Floor Statements

Mr. President, I know Senator Nelson will have 2 minutes of remarks to make; 30 seconds for me. The next vote will be our last. We anticipate a voice vote on the confirmation of Dirk Kempthorne after cloture is invoked. We are working on agreement for when we return. I expect the next votes to occur on the morning of Tuesday, June 6.

100 Hours of Service as Presiding Officer

Two quick congratulations: On behalf of the entire Senate, I congratulate two Senators for their presiding service. Earlier this week, Senator Vitter reached the 100-hour mark and will receive the Golden Gavel Award; and later this morning, Senator Isakson will get his 100th hour of service. We thank them both for their efforts in the Chair.

(Applause, Members rising.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the vote on the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne, and following that vote that Senator Landrieu be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Stevens for 10 minutes, Senator Reed for 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business for Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, over the next 20 minutes or so, we will be wrapping up what has been a very busy but very productive week, moving to a period which will begin with the celebration of this weekend, in the sense that a lot of people will be with families back at home, back with their constituents, back in their communities, but we will move very quickly to our Memorial Day recess. I will have a few statements to make, a few words to say on what will be going on, on Monday.

We have had a very successful week in the sense that we have completed another nomination thus far. We will have a few more in a little bit that we have agreed to on both sides. We have completed an immigration bill that we worked on for about a month--initially, for 2 weeks, then a pause, and then for the last 2 weeks--a bill that, as I said yesterday, does reflect the will of this body. Not everybody agrees with it. Not anybody, I think, agrees with everything in that legislation. But it is comprehensive legislation that demonstrates that we are governing, addressing the very real problems, real challenges that face us in America today.

When we come back we will deal with a range of issues. I will have a little more to say about that in a bit, but the first issue we will come back to has to do with another institution, the institution of marriage.

Throughout human history and culture, the union of a man and a woman has been recognized as the essential cornerstone of society. For millennia, marriage has served as a public act, a civil institution to bind men and women in the task of producing and nurturing their offspring. In some eras it has existed apart from romance, love, and mutual regard. In ours, we have embraced the ideal of marriage that deepens and enriches the bonds of love, that grows with every shared memory, endeavor, and challenge: husband and wife, father and mother, building a family and a community over a lifetime.

At its root, marriage is and always has been a public institution that formalizes that family bond--its intent to further the community's interest in successfully rearing the next generation of healthy and prosperous citizens. But now, this fundamental institution is under attack. There is a concerted effort underway to redefine marriage against millennia of human experience and against the expressed wishes of the American people. Activist courts are usurping the power to define this social institution. And if marriage is redefined for anyone, it is redefined for everyone.

The threat is real. Just last year voters in 13 States passed by enormous margins State constitutional amendments protecting marriage; 19 States have State constitutional amendments also to protect marriage, and 5 more States have amendments pending. In total, 45 States have either State constitutional amendments or laws to protect marriage.

Tennessee will give voters the opportunity to voice their opinions on the sanctity of marriage this November. It is one of seven States with similar amendments pending to their constitutions. If a marriage protection law passes in Tennessee, we will join those 45 other States that have approved legislation that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and, indeed, no State has ever rejected an effort to protect traditional marriage when it has been on the ballot.

So with this progress at the State level that expresses the overwhelming support of the American people, what is the problem? Why does it need to come to the floor of this body?

Voting for marriage on the State ballot is not enough to protect the institution. I need to explain. Because same sex marriage advocates cannot win at the ballot box, activists are continuing their campaign to convince State and Federal courts to rewrite traditional marriage laws. Currently, nine States have lawsuits pending challenging marriage laws. In five States, courts could redefine marriage by the end of the year--California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

In California, Maryland, New York, and Washington, State trial courts have already followed Massachusetts and found the definition of marriage in their State constitutions unconstitutional. All these cases are on appeal.

Already we have seen a Federal judge in Nebraska overturn a democratically enacted Nebraska State constitutional amendment protecting marriage. That ruling is now under appeal in the Eighth Circuit. Another Federal case in Washington challenges the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. The case is stayed, pending resolution of litigation in the Washington State Supreme Court.

Because of these attempts to overturn State laws and constitutional amendments, this Senate needs to act. The American people deserve a full debate on this foundational issue before marriage is redefined for everyone. That is why, when we return from the Memorial Day recess, I will bring the marriage protection amendment to the Senate floor to ensure the definition of marriage endures and remains true to the wishes of the majority of the American people.

The amendment is straightforward. The amendment is simple. It reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

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

the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require

that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred

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

That is it. It is simple, straightforward--it is two sentences. The truth is, on the question of marriage, the Constitution will be amended. The only question is whether it will be amended by Congress as the representative of the people or by judicial fiat. Will activist judges amend the Constitution or will the people amend the Constitution to preserve marriage as it has always been understood?

I say the people should have a voice. The American people have a right to settle the question of what marriage will be in the United States. Marriage is an issue that rightly belongs in the hands of the people, of the American people. So before the courts impose a vast, untested social experiment for which children will bear the ultimate consequence, let the people hold a thorough debate. The matter before us is critical. The debate before us is essential. Let it be held now for this and future generations of Americans, and let it ultimately lead the way forward.

Mr. President, under the previous order, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:05 a.m. on Tuesday, June 6, the Senate proceed to executive session, with 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, followed by a vote on the confirmation of the following judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 626, Renee Marie Bumb to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey; provided further that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 418, the adjournment resolution; provided that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the desk, and I ask for their first readings en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for their second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own requests en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3829, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3322, introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 496, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 497, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader and the senior Senator from Virginia be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.