Floor Statements

Mr. President, transportation is a key element of economic growth for rural Colorado. Providing access to the national highway system through a well developed transportation corridor will boost economic opportunity and bring new dollars to the area as the flow of commerce increases through traffic, tourism and, hopefully, new industry.

Previously, I introduced legislation to create the Heartland Expressway, a connecting highway of high priority roads on the national highway system. However, a few had concerns about this legislation, so the supporters went back to the drawing board. So, tonight I rise to introduce a bill that reflects the compromise that each of the impacted states have come to.

Through Ports-to-Plains and Heartland Expressway, we can bring greater prosperity through trade and industry to the State of Colorado, while improving the safety and condition of our highways.

Based on the recommendation of the Eastern Colorado Mobility Study, authored by the Colorado Department of Transportation, the corridor will serve a wide variety of trucks and autos, bringing new dollars and boosting the economy.

The Heartland Expressway will result in user cost savings to businesses, have

fewer environmental impacts than other corridor alternatives, and will enhance or improve existing--and may even promote the construction of new corridors and intermodal facilities--that will enhance the mobility of freight services within and through eastern Colorado.

The Heartland Expressway will penetrate and promote economic development in Denver, throughout north and southeast Colorado, into Wyoming, and through Scotsbluff, NE to Rapid City, SD.

Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation designate the U.S. Post Office located at 222 West 8th Street in Durango, CO, as the Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building.

My dear friend and colleague, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was born in Auburn, CA on April 13, 1933. His mother, Mary Vierra, was a Portuguese immigrant, and his father, Albert Campbell, was a Northern Cheyenne Indian.

At a young age, Ben developed a passion for the then newly budding sport

of judo. Overcoming numerous, seemingly insurmountable obstacles as a youngster, in college he became the youngest person in the United States to hold the fourth degree black belt. He went on to study in Japan with the most respected judo masters. Ben was never short on determination. One student in particular, was a menacing opponent. He kept his photo on the wall of his room, and shouted to it often, ``I will beat you!''--and he finally did.

Ben was named to the U.S. Olympic Judo team in 1964, but an injury caused him to collapse on the floor during the match, which yielded his opponent the bronze medal by default. Ben went on to bring the sport of judo into a specialized system for kids, teaching them self discipline, self control and self respect, as he established one of the first successful clubs for kids.

With Campbell's determination and magnanimous spirit, it was only natural that he enter the political arena where his perseverance has in fact left its mark on American history. Campbell likes to view himself as a person of passion and this passion has rattled more than a few formidable foes. As the only American Indian in Congress he found himself, de facto, the representative of all Indians throughout the United States. In his time on the Indian Affairs Committee, he got more legislation passed for Indians than anyone in the Nation's history.

Ben is also a renowned jewelry designer, athlete, former truck driver, and trainer of champion quarter horses. He has been married to his wife, Linda, for more than 35 years. He is the father of two grown children, Colin Campbell and Shanan Longfellow. He is a proud grandfather to Luke and Saylor Longfellow and Lauren Campbell.

Ben has been one of the most fascinating figures on the political scene, and will be deeply missed when he retires. I am proud to call him friend. It is only fitting that we can honor his legacy by naming this post office after him.

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation designate the U.S. Post Office located at 222 West 8th Street in Durango, CO, as the Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building.

My dear friend and colleague, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was born in Auburn, CA on April 13, 1933. His mother, Mary Vierra, was a Portuguese immigrant, and his father, Albert Campbell, was a Northern Cheyenne Indian.

At a young age, Ben developed a passion for the then newly budding sport

of judo. Overcoming numerous, seemingly insurmountable obstacles as a youngster, in college he became the youngest person in the United States to hold the fourth degree black belt. He went on to study in Japan with the most respected judo masters. Ben was never short on determination. One student in particular, was a menacing opponent. He kept his photo on the wall of his room, and shouted to it often, ``I will beat you!''--and he finally did.

Ben was named to the U.S. Olympic Judo team in 1964, but an injury caused him to collapse on the floor during the match, which yielded his opponent the bronze medal by default. Ben went on to bring the sport of judo into a specialized system for kids, teaching them self discipline, self control and self respect, as he established one of the first successful clubs for kids.

With Campbell's determination and magnanimous spirit, it was only natural that he enter the political arena where his perseverance has in fact left its mark on American history. Campbell likes to view himself as a person of passion and this passion has rattled more than a few formidable foes. As the only American Indian in Congress he found himself, de facto, the representative of all Indians throughout the United States. In his time on the Indian Affairs Committee, he got more legislation passed for Indians than anyone in the Nation's history.

Ben is also a renowned jewelry designer, athlete, former truck driver, and trainer of champion quarter horses. He has been married to his wife, Linda, for more than 35 years. He is the father of two grown children, Colin Campbell and Shanan Longfellow. He is a proud grandfather to Luke and Saylor Longfellow and Lauren Campbell.

Ben has been one of the most fascinating figures on the political scene, and will be deeply missed when he retires. I am proud to call him friend. It is only fitting that we can honor his legacy by naming this post office after him.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Just to get some business out of the way, I have some materials I have submitted at the desk. I ask unanimous consent to print them in the Record.

I thank some 19 cosponsors who are now on this amendment. I thank the majority leader for stepping forward and helping this particular issue. I thank the President of the United States for stepping forward early on and articulating the principles which are embodied in this constitutional amendment. I particularly thank my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Santorum, and Sessions, for joining me in the late-night session last night and for Senators Cornyn and Hatch for helping manage the bill on the floor, as well as Congresswoman Musgrave in the House for her leadership.

I didn't come to the decision to introduce this legislation easily. I went through a process of evaluating the issue.

I don't think it is unlike what many Members of the Senate are going through right now, or at some point in time went through, because as the initial sponsor of this legislation, I had an opportunity to talk to many Members and I think their response was very much what mine was to start with: Why do we need to amend the Constitution?

We all recognize how precious that document is. When anybody comes to you with an issue, to start with, you always wonder why do we need to do that. That is a high standard and we all recognize that.

I also remember the debate with the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which was carried by Senator Nickles on this side, and how important most Members of the Senate--85 Members--felt in that vote that we define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In this debate, I wanted to protect traditional marriage. I also had some skepticism about amending the Constitution. But after sitting down with colleagues and scholars and people who were following the courts, I came to the realization that there was a process going on in the courts that I wasn't aware of, that I just had become aware of.

I understood the potential of what was going to happen in those courts. It was, when I first got involved, that the courts were going to change the definition of marriage, which we passed by 85 votes in the Senate, and on which close to 48 States passed legislation somehow or other supporting traditional marriage. I thought this should be brought into the legislative branch--that is where the debate should occur--where we have elected representatives having an opportunity to reflect their views and the views of their constituents, whether it is in the Congress or the State legislature.

So in visiting with the constitutional scholars, academicians, professors, and whatnot, we began to put together some language for the Constitution, very carefully crafted, and the language has had an opportunity to be changed a couple of times. We brought it back into the Senate and had the staff within the Judiciary Committee reflect their views and the Senators would reflect views, always working toward a consensus. We began to realize more and more clearly what was happening in the courts.

As we move through it this year, I think it becomes blatantly evident to us that there is a process going on in the courts that will exclude the American citizens. We need to get them involved. We need to recognize that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the States to ratify.

Our forefathers realized that during an issue such as marriage, where a large percentage of Americans of all faiths, all ethnic backgrounds, support the idea of traditional marriage--the effort to change the definition of traditional marriage being between a man and a woman is certainly only being pushed by a minority of the population in this country--the way we can express our views is through a constitutional amendment. That is what we have before us today.

In this amendment I have proposed, we define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds to bring my comments to a close.

Marriage matters to our children; it matters in America. Marriage is the foundation of a free society. The courts are redefining marriage and that will make it impossible for State legislators to address marriage. This amendment puts the issue back in the hands of the people. A vote not to move forward means the court will be the sole voice in this matter. The people will not have a voice. We need to move forward.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity, before we continue with the debate, to talk about how important it is that we debate in an earnest and sincere way the issue of marriage. Marriage does matter. It is important to the American people.

We heard earlier comments about how bringing up issues such as class action lawsuits, the marriage amendment, and trade were just wasting the Congress's time. Yet the other side doesn't think it is a waste of time to raise taxes, to increase more laws so we have fewer and fewer rights, to restrict the free enterprise system, and in a sense create more government.

In the debate on marriage, we are trying to accomplish a number of things. No. 1, we want to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. No. 2, we want to restrict the action of the court's ability to define marriage. Then, No. 3--and perhaps the most important part of this debate--we want to give the American people an opportunity to debate this through their elected representatives in the Congress here and in the State legislatures.

It has been a grassroots type of process from the bottom up. We have heard a lot of concerns from people all over America about the way the courts are dealing with the issue of marriage and their frustrations in not being able to address this issue.

We heard a lot of good comments from some of my colleagues yesterday in debating the marriage amendment. In favor, we have had Senators Hatch, Santorum, Smith, Frist, Bunning, Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions, Lott, and Brownback--all explaining why it is important that we move forward in passing this amendment.

We have heard pretty much procedural arguments from the other side. Our side was talking about their concern about losing the institution of marriage, that it is basically a fundamental building block of society, and if we want democracies such as the United States to survive, we need to have good, functioning families. If families do well, children do well. We will hear more about that today. Then we will hear about the democratic process in which we allow American citizens to participate. This is the essence of what we were talking about yesterday and the inevitability of what is going to happen through our courts, that there is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first, begin to take this issue to a few select courts throughout this country at the State level.

We begin to see this in States such as Vermont and Massachusetts and a number of other States, and then proceed up through the States; and once they get favorable rulings from a few courts that are dominated pretty much by activist judges and judges who want to ignore the tradition of marriage for thousands of years, and want to bypass the legislative process--then once they have established their basis, they want to take it to the Federal courts, and they will eventually move it to the Supreme Court.

We heard arguments yesterday about how Members of this Congress and constitutional scholars believe that the Supreme Court--if it reaches the Supreme Court--by a very slim majority is probably prone to rule in a way that would eliminate the traditional family as we know it.

So this is an important issue. It is a very timely issue. We have 46 States that have individuals living in them--at least 46--who have same-sex marriage licenses. They have been granted them as a couple through either Massachusetts or Oregon or California. We

have 11 States that have had court cases filed in them today. So the platform for action from those who favor same-sex marriages has been well established.

Now, in reaction to that, we have some 48 States that have laws they have passed supporting traditional marriage--that being a union between a man and a woman. At least 10 States have constitutional amendments on the ballot. We have at least 3 States still gathering petitions. So more than 20 percent of the States have constitutional amendments that will be pending before them as we move into the election cycle.

Mr. President, I am sympathetic to this idea of federalism. I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to protect the definition of the traditional family. Federalism does not demand that we redefine the family. More important, it does not demand that we stand idly by while the courts redefine marriage for us, without giving us an opportunity to act.

This is an important issue, and it is very timely that we have this debate today in the Senate, a debate in which we try to define marriage and limit the rule of the Federal court and we allow States, through a democratic process, to proceed as they see fit toward providing benefits through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage simply should not be left to the courts alone.

In my view, a large majority of Americans are with us. Marriage matters. It matters to children and it is a societal building block.

I had an opportunity to review the testimony of Governor Romney from Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that his testimony be printed in the Record as it was presented to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. President, if you read carefully through his testimony, he talks about the fundamental change that is happening in Massachusetts and many of the issues that he as a Governor in a State that has a court that actually went contrary to the wishes of the legislature to redefine marriage as something different than a union of a man and a woman. He talked about the effect that this redefinition is having on such basic programs as meals for the elderly and veterans and spousal benefits, burial rights, Medicaid, birth registration process, child support enforcement, inheritance, private sector, how employees are struggling with this particular issue. He makes a very important point that States are porous. So what is going on in Massachusetts has the potential to have an impact on other States, particularly if this gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, or we find the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to overrule DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and decide that somehow or other it is unconstitutional.

Many of us have looked at what has happened in other countries where they have liberalized the marriage laws, particularly the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. In the Scandinavian countries, for example, for a number of years they have recognized same-sex marriage. As a result of that, there has been a very disturbing trend in that more and more children are born out of wedlock. In fact, if you look at the figures today in some of the Scandinavian countries, well over 50 percent of their children are born out of wedlock. We looked, more recently, at what has happened to the Netherlands--a country which traditionally, before 5 years ago, had a very strong record as far as children being born in wedlock, a country that promoted the idea of traditional marriage. But they have changed; they changed the definition of marriage, and they allow same-sex marriage. They are seeing that now there is an alarming increase in the number of children that are born out of wedlock.

We are faced with a challenge from the courts that will fundamentally change this society in America if the Congress does not act. We heard arguments yesterday about the Goodridge case in Massachusetts and Lawrence v. Texas, using the privacy issue, combined with the good faith and credit laws of the Constitution, and how the courts are setting the groundwork to overturn what traditional marriage means in the United States.

So it is very appropriate that we have this debate now. It is very appropriate that we have a full debate. I have been rather disappointed that we have not had more actual debate on the meaning of marriage from the other side. We have had debate about procedure, and I think there is a frustration about procedure. But I want the American people to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the way Republicans do business and the Democrats do business. We believe in a bottom-up approach. So we work for a consensus. I spent a long time at the very start of this process looking at a number of proposals on how we are going to amend the Constitution, working with grassroots groups and with my colleagues, and working with constitutional scholars.

We eventually came up with a conclusion, with the Judiciary Committee putting the final touches on the amendment, that the kind of language we need is what is now embodied in the amendment that is up before the Senate today for debate. This is where we developed the consensus. When you develop a consensus, that doesn't mean other ideas cannot come forward. As we strive, then, the next step is to strive for consensus on the Senate floor. I have been working personally with Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon. He and I have been working together to strive for consensus.

So this idea that all of a sudden we would just deal with the first sentence in this amendment is not anything that is an unexpected result on this side because we recognize that perhaps maybe we cannot get an ideal amendment to move forward, perhaps maybe we have to work toward another version of the amendment that I have introduced that would allow for us to establish a consensus on the Senate floor.

That is where Senator Smith has come in with his proposal, and actually he does it at the request of myself and other Members of the Senate because we are working for a consensus. That is what the Senate is all about. So I hope that we can get serious participation from the other side in the debate on this floor; we do have a number of Senators on the Republican side who want to continue to talk about how important marriage is.

So my hope is that we can move forward in a civilized and thoughtful manner on how important traditional marriage is to America, and to give the American people an opportunity to participate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield to my good friend from Missouri, but first I will make a couple points.

First, we are just beginning to defend marriage. This debate may go well beyond this year. I anticipate we will have more votes. But the message is, we are just beginning.

Second, this is a moderate amendment. We do allow States the opportunity to find civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is not a civil rights union. This is not a civil rights issue.

I will have an opportunity later on in our debate this afternoon to talk about these very points.

First, I call on my good friend, the junior Senator from Missouri.

I served with him in the House, and I am proud to call him my friend. He is doing a great job in the Senate. I yield to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.

Twenty minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we allow the Senator from Texas an additional 10 minutes to discuss the Hispanic conference that she is having here.

I was going to yield some time to the senior Senator from Virginia.

Let me understand the Senator's request. We have been alternating back and forth.

We will continue to do that on this side?

No objection.

Mr. President, I yield the senior Senator from Virginia such time as he may consume.

I yield him 10 minutes. It is always a pleasure to be able to recognize him because we all admire the work he does. I am particularly proud to be able to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee. He is the chairman and does a great job.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of our Budget Committee and somebody I would like to recognize in a public way for all of the hard work he has provided for us in the Senate, particularly his hard work on the budget as the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for a very fine statement. He brings a special perspective to this debate because he was the initial sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

I do not believe it is going to interfere with you. You are next, then I think Senator Brownback.

You are next.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Kansas. I compliment him in a public way for his leadership on this very important issue.

Mr. President, I will take a moment to talk a little bit about my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to protect marriage. There has been an editorial written by the Weekly Standard which I would like to share with my colleagues. There are three paragraphs I will recite. I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record. This is the editorial in the Weekly Standard called ``Cloturekampf,'' written by Terry Eastland.

Also, while I am at it, I would like to add Senator Dole as a cosponsor to S.J. Res. 40.

Mr. President, the editorial states:

Nonetheless, it is now unlikely that the states will be

able simply to do as they wish on the question of marriage.

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, no amendment in

response to the supreme judicial court's decision will be

possible until 2006, and in the meantime there is no stopping

same-sex nuptials, of which there have been thousands so far,

including many from out of state. It is only a matter of time

before some same-sex couples who have returned home file

lawsuits pressing their states to recognize their unions.

A basis for their claim will be the federal Constitution's

requirement that states give

``full faith and credit'' to other states' judicial

proceedings. The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996

offers an authoritative interpretation of the ``full faith

and credit'' clause designed to prevent the interstate

transmission of same-sex marriage. But the Supreme Court has

repeatedly told Congress that it lacks the power to do that,

and there is no reason to think that the Court would change

its mind.

The odds are strong, then, that same-sex marriage will

travel via the federal courts to other states. There also

remains a possibility that the Supreme Court itself might

simply strike down the traditional definition of marriage.

Recall that last summer in Lawrence v. Texas the Court, with

Justice Anthony Kennedy writing, did not merely void the

nation's sodomy laws. Kennedy also embraced an amorphous

right to sexual liberty (untethered to constitutional text or

history) that denies the historic right of the people to

enact legislation based on their moral views. The

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, not incidentally, drew

inspiration from Kennedy's Lawrence opinion.

The question facing the Senate and, for that matter, the

House of Representatives, is whether federal judges should be

allowed to decide the issue in the way they are likely to--or

whether the American people should be given the opportunity

to settle it through a constitutional amendment expressing

their longstanding conviction about marriage. Even a failed

cloture vote will give the country an idea of which senators

understand--and which do not--that the definition of marriage

is now an unavoidably national issue, and that, if marriage

is to remain the union of a man and a woman, the issue will

have to be addressed through a constitutional amendment--

Terry Eastland, for the Editors.

This is the gist of many of our arguments we are making today.

It has been called to my attention, through press reports, there has been a new lawsuit filed in the State of Massachusetts, that an attorney in Massachusetts has now filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight couples who are asking that the State of Massachusetts repeal their provisions which say they will not recognize same-sex marriages of individuals who come from other States. The Governor of Massachusetts relayed that issue to us during testimony before the committee. They just filed that. So here is another court case that has been filed that is another attack on marriage. That is why I think it is so very important we move forward with this debate.

This is not a political debate. It is not driven by politics. It is driven by the courts. Again, we have an organized effort, I believe, by proponents of same-sex marriage who want to undo the idea of a traditional marriage.

Right now, we have 46 States that have same-sex couples living there who have marriage licenses. I have been informed there is an organized effort to begin to file cases in those respective States. We have 11 States that have court cases currently filed in them. I was told several days ago that within those 11 States we have about 32 cases that have been filed, total.

We have 48 States that have passed laws protecting traditional marriage. I have behind me a chart that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We had a very fine statement from the Senator from Oklahoma who talked about the need and why he carried that amendment that protected the definition of marriage and allowed States their basic right to defend their position as far as the definition of marriage.

This definition has been supported by huge majorities in these States in their legislative bodies. I happen to disagree with my colleague from the State of Arizona. I think a large percentage of Americans are concerned about changing the definition of traditional marriage. I think as they begin to more fully understand, they are going to be more forceful in the message they are sending to the Senate, and I think eventually the Members of this Senate will realize how very serious this particular issue is which is before us today.

We have at least 10 States that have constitutional amendments on the ballot, and 3 States that are still gathering petitions. This issue is here before us today. It is an important issue. The people of the United States are concerned about what is happening in the courts. That is the reason we are here today to carry on this debate.

There are some profound implications, I believe, to the rearing of children. Marriage matters. I have an article entitled: ``The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.'' It is written by Stanley Kurtz, in the Weekly Standard, and dated February 2, 2004, in which he talks about the impact of redefining marriage in the Scandinavian countries and on children. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see we have the Senator from Alabama in the Chamber. I would like to give him an opportunity to address the Senate.

I am not aware of anybody.

To respond to the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania, I think there has been some attempt to try to make that case today on the floor. As the lead sponsor of this particular amendment, it does not hold any water for me because, as was reported in the papers, I have had individuals work for me who profess to the fact that they are homosexual, and despite that, I recognize publicly that they have done a great job in my office. I have even presented an award to one of those individuals so he would have a scholarship to go to school and further his education.

So anybody who tries to make a case as far as this individual is concerned of animus in their debate, somehow there is animosity, it will not hold water. In fact, what this issue is about, No. 1, is any individual who wants to profess a lifestyle that incorporates same-sex marriage, that is their personal decision, but the debate is they simply do not have a right to change the definition of marriage, and that is what this debate is all about.

Will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?

I have always felt that marriage was the fundamental building block of any society, and especially if one is talking about a democracy like we have in the United States. I have always been of the view that as long as there is a good basis for families to function, that means there would be less need for government, and there would be fewer programs. That has always had a particular appeal to me because I do not believe we need more government; I believe we need less government.

I have always felt that there is definitely a role for a mother and a father and a husband and a wife, and that the culture that promotes the basic fundamental unit where they teach their children about the future based on their experiences in life is something that is very difficult to supplant as an effective unit, and I think historically over thousands of years that has proven true. We are on the verge of redefining marriage which will put this basic unit that is so fundamental to society at risk. Would the Senator from Kansas agree with that?

I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas for his leadership. He has become recognized as a strong proponent of families and proponent for children. I, for one, appreciate his leadership in the Senate.

Mr. President, we have been hearing the point that there is no threat and we are being somewhat paranoid about this issue. But I have a summary here of the court actions that have been brought up in the various States throughout this country. I am amazed, frankly flabbergasted, at the number of cases that have been brought before the various State courts and in some cases the Federal court. I thought I would take a moment to go through some of these cases. I think once you have seen the whole litany of cases here you begin to understand there is an organized, concerted effort starting at the State courts and then eventually moving into the Federal courts and hopefully, by those who support same-sex marriage, to the U.S. Supreme Court for a favored ruling. I will start with Alabama.

This case has been recently dismissed as of April. They had two men in an Alabama State prison who sued the State for the right to marry each other. They said they had a Federal constitutional right to marriage. As I mentioned, this case was dismissed.

In Alaska, there is an interesting case, a case pending currently in the State supreme court. The ACLU has sued to prevent Alaska from granting benefits to married couples if the State does not provide the same benefits to same-sex couples. This case has been argued in the Alaska Supreme Court and could be decided any day.

In Arizona, again the State supreme court has refused to hear a case brought there where two men were denied a marriage license and sued in State court. They lost in the district court on their first appeal and curiously the gay rights groups tried to talk them out of pursuing their case because it interfered with the group's national litigation strategy. Let me repeat this. Gay rights groups tried to talk them out of pursuing their case because it interfered with the group's national litigation strategy. On May 25 of this year, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal which should bring this particular litigation to an end.

In the State of California, we have a number of pending cases. That is probably not a surprise to anybody here on

the floor. There is a case pending in the State supreme court about San Francisco's mayor who defied State law and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of this year. They made a court case about it. The States refused to register the marriages and same-sex couples from 46 States received licenses while San Francisco was issuing licenses. Several lawsuits were filed to challenge San Francisco's action. They are now consolidated in the California Supreme Court. The State of California is defending its traditional marriage laws and the statewide initiative that passed with 60 percent of the vote in 2000. Again, a decision is expected on that particular case.

I would like to correct the record. I think one of the colleagues made the statement that there are no Federal court challenges to DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Actually, in Florida there is a Federal court challenge to DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act. A private attorney announced on the 11th of this month that he would soon file a Federal lawsuit challenging the DOMA law. The lawsuit is expected to be filed as we move forward.

We have two separate cases pending in State trial court in Florida. Two cases have been filed in the State trial court challenging Florida's traditional marriage laws. Again, this first case is a class action filed in Broward County by a private attorney. Later it was filed in Key West by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

It was interesting to get the public reaction when the private attorney talked about filing his Federal lawsuit in Florida with the Federal court challenge, and the reaction from those groups supporting same-sex marriage. They didn't want him to file that because they felt it would bring it too quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court and they would not be prepared in order to make the case in front of the Supreme Court. I thought that was an interesting reaction in the public media when that case was talked about being filed.

In Georgia, there was a case seeking recognition of a Vermont civil union, which was rejected by Georgia's State court. In Burns v. Burns, the parties sought to have a Vermont civil union treated as a legal marriage in Georgia and the trial court and court of appeals refused to treat a Vermont civil union as a marriage and the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the case.

In Indiana, there is a case pending in the Indiana Court of Appeals. Three same-sex couples sued in Marion County Superior Court for the right to marry under the Constitution.

This case was dismissed and is now on appeal to the intermediate State appeals court. This case is Morrison v. Sadler.

In Iowa, there is a same-sex divorce case that was dismissed. Two women entered into a civil union in Vermont and later asked an Iowa trial court to grant them a divorce.

They are coming at this from various angles.

In December 2003, the Iowa court initially granted the divorce, but after his action was challenged because Iowa did not recognize same-sex marriage in Vermont civil unions, the judge reworked the order dividing the couple's property. The civil union was not recognized.

In Maryland, a lawsuit was filed July 7 of 2004. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in State court demanding the State grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In Massachusetts, activists announced on June 16, 2004, that they would challenge in court the 1913 Massachusetts law that prevents same- sex marriage to out-of-State couples. I believe that case was filed today.

In Montana, there is a case pending in State supreme court. The Montana chapter of the ACLU sued on behalf of two lesbian employees of the Montana State University system challenging that the State discriminates against gay and lesbian employees by giving spousal benefits only to married couples. The trial court dismissed the case in November of 2002 and the case is now pending on appeal before the Montana Supreme Court. This case is called Snetsinger v. Board of Regents.

In Nebraska, there is an interesting Federal case. There is a Federal case pending in Federal District Court. The ACLU has filed suit to challenge a State constitutional amendment that defines marriage as man and woman and bars civil unions or domestic partnerships. They went much further than what my amendment provides. The ACLU argued that the State constitutional amendment violates the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans. In a preliminary ruling, the Federal district judge indicated sympathy with the ACLU claim and the Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that he expects Nebraska to lose the case. This is the constitutional amendment in Nebraska that was passed with 70 percent of the voters in Nebraska. I think this has all sorts of implications. It has been filed in the district court.

There is a case in New Jersey pending in the State court of appeals. In 2002, Lambda Legal filed a suit in State court on behalf of same-sex couples seeking to marry. The State district court dismissed their case and Lambda has appealed to the intermediate State appeals court. The case is called Lewis v. Harris. The town of New Asbury, NJ has announced that it will file amicus briefs in support of the same-sex couples.

In New Mexico, there is a case pending in State trial court. The Sandoval County clerk issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of 2004. The New Mexico Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments regarding the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Sandoval County. It is unclear if the court will decide the case this summer or fall, or if the decision will be delayed until 2005.

In New York, there is a case pending in State trial court in March and April of 2004. The ACLU and Lambda Legal each filed lawsuits arguing that to deny same-sex couples the right to marry one another violates the New York Constitution.

In North Carolina, a case was withdrawn by a same-sex couple. In March 2004, they were denied a marriage license by Durham County, NC. So they filed a lawsuit.

In Oklahoma, the State ballot initiative may be challenged. The ACLU is threatening to challenge a November 2004 ballot.

In Oregon, there is a case on appeal to the State intermediate court in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, which began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of 2004. More than 3,000 marriage licenses were issued. On April 20, the State trial court ruled the marriage licenses conducted over the past 2 months were legal and that Oregon must register the marriages as valid. The State court of appeals stayed the lower court's order requiring the State to recognize the 3,022 marriage licenses of same-sex couples in the Portland area.

In Pennsylvania, a lawsuit has been threatened after a same-sex couple was denied a marriage license.

In Rhode Island, the State attorney general stated on May 17 that he interpreted Rhode Island law to require recognition of Massachusetts same-sex marriages.

In Tennessee, the Associated Press reported a same-sex couple was planning to file a lawsuit.

In Texas, a same-sex divorce case was dismissed there.

In Virginia and Washington, there are three cases pending in State trial court.

In West Virginia, we have a case dismissed by the supreme court with a possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This gives an overview of the amount of lawsuits that have been filed throughout this country in trying to establish a case in certain venues that could be appealed to a higher court.

This is an organized effort. I think when you look at the cases that have been filed in the various courts, it is hard to say marriage shouldn't be protected. Marriage is under assault. That is why it is important that we move forward with this particular piece of legislation because, as has been stated time and time again here on the floor of the Senate, when you look at the Goodridge case and the Lawrence v. Texas case, and then the Constitution as it applies between the interaction between States and comments from members of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is definitely a threat to traditional marriage.

My hope is we can get this passed, get it through the House, and get it before the people of America so they can

help decide this issue. If they are successful, then it means the courts will not have defined marriage. The American people will have had an opportunity to enter into this debate. With this particular amendment before us, through their elected representatives the American people will have an opportunity to have their voice heard in the Senate. It was brought up in the House. As they will read it in the papers this fall, later on people will have an opportunity to express their views through the Members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then at some point in time, if we get enough votes--a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate--then it goes to the States and three- quarters of the States ratify it, then this means it is debated in the legislatures and the American people will have an opportunity to again make their views known about how they feel about protecting marriage.

This was put in place by our Founders because ultimately they did not want to have the courts to have the final say on issues where there was a large percentage of the population in America who felt they would have an opportunity to address this issue through a constitutional amendment.

This is something that has been laid out by our Founders. I think it is time we have this amendment before us now for debate.

Let me make one additional comment. In the Oregon State Court of Appeals, they decided this week that the State must enroll the marriages, which would be to recognize marriages.

This issue is moving forward. I am pleased about the amount of support we have had from Members of the Senate coming forward and expressing their support. I thank them for that. I thank them for the leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Kansas. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his support. Without them, I think a good deal of the substance of this debate would have been missed. I appreciate their effort and dedication to the family.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was definitely moved by the presentation that my colleague from Pennsylvania made on this issue. I thank him for his comments.

One thought that came to my mind as I heard his comments was that I do not think James Madison--who, by the way, is a hero of mine--would have envisioned the need, and his contemporaries would have envisioned the need, for protecting marriage. I have no doubt in my own mind that if he had thought that marriage would need that protection that he and his contemporaries would not have hesitated to have made that a part of the Constitution.

As we have gone over this debate, I have been somewhat frustrated to hear from opponents of this amendment constant criticism and misrepresentation about what this amendment is all about and what it does. Over the weekend, I received a number of indepth legal analyses from legal experts, scholars, and law professors from around America. I want to point out that when we are amending the Constitution, it is serious business. I have spent considerable time consulting with legal scholars, constitutional scholars, consulting with my colleagues, and working with staff in the Judiciary Committee because I wanted to get it right.

In an effort to clear up some of these ridiculous charges made against this marriage amendment, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a brilliant letter on the meaning of the amendment by eight law professors.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Sweetheart City.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. We would not be where we are today if it were not for his dedication and hard work. I also thank the Senator from Alabama for his help and dedication on this very important issue. I personally thank each of you.

But I think when it is all over with--whether it is this year or next year or the year after that--a majority of the people in America are going to thank you for the work you have done to save the American family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Examination of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Five Years After Its Passage.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Reauthorization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 3 p.m. on the nomination of David Stone to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and Albert Frink to be Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services of the Department of Commerce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 13 at 10 a.m. to receive testimony regarding the role of nuclear power in national energy policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on Human Trafficking.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 10 a.m. on ``Blakely v. Washington and the Future of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I; Hon. Bill Mercer, U.S. Attorney, District of Montana, Helena, MT; Hon. John Steer, Vice Chair and Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC; Hon. William Sessions, Chief U.S. District Judge, District of Vermont, Burlington, VT and Vice Chair and Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC; Hon. Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief U.S. District Judge, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD; and Hon. Paul G. Cassell, U.S. District Court Judge, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Panel II: Frank Bowman, Professor of Law, Indiana University Law School, Indianapolis, IN; Rachel Barkow, Assistant Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, New York, NY; Ronald Weich, Esq., Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC; and Alan Vinegrad, Esq., Former U.S. Attorney, Covington & Burling, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 2 p.m. on ``An Examination of Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Nancie Marzulla, President, Defender of Property Rights, Washington, DC; William Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., Washington, DC; Ramon Arechabala, Miami, FL; Kenneth Germain, Attorney at Law, Adjunct Law Professor, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; and Bruce Lehman, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 13, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate request the return from the House of Representatives the papers with respect to H.R. 1303, that the Senate action on that measure be vitiated, and that the bill be returned to the Committee on Governmental Affairs for appropriate action.

Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations: Christine Todd Whitman, Kenneth Francis Hackett.

I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to their consideration, the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 14. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with the first 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 15 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 40, with the time until 11:30 a.m. equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided that at 11:30 a.m. the time until 12 noon be allocated in the following order: Senator Leahy, 10 minutes; Senator Hatch, 10 minutes; the Democratic leader, 5 minutes; the majority leader for the final 5 minutes.

I further ask consent that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to the cloture vote as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the marriage amendment. At 12 noon, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, and that will be the first vote of the day.

In addition to the marriage amendment, there are other important issues that the Senate needs to address this week. The majority leader has announced his desire to turn to the Australia Free Trade Agreement this week. In addition, the Senate needs to appoint conferees on the FSC/ETI or JOBS legislation. Therefore, Senators should expect additional votes during tomorrow's session.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly respond. First, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for working on this issue. I think we can get it worked out as to how we should proceed on the floor. This is an important issue this country faces in how we are going to deal with marriage. It has not been an issue hastily brought to the floor of the Senate. There have been hearings for at least almost 10 months now on this very issue.

We have had four hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the other three scattered throughout other committees, talking about the impact on children and what has happened from a socioeconomic change in countries--for example, Scandinavian countries that have recognized same-sex marriage for some time, how that has deteriorated and the fact there are so many children today born out of wedlock in those countries, whereas before that societal change happened where we define marriage, babies born out of wedlock was not such a high number. In fact, in the Scandinavian countries now, we have a greater incidence of babies born out of wedlock than are born in wedlock.

We have countries, such as the Netherlands, just more recently accepting the idea of same-sex marriage which have been recognized prior to that as countries that valued the traditional institution of marriage and actually had a very low divorce rate and very low rate as far as children born out of wedlock. But when we look at the Netherlands now, we see, with the demeaning of the value of marriage, that there are more and more children being born out of wedlock. That is a disturbing trend to many of us.

When you go to put together language that goes in the Constitution, it is with a lot of consideration and you have to spend a lot of time visiting with a lot of constitutional scholars. I have done that. This has been debated among our Federal colleagues. There are people who have different views, as with any constitutional amendment that has ever been brought to the Senate or before the Congress. There are always different views on that. I can't recall a constitutional amendment

that ever came before the Congress when there was not some debate on it.

When you are asking to bring it to the floor, you have to expect there are going to be some differences of views. The preponderance has been that those provisions we have in this particular amendment that I have put together and introduced is the right balance because we define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I don't think there is any doubt about that language. It is very straightforward.

We have a second sentence in the amendment that says there is a limited role for the courts. In other words, the courts shall not go ahead and define marriage other than what we have defined here. But we recognize there is a definite role for the States. We allow States to move ahead, through the democrat process, and to deal with issues such as civil unions and domestic partnerships and the benefits that may accrue with those types of classifications through the legal system.

This has been carefully thought out. We have individuals over here who have sort of the Federalist philosophy. I have sort of a Federalist philosophy. I don't want to see the Government messing around in State affairs, so we have kept that at a very minimum. All we do is define marriage at the Federal level. Then we say it is up to the States now to decide how they want to deal with civil unions and domestic partnerships. We needed to do that in order to limit the power of the courts.

This is a constitutional amendment. It deserves a lot of thought and debate. I am very pleased to have a number of cosponsors. The hearings have gone very well. I do wish that in our hearings we had had more participation from the Democrats. In fact, I can recall a number of hearings where nobody showed up from the other side. There were two hearings held where there was a lot of participation from the other side, but at the other five hearings there wasn't any participation at all. So this is an opportunity for people to participate.

Anytime you talk about some kind of rule that you are going to put forward in the Senate where you limit debate, limit people's ability to participate, it is always going to be somewhat controversial. I don't think the assistant minority leader should be particularly alarmed at the fact we are having some discussions about how we should move forward. The last time I looked, I think there were some four bills that have been blocked from becoming major bills--such as the energy bill, for example--from coming to the floor of the Senate because of a filibuster. We have a number, I think about four bills or so that have passed the Senate and are not allowed to go anywhere because the other side has not appointed conferees. We have had the obstruction going on with the judges.

That is well known. I don't need to go over that, what has been debated. We spent a couple of all-nighters in the Senate talking about the obstruction of the judges and how it is important that we fill those positions.

My hope is we can move forward and come up with a reasonable rule, where everybody feels comfortable. That is what we are trying to do on this side. The two meetings that had such good participation were both in the Judiciary Committee. At the first one we had, I and a number of other individuals had an opportunity to testify in front of the committee. Another was with Governor Romney from Massachusetts who came forth to testify. He pointed out to the committee the complications they have had in their State as a result of this debate, how it needs to be clarified, and that he came down in support of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

There were a lot of implications that I think came out of his testimony and needed to be debated and brought out. I hope we will be able to have an opportunity--in fact, if nobody does it, I plan on putting his testimony in the Record. I thought it was very good testimony.

So here we are, and we have before us now, after the initiation of the debate last Friday, this amendment that talks about marriage. Again, I want to make clear that everybody understands the language. It says:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

The second sentence is:

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.

That language came about after a lot of deliberation, which included staff and members of the Judiciary Committee. Even though it wasn't voted formally out of the committee, there has been a considerable amount of debate and a lot of scholarly thought about it, and constitutional experts have been approached as far as what would be the best language.

I think we need to move forward with the debate. I am looking forward to hearing from the other side on this important issue. So far, we have had red herring arguments and them wanting to talk about something else other than this amendment and the issues it brings up. I hope we can now settle down and get a good debate from the other side about why they don't think marriage ought to be defined as a union between a man and woman, or why they don't think this is a good amendment. So far we have heard argument on procedure and that doesn't get to the meat of the debate.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to step forward. Let's hear their views and have this debate on this most important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. The majority leader announced last night there will be no rollcall votes during today's session, but Senators are encouraged to come to the Senate floor to speak on the constitutional amendment regarding marriage, which has been slated for floor consideration early next week.