[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 73 (Friday, May 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6067-S6072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Ms. SNOWE. Lastly, Mr. President, I have an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to strike Section 811(b)
of the act, which alters disclosure requirements for subcontracting
information provided to small businesses through the Procurement
Technical Assistance Program of the Defense Logistics Agency.
This amendment will ensure that small businesses seeking federal
subcontracting opportunities through PTAP would continue to have
adequate point-of-contact information for procurements up to $1
million.
The Procurement Technical Assistance Program assists small businesses
by providing training and information about federal business
opportunities, both prime and subcontracts. Under the terms of this
program, the DLA joins forces with State, local, and tribal governments
for the purpose of delivering technical assistance services to
businesses that are new to federal procurement.
Current law requires that experienced defense contractors with over
$500,000 in contract awards disclose to assistance providers the
contact information for their executives with authority to enter into
subcontracts. These disclosures must be made only once a year. The cost
of disclosures is practically non-existent. However, the disclosure
requirement materially advances the purpose of the program by allowing
small businesses easy access to potential subcontracts.
Nevertheless, Section 811(b) of the act seeks to exempt experienced
defense contractors from these annual disclosures unless they receive
over $1 million in government contracts. The need for this change is,
at best, questionable. Providing a few names and phone numbers once a
year is hardly a significant burden. As chair of the Small Business
Committee, I am concerned that this change would needlessly obscure the
procurement process for small business. I urge the Senate to retain the
current PTAP disclosure requirements.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to clarify the intent of
legislation I introduced yesterday, S. 2457. Certainly, I would like to
ensure that the record reflects my intention in introducing this bill.
The provisions contained in S. 2457 mirror those contained in Section
3116 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense authorization bill,
which pertain to the reclassification of high-level radioactive waste.
Let me be clear: I oppose these provisions. I hope the majority of my
colleagues will oppose these provisions as well. I introduced this
legislation for the purpose of demonstrating to my colleagues that
[[Page S6068]]
issues within the scope of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 do not
belong within the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
This was an issue of some debate on the floor yesterday, and I am
pleased that the parliamentarian has in fact referred this legislation
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am
a member. I hope the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
will take note of this fact when debate resumes on Sec. 3116 of his
bill after the Memorial Day Recess. A policy shift this significant
requires substantial public debate within the committee of primary
jurisdiction.
I would also like to respond to a few of the comments made by the
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, earlier today. First,
he noted that the Armed Services Committee discussed the issue of waste
incidental to reprocessing at two hearings earlier this year. Again,
the Armed Services Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction for
issues related to nuclear waste cleanup policy, as has now been
affirmed by the Senate's parliamentarian. Second, a hearing at which
the concept of ``incidental'' waste is discussed is not at all the same
as a legislative hearing on a specific proposal. To my knowledge, the
language to which I object in Sec. 3116 of the DoD authorization bill
has never previously been introduced as stand-alone legislation. And if
it had, it would not have been referred to the Armed Services
Committee. Thus, we have had no legislative hearings on the Senator
from South Carolina's proposal.
Lastly, the Senator from Colorado has misstated my position with
regard to removal of Hanford's underground tanks, which contain 53
million gallons of high-level radioactive waste. As I stated clearly on
the floor last evening, the cleanup plan at Hanford, as outlined in the
TriParty agreement, does not include removal of these tanks from the
ground. As I stated previously, I agree with the State of Washington's
current thinking on this matter. Digging up these tanks would pose a
number of unnecessary risks, and that is not a concept now on the
table. I hope that the Senator from Colorado will take note of this
fact.
I look forward resuming debate on these matters of such tremendous
importance when the Senate returns from the Memorial Day
Recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to my colleague
here today. I have been concerned with some of the things my good
friend has said.
First of all, you know, I don't think anybody doubts that what we
have done over there has put a tremendous dent in terrorism all over
the world. Because of the fortitude of this President and this
administration, we have stood up against terrorists all over the
world--in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but if the truth be known, in so
many other countries that are fraught with terrorism. I can't talk much
about that. But I can say one thing as a member of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, this administration is on top of this all
over the world.
Probably the two greatest experiments right now against terrorism are
in Afghanistan--where we are slowly moving that country forward, and
showing a commitment of the international community in a very real
sense. But we are having a very difficult time locating al-Qaida, which
slips across the border into the ungovernable part of Pakistan.
But probably the most important steps taken against terrorism in our
world today are being exhibited right in Iraq.
In the 20th century, Iraq has been a very difficult area, with all
kinds of animosity, tribal difficulties, tribal conflicts. Many of the
current conflicts existed long before we had to get involved, and it is
easy to understand why this is taking a bit of time to get done.
The one thing I am very concerned about--that is happening day in and
day out with colleagues on the other side of the floor--is the
undermining of morale, the undermining of efforts of our troops over
there. What happened to the unity that we need in America to support
our troops?
War is never easy, and it is never something that is pleasant.
Anybody who thinks you can just walk out of Iraq and turn it over to
the Iraqis at this point is not only whistling ``Dixie,'' but you have
to wonder if the confidence is really there.
By the way, having said that, I feel badly that the minority leader
in the House of Representatives has chosen to use such unwise language
about the President of the United States. She should be ashamed of
herself. I know she is trying to do her job over there. I think having
two parties is very important, and having a loyal opposition is
important as well. But to call the President incompetent, and to call
what he is doing incompetency undermines every soldier in Iraq and
every soldier around the world. It undermines our fight against
terrorism. It undermines so many things that are important for our
country, for our troops overseas, and for those who are here. It
undermines our young people who might believe that bunk. If you hear it
enough, and the media presents it enough, people start to think that
type of irresponsible talk is true. It is not only not true, it is
irresponsible, mean, vindictive, and, I think, beneath the dignity of
any leader in either of these bodies.
It is one thing to criticize the policies. That is what we are here
to do. It is one thing to criticize a different philosophy and to try
to have yours preeminent, but it is another thing to undermine the
President of the United States at a time when we are in grave
difficulties in Iraq and when we are in a grand experiment of trying to
institute a democracy in lands that have never seen democracy.
I think it undermines our whole process for anybody to come on this
floor and say we should leave now and let Iraq go to the Iraqis. What
do you think we are doing? On June 30 we are going to turn it over to
their Governing Council.
By the way, Mr. Bremer will be gone. He has this incredibly difficult
job of trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq. He has done a
terrific job. But he is going to be gone, and we are presently in the
process of installing John Negroponte--one of our top foreign service
officers, one of the top Ambassadors that this country has ever had,
who is a wonderful family man who has been all over the world, who has
served this country with distinction all over the world--to be our
Ambassador in Iraq. This is evidence that Iraq is going to be turned
over to the Iraqis. But the Iraqis should be the first to say we still
need the stability that only the United States of America and its
allies--some 30 countries--can bring about.
I am getting a little tired of people saying this is just the United
States against the world. There are some 30-plus countries over there
supporting us.
I would like to ask, Where are the French, where are the Germans,
where are the Russians, and where are the Chinese? Aren't they
concerned about stability in the Middle East? Of course not. They do
not share the vision of sacrifice to improve other parts of the world.
I also would like to make a few points on what we have done over
there and what we are in the process of doing, hopefully without being
undermined by Members of this body or Members of the other body. This
is not a grand experiment, but it is a grand approach to try to put a
dent in terrorism and create at least a representative form of
government in the Middle East, for the first time in history in that
area in Iraq.
The U.S., in coalition with allies, has overthrown two terrorist
regimes. We have rescued two nations. We have liberated 50 million
people.
Some of these people who have been such big critics ought to
acknowledge that.
This coalition has captured or killed almost two-thirds of these
terrorist leaders around the world--two-thirds of the known senior
advisers and al-Qaida operatives.
We have captured or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq. We have
disrupted terror cells on most continents. Mr. President, $200 million
in terrorist assets have been seized or frozen.
Where are the compliments coming from the other side about some of
these things?
The coalition persuaded Libya to eliminate its chemical- and nuclear-
related programs and to accept international inspection.
[[Page S6069]]
That could never have happened without the President of the United
States, George W. Bush; without his guts and without his ability and
his foresightedness.
We have put up with Libya all these years, with their
irresponsibilities in the Middle East and all over the world, and their
sponsorship of terrorism.
Had it not been for what President Bush has done, Libya would never
have agreed to start acting responsibly. Qadhafi would never agree, but
he has finally seen the handwriting on the wall that we have some
fortitude.
Al-Qaida is taking credit for getting rid of that government in
Spain. They are going to try to do that to us. We had better be
prepared for it.
This President has had the guts to stand up to the terrorist threat.
He is certainly the leading person in the world who has had the guts to
stand up against international terrorists for the first time in a long
time.
I want to give all of the counterparts from the other nations credit,
too, especially Tony Blair in Great Britain.
If we eliminate tyranny in the Middle East by doing what is right in
Iraq, it is amazing what we can do throughout the rest of the world. It
would be a crucial setback for international terror.
Just some of the things that have been accomplished over there in
Iraq: The Transitional Administrative Law approved by the Iraqi
Governing Council is now considered the most liberal basic governance
laws in all of the Arab world. It assures freedom of religion, freedom
of expression, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. It also
guarantees the fundamental rights of women for the first time.
That wouldn't have happened but for the courage of this coalition
built up by our President.
Iraq's new currency is the most heavily traded currency in the Middle
East now. A lot of people do not know that. Oil production and power
generation are way beyond prewar levels now.
It is the United States that has done that and the coalition partners
that have done that. It is a tremendous advancement.
All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are now
open in Iraq.
Can you imagine in that, in this short period of time, we have
accomplished this?
The coalition forces have rehabilitated more than 2,200 schools, all
240 hospitals and more than 1,200 health clinics are now open.
Health care spending in Iraq has increased 30 times over prewar
levels. There have been so many great changes over there that the Iraqi
people are now starting to feel they have a chance.
If we leave now, the old regime's gangsters can come right back in,
the instability can come back in. We have not finished the job of
helping the police be able to run the place.
There are now 170 newspapers being published in Iraq.
As of May 4, the estimated crude oil export revenue was over $5.6
billion for this year alone. I could go on and on.
I am saying this: Why aren't we supportive of all the good things
that have been done and are going on in Iraq? Why are we openly
condemning this President, who had the guts to do what is right, and
doing it so the whole world can see, so our young men and women are
undermined and demoralized over there? Is it political advantage that
some people are seeking? Some would say yes. Some might say no. Is it
because it is an election year? I think many people would say yes. Is
it because some people just hate George W. Bush? The answer to that is
yes, too. Is it because of irresponsibility on the part of some in the
Congress? Some might even say yes to that, although I personally would
not take that position. But some who are saying yes may be right. It is
certainly undermining our troops over there, certainly making it
difficult for any President to have the guts to do what has to be done
against terrorism.
I have worked on terrorist problems from the beginning around here,
all 28 of my years. I was the prime sponsor of the Antiterrorism
Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996--by the way, we were trying to put
some of the provisions that are now in the PATRIOT Act in that bill.
That was stopped by these naysayers and the people who are always
talking about civil liberties. What about the civil liberties of the
3,000 people who died on September 11 because we were not prepared
because we did not give law enforcement the tools to be able to stop
that kind of terrible activity?
I get a little tired, to be honest with you. It is time to stand with
this President, as Democrats and as Republicans, and back our soldiers
over there. Yes, what happened at Abu Ghraib is not right. We know
that. As far as I can see--and I went to Guantanamo Bay last week; I
have been in all of the intelligence meetings as a member of the Select
Committee on Intelligence--as far as I can see, it is limited to a
limited number of people in Iraq who just plain got out of line and
acted like goons. None of us can justify any of that. Now that we have
made that clear, why do we dwell on it every day, every night, all day
long, all evening long, on the news and everywhere else? We know it is
wrong and we know darned well we will have to clean it up. And we will
because this is a free Nation, and we believe in the rule of law.
I have said maybe more than I should have said, but I was
disappointed in the remarks of the minority leader in the House
yesterday. Talk about remarks that undermine everything this President
is trying to do--and coming from one of our leaders. I hope she thinks
it through and does not make any more of these irresponsible comments
in the future. I hope we on this side think it through, too, and are
more responsible in some of the things we do. It would be wonderful if
we could work together more than we are in this body. I have never seen
it so partisan in the whole time I have been in the Senate.
F/A-22 Raptor
I will change the subject to something that is very important to me.
I stand before you today as an ardent supporter of the F/A-22 Raptor.
I urge that the Senate restore the President's budget by authorizing
appropriations for 24 F/A-22 Raptors.
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Tyndall Air Force
Base to be briefed on the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft.
As a result of these meetings and discussions with the pilots who are
training to fly the aircraft and the ground personnel who are learning
to maintain the Raptor, I have come to the conclusion that the Raptor
is absolutely vital to our national security.
Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has been able to maintain air
superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with
the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the
F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth
aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My
colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s.
It has been a magnificent plane but it is starting to age. During the
ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft
and missile systems to defeat this fighter.
Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force
developed the F/A-22 Raptor. The result is a truly remarkable aircraft.
The F/A-22 has greater stealth capabilities than the F-117 Nighthawk.
This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the
Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to
penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night
of the 1991 Gulf War.
The Raptor is also equipped with super-cruise engines. These engines
do not need to go to after-burner in order to achieve supersonic
flight. This provides the F/A-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling
supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By
comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after-
burner to achieve supersonic speeds. This is not just our country but
all the other countries fighters, as well. This consumes a tremendous
amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range.
The F/A-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This
is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made
aircraft which boast a highly impressive maneuver capability.
Yet a further advantage resides in the F/A-22s radar and avionics.
When entering hostile airspace, one F/A-22 can energize its radar
system, enabling it to detect and engage enemy fighters far before an
enemy's system effective range.
[[Page S6070]]
However, one of the most important capabilities of Raptor is often
the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that, since
much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during the Cold
War, it does not meet the requirements of the future. I believe that
this criticism is misplaced. The F/A-22 is more than just a fighter it
is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is able to carry two
1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs. Shortly, it will be able to carry
the small diameter bomb and in 2008 the aircraft's radar system will be
enhanced with a ``look-down'' mode enabling the Raptor to independently
hunt for targets on the ground.
All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly
emerging as the threat of the future--the anti-access integrated air
defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface to air
missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the
strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real
possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important
regions during future conflicts.
It should also be noted that for a comparably cheap price, an
adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile. This
system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and
can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher then the
service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. The
Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters,
the SU-27/30/35, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of
further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters.
It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F-
15C, our current air superiority fighter, it not as maneuverable as
newer Russian aircraft, especially the SU-35. However, the F/A-22 is
designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its
stealth capability, the F/A-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace
undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface-
to-air missile operational systems. Once detected, the F/A-22 would
then be able to drop bombs on those targets.
Some correctly state that the B-2 bomber and the F-117 could handle
those assignments. However, the F/A-22 offers the additional capacity
of being able to engage an enemy's air superiority fighters, such as
the widely proficient SU-35. Therefore, the Raptor will be able to
defeat, almost simultaneously, two very different threats that until
now have been handled by two different types of aircraft.
Despite the obvious advantages of this aircraft, there has been
resistance to this program in the halls of Congress. As with many
military procurement programs, the primary concern is, naturally, cost.
This, in part, led to the planned procurement of the aircraft to be
reduced from over 600 to the current planned procurement of 277.
In response, the supporters of the
F/A-22 devised a new procurement strategy called ``Buy to Budget.''
This strategy capped the total cost for the procurement of the aircraft
and forced the Air Force and the Raptor's primary contractor, Lockheed
Martin, to cut the cost of the plane. These efforts, so far, have been
successful, and last year an additional F/A-22 was procured, solely
based on savings.
Unfortunately, as with any complicated aircraft, especially one whose
computer power equals that of two supercomputers, schedule delays have
occurred. However, these delays have also largely been resolved.
Lockheed Martin has placed the former head of its very successful F-16
production line in charge of F/A-22 production. As a result, it is
believed that F/A-22 production will be back on schedule by early 2005.
Now, despite this progress, criticisms of the aircraft continue. As a
result, colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee have reduced
the number of aircraft to be purchased this year to 22. In contrast,
the President's budget requested 24 aircraft--2 more.
To be fair, it sounds reasonable to see this as a modest reduction in
order to ensure existing production schedules are met and possibly
decrease the cost of the aircraft. However, production schedules will
be met. Due to the already drastic reduction in the number of aircraft
to be procured, many have developed the very real concern that there
will not be enough aircraft to meet the operational needs of the Air
Force, based on the proven Air Expeditionary Force model. Not having
sufficient numbers of F/A-22 for some of these contingencies would be
an abdication of our congressional responsibilities, especially now
that we are faced with war.
However, I wish to add one final point. I have talked about the
capabilities of this aircraft and how those capabilities are designed
to defeat the threats of the future. But what impressed me most was the
way the pilots and ground crews of Tyndall Air Force Base spoke about
the F/A-22. They are truly excited about its potential. They understand
that this aircraft will ensure American dominance of the skies for the
next half century. These young men and women stand ready to sacrifice
so much for us. We owe them the best our country has to offer.
Therefore, I respectfully urge the Senate to restore the President's
budget proposal on this remarkable aircraft.
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about preserving traditional
marriage--an institution which is under attack from so many directions
today.
This past week, as everyone by now undoubtedly knows, the Goodridge
decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court went into effect
in Massachusetts. This 4-to-3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme
Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and prohibits
the State from defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
According to reports, more than 1,000 same-sex couples have been
``married'' pursuant to the radical change handed down by the split
court.
We all know that it is the legislative branch, and not the judiciary,
that makes the laws--or at least should make the laws. But there are
some courts, such as the one in Massachusetts, that want to take away
the public policy role that the legislatures and people have always
had. Senator Talent of Missouri and I wrote an opinion editorial on
this issue that was published in Monday's Washington Times. I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Times, May 17, 2004]
The Bench vs. People; Can a Judge's Will Become a Law?
(By Orrin Hatch and Jim Talent)
In the debate over traditional marriage, the cultural
dominoes are falling in the wrong direction. Activist judges,
who specialize in taking issues away from the people and
deciding those issues instead, intend to make traditional
marriage a thing of the past. Their decisions, like the one
that will allow Massachusetts clerks to begin issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples this week, and the
aggressive political and legal strategy driving them, make
clear that protecting traditional marriage will require
amending the Constitution.
America's founders believed, as James Madison put it, that
the legislative branch ``necessarily predominates'' in a
representative democracy. We all learned in civics class that
the legislative branch makes the law, which means the
judicial branch doesn't. Most state constitutions go beyond
separating the branches, and two-thirds explicitly prohibit
judges from legislating. With only the power to interpret the
law, the judiciary is supposed to be, in Alexander Hamilton's
words, the ``least dangerous'' branch.
Times have changed. Judges have become the most dangerous
branch by following former Chief Justice Evans Hughes' view
that the law is ``whatever the judges say it is.'' Judges
cannot change the literal words of the Constitution or a
statute, so they make law by changing the meaning of those
words. The obvious danger is that if the law means whatever
the judges say it means, judges control the law, run the
country and define the culture.
Since before the founding of the republic, legislatures
enshrined the traditional view that marriage is a union of a
man and a woman. Only in the last decade have judges
attempted to substitute their own views, effectively amending
state constitutions by judicial fiat and imposing new
marriage policies. Neither the people nor their
legislatures chose any such thing.
In addition to judges acting like legislatures, some rogue
public officials are acting like judges. Although California
law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, for
example, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom simply declared it
unconstitutional, and same-sex couples from at least 46
states have obtained a marriage license there. Similarly,
same-sex residents of more than 30 states have obtained
marriage licenses in Multnomah County, Ore. Litigation is
inevitable as they challenge their home states to recognize
these same-sex unions.
[[Page S6071]]
This crisis requires a constitutional solution for at least
three reasons. First, amending the Constitution is the only
way of reining in the activist judges who will otherwise
undermine traditional marriage. Neither judicial self-
restraint nor the separation of judicial from legislative
power is enough. Nor, it appears, are explicit bans on
legislation by judges in state charters. The Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court's decision that same-sex couples may
wed, which goes into effect this week, is a legislative act
openly defying the Massachusetts Constitution's edict that
judges ``shall never exercise the legislative'' power.
Second, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will no
longer effectively protect traditional marriage. While the
Constitution requires that states give each other's judicial
proceedings ``full faith and credit,'' it also lets Congress
make exceptions. Supported by 79 percent of House members, 85
percent of senators and signed by Bill Clinton, DOMA
guarantees that one state need not recognize another's non-
traditional union. Even so, federal and state court decisions
since DOMA have made legal analysts, enthusiastically or
grudgingly, concur that DOMA itself likely will not survive a
court challenge before activist judges.
Third, amending the Constitution of the United States is
the only way for the people of the United States to take this
issue back. ``We the people'' established the Constitution,
and only we can rightfully amend it by the single process
outlined in the charter, a process that excludes the judicial
branch. No amendment on any subject becomes part of the
Constitution unless supported by two-thirds of Congress and
three-fourths of the states. Amendments by judges, by
contrast, defy the people and lack their consent.
The first right of the people is to govern themselves.
Activist judges take away that right, sapping democracy's
legitimacy and vitality. When courts deny the people the
right to decide cultural issues for themselves, they
undermine both the freedom and the opportunity to form
consensus provided by self-government. Americans on both
sides of the marriage debate deserve to have their voice
heard and the potential to make it effective. Such civic
participation in elections, through legislatures, or in
amending the Constitution, is an antidote to judicial
activism. Defending the people's right to govern themselves
generally and protecting traditional marriage specifically
require responding to this judicial activism by amending the
U.S. Constitution.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will not read it, but I will say that
people have the right to govern themselves. When a court forces a
radical decision on the people--well before the people have had the
opportunity to oppose the change--it dramatically undermines
democracy's vitality and legitimacy.
Some of the comments from the first same-sex couples to take
advantage of the Massachusetts court decision underscore what is wrong
with deviations from our culture of traditional marriage. According to
the Boston Herald, the first recipients of a Provincetown, MA, same-sex
marriage license said: ``the concept of forever is overrated.'' One
gentleman in this couple added that he, as a bisexual, and his partner,
who is gay, ``think it's possible to love more than one person and have
more than one partner. In our case, it is, so we have an open
marriage.'' I am sorry, but this simply is not a marriage. I simply do
not understand why these two men felt they needed to be declared to be
married by the State. There is not even a pretense of fidelity here.
The reason that maintaining traditional marriage is so important can
be summed up in one word, and that is ``children.'' Children are simply
better off with a mother and a father than with two mothers or two
fathers or any other alternative arrangement. Advocates for same-sex
marriage cite studies to the contrary, but, as Professor Steven Nock, a
leading marriage scholar at the University of Virginia, points out,
``not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted
standards of scientific research.'' Not a single one of those studies
was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific
research.
Marriage is not about adult desires for affirmation and benefits; it
is about the well-being of children. Two men being intimate are simply
not the same as a husband and a wife, and alternative family forms are
not just as good as traditional families. The fact is that fathers and
mothers both matter to children. The science confirms this, but common
sense tells us this as well.
Some advocates for same-sex marriage argue that traditional marriage
will continue the same as before. Unfortunately, this has not been the
experience of other countries. Some in Scandinavia, for example,
witnessed a dramatic drop in traditional marriages once same-sex
marriages were permitted or the equivalent thereof. The net effect was
to diminish the importance of marriage altogether, and that is what
will happen here if we do not maintain the traditional definition of
marriage between a man and a woman.
It has become clear that we need a constitutional solution to this
problem. There is simply no other means of reining in activist judges
who seek to impose their will and not their judgment. Some say the
Defense of Marriage Act is adequate enough, but based on decisions,
such as Lawrence v. Texas, this statute will undoubtedly be struck
down. People across the political spectrum, including such liberal
stalwarts as Professor Lawrence Tribe, agree that this is inevitable.
Without a constitutional amendment, we are headed for a resolution by
the U.S. Supreme Court. We should not and cannot wait for this to
happen. We simply must protect traditional marriage now by passing a
constitutional amendment.
Some suggest that it is not ``conservative'' to amend the
Constitution over such an issue. Baloney. Traditional marriage is
perhaps the most fundamental institution in our culture and history. It
dates back over 5,000 years. If the only way to protect this
institution is by amending the Constitution--and we know that to be the
case--then we have an obligation to do so.
What is worrisome to most constitutional scholars, including myself,
is that if this supreme court case of one State--a 4-to-3 decision;
hotly contested, not only by the court itself but in the State
legislature and among the people of Massachusetts themselves--if that
is allowed to stand, then will we, under article IV of the
Constitution, the original Constitution even before the Bill of Rights
was added to it, will we have to give in every other State full faith
and credit under the full faith and credit clause to whatever is called
marriage done within the State of Massachusetts? There are many
constitutional scholars who say we will have to. That does not mean
that Utah will have to have same-sex marriages done within our State or
any other State in the Union.
It does mean we will have to recognize as valid same-sex marriages
performed in Massachusetts. Now we have people coming from all over the
country to Massachusetts to be married so that under the full faith and
credit clause that marriage will have to be recognized in their
respective States. I cannot begin to tell you the difficulties legally
that will come from that type of an approach.
We simply need to resolve this problem. We need to resolve it in
accordance with the will of the vast majority of people in this
country. Cultural decisions such as this that have existed for over
5,000 years should not be thrown into the wastebasket by an activist
court in one very activist liberal State. Nor should an activist court
in an activist conservative State impose its will on us. We should, of
course, allow the elected representatives of the people to make this
decision.
If you don't do that, then you have nothing but another huge,
unnecessary, harmful to America culture battle, perhaps for decades. We
can name the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that have caused us to
be torn apart in America over a number of issues that, 5 to 4, 7 to 2,
the Supreme Court has culturally imposed upon everybody in America.
I don't believe in discrimination of any kind. But like a number of
my colleagues in this body, I draw the line when it comes to
traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is one of the most important
cultural concepts in any country's history but certainly our country's
history. This debate needs to occur. We need to think it through. We
need to have a constitutional amendment, and we need to support
whatever constitutional amendment we can get to resolve this matter.
Having said that, we need to be fair to those who have a different
point of view and to find some way of accommodation. Because it is a
disgrace that a gay partner cannot go into an intensive care unit to
care for or hold hands with or to be with his or her partner, just to
mention one. We have to think this through. One way of thinking it
through is to come to a conclusion that one liberal State's 4-to-3
decision by a
[[Page S6072]]
Supreme Court should not bind everybody in America to recognize
something that I believe will be absolutely catastrophically disruptive
to our culture.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say, while the Senator from Utah is
here, how much I appreciate his wise words on so many subjects that are
important to our country and to our culture and to American families.
He has spoken eloquently about the importance of persevering in Iraq,
the importance of traditional families as the bulwark of our culture
and in the best interest of children, and the importance of making sure
we keep the American military the dominant force in the world by making
sure we transform in particular our Air Force by the implementation of
the F-22 Raptor which, not coincidentally, is built in part in the
State of Texas which is important both for our national security and in
terms of the jobs it creates in my State.
I say to the Senator how much I appreciate him and his wisdom and his
great leadership on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I thank my
colleague for his kind remarks. My colleague from Texas served on the
Texas Supreme Court. He understands these issues very well, serving in
a tremendous fashion on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I feel so
blessed as chairman to have him and the other freshmen Senators on that
committee, each one of whom is playing a significant role in this body
and on that committee. I thank my colleague.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator for those kind comments.
____________________