Floor Statements

Mr. President, today marks an extraordinary-- extraordinary--milestone in the history of the Senate and in the life of one of our most distinguished colleagues.

Today, Robert C. Byrd, the senior Senator from West Virginia, becomes the longest serving Senator in the history of the United States.

Today, he will have served 17,327 days in office, and outlasted 1,885 Senators who have graced this Chamber since 1789. He has cast more votes than any other Senator. And this year, Senator Byrd is running for an unprecedented ninth term.

Our distinguished colleague has amassed an astonishing record of service, and it is my privilege and honor to pay tribute to the Dean of the Senate--one of the greatest orators in the grand tradition of this august institution.

Senator Byrd won his first election to the Senate back in 1958. Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader. Dwight Eisenhower was President. And the Soviets had won the space race with the launch of Sputnik.

Senator Byrd joined the Appropriations Committee and quickly got to work learning the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.

Senator Byrd has been called a walking encyclopedia of Congress. Indeed, in his career he has authored a four-volume history of the U.S. Senate.

In 1971, Senator Byrd was chosen Senate Democratic whip. In 1977, he was elected Democratic leader, a position held for six consecutive terms.

He led the Senate as majority leader for 6 years, and served as minority leader for another 6.

Senator Byrd has twice been elected President pro tempore.

All told, Robert C. Byrd has held more leadership positions in the Senate than any other Senator in history.

But even having attained this extraordinary influence, Senator Byrd has never forgotten where he came from or who sent him here.

From early on in his career, he demonstrated his deep commitment to the people of West Virginia. His loyalty, closeness, and respect have been rewarded. Senator Byrd has won overwhelming majorities in each of his reelection campaigns, winning with 78 percent in 2000.

He is known across his State for his unflagging support for his constituents and the future and welfare of those people of West Virginia. In 2001, he was named by his State ``West Virginian of the 20th Century.''

Today marks a great achievement for the senior Senator, but in some ways it is also bittersweet.

Today, Erma Byrd, the Senator's wife of nearly 7 decades, would have turned 89 years old. The Senator has said that his love for Erma was greater than anything in his life. Without her, he could not have reached such great heights, nor could he have endured the inevitable rough patches of political life.

On the occasion of their 65th wedding anniversary, the Senator paid an eloquent tribute to his high school sweetheart. His words:

Erma and I are complete and whole, a total that is more

than the sum of its parts. In my life, Erma Byrd is the

diamond. She is the priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman

of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense.

Senator Byrd has said that, for him, today's achievement will pass with little fanfare or pride. Today, he will do what he has always done on June 12. He will honor his dear wife Erma, remember her and pray for her.

So we will celebrate on his behalf and pay honor to them both-- Senator Byrd for his lifelong service to his country, and Erma for her quiet and steady support for the country gentleman from West Virginia.

When history is written, I am certain that Senator Byrd will hold a prominent place as a Senate legend--and in no small part because of the love of a kind and gentle lady, Erma Ora Byrd.

Mr. President, today we will be in for a period of morning business. We do not expect a lengthy session over the course of this morning for today.

Last night, we reached an agreement to begin consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill on Monday at 3 o'clock. Chairman Warner and Senator Levin will be in the Senate inviting Members to deliver their opening remarks. We expect amendments to be offered later in the day on Monday. There will be no rollcall votes on Monday. I anticipate debating amendments and setting votes to occur on Tuesday morning. Therefore, we expect at least one vote to occur Tuesday prior to the policy meetings.

As a reminder to our colleagues, we will have the official photograph taken in the Senate Chamber at 2:15 on Tuesday. Senators should be seated at their desk promptly at 2:15 to avoid missing that photograph.

Following that, we have a debate period set aside prior to a cloture vote on a mine safety and health nomination reported out of the HELP committee back in March.

Early next week, we will be considering the supplemental appropriations conference report when it arrives from the House. We hope to dispose of that conference report in a reasonable amount of time in order to return to the Defense authorization bill.

Clearly, there is much to do next week. We will need everyone's assistance as we schedule these items.

We currently have a lot of things going on in addition to what is going on in the Senate Chamber. The supplemental conference bill, as most people have heard, is coming along and has come along very well. We will be doing that next week. There is a pensions bill in conference. There is real progress being made on that particular bill as well.

Mr. President, I take a few moments to share an account of an event that occurred nearly 3\1/2\ years ago. The story I tell is a very tragic story. At the time, it received a lot of media coverage, but because of a recent fortuitous occurrence, it has again become relevant.

Each year around Christmas, some time before, usually afterwards, my family, Karyn and our three boys, and my extended family, have a tradition of going to Fort Lauderdale, FL, a tradition that began well over 40 years ago by my parents and my own brothers and sisters--I have two brothers and two sisters--and their children, and usually, almost always, several friends from a number of those individuals spend time together enjoying the

occasion, being together as a family, reliving old memories and, along the way, creating new ones.

On New Year's Day in 2003, I had taken my sons, Jonathan and Bryan, two of my three sons, on a trip to the Everglades. It was to spend the day in the Everglades, showing them the beauty of that wonderful area and the rich tradition that is reflected by the beauty there and by nature. We had a wonderful day.

On the way back--and this is west of Fort Lauderdale--on the way back in, we were heading down what is Interstate 75 west in that part of Florida. It runs directly east back to Fort Lauderdale. That whole track is known as Alligator Alley. It was an ordinary day. We had a wonderful day together as a family. It was a great start to a new year--again, it was New Year's Day--an opportunity to share with family the beauty of that environment, the gorgeous, wonderful, magnificent part of this country.

As we were talking about events of the day as we were driving, suddenly traffic came to a halt. Just ahead, I saw red lights flashing. We pulled onto the median. I came out of the car because something clearly had happened, and it had just happened several moments earlier.

Walking down the median, I approached a horrific scene. It was a little bit in the distance, 100 yards away. There was a crumpled red car on its side, an SUV. There were men, women, and children who clearly had been thrown, hurled from that vehicle, a distance of 25, 50, even 75 yards. I remember looking out--again, it was a beautiful day, a sunny day--and as with any event such as this that occurs so quickly, so unexpectedly, we saw the streaming smoke coming from an overturned vehicle with an open door. We saw a crushed car. We did not see another car near it. Clearly, the car had flipped. Then we saw these bodies that were hurled, thrown, from this vehicle a great distance in this beautiful green median. It was a surreal environment.

It was not immediately clear to me how many people had been injured, but the fact you could tell there were several people around the car, and there were at least four people in the median over this distance, I knew that what I was witnessing was clearly devastating. It was serious.

At that time, there were no other health personnel on the scene. As a doctor, and as one who has spent days and years in emergency rooms and in operating rooms, in terms of the immediate response, it comes pretty natural in terms of evaluation, triage, and resuscitation. The real challenge was being out there, and you saw over a distance of 75 yards four people who had such a traumatic accident. Two adults had climbed out of the vehicle itself. There were four individuals--four, what appeared to be lifeless, motionless bodies, women and children, two children and two adults--who lay in the median.

Lara Spalding, whom I did not know at the time--I will come back to Lara in just a little bit--then was a nursing student at Nashville-- this is the irony of it--Nashville's Belmont University, and actually worked in the emergency room there with some of my colleagues back at Vanderbilt, where I worked for 10 years as a cardio surgeon, heart surgeon, trauma surgeon.

She later described the scene that day:

It was awful. It looked like someone had dropped six people

from a 5-story building.

At that point in time when I was there--and I didn't know Lara at the time--she was there either at the same time or a few seconds afterwards, there were no other doctors on the scene. Alligator Alley being so far out at that time--although it has changed, thank goodness--the emergency personnel had to come from within Fort Lauderdale to come out along one stretch of highway. It was probably 25, 30 miles, so health personnel were not yet on the scene.

When that sort of thing happens, you know your immediate responsibility needs to be to assess the situation, triage their care, and to initiate resuscitation appropriately, but the problem is people were scattered over a 75-yard distance.

I did what I could; that was, rapidly assess the ABCs in terms of resuscitation, in getting airways, and when the medical personnel started to arrive, both by helicopter, trauma teams, relief teams and ambulances started coming in, help them triage and direct them to the people who needed the care the most. And then for individuals conducting the appropriate resuscitation, of establishing an airway, making sure they were breathing and receiving CPR.

In that sort of event, it is important to get someone on the telephone to coordinate overall, so I spent a lot of time talking to 911 and the hospitals that coordinated the personnel, and as the paramedics arrived by helicopter, was able to say: You are on the ground now. Don't waste your time here; that is taken care of. And they were able to go to another patient.

I mentioned all that because I do think it is important for people to participate. Lara, at the time, was with one of the patients, cradling them, giving appropriate encouragement and instruction to personnel who were arriving who very much appreciate her heroism in stopping along the side of the road and assisting.

In addition to Ms. Spalding, there was an off-duty paramedic and five others who also stopped to help. Ms. Spalding, Lara Spalding--I will come back to her again shortly--at that time was a nursing student but before had been an Army medic who had worked at Vanderbilt University Trauma Center. She was of huge assistance in terms of the triage, assisting the paramedics.

I remember her going over to one boy who had a mangled leg. She cradled his head and tried to keep him comfortable. She later said:

You're prepared for this when you're in a trauma center . .

. but not when you're driving down the road.

I also want to comment on the men and women of the Broward County Sheriff's Office Division of Fire Rescue, particularly Incident Commander Chris Koski and his firefighters who also came on the scene and were so professional, so experienced. They deserve tremendous credit.

As far as the rescue operators, the first responders out there do not get enough credit. They are out there 24 hours a day responding to these incidents. They responded in such a quiet, humble, and heroic way. They all deserve our gratitude. They are heroes, not just for this particular day but for the work they do every day. That is what they do every single day and night.

I do remember the people whom we could not help: Felicienne Kali, a beautiful 11-year-old girl whom we were unable to resuscitate, died at the scene. Her 14-year-old brother, Felix Kali, unfortunately, died later that day. Shadia Rene, a 20-year-old half-sister of the two, we were able to resuscitate but died 3 days later at the hospital. The two parents lived. A family friend who was in the automobile also lived.

After the tragic events of that day, I went back to see them the next day at the hospital, to console and to comfort them as much as one can in that time of tragedy.

There is little anyone can say directly to a family or to people involved to address such grief, but I do pray for their family to this day.

I clearly wish there was more that could have been done in response, despite the heroic actions of so many of the paramedical personnel, first responders, and Lara Spalding. I keep mentioning Lara Spalding because it was 2 years ago that my staff ran into her and talked to her. She was at that time working as a nurse at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital. In May, she took a new job. Today, she works here in the Nation's Capitol. I didn't know this until just a few days ago. She works in the Office of the Attending Physician. I was unaware of that and then had the opportunity to learn about that last week. I am delighted that she is here in the Nation's Capitol. I know she will be of great service to the U.S. Congress and to our Nation. While I would have gladly recommended her based specifically on her actions that day, I clearly had no role in her actually being hired but do appreciate her service.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the issue of spending in Washington, DC. None of us, as elected representatives, Democrat or Republican, in the House or the Senate, can go home without people saying: Washington seems to be spending too much.

I mention that only because we are going to be addressing the supplemental bill.

As many people saw on the news last night, agreement was reached on the limit and content of the supplemental spending bill which we have been working on for well over 2 months. What we will talk about next week but what was demonstrated and what was released by the conference last night is that we are on the right track today. The level and the substance of that bill does adhere to our calls for a conference report that limited its total amount to the President's request for true emergency spending--no fat, no excessive spending. Those criteria have been met. It focuses resources on important priorities, priorities such as funding border security, which we spent well over a month on this floor talking about, on conducting the war on terror, and aiding hurricane recovery--all while exercising tight fiscal restraint and responsibility.

Also of note, the bill contains a fiscally prudent spending level for this year's regular appropriations bills. This bill sets a discretionary spending level at the President's request of $873 billion--another very important point of maintaining fiscal discipline.

I applaud the leadership of Senator Cochran and Congressman Lewis in the House to control Federal spending and to ensure effective and appropriate Government use of taxpayer dollars so that our deficit can continue to decline and our economy can continue to grow and prosper.

This adherence to keeping spending low, coupled with our Republican tax policy, has ushered in record economic growth: 5.3 million jobs have been created over the last 3 years; unemployment is down to 4.6, 4.7 percent, lower than the average of the 1990s, lower than the average of the 1970s--again, a huge success.

There is a lot more we have to do, but this supplemental bill is an important step, following through on Republican principles of fiscal restraint.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 503, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 12; I further ask 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, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each until 3 p.m., when the Senate will proceed to consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will be considering the Defense authorization bill. Following opening remarks and recognition of Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, amendments may be debated and offered. The first vote of next week will occur on Tuesday morning before the Senate recesses for the weekly policy luncheons. This vote could be on a Defense amendment or a nomination. We will alert Members when that vote is scheduled. The Senate will also have a cloture vote at 3:30 on Tuesday afternoon on the nomination of Richard Stickler to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. The conference report to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill has been filed, and we expect to vote on that early in the week. Senators are reminded that the official photograph of the 109th Congress will occur at 2:15 on Tuesday. Senators should be seated at their desks no later than 2:15.

Mr. President, finally, let me say thank you to our spring semester pages. Today is their final day in the Senate. I join all of my colleagues

in praising them for their hard work and effort throughout this year.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, the Senate just finished honoring our flag with the Pledge of Allegiance, an innovation we added to the Senate proceeding several years ago upon the suggestion and urging of our former colleague, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire. As we pay respect to those stars and those stripes, the news this morning of the events in Iraq bring new strength to the patriotism reflected by the Senate for that flag and, indeed, for our country.

Today, our military forces are to be commended for their dedication to eradicating the terrorist network in Iraq. Today's success in eliminating the terrorist, the butcher terrorist, the thuggish terrorist, al-Zarqawi, is a sure sign they are on the way to accomplishing that goal.

In my own visits to Iraq, I have had the opportunity to see firsthand the amazing work our soldiers are doing there on the ground. We are proud of our military, proud of the tremendous work they are doing, and thank them for their efforts and their sacrifice for us each and every day.

Al-Zarqawi was a man who was responsible for the beheading, the killing of hundreds and, indeed, thousands of innocent children, women, and men. He was responsible for the death of many Americans in uniform, men and women. For those reasons, we all know it is a great day for Iraq and, indeed, for the United States.

Al-Zarqawi was the operational head. He is a symbolic head, we know, but equally importantly the operational head of al-Qaida in Iraq. Osama bin Laden called him the ``prince of Al-Qaeda.'' Reportedly, he masterminded the operations, the financial infrastructure, the financial underpinnings, and the strategic support for the terrorist network. While we all know there are many insurgents who remain in Iraq, this is surely a major blow to the terrorists who threaten both the safety and the security of Iraq and, indeed, the United States.

It is also a significant day in the formation of the Government of Iraq, the appointment of the Ministers of Defense, of the Interior, and of National Security. It is a major step forward. The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet have been in place for about 3 weeks. I think 37 are in place with the completion of that Cabinet today. It is a major step forward. It has been a good morning. These developments are major steps forward. Although, as we all know, many challenges remain, I am more optimistic than ever that a free and stable Iraq can be achieved.

Mr. President, I will update our colleagues over the course of the day and run down our schedule.

In a couple of minutes, we will start the 1 hour of debate prior to the cloture vote on the death tax repeal. Therefore, that first vote is expected to begin sometime between about 10:45 and 10:50. Regardless of the outcome of that cloture vote, we will then have the final debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Native Hawaiians bill. That vote is set for 12:45 this afternoon.

The rest of today's schedule will depend on the outcome of those two cloture votes. We hope to have additional votes this afternoon on four district judges on the calendar, as well as the debate and the vote on the Schwab nomination to be U.S. Trade Representative.

I remind everyone that last night we filed cloture on a Mine Safety and Health nomination. That cloture vote will occur tomorrow unless some other agreement is reached.

Mr. President, to respond through the Chair to the Democratic leader--and actually our colloquy, in essence, is to our colleagues--we recognize the importance, both of us, both sides of the aisle, of getting this bill to conference. We have passed a bill that reflected the will of the Senate. Not everyone agreed with it. I thought we had a very good process we should be proud of in terms of debate and amendment and allowing the people's will to be discussed and voted upon.

The next step is getting to conference. We do not need to go into the technical aspects, but it is a challenge to get it there in a way that gives all of the guarantees, but with those guarantees the goal will be to have an immigration bill that stays on immigration. That is exactly what the Democratic leader and I are working on, and we are making progress in that regard.

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

Madam President, Michael Caudle's father founded the Greenfield Lumber Company in Greenfield, TN in 1955. Michael's dad and his granddad spent years building that business into the trusted, reliable family business that exists today. But when Michael's dad passed away 6 years ago in 2000, the business was put on the brink. The family at that time, all of a sudden, was forced to pay nearly $400,000 in death taxes and almost had to sell the business they had worked so hard to put together to pay the tax.

Michael says he hopes to pass that lumber company on to his children and his grandchildren. It is his life. It is what he has worked for: to give them that sense of family pride and community, that pride and community that his dad had passed on to him.

But like so many American families, his dream is threatened by what has come to be known in my State as the ``buzzard tax,'' and by people who don't see the value in preserving a hard-won family tradition, that name is appropriate.

One Tennessee couple told my office they decided not to trust their fate to the tax man. They sold their east Tennessee car dealership so that if one of them were to die suddenly, the other one simply wouldn't have to pay those exorbitant taxes; that burden wouldn't fall on their shoulders. They didn't want that buzzard picking apart that dream that they had built together.

Fred Heinecke's parents, unfortunately, didn't know about that kind of tax planning. As Mr. Heinecke of Vanore, TN wrote to the Knoxville News just this Saturday:

Current law allows a $4 million deduction for a couple.

That may be true if they die at the same time, such as in a

plane crash, but not if they die separately as most couples

do. I learned the hard way because my parents died a couple

years apart without a trust. When my mom died in 2003, I

wrote a painful check for over $300,000 to the Federal

government. This required the sale of property that had been

in the family for over 50 years.

Fred, like so many people, not only had to write that unexpected and huge check to the Federal Government in order to pay, he had to negotiate the sale of his parents' property at one of the worst moments in anybody's life, and that is the time of their death, the passing of his mom. As Fred's story, which is so typical and like so many other stories, illustrates, this death tax is unfair. I think that is the strongest argument of why we bring the repeal of the death tax back to the floor today. It is time to bury it. It is time for it to go.

In a few moments we will have a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, and we need to be very clear about what this vote means. A vote in favor is a vote to move forward with this important debate. A vote against is a vote to kill any chance of repealing or even reforming this onerous tax and is a vote in favor of returning the death tax to the pre-2001 confiscatory rate of 55 percent, an exemption of only $1 million per person.

Back in 2001, we passed a gradual phaseout of the death tax--real progress. Under that 2001 Economic Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act, the death tax is scheduled to disappear in 2010.

But under the terms of this compromise legislation, after 2010 it comes roaring back with that tax level of 55 percent in 2011. That is why we need to act. We need a permanent fix, and that is what this vote is all about.

Last spring, the House passed a bill to make full repeal of the death tax permanent. They did so with strong bipartisan support. Over a year has passed and thus now it is time for us to act.

Americans have broadly said they support repealing the death tax. In a recent poll commissioned by the Tax Foundation, nearly 70 percent polled in favor of repeal.

With stories like Mr. Henicke's, it is not hard to understand why. We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes, whether it is a water tax, a gas tax, a payroll tax, a utility tax, a cable tax, a property tax, a sales tax, an income tax--we are taxed every minute of our lives. We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. In fact, we are taxed so much that one nonpartisan organization calculates

that the first 5 months of the average American's salary is confiscated by the Government.

If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.

Some on the other side of the aisle argue that the death tax is a critical stream of Federal revenue and that in any event it only hits the superrich. Neither is true. Mounting evidence shows that once widespread estate tax avoidance is accounted for, the death tax nets zero to negative tax revenue. Worse yet, the death tax may be responsible for the loss of from as many as 170,000 to 250,000 potential jobs each year.

Meanwhile, it is not the superrich who are hardest hit by the death tax; family businesses bear the brunt. The Seattle Times Company reports that 89 percent of all taxable estates filed in 1995, before the 2001 reform, were $2.5 million or less in size. What does this mean?

A family-owned business stands to lose nearly half of all

its assets when it passes from one generation to the next.

That is over half of everything, including land, buildings,

equipment, money and more--all because of the current estate

tax law which is really a tax on death. They sell out,

letting long-term employees go. Not because they want to. But

because they have to. And the echo reverberates through an

entire community.

Just yesterday I heard from farmers and western landowners and listened to the damage, the harm they suffered as a result of this death tax. Some of my colleagues have said that the death tax doesn't hurt farmers, but the farmers simply take a different view. Many of them are cash poor. They own land handed down from their parents. They know there is no easy way their children can continue to work the land if they are subjected to this death tax, so rather than wait for the death tax to pick apart their family farm, they make plans to sell the land in advance. That is the part of the story that never gets told. The death tax not only confiscates the honest earnings of the recently deceased, it often forces families to divest themselves of that family enterprise.

In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax would go away, it was repealed. But that changed in the last century. The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted. Instead, it became entrenched and it took 90 years to roll back.

It is time to stop punishing America's entrepreneurs and job creators for saving, for investing, and succeeding. The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future; to consume today rather than save for the future; to spend now and leave nothing for later. That doesn't make sense. It is unfair.

On February 10 of this year I said the Senate would debate and decide the fate of the death tax. That time is upon us. I urge my colleagues to cast their vote in favor of cloture, of proceeding to allow debate on elimination of the death tax. If we do not, the death tax prevails. America's family businesses lose and so do the workers they hire and the communities they support. A vote for cloture is a vote to protect these family traditions. It is a vote for what is right, for simple fairness.

We will turn to the vote in just a few moments. Again, this is a vote on the motion to proceed to allow debate. It will require 60 votes on this very important issue. If we get 60 votes--and I hope we do get those 60 votes--I expect we will see a cloture motion on the underlying bill. If that underlying bill is not successful, I would think that we would need to gather together to have compromise legislation, and I would expect a vote on that as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning we will have a brief period for closing remarks prior to the 10 a.m. vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. That vote will be on a vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 1.

Following the 10 o'clock vote, the Senate will recess in order to attend a joint meeting with the House for the President of the Republic of Latvia, who will be addressing both Houses at 11 o'clock this morning. Senators should remain in the Chamber following the vote so we may leave at approximately 10:40 for that joint meeting.

When we return at noon, we have set aside debate times on two issues. First, from 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock, we will be debating the motion to proceed to the repeal of the death tax. A cloture motion was filed on proceeding to the death tax repeal. That vote will occur tomorrow morning. We have also set aside debate from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock on the motion to proceed to the Native Hawaiians measure. The cloture vote will occur on that motion to proceed during tomorrow's session, as well.

I add that this week we have other matters to consider, including some nominations. We hope to reach agreements to consider Sue Schwab to be U.S. Trade Representative, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, and several available district judges who are on the Executive Calendar. We will be scheduling those for consideration through the remaining days this week.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, over the past couple of days, we have had a good, rigorous debate on the future of marriage in America. I thank Senator Allard and Senator Brownback for managing the debate and my colleagues who have come to the floor to very thoughtfully and thoroughly lay out the legal and cultural issues that are at stake.

Throughout human history and culture, the union between a man and a woman has been recognized as the cornerstone of society. Marriage serves a public act, a civil institution that binds men and women in the task of producing and nurturing children--husband and wife, father and mother--building a family in a community over a lifetime.

At its root, marriage is and always has been a public institution that formalizes that family bond. Some on the other side have said that the strength and stability of marriage is a distraction of little concern to the broader public. And I couldn't disagree more.

As it so happens, they used the very same argument 2 years ago. They said the States had little interest in preserving traditional marriage; voters didn't care; other issues were more important. That argument wasn't true then, and it is even less true now.

Marriage, as we know it, is under assault. Activist courts are attempting to redefine marriage against the expressed wishes of the American people. And if marriage is redefined for some, it will be redefined for all.

Last year, voters in 13 States passed by enormous margins State constitutional amendments to protect marriage. Mr. President, 19 States now have State constitutional amendments. Another 26 have statutes doing the same. Alabama voters, yesterday, endorsed an amendment to protect marriage. In total, 45 States have either State constitutional amendments or State laws to protect marriage.

Tennessee, which will give voters the opportunity to voice their opinion this November, is one of six States with similar amendments to its constitution that are pending. No State--no State--has ever rejected an effort to protect traditional marriage when it has been on the ballot.

Voters across the country, from red States to blue, have voted overwhelmingly to protect traditional marriage. But that has not stopped the same-sex marriage activists from taking their campaigns not to the American people but to the courts. Indeed, their losses at the ballot box have only fueled their judicial activism.

Currently, nine States have lawsuits pending. In five States, courts could redefine marriage by the end of the year. In California, Maryland, New York, and Washington, State trial courts have already followed Massachusetts and declared their State constitution's definition of marriage unconstitutional. All of these cases are on appeal.

A Federal judge in Nebraska overturned a democratically enacted State constitutional amendment protecting marriage. That ruling is now under appeal in the Eighth Circuit.

Another Federal court case in Washington challenges the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. That case is stayed pending resolution of litigation in the Washington State Supreme Court. Court watchers are expecting a ruling soon.

With all of this litigation pending, there is little doubt that the Constitution will be amended. The only question is whether it will be amended by Congress working the will of the people or by judicial fiat. Will activist judges override the clear intention of the American people or will the people amend the Constitution to preserve marriage as it has always been understood?

In Massachusetts, the people have never had a say. The State's supreme judicial court demanded the State sanction same-sex marriage. A majority of the court substituted their personal policy preferences for that of the people, and the consequences of that activism spread far beyond same-sex marriage itself.

I wish to read from a letter from Governor Romney sent to me as we opened the debate on this issue. In it he warns us that Massachusetts is only just beginning to experience the full implication of their court's decision. He writes:

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be

measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see

the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just 2

years before our State's social experiment.

In the letter, Governor Romney relates the following account:

In our schools, children are being taught that there is no

difference between the same-sex marriage and traditional

marriage.

Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school

complained when they were not notified that their son's

teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to

the class.

The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child

out of hearing such stories. In response, the school

superintendent insisted on ``teaching children about the

world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is

legal.''

Now second graders are being indoctrinated to accept a radical redefinition of marriage against their parents' wishes. That is the reality today in Massachusetts.

It doesn't stop there. Already religious organizations in Massachusetts are feeling the pressure to conform their views as well. In March, the Catholic Charities of Boston discontinued their work placing foster children in adoptive homes. Why? Because they concluded the new same-sex marriage law would require them to place children-- require them--to place children in same-sex homes. Clearly, this is an irreconcilable conflict.

So while we have advocates denying that same-sex marriage poses any conflict with religious expression or with traditional views, we are already seeing in Massachusetts that simply is not the case. We don't know yet the range and the extent of the religious liberty conflicts that would arise from the imposition of same-sex marriage laws, but we do know the implications are serious, that religious expression will be challenged, and that it is a matter of deep public concern. That is why we seek action in the Senate on this important issue.

As I have said before, it is only a matter of time before the Constitution will be amended. The only question is by whom. Is it going to be a small group of activist judges or by the people through a democratic process? I believe the people should make that decision.

We talked about the specific wording of the marriage protection amendment. Nothing in the amendment intrudes on individual privacy. Nothing stops States from passing civil union laws or curtails benefits that legislatures establish for same-sex couples.

It simply protects the States from having civil unions imposed on them from activist courts. It protects the legislative process by letting people speak and vote. It ensures that their voices are heard and their votes are respected.

My own views on marriage are clear. I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and nurturing a family. We know that children do best in a home with a mom and a dad. Common sense and overwhelming research tell us so. Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting our children--better than any other arrangement humankind has devised. I believe it is our duty to support this fundamental institution.

Now we will vote on proceeding on the marriage protection amendment. We will vote on whether we believe traditional marriage is worthy of protection, and we will vote on whether the courts or the people will decide its fate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh, the President's nominee for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, pledged that if he is confirmed:

I will interpret the law as written and not impose personal

policy preferences;

I will follow precedent in all cases fully and fairly, and,

above all, [I] will at all times maintain the absolute

independence of the judiciary, which, in my judgment, is the

crown jewel of our constitutional democracy.

Listen to the words that Brett Kavanaugh used: Fair, independent, committed to the rule of law. These are the qualities America wants in our federal judges.

We need more qualified nominees on the bench who practice judicial restraint and respect the rule of law, and Brett Kavanaugh fits that description.

President Bush nominated Mr. Kavanaugh on July 25 of 2003. And since this time, he's endured not one--

but two--hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He has been candid and forthcoming in answering countless oral and written questions from the Judiciary Committee. And he has met one-on- one with numerous Members--both Republican and Democrat.

And now it's time that Brett Kavanaugh gets the fair up-or-down vote that he's been waiting on for 3 years.

Later this morning, the Senate will give him that vote. We will fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent.

Over the last few weeks, we've heard a lot about his sterling credentials and professional experience.

He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School and was awarded a prestigious Supreme Court law clerkship.

He has an extraordinary range of experience in both the public and private sectors.

He has dedicated more than 16 years to public service--as an appellate lawyer, a prosecutor, and an Assistant to the President.

He has argued both civil and criminal matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts throughout the country.

And he has received the American Bar Association's stamp of approval to serve on the Federal bench on three separate occasions.

Brett Kavanaugh is respected in the legal community for his keen intellect and legal prowess. And he has earned the reputation as a man of integrity, fairness, and honesty.

In a larger sense, today's vote is about more than just Brett Kavanaugh as an individual nominee. Today's vote is another sign of progress for the judicial nominations process.

The Senate is continuing on a path we began a little more than a year ago. At that time, the Senate turned away from judicial obstruction and advanced the core constitutional principle that every judicial nominee with majority support deserves a fair up-or-down vote.

I am proud of the Senate for continuing on this path--for fairness, for principle, for the Constitution.

And I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.