Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the assistant Democratic leader. Since last week, we have been in discussion, and we are working closely with Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman, and others in terms of an appropriate arrangement to proceed to homeland security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum as required under rule XXII be waived; provided further that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII this vote occur at 12 noon on Wednesday, July 14.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the course of Friday, through the weekend and through today, we have been discussing the process for consideration of the marriage amendment. We have had a good discussion, good debate in the Senate both Friday and today in talking about the substance of the underlying amendment. There has been frustration expressed on the other side of the aisle that we had not agreed to their unanimous consent agreement. This started discussions within the last week of a proposal that had been made to have debate and then a vote on the one amendment. I appreciate both sides of the aisle talking, trying to bring this to appropriate closure. As majority leader, as I told the assistant Democratic leader at the end of last week, I thought it was very important to consult the rest of my colleagues beginning Friday afternoon. We had the discussion Friday and into today. After consultation with my colleagues, I found there is great interest in offering one amendment which is literally a one-sentence amendment. The Democratic leader has made statements in the Senate and made mention that the overall process could take a long period of time. I disagree. I don't think this needs to be a long, arduous process. From this side of the aisle, we have offered an agreement that allows for two votes, one on the Allard amendment and then a one-sentence amendment. We are giving the other side of the aisle both of those amendments. This does not have to be a difficult process. It does not have to be as difficult as portrayed by the other side. We can be done with the whole process by 1 o'clock on Wednesday. That would be the plan. I don't think this is an inordinate amount of time to spend on such an important issue to the American people. I find a lot of the comments that have been made interesting because we have had our share of difficulties in moving as expeditiously on any piece of legislation recently, and now we have a proposed agreement by the other side of the aisle for a very quick vote. There seems to be, from their standpoint, this disbelief that we might have an amendment. There are many important issues to be considered by the Senate. I wish we did not have as much delay so we could schedule them in a timely way. This particular matter on marriage is a very important matter. We can handle this constitutional amendment in a very responsible, judicious, and civil way. That is certainly my intent. We have offered a unanimous consent agreement to do this. I am awaiting an answer from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 361 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there are five bills due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that the clerk read the titles for a second time en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 610, H.R. 1303.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 402, which was submitted earlier today by Senators Harkin and Cochran.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today the Senate has begun the formal debate on the constitutional amendment that does something very simple; that is, protect marriage. The question before us is fundamental: Should marriage remain the union between a husband and a wife? Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, and has been, until this point, one of the great settled questions of human history and culture. Yet our current legal system seems alarmingly out of step with this historical understanding of marriage. Over and against 5,000 years of recorded human experience and social development, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has thrown out the definition of marriage. Marriage is no longer to be understood as a covenant between a husband and wife in the interest of their future children but, rather, the consummation of romantic attraction between any two adults. And they, these judges, appointed lawyers to these positions, imposed this radical change over the strong objections of the people of Massachusetts, the Legislature of Massachusetts, and the Governor of Massachusetts. Indeed, a number of local governments in California and Oregon and New York followed the lead of the Massachusetts court, offering marriage licenses in violation of State laws, in violation of State constitutions. Same-sex couples from 46 States applied for marriage licenses in these jurisdictions. There are pending lawsuits to overturn marriage laws in 11 other States. It has become clear that the issue is a national issue, and it requires a national solution, and thus this debate on the floor of the Senate. Last year's Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, combined with the Court's views of the constitutional clauses on full faith and credit, equal protection, and due process, have convinced legal scholars of all political persuasions that the existing Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down. Harvard law school professor Laurence Tribe said: You'd have to be tone deaf not to get the message from Lawrence that anything that invites people to give same-sex couples less than full respect is constitutionally suspect. Yale law professor William Eskridge agreed that the Lawrence decision will add to the momentum for recognition of same-sex marriage. The Harvard Law Review, last month, weighed in with its opinion: ``The time is ripe for a constitutional challenge to DOMA'' because the 1996 act ``violates equal protection principles.'' The truth is, the Constitution is about to be amended. The only question is whether it will be amended by the U.S. Congress, as the representative of the people, or by judicial fiat. Will activist judges amend the Constitution? Will they undo marriage as the union of a man and a woman? Or will the people amend the Constitution to preserve marriage? I say the people should have a voice. On such a fundamental question, the only sure option is a constitutional amendment. Some have argued marriage is already a weakened institution in America and expanding marriage to same-sex couples will strengthen it. It is true that marriage in this Nation today is not as strong as it should be. But I question whether changing the definition of marriage will help us strengthen the institution. We can look at what has happened in other countries. Scholar Stanley Kurtz has found that 10 years of de facto same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has further weakened marriage. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are today born to unmarried parents. In the Netherlands, which adopted de facto same-sex marriage in 1997, the proportion of children born outside of marriage has tripled. This isn't surprising. When the laws of a nation teach the next generation that marriage no longer has anything important to do with bringing mothers and fathers together for their children's sake, how can we expect otherwise? Rather than making marriage stronger, it has made marriage optional for childbearing. And we know from social science and from common sense that children do best in stable two-parent households. Conversely, children in broken and unstable homes suffer. They are more prone to delinquency, more prone to poorer grades, high-risk behaviors, a whole raft of negative social outcomes. Children need moms and dads. Marriage recognizes and addresses that need. Yes, marriage is about love. But it is also crucially about pointing men and women to the kind of loving union that binds them together and to their children. Far from strengthening the family, separating marriage from childbearing and child rearing undermines the family and distorts what we teach our children about the meaning of adult commitment, responsibility, mutual loyalty. As Governor Mitt Romney recently testified, the pressures to change have already begun. The Massachusetts Department of Health has begun to insist that even birth certificates must change. The lines for mother and father are being replaced by parent A and parent B. One wonders if parent A and parent B are even expected to be more than casually acquainted. So we can see that the implications of radically redefining marriage are far reaching. They are dramatic. They are not private. They are not measured. As we proceed to debate this serious and intense issue, I urge all sides to accord one another respect. Let us agree at least on this one point, that the Harvard Law Review is wrong and irresponsible when it says that Americans who want to protect marriage are motivated by animus or bigotry. And Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign is wrong when she described marriage amendment proponents as ``hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals.'' Such allegations are neither fair nor true about the vast majority of decent, law-abiding Americans. Nor do they help us understand the issues before us. Americans of all races, creeds, and parties are coming together to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife. We do so with respect for those Americans who disagree. The debate over something as basic and fundamental as marriage may be passionate and intense, but it need not be ugly and divisive. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter. We do not consider this action lightly. It is a serious matter that has to be addressed with the utmost respect, time for debate, consideration, and deliberation. That is what we will see play out on the floor of the Senate over the course of today and Monday and Tuesday. Too many important decisions have been made by unelected judges. Far from settling issues, such sweeping decisions have only fueled the controversy. The American people have a right to settle this question of what marriage will be in the United States. That can only be done through the mechanism our Founding Fathers gave us for settling questions of great national import. And that is the constitutional process. It is not autocratic but supremely democratic, consistent with the great principles of federalism. The Constitution can only be amended if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress agree and three-quarters of the States, and it will only happen if the great majority of the American people across this land agree. That is the democratic process. Marriage is an issue that rightly belongs in the hands of the American people. If the people do not speak, then the courts become our masters by default. Marriage and family are the bedrock of society. Before we embark on a vast untested social experiment for which children will bear the ultimate consequences, we need a thorough public debate. It is my hope that our debate in this body will add to the larger marriage debate already underway. Marriage is worth the time, energy, and attention of this Senate and of all the American people. The model of the family bound by marriage to fulfill its attendant responsibilities, indeed, is a worthy ideal. The matter before us is critical. The debate before us is essential. Let's hold it with civility and respect. Let the debate be spirited, let it be substantive, and let it be held now in this body, the Senate, for this and future generations of Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. We will not be voting on Monday. We will have no rollcall votes in Monday's session.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, we are talking about the issue surrounding marriage and the constitutional amendment and procedurally how best to address the issue. We have had debate and discussion over the course of the day. Because of the late hour, I was not able to talk to the managers on our side and have the same discussions as the other side has had as far as the best way to address the issue procedurally. Because of the late hour, I have not been able to reach our managers of the bill, but over the course of the weekend we will do that. For the benefit of our colleagues, we will substantively be debating the issue Monday and Tuesday. In all likelihood, we will have a vote on Wednesday through one of the two modes that have been mentioned, but we will make a final decision Monday morning after we have had the opportunity to talk to the managers on our side as well.

Mr. FRIST. Let me go ahead and do the unanimous consent, and then I will make another statement that is unrelated.

Mr. FRIST. It is.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 620, S.J. Res. 40. I ask unanimous consent that the motion be set aside to recur on Monday, July 12.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to very briefly, before bringing us formally an end to this week, address an issue that sits on the back burner all too often. It is an issue that affects mankind globally in a very direct way, in a moral sense. It is the HIV/AIDS virus. I speak today because on Tuesday of this week, UNAIDS released a comprehensive report on the spread of global HIV/AIDS. This little, tiny virus, which people knew nothing about 23 years ago, has killed over 23 million people. The sobering statistics that were released this week are grim. Last year, the number of newly infected victims reached an all-time high of 5 million. The number of people living with this little virus has gone up in nearly every region of the world. The numbers have increased. The UNAIDS chief told the Associated Press: The virus is running faster than all of us. Every 14 seconds a child is orphaned by AIDS. According to the U.N. report: An estimated 15 million children under the age of 18 worldwide have lost one or both parents to AIDS. In Swaziland and in Botswana, over a third of the population, one in three people, has the HIV virus. One-third of the country, if not treated, will end up dying from a terrible, a painful, and an entirely preventable disease. One out of three people in Swaziland and Botswana, these are staggering numbers. It is hard to comprehend. When you hear the statistics, it is hard to relate them to real people on the ground. I have had the opportunity to do just that because each year I travel, not as a Senator but as a physician, to Africa. While I am there, I see the devastation in real people's eyes and lives, the destruction of the family, the destruction of the most productive fabric of society--dying, disappearing because of this little virus. Every time I go to Africa--last year I was there in September--I am overwhelmed by the devastation this little vicious virus causes. To me, and I know to the distinguished Senator occupying the chair now, who also has spent his life studying disease and viruses and the like, it is remarkable because in 1983 we didn't know this thing existed. It probably didn't really exist as we know it today in the United States of America in 1983, when both I and probably the distinguished Senator in the chair were not that old. I was in my training at the time. To think that little virus is devastating the world in the way it has over a 21-year period is just unbelievable to me. If you walk through a village in Africa, or parts of Africa, it becomes apparent what this virus is doing. You see older people and you see little kids running around. What you do not see is people from about 19 years of age to 28 or 30 years of age, or 35, right through that age. That whole layer of the population has been wiped out by this virus. That segment is also usually the most productive, strongest part of a society and it is just wiped out. The young boys and girls you see running around, if you project that out, are left to fend for themselves. They might live with their grandparents or great-grandparents, but they generally don't have the sort of mentors which that age would otherwise be provided. Mature beyond their years, these little kids watch hopelessly as their parents die, as their uncles die, as their aunts die. When I say 35 percent of the population has HIV/AIDS, that is what it means when you are on the ground. That is depressing. That is the depressing part. Despite that depressing picture, there is a lot of hope. If you look in countries such as Brazil and Thailand, there has been a real success in keeping those infection rates down. Uganda has achieved remarkable success. President Museveni, from Uganda, was here a few weeks ago. I had the opportunity to speak with him about their success. They have used some innovative programs. They have really pioneered programs we know are successful. The one we talk about the most and has become a model for much of the global effort is the ABC program, a program of A, abstinence; B, be faithful to your partner; and C, condom use if the A and B are ineffective. So the strategy of ABC was pioneered in Uganda. It took Presidential leadership there. President Museveni was the President who, in every speech, talked about HIV/AIDS, which really wasn't popular when he started, about 15 years ago, to do so. The strategy incorporates both reducing the risk through the use of condoms with a strategy of risk avoidance through the message of limiting sexual partners. It is totally preventable. The disease itself, this little virus and the contagiousness of the virus is totally preventable. The comprehensive strategy is working. Uganda's HIV/AIDS infection rate has steadily declined. In 2001, the infection rate for 18- to 49- year-olds was 5 percent. In Kampala, which is a major urban center in Uganda, where HIV/AIDS once raged, aggressive intervention lowered it from 29 percent down to 8 percent. I had the opportunity to operate at a wonderful hospital in Kampala about 2 years ago, 3 years ago. So to see that remarkable progress, cutting the infection rate from 30 down to 8 percent, has been remarkable. The world community must respond. The world community is responding. The United States of America has stepped up to lead the battle. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed a global HIV/AIDS bill which projects out $15 billion over 5 years for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. At the end of the program's first year, over 200,000 people will be on treatment with 1.1 million people receiving care. In the past few months, the U.S. has released $865 million in HIV/AIDS funding to the 15 nations receiving those emergency funds. This year, America will provide $2.4 billion to combat that HIV/AIDS virus, as well as tuberculosis and malaria, two other infectious diseases that cause about between 1 and 2 and 3 million deaths in addition, each year, respectively. Ultimately, America's efforts will prevent 7 million new infections. It will provide antiretroviral drugs for 2 million HIV-infected people. It will provide care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals with AIDS and AIDS orphans. This will bring hope to millions of people around the world. It is a lofty goal of a great and compassionate nation. I have taken the opportunity to mention this today, on Friday, because much of that is from the report of last Tuesday. Next week there will be some very significant meetings. Over 15,000 scientists and AIDS activists and advocates will gather in Thailand, in Bangkok, for the International AIDS Conference. They will look at prevention efforts. They will look at treatment efforts. They will look at real-life experience. They will look at what works and what does not work, so we can better address this global epidemic. Americans can be proud of our commitment and compassion. The United States of America is the most generous nation in the world today in fighting HIV/AIDS and providing substantial resources for that prevention, care, and treatment for those infected with the virus. We will spend about $2.4 billion on global AIDS this year and an estimated $2.8 billion next year. We have already provided over $1.1 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. That is approximately one-third of all the commitments to the fund. Our country, the United States of America, has provided about one-third of all the commitments to the fund and the rest of the world makes up the other two-thirds. We can't do it alone. It is going to take participation of the recipient countries. They must do their part to promote effective prevention and treatment strategies. It takes demonstrated national leadership such as the leadership of President Museveni in Uganda. Our friends and our allies must continue to provide firm financial and moral support. Nations are contributing. We want to encourage them to contribute more, and that is reflected in the statistics from last week. But demand continues to outstrip or grow faster than supply. Other wealthy nations must increase their contributions. We cannot rely on the Global Fund alone to combat global HIV/AIDS. It takes sustained, focused efforts on the part of individual countries, rich and poor, to lift the shadow of HIV/AIDS. Our Congress, this body, and the President of the United States have shown tremendous leadership in the battle against HIV/AIDS. It is my hope this week's U.N. report and next week's conference will not just be occasions for more talk but will be catalysts for greater action on the part of the world's leaders. History is going to judge whether the global community stood by and permitted one of the greatest destructions of human life in recorded history or stepped in and performed one of its most heroic rescues. America has chosen the latter. Let us hope the world will, too.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me remind my Senators one more time that on Monday, Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to speak on the constitutional amendment on marriage. I will be discussing with the Democratic leader a process for debate and consideration of that joint resolution. Given the amount of debate, I do not foresee a vote on Monday. Thus, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments, I am going to be making another statement before closing, but before doing that, I want to point out to our colleagues that over the course of today, there have been a number of meetings held between both sides of the aisle and leadership to keep moving along issues that are important to this body and to the American people. One of the bills that the assistant Democratic leader and myself and the Democratic leader and our leadership addressed earlier this morning is the jobs in manufacturing bill, the FSC/ETI bill, and the efforts that we are making to move toward conference. This bill has passed the Senate, it has passed the House of Representatives, and now we are doing our best to address how to get to conference. This is a time-sensitive matter because the tariffs on U.S. products are increasing. Since we passed the Senate bill and the House bill, these tariffs, which started at 5 percent in March and reached 9 percent on July 1, continue to increase at 1 percent a month. We spent 14 days debating the bill. We had 100 amendments, made real progress, and now it is important that we go to conference to fully address and resolve the differences between the House and the Senate bills. For the benefit of all of our colleagues, I wanted to let them know that we are in constant discussion about how best to get to conference.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m. on Monday, July 12. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 40; provided further that the time until 6 p.m. be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Friday, July 9. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business with the first 4 hours equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period for morning business throughout the day. There will be no rollcall votes during tomorrow's session, but Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to speak on the constitutional amendment regarding marriage, which we hope to consider next week. A few moments ago we failed to invoke cloture on a very important bill, the class action bill, that we have spent the majority of this week debating. As I said at the outset, I had hoped we would be able to address this important bill, consider all relevant amendments, with no time limit on those relevant amendments, so we could pass a bill that is very important to the American people, to the economy, and to the concepts of equity and fairness. We were unsuccessful, in spite of our very best attempt to consider all relevant amendments and take up a bill that 62 people in this body support. The problem was that Members from both sides of the aisle insisted on offering or wanting to offer and debate very complicated but, most importantly, unrelated amendments at this time. We set up a procedural process by which we could consider individual relevant amendments, but a decision was made, and it played out in the cloture vote today, that we would not proceed on this important bill at this juncture because some people thought we would need to include a lot of nongermane amendments. There were a lot of nonrelevant amendments that appeared. I am very hopeful, because I am a strong supporter of this bill as written, that we can come to some agreement given the fact there are a majority of people in this Senate who believe in this bill strongly, that we can come to some agreement in terms of time to consider this bill with relevant amendments debated so that we can serve the American people. That seems not to be now. Discussions hopefully will continue. If we cannot do it in a reasonably short period of time and stay on relevant amendments, we just simply are not going to be able to do it in this session. We have somewhere around 30 legislative days remaining and we have a range of issues, some that were brought up on the floor today, issues such as homeland security and issues concerning the institution of marriage. We have the Australia trade bill that hopefully we can consider very quickly in the near future. We have 13 appropriations bills, spending bills, that we must consider. There are 12 we need to consider in some way in the next several weeks. Then there are a number of judges who we must continue to move on. We have all of that in a period of about 30 days. It means that as majority leader I need to insist on reasonable, disciplined, and regular order in the sense that when we go to a bill, we debate that bill, those issues, consider amendments that are relevant to that bill and not consider the broad range of issues that we naturally have as Senators. We have to have an orderly process. The orderly process led today, because of the insistence on these nongermane, nonrelevant amendments, to a point that we are not going to be able to consider class action reform now. So I think what we will see predominately tomorrow is debate on a very important issue to the American people and to the values of the United States of America, and that is the issue of marriage. We will likely see debate on that tomorrow, and that debate will continue on the constitutional amendment Monday and Tuesday. I would think somewhere during the middle of next week, probably Wednesday, we will have a vote, the nature of which I will be talking to the Democratic leader over the course of tomorrow morning. So we had a good debate this week. I am very disappointed in the fact that the other side of the aisle--for the most part it was the other side of the aisle--insisted on having other amendments. I am disappointed we were unable to fully address class action reform. Hopefully, we can come back to it at some point in the future.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask for their second reading and, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding on these matters en bloc.