical providers to take advantage of what this law is going to bring to bear and thus reduce injuries to people. Literally, the longer this bill is kept from passing and becoming law, the more people are harmed. There is a direct numerical relationship, direct formula, direct factor relationship where if this bill were passed today, fewer people would be harmed tomorrow. It is that simple.

This bill needs to be taken up. It needs to be passed. Yet although it came out of committee unanimously, it has disappeared into the opposition on the other side of the aisle which says we are not going to listen to that. We are not going to bring that up. If you want to pass something such as that, you will have to throw on everything else and the kitchen sink that has no relationship to it. You are not going to be allowed to pass a bill that was unanimously passed out of committee.

A couple of days ago, I was reading a pamphlet which was sent to me by an ever inquisitive and creative and very unique individual in his energy level, which is much higher than mine, the President pro tempore, Senator Stevens. He had go to some lecture or some meeting where they had been talking about quantum physics. He sent us a booklet on quantum physics. I have never understood even the term ``quantum physics.'' I opened it to the first page and read the first paragraph. I quickly got lost in the theory. But the basic statement about quantum physics was that the universe is 96 percent anti-matter. Maybe it is 98 percent. The universe--and this is a shock. This is a new theory. The universe is 98 percent anti-matter or, in other words, a black hole.

I have to tell you, under the Democratic leadership in this Senate, the Senate is becoming 98 percent anti-matter, or a black hole. When bills come out of committee, they are unanimously passed by a committee which has such a diverse viewpoint philosophically, ideologically, and regionally as our committee has, when those bills come out of that committee unanimously and will significantly improve kids going to elementary school, getting ready for school, kids in their early years, kids who have problems and who have significant issues, special-needs kids going through their school systems, people who need to be retrained in a workplace that requires constant retraining or, as in the case of the patients safety bill, will actually save lives because it will allow us to do a better job of delivering medical care--when they come out of committee and are unanimously supported by the full committee, they are unanimously supported to the extent they went through the subcommittee, to the full committee, unanimously supported, come to the floor of the Senate, and the other side of the aisle says that bill is going to be assigned to the black hole.

That bill disappears into what you might call ``Daschle Land'' where nothing comes back. Send the bill out and it is gone. Where did it go? I do not know. It went to ``Daschle Land.'' This can't continue. These pieces of legislation have to be taken up. We should consider them. We should pass them. After all, if they have unanimous approval from the committee of jurisdiction when that committee has some divergent views on it, they have to be pretty well worked out as a piece of law.

I have asked that we get the IDEA bill and the special education bill to conference. It hasn't happened. I have asked that we be able to bring up the Head Start bill. It hasn't happened. I have asked that we be able to go to the WIA bill and send it to conference. It hasn't happened.

Today I would like to ask that we be able to bring up the Patients Safety Act and pass it out of this Senate under a reasonable plan, under a reasonable set of options where we will essentially say people get a right to amend it on the substance of the bill and then move to conference.

I would like to present the following unanimous consent request relative to the Patients Safety Act.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 663

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 663, the Patients Safety bill, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; provided that upon reporting of the bill Senator Gregg be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk; provided further that there be one first-degree germane amendment in order to be offered by Senator Kennedy or his designee and that that amendment be subject to a germane second-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Gregg or his designee, with no further amendments in order.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 2 hours for debate, and following the use or yielding back of the time the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relationship to the second-degree amendment, to be immediately followed by a vote on or in relationship to the first-degree amendment, as amended; provided that following disposition of the amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of H.R. 633, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following passage, the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on behalf of the Senate with a ratio of 5 to 4.

Reserving the right to object, I simply note that I don't know whether we took the 5-foot jump shot, but I state right now, if we take up this bill, it will be a 2-foot slam dunk.

That is all we need to do. This bill came out of our committee. It came out of a Senate committee unanimously. It is reasonable that the Senate should insist on hearing its bill on the floor and that the Senate should pass its bill on the floor. That is all we are asking.

That is why I must object to the Senator's proposal to modify my amendment. I would presume that the Senator, having come from the House and knowing the vagaries of the House--which is why he came to the Senate because he so much more appreciated the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the Senate--would want to hear the Senate bill on the floor rather than to simply accept the House bill in its present form.

Therefore, although I greatly admire the Senator's attempt to be constructive in his initiative, because it is a constructive step, I am forced to object. I believe we should take up the

Senate bill under the context of what we have proposed, which would be a bill that was unanimously approved by a Senate committee of jurisdiction subject to the amendment process which is outlined.

In fact, should the Senator from Massachusetts agree with the Senator from Nevada that the House bill is better than the Senate bill--which I would find interesting since he supported the Senate bill as it came out of committee--he may offer that as his germane amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the assistant Democratic leader's constructive suggestion in an attempt to move this process along relative to offering the House amendment.

However, there really is no reason we should just take the House language as it stands. The two bodies have both propounded bills which are substantive. This proposal which I have put forward requires only 2 hours in order to put it across the floor and we can go into conference. As a result of that, we can meet in conference and, obviously, reach a conclusion--I think, fairly quickly--which will make a very good bill. There is no reason in this instance we should not have a very good bill.

I do regret we cannot move forward at this time on this bill in the regular course under regular order as it would be presented in the unanimous consent request which I presented.

I thank the Senator from Nevada. As in the past, his courtesy is always very generous. He is obviously a very effective spokesman for the Democratic membership of this Senate, and I admire his work.

I yield the floor.

United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss my vote and views on the Federal marriage amendment. I am voting in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to this amendment. I do so primarily to ensure that our debate on this mater be concluded and that we return our attention to the other pressing issues of the day, including the announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that it is anticipated that al-Qaida will attack the U.S. again before the next election. We in this Chamber must grapple with many very serious issues including national security, terrorism, the economy, and our appropriations bills. It is time to return to this important work.

Voting for cloture to cut off debate means only that we take up the substance of the amendment to conclude the Senate's consideration of the matter. While the cloture vote is only procedural, I do want to address the merits of the amendment.

When the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld same-sex marriage earlier this year, I stated that I believed marriage was a sacred institution between a man and a woman, as evidenced by my vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. At that time, I further stated that I thought that Massachusetts would amend its State constitution, which was the basis for the Massachusetts decision, that the full faith and credit clause did not apply, and that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act trumped State court decisions. I added that if the States could not uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, I would consider a U.S. constitutional amendment. That continues to be my position today.

Both the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal marriage amendment seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Yet amending the Constitution raises a number of issues that were not raised by legislation. All of us in this body must pause and ask ourselves whether the problem before us necessitates this extra and most serious step.

As a matter of traditional and sound constitutional doctrine, an amendment to the Constitution should be the last resort when all other measures have proved inadequate. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison warned ``against the extreme facility'' of constitutional amendment ``which would render the Constitution too mutable.'' In Federalist No. 49, Madison returned to this theme, noting that amendments to the Constitution should be reserved for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions.''

Madison's caution has been carefully followed throughout American history. To date, 11,212 resolutions to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress. Yet the Constitution has been amended only 27 times.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School noted that all but two of these 27 amendments fall into two traditional categories. Most amendments to the Constitution have expanded individual rights. In this category fall the first 10 amendments--the Bill of Rights--as well as the post-Civil War amendments and the amendments extending the right to vote to women and lowering the voting age to 18. The rest of the amendments have remedied problems in the structure of government itself, such as clarifying the functioning of the Electoral College, establishing the popular election of Senators, creating the income tax, and placing term limits on our Presidents.

To date, only two amendments have fallen outside of these two categories of expanding individual rights and fixing structural problems. The first such amendment was the eighteenth amendment, which prohibited the manufacture or sale of ``intoxicating liquors'' in America. The second amendment to fall outside of the two traditional categories was the twenty-first amendment, which repealed the eighteenth amendment and ended prohibition.

As this history illustrates, when the Constitution is amended to incorporate the majority's position on the controversial issues of the day--and not to expand rights or fix a structural problem--the results do not withstand the test of time. We all must bear this in mind whenever we contemplate amending our Constitution. The Senate, after all, is intended to be the saucer that cools the tea, the necessary fence between the passions of the day and our Constitution and laws. We must pause where others would rush in.

We are having this debate on the Federal marriage amendment today because on November 18, 2003, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court decided in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same sex couples have the right to marry. In determining whether this court's recognition of same-sex marriage is one of the ``great and extraordinary occasions'' that warrants an amendment to our Constitution, we must at the outset consider whether there are other, lesser alternatives to deal with the issue. If lesser alternatives will work, then we clearly should not tinker with our Constitution. If, however, we cannot preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman by other means, then an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may very well be necessary.

Before we even look to the Federal Government for a solution, we must first evaluate whether the States themselves have the power to stop same-sex marriages. The fact is that those States in which there have been same-sex marriages have already mobilized to stop them. The Massachusetts legislature has already passed an amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage. This amendment must be passed a second time in 2006, and then approved by the voters, before it is finally ratified. But few doubt the eventual outcome.

Some may argue that waiting until 2006 to stop same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is simply too long. Yet it is clearly simpler, more direct, and faster to deal with this issue by amending one State constitution than by amending the U.S. Constitution. To enact an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, three-quarters of the States--38 States--must ratify the amendment after two-thirds passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The average time of ratification is approximately 2 years, with some amendments taking as long as 3 years until ratification.

When a couple of cities outside of Massachusetts recently sought to recognize same-sex marriages, the State courts have moved in quickly and effectively to stop them. In February, 2004, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, permitted his city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court issued an injunction ordering San Francisco to stop issuing these marriage licenses. Also in February, 2004, Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, NY, conducted a number of same-sex marriages without licenses. The New York State Supreme Court issued an injunction ordering Mayor West to stop performing these ceremonies.

The fact is that most States in the Union have already taken some action to prevent same-sex marriage. Even before the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, 38 States had passed laws similar to DOMA which define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and refuse to honor same-sex marriages from other States. Three States--Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada-- had ratified constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Since the Goodridge decision, 21 States have taken additional action to prohibit same-sex marriage, by strengthening prior prohibitions or enacting new ones: Seven State legislatures have adopted legislation that, if approved by the people in a referendum, would amend the State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages; three State legislatures have adopted similar constitutional language which must be re-approved in a subsequent legislative session before being placed on the ballot; six States have citizen-initiated ballot measures to change the State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; and five States have adopted legislation that declares or reaffirms that same-sex marriages will not be honored in the State.

Thus the States are moving effectively to preclude same-sex marriages. Even if a state fails to stop same-sex marriage, however, it is important to remember that there is a second line of defense: the remaining States of the Union would not have to recognize such marriages. In 1996, Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and specifically provides that:

No State. . . shall be required to give effect to any

public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other State.

. . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex

that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other

State. . . or a right or claim arising from such

relationship.

DOMA is good law. In fact, to date no significant challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA has been filed. No civil rights group or national advocate of same-sex marriage has sought to challenge this law in court. Those challenges that have been filed to date have been localized, individual efforts. It has been reported that a private practitioner in Florida has recently filed a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA in the District Court in Miami. It has also been reported that DOMA has been challenged in connection with a case in bankruptcy court in Washington State where the defendant is representing herself.

Thus DOMA appears poised to remain the law of the land. Even if DOMA were one day found to be unconstitutional, however, the full faith and credit clause would not obligate States to recognize out-of-State same- sex marriages. The full faith and credit clause applies to ``public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings.'' 28 USC 1738, which elaborates on the items to be accorded full faith and credit, specifies ``acts of the legislature,'' and ``the records and judicial proceedings of any court.'' Marriage is neither an act of the legislature nor a ``judicial proceeding.''

Traditionally, States have not been bound to recognize marriages if, a, they have a significant relationship with the people being married, and, b, the marriage at issue violates a strongly held public policy. For example, section 283 of the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws provides that a marriage will be valid everywhere so long as it is valid in the State where it was performed, ``unless it violates the strong public policy of another State which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage.''

On this basis, States have refused to recognize the marriage of a person who has recently divorced without an intervening waiting period when such marriage violates their public policy. Other States have refused to recognize marriages between certain types of relatives, even though they were legal in the State in which they were preformed. There is no Supreme Court ruling to the effect that the refusal to recognize marriages from other States on public policy grounds violates the full faith and credit clause.

On this state of the record, it is premature to consider altering the Constitution, the most successful organic document in history which has preserved and enshrined the values of our Nation. If the States cannot preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, I would consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.