[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10783-10787]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 10784]]

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.
  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?

[[Page 10785]]

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.
  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

[[Page 10786]]

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.
       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

[[Page 10787]]

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 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.

                          ____________________