Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Kansas for his tremendous effort and work on this very important issue. I know he has held hours upon hours of committee hearings and meetings to investigate with social scientists the impact of marriage on American lives and how it impacts the family. I, for one, greatly appreciate the Senator's effort and support. He truly has been a partner in this effort to protect marriage. I appreciate his hard work. I recognize that in a public way. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article published by the Heritage Foundation, written by Mr. Ed Meese, titled ``Marriage Amendment Protects Federalism,'' and a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate Joint Resolution on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and a letter I have received from Mitt Romney, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in which he made a couple of statements that I will share with my colleagues. First, he states in this letter: Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage. It goes further to talk of his experiences as Governor for the State of Massachusetts. He says: . . . We are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state's social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: Same sex couples want the terms ``Mother'' and ``Father'' replaced with ``Parent A'' and ``Parent B.'' If the Senate will allow me to put this in context, I think the significance of his message is that marriage is being minimalized. When we minimize marriage, we minimize its significance to society. As a result of that, our children will suffer. I thank the President for his support. I also thank Governor Mitt Romney for his support. I ask unanimous consent these be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been a strong leader and who has put in a large amount of effort in trying to protect the institution of marriage.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to respond. First of all, the States are trying to handle the issue of marriage. The problem is that the courts are changing those actions. Even worse than that, we have citizens who initiated issues on marriage within the States, and now we have the courts overturning that when those issues have passed by 70 percent or more. I felt that needed to be clarified. I think the amendment is very clear, particularly the second sentence, when you know that refers to the courts and we are limiting the powers of the courts. We have not done anything to restrict the power of the legislature, except on the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman. This is an important issue, and I think we need to assure that the States will have a key role as far as handling issues related to marriage. That is what this amendment is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his hard work on this issue. He is a dedicated Senator and an honorable one. We appreciate him taking the time to address the Senate. Mr. President, I now ask that Senator Thune be recognized.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, yes, I would like the opportunity to speak. I would like to start off the debate, as far as Members are concerned, if I might. Senator Brownback will be coming in on a later flight. I will help manage the floor, if that is OK with the chairman, for those in favor until Senator Brownback arrives.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that our speaking sequence be alternated between those who speak in favor of the amendment and those who speak against the amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. No, I don't. We have already agreed to it. I don't want to amend that. I think we would plan to meet that.

Mr. ALLARD. I was going to say following those, we can alternate back and forth.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I rise today to start what I hope will be a constructive debate on my amendment, S.J. Res. 1, known as the marriage protection amendment. I think at this point in the debate it is important that we carefully review what is said in the amendment and what the intent of the amendment is. It reads: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. That is the first sentence. The second sentence says: 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. Now, what does that mean. Let's break it down. And that is what this chart does that I have before us. It says simply that we are going to have a uniting, uniform definition of marriage throughout the United States. And then the second sentence, it guarantees that the courts cannot force States or the Federal Government to grant any of the rights, benefits, or other incidents of marriage to any union other than that of a man and woman. Legislatures and the people will continue to have the power to grant whatever rights or benefits they choose through the democratic process. Definition of marriage: This first sentence prohibits courts and legislatures from changing the definition of marriage. The second sentence further prohibits the courts from creating civil unions or domestic partnerships or granting the right or benefits of marriage. But it doesn't interfere with private contracts between a business or a private entity of some type. The legislatures can do the following things. They can create civil unions or domestic partnerships. They can grant the rights and benefits of marriage--the second sentence of this amendment--and again it doesn't affect employment benefits offered by private businesses. What we are trying to protect is the State legislatures from having their legislation and the people's legislation within their State overturned by an unelected branch of Government, the courts. Before making my formal comments and going any further, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment. It has taken countless hours of study and discussion to get to this point, and each of our 31 cosponsors has shown courage and commitment to protecting marriage. I would also like to express my appreciation to the majority leader for his commitment and leadership. Without the support of the Senate leadership, the public may never have had an opportunity to address this vitally important issue in a democratic body. I would also like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who has ably reported it out of the committee to the floor for debate. Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. The definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology, and ethnicity. Marriage is embraced and intuitively understood to be what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. As an expression of this cultural value, the definition of marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of civil policy. It is the root from which families and communities are grown. Marriage is one bond on which all other bonds are built. Marriage is not some controversial ideology being forced upon an unwilling population by the Government. It is, in fact, the opposite. Marriage is the ideal held by the people, and the Government has long reflected this. The broadly embraced union of a woman and a man is understood to be the ideal union from which people live and children best blossom and thrive. As we have heard in hours of testimony, in eight hearings, in numerous Senate committees over the last several years, marriage is a pretty good thing. A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family. It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families. Today, there are numerous efforts to redefine marriage to be something that it is not. Marriage is and it always has been a union between a man and a woman. I believe the Framers of the Constitution felt that this would never be an issue, and if they had, it would have been included in the U.S. Constitution. Like the vast majority of Americans, it would have never occurred to me that the definition of marriage or marriage itself would be the source of controversy. Not too long ago, it would have been wholly inconceivable that this definition, this institution of marriage would be challenged, redefined, or attacked. But here we are today because of it. Make no mistake about it, traditional marriage is under assault. I say assault because the move to redefine marriage has taken place not through the democratic process such as State legislatures and the Congress or ballot issues around the Nation; this assault has taken place in our courts and often in direct conflict with the will of the people, State statutes, Federal statutes, and even State constitutions. Activists and lawyers have devised a strategy to use the courts to redefine marriage. This strategy is a clear effort to override public opinion and the longstanding composition of traditional marriage and to force same-sex marriage on society. Over the course of the last 15 years, traditional marriage laws have been challenged in courts across the Nation. Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia have all seen traditional marriage challenged in court. As we speak, nine States face lawsuits challenging traditional marriage laws--California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Marriage is under attack all across the country. If it hasn't already, an attack on marriage is coming to a State near you. The first success in the activists' coordinated legal strategy was in Vermont in 1999. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that all the rights and benefits of civil marriage must be extended to same sex couples. Under threat of court-imposed same sex marriage, the Vermont legislature created same-sex ``civil unions.'' The second, and to date the most widely covered success in the effort to destroy traditional marriage, came more recently in the state of Massachusetts where four judges ruled in the Goodridge case that marriage itself must be redefined to include same-sex couples, and that traditional marriage laws were a ``stain'' on the State constitution that must be ``eradicated.'' This edict came despite the fact that the populace of Massachusetts opposed this redefinition of marriage and despite the fact that no law had ever been democratically passed to authorize such a radical shift in public policy. Proponents of same-sex marriage have shopped carefully for the right venues, exploited the legal system, and today stand ready to overturn any and all democratically crafted Federal or State statute that would stand between them and a new definition of humanity's oldest institution. The question of process is very important in this debate--it is in fact the very heart of this debate. While recent court decisions handed down by activist judges may not respect the traditional definition of marriage, these decisions also highlight a lack of respect for the democratic process. No State legislature has passed legislation to redefine the Institution of marriage--not one. Any redefinition of marriage has been driven entirely by the body of government that remains unaccountable and unelected--the courts. Some of my colleagues do not feel we should be talking about marriage in the Senate. I say we must. Our Government is a three branch government. The Congress is the branch that represents the people most directly. We have a duty to, at the very least, discuss the state of marriage in America. If we do not take this up, we abdicate our responsibility. We will allow the courts sole dominion on the state and future of marriage. This Senate, the world's most deliberative body, must provide a democratic response to the courts. Legislatures across the country have joined the Congress in recent years in affirming a 1996 law called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA is a limited law designed to address two distinct issue: No. 1, forced interstate recognition, and No. 2, the definition of marriage for the purposes Federal law. This bipartisan legislation passed with the support of more than three-quarters of the House of Representatives and with the support of 85 Senators before being signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. To date, 45 States have also passed laws to protect traditional marriage, including 19 States that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Voters in seven States--Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin--will vote on constitutional amendments this year. Another five State legislatures--Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania--are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008, and ballot initiatives are currently underway in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois. These state DOMAs and constitutional amendments, combined with Federal DOMA, should have settled the question as to the democratic expression of the will of the American public. However, Federal and State DOMAs, as well as State constitutional amendments--all reflecting the will of the people--are being challenged in the courts. The Federal DOMA is itself under attack. Activists have challenged DOMA's interstate recognition provision in the Ninth Circuit. The second part of DOMA, the part defining marriage for Federal purposes, was also challenged in the Ninth Circuit, as well as in Federal cases pending in Oklahoma and Washington State. Plaintiffs in each case argue that the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses require the recognition of same-sex marriages, and that efforts to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law are unconstitutional. Because DOMA only clarifies that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause should not be read to require interstate recognition, DOMA will not prevent an activist judge from finding that the equal protection or due process clauses require it. In other words, DOMA does not prevent any court from recognizing out-of-State marriages; it merely removes one of several rationales that a court could use to do so. DOMA is not, nor was it designed to be, a comprehensive solution to judicial activism on same-sex marriage. Likewise, State constitutional amendments are under attack in Federal court. For example, in Nebraska, a Federal district court in 2005 found unconstitutional a State constitutional amendment passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters. While this cases is on appeal to the Eight Circuit--and we hope the decision will be correctly overturned--I find it chilling that the will of an entire State, expressed democratically, may be undone by a Federal judge in an unelected position and tenured for life. State constitutional amendments are also under attack in State court. Just last month, a Georgia judge found unconstitutional a State constitutional marriage amendment that was approved by 76 percent of the voters. Immediately after it was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters in 2004, activists launched an attack in the courts. The result--the amendment being thrown out on procedural grounds--is yet another success for the handful of activists seeking to suppress the will of the people through the courts. The national effort to redefine marriage has also been buoyed by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2003, the Court inferred that a right to same-sex marriage could be found in the U.S. Constitution in Lawrence v. Texas. A variety of experts, including Justice Scalia and Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, forecast that this decision points to the end of traditional marriage laws--including Federal and State DOMAs. The Massachusetts court relied heavily on the Lawrence decision to strike down that State's traditional marriage law in the Goodridge case. When Goodridge took effect in May of 2004, same-sex couples became entitled to Massachusetts marriage licenses. In anticipation of Goodridge, a handful of local officials in New York, California, and Oregon began issuing licenses to same sex couples in February and March. To date, through the combined efforts of lawless local officials and those licenses issued in Massachusetts, couples from at least 46 States have received licenses in those jurisdictions and returned to their home States. These 46-plus States are state and Federal DOMA challenges just waiting happen. More of these cases are expected and we will be left with an unworkable patchwork marriage laws, crafted by judges and forced on to on State from another, outside the democratic process, regardless of the will of the voters. As a result of this coordinated campaign to redefine marriage through the courts, we stand here today, compelled by respect for the democratic process, to publicly debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Again, this amendment simply 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. The first sentence is straightforward: it defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman--just as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world. The second sentence simply ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, can decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on people. Citizens remain free to act through their legislatures to bestow whatever benefits to same-sex couples that they choose. It is aimed squarely at the problem of judicial activism. Just as important as what it does do, is what it does not do. I have said it time and time again and I say here again today for the record-- the amendment does not seek to prohibit, in any way, the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not prohibit private employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. It denies no existing rights. What our amendment does is to define and protect traditional marriage at the highest level--the U.S. Constitution. Importantly, the consideration of this amendment in the Senate represents the discussion of marriage in America in a democratic body of elected official. I am not willing to surrender this issue to the courts. I also feel it is important to make clear that on the question of federalism and States' rights I stand where I always have. While an indisputable definition of marriage will be a part of our Constitution, all other questions will be left to the State. Gregory Coleman, former solicitor general of the State of Texas testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and made the following statement on this matter: Some have objected to a proposed constitutional amendment on federalism grounds. These concerns are misplaced. The relationship between the States and the Federal government is defined by the Constitution and a fortiori, a constitutional amendment cannot violate principles of federalism and State's rights. A Federal constitutional amendment is perhaps the most democratic of all processes--because it requires ratification by three-fourths of the States--and simply does not raise federalism concerns. The real danger of State's rights comes from the recognition of un-enumerated constitutional rights in which the States have had no participation. I share those sentiments and cannot express them any more clearly. We stand today at the threshold of the most democratic, most federalist process in all our Government. As designed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, the amendment process is neither an exclusive Federal nor an exclusively State action: It is a shared responsibility of both. Contrary to assertions of those who believe my amendment infringes on the rights of the States my amendment actually protects States' rights. Forty-five States have spoken with laws or constitutional amendments designed to protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, same-sex advocates have, through the courts, systematically and successfully trampled on laws democratically enacted in the States. My amendment takes the issue out of the hands of a handful of activist judges and puts it squarely back in the hands of the States. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility and send a constitutional amendment to the States. Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. This definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. It is not about politics or discrimination, it is about marriage and democracy. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage--not by democratically elected Members of Congress but by unaccountable and unelected judges. If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us. I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks. During several hearings we both participated in, we have heard about how a healthy marriage benefits children, how it benefits a community and the foundation of society. Don't you feel that if we don't preserve the definition of marriage, somehow or other we make marriage less relevant, and when you make it less relevant, then I think it is easier to have higher divorce rates and easier to have a dysfunctional family because the real importance of a family is lost.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I extend 2 more minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLARD. I would let the other side use some time if they feel they want to. If not, I will recognize the Senator from Louisiana and yield him 7 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I do. Following making my point of order, I would ask unanimous consent that the manager be recognized and then there be an opportunity for Senator Sessions to make a few remarks. I want to make a few remarks. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407(B) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to express in a public way my gratitude for Senator Sessions, the Senator from Alabama, for his efforts on behalf of many of us who have concerns about the immigration bill. I think we should recognize his yeoman work and the amount of time he spent studying all of the ramifications of this bill. All of us have begun to study this bill more and more over the past week, and we began to realize the long-term implications the immigration reform bill we have on the floor will have on America. I have grave concerns with the effects of this bill on the future of this country, not the least of which is its potential fiscal impact. Section 407 reads: It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning in 2016 through 2055. The Congressional Budget Office issued a May 16, 2006, cost estimate explicitly stating: Enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. The fiscal impact of this bill can be summed up in simply two words: budget buster. This is a budget buster. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would increase direct spending by $54 billion over the next 10 years. While it is estimated to increase only $13 billion over the first 5 years, during the course of the second 5 years, it is expected to skyrocket up another $41 billion as the amnesty provisions begin to kick in. Conveniently for the authors of the bill, CBO's cost estimate stops there. See, under the bill, illegal immigrants have a 6-year waiting period from enactment to establishing legal permanent resident status. Then after another 5 years, they can become citizens. Thus, in the 11th year, conveniently just out of reach of CBO's analysis, millions of people who entered this country illegally will be granted citizenship. Where the CBO leaves off, the Heritage Foundation picks up. They estimate that the additional cost to the Federal Government of providing benefits to the individuals granted amnesty under this bill is around $16 billion annually. On top of that, when an individual is granted citizenship, he is entitled to bring his spouse, minor children, and parents into the country. Once in the country, these individuals would become eligible to receive social services and government-funded medical care. Then after 5 years, they could become citizens, whereupon they could be eligible for supplemental security income and Medicaid at an average cost of $18,000 per person per year. Think about that. That is about the time when many of us are talking about a financial crisis around 2016 for Social Security and Medicare. Then on top of that, we are incurring this huge liability in this bill, if we happen to pass it in its current form. The Heritage Foundation study provides this example: If only 10 percent of the parents of those receiving amnesty under this bill became citizens and enrolled in the aforementioned Government programs, the extra costs to Government would be over $30 billion per year. Obviously, we cannot predict how many spouses, children, and parents of those granted amnesty will come into the country, but one thing is for certain. The pool is enormous and the potential long-term effects staggering. All this takes place against the existing backdrop of runaway Federal spending. Entitlement spending alone is on pace to exceed total Government revenues before the end of this century. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, we are grappling with how to pay for existing entitlement programs. The last thing we need to do is grow Federal spending by potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to provide benefits to millions of people who enter our country illegally. This stands in contravention to the rule of law and is unfair to the American taxpayer. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I believe it is my duty to bring to the attention of my colleagues, as well as the American people, the staggering impact this legislation will have on the fiscal health of this country. This issue has not been thoroughly considered in the Senate. I bring it to my colleagues' attention today in hopes that we will have the debate we need. It would be irresponsible of me not to mention a violation of personal duty to the American taxpayer, to stand idly by while my colleagues enact a bill that drives a dagger into the heart of this country's fiscal health. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Again, I thank the Senator from Alabama. When we think about it, the Congressional Budget Office figures are way off. I do think the Heritage Foundation has probably come about as close as any figures I have seen. Here is what concerns me and concerns those of us who believe we ought to have a balanced budget, those of us who believe we owe something to future generations of Americans: We have to be conscious of the cost of this type of legislation. It will have a huge impact. In fact, I am trying to think back in my career in the Congress to whether I have seen as expensive legislation. I don't believe I have. We are looking at astronomical figures. If we look at the Heritage Foundation figures, $30 billion each year--and I think those are conservative and that builds into the base, so you have $30 billion the next year on top of that, as I understand it. It is astounding. We need to back up a little bit and think on what we are doing to the cost of many of those programs. We need to think more carefully about the solutions we are proposing and have in this bill. I am real concerned about the costs. I am real concerned about escalating deficits, although I have to say I am pleased with the response to the President's efforts to stimulate the economy. By growing the economy, we bring down the deficits. They have been going down. They went down last year. They are going down this year. When we pass legislation like this, that is all for naught. That undoes everything the President has been doing to try to hold down deficit spending and what we have been doing in this Congress to hold down deficit spending. For those of us who believe that we need to balance our budget, we are going in the wrong direction. It is awfully easy to stand here on the floor and say, Look, I support a balanced budget, I support eliminating deficit spending. But then bills like this come up on the floor, and I think we forget about what we have been saying about how important it is to the future of this country to reduce and eliminate deficit spending and to bring our budget into balance. This is an important piece of legislation if for no other reason than the fiscal impact that carries with it. That is why I made my point of order, because I think that we need to step back and think about the results of this piece of legislation. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLARD. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, would 10 minutes be satisfactory to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, my good friend, Ben Nelson.