Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time today from 6 to 6:30 be under the control of the majority and from 6:30 to 7 o'clock be under the control of the minority.

Mr. President, I ask that Larry Craig be added as a cosponsor to S.J. Res. 1.

Mr. President, we are now talking about S.J. Res. 1, the Protection of Marriage Amendment. We

have an allocation of time that has been set out for the Republican side. Later on there will be an allocation, I understand, of the Democrats' time.

I will allocate myself 20 minutes. Would the Presiding Officer notify me when I have used 17 minutes of that?

Mr. President, respect for the democratic process compels this Congress to protect traditional marriage in the face of a coordinated effort to redefine marriage through the courts.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. It is incorporated into the fabric of our culture and civic life. It is the platform on which children, families, and communities are nurtured.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage, not by democratically elected Members of Congress but by unaccountable and unelected judges.

As a result, I introduced S.J. Res. 1, an amendment to the Constitution that simply defines marriage as the ``union of a man and a woman,'' while leaving State legislatures the freedom to address the question of civil unions.

Democracy and representative government are at the core of this debate. In 2004 and 2005, voters in 14 Sates overwhelmingly passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Today, 19 States have constitutional amendments protecting marriage and another 26 have statutes designed to protect traditional marriage. The will of the people is clear.

Unfortunately, dissatisfied with the outcome of the democratic process, activists have intensified their campaign to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts. Currently nine States face lawsuits challenging traditional marriage laws. Among these lawsuits are challenges to State constitutional amendments passed by an overwhelming majority of voters.

Recent decisions by activist judges not only fail to respect the traditional definition of marriage, they also highlight a lack of respect for the democratic process. The courts are driving a redefinition of marriage contrary to democratic principles.

The process to amend the U.S. Constitution is the most democratic in the world, requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States to ratify. It is a process the American people can trust.

If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us.

My amendment reflects my belief that the institution of marriage is too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges.

The will of the people should prevail.

Marriage is the foundation of every civilization in human history. As I said before, the definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. Marriage is not a partisan issue. Marriage is embraced and intuitively understood to be a union between a man and a woman by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.

As an expression of this cultural value, the definition of marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of civic policy. It is the root from which families and communities are grown. Marriage is the one bond on which all other bonds are built.

Marriage is not some controversial ideology being forced upon an unwilling populace by the government, it is in fact the opposite. Marriage is the ideal held by the people and the government has long reflected this. The broadly embraced union of a woman and a man is understood to be the ideal union from which people live and children best blossom and thrive.

As we have heard in hours of testimony, in eight hearings, in numerous Senate committees over the last several years, marriage is a pretty good thing. A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family. It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families.

Today there are numerous efforts to redefine marriage to be something that it isn't. When it comes to same-gender couples there is a problem of definition. Two women or two men simply do not meet the criteria for marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. Marriage is, as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman.

I believe the Framers of the Constitution felt that this would never be an issue--and if they had it would have been included in the U.S. Constitution. Like the vast majority of Americans, it would have never occurred to me that the definition of marriage, or marriage itself, would be the source of controversy. Not too long ago it would have been wholly inconceivable that this definition--this institution that is marriage--would be challenged, redefined or attacked. But we are here today because it is.

As a result of this coordinated campaign to redefine marriage through the courts, we stand here today, compelled by respect for the democratic process, to publicly debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Again, this amendment simply reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and a woman.

The first sentence is straightforward: It defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman--just as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world.

The second sentence simply ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, can decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on people. Citizens remain free to act through their legislatures to bestow whatever benefits to same-sex couples that they choose. It is aimed squarely at the problem of judicial activism.

Just as important as what it does do, is what it does not do. I have said it time and time again and I say here again today for the record: The amendment does not seek to prohibit, in any way, the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not prohibit private employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. It denies no existing rights.

What our amendment does is to define and protect traditional marriage at the highest level, the U.S. Constitution. Importantly, the consideration of this amendment in the Senate represents the discussion of marriage in America in a democratic body of elected officials. I am not willing to surrender this issue to the courts.

I also believe it is important to make clear that on the question of federalism and States' rights I stand where I always have. While an indisputable definition of marriage will be a part of our Constitution, all other questions will be left to the States.

Contrary to assertions of those who believe my amendment infringes on the rights of the States, my amendment actually protects States' rights. Forty-five States have spoken with laws or constitutional amendments designed to protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, same-sex advocates have, through the courts, systematically and successfully trampled on laws democratically enacted in the States. If marriage is redefined for anybody, it is redefined for everybody. My amendment takes the issue out of the hands of a handful of activist judges and puts it squarely back in the hands of the people.

Now is the time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility and send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification.

Marrige, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. This debate is not about politics or discrimination, it is about marriage and democracy.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage--not by democratically elected Members of Congress but by unaccountable and unelected judges. If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us.

I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges.

Mr. President, I have behind me a number of charts I would like to go over for Members of the Senate. This is what the amendment is all about:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor

the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require

that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred

upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In this very simple-to-understand chart form I have laid out for Members of the Senate exactly what happens when it is sent to the States and what it does to the courts. The State and Federal courts, what can they impose? They cannot redefine marriage. The courts cannot go ahead and redefine civil unions or domestic partnerships. The courts cannot grant rights or benefits of marriage. But it doesn't affect in any way employee benefits offered by private businesses.

Then we go down and look at the legislatures. What can they do? They can't redefine marriage. But they can deal with the creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships--that is left up to the State legislatures, granting the rights or benefits of marriage. Again, that is left up to the State legislatures. Again, through the States, we don't mandate anything that affects private businesses.

The next chart I would like to show to my colleagues in the Senate is how America is weighing in on the issue of marriage. We have a map of the United States here that clearly outlines those States where amendments have passed--in the dark green. If we look at those results from within the States, the State that passed with the least majority was Oregon with 57 percent, and the largest majority--it looks like it was in Mississippi: 86 percent. But the average margin of where States have enacted the constitutional amendment is greater than 70 percent.

Then we see that marriage amendments are expected in 2006 in a number of States throughout the country. The percentage of the voters who support the idea of the definition of marriage is a large percentage, a large margin.

Now I would like to go to our next chart to outline what the States have done to protect traditional marriage through statutory and constitutional defense of marriage acts. The blue lines show how the States have acted on the definition of marriage as it was allowed to occur through the defense of marriage acts. Obviously, we all recall that in the Senate we passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a large percentage and it passed the House by a large percentage. And it also passed in many States with a large percentage, with 45 States ending up passing the Defense of Marriage Act. The problem with the Defense of Marriage Act is it will not hold up against State challenges. Those court cases that have been brought forward could have an adverse impact on what a large majority of State legislatures have said and what a large majority of houses have said.

The red reflects what has happened in regard to a constitutional amendment. We have 19 States that have passed those constitutional amendments and a number of amendments are pending before the States.

Now let me look at the following chart, and this is the number of States in which marriage laws have been challenged in court. Between 1992 and 1994, we had 5 cases that were challenged in court, and as these cases have accumulated through the years, now, in 2006, we have 22 cases that have been challenged. So we have a significant threat from the courts. This is an important issue to the American people, it is an important issue to the Congress, and it is something that should be addressed.

I believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are simply too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected activist judges. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.

I now yield the floor.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Kansas for his tremendous effort and work on this very important issue. I know he has held hours upon hours of committee hearings and meetings to investigate with social scientists the impact of marriage on American lives and how it impacts the family.

I, for one, greatly appreciate the Senator's effort and support. He truly has been a partner in this effort to protect marriage. I appreciate his hard work. I recognize that in a public way.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article published by the Heritage Foundation, written by Mr. Ed Meese, titled ``Marriage Amendment Protects Federalism,'' and a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate Joint Resolution on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and a letter I have received from Mitt Romney, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in which he made a couple of statements that I will share with my colleagues.

First, he states in this letter:

Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all

oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid

hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate

over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is

a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

It goes further to talk of his experiences as Governor for the State of Massachusetts. He says:

. . . We are beginning to see the effects of the new legal

logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state's social

experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being

challenged: Same sex couples want the terms ``Mother'' and

``Father'' replaced with ``Parent A'' and ``Parent B.''

If the Senate will allow me to put this in context, I think the significance of his message is that marriage is being minimalized. When we minimize marriage, we minimize its significance to society. As a result of that, our children will suffer.

I thank the President for his support. I also thank Governor Mitt Romney for his support.

I ask unanimous consent these be printed in the Record.

I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been a strong leader and who has put in a large amount of effort in trying to protect the institution of marriage.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to respond. First of all, the States are trying to handle the issue of marriage. The problem is that the courts are changing those actions. Even worse than that, we have citizens who initiated issues on marriage within the States, and now we have the courts overturning that when those issues have passed by 70 percent or more.

I felt that needed to be clarified.

I think the amendment is very clear, particularly the second sentence, when you know that refers to the courts and we are limiting the powers of the courts. We have not done anything to restrict the power of the legislature, except on the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman.

This is an important issue, and I think we need to assure that the States will have a key role as far as handling issues related to marriage. That is what this amendment is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his hard work on this issue. He is a dedicated Senator and an honorable one. We appreciate him taking the time to address the Senate.

Mr. President, I now ask that Senator Thune be recognized.

Mr. President, yes, I would like the opportunity to speak. I would like to start off the debate, as far as Members are concerned, if I might. Senator Brownback will be coming in on a later flight. I will help manage the floor, if that is OK with the chairman, for those in favor until Senator Brownback arrives.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that our speaking sequence be alternated between those who speak in favor of the amendment and those who speak against the amendment.

No, I don't. We have already agreed to it. I don't want to amend that. I think we would plan to meet that.

I was going to say following those, we can alternate back and forth.

I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I rise today to start what I hope will be a constructive debate on my amendment, S.J. Res. 1, known as the marriage protection amendment. I think at this point in the debate it is important that we carefully review what is said in the amendment and what the intent of the amendment is. It reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

That is the first sentence. The second sentence says:

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and a woman.

Now, what does that mean. Let's break it down. And that is what this chart does that I have before us. It says simply that we are going to have a uniting, uniform definition of marriage throughout the United States. And then the second sentence, it guarantees that the courts cannot force States or

the Federal Government to grant any of the rights, benefits, or other incidents of marriage to any union other than that of a man and woman. Legislatures and the people will continue to have the power to grant whatever rights or benefits they choose through the democratic process.

Definition of marriage: This first sentence prohibits courts and legislatures from changing the definition of marriage. The second sentence further prohibits the courts from creating civil unions or domestic partnerships or granting the right or benefits of marriage. But it doesn't interfere with private contracts between a business or a private entity of some type.

The legislatures can do the following things. They can create civil unions or domestic partnerships. They can grant the rights and benefits of marriage--the second sentence of this amendment--and again it doesn't affect employment benefits offered by private businesses. What we are trying to protect is the State legislatures from having their legislation and the people's legislation within their State overturned by an unelected branch of Government, the courts.

Before making my formal comments and going any further, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment. It has taken countless hours of study and discussion to get to this point, and each of our 31 cosponsors has shown courage and commitment to protecting marriage.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the majority leader for his commitment and leadership. Without the support of the Senate leadership, the public may never have had an opportunity to address this vitally important issue in a democratic body.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who has ably reported it out of the committee to the floor for debate.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. The definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology, and ethnicity. Marriage is embraced and intuitively understood to be what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As an expression of this cultural value, the definition of marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of civil policy. It is the root from which families and communities are grown. Marriage is one bond on which all other bonds are built.

Marriage is not some controversial ideology being forced upon an unwilling population by the Government. It is, in fact, the opposite. Marriage is the ideal held by the people, and the Government has long reflected this. The broadly embraced union of a woman and a man is understood to be the ideal union from which people live and children best blossom and thrive.

As we have heard in hours of testimony, in eight hearings, in numerous Senate committees over the last several years, marriage is a pretty good thing. A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family. It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families.

Today, there are numerous efforts to redefine marriage to be something that it is not. Marriage is and it always has been a union between a man and a woman.

I believe the Framers of the Constitution felt that this would never be an issue, and if they had, it would have been included in the U.S. Constitution. Like the vast majority of Americans, it would have never occurred to me that the definition of marriage or marriage itself would be the source of controversy. Not too long ago, it would have been wholly inconceivable that this definition, this institution of marriage would be challenged, redefined, or attacked. But here we are today because of it. Make no mistake about it, traditional marriage is under assault. I say assault because the move to redefine marriage has taken place not through the democratic process such as State legislatures and the Congress or ballot issues around the Nation; this assault has taken place in our courts and often in direct conflict with the will of the people, State statutes, Federal statutes, and even State constitutions.

Activists and lawyers have devised a strategy to use the courts to redefine marriage. This strategy is a clear effort to override public opinion and the longstanding composition of traditional marriage and to force same-sex marriage on society.

Over the course of the last 15 years, traditional marriage laws have been challenged in courts across the Nation. Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia have all seen traditional marriage challenged in court.

As we speak, nine States face lawsuits challenging traditional marriage laws--California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Marriage is under attack all across the country. If it hasn't already, an attack on marriage is coming to a State near you.

The first success in the activists' coordinated legal strategy was in Vermont in 1999. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that all the rights and benefits of civil marriage must be extended to same sex couples. Under threat of court-imposed same sex marriage, the Vermont legislature created same-sex ``civil unions.''

The second, and to date the most widely covered success in the effort to destroy traditional marriage, came more recently in the state of Massachusetts where four judges ruled in the Goodridge case that marriage itself must be redefined to include same-sex couples, and that traditional marriage laws were a ``stain'' on the State constitution that must be ``eradicated.'' This edict came despite the fact that the populace of Massachusetts opposed this redefinition of marriage and despite the fact that no law had ever been democratically passed to authorize such a radical shift in public policy.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have shopped carefully for the right venues, exploited the legal system, and today stand ready to overturn any and all democratically crafted Federal or State statute that would stand between them and a new definition of humanity's oldest institution.

The question of process is very important in this debate--it is in fact the very heart of this debate. While recent court decisions handed down by activist judges may not respect the traditional definition of marriage, these decisions also highlight a lack of respect for the democratic process. No State legislature has passed legislation to redefine the Institution of marriage--not one. Any redefinition of marriage has been driven entirely by the body of government that remains unaccountable and unelected--the courts.

Some of my colleagues do not feel we should be talking about marriage in the Senate. I say we must. Our Government is a three branch government. The Congress is the branch that represents the people most directly. We have a duty to, at the very least, discuss the state of marriage in America. If we do not take this up, we abdicate our responsibility. We will allow the courts sole dominion on the state and future of marriage. This Senate, the world's most deliberative body, must provide a democratic response to the courts.

Legislatures across the country have joined the Congress in recent years in affirming a 1996 law called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA is a limited law designed to address two distinct issue: No. 1, forced interstate recognition, and No. 2, the definition of marriage for the purposes Federal law. This bipartisan legislation passed with the support of more than three-quarters of the House of Representatives and with the support of 85 Senators before being signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

To date, 45 States have also passed laws to protect traditional marriage, including 19 States that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Voters in seven

States--Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin--will vote on constitutional amendments this year. Another five State legislatures--Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania--are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008, and ballot initiatives are currently underway in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois.

These state DOMAs and constitutional amendments, combined with Federal DOMA, should have settled the question as to the democratic expression of the will of the American public. However, Federal and State DOMAs, as well as State constitutional amendments--all reflecting the will of the people--are being challenged in the courts.

The Federal DOMA is itself under attack. Activists have challenged DOMA's interstate recognition provision in the Ninth Circuit. The second part of DOMA, the part defining marriage for Federal purposes, was also challenged in the Ninth Circuit, as well as in Federal cases pending in Oklahoma and Washington State. Plaintiffs in each case argue that the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses require the recognition of same-sex marriages, and that efforts to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law are unconstitutional.

Because DOMA only clarifies that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause should not be read to require interstate recognition, DOMA will not prevent an activist judge from finding that the equal protection or due process clauses require it. In other words, DOMA does not prevent any court from recognizing out-of-State marriages; it merely removes one of several rationales that a court could use to do so. DOMA is not, nor was it designed to be, a comprehensive solution to judicial activism on same-sex marriage.

Likewise, State constitutional amendments are under attack in Federal court. For example, in Nebraska, a Federal district court in 2005 found unconstitutional a State constitutional amendment passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters. While this cases is on appeal to the Eight Circuit--and we hope the decision will be correctly overturned--I find it chilling that the will of an entire State, expressed democratically, may be undone by a Federal judge in an unelected position and tenured for life.

State constitutional amendments are also under attack in State court. Just last month, a Georgia judge found unconstitutional a State constitutional marriage amendment that was approved by 76 percent of the voters. Immediately after it was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters in 2004, activists launched an attack in the courts. The result--the amendment being thrown out on procedural grounds--is yet another success for the handful of activists seeking to suppress the will of the people through the courts.

The national effort to redefine marriage has also been buoyed by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2003, the Court inferred that a right to same-sex marriage could be found in the U.S. Constitution in Lawrence v. Texas. A variety of experts, including Justice Scalia and Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, forecast that this decision points to the end of traditional marriage laws--including Federal and State DOMAs. The Massachusetts court relied heavily on the Lawrence decision to strike down that State's traditional marriage law in the Goodridge case.

When Goodridge took effect in May of 2004, same-sex couples became entitled to Massachusetts marriage licenses. In anticipation of Goodridge, a handful of local officials in New York, California, and Oregon began issuing licenses to same sex couples in February and March. To date, through the combined efforts of lawless local officials and those licenses issued in Massachusetts, couples from at least 46 States have received licenses in those jurisdictions and returned to their home States. These 46-plus States are state and Federal DOMA challenges just waiting happen.

More of these cases are expected and we will be left with an unworkable patchwork marriage laws, crafted by judges and forced on to on State from another, outside the democratic process, regardless of the will of the voters.

As a result of this coordinated campaign to redefine marriage through the courts, we stand here today, compelled by respect for the democratic process, to publicly debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Again, this amendment simply reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and a woman.

The first sentence is straightforward: it defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman--just as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world.

The second sentence simply ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, can decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on people. Citizens remain free to act through their legislatures to bestow whatever benefits to same-sex couples that they choose. It is aimed squarely at the problem of judicial activism.

Just as important as what it does do, is what it does not do. I have said it time and time again and I say here again today for the record-- the amendment does not seek to prohibit, in any way, the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not prohibit private employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. It denies no existing rights.

What our amendment does is to define and protect traditional marriage at the highest level--the U.S. Constitution. Importantly, the consideration of this amendment in the Senate represents the discussion of marriage in America in a democratic body of elected official. I am not willing to surrender this issue to the courts.

I also feel it is important to make clear that on the question of federalism and States' rights I stand where I always have. While an indisputable definition of marriage will be a part of our Constitution, all other questions will be left to the State.

Gregory Coleman, former solicitor general of the State of Texas testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and made the following statement on this matter:

Some have objected to a proposed constitutional amendment

on federalism grounds. These concerns are misplaced. The

relationship between the States and the Federal government is

defined by the Constitution and a fortiori, a constitutional

amendment cannot violate principles of federalism and State's

rights. A Federal constitutional amendment is perhaps the

most democratic of all processes--because it requires

ratification by three-fourths of the States--and simply does

not raise federalism concerns. The real danger of State's

rights comes from the recognition of un-enumerated

constitutional rights in which the States have had no

participation.

I share those sentiments and cannot express them any more clearly. We stand today at the threshold of the most democratic, most federalist process in all our Government. As designed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, the amendment process is neither an exclusive Federal nor an exclusively State action: It is a shared responsibility of both.

Contrary to assertions of those who believe my amendment infringes on the rights of the States my amendment actually protects States' rights. Forty-five States have spoken with laws or constitutional amendments designed to protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, same-sex advocates have, through the courts, systematically and successfully trampled on laws democratically enacted in the States. My amendment takes the issue out of the hands of a handful of activist judges and puts it squarely back in the hands of the States.

Now is the time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility and send a constitutional amendment to the States.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. This definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. It is not about politics or discrimination, it is about marriage and democracy.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage--not by democratically elected Members of Congress but

by unaccountable and unelected judges. If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us.

I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks. During several hearings we both participated in, we have heard about how a healthy marriage benefits children, how it benefits a community and the foundation of society. Don't you feel that if we don't preserve the definition of marriage, somehow or other we make marriage less relevant, and when you make it less relevant, then I think it is easier to have higher divorce rates and easier to have a dysfunctional family because the real importance of a family is lost.

Mr. President, I do. Following making my point of order, I would ask unanimous consent that the manager be recognized and then there be an opportunity for Senator Sessions to make a few remarks. I want to make a few remarks. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407(B) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. President, I extend 2 more minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to express in a public way my gratitude for Senator Sessions, the Senator from Alabama, for his efforts on behalf of many of us who have concerns about the immigration bill. I think we should recognize his yeoman work and the amount of time he spent studying all of the ramifications of this bill.

All of us have begun to study this bill more and more over the past week, and we began to realize the long-term implications the immigration reform bill we have on the floor will have on America.

I have grave concerns with the effects of this bill on the future of this

country, not the least of which is its potential fiscal impact.

Section 407 reads:

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint

resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that

would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5

billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning in 2016

through 2055.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a May 16, 2006, cost estimate explicitly stating:

Enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending

greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods

between 2016 and 2055.

The fiscal impact of this bill can be summed up in simply two words: budget buster. This is a budget buster.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would increase direct spending by $54 billion over the next 10 years. While it is estimated to increase only $13 billion over the first 5 years, during the course of the second 5 years, it is expected to skyrocket up another $41 billion as the amnesty provisions begin to kick in.

Conveniently for the authors of the bill, CBO's cost estimate stops there. See, under the bill, illegal immigrants have a 6-year waiting period from enactment to establishing legal permanent resident status. Then after another 5 years, they can become citizens. Thus, in the 11th year, conveniently just out of reach of CBO's analysis, millions of people who entered this country illegally will be granted citizenship.

Where the CBO leaves off, the Heritage Foundation picks up. They estimate that the additional cost to the Federal Government of providing benefits to the individuals granted amnesty under this bill is around $16 billion annually.

On top of that, when an individual is granted citizenship, he is entitled to bring his spouse, minor children, and parents into the country. Once in the country, these individuals would become eligible to receive social services and government-funded medical care. Then after 5 years, they could become citizens, whereupon they could be eligible for supplemental security income and Medicaid at an average cost of $18,000 per person per year.

Think about that. That is about the time when many of us are talking about a financial crisis around 2016 for Social Security and Medicare. Then on top of that, we are incurring this huge liability in this bill, if we happen to pass it in its current form.

The Heritage Foundation study provides this example: If only 10 percent of the parents of those receiving amnesty under this bill became citizens and enrolled in the aforementioned Government programs, the extra costs to Government would be over $30 billion per year.

Obviously, we cannot predict how many spouses, children, and parents of those granted amnesty will come into the country, but one thing is for certain. The pool is enormous and the potential long-term effects staggering.

All this takes place against the existing backdrop of runaway Federal spending. Entitlement spending alone is on pace to exceed total Government revenues before the end of this century.

With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, we are grappling with how to pay for existing entitlement programs. The last thing we need to do is grow Federal spending by potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to provide benefits to millions of people who enter our country illegally. This stands in contravention to the rule of law and is unfair to the American taxpayer.

As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I believe it is my duty to bring to the attention of my colleagues, as well as the American people, the staggering impact this legislation will have on the fiscal health of this country. This issue has not been thoroughly considered in the Senate. I bring it to my colleagues' attention today in hopes that we will have the debate we need.

It would be irresponsible of me not to mention a violation of personal duty to the American taxpayer, to stand idly by while my colleagues enact a bill that drives a dagger into the heart of this country's fiscal health.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Again, I thank the Senator from Alabama. When we think about it, the Congressional Budget Office figures are way off. I do think the Heritage Foundation has probably come about as close as any figures I have seen.

Here is what concerns me and concerns those of us who believe we ought to have a balanced budget, those of us who believe we owe something to future generations of Americans: We have to be conscious of the cost of this type of legislation. It will have a huge impact. In fact, I am trying to think back in my career in the Congress to whether I have seen as expensive legislation. I don't believe I have. We are looking at astronomical figures.

If we look at the Heritage Foundation figures, $30 billion each year--and I think those are conservative and that builds into the base, so you have $30 billion the next year on top of that, as I understand it. It is astounding. We need to back up a little bit and think on what we are doing to the cost of many of those programs. We need to think more carefully about the solutions we are proposing and have in this bill.

I am real concerned about the costs. I am real concerned about escalating deficits, although I have to say I am pleased with the response to the President's efforts to stimulate the economy. By growing the economy, we bring down the deficits. They have been going down. They went down last year. They are going down this year. When we pass legislation like this, that is all for naught. That undoes everything the President has been doing to try to hold down deficit spending and what we have been doing in this Congress to hold down deficit spending. For those of us who believe that we need to balance our budget, we are going in the wrong direction. It is awfully easy to stand here on the floor and say, Look, I support a balanced budget, I support eliminating deficit spending. But then bills like this come up on the floor, and I think we forget about what we have been saying about how important it is to the future of this country to reduce and eliminate deficit spending and to bring our budget into balance.

This is an important piece of legislation if for no other reason than the fiscal impact that carries with it. That is why I made my point of order, because I think that we need to step back and think about the results of this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. President, would 10 minutes be satisfactory to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, my good friend, Ben Nelson.

I yield 10 minutes to my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

I would let the other side use some time if they feel they want to. If not, I will recognize the Senator from Louisiana and yield him 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, I would like to point out that this is not that difficult to understand. There are two points of order we can make on spending. We can make a short-term point of order, which is within 10 years, or we can make a long-term point of order, which is in the next 40 years, which is long-term spending.

This point of order is made on the latter, the 40 years. All the arguments that have been made on the floor have been on the first 10 years. So what you can do in this kind of piece of legislation is, you can lump everything to make it look good, and then after the 10 years you put all your spending. That is why we have the long-term provision where you can make a point of order for those of us who are concerned about long-term spending--programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and programs like what we are talking about in this bill that have a profound long-term effect on spending. That is what the point of order addresses.

The Budget Committee is not out here fighting this bill. They are presenting figures to us. And this is what they say: Pursuant to section 407 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the CBO estimates that enacting this bill would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. That is the last 40 years we are talking about.

All the arguments on this floor have been on the first 10 years. This point of order is about the next 40 years and long-term spending and what it is doing to the long-term fiscal health of this country and the huge deficits that are going to lead to huge debts in the 40 years after the first 10 years. That is what this point of order is all about.

One other point I would like to make is that we are concerned about spending. The figures that are put in here by CBO--they are concerned about spending--these are real figures that will make a difference in American lives, in the next generation of American lives.

We need to face up to our responsibility. When pieces of legislation such as this are on the floor, we need to think seriously about the fiscal impact long term. That is why I made the point of order.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to Senator Sessions. Then after his comments, I think we will be ready to wrap it up.

Mr. President, is the other side ready to yield back their time?

Then I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to quickly summarize by saying this is about long-term spending. The Congressional Budget Office, a week ago, brought out a cost estimate that explicitly states: Enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. This is a big spending bill in the outlying years. That is what the point of order is all about. It is not difficult. It is straightforward. These are figures that we were presented with from the Congressional Budget Office a little over a week ago. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no to grant a waiver.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?

Mr. President, I am going to speak under morning business on Senate bill 1955, the small business health plans legislation that is going to be before us shortly for formal debate. I come to the floor to talk about a piece of legislation that is important to my Colorado constituents. I would like to talk about the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act, sometimes known as HIMMA.

This legislation, which is also known as the small business health plans bill, would allow for small businesses to come together to form a group which could then use their combined purchasing power to influence insurance companies for affordable health plans.

It has been suggested that those who serve in the Senate have no understanding of what small business folks are going through and that most of us have never been faced with the reality of having no health insurance and therefore don't understand the plight of the small businessman. I come to dispel that rumor. I am a former small businessman who couldn't afford the cost of health insurance for myself or for my employees.

My wife and I discussed options for ourselves and for our employees. Similar to many other small business owners across the country, we decided it would be better to raise our employees' rate of pay and allow them to purchase their own individual plans. My wife and I decided to begin setting aside our own savings account to pay for health care costs in case, for some reason or another, I had an incident or she had an incident where we needed to go to the hospital and thus needed health care coverage.

Being a veterinarian and lifting heavy dogs onto the exam table all the time, and not expecting the dog owner to pick up the other half of a giant breed such as a Great Dane, I ended up having back problems and had to have back surgery. I didn't have health insurance, but I paid for it myself out of my own pocket. Fortunately, my wife and I had the foresight to set aside a savings plan so that if something such as this did happen, we could pay for it. But it did set us back.

We were able to survive that particular incident. It was kind of an interesting thing, what happened to me when I went to go to the hospital. The administrators didn't want me to go into the hospital. The hospital would not let us in because we did not have health insurance. I said: Well, I will pay for it. When we got in there, I had the surgery, and I did very well, and I am very active today. The doctors did a great job on surgery. When we checked out of the hospital, the administrator said that they would reduce our costs by 20 percent because they did not have to deal with the paperwork and with the cost of having to process my claim. So much of the paperwork is driven by trying to protect the hospital, the doctors, and the administrators from frivolous lawsuits. That has been my personal experience.

I must admit I was disappointed when, earlier in the week, Members of the Senate chose to side with trial lawyers instead of women and children. And I was disappointed that Members of the Senate decided to support turning the medical profession into a cash cow for the legal profession instead of allowing for legitimate compensation.

Again, in a matter of minutes, we will be debating the small business health plans bill and another attempt to bring down the high cost of health care, specifically for working class families who are employed by small businesses that, similar to my own situation, cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees.

I think it is important for us to focus this debate on at least giving small businesses the opportunity to make a choice on providing health care for themselves and for their employees. Currently, because of the prohibitive cost of health care coverage for their employees, many small business employers don't even have the option of offering coverage.

Some of my constituents have brought to my attention over the past few weeks their worries that because of the lack of insurance benefit mandates, they could lose important benefits such

as diabetes services and supplies, and coverage of preventive services such as colorectal screenings and mammograms. These worries are unfounded. Today there are over 1,800 different State mandates for health care coverage, including different coverage mandates in different States for the same preventive care, services, and supplies. This huge variation in mandates has made it nearly impossible to provide standardized coverage on a national basis.

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office, which is an agency which helps to watch our dollars, has also found that the cost of mandates to a typical plan results in an increase between 5 and 22 percent. The Congressional Budget Office, another dollar-watching agency, estimates that for every 1 percent increase in insurance costs, a minimum of 200,000 Americans are left uninsured.

Facts suggest that things such as diabetes services and supplies and preventive services such as mammograms and colorectal screenings are usually covered by health plans, regardless of the State mandates. For example, the five most populous States require that diabetes care be covered. According to the American Diabetic Association and the GAO, only 4 out of 50 States do not require diabetic coverage.

The General Accounting Office also studied States that are not subject to mandated coverages of diabetic services and supplies. Despite not being subject to mandated requirements for coverage, several of the largest plans and many of the largest Fortune 500 companies provide comprehensive coverage for diabetes care.

This factual evidence also applies to preventive services such as cancer screening. The Government Accountability Office found that the majority of States that do not have mandates continue to provide coverage in a majority of their employer plans for cancer screening.

The bottom line is that the small business health plan bill makes logical sense. It will give small business owners what they want and what they need, and they will offer insurance coverage for their employees. It makes logical sense that plans covering preventive care will be offered because preventive care costs less in the long run. It makes logical sense that small business owners who currently cannot provide their employees with health care would purchase coverage because it is more affordable.

It is important to note at this point that a small business owner who buys health care coverage is also naturally subject to the same health care coverage that he provides his employees. Small business owners are pushing for health insurance coverage for themselves and their employees, which they otherwise could not afford. It is not logical that they would pay money for a plan that does not provide them with medical coverage. Also, the point of small business health plans is so that small businesses can join together to use joint collaboration to get their health care needs met.

I support the legislation because I support giving small businesses a choice. I support giving small businesses the opportunity for health care coverage that they currently do not receive. I support giving diabetics the opportunity for health care coverage, instead of leaving them completely without services and supplies. I support giving small business employees the opportunity for cancer screening and preventive care, instead of leaving them with nothing and no opportunity to provide health care for themselves and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support the small business health plans legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Senate bill 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act. I urge my fellow Senators to give small businesses the opportunity to access health care for themselves and their employees.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that this week, May 7 to 13, 2006, has been designated by the American Humane Association as the 92nd Be Kind to Animals Week. The American Humane Association, which is headquartered in Englewood, CO, was founded in 1877 and is the oldest national organization dedicated to the mission of preventing cruelty to animals, as well as to children. Through this work, American Humane has helped America shed light on the nature and origins of cruelty and through this annual observance reminds us that the practice of kindness can both heal hurt and yield constructive reform.

When, in 1915, American Humane launched the Nation's first national week for animals, its purpose was simple: ``to direct the attention of the public to the importance of giving proper care and attention to animals.'' This message resonated powerfully with Americans and quickly evolved into a national public education campaign with a broader mission: promoting the teaching of humane education in our schools; promoting the good works of animal shelters; and helping Americans understand the unique bond between humans and animals.

Be Kind to Animals Week is the oldest event of its kind. Each year it reminds us how animals enrich our lives through their companionship, friendship and love. Over the last 91 years, a central theme of this annual event has been the importance of teaching the principles of kindness and compassion to children. Humane groups spend much of their time reacting to mistreatment of animals as it occurs. American Humane believes that, if we share our humane values with our children, these problems can be prevented and our society made safer and kinder.

American Humane's Be Kind to Animals Week is as much a lifelong attitude as it is a weeklong event. It is about animal shelters, veterinarians, humane educators, animal control professionals, and the faith community promoting discussion and reflection about kindness to animals, to individuals, within families and perhaps most important, within communities. But Be Kind to Animals Week isn't just about animals. It is also about children and those who care for and about them.

As a veterinarian, I have seen firsthand how important animals are to people. When a family adopts a pet, it becomes one of them. Usually, when people bring an animal to a veterinarian, it is because there is something wrong with the animal. It was always obvious to me the love that people had for their animals. The illness of a pet can cause great sorrow, but the healing of a pet brings great joy. Many studies have shown the increased happiness and healing powers of spending time with a pet.

During Be Kind to Animals Week, we should all keep in mind a simple but powerful message. The week should serve as a reminder that as humans, we need to be ever more compassionate about the animals in our world, whether they are companion pets, service animals such as seeing- eye dogs, zoo critters, livestock, or nature's wildlife. It is a reminder that the bond between humans and animals is a vital one and is capable of bringing joy and healing to people of all ages. It is also a reminder to be more kind and compassionate to our fellow man. We co- exist in this world--human to human and human to animal--and those bonds must be maintained, they must be kept strong.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I, for one, am pleased we are moving forward this next week with the health care agenda in an attempt to hold down the costs of health care.

My colleague who just spoke said: I don't think any Senators have ever experienced life without health insurance. Before I came to the Senate, I didn't have health insurance. So I come to the Senate today as a small businessman who has had to struggle with the costs of health insurance in my small business. I also had to struggle with my employees, making sure that they had appropriate health insurance to meet the immediate needs of their family.

The fact that the majority leader has decided this next week to declare health care week to help put forth three pieces of legislation, Senate bills 22 and 23 which deal with liability reform is great. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that lawyers, some way or the other, do not contribute to the cost of health care. The fact is, the threat of lawsuits do add to the cost of health care.

Finally, I am pleased one of the bills coming forward in the Senate is the bill allowing small businesses to form associations. Then, as a purchasing unit, they have more power in the marketplace and can negotiate cheaper health insurance policies as a general rule. It does not happen all the time. But at least it gives the small businessman one more tool in trying to hold down the costs of health care.

As a small businessman, I had to struggle to maintain health coverage in my veterinarian practice and reached the point at one time where I said: I think what we finally need to do, as a small businessman I cannot afford health insurance, so we will work with each individual employee and give them extra pay so they can go out and shop for their own health insurance. So many times when you have small businesses, as I did, you become the first employer of many new employees entering into the workplace. With the idea they would be somewhat mobile and moving around from one employer to another for the next few years, we decided that was okay, and my wife and I decided to begin setting aside our own savings account to pay for health care costs in case, for some reason or another, I had an incident or she had an incident where we needed to go to the hospital and have some health care.

Being a veterinarian and lifting heavy dogs on the exam table all the time and not expecting the dog owner to pick up the other half of a Great Dane, I ended up having back problems and had to have back surgery. I didn't have health insurance. I paid for it myself out of my own pocket. Fortunately, my wife and I had the foresight to set aside a savings plan so that if something such as this did happen, we could pay for it. But it set us back. We were able to survive that particular incident. It was kind of an interesting thing. They did not want us to go into the hospital. They would not let us in because we did not have health insurance. I said: I will pay for it. When we got in there, we had the surgery, and I did very well, and I am very active today. Consequently, they did a great job on the surgery, and when we checked out of the hospital, they said they would reduce our costs 20 percent because ``we do not have to deal with the paperwork of dealing with the costs of having to process your claim.''

So much of the paperwork is driven by trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. That has been my personal experience.

That is why I am in the Senate today talking in favor of Senate bill 22, called the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, which is a comprehensive liability reform bill, and in support of Senate bill 23, which is called the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Health Care Act, and talking in favor of the association health plans bill that allow small businesses to come together and form associations so they can, as a bargaining unit, bargain down and get a more reasonable cost on their health insurance.

What happens if we do nothing? Right now there are many smart young men and women across the country who are being literally driven away from the health care industry. We are attracting fewer and fewer high- quality medical students than ever before. In some States and some specialties, practicing doctors are actually leaving their professions behind.

A little later on I will give you the experiences of a doctor in a rural community who is actually preparing to leave his profession because of the high cost of health insurance. Most of it is because of the high liability insurance, and it is extremely prohibitive for young students and doctors to stay in a field they cannot afford because of the high liability insurance costs. This is creating a problem for patients in

health care across the country but particularly in the rural areas. I will address that later on.

Doctors are more reluctant to perform complex and high-risk medical procedures such as those involving pediatric orthopedics and spine surgery. It is not an easy procedure having to repair the bone of a fractured infant or having to do spinal surgeries as I experienced. This puts patients' access to emergency and trauma care at risk, also, because this is another high-risk area. Many times, you have to tailor the treatment plan to what is happening with the patient. There is not always a textbook approach, where you treat every patient exactly the same. Every patient is a little bit different.

Doctors are moving to States with a more favorable medical liability climate, leaving some areas underserved. In the State of Colorado, which I proudly represent, about a decade ago we did a lot to try and hold down the costs of medical insurance. We dealt with a lot of aspects of medical liability reform. Many of those we have in this bill, but we actually went further than what is in the bill.

The bottom line is, in Colorado, we were able to hold down the costs of medical insurance for medical doctors fairly significantly. One of the problems that happened in States such as Colorado, although we had done a lot of things to hold down the cost of health insurance, we found because health insurance companies pool their risks from States other than Colorado, we did not have the impact in some cases we expected to have because other States have not done that much in trying to hold down the cost of health insurance and liability problems that doctors incur when they are in their practices.

We were disappointed in that regard. That is why I, as a Senator, feel we need to have a national approach to this problem. That is because there is a lot of variation out there between States, and those States that are not doing anything have an adverse impact on States such as Colorado that are willing to step forward and try to reduce the liability risk and to reduce frivolous lawsuits.

Now, in Colorado, we are lucky enough today to already have had some liability reform for frivolous lawsuits. But across the Nation, States are experiencing extreme shortages in health care professionals because of the cost of liability insurance.

Now, another thing that may happen if we do not do anything is that medical students that may eventually wish to settle in States such as Colorado, but cannot because they cannot get the training they need because they cannot afford the liability insurance in States where they have to go to do their residency. We have a medical school in Colorado, but lots of times medical students are encouraged, with their residency and whatnot, to go to other hospitals and other institutions because everybody has a little bit different view of how they are going to handle different types of cases, and this exposes them to different points of view, so they can make up their mind what best works for them. So they will lose that opportunity.

Now, the bill, S. 22, would create a graduated cap system similar to what was just put in place in Texas. If we look at the Texas model, we have seen some remarkable results. But the bill would provide for unlimited economic damages. So if the patient wins a lawsuit against a medical doctor to provide for a decent living for their family, then they can collect those economic damages. It provides a stacked cap model that would keep non-economic damages at or below $750,000. They break it out this way: There would be up to $250,000 from a decision rendered against a health care provider and $250,000 from a decision rendered against a single health care institution and $250,000 from a decision rendered against more than one health care institution, not to exceed $500,000. It also provides punitive damages, but those are not to be any greater than twice the economic damage award or $250,000.

This bill also guarantees that lawsuits are filed no later than 3 years after the injury and extends the statute of limitations for minors injured before age 6. Under the age of 6, not always does an incident emerge right away. So if you have too short of a statute of liability, then it does create a problem for the patient. So this bill also looks at what we can do to take care of legitimate lawsuits that patients might have. This is one of the aspects which is provided for in the bill we have before us.

The language also intends to maximize patient recovery of payment by focusing on attorney payment regulations. It also establishes standards for expert witness rules, promotes fairness in the recovery of health benefits, and attempts to prevent double recovery.

It keeps the focus on the patient by attempting to curtail frivolous lawsuits, which is the key.

I mentioned Texas earlier in my comments, where there was legislation that was recently put into effect. Here is what happened in that State since September of 2003. They have added nearly 4,000 doctors in their State. Insurance premiums have declined. The number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut in half. Those are very significant events. It is similar to what we experienced in the State of Colorado when we passed a far-ranging liability reform bill.

Currently, we are at a crossroads on a very controversial issue.

Now, in the interest of my constituents, I have cosponsored this particular piece of legislation, S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006. It still allows for individuals to file claims for compensation for all economic damages they have incurred and allows for a reasonable amount of punitive damages.

Now, I have a few anecdotal situations I would like to talk about that affected Colorado. These are doctors who came and visited my office, and here is what they had to say, why they think we had to have medical liability reform.

The first one is about a medical doctor in Ft. Morgan. It is a relatively small rural town in northeastern Colorado. He expressed his concern in having to stop accepting new patients. He was concerned that with the rising costs of liability insurance, he would no longer be able to afford to accept new patients with the amount he is reimbursed. Even more distressing for this doctor in rural Colorado was the fact that he was going to have to start turning away patients whom he had been serving for years. His final question was, if he could not afford to serve them, who would? This brings up anecdotal evidence of what I explained earlier, that because of the high cost of liability insurance, doctors are giving up patients in rural areas because they simply cannot afford to service them because of the liability incurred.

Last week, a student with the American Osteopathic Association expressed his troubles finishing up his education. This applies to student experiences. This student is from rural Colorado, with plans to return to rural Colorado to practice. The problem is, he cannot afford the medical liability insurance in other States to get the specialized training he needs to come and practice in rural Colorado.

Now, doctors in small bordering towns of Colorado, such as Wray, Holyoke, and Burlington, cross the border into Nebraska to serve the rural areas of both States. Now, even if they are lucky enough to be able to afford the medical liability insurance in Colorado, it is nearly impossible for them to afford the additional liability insurance they would need to practice in the rural areas of the bordering State, which is probably closest and more accessible. This is another reason I think we need to have some national legislation.

Doctors and specialists from Ft. Collins drive as far as Cheyenne to serve the patients of the frontier country in between those two destinations. Without their dedication, the constituents they serve would be left without health care. We are now faced with that reality because these dedicated doctors can no longer afford the medical liability insurance they are required to have to practice in rural areas.

It was expressed in a meeting this week that eventually the need for liability reform legislation would be null and void. Why? Because large hospitals are beginning to pay on a salary so doctors can afford the rising cost of medical liability insurance without worrying about the rate of reimbursement. That may be a solution in urban areas where there is the opportunity for doctors to practice at a large hospital. But in rural areas, that is not an

option, and the cost of medical liability insurance will force doctors out of rural areas where they are desperately needed. That is why I think it is so very important we move ahead with these pieces of legislation.

I have shared with my colleagues some anecdotal evidence as far as the State of Colorado is concerned. Based on the Colorado experience and based on my personal experience, we cannot afford to continue to stick our head in the sand. We need to realize and recognize there is a problem out there with frivolous lawsuits against dedicated, hard- working medical doctors, particularly those who are trying to make their practices operate in rural areas.

So I, for one, ask my colleagues to join me because of the serious problem that is facing the medical community. I believe it is time for the Congress to act, and I am delighted that the Senate has decided to take up the bill this next week.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a National Historic Site in Colorado.

The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the 1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the ``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado and endured a move further west for expansion.

The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the United States government during World War II as a place to house the Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and hospital.

While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our own history.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill to designate the Granada Relocation Camp, also known as Camp Amache, as a National Historic Site in Colorado.

The Granada Relocation Camp, which is located in Southeast Colorado between the towns of Lamar and Holly on the Santa Fe Trail, played an important, and sometimes sad, part in United States history. In the 1800's travelers that came into Colorado along the Santa Fe Trail used it as a place to buy supplies and rest, and it was known as the ``Gateway to Colorado''. This put Granada on the map and the area was settled in 1873. By 1876 it was one of the largest cities in Colorado and endured a move further west for expansion.

The town is now best known for the Granada Relocation Camp, Camp Amache, which was established during one of the darker, but just as important time periods in American history. This camp, one of ten interment camps in the Nation, was established in August 1942 by the United States government during World War II as a place to house the Japanese from the West coast and was closed on August 15, 1945. Camp Amache was named after Amache Ochinee Prowers, the wife of John Prowers, the founder of the county in which Granada presides. It became its own little city with 30 blocks of barracks, school rooms, and mess tents. It also included its own post office, fire station, police, and hospital.

While this was a dark moment in American history, it is still an important part of it. By preserving this site, we are preserving our own history.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Washington will yield, I would ask that on this side, following the Democratic speaker, whoever that is, that I be allowed to speak, and then following me would be Senator Cornyn, and that there be an intervening--since we are switching sides back and forth, I assume that you would have somebody to put in the queue. So I would ask that you modify your unanimous consent request.

I want 1 minute to offer an amendment and then another one I want to call up. I think I can get that accomplished within 7 minutes, so I request 7 minutes.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3701 on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, and Senator Mikulski, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would provide $27.6 million to the Architect of the Capitol to make emergency repairs to utility tunnels that serve the Capitol complex, including asbestos abatement. Unfortunately, this problem has come to our attention recently, and it is a serious crisis that can't wait for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill.

About 2 months ago, the Office of Compliance filed a complaint with the Architect of the Capitol due to the conditions of these utility tunnels, including the possibility of tunnel cave-ins, the presence of unsafe levels of asbestos, inadequate means of emergency egress, and inadequate means of communications for those who work in the

utility tunnels. This is the first time the compliance office has filed a complaint--a step up from a citation.

When this issue was brought to our attention, Senator Durbin and I held oversight hearings with the Architect and demanded a plan to ensure employees who work in the tunnels are protected from unsafe levels of asbestos, fix falling concrete, provide adequate means of egress throughout the tunnels, improve communications for utility workers, secure the tunnels so only authorized employees are given access, and review whether tunnel workers are receiving an appropriate level of environmental or hazardous duty pay.

In response, the Architect sent a preliminary plan for fixing the tunnels with a price tag that could ultimately reach several hundred million dollars. Frankly, I was shocked by the magnitude of this problem and the cost estimate. I was appalled that this problem was identified by the Office of Compliance in a citation 6 years ago, and hasn't been put on a fast track for addressing the health and safety problems until Senator Durbin and I asked for a plan. These are serious problems and high levels of asbestos have been found.

The amendment I am offering today includes funds to remediate asbestos, remove loose concrete, replace the roof of a section of one of the tunnels, add escape hatches, and improve the communications system.

We have reviewed the funding estimates with the Government Accountability Office. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the estimates are preliminary, they are warranted. I had hoped that we could reprogram funds from within the Architect's budget but the magnitude of the need is far beyond what could be found within the Architect's budget.

I urge the Senate to agree to the amendment. I ask that it be agreed to by a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Salazar amendment is now pending I be allowed to send up the second-degree amendment to his amendment No. 3645.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks recognizing the Reverend Roger Patrick Joseph Dorcy.

The Reverend Roger Patrick Joseph Dorcy was born to Michael and Ellen Dorcy on July 4, 1946. Named for his Aunt Patricia, Patrick Joseph Dorcy was the third youngest of 14 siblings.

Growing up in Omaha, NE, he attended Holy Cross School, Creighton Preparatory School, and Mount Michael Abbey.

From 1967 to 1969 he worked for Senator Robert F. Kennedy in New York and Washington, DC.

He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from St. Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana and completed post-graduate work at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.

Prior to his ordination to the priesthood he was a member of the Order of St. Benedict, St. Meinrad Archabbey. It was there he took the name Roger. Brother Roger was one of the order's youngest teachers, the Archabbey architect, a paramedic, and a firefighter.

When he left the Monastery, he moved to Colorado where he taught theology and English at St. Scholastica Academy in Canon City, CO. Finally answering his call, at the age of 33, Roger Patrick Dorcy was ordained a priest in the Diocese of Pueblo, Colorado, on January 29, 1980.

He served as pastor at Sacred Heart Church and campus minister at Adams State College in Alamosa, CO. He was

associate pastor at St. Leander's and Our Lady of Guadalupe Churches in Pueblo. For 12 years he was the pastor of Our Lady of the Meadows Church in Pueblo; during that time he also served as the dean of the Pueblo Deanery of the Diocese of Pueblo.

In 2003 he was appointed rector of the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Diocese of Pueblo.

In addition to his parish life in Alamosa and Pueblo, he was a leader with the Southwest Liturgical Conference, the National Association of Clinical Pastoral Ministers, the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, the National Catholic AIDS Network, and the Southern Colorado AIDS Project.

In 1993 he completed his sabbatical in clinical pastoral ministry at Immanuel Medical Center in his hometown of Omaha. Later, he served as Bishop Tafoya's community liaison for AIDS Ministry; as president of the Sangre De Cristo Hospice Board; and was a board member of St. Mary Corwin Medical Center since 2000.

He died on July 23, 2005, at the age of 59. The Reverend Roger Patrick Dorcy was a monk, a priest, a teacher, an actor, an architect, a healer, a leader; his vocation was dedicated to the healing of bodies and souls. On April 22, 2006, the communities of Pueblo and Colorado celebrated his legacy by naming St. Mary Corwin Medical Center's newly constructed, state-of-the-art cancer center, The Reverend Roger Patrick Dorcy Cancer Center.

Mr. President, I rise today out of concern for the Western United States. The Rocky Mountain West is currently facing a very real threat to one of its most rare and precious resources. Out West there are few things more important than water, and it is this very important and increasingly needed resource that is in peril. This threat was in part brought upon us by a scourge barely larger than my finger tip, the bark beetle. This devious little devil has chewed its way through nearly 7,500,000 trees in Colorado. The beetle left these drought weakened trees dead and dying. This threat is exacerbated by the additional 6,300,000 acres of hazardous fuels that have accumulated throughout Colorado.

This devastation is concerning enough on its own, but when you consider the fire danger that it has created, and the direct threat that a catastrophic fire would pose to our watersheds, the true weight of this situation becomes clear. Much of the precipitation that falls into the forests ultimately finds its way into streams, ponds, rivers and lakes. Changes to forested lands caused by fire can have strong and devastating repercussions on the quality and quantity of water in these bodies. A forest fire is one big chemical reaction which releases a myriad of chemical elements from forest materials into the ecosystem. These chemicals can be washed or leach into our water systems. Forest fires can cause immediate and lasting changes to the chemistry of forest water systems, this happens as a result of increases in water temperature and from the smoke and ash created during the burning process. These effects can last long after the flames have passed, effecting water quality for years after the initial fire.

Colorado should be called ``the Headwaters State,'' because it is the origin point of major rivers flowing both east and west and the source of a vast amount of the water of the United States. In fact the Colorado Rocky Mountains create the headwaters for 4 regional watersheds that eventually supply water to 19 Western States. Should the streams and rivers flowing out of Colorado become choked and polluted with ash and debris from a forest fire much of the United States' water supply would be affected.

The Federal agencies that manage the majority of the affected areas need to adopt an accelerated pace to reduce the public health and safety risk as soon as possible. To address this I am introducing The Headwater Protection and Restoration Act today that would work to help alleviate the pending threat to our Nation's water supply. My legislation takes into consideration the desperate need to create healthy forests in the lands around our Nation's water supply. This bill will not only help provide relief from this threat in the short term, but will help to create the necessary infrastructure to ensure that it does not happen again. It will give us a long term solution to this desperate problem. This would be achieved through steady, judicious, and effective forest management over time. This displays a much better and more cost effective strategy than dealing with the management of catastrophic events under emergency circumstances. Today we find ourselves poised in a position to take steps to help avert this potential disaster before it starts. It is my hope that I will be joined by my colleagues here in the Senate to act swiftly on my legislation before it is too late.