Press Stakeout Re: The Federal Marriage Amendment and other Issues
HEADLINE: PRESS STAKEOUT WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST (R-TN); AND SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA); AND SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA); AND SENATOR GORDON SMITH (R-OR) RE: THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND OTHER ISSUES
LOCATION: THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
SEN. SANTORUM: I think the chairman has to get back to the floor. So if you don't mind, we'll hold that off --
SEN. FRIST: Let's do that, then we'll come back-we'll come back to the marriage amendment after that.
Mr. Chairman.
SEN. WARNER: We're making very good progress on the floor on this bill with full expectations to vote final passage tomorrow. We may go well into the night on a series of amendments. Senator Daschle is on the floor at the moment with his amendment. And we anticipate at least three or four more significant amendments during the course of today, hoping to finish all debate today with final passage tomorrow.
Any questions? Other than that, I'm going right back.
Q Senator, can you update us on any talks you've had on -- (off mike)?
SEN. WARNER: Yes, we're working through Senator Lugar's amendment, which is a very important amendment that he wishes on-all likelihood it'll be incorporated.
Q Senator, any comment on the beheading of the South Korean today and the status of security as --
SEN. WARNER: I've got to tell you, I've been on the floor throughout the entire day, and I'm not able to give you any informed judgment.
Thank you very much.
Q If Democrats would expedite the -- (inaudible) -- agreement to finish the bill, would that expedite action on the Daschle amendment?
SEN. WARNER: The Democrats are working cooperatively. In no way do I suggest that they're not. So we just had a conference between the four leaders.
I was a part of it just now. And we fully understand the steps each have got to take to make certain that a vote takes place tomorrow.
Thank you.
SEN. SANTORUM: Thank you. Gordon, do you want to just --
SEN. SMITH: Go ahead, Senator.
SEN. SANTORUM: Okay. As the leader announced, we are going to be moving to a constitutional amendment, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage as it has been defined in every culture for the last 6,000 years, as a union between a man and a woman.
We believe it's important because of what we see going on across the country in state courts and potentially federal courts to redefine marriage through judicial fiat, using the Constitution as the instrument by which to redefine it. We believe, those of us who are proponents of this amendment, that the Constitution should be amended the way the Constitution provides for amendment, and that is with the Congress passing a constitutional amendment and by the legislatures then ratifying that, not by judges redefining and creating constitutional amendments out of whole cloth, which is what's going on; which went on in the state of Massachusetts and is going on in state courts around the country. The only way to stop that redefinition and amendment of the Constitution and creating new rights under the Constitution is by, in fact, implementing a constitutional amendment.
With that, I'll turn it over-and by the-we are going to bring that constitutional amendment up the week of July 13th. We will move to proceed to the constitutional amendment. We're hopeful that we will get consent to move to proceed. If we are not successful in consent, then we will file cloture immediately on the motion to proceed and have a vote subsequent to that. Of course, we'll need 60 votes to accomplish that.
Gordon? Hold on. And then we'll take questions.
BREAK IN TEXT
SEN. SANTORUM: I would just say that like Senator Smith, I'm sure I speak for all senators in saying that, number one, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of this man who was a victim of this brutality. I think also our thoughts and prayers go out to all the South Korean people. I know this is a very traumatic thing to happen to this country, a country that has been through a lot of trauma over the past decades. And I think they understand very well the face of evil; they face it every day to their north. And they understand the cost of freedom and the cost of democracy.
And I am very, very grateful to the South Korean people and to the government of South Korea standing by us in this coalition, standing by their commitment at this very, very difficult time. And I think that kind of resolute fight for freedom, for the principles of democracy, will eventually triumph.
Q There are concerns about the transition, as you know, and about more terror. Are you hopeful in your own mind that enough planning has been done that this thing, although risky, will come around okay?
SEN. SANTORUM: A transition is essential. We made a promise to the Iraqi people that we came to establish a sovereign democratic government where Iraqis would rule, the people would be in charge; and we set a date. I think any backing away from that date, candidly, for any reason would be a mistake, would show that we did not have the intentions that we articulated early on.
The fact is that the ministries are now under control of Iraqis; they're being run jointly with the Americans, but by and large are under the control of Iraqi citizens. We are spending enormous amount of times, and have been for months, training security and defense forces in Iraq to take over the responsibility of protecting and securing the people there.
We have been working to reconstruct that country. No, this operation has not been perfect. But I remind people that, if you go to post-war Germany and you think about-well, we didn't plan for this and we didn't plan for that, recall that post-war Germany resulted in a divided Germany, resulted in a(n) Iron Curtain, resulted in the start of another war.
So we point at criticism of some of the problems that we've had post-Iraq. You compare those with the monumental lack of planning, some would suggest, after World War II, and they pale in comparison. So we need to put this in a historical context. Winning the war is hard; winning the peace is just as hard. And I think we found that in Europe, and we're finding it difficult here. But I think we're having tremendous success that gets sort of brushed away by the events of the day. But if you look at where we're going over the-with the sweep of the last year we've made enormous progress, and the promise is very high, in my opinion.
Q Senator, back on the gay marriage issue, Tom DeLay has said the Senate shouldn't consider this amendment until you're sure you have the votes to pass it. Why bring it up now?
SEN. SANTORUM: It's the traditional marriage issue. What we're trying to do-we're not banning any kind of marriage. We're establishing the law as it has been for 200 years. So I-I understand you like to put it in those terms, where this-this is to establish an ideal, not to discriminate against anyone.
Q But my question is about timing.
SEN. SANTORUM: And-I understand that, but I just wanted to make that point.
Q Fair enough.
SEN. SANTORUM: Secondly, as far as timing is concerned, to me-and I'd like Senator Smith to comment on this, too-it's important for us to speak into this issue while it is still a justiciable issue in the courts. The courts are moving. And if Congress does not move, we will find ourselves in the position where we will be reacting to a final judgment of a court that basically establishes a new right across this country. And at that point, arguably it's too late. And that is not --
You know, we have a-we have a role to play. When we see-when you see the wave coming in to the ocean, you don't-you know, this big tidal wave coming on the beach, you don't stand there and wait for the wave to break over you; you do something about it. And that's what we're trying-we have not initiated this amendment. The people who have filed the cases, who tried to create a new definition of marriage, are the folks who brought this issue to the Congress. We have not pulled this out of thin air. We are responding to actions by people who want to change the definition by extraconstitutional process, which we think is imprudent.
Q Well, Senator --
BREAK IN TEXT
SEN. SANTORUM: I think that answers the question pretty well.
Q Could you give us an answer?
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, I think Gordon's right. The fact is that, you know, for the last three months or four months it's been one bad- news story on the front page of most of your papers after another one, and very few good-news stories.
You know, I happen to believe that when you're reporting on a country where when you walk into that country after the war is over and everything is a shambles because you've just survived a war, that good news is news. Well, you folks have applied the standard of American news to Iraq, which is the only news is bad news. Well, I just disagree with that.
When you're actually building schools and putting transmission lines and setting up, you know, highways and electric grids; when you get oil pumped and oil production up, that's good news. And I don't see that anywhere on the front page of any paper. When you have 33 ministers operating governments right-different levers of government and ministries in Iraq prior to the transition, that's good news.
When you have a constitution that establishes individual religious rights, that's good news. And again, you don't hear any of that. The public isn't hearing any of that because all we report is the bad news, whether it's a agenda or whether it's just lazy journalism for doing what you've been doing for how many years reporting the news of the United States. It's simply not presenting an accurate picture of what's going on in Iraq. And as a result of that, of course, the president and those who are responsible for this mission are going to suffer because of the information flow that's coming from that area of the world. I'm surprised it's not worse.
Q Senator, one more question on the marriage amendment. Earlier today Senator Daschle said that something as important as a marriage amendment-an amendment to the Constitution, whether it's marriage or whatever-that it should go through the regular order; as in, it should go through the subcommittees and the committee process before it goes to the floor, and he was expressing concern that it was circumventing that process. Could you comment on that?
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, I'd make a couple comments. First off, there have been at least three subcommittee hearings on this issue and a full-committee hearing-today or tomorrow? I think it's today or tomorrow. Governor Romney's coming in.
SEN. : (Off mike.)
SEN. SANTORUM: He was in today. He was in today. And so we've had plenty of hearings in the Judiciary Committee.
As you know, the Judiciary Committee is a rather contentious place to get anything done and takes quite a bit of time to do it, so our feeling was that this was an important enough issue that we needed to bring this to the floor under Rule 14, which Senator Daschle did with great frequency when he was leader, and have the opportunity for this full and fair debate on a major issue like this.
This is not an issue like an energy bill or a farm bill, which he moved out of committee without debate, which is a complex issue with a variety of different moving parts; this is a two-sentence amendment. Marking it up in committee is a formality. This is a very simple, straightforward piece of legislation that can very easily move to the floor without having committee consideration, and we believe that's the most appropriate way to deal with it.
Q Senator Daschle earlier today also spoke of the Patients' Bill of Rights, that the Supreme Court decision means that now is the time to bring that issue back up to the Senate floor. I wonder if either of you have any thoughts on that.
SEN. SMITH: Well, I think, clearly, the Supreme Court ruling makes it a federal issue, and no doubt that it will be brought up in the fullness of time, and we will determine what rights are appropriate to a patient's bill of rights. We've done that several times. I voted for one version-several versions of it. I think Rick probably voted for several versions of it as well. And ultimately that's the debate that's coming back.
SEN. SANTORUM: I would just say that while that's an important debate-and as Senator Smith mentioned, I voted for several versions of it-the version that they are putting forward is a version that increases cost and reduces access and will increase the number of uninsured.
If there's anything I've heard from employers and employees alike, we need to reduce costs, not increase costs; we need to increase access, not decrease access; and we need to bring in more people from the ranks of the uninsured. That bill that they are pushing for, that Senator Kerry's pushing for, will do just the opposite. It's the wrong medicine for this time. What we've been focused on with Senator Gregg and others is how we're going to expand the number of insured, we're going to reduce the cost of health care, and make us more competitive and, candidly, increase the quality of life of our citizens. And the patients' bill of rights right now I think, in their version, is the wrong medicine.
Got to wrap. Thanks.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you, gentlemen.
SEN. SANTORUM: Thank you.