Windsor v. The United States Of America

Filing 30

AFFIDAVIT of Andrew J. Ehrlich in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Ehrlich, Andrew)

EXHIBIT 4

H7270

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

motion injuries and prohibits them
from even developing voluntary guidelines.
This extreme rider prohibits even, as
I say, voluntarily guidelines requested
by many concerned businesses and
would prohibit the collection of data
on the frequency of such injuries.
Mr. Speaker, repetitive stress injuries are the fastest growing health
problem in the American workplace.
This year 2.7 million workers will file
workers compensation claims for repetitive motion injuries costing Americans employers at least $20 billion.
Nonetheless, OSHA would be prohibited
from even answering questions about
how to prevent these injuries.
Adopting my reasonable amendment
would help businesses reduce their
workers compensation costs, reduce injuries to the American worker and increase U.S. productivity in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment on ergonomics.
BOB DOLE’S AMERICA
(Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, what
is Bob Dole thinking? What is his vision for America?
The answers to those questions are
slowly coming out.
First, we are told that America is a
place where cigarette smoking is not
addictive. He lectures all of America
and experts like C. Everett Koop on the
issue and says he opposes President
Clinton’s efforts to take cigarettes out
of the hands of our young people.
Now we are told that the Brady bill
was not a good idea and that he would
repeal the law’s reasonable 5-day waiting period. That should not be a big
surprise, because he led the fight
against the law as the Senate Republican leader. This comes at a time
when President Clinton is leading the
fight to end gun killing violence. He
announced a program this week to disarm America’s kids.
The visions of the two candidates is
clear and distinctly different. Bill Clinton sees America where our children
are healthier and safer. Bob Dole sees
an America where kids have a nonaddicting cigarette in one hand and a
pistol in the other. Lucky for us that
kids do not have three hands. What’s
next, Bob Dole?
WISCONSIN WELFARE REFORM
(Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I just
thought I would take 1 minute because
I do have a revelation here. When I was
a kid going to school, the Jesuits used
to say that not even God can square a
circle. There are some things that God
cannot do.
I got a really nice letter from the
President in Wisconsin in regard to the

Wisconsin reform plan. And the President said, and I quote, ‘‘I am pleased
that you have joined me in expressing
support for Wisconsin’s effort to reform
welfare.’’ But then he went on to say,
‘‘but we are currently reviewing the
State’s waiver request and we look forward to possibly, you know, getting it
done.’’ He says, getting it done.
And on one hand he is for the program and on the other hand he is
against the program. I cannot quite
figure this out. So I got news for the
Jesuits: God may not be able to square
a circle, but I think Bill Clinton can.
I want to be fair with the President.
Let us ask the President to give Wisconsin their waivers so we can move
forward with this Wisconsin reform
plan.
PERMISSION FOR SUNDRY COMMITTEES
AND
THEIR
SUBCOMMITTEES
TO
SIT
TODAY
DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the following
committees and their subcommittees
be permitted to sit today while the
House is meeting in the Committee of
the Whole House under the 5-minute
rule:
Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Banking and Financial Services,
Committee on Commerce, Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight,
Committee on International Relations,
Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on National Security, Committee
on Resources, and Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that
there is no objection to these requests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
FOLEY). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 3396, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 474 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. RES. 474
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3396) to define
and protect the institution of marriage. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration
of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule
and shall be considered as read. No amend-

July 11, 1996

ment shall be in order except those specified
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be considered only in the order
specified, may be offered only by a member
designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. All points of order against the
amendments specified in the report are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
LAHOOD). The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MCINNIS] is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY],
pending which I yield myself such time
as I might consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate
only.
(Mr. MCINNIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 474 is a straightforward resolution. The proposed rule is a modified closed rule providing for 1 hour of
general debate divided equally between
the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate the bill shall be
considered under the 5-minute rule and
shall be considered as read. The proposed rule provides for two amendments to be offered by the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK]. The first
amendment made in order under the
rule is an amendment to strike section
3 of H.R. 3396. This amendment is debatable for 75 minutes. The second
amendment made in order under the
rule is an amendment to suspend the
Federal definition of marriage under
certain circumstances.
The Committee on Rules recognized
that these two amendments go to the
core of the bill, and by making them in
order the committee ensures that full
consideration will be given to the important issues raised by this legislation.
Finally, the proposed rule provides
for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the
Committee on Rules reported House
Resolution 474 out by unanimous voice
vote.

July 11, 1996

H7271

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3396, the Defense of
Marriage Act, consists of two provisions which will protect the rights of
the various States and the Federal
Government to make their own policy
determinations as to whether same-sex
marriages should be recognized in their
respective jurisdictions. Section 2 of
the bill clarifies that no State need
give effect to a marriage recognized by

another State if the marriage involves
two persons of the same sex. It does
not prevent a State from giving effect
to such a marriage, nor does it prevent
a State from making its own determination for purposes of its State law.
Section 3 ensures that the traditional
meaning of marriage, the legal union
between one man and one woman as
husband and wife, will be the meaning
used in construing Federal laws.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding
that H.R. 3396 has considerable bipartisan support. In fact, President Clinton
will sign this bill in its current form. I
believe that H.R. 3396 advanced that interest. I urge my colleagues to support
the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the following
extraneous material for the RECORD:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,1 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
103d Congress

104th Congress

Rule type
Number of rules

Percent of total

Number of rules

Percent of total

Open/Modified-Open 2 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Structured/Modified Closed 3 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Closed 4 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

46
49
9

44
47
9

77
35
17

60
27
13

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

104

100

129

100

1 This

table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only waive points of
order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an open amendment process under House rules.
2 An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule subject only
to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record.
3 A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or
which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment.
4 A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
H. Res. No. (Date rept.)

Rule type

Bill No.

Subject

H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) ......................................
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) ......................................

O ......................................
MC ...................................

H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.

O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MO ...................................
O ......................................
MO ...................................
MO ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MO ...................................
MO ...................................
O ......................................
MO ...................................
MO ...................................
MO ...................................
MO ...................................
Debate .............................
MC ...................................
MO ...................................
MC ...................................
Debate .............................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MO ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MO ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................

H.R. 5 ..............................
H. Con. Res. 17 ...............
H.J. Res. 1 .......................
H.R. 101 ..........................
H.R. 400 ..........................
H.R. 440 ..........................
H.R. 2 ..............................
H.R. 665 ..........................
H.R. 666 ..........................
H.R. 667 ..........................
H.R. 668 ..........................
H.R. 728 ..........................
H.R. 7 ..............................
H.R. 831 ..........................
H.R. 830 ..........................
H.R. 889 ..........................
H.R. 450 ..........................
H.R. 1022 ........................
H.R. 926 ..........................
H.R. 925 ..........................
H.R. 1058 ........................
H.R. 988 ..........................
..........................................
H.R. 956 ..........................
..........................................
H.R. 1159 ........................
H.J. Res. 73 .....................
H.R. 4 ..............................
..........................................
H.R. 1271 ........................
H.R. 660 ..........................
H.R. 1215 ........................
H.R. 483 ..........................
H.R. 655 ..........................
H.R. 1361 ........................
H.R. 961 ..........................
H.R. 535 ..........................
H.R. 584 ..........................
H.R. 614 ..........................
H. Con. Res. 67 ...............
H.R. 1561 ........................
H.R. 1530 ........................
H.R. 1817 ........................
H.R. 1854 ........................
H.R. 1868 ........................
H.R. 1905 ........................
H.J. Res. 79 .....................
H.R. 1944 ........................
H.R. 1977 ........................
H.R. 1977 ........................
H.R. 1976 ........................
H.R. 2020 ........................
H.J. Res. 96 .....................
H.R. 2002 ........................
H.R. 70 ............................
H.R. 2076 ........................
H.R. 2099 ........................
S. 21 ................................
H.R. 2126 ........................
H.R. 1555 ........................
H.R. 2127 ........................
H.R. 1594 ........................
H.R. 1655 ........................
H.R. 1162 ........................
H.R. 1670 ........................
H.R. 1617 ........................
H.R. 2274 ........................
H.R. 927 ..........................
H.R. 743 ..........................
H.R. 1170 ........................
H.R. 1601 ........................

Unfunded Mandate Reform .................................................................................................
Social Security .....................................................................................................................
Balanced Budget Amdt .......................................................................................................
Land Transfer, Taos Pueblo Indians ...................................................................................
Land Exchange, Arctic Nat’l. Park and Preserve ................................................................
Land Conveyance, Butte County, Calif ...............................................................................
Line Item Veto .....................................................................................................................
Victim Restitution ................................................................................................................
Exclusionary Rule Reform ....................................................................................................
Violent Criminal Incarceration ............................................................................................
Criminal Alien Deportation ..................................................................................................
Law Enforcement Block Grants ...........................................................................................
National Security Revitalization ..........................................................................................
Health Insurance Deductibility ............................................................................................
Paperwork Reduction Act ....................................................................................................
Defense Supplemental .........................................................................................................
Regulatory Transition Act ....................................................................................................
Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................
Regulatory Reform and Relief Act ......................................................................................
Private Property Protection Act ...........................................................................................
Securities Litigation Reform ................................................................................................
Attorney Accountability Act .................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
Product Liability Reform ......................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
Making Emergency Supp. Approps ......................................................................................
Term Limits Const. Amdt ....................................................................................................
Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 ...................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
Family Privacy Protection Act ..............................................................................................
Older Persons Housing Act .................................................................................................
Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 ..................................................................
Medicare Select Expansion ..................................................................................................
Hydrogen Future Act of 1995 ..............................................................................................
Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 ................................................................................................
Clean Water Amendments ...................................................................................................
Fish Hatchery—Arkansas ....................................................................................................
Fish Hatchery—Iowa ...........................................................................................................
Fish Hatchery—Minnesota ..................................................................................................
Budget Resolution FY 1996 ................................................................................................
American Overseas Interests Act ........................................................................................
Nat. Defense Auth. FY 1996 ...............................................................................................
MilCon Appropriations FY 1996 ..........................................................................................
Leg. Branch Approps. FY 1996 ...........................................................................................
For. Ops. Approps. FY 1996 ................................................................................................
Energy & Water Approps. FY 1996 .....................................................................................
Flag Constitutional Amendment ..........................................................................................
Emer. Supp. Approps ...........................................................................................................
Interior Approps. FY 1996 ...................................................................................................
Interior Approps. FY 1996 #2 .............................................................................................
Agriculture Approps. FY 1996 .............................................................................................
Treasury/Postal Approps. FY 1996 ......................................................................................
Disapproval of MFN to China .............................................................................................
Transportation Approps. FY 1996 .......................................................................................
Exports of Alaskan Crude Oil ..............................................................................................
Commerce, State Approps. FY 1996 ...................................................................................
VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996 ..................................................................................................
Terminating U.S. Arms Embargo on Bosnia .......................................................................
Defense Approps. FY 1996 ..................................................................................................
Communications Act of 1995 .............................................................................................
Labor, HHS Approps. FY 1996 .............................................................................................
Economically Targeted Investments ....................................................................................
Intelligence Authorization FY 1996 .....................................................................................
Deficit Reduction Lockbox ...................................................................................................
Federal Acquisition Reform Act ...........................................................................................
CAREERS Act .......................................................................................................................
Natl. Highway System .........................................................................................................
Cuban Liberty & Dem. Solidarity ........................................................................................
Team Act .............................................................................................................................
3-Judge Court ......................................................................................................................
Internatl. Space Station ......................................................................................................

Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.

51 (1/31/95) ......................................
52 (1/31/95) ......................................
53 (1/31/95) ......................................
55 (2/1/95) ........................................
60 (2/6/95) ........................................
61 (2/6/95) ........................................
63 (2/8/95) ........................................
69 (2/9/95) ........................................
79 (2/10/95) ......................................
83 (2/13/95) ......................................
88 (2/16/95) ......................................
91 (2/21/95) ......................................
92 (2/21/95) ......................................
93 (2/22/95) ......................................
96 (2/24/95) ......................................
100 (2/27/95) ....................................
101 (2/28/95) ....................................
103 (3/3/95) ......................................
104 (3/3/95) ......................................
105 (3/6/95) ......................................
108 (3/7/95) ......................................
109 (3/8/95) ......................................
115 (3/14/95) ....................................
116 (3/15/95) ....................................
117 (3/16/95) ....................................
119 (3/21/95) ....................................
125 (4/3/95) ......................................
126 (4/3/95) ......................................
128 (4/4/95) ......................................
130 (4/5/95) ......................................
136 (5/1/95) ......................................
139 (5/3/95) ......................................
140 (5/9/95) ......................................
144 (5/11/95) ....................................
145 (5/11/95) ....................................
146 (5/11/95) ....................................
149 (5/16/95) ....................................
155 (5/22/95) ....................................
164 (6/8/95) ......................................
167 (6/15/95) ....................................
169 (6/19/95) ....................................
170 (6/20/95) ....................................
171 (6/22/95) ....................................
173 (6/27/95) ....................................
176 (6/28/95) ....................................
185 (7/11/95) ....................................
187 (7/12/95) ....................................
188 (7/12/95) ....................................
190 (7/17/95) ....................................
193 (7/19/95) ....................................
194 (7/19/95) ....................................
197 (7/21/95) ....................................
198 (7/21/95) ....................................
201 (7/25/95) ....................................
204 (7/28/95) ....................................
205 (7/28/95) ....................................
207 (8/1/95) ......................................
208 (8/1/95) ......................................
215 (9/7/95) ......................................
216 (9/7/95) ......................................
218 (9/12/95) ....................................
219 (9/12/95) ....................................
222 (9/18/95) ....................................
224 (9/19/95) ....................................
225 (9/19/95) ....................................
226 (9/21/95) ....................................
227 (9/21/95) ....................................
228 (9/21/95) ....................................

Disposition of rule
A: 350–71 (1/19/95).
A: 255–172 (1/25/95).
A: voice vote (2/1/95).
A: voice vote (2/1/95).
A: voice vote (2/1/95).
A: voice vote (2/2/95).
A: voice vote (2/7/95).
A: voice vote (2/7/95).
A: voice vote (2/9/95).
A: voice vote (2/10/95).
A: voice vote (2/13/95).
PQ: 229–199; A: 227–197 (2/15/95).
PQ: 230–191; A: 229–188 (2/21/95).
A: voice vote (2/22/95).
A: 282–144 (2/22/95).
A: 252–175 (2/23/95).
A: 253–165 (2/27/95).
A: voice vote (2/28/95).
A: 271–151 (3/2/95).
A: voice vote (3/6/95).
A: 257–155 (3/7/95).
A: voice vote (3/8/95).
PQ: 234–191 A: 247–181 (3/9/95).
A: 242–190 (3/15/95).
A: voice vote (3/28/95).
A: voice vote (3/21/95).
A: 217–211 (3/22/95).
A: 423–1 (4/4/95).
A: voice vote (4/6/95).
A: 228–204 (4/5/95).
A: 253–172 (4/6/95).
A: voice vote (5/2/95).
A: voice vote (5/9/95).
A: 414–4 (5/10/95).
A: voice vote (5/15/95).
A: voice vote (5/15/95).
A: voice vote (5/15/95).
PQ: 252–170 A: 255–168 (5/17/95).
A: 233–176 (5/23/95).
PQ: 225–191 A: 233–183 (6/13/95).
PQ: 223–180 A: 245–155 (6/16/95).
PQ: 232–196 A: 236–191 (6/20/95).
PQ: 221–178 A: 217–175 (6/22/95).
A: voice vote (7/12/95).
PQ: 258–170 A: 271–152 (6/28/95).
PQ: 236–194 A: 234–192 (6/29/95).
PQ: 235–193 D: 192–238 (7/12/95).
PQ: 230–194 A: 229–195 (7/13/95).
PQ: 242–185 A: voice vote (7/18/95).
PQ: 232–192 A: voice vote (7/18/95).
A: voice vote (7/20/95).
PQ: 217–202 (7/21/95).
A: voice vote (7/24/95).
A: voice vote (7/25/95).
A: 230–189 (7/25/95).
A: voice vote (8/1/95).
A: 409–1 (7/31/95).
A: 255–156 (8/2/95).
A: 323–104 (8/2/95).
A: voice vote (9/12/95).
A: voice vote (9/12/95).
A: voice vote (9/13/95).
A: 414–0 (9/13/95).
A: 388–2 (9/19/95).
PQ: 241–173 A: 375–39–1 (9/20/95).
A: 304–118 (9/20/95).
A: 344–66–1 (9/27/95).
A: voice vote (9/28/95).
A: voice vote (9/27/95).

H7272

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

July 11, 1996

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS—Continued
[As of July 10, 1996]
Rule type

Bill No.

Subject

H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.

Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.

230
234
237
238
239
245

H. Res. No. (Date rept.)
(9/27/95) ....................................
(9/29/95) ....................................
(10/17/95) ..................................
(10/18/95) ..................................
(10/19/95) ..................................
(10/25/95) ..................................

C ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................

H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.

Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.

251
252
257
258
259
262
269
270
273
284
287
293
303
309
313
323
366
368
371
372
380
384
386
388
391
392
395
396
409
410
411
418
419
421
422
426
427
428
430
435
436
437
438
440

(10/31/95) ..................................
(10/31/95) ..................................
(11/7/95) ....................................
(11/8/95) ....................................
(11/9/95) ....................................
(11/9/95) ....................................
(11/15/95) ..................................
(11/15/95) ..................................
(11/16/95) ..................................
(11/29/95) ..................................
(11/30/95) ..................................
(12/7/95) ....................................
(12/13/95) ..................................
(12/18/95) ..................................
(12/19/95) ..................................
(12/21/95) ..................................
(2/27/96) ....................................
(2/28/96) ....................................
(3/6/96) ......................................
(3/6/96) ......................................
(3/12/96) ....................................
(3/14/96) ....................................
(3/20/96) ....................................
(3/21/96) ....................................
(3/27/96) ....................................
(3/27/96) ....................................
(3/29/96) ....................................
(3/29/96) ....................................
(4/23/96) ....................................
(4/23/96) ....................................
(4/23/96) ....................................
(4/30/96) ....................................
(4/30/96) ....................................
(5/2/96) ......................................
(5/2/96) ......................................
(5/7/96) ......................................
(5/7/96) ......................................
(5/7/96) ......................................
(5/9/96) ......................................
(5/15/96) ....................................
(5/16/96) ....................................
(5/16/96) ....................................
(5/16/96) ....................................
(5/21/96) ....................................

H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.
H.

Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.

442
445
446
448
451
453
455
456
460
472
473
474

(5/29/96) ....................................
(5/30/96) ....................................
(6/5/96) ......................................
(6/6/96) ......................................
(6/10/96) ....................................
(6/12/96) ....................................
(6/18/96) ....................................
(6/19/96) ....................................
(6/25/96) ....................................
(7/9/96) ......................................
(7/9/96) ......................................
(7/10/96) ....................................

C ......................................
MO ...................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
C ......................................
C ......................................
C ......................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
C ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
S ......................................
MC ...................................
C ......................................
MO ...................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
O ......................................
MC ...................................
MC ...................................

H.J. Res. 108 ...................
H.R. 2405 ........................
H.R. 2259 ........................
H.R. 2425 ........................
H.R. 2492 ........................
H. Con. Res. 109 .............
H.R. 2491 ........................
H.R. 1833 ........................
H.R. 2546 ........................
H.J. Res. 115 ...................
H.R. 2586 ........................
H.R. 2539 ........................
H.R. 2586 ........................
H.R. 2564 ........................
H.J. Res. 122 ...................
H.R. 2606 ........................
H.R. 1788 ........................
H.R. 1350 ........................
H.R. 2621 ........................
H.R. 1745 ........................
H. Con. Res. 122 .............
H.R. 558 ..........................
H.R. 2677 ........................
H.R. 2854 ........................
H.R. 994 ..........................
H.R. 3021 ........................
H.R. 3019 ........................
H.R. 2703 ........................
H.R. 2202 ........................
H.J. Res. 165 ...................
H.R. 125 ..........................
H.R. 3136 ........................
H.R. 3103 ........................
H.J. Res. 159 ...................
H.R. 842 ..........................
H.R. 2715 ........................
H.R. 1675 ........................
H.J. Res. 175 ...................
H.R. 2641 ........................
H.R. 2149 ........................
H.R. 2974 ........................
H.R. 3120 ........................
H.R. 2406 ........................
H.R. 3322 ........................
H.R. 3286 ........................
H.R. 3230 ........................
H. Con. Res. 178 .............
H.R. 3415 ........................
H.R. 3259 ........................
H.R. 3144 ........................
H.R. 3448 ........................
H.R. 1227 ........................
H.R. 3517 ........................
H.R. 3540 ........................
H.R. 3562 ........................
H.R. 2754 ........................
H.R. 3603 ........................
H.R. 3610 ........................
H.R. 3662 ........................
H.R. 3666 ........................
H.R. 3675 ........................
H.R. 3755 ........................
H.R. 3754 ........................
H.R. 3396 ........................

Continuing Resolution FY 1996 ..........................................................................................
Omnibus Science Auth ........................................................................................................
Disapprove Sentencing Guidelines ......................................................................................
Medicare Preservation Act ...................................................................................................
Leg. Branch Approps ...........................................................................................................
Social Security Earnings Reform .........................................................................................
Seven-Year Balanced Budget ..............................................................................................
Partial Birth Abortion Ban ..................................................................................................
D.C. Approps. .......................................................................................................................
Cont. Res. FY 1996 .............................................................................................................
Debt Limit ............................................................................................................................
ICC Termination Act ............................................................................................................
Increase Debt Limit .............................................................................................................
Lobbying Reform ..................................................................................................................
Further Cont. Resolution .....................................................................................................
Prohibition on Funds for Bosnia .........................................................................................
Amtrak Reform ....................................................................................................................
Maritime Security Act ..........................................................................................................
Protect Federal Trust Funds ................................................................................................
Utah Public Lands ...............................................................................................................
Budget Res. W/President .....................................................................................................
Texas Low-Level Radioactive ...............................................................................................
Natl. Parks & Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................
Farm Bill ..............................................................................................................................
Small Business Growth .......................................................................................................
Debt Limit Increase .............................................................................................................
Cont. Approps. FY 1996 ......................................................................................................
Effective Death Penalty .......................................................................................................
Immigration .........................................................................................................................
Further Cont. Approps .........................................................................................................
Gun Crime Enforcement ......................................................................................................
Contract w/America Advancement ......................................................................................
Health Coverage Affordability .............................................................................................
Tax Limitation Const. Amdmt. ............................................................................................
Truth in Budgeting Act .......................................................................................................
Paperwork Elimination Act ..................................................................................................
Natl. Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................................................................
Further Cont. Approps. FY 1996 .........................................................................................
U.S. Marshals Service .........................................................................................................
Ocean Shipping Reform ......................................................................................................
Crimes Against Children & Elderly .....................................................................................
Witness & Jury Tampering ..................................................................................................
U.S. Housing Act of 1996 ...................................................................................................
Omnibus Civilian Science Auth ...........................................................................................
Adoption Promotion & Stability ...........................................................................................
DoD Auth. FY 1997 ..............................................................................................................
Con. Res. on the Budget, 1997 ..........................................................................................
Repeal 4.3 cent fuel tax .....................................................................................................
Intell. Auth. FY 1997 ...........................................................................................................
Defend America Act .............................................................................................................
Small Bus. Job Protection ...................................................................................................
Employee Commuting Flexibility ..........................................................................................
Mil. Const. Approps. FY 1997 .............................................................................................
For. Ops. Approps. FY 1997 ................................................................................................
WI Works Waiver Approval ...................................................................................................
Shipbuilding Trade Agreement ............................................................................................
Agriculture Appropriations, FY 1997 ...................................................................................
Defense Appropriations, FY 1997 ........................................................................................
Interior Approps, FY 1997 ...................................................................................................
VA/HUD Approps ..................................................................................................................
Transportation Approps .......................................................................................................
Labor/HHS Approps ..............................................................................................................
Leg. Branch Approps ...........................................................................................................
Defense of Marriage Act .....................................................................................................

Disposition of rule
A: voice vote (9/28/95).
A: voice vote (10/11/95).
A: voice vote (10/18/95).
PQ: 231–194 A: 227–192 (10/19/95).
PQ: 235–184 A: voice vote (10/31/95).
PQ: 228–191 A: 235–185 (10/26/95).
A: 237–190 (11/1/95).
A: 241–181 (11/1/95).
A: 216–210 (11/8/95).
A: 220–200 (11/10/95).
A: voice vote (11/14/95).
A: 220–185 (11/10/95).
A: voice vote (11/16/95).
A: 249–176 (11/15/95).
A: 239–181 (11/17/95).
A: voice vote (11/30/95).
A: voice vote (12/6/95).
PQ: 223–183 A: 228–184 (12/14/95).
PQ: 221–197 A: voice vote (5/15/96).
PQ: 230–188 A: 229–189 (12/19/95).
A: voice vote (12/20/95).
Tabled (2/28/96).
PQ: 228–182 A: 244–168 (2/28/96).
Tabled (4/17/96).
A: voice vote (3/7/96).
PQ: voice vote A: 235–175 (3/7/96).
A: 251–157 (3/13/96).
PQ: 233–152 A: voice vote (3/19/96).
PQ: 234–187 A: 237–183 (3/21/96).
A: 244–166 (3/22/96).
PQ: 232–180 A: 232–177, (3/28/96).
PQ: 229–186 A: Voice Vote (3/29/96).
PQ: 232–168 A: 234–162 (4/15/96).
A: voice vote (4/17/96).
A: voice vote (4/24/96).
A: voice vote (4/24/96).
A: voice vote (4/24/96).
PQ: 219–203 A: voice vote (5/1/96).
A: 422–0 (5/1/96).
A: voice vote (5/7/96).
A: voice vote (5/7/96).
PQ: 218–208 A: voice vote (5/8/96).
A: voice vote (5/9/96).
A: voice vote (5/9/96).
A: 235–149 (5/10/96).
PQ: 227–196 A: voice vote (5/16/96).
PQ: 221–181 A: voice vote (5/21/96).
A: voice vote (5/21/96).
A: 219–211 (5/22/96).
A: voice vote (5/30/96).
A: voice vote (6/5/96).
A: 363–59 (6/6/96).
A: voice vote (6/12/96).
A: voice vote (6/11/96).
A: voice vote (6/13/96).
A: voice vote (6/19/96).
A: 246–166 (6/25/96).
A: voice vote (6/26/96).
PQ: 218–202 A: voice vote (7/10/96).
A: voice vote (7/10/96).

Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
from Colorado, Mr. MCINNIS for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult,
very emotional issue and, my personal
opinions aside, I do not believe it belongs on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
This issues makes a tremendous
amount of people extremely uncomfortable; it divides our country when
we should be brought together; and
frankly, it appears to be a political attempt to sling arrows at President
Clinton.
But, my Republican colleagues have
decided to bring this issue up, and unfortunately for the country, here it is.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my
Republican colleagues are bringing up
this bill instead of tackling the mountains and mountains of work awaiting
them. This Congress has yet to finish
five appropriations bills; this country
is waiting for the bipartisan Kennedy-

Kassebaum health care bill; and a longoverdue minimum wage increase. But
what are my Republican colleagues
doing?
This week they are doing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is not what the
country wants and I am sorry to see
that my Republican colleagues are
wasting precious floor time on their
political agenda with complete disregard for the needs of working Americans and congressional responsibilities
for Federal spending.
But, Mr. Speaker, the rule for this
bill not as unfair as other rules we
have seen this year.
It will allow for 1 hour of general debate, of which the Democrats get half,
it makes in order two Democratic
amendments by Mr. FRANK, and it
gives the Democrats the time requested on these two amendments.
My Republican colleagues did not
make in order an amendment by Representative SCHROEDER to exclude from
the Federal definition of marriage any
subsequent marriage unless the prior
marriage was terminated on fault
grounds.

They also did not make an amendment in order by Representatives
JOHNSON and HOBSON to provide for a
GAO study of the differences in benefits in a marriage and a domestic partnership.
But, there is adequate time for debate of this issue during general debate
and debate on the amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to distinguish a couple of remarks
made by my friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts. The gentleman
from Massachusetts says that this Protection of Marriage Act is not what
this county wants. I take issue with
that. I think this is exactly what this
country wants. This country is demanding that the tradition of marriage
be upheld. What this country does not
want is for one State out of 50 States,
that is, specifically the State of Hawaii, to be able to mandate its wishes
upon every other State in the Union.

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

What this bill does is it allows every
State to make their own individual decision. So if the State of Wyoming
wants to make their decision, they can
make their decision. Texas can make
its decision. Colorado can make its decision. But they have the freedom to
make that decision; it is not mandated
upon them by a court, a supreme court
in the State of Hawaii.
I think it is particularly important
to take a look at the traditional marriage, and we are going to have plenty
of time to debate that. If we look at
any definition, whether it is Black’s
Law Dictionary, whether it is Webster’s Dictionary, a marriage is defined
as union between a man and a woman,
and that should be upheld, and there is
no reason to be ashamed of that tradition. It is a long-held tradition. It is a
basic foundation of this country, and
this Congress should respect that.
Finally, I think it is important, Mr.
Speaker, to address a couple of other
issues. First of all, in regard to the
Schroeder amendment, which was not
allowed by the Committee on Rules,
that amendment is clearly, in my opinion, a delusion, it is a diversion. It is
not focused on the key issue which is
important here, and that is, should one
State be able to mandate on every
other State in the Union a requirement
that those States recognize same sex
marriage?
Now, in regard to the gentleman’s
comment about the Johnson amendment: The Johnson amendment would
put in the statute a requirement that
the General Accounting Office do a
study. It does not require a mandate by
statute. In fact, the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE], said that he would
write a letter requesting that study.
Every Member of the U.S. Congress has
that right to request that study be
made. There is no reason to put that in
statute.
Again I think it is a delusion, I think
it is a diversion from the topic at hand,
from the issue that we have got to look
at, and that is where our focus ought to
be.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just cannot think why
we could not be talking about getting
the water cleaned up in this country
right now, why we could not be getting
the Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill before us right now, why we could not get
the minimum wage.
The matter before us today, nothing
is going to happen for at least 2 years.
People are going to be dying very
shortly if we do not clean up our water.
People are going to be dying unless we
get adequate health care. People are
going to be starving in the streets unless we do not raise our minimum
wage.
So I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MCINNIS] may have got his
items a little out of priority, out of
whack.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
honorable gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. SCHROEDER], the ranking member
on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY] for yielding this
time to me.
I want to say I think that this bill
and bringing it up today is an absolute
outrage. If my colleagues think there
is not enough hate and polarization in
America, then they are going to love
this bill because this just trying to
throw some more gasoline on political
fires people are trying to light this
year, and that is not what we need. The
State of Hawaii is years away from
taking final action. Meanwhile the
gentleman from Massachusetts is
right: We cannot drink the water in the
capital city of this great Nation.
So we got to deal today with something that might, might, happen years
from now, but we cannot deal with the
water issue today? Now, something is
wrong with that.
We are also saying what this bill basically says is that there is a tremendous threat to marriage if two people
of the same sex stand up and vow commitment to each other, that if they do
that, then my marriage is being threatened. I do not think so. I belong in the
marriage hall of fame. I have been married for 34 years. I have never felt
threatened by that issue.
In over 200 years this Congress has
never gotten into the definition of marriage because we have left it to the
States. What we are saying today is
even if States vote unanimously to
allow this type of marriage, the Federal Government will not recognize it.
This is unique, this is different, and I
really am troubled by that.
But I had an amendment that said,
‘‘If you want to defend marriage, I’m
going to tell you what I see wrong with
marriage. It is the fact that we have
let people crawl out of marriages like
they crawl—a snake crawls out of its
skin and never deal with economic consequences.’’
So I had an amendment saying, ‘‘The
real defense of marriage would be to
say at the Federal level you don’t give
benefits to the next marriage until the
person who left that marriage has dealt
with the first one in a property settlement based on fault.’’
That would save us gazillions of dollars in welfare and child support and
all sorts of things because we say we
are defending marriage. But we know
the traditional way this has been done
is that people move to the Federal dole
because we do not want to go tap the
person on the shoulder and say, ‘‘You
have responsibility for that family you
just left. You cannot just shed them
and throw them on the taxpayers’
roll.’’
But, no, no, they do not want to take
up my amendment. That is a diversion,
they say. That is delusion.
It is not diversion, it is not delusion.
It is absolutely to the point of this bill.

H7273

It was not ruled out of order. So what
happened? The Committee on Rules
said, oh, ‘‘No, we cannot take that up.’’
Why? Because this is a political ruse.
This is not about really protecting
marriage and the things that have
caused this great institution of marriage to crack.
Now, I feel very strongly that if we
are going to make marriage work, we
should be really valuing adults, taking
responsibility for each other. That is
very hard for anybody to do any more.
This country is getting straight A’s in
fear of commitment. Most people do
not want anything but maybe a cat. So
if there are two individuals and they
are willing to make a commitment to
each other under the civil law of a
State and a State decides to recognize
it, what right does the Federal Government have to say, no, they cannot do
that?
What we? Are we not human beings?
Do we not respect each other? Should
we not really be doing everything we
can to try and take care of each other
as our brother’s keepers, as our sister’s
keepers? Taking care of children?
I am shocked that my amendment
was not allowed, terribly shocked, because if nothing else, it protects the
most innocent victim of throwaway
marriages, and that is children.
1100
Children have been cast off and
thrown away, and people do not want
to take responsibility for them and
say, ‘‘I am going to have a new family.’’
To me, Mr. Speaker, my amendment
goes to the core of the defense of marriage. If we really want to defend marriage in this country, then say to people, when you make that commitment
you have to mean that commitment.
And even if you want to leave that
commitment, you may be able to leave
it physically, but you cannot shed it
economically. You still have economic
responsibility.
That is why I say this bill is absolutely nothing but a wedge issue. We
are building the platform for Candidate
Dole to stand on in San Diego. We are
out trying to make candidates spend a
million dollars defending this issue
when we are not talking about the
debt, when we are not talking about
clean water, when we are not talking
about all the real issues. I urge a no on
this rule.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out first of all, Mr.
Speaker, that the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Colorado in committee was turned down 22 to 3, 22 to 3.
Second of all, I think an interesting
situation here, the gentlewoman, the
preceding speaker, is from the State of
Colorado. As Members know, I am from
the State of Colorado. The gentlewoman from Colorado supports samesex marriage. The gentleman from Colorado opposes same-sex marriage. That
is a debate that ought to be carried out

H7274

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

within the confines of the State of Colorado.
Neither the gentlewoman from Colorado nor the gentleman from Colorado
ought to have their debate determined
by the Supreme Court in the State of
Hawaii. The gentlewoman is very capable of carrying forward this debate
within Colorado, as I feel that I am,
too. We ought to carry that out, not
the people of Hawaii. That is a decision
for the people of Colorado or for the
people of Wyoming or for the people of
New York.
Second of all, I think it is important
to highlight the President’s comments.
At the very beginning, I believe that
the gentlewoman from Colorado made
the comment that she is shocked that
we are bringing this type of bill to the
floor. Let me say the President’s comments, of whom I find the gentlewoman
from Colorado in constant support, the
President, through his press secretary
says, ‘‘The President believes this is a
time when there is a need to do things
to strengthen the American family,
and that is why he has taken this position in opposition to same-sex marriage.’’
This is an issue that becomes very
relevant the minute the Hawaii Supreme court issues its decision. In addition, it is also very relevant because of
the implications it has to the Federal
Government on benefits that are entitled to spouses. So there are three keys
we really need to look at: First, what
will the Federal Government be obligated to as far as tax-funded dollars by
same-sex marriages; second, what are
States’ rights? Why should not the
States exercise their individual rights?
The third point is the traditional definition of marriage.
I for one have no shame, have no
bashfulness, in standing in front of the
U.S. House and saying I do not support
same-sex marriages. I believe that the
tradition of marriage, as recognized between one man and one woman, not
one man and five women, not one man
and one man or one woman and one
woman, but one man and one woman,
should be continued to be recognized as
a tradition which is basic to the foundation of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
fine gentleman from the State of California [Mr. CAMPBELL].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I
speak to a specific point, the constitutionality of what we do today, because
the issue had been raised. I begin with
drawing my colleagues’ attention to
Article 4, Section 1: ‘‘Full faith and
credit shall be given in each State to
the public Acts, Records and judicial
Proceedings of every other State.’’ But
I urge my colleagues to read to the second sentence of that section: ‘‘And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records, and Proceedings shall be
proved and the Effect thereof.’’
The second sentence of that provision
of the Constitution is quite important
to understand the constitutionality of

the bill we debate today, because
whereas the general rule is that full
faith and credit is to be given to the
acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of every other State, an exception is
created if Congress chooses by general
law, as opposed to a specific law to a
specific contract, by general law to
prescribe the manner in which such
records and proceedings are proved,
and the effect thereof. I emphasize the
second phrase, ‘‘The effect thereof.’’
A leading treatise on the field of constitutional law, the Library of Congress’ own contracted work, the annotated Constitution, at page 870, refers
to this power in the context of divorce,
not marriage; we do not have any
quotation from this source on marriage. But on divorce they say, ‘‘Congress has the power under the clause to
decree the effect that the statutes of
one State shall have in other States.’’
This being so, it does not seem extravagant to argue that Congress may
under the clause describe a certain
type of divorce and say it shall be
granted recognition throughout the
Union and that no other kind shall.’’
‘‘And that no other kind shall,’’ establishing, I think quite clearly, what the
phrases of the Constitution suggest:
that Congress has the constitutional
authority to establish exceptions to
the general full faith and credit clause.
Has Congress used this authority?
Yes, it has, quite recently, in a very related context. In 1980 the Congress
adopted section 1738(a) of title 28,
which provided that ‘‘Whereas child
custody determinations made by the
State where the divorce took place
generally are applied in all other
States, not so if the couple moved to
another State.’’ And Congress said that
the second State did not have to abide
by the child custody determinations of
the first State where the couple moved
to the second State, an explicit use of
this second sentence of article 5, section 1, power in the Congress.
Then most recently, in 1994, in section 1738(b) of the same title, Congress
once again established that rule for
child support orders. We have, thus, a
rather clear example of power explicitly in the Constitution, recognized by
treaties, and used as recently as last
year.
The advisability of this bill shall be
debated. My purpose this morning was
to speak to its constitutionality. Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt as to its
constitutionality.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Honolulu, HI [Mr. ABERCROMBIE].
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the gentleman from Colorado, inasmuch as he continues to invoke the name of Hawaii, to at least
try to be accurate. I understand the
gentleman has his political duty that
he is going to do today here, at least as
he conceives it. I do not object to that.

July 11, 1996

I do object to his, I must say, making
statements like ‘‘Hawaii mandating its
wishes on the rest of the Nation’’; his
constant invocation of what Hawaii intends to do or not do.
I daresay that there are not five people in this House of Representatives
that have the slightest clue as to what
is taking place legislatively or judicially or personally in Hawaii with respect to this issue. I can tell the Members that the individuals involved are
constituents of mine, two of whom I
know personally.
I know that the kind of rhetoric that
has been utilized with respect to this
issue does not reflect either their wishes or their motivations. I find it at best
a question that needs to be answered as
to our definition with respect to marriage. I will not use the word hypocritical, but I think others might certainly question the motivation of people who want to define marriage when
this Defense of Marriage Act might
better be characterized as defense of
marriages.
If we intend to say that marriage,
and we are writing a national marriage
law, which is what we want to do here,
is between one man and one women,
does that mean that we will now write
a national divorce law? Because I understand some of the people who are
sponsoring this bill are on their second
or third marriages. I wonder which one
they are defending.
I do not object to that. I think people
are entitled to make their private relationships what they will and to seek
such happiness in this life as they are
able to achieve, but I think that when
we move into the area of the private
relationships of other people, that we
at least ought to show some respect for
the human context.
When the gentleman from Colorado
and others speak so glibly of Hawaii
and the people who are involved in the
legal proceedings there, they forget
these are human beings, some human
beings that I know personally. All they
are trying to do is conduct their lives
as reasonable, sober, responsible people
seeking their measure of happiness and
tranquility in this life, and to try to
bring as much as they can into their
lives of the values that we cherish in
Hawaii, of kindness and responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, amendments will be offered to this bill, because this is more
than the defense of marriage. It also
gets into the question of benefits. We
contend and I certainly contend that
nothing that is proceeding today in Hawaii and in the courts of Hawaii affects
in any way what any other State does.
It is quite clear, and I can cite at great
length, and I do not have the time obviously now, the fact that other States
are able to establish already what they
recognize or do not recognize with respect to marriage.
The full faith and credit clause has
been invoked in our Nation’s history
very few times, less than half a dozen
times, and it involves the custody of
children, the protection of children,

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the interstate capacity to enforce child
support laws. That is the kind of thing
we have dealt with, serious issues.
I do not doubt that it is a serious
issue for individuals here as to what
constitutes marriage, but to try to utilize Hawaii for some political agenda
having to do with, I guess, the elections in November is something that I
find nothing less than reprehensible.
We can define marriage any way we
want in the States right now. This bill
has nothing to do with that. Hawaii
certainly is not challenging it.
In fact, I would like to hear from the
gentleman from Colorado or anybody
else any indication that the State of
Hawaii has ever indicated in any way,
shape, or form that it intends to, as the
gentleman put it, mandate its wishes
on the rest of the Nation. I do not
think this is the case, and I do not
think this is the bill to do this kind of
thing, and certainly not to malign Hawaii in the process.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, in regard to
the gentleman from Hawaii, there certainly will be a mandate or an attempt
to mandate upon every State in the
Union any decision that comes out of
the Hawaiian Supreme Court allowing
same-sex marriage.
Second of all, the gentleman from
Hawaii starts out by, in my opinion,
lecturing the gentleman from Colorado
about the State of Hawaii and where do
these comments come from. Let me
quote from a gentleman from the State
of Hawaii who represents the State of
Hawaii in the State House of Hawaii.
The gentleman is State representative
Terrance Tom, who testified before the
committee here.
Let me quote: ‘‘I do know this: No
single individual, no matter how wise
or learned in the law, should be invested with the power to overturn fundamental social policies against the
will of the people.
‘‘If this Congress can act to preserve
the will of the people as expressed
through their elected representatives,
it has a duty to do so. If inaction by
the United States Congress runs the
risk that a single judge in Hawaii may
redefine the scope of Federal legislation, as well as legislation throughout
the other 49 States, failure to act is a
dereliction of the responsibility you
were invested with by the voters.’’
This is not politics. This is clearly, if
we fail to act in this body, as stated by
the gentleman from the State of Hawaii, ‘‘It is a dereliction of responsibility you,’’ referring to the U.S. Congress, ‘‘were invested with by the voters.’’
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BARR].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, you need to duck in
here today. The red herrings are flying
fast and furious. We hear about clean
water and we hear about minimum

wage and we hear about amendments
that were defeated by overwhelming
votes in committee, and it being outrageous that those amendments are
not before us today. We hear about politics.
We hear about all sorts of things
from the other side, when the fact of
the matter is, Mr. Speaker, let us do
away with the red herrings, let us put
aside the smoke and look at what we
have. We have a basic institution, an
institution basic not only to this country’s foundation and to its survival but
to every Western civilization, under direct assault by homosexual extremists
all across this country, not just in Hawaii.
This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that
has arisen in a bipartisan manner, as
the gentleman from Colorado has already stated. President Clinton said he
supports this legislation and would
sign it. I would also point out that our
colleagues on the other side, this is not
a Republican proposal, it is a proposal
that enjoys bipartisan support. Just
look at the list of cosponsors, both
original cosponsors and subsequent cosponsors, and Members will find people
from both parties who support this.
The reason they do support it is because it is not a partisan issue. This is
an issue that transcends partisan lines.
It goes to the heart of a fundamental
institution in this country, and that is
marriage.
1115
Mr. Speaker, this issue is not one invented by anybody who is a cosponsor
of this bill. It was not invented by anybody in this Congress. It is an issue
that is being forced on us directly by
assault by the homosexual extremists
to attack the institution of marriage.
One has to look no further than the
words of some of their organizations
themselves, such as the Lambda Defense Fund. This is part of a concerted
effort going back many years and now
poised, at least in the State of Hawaii,
for success from their standpoint.
The learned gentleman from Hawaii
took issue with any of us who might
claim to know something about what is
going on in Hawaii as if we did not.
Well, in fact we do. One of the reasons
we do know a little bit about what is
going on in Hawaii is the fact that one
of the persons we heard from in the Judiciary Committee, the subcommittee,
was Hawaiian State Representative
Terrance Tom, chairman of the Hawaiian House Judiciary Committee. He
said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Hawaii has been met with very strong
resistance on the part of the Hawaiian
public and public opinion and their
elected representatives.
He went on to explain in some detail
the background as to why this legislation that he was testifying in behalf of
in the Congress was important to him
and to other people in Hawaii. We do
not purport to know certainly as much
as the learned representative from Hawaii but we do know a little bit about
what is going on out there.

H7275

The legislation that is before this
body today is a reaction to what is
being forced on this country. It is very
limited legislation. It goes no further
than is absolutely essential to meet
the very terms of the assault itself. It
simply limits itself to providing, as the
Constitution clearly and explicitly
foresaw in the full faith and credit
clause, that we exercise that power to
define the scope of full faith and credit,
and it also goes no further than simply
fulfilling our responsibility in this
body to define the scope of marriage as
with other relationships and institutions that fall into the jurisdiction of
Federal law, to define it, that for purposes of Federal law only, marriage
means the union between a man and a
woman.
One of the most astounding things
that I heard was in our committee, one
member indicating that he did not
really know the difference for legal
purposes between a man and a woman
or between a male and a female. I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that we all know
that. And the fact of the matter is that
marriage throughout the entire history
of not only our civilization but Western civilization has meant the legal
union between one man and one
woman. For us to now be poised as a
country, and this is an issue that will
be presented, to sweep that away would
be outrageous. The American people
demand this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary, it is essential, it is limited in
scope, and it addresses the legal issues
that properly fall within the ambit of
congressional authority. It goes no further than is necessary to meet this
challenge, but the challenge is there,
and the challenge must be met. If we
were to succumb to the homosexual extremist agenda on the other side, and
this is part of a plan, then we would be
the first country to do so. Not even the
very liberal socialist economies of Europe or the countries of Europe have
done this. No country in the world recognizes homosexual marriages as the
full legal equivalent of heterosexual
marriage.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from West
Palm Beach, FL [Mr. JOHNSTON].
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr.
Speaker, let me preface my remarks
that yesterday I celebrated my 42d
wedding anniversary with my first and
only wife. I have two children and four
grandchildren that I am very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I really have to say
that we should be embarrassed today
to consider this legislation. Of all the
pressing needs facing our country, the
leadership has chosen to focus on this,
the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
Defending our country against enemies is certainly important, as is defending our children against poverty
and ignorance. Defending the elderly
against neglect is important, as is defending our families against crime and
criminals. But defending marriage? Get
real. Defending marriage against what?

H7276

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Against whom? We are wasting precious time here.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation denigrates the House of Representatives.
What this bill lacks in substance and
import, it makes up for in shameless
politics. Demonizing Communist countries, welfare mothers, or immigrants
is now old news. So the demon du jour
is gays.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those
Americans who truly fear the notion of
gay marriage. But the institution of
marriage is not in jeopardy because
some choose to associate with the benefits and the obligations of marriage.
We as Members of Congress have a duty
to educate, to enlighten, and push for a
society that does not punish people because they are different. We are here to
lead our constituents, not leave them
behind.
The possibility that gays may marry
must rank pretty low among the problems and the difficulties facing American families today. Everyone knows
that the only true threat to marriage
comes from within. Let us focus on the
real problems this election year and do
our constituents a real favor. They just
might appreciate it.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Embarrassed? The preceding speaker
says we should be embarrassed because
we are talking about marriage on this
House floor. Let me say to every one of
my colleagues, I am not embarrassed
by defending the traditional recognition of marriage. I would like to quote
from a friend of mine, Bill Bennett:
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, and out-of-wedlock
births. We have reaped the consequences of
its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent
to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone and the arch of civilization.

The issue is very simple here. No. 1,
the rule that we are discussing today is
a very fair rule. In fact, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, who has just
asked for a request to yield, is going to
have lots of time in the following hour
because the Rules Committee has allowed two of his amendments to be debated on the floor. It will be a very
healthy and good debate for all of us.
No. 2, the bill is very clear in what it
does. It does the following:
First, it confirms the tradition of
marriage as this country and every
other country in the world recognizes.
That is, a union between one man and
one woman. Second, it preserves the
States rights, so that one State, like
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, cannot mandate upon another
State their interpretation of what marriage should be. And, third, it preserves
the ability for the Federal Government
not to be obligated to a particular
State that may choose to recognize
same sex marriage.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 31⁄2
minutes to the fine gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. LARGENT].

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to say, as I have said many
times, that the family is the cornerstone, in fact the foundation of our society, and at the core of that foundation is the institution of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many
that have come and said already this
morning, does Congress not have more
important things to do? I would say,
Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely
nothing that we do that is more important than protecting our families and
protecting the institution of marriage.
I have said, too, that this current situation that is taking place in Hawaii,
where the Supreme Court is about to
rule that same sex marriages are in
order, is a frontal assault on the institution of marriage and, if successful,
will demolish the institution in and of
itself with that redefinition.
How can we possibly, once we begin
to redrew the border, the playing field
of the institution of marriage to say it
also includes two men, or two women,
how can we stop there and say it
should not also include two men and
one woman, or three men, four men, or
an adult and a child? If they love one
another, what would be the problem
with that? As long as we are going to
expand the definition of what marriage
is, why stop there? Logically there
would be no reasonable stopping place.
Another thing that I would like to
address is that there have been many
who have said that we are doing this
for political reasons. What political
gain is there for Republicans or Democrats when the President has already
endorsed this very bill? He has said he
will sign it. This is not a wedge issue.
This is not a line of distinction between one Presidential candidate and
another. The President has said he will
sign it. We just simply have to do the
right thing and pass it today.
Many are asking, why do we need the
Defense of Marriage Act? Quite simply,
the legal ramifications of what the
State court of Hawaii is about to do
cannot be ignored. If the State court in
Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage,
homosexual couples from other States
around the country will fly to Hawaii
and marry. These same couples will
then go back to their respective States
and argue that the full faith and credit
clause of the U.S. Constitution requires
their home State to recognize their
union as a marriage.
We in Congress can prevent confusion
and litigation in 49 States by passing
this modest bill. The legislation does
two things, simply: First, it allows
States to decide for themselves if they
will recognize same-sex unions as marriages. Each State can affirmatively
embrace either same-sex marriages or
refuse to recognize Hawaiian same-sex
marriages. This provision respects each
State’s historical power to establish
conditions for entering into a legal
marriage.
Second, the bill defines for Federal
purposes marriage as the legal union of
a man and woman as husband and wife,

July 11, 1996

and spouse as a husband or wife of the
opposite sex.
Let me just conclude by saying, Mr.
Speaker, that as a concerned father
and observer of our culture, I wonder
what marriage and child-rearing will
be like for my own grandchildren. Destroying the exclusive territory of marriage to achieve a political end will not
provide homosexuals with the real benefits of marriage, but it may eventually be the final blow to the American
family. Now, more than ever, the institution of the family needs to be protected, promoted, and preserved.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York City [Mr. NADLER].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, marriage
does not need defense from Congress.
Two gay people applying for the benefits and the obligations of marriage
should stay together their whole life,
that does not threaten a marriage. If
your marriage is threatened, it may be
because you have lost your job and
cannot provide for your family. It may
be because of emotional reasons. Congress is not going to save your marriage. If your marriage is not threatened, you do not need Congress to intervene. I will talk about that later.
What I want to say now is that this
bill is a fraud from beginning to end. It
is a fraud. It purports to do two things:
It is going to save the other States
from having to go along with same sex
marriages if and when Hawaii does so.
No; it will not.
First of all under the full faith and
credit clause of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court has always recognized
the public policy exception. If one
State recognizes 12-year-old marriages
and New York chooses not to, New
York does not have to recognize a marriage of 12-year-olds if they get married
in one State and move to New York,
and so forth. If Hawaii chooses to recognize same sex marriages and Colorado or New Jersey has a policy
against same sex marriages, they will
not be forced to recognize it under the
existing Constitution and the existing
law. If they were, if the Supreme Court
read the full faith and credit clause differently than it does, this could not
stop it because you cannot amend the
Constitution by a statute. So this bill
is unnecessary for that purpose and
were it necessary it would be ineffective.
But the second clause of the bill is
the really pernicious clause because
the first clause, save all the States
from Hawaii, does nothing at all. It
does nothing. It is a fraud to talk
about it, a fraud on the American people.
The second part of the bill is that assault on States rights which we keep
hearing from the gentleman from Colorado and others as sacrosanct, this bill
is going to defend States rights, nonsense. What this bill says in the second
clause is that if Colorado or New York
or Hawaii or New Jersey or any State
chooses whether by judicial fiat or by

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

action of its legislature or by public
referendum of its people to recognize
same sex marriages, the Federal Government will not recognize those marriages for purposes of Social Security
or Veterans’ Administration benefits
or pensions or tax benefits or anything
else. We will say to a State, ‘‘Do what
you want, we won’t recognize what you
do because Congress knows better.’’
Mr. Speaker, marriage and divorce
has always been a State matter, never
to be tampered with by Congress or by
the Federal Government. Why start
down that road now? And if we start
down that road now, we will continue.
This is not States rights. This is Federal invasion.
1130
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. WOOLSEY].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the campaign headquarters for
the radical right. You see, knowing
that the American people overwhelmingly rejected their deep cuts in Medicare and education, their antifamily
agenda and their assault on our environment, the radical right went mucking around in search of an electionyear ploy to divide our country. Not
only does the Defense of Marriage Act
trample over the Constitution, it flies
in the face of everything the new majority supposedly supports when it
comes to States rights and to determining marriage law.
Let us not be pawns. Let us not be
pawns of the radical right. Let us not
turn the floor of the House of Representatives into a political convention
for extremists. Let us not take part in
this assault on lesbian and gay Americans and their families. Instead, let us
defeat the rule on this mean-spirited
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
LAHOOD). The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MCINNIS] has 81⁄2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY] has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. MALONEY].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in opposition to this bill. The Republican leadership of this Congress should
be ashamed of itself. This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Despite the rhetoric we have heard today
in this Hall and the rhetoric of the religious right, one can honor the relationship between a man and a woman without attacking gay men and lesbians.
No matter who is being attacked, discrimination is discrimination, and it is
wrong.
You know, I have never been called
by any constituent, by anyone to complain to me that they want me to defend their marriage. If we want to have
a debate about defending American
marriages and American families, let
us talk about the real issues affecting
American families. Let us talk about

the rising cost of college education.
Let us talk about the ability to get
health insurance, to afford health insurance, to keep health insurance for
our children. Let us talk about raising
the minimum wage. That is the way we
strengthen our families, by looking at
the real issues and taking responsible
action to solve them.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is
that President Clinton now is being labeled with the radical right or that
some of the Democrats, and there are
going to be a number of Democrats who
vote for this bill, being labeled, as they
should be apparently, ashamed of
themselves or extremists. These are
not extremists. This is a long-held
American tradition and not just an
American tradition. It is a tradition
held in every country in this world. It
is a tradition we ought to uphold.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HOKE].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
strong support of this act. The impending recognition of same-sex marriages
in Hawaii is what is bringing it to the
floor. The suggestion that somehow
this is political or this is campaign
rhetoric or campaign tactics, which I
heard in the subcommittee, I heard
again at the full committee, is simply
not the case.
As I will mention later, if anything,
it is about the last thing that I or my
colleagues on that subcommittee or on
the Committee on the Judiciary want
to get involved with. It is something
that frankly no one wants to touch
with a 10-foot pole, certainly not me.
The fact is that the impending recognition of same-sex marriages in Hawaii
has raised the probability that all
other States in the United States of
America are going to be compelled to
recognize and to enforce the Hawaii
marriage contract under the full faith
and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. That has very far-reaching implications, both fiscally as well as socially for the State of Ohio.
For example, if two individuals of the
same gender obtain a marriage license
in Hawaii and then move to Ohio, the
State of Ohio would have to honor that
marriage license. The people of Ohio
would have no say in the matter. The
fact is that there is some question
about that. It is not absolutely crystal
clear as to whether the full faith and
credit clause would apply in that way,
but what we are going to do is we are
going to make it crystal clear that a
State will not have to recognize a
same-gender marriage if it chooses not
to.
Second, I want to point out that
there is another issue involved in this,
and it has to do with all of the rights
and privileges, the obligations and responsibilities that go with a legal marriage contract as it relates to Federal
law. We are talking about probably
most important, survivors benefits,
both for veterans as well as for Social

H7277

Security recipients, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera.
One of the things that was said during the debate that I think is probably
the most preposterous, and this was
said at committee. I do not know if it
has been said on the floor today. But
that is that Congress has no business
legislating morality. That is preposterous. It is ridiculous and it is absurd.
The fact is that we legislate morality
on a daily basis. It is through the law
that we as a nation express the morals
and the moral sensibilities of the United States, and what is morality except
to decide what is right and what is
wrong? That is what morality is all
about.
Clearly we have got laws about murder, we believe that murder is wrong. It
is a moral issue. We have laws about
theft and burglary, larceny, rape, and
other bodily attacks. Those are moral
issues. To question that somehow we
have no right to make a moral judgment on an issue completely misses the
point of what we do in Congress every
single day of the week.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. GERRY STUDDS, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, first if I
may make a legal observation then a
much more personal one. This bill has
two brief sections. One purports to give
States the right to decline to recognize
marriages in another State, and the
other denies Federal benefits to any
State which makes such a decision. As
has been said before, the first part is
absolutely meaningless. Either under
the Constitution the States already
have that right, in which case we do
nothing, or they do not, in which case
we cannnot do anything because it is a
constitutional provision. So, so much
for the first part.
We are then left with a bill that simply denies Federal benefits to any
State which choose to sanction a certain kind of marriage. Mr. Speaker, I
have served in this House for 24 years.
I have been elected 12 times, the last 6
times as an openly gay man. For the
last 6 years, as many Members of this
House know, I have been in a relationship as loving, as caring, as committed,
as nurturing and celebrated and sustained by our extended families as that
of any Member of this House. My partner, Dean, whom a great many of you
know and I think a great many of you
love, is in a situation which no spouse
of any Member of this House is in. The
same is true of my other two openly
gay colleagues.
This is something which I do not
think most people realize. The spouse
of every Member of this House is entitled to that Member’s health insurance, even after that Member dies, if he
or she should predecease his or her
spouse. That is not true of my partner.

H7278

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

The spouse of every Member of this
House knows that, if he or she
predeceases, is predeceased by their
spouse, a Member, that for the rest of
their lives they may have a pension,
long after if they live longer, the death
of the Member of Congress.
I have paid every single penny as
much as every Member of this House
has for that pension, but my partner,
should he survive me, is not entitled to
one penny. I do not think that is fair,
Mr. Speaker. I do not believe most
Americans think that is fair. And that
is real. Yet that is what the second section of this bill is about, to make sure
that we continue that unfairness. Did
my colleagues know, for example, that,
if my partner, Dean, were terribly ill
and in a hospital, perhaps on death’s
door, that I could be refused the right
to visit him in the hospital if a doctor
either did not know or did not approve
of our relationship? Do you think that
is fair? I do not think most Americans
think that is fair.
He can be fired solely because of his
sexual orientation. He can be evicted
from his rental home solely because of
his sexual orientation. I do not think
most Americans think that is fair. Mr.
Speaker, not so long ago in this very
country, women were denied the right
to own property, and people of color,
Mr. Speaker, were property. Not so
very long ago people of two races were
not allowed to marry in many of the
States of this country.
Things change, Mr. Speaker, and
they are changing now. We can embrace that change or we can resist that
change, but thank God All Mighty, as
Dr. King would have said, we do not
have the power to stop it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. BARNEY FRANK, the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I understand why no Member
on the other side agreed to yield. We
have a tradition around here of yielding. But when your arguments are as
thin as theirs, you do not risk rebuttal.
Let us talk about the points here.
First of all, we are told that this is not
political. Now, people may understand
why we do not speak here under oath.
No one in the world believes that this
is not political. We are told we must do
this because the Hawaii Supreme Court
is threatening them. The Hawaii Supreme Court decision in question came
in 1993. The process in Hawaii, which is
now still going on, does not end until,
at the earliest, in late 1997 and probably 1998. There is a trial that has to
take place that has not even started.
Why, when the decision came in 1993
and the process will not end until 1997
or 1998, are we doing this 3 months before the election? Oh, it is not political, sure.
Second, there is a very false premise,
the notion that this is to protect
States from having to do what Hawaii
does. Every Member on the other side

who sponsored this bill believes that
that part is unnecessary. Every Member believes that the States already
have that right. What is being protected here is not the right of States to
make their own decision but the right
of States to vote Republican in the 1996
Presidential election.
We will be told time and again that
we have 3 weeks left in this session
until August and then we will have a
month. We have an enormous amount
of undone work. The leadership is talking about abandoning the appropriations process, the Republican leadership, and doing continuing resolutions
on issue after issue after issue. We will
be told we do not have time to debate
it. Why? Because we have to protect
America from something that will not
happen until 1998.
And what are we protecting, as my
colleague and friend from Massachusetts has just said? This is the most
preposterous assertion of all, that marriage is under attack. I have asked and
I have asked and I have asked and I
guess I will die, I hope many years
from now, unanswered: How does the
fact that I love another man and live in
a committed relationship with him
threaten your marriage? Are your relations with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that I have a committed, loving relationship with another
man jeopardizes them? What is attacking you? You have an emotional commitment to another man or another
woman. You want to live with that person. You want to commit yourselves legally.
I say I do not share that commitment. I do not know why. That is how
I was born. That is how I grew up. I
find that kind of satisfaction in committing myself and being responsible
for another human being who happens
to be a man, and this threatens you?
My God, what do you do when the
lights go out, sit with the covers over
your head? Are you that timid? Are
you that frightened?
I will yield to the gentleman from
Oklahoma if he will tell me what
threatens his marriage.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield
to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LARGENT. Absolutely. I would
just submit, Mr. Speaker, that the relationship of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK] with another
man does not threaten my marriage
whatsoever, my marriage of 21 years
with the same woman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, whose marriage does it
threaten?
Mr. LARGENT. It threatens the institution of marriage the gentleman is
trying to redefine.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It does
not threaten the gentleman’s marriage.
It does not threaten anybody’s marriage. It threatens the institution of
marriage; that argument ought to be
made by someone in an institution be-

July 11, 1996

cause it has no logical basis whatsoever.
Here we go, I keep asking people,
whose marriage is threatened? Not
mine, not his.
No one on the other side yielded
once. People on the other side mentioned other Members, distorted their
arguments and never yielded once. I
certainly will not yield again, because
I think the nonanswer is clear. I have
asked it again and again.
1145
What is it that says, and people have
said this, I have had people when I was
in my district for 9 days last week saying, I am worried. I cannot afford my
college tuition. I am worried about
public safety. I am worried about Medicare. No one said to me, oh, my God,
two lesbians just fell in love and my
marriage is threatened. Oh, my God,
there are two men who commit to each
other and they are prepared to be legally responsible for each other. How
can I possibly go on with my marriage?
What we see is very clear. There is no
reason for this in terms of time. There
is no reason for it legally, because the
States already have that right. This is
a desperate search for a political issue
by hitting people who are unpopular.
And, yes, I acknowledge the notion of
two men living together in a committed relationship or two women makes
people nervous and uncomfortable. I
want to talk about that. But threaten
your marriage?
I will make a prediction that between
now and the end of this debate tomorrow we will hear not one specific example of how this threatens marriage because no one who believes that the
bonds between a man and a woman who
love each other and care for each other
and are prepared to commit to each
other for a lifetime or 3 years or whatever the pattern may be, is somehow
threatened because two other people
love each other.
What about the love that two others
have for each other threatens your own
love? What an unfortunate concept.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. LARGENT].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want
to address the last speaker’s comments
and say that, first, we need to step
back from trees and look at the forest
and try to take a long view of our culture, and we can look at history and
show that no culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has ever survived.
Second, I would say that what this
same-sex marriage is seeking is State
sanction of their relationship. There is
nothing that prevents the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK] right
now from having a loving relationship
with his significant other, no matter
what their sexes are.
Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out about this yielding
and not yielding. The gentleman from

July 11, 1996

H7279

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Massachusetts tried to make a point,
as frivolous as I felt it was, that our
side was not yielding. Both sides are allocated a fair amount of time, 30 minutes each. We each get 30 minutes.
Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts criticized or lectured the gentleman from Colorado because I would
not yield time to him, and the gentleman from Massachusetts claims the
reason we will not do it is because we
do not like debate. As soon as the gentleman from Oklahoma begins his debate, the gentleman from Massachusetts claims his time back.
I think we need to be very civil and
very professional on this House floor.
We each have 30 minutes, let us use our
30 minutes.
Let us talk, and I think first of all
understand this is not an issue between
the parties. President Clinton supports
this. President Clinton says now is the
time to address it. And let me quote directly from his press agent. ‘‘He believes this is a time when we need to do
things to strengthen the America family, and that is the reason why he has
taken this position in support of this
bill.’’
What is the rule? The rule is fair.
What is especially interesting about it
is the gentleman who says this side of
the aisle will not or is afraid to debate
him. It is this side of the aisle who
voted unanimously up in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentleman
from Massachusetts and his side of the
aisle, to allow the gentleman from
Massachusetts 75 minutes on his first
amendment and a certain period of
time for his second amendment. He is
going to get lots of debate time coming
up.
What is it that this bill does? I think
we need to take our collective arguments here in the last hour and focus
in on exactly what does this bill do. It
does not impact the Clean Water Act,
it does not have anything to do with
domestic relations, as far as the gentlewoman from Colorado suggested as no
fault, fault, et cetera, et cetera. It is
very specific. It is very simple. First, it
upholds the long-held tradition that a
marriage is defined as a union between
one man and one woman.
Second, it declares that one State
will not be bound by the decision of the
Supreme Court of another State in regards to a marriage. In other words,
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii cannot mandate upon the State of
Ohio or upon the State of Colorado or
upon the State of California that they
recognize same-sex marriages within
their State even if their State wholeheartedly rejects that type of concept.
Third, it does not obligate the Federal Government for financial requirements or financial obligations because
a State chooses to recognize it. For example, if the State of Hawaii, through
their Supreme Court, recognizes samesex marriage, it does not immediately
obligate the Federal Government to
pay for benefits.
If a Member wants those kinds of
benefits, and the other gentleman from

Massachusetts spoke about that, and I
thought his words were well spoken, if
he wants those benefits, introduce a
bill and run it through the regular
process of the U.S. Congress. That is
how he can get those benefits, not
through a mandate from the Supreme
Court of the State of Hawaii.
So, in other words, every State preserves their right. We preserve the
long-time tradition of marriage between one man and one woman. And I
will reaffirm once again, and I have no
shame in standing up here in the House
of Representatives saying that I support wholeheartedly the traditional interpretation, the traditional recognition, and I hope for all time the future
recognition of the definition of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. STEARNS], my good friend.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want
to say to my colleagues, when we hear
from that side of the aisle that this is
a political issue, we have heard the
President of the United States indicate
that he would sign this bill, so I think
the President is almost saying that he
agrees with what we are doing and he
would like to see as soon as possible
the bill brought to him for his signature. So we really cannot say it is a political one when the President of the
United States, who represents the
Democrats, says he wants the bill, too.
I rise in strong support of this rule. I
commend the gentleman for bringing
this rule forward. And I might point
out to my colleagues that it is our
party that brought this bill here; that
this bill probably would never have
seen the light of day if it had not been
for the new majority in Congress, and I
think it is important to point that out.
I would like to conclude by saying
that we all know that families are the
foundation of every civilized society,
and marriage lies at the heart, the
core, of what a family is. If we change
how marriage is defined, we change the
entire meaning of the family. So what
we are doing today, I say to the gentleman from Colorado, is extremely
important and all of us should realize
we must pass this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
LAHOOD). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present
and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 290, nays
133, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 300]
YEAS—290
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan

Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson

H7280

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Wise
Wolf

Wynn
Young (AK)

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse

Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee
(TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klink
Kolbe
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
MillenderMcDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran

Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS—133
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates

NOT VOTING—10
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Lincoln

Longley
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Riggs

Thornton
Young (FL)

1212
Messrs. GEJDENSON, GUNDERSON,
GENE GREEN of Texas, and HORN
changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to
‘‘nay.’’
Mr. SCHUMER and Ms. KAPTUR
changed their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to
‘‘yea.’’
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.
300, on House Resolution 474 providing for
the consideration of H.R. 3396, the Defense of
Marriage Act, was unavoidably detained on
other business and unable to be physically
present for the vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted ‘‘yea.’’
DEPARTMENTS
OF
LABOR,
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
LAHOOD). Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of

the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 3755.
1214
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R.
3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related
agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. WALKER in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
July 10, 1996, a request for a recorded
vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. PELOSI]
had been postponed and the bill had
been read through page 22, line 16.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES

For carrying out titles II, III, VII, X, XIX,
and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act,
section 427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine
Health and Safety Act, title V of the Social
Security Act, and the Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986, as amended,
$3,080,190,000, of which $297,000 shall remain
available until expended for interest subsidies on loan guarantees made prior to fiscal year 1981 under part B of title VII of the
Public Health Service Act: Provided, That
the Division of Federal Occupational Health
may utilize personal services contracting to
employ professional management/administrative and occupational health professionals: Provided further, That of the funds
made available under this heading, $2,828,000
shall be available until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen’s Disease Center: Provided further, That
in addition to fees authorized by section
427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected for
the full disclosure of information under the
Act sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the National Practitioner Data
Bank, and shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That no more than $5,000,000 is available for carrying out the provisions of Public
Law 104–73: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading,
$192,592,000 shall be for the program under
title X of the Public Health Service Act to
provide for voluntary family planning
projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said projects under such title shall
not be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and
that such amounts shall not be expended for
any activity (including the publication of
distribution of literature) that in any way
tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate
for public office: Provided further, That
$75,000,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 2616
of the Public Health Service Act and shall be
distributed to States as authorized by section 2618(b)(2) of such Act.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

July 11, 1996

The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. LOWEY: Page
22, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
the following: ‘‘(reduced by $2,600,000)’’.
Page 26, line 1, after the first dollar
amount, insert the following: ‘‘(increased by
$2,600,000)’’.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto be limited to 40 minutes and
that the time be divided, 20 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
LOWEY], 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY], and 10 minutes to myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
CASTLE] and I are introducing with the
gentleman from New York [Mr. SCHUMER] restores funding to the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control. Our amendment simply overturns the Dickey amendment passed by
the full committee which reduced the
bill’s appropriation for the CDC injury
prevention and control program by $2.6
million and increased the appropriation for the area health education centers by a like amount.
This amendment will restore the injury prevention and control program to
its fiscal year 1996 level of $43 million,
which is the level approved by the subcommittee. My colleagues who support
the area health education centers program, as I do, please note that under
our amendment, the area health education center will receive an increase
of $2.9 million, or over 12 percent, compared to last year.
Why must we restore funding for the
CDC injury control program? Because
the injury prevention and control program helps to prevent thousands of
needless and tragic accidents and injuries each year.
The injury prevention and control
program is one of the leading Federal
agencies working to prevent domestic
violence. Injury control funds are also
being used to prevent drownings at
Federal recreation facilities, reduce violence in public housing projects, cut
down on driving accidents by the elderly, improve emergency medical services in order to decrease the number of
traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, reduce deaths caused by fires in
the home and many, many other lifesaving activities.
Unless our amendment passes, all of
these vital activities could be affected.
So why were funds for the injury prevention program cut? Let me be very
blunt to my colleagues. The NRA dislikes the fact that the injury control
center collects statistics and does research on gun violence. Even though
the injury control program spends only
5 percent, or 2.6 million, of its budget