DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (House of Representatives - July 12, 1996) [Page: H7481] H.R. 3396 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'. SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES. (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following: `1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof `No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'. (b) Clerical Amendment: The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: `1748C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'. SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE . (a) In General: Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `7. Definition of `marriage ' and `spouse' `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage ' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item: `7. Definition of `marriage ' and `spouse'.'. The CHAIRMAN. No amendments shall be in order except those specified in House Report 140-666, which shall be considered in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 104-666. [TIME: 1115] AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Strike section 3 (page 3, line 9 and all that follows through the matter following line 24). The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] each shall control 37 1/2 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] because this amendment deals with the section of the bill which would have a particularly negative impact on the State of Hawaii. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that I believe that the word marriage should be reserved to man and woman. But I rise to state my unequivocal opposition to H.R. 3396. It goes far beyond the defense of the institution of marriage . It attacks the U.S. Constitution by allowing States to ignore the `full faith and credit' clause. If same sex marriages are to be excluded from this protection it must be done by a constitutional amendment. It cannot be done by statute. [Page: H7482] Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr]. Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as Rome burned, Nero fiddled, and that is exactly what the gentlewoman and others on her side who spoke yesterday and last night would have us do. Mr. Chairman, we ain't going to be fooled. The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned. The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit. The courts in Hawaii have rendered a decision loud and clear. They have told the lower court: You shall recognize same-sex marriages . What more does it take, America? What more does it take, my colleagues, to wake up and see that this is an issue being shouted at us by extremists intent, bent on forcing a tortured view of morality on the rest of the country? Yet, I suppose only in the Congress would we have people take the well and say that a provision that guarantees by law that each State retains its right to decide this issue is taking something away from the States. I suppose only in the Congress would we have people take the well and say that a law that simply guarantees the status quo in terms of the definition of marriage for Federal purposes is taking something away from somebody. Yet here we have it. The red herrings are flying. Yet we must be resolute. This is an issue of fundamental importance to this country, to our families, to our children, and I would strongly urge all of our colleagues to reject this killer amendment which guts a very important piece of legislation. We all must stand up and say we support this. Enough is enough. We must maintain a moral foundation, an ethical foundation for our families and ultimately for the United States of America. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first a word on this amendment. What this amendment aims at is the anti-States' rights portion of this bill. This bill has been grossly misadvertised in several ways. One, it says that it is a defense of marriage , and I will return to that. But it is a defense against a nonattack. Nothing in what Hawaii is about to say, namely probably sometime late next year or early in 1998 allowing same-sex marriages , nothing in that by any rational explanation would impinge on marriages between men and women. Nothing whatsoever. The factors that erode marriages , the factors that lead to divorce, the factors that lead to abandonment and spousal abuse, none of them have ever been attributed to, in any significant degree, same-sex marriage . But there is another misadvertisement. Proponents of the bill say it is necessary to keep other States from having to do what Hawaii does. Now we should make clear that none of them think that is true. None of them believe that, absent this bill, any other State would be compelled to do what Hawaii does. I stress that again. Every single sponsor of this bill believes as I do that the States already have the right that this bill gives them. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which conveys on the press the right to write articles. This is a bill which conveys on individuals the right to go to synagogues on Saturday, church on Sunday, mosques on Friday. This is a bill to do what the people in charge of the bill think is already there. That is why we understand it to be purely political. That is why a Supreme Court decision in Hawaii from 1993 which will not be made final probably until 1998 comes up in 1996. It is a declaration that the States have the rights that they already have coming a few months before the Presidential election. But there is another place of it. They say this is a States' rights bill and it is to prevent another State from having to do what Hawaii does. It has a second and only operative section, and that section says if Hawaii or any other State decides to allow same-sex marriage by whatever means, whether they do it by court decision or by popular referendum or whether they do it by legislation, the Federal Government will say to the State: Wrong, you cannot do that as far as [Page: H7483] [TIME: 1130] I have not had people come to me and say, I am in love with another woman, I want to get married because I really want to have State sanction. I want to know that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Georgia, that they really like me. No one has come forward and said, can you please arrange so that the Republican Party and the House of Representatives will express their approval of my lifestyle. That is not a request I have ever gotten nor expect to get. What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we are legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if one of us gets very ill we will be protected in our ability to undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work and one might be in child rearing, there are people who have children in these relationships. That is what they are asking for. What kind of an almost totalitarian notion is it to say that whatever the Government permits, it sanctions and approves? That is what is clear. Yes, there is a role for morality in Government. Of course there is. The Government has an absolute overriding duty to enforce morality in interpersonal relations. We have a moral duty to protect innocent people from those who would impose on them. That is a very important moral duty. But is it the Government's duty to say, divorce is wrong and there are strong biblical arguments that say if you are divorced, you should not remarry. And should the Government then put obstacles in the way? No. What we say in this society is, religion has its place. If you want a religious ceremony, if you want to be married as Roman Catholic, if you want to be married by orthodox Jewish rabbis, if you want to be married by other groups, you better abide by their rules. But if you as an individual say, I do not love that person anymore, I am walking out, I am tired, I want a new husband, I want a new wife and, therefore, I dissolve it, no fault divorce, leave me out, and I want to remarry, civil law allows you to do that. Does civil law say that is a good thing? Does civil law, by allowing you to divorce and remarry, say, good, we approve of that, we sanction your walking out on that marriage and starting a new one? No, what civil law says is, in a free society that is a choice you can make. We will require, I hope, that you pay up any obligation you have to the children who were the product of the first marriage . We do not do that well enough. But beyond that we leave that choice. And that is all we are talking about. No one is asking for sanctioning. In particular, what we are saying is, if the State of Hawaii and, by the way, if you were going to pick a State less likely to infect others, I am still trying to understand, I said, what is it about two men living together that threatens marriage ? The people who denigrate marriage are the people who argue that marital bonds are so fragile between man and woman that knowing that two men can marry each other will somehow erode them. How could that be? We heard one argument about it yesterday. He said, well, it might lead to polygamy. I am a student of legislative debate. Let me make one very clear point. When people get off the subject, allowing Hawaii to have gay marriages without penalizing them federally, and on to something wholly unrelated, polygamy, and attack the unrelated one, it is because they cannot think of any arguments to attack the first one. Yes, it is true polygamy as an option for heterosexuals would weaken the current option of monogamous heterosexual marriage . That is why I do not know anyone who is advocating polygamy. Why are they then debating polygamy? Because they are cannot argue over here. There is a story about a guy who is on his hands and knees under the streetlight, and he is walking around, looking around. Somebody stops to help him, says, what is the matter. He said, I lost my watch. He said, I will help you. After 5 minutes, he said, gee, I do not think your watch is here. He said, I know, I did not lose it over here. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank]. This is not a States rights amendment. This amendment would allow the will of Congress to be usurped by three justices on a divided Hawaii Supreme Court. In rebuttal to the argument made by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno, not one of ours but one of yours, has twice said that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. It is time for the Congress to define the full faith and credit clause, what the Constitution allows us to do, and that is what this bill proposes. As was stated several times during the debate yesterday, this act is necessary because of a concerted effort on the part of homosexual activities to win the Hawaii case and then to impose the decision on every other State by a lawsuit invoking the full faith and credit clause. My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. I would like to reiterate the words from a memo written by the director of the Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education fund, a gay rights group. This memo is entitled, `Winning and Keeping Equal Marriage Rights: What will Follow Victory in Baehr v. Levin,' unquote. On page 2 of this memorandum it is written, `Many same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii are likely to take advantage of what would be a landmark victory. The great majority of those who travel to Hawaii to marry will return to their homes in the rest of the country expecting full recognition of their unions.' It is important to remember that this gay activist scheme may not only affect every other State but the Federal Government as well. The Federal Government currently extends benefits, rights, obligations and privileges on the basis of marital status. These include Social Security survivor and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, Federal health, life insurance and pension benefits and immigration privileges. In fact, the word marriage appears more than 800 times in Federal statutes and regulations, and the word spouse appears over 3,100 times. However, these terms are never defined in the statutes and regulations. This bill proposes to do so. Because this United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage , a State's definition of marriage is regularly utilized in the implementation of Federal laws and regulations. Such deference is possible now because of the differences, because the difference in State marriage laws, although numerous, are relatively minor. Every State concurs in the most basic marital qualification, that a valid marriage must be between one man and one woman. There never has been any reason to make this implicit understanding explicit until now. If Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage , which the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], says is going to happen, then the basic qualification is altered. Consequently, section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act amends the United States Code to make it clear for purposes of Federal law marriage means what Congress intended it to mean, that is, a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Congress certainly has the authority to define qualifications, conditions and obligations surrounding the application of Federal law and the disbursement of Federal benefits. Exercising such authority is not uncommon. When Congress voted on Federal laws that conferred benefits on married persons, I do not think that Congress ever contemplated their application to same-sex couples. I do not think the American people did either. Should we not let the American people and their elected Representatives, as opposed to a sharply divided Hawaii court, decide whether we should alter the fundamental definition of marriage recognized by civilizations for thousands of years and always presumed by the U.S. Congress? [Page: H7485] Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, at least in terms of Federal benefits, to me, no. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought so. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think Congress should decide whether the domestic spouses of gays and lesbians should get Social Security survivor benefits. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one point on legislative debate, when people use arguments they do not really mean, that is an indicator. The gentleman from Wisconsin made a big point of saying, we cannot do it if Hawaii does it by court, if they do not do it democratically. [TIME: 1145] When I mentioned an amendment that would allow that, it is, oh, never mind. Do not use arguments you do not mean. Do not make up arguments. That does not help the debate. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down. He has impugned my motives. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be seated. [TIME: 1152] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order for 1 minute. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in a spirit of conciliation, even though my plane is not until Sunday, but I know others have quicker ones, I would make it clear that my point was that I believe when Members are debating, they should be careful to use arguments which are genuinely central to their point. And I was admonishing people about what I think is the tendency to use arguments that are not central, and particularly, I think it is a mistake for people to use an argument and then, when that argument is met by a change in the legislation, disregard it. That is what I was intending to imply I believe that the second amendment that I have offered meets part of the argument that was made, and I always find it frustrating when people make an argument and an amendment is then offered which meets that argument and that is disregarded. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] seek recognition? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand that the gentleman's words be taken down. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his demand. The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed in order. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I realize that my views are likely to be in the minority, as well as unpopular, but this is not the first time I have come to the well to stand up for what I believe in, and it will not be the last. Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: The size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists armed with chemical, biological, and small nuclear weapons; a deteriorating public infrastructure; the decline in the quality of public education, to name just a few. Yet, this body is embarked today on an extended debate of a nonproblem, an issue which the States themselves are fully capable of handling without the interjection of the views of Congress. In fact, this issue already has been carefully considered by the legislatures, the legislatures of 34 States. Today, we debate legislation of questionable constitutionality, legislation in which we `authorize' the States to ignore the dictates of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Yet what is clear from the sparse history on the full faith and credit clause is that whatever powers the States have to have to reject the decision by another State are directly derived from the Constitution. Nothing Congress can do by statute either adds to or detracts from that power. Congress cannot grant a power to the States which, under the Constitution, the Congress itself does not have or control. [Page: H7486] Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer]. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, permit me to be theological and philosophical, for a moment. I believe that as a people, as a people, as a God-fearing people, at times, that there are what are viewed, what I believe are called depraved judgments by people in our society. They come in all forms of sin. We learn that early on. I believe that the first creature of God and the words of the first days was the light of sense. We refer to it as God-given common sense. The last, perhaps, was the light of reason. His Sabbath work ever since has been the illumination of his spirit, the Holy Spirit. Above me it reads, `In God we trust.' It says, `In God we trust.' I believe that God breatheth light into the face of chaos and into the face of mankind to deliver his word to others who do not see the light of day, who do not follow the word of God. Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of people, a society based upon very strong Biblical principles. To lead a Nation at moments of chaos through the storm, you rely on God-given principles for that. He shineth the light into our face. We as legislators and leaders for the country are in the midst of a chaos, an attack upon God's principles. God laid down that one man and one woman is a legal union. That is marriage , known for thousands of years. That God-given principle is under attack. It is under attack. There are those in our society that try to shift us away from a society based on religious principles to humanistic principles; that the human being can do whatever they want, as long as it feels good and does not hurt others. When one State wants to move towards the recognition of same-sex marriages , it is wrong. The full faith and credit of the Constitution would force States like Indiana to abide by it. We as a Federal Government have a responsibility to act, and we will act. [TIME: 1205] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. The CHAIRMAN. I might advise the Members, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 27 minutes remaining. Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that purports to defend marriage . I have been thinking a lot about this legislation this week because tomorrow, I am getting married. My finance and I are going to vow to spend the rest of our lives together--no matter what lies ahead. For that commitment, we will enjoy all the rights and privileges the Government bestows on married couples--from tax breaks to Social Security benefits. I can't imagine that my fiance and I could make such a momentous decision to wed--and then have the Government step in and say no, you can't do that. I can't imagine that two people who simply want to exercise a basic human right to marry, a right our society encourages could be denied. I can't imagine that two people could make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together--and never be allowed to have that commitment recognized under the law. Because, you see, for many years, gay couples have made a commitment to spend their lives together. They have spent years building a life together, through good times and bad. Yet, if a gay man becomes gravely ill, his partner is not allowed to visit him in the hospital. A gay couple can share houses, cars, bank accounts, yet one partner cannot inherit a single thing if the other dies without a will. Furthermore, no matter how long they are together, a gay couple cannot share medical and pension benefits. This bill denies a group of Americans a basic right because they lead a different lifestyle. We must be careful when we make legislative determinations on who is different. If gay people are considered `different' today, who is to say your lifestyle or my lifestyle will not be considered different tomorrow? [Page: H7487] Many same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii are likely to take advantage of what would be a landmark victory. The great majority of those who travel to Hawaii to marry will return to their home in the rest of the country expecting full legal recognition of their union. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. The threat posed by the ruling in Hawaii is recognized by Members of both sides of the aisle. The bill before us is very simple. First it honors the State's right to decide its own position on the legalization of same-sex marriage . Second, it says that for Federal purposes, marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman. The Frank amendment strikes that. This bill does not tell people what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. It simply says it is not right to ask the American people to condone it. As a father and an observer of this culture, I look ahead to the future of my daughter and wonder what building a family will be like for her. We saw startling statistics in 1992 that told us that Dan Quayle was right. Children do best in a family with a mom and a dad. We need to protect our social and moral foundations. We should not be forced to send a message to our children that undermines the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Such attacks on the institution of marriage will only take us further down the road of social deterioration. Vote `no' on the Frank amendment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do this with trepidation because I underestimated to some extent the sensitivity on the other side when I point this out, but the gentleman from Texas made a point of the fact that three judges did this in Hawaii, and not the legislature and not a referendum. I have a subsequent amendment which would allow a State to get Federal recognition of marriages only when it is done by the legislature or by referendum or in other ways by the people, and it will probably make no difference. But I just want to say that that argument that this is only the judges in Hawaii does not appear to me to be one that the Members who make it attach a great deal of weight to because when I offer an amendment which obviates it, it would not make any difference. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson]. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there were times and there may still be times in this country today where there are States where you can get married if you are 14 or 15. In my State that is statutory rape. There were times in this country where in many States it took years to get a divorce, sometimes almost impossible. People could fly to I think Las Vegas and other places and get a divorce almost overnight. We did not rush to the floor to ban those actions, to make them not apply to the State where the individual is a resident. What we face here is a challenge of the majority party, the Republicans, and the failure of their entire agenda, and they need a new scapegoat. To try to salvage their political tailspin, we are here on the floor today trying to pick on the powerless. The politics works very well. It is not popular out in the countryside. It is a difficult issue for most Americans to deal with. But if we want to protect families, then we ought to give families health care. If we want to protect families, we need to protect their pensions. If we want to protect families, we ought not be raiding Medicare to give tax breaks to billionaires. If we want to protect families, we need to protect their pensions, not to come here today with a show-stopper that does very little to protect families and I doubt will get the political gain that many are seeking in this legislation. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. [Page: H7488] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to stand here and take up a minute to tell people on the floor how to vote. I think and I hope earnestly that this debate will result in a positive picture for the values of all Americans. But what I want to do is quote from two historical figures to show that none of us, none of us, have all the right answers to all the questions. The first one is a figure that changed Catholicism and evolved it into the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, in which he said, `We are all weak and ignorant creatures trying to probe and understand the incomprehensible majesty of the unfathomable light of the wonder of God.' He was saying each of us do not have all the answers. The second historical figure gave a sermon on the side of a mountain. He said, and I cannot repeat all of that sermon because there is not enough time, but I encourage people in the room and my colleagues to read the Sermon on the Mount and especially chapter 7 in Matthew which starts off, `Judge not lest ye be judged.' [TIME: 1223] Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr]. Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address all of our colleagues here in the House, those listening as well as those that are on the floor, on both sides of the aisle, because this clearly is a nonpartisan matter. One merely has to look at the long list of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. One has to look no further than the thousands of communications to Members of Congress on this legislation and recognize it is very much bipartisan. The issue is clear and not even remotely complex. With this amendment, with the Frank amendment, if Members believe that one State can now define `spouse' or `marriage ' for all Federal purposes, if you believe that it is fiscally responsible to throw open the doors of the U.S. Treasury, and if you believe that the will of the vast majority of the American citizens has no meaning, no importance whatsoever, then vote for the Frank amendment because it represents and does all three of those things. But if Members believe that the views of a vast majority of American citizens are important, do have meaning and ought to be listened to, and if Members believe that the Congress of the United States of America and not an individual State has the authority and the sole jurisdiction and responsibility to decide the use of Federal taxpayer benefits, and if you do not believe it is fiscally responsible to throw open the doors of the U.S. Treasury to be raided by the homosexual movement, then the choice is very clear, oppose the Frank amendment. It is a gutting amendment. It is a killing amendment. That is why this opponent of the bill is proposing it. It is not complex. It is crystal clear. This amendment must be defeated so that the underlying bill can go forward, as we believe it will, through both Houses of Congress and get to the President's desk so that he, as he has said, will sign this important piece of legislation. Let us give him that opportunity and not deny him that opportunity by supporting the Frank amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on the Frank amendment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [Page: H7489] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to say first, if people on the other side are content to have the last comment stand as representative of their viewpoint, so am I. I would say to the gentleman from Florida, he totally misstated this amendment. We are on an amendment that appears to have escaped him. He said I said it preempts States' rights and then talked about the section of the bill not relevant to the amendment. He just got it totally wrong. Yes, there is a section that purports to give the States rights that I believe the States already have. But there is another section which is what this amendment was about, and this second section says that if a State does allow such a marriage , the Federal Government would recognize it. So he was talking about the first section, not about the second section. The second section is the subject of the amendment, and I did want to point out that he was, therefore, totally inaccurate in his representation of what I had said. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, 220 years of history in this Nation where we have not had to define what marriage is. It has been pretty common knowledge and it has been understood by most people. But now we have reached a period in our history when we are going to have to define what marriage actually is. We have to allow the States to define and Hawaii is going to be making that decision and I think in order to allow the other States to have that opportunity, then we must proceed with this Defense of Marriage Act to make sure that they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause to accept something that would not be acceptable to the majority of the people in those particular States, or in this Nation for that matter. But again, I think it is a sad day that we have to stand here in the Capitol of the United States and define what marriage actually is. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I was looking for that long list of Republicans, which has apparently dwindled, that the gentleman was talking about. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because I support the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 10th amendment to the Constitution. As you know, the 10th amendment was designed to prevent us from preempting States' right. Yet for this purpose, we are willing to federalize the one area of law that has been under State control for the last 200 years. What is worse is that it is the Subcommittee on the Constitution of our full Committee on the Judiciary that is willing to limit for the first time in history the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The term that the Subcommittee on the Constitution uses is that it wants `to free the States from a constitutional compulsion.' If we want `to free the States from a constitutional compulsion,' we ought to do it with a constitutional amendment, not through this kind of a statute. This bill in fact is both unnecessary and premature. The Hawaii appeals court is not expected to reach a final decision until 1997. There is no reason to act before that. But by rushing to judgment, Congress is preventing the States from free and open deliberation and failing to allow them to come to their own determinations. States already have the power to refuse to honor same-sex marriages conducted in other States under the public policy exemption to the full faith and credit clause. This is the law right now. So why are we debating an unnecessary bill? I am afraid that the real answer is that it is political exploitation of prejudicial attitudes. [Page: H7490] Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, that is not the position of the State of Hawaii, that this is a good thing. What is trying to be determined now is what is imperative based on the Hawaii State Constitution. As for the recitation about the Lambda Defense Fund, the Lambda Defense Fund turned down the people in Hawaii. They did not want to participate in this. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have to continue that on his own time. I would suggest to the gentleman that the documents provided by the Lambda Legal Defense Fund are very clear, and I do not think there is much mistaking what the objective is behind this whole effort. It may not turn out that way, even in the absence of this bill, but there is a risk that it would and we are trying to address that risk. That is very clear. There is no reason to be confused about it. We are trying to deal with that uncertainty. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment and in opposition to this legislation. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of this particular amendment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Frank amendment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney]. (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment and oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, once again, the Republican leadership is seeking to divide the American people by appealing to our emotions and fears. Rather than working to protect middle-class families in this changing economy, the GOP prefers to divert everyone's attention from Republican efforts to cripple Medicare and cut taxes for the rich. Why, Mr. Chairman, are we targeting gays and lesbians, blacks, and immigrants this year, now, today? The answer, pure and simple, is politics--election year politics. The Republicans will stop at nothing to win the White House and the Congress. They will fan the flames of intolerance and bigotry right up to November. And if the result is an election won--at the expense of national unity--their attitude is, so be it. By the time my Republican colleagues are done, this country will be a boiling cauldron. This bill doesn't prevent a single divorce, a single case of spousal abuse, or protect the institution of marriage . Mr. Chairman, America was settled by people fleeing the intolerance and bigotry prevalent in Europe. Our Nation has always been a haven for those seeking peace, tolerance, and justice. [Page: H7491] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] is recognized for 3 1/4 minutes. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning, I think somewhere around a quarter of two, I observed with some sadness that there was an imbalance between the two aisles in this debate. Words have been thrown around. Although they have not been taken down or requested to be taken down, today I wrote down so far promiscuity, perversion, hedonism, narcissism, well, that may be in this House, depravity and sin. All, I regret to say, from the same side of the aisle. I also thought for a moment I was in some kind of a revival meeting and was about to be preached at from Leviticus. The particular chapter which was implicitly cited from Leviticus is not very popular in my district because the next verse forbids the eating of shellfish, and I would caution people in citing that. Let me also just ask my Republican colleagues. One of them even boasted a moment ago and asked people to notice the partisan divisions here. If ever there was a nonpartisan issue here, this is it. Sexual orientation is the same in Republican families as in Democratic families, in Republican Members as in Democratic Members, as in the general population. It is a sad and tragic political mistake, never mind a moral mistake, for a party to do this. I think that lesson should have been learned 4 years ago. I observed last night, Mr. Chairman, that it is a mistake sometimes to say this is the way things have always been and, therefore, that is good and they should always be that way. When this country was founded our revered Constitution was written in part by men who owned slaves. Women themselves were, in most of these States of ours, were virtually chattel. They did not have the right to own property. People of color were property for many years after this country was founded. And even thereafter, for many years, the different races were not allowed to marry. I wish Members were here last night to hear our distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, because through him came the words and the spirit of a very great American, Dr. King. And this is, whether Members like to hear it or not, the last unfinished chapter of civil rights in this country. Although I have no doubt, I do not think anybody in this room has any doubt, about the outcome of the vote today, I have equally no doubt about the final resolution of this chapter. We are going to prevail, Mr. Chairman. And we are going to prevail just as every other component of the civil rights movement in this country has prevailed. In the words of the great Dr. King, as echoed so eloquently last night by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, this country is going to rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. There is nothing any of us can do today to stop that. We can embrace it warmly, as some of us do; we can resist it bitterly, as some of us do; but there is no power on earth that can stop it. Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In the course of the debate last evening and today we have heard many things from the opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act. They have said much about those who support this bill and those who oppose same-sex marriage . They have described opposition to same-sex marriage and support for this bill as laughable, prejudiced, mean spirited, cruel, bigoted, despicable, hateful, disgusting, and ignorant. One of the leading opponents of the bill has described opposition to same-sex marriage as being based on the morality of the club. In the course of this debate those making these assertions have congratulated themselves on the quality of the debate they have engaged in. [Page: H7492] Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am a traditionalist. My entire life's environment and upbringing have created within me a respect for traditional values. Theology interprets marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Random House Dictionary defines marriage as a union between man and woman. Accordingly, tho I am a gay man in a 13-year relationship, I was fully prepared to reach out to my colleagues in reaffirming the institution of marriage as we know and understand it. Throughout these discussions, I have suggested to my gay and lesbian friends that we should not resort to some semantic debate about the word `marriage .' As this issue evolved, I went to Chairman Hyde and to Speaker Gingrich. I said to them, `I am willing to join with you in reaffirming the definition of marriage , tho I am a gay man. All I ask in return is that you remove the `meanness, prejudice, and hatred' surrounding this issue.' I went further. The debate fails to recognize the painful reality thrown on many innocent people who happen to be in long-term relationships outside of marriage . For example, if I should get sick, should not my partner have automatic visitation rights? Should he not have automatic consultation rights with the attending physician? I think most would say `yes.' But I have letters from many people in my office indicating that from cancer to AIDS, they have been denied this basic right. Second, a close friend of ours recently lost his partner of 16 years to AIDS. While the hospital in Washington respected the relationship and gave him visitation--something worse happened after his partner's death. The funeral home would not allow him to sign any of the documents or arrangement forms. Third, I have a 13-year relationship with my partner. Yet, while some of my congressional colleagues are in their second or third marriage --their spouse receives the benefits of their health insurance, and automatically receives their survivor benefits should that occur. Why should they be given these benefits, when my partner--in a relationship much longer than theirs--is denied the same? Many corporations would like to extend such benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. The problem is that there is no agreement on a civil process to recognize legitimate long-term relationships from those who would simple seek to fraud the system. These are just some of the basic questions that our society must and should ask. If we seek civility, mutual respect, and the promotion of long-term relationships--in marriage or otherwise--then we have no choice. Accordingly, I asked my leadership to accept an amendment I or others would offer creating a commission to look at such questions. Chairman Hyde responded that while he could not support a commission, he would support a GAO study of such questions. Based upon this act of goodwill, I developed an amendment to accomplish this goal. We created an amendment which would call upon GAO to look at the question of the differences in benefits, rights, and privileges available to persons in marriage versus those in a domestic partnership. The study would look at State laws on these questions, Federal differences in benefits, and even how other nations responded to such relationships. The study would be complete by October 1997. It would not change any policy. Rather, it would simply provide the basis of information necessary for rational discussions in the future. To their credit, both Mr. Hyde and Speaker Gingrich told me personally they believed there was merit in my proposal. However, when this amendment was offered to the Rules Committee for consideration--it was denied recognition before the full House. [Page: H7493] Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, I rise in strong support of the bill. We must work to strengthen the American family, which is the bedrock of our society. And, marriage of a man and woman is the foundation of the family. The marriage relationship provides children with the best environment in which to grow and learn. We need to work to restore marriage , and it is vital that we protect marriage against attempts to redefine it in a way that causes the family to lose its special meaning. In the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the U.S. Supreme Court defined marriage as the `union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.' Unfortunately, the courts of Hawaii are in the process of deciding if the State is going to sanction marriages between people of the same sex despite the Hawaiian people's clear rejection of such a policy change. The repercussions could be felt by the Federal Government and the other 49 States almost immediately. The full faith and credit provisions of the Constitution, article IV, require recognition of the `public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings' of each State. However, Congress has the authority to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Federal policies could be dramatically affected by the Hawaii decision since the Federal Government generally recognizes State documents in granting benefits and privileges to married individuals. Veterans' benefits, labor policies, Federal health and pension benefits, and Social Security benefits are just a few of the areas that would be subjected to substantive revision if Congress does not act soon. I think it would be wrong to take money out of the pockets of working families across America and use those tax dollars to give Federal acceptance and financial support to same sex-marriages . Without the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, this would be the case. The American people clearly recognize the importance of protecting the sanctity of marriage . We should not be forced to give public sanction to relationships that clearly fall outside the scope of our Nation's traditional understanding of marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This act will protect the institution of marriage which has been and will remain the foundation of Western civilization. Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, presently before the House is unnecessary, untimely, purports to solve a problem that does not exist, professes to defend an institution--marriage --that is not under attack in the manner suggested by the legislation, and violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This legislation is before us as part of a political agenda and for no other reason. It is a proposed solution looking for a problem. This legislation is simply yet another attempt by the Republican majority to shift the Nation's attention away from their extreme agenda that hurts children, the elderly, and the poor. Under current law, States will continue to be free to decline to recognize same-sex marriages if they choose. To date, nearly 80 percent of the States--37--have already addressed the issue of same-sex marriages in their legislatures. Eighteen States thus far have had legislation banning same-sex marriages either fail or die in the legislative process and 13 States have passed legislation that would deny recognition to same-sex marriages . In fact, the House of Representatives in my State of Pennsylvania voted on June 28th of this year to prohibit same-sex marriages . These statistics hardly present a compelling mandate for the Federal Government to step in and rescue the States. Unlike the future solvency of the Medicare Program or the problems associated with ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to earn a living wage and enjoy a decent retirement, establishing a Federal definition of marriage , when every State has already addressed this issue, is not the most pressing item of business before Congress. There is no clear and compelling reason to address this issue at this time. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3396, the `Defense of Marriage Act.' Many of my colleagues today will give eloquent legal arguments in favor of this legislation. Rather than focus on the legal need for this legislation, I would like to discuss some of the reasons why I feel it is morally necessary. Same-sex `marriages ' demean the fundamental institution of marriage . They legitimize unnatural and immoral behavior. And they trivialize marriage as a mere `lifestyle choice.' The institution of marriage sets a necessary and high standard. Anything that lowers this standard, as same-sex `marriages ' do, inevitably belittles marriage . Traditional marriage has served across the majority of cultures as a foundation for a stable society. Undermining traditional marriage by forcing States to legalize same-sex `marriages ' will have far-reaching social consequences. The attempt to legitimize same-sex `marriages ' threatens our cultural values that have proved their worth down the centuries. Those who seek to overturn our system of values are attempting to achieve not just toleration of their behavior, but full social acceptance as well. We should not undermine the standards that elevate civilization. We must act now to preserve traditional marriage as the foundation of American society. I urge my colleagues to defend the institution of marriage by voting `yes' on H.R. 3396. From the National Review, June 3, 1996 [FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW, JUNE 3, 1996] The Misanthrope's Corner (BY FLORENCE KING) Gay marriage is a consummation devoutly to be missed, but it's a dead cert. If you doubt it, try to remember the last time America turned down a vocal minority. In the Sixties we were the Girl Who Can't Say No, but she was a font of virtue compared to what we are now. Overcome by miasmic gases of diversity and inclusion wafting from the Nineties swamp, we have turned into the Punchdrunk Kid, a twitching lummox with cauliflower ears who mumbles `Sure, Jake, sure' to everybody. The preliminary stage of brainwashing is already underway. `Husband' and `wife' are yielding to `spouse,' a vague usage that benefits no one but gays. Gov. Roy Romer recently vetoed Colorado's proposed anti-gay marriage law, calling it `mean-spirited,' a word that functions in America like the bell in Pavlov's laboratory. And now Bill Clinton has announced, through his gay-liaison office, that he is `personally opposed' to homosexual marriage . This phraseology, a staple of the abortion debate, is a reminder not to let our premises stand in the way of our conclusions. The major brainwashing, soon to begin, will proceed as follows. Magazines will run cover stories that thinking Americans--all 17 of us--recognize as that brand of persuasion called `nibbled to death by a duck.' Time does `Debating Same-Sex Marriage ' and Newsweek does `Rethinking Gay Marriage .' Lofty opinion journals weight in with `A Symposium on,' `In Defense of,' and `Voices from,' while Parade does `If They Say I do' . . . Will We Say `You Can't' Cover art consists of a pair of wedding rings sporting identical biological signs: two arrow-shooting circles for men, two mirror-handle circles for women. We will start seeing these logos in our sleep. Next, the pundits. Molly Ivins writes `Bubba, Hold Yore Peace.' Ellen Goodman waxes earnest about tradition versus change in `Something Old, Something New,' Ruth Shalit writes something borrowed, and Richard Cohen, Victim America's identifier-in-chief, does a column called `We're All Single.' Arianna Huffington will figure out a compassionate way to be against gay marriage , but most conservatives stand to fare badly in this debate. Will Durant wrote, `When religion submits to reason it begins to die.' In a media-saturated society teeming with talk-show producers casting dragnets over think tanks, proponents of gay marriage , win merely by being scheduled. By contrast, the conservative instinctively recoils from analyzing eternal verities. He may know the words to legal arguments such as `the need to show a compelling state interest, etc,' but he doesn't know the tune. In the final analysis he believes in the sanctity of marriage `just because.' [Page: H7495] Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my full support of the Defense of Marriage Act. The issue of homosexual marriage is a major concern to many Americans, and I feel that the time has come for Congress to take a stand. What we say today and how we vote on this bill have both legal and moral ramifications for years to come. We cannot sit by and do nothing. Legally, the Defense of Marriage Act is what its title states. It will define the act of marriage for Federal purposes and preserve its sanctity. Currently, Federal law has no definition of the words `marriage ' or `spouse,' even though the Federal Government uses those terms frequently. Traditionally, it has relied upon the relevant State's law when applying those terms. However, today we are at a crossroads with this practice, and it is time to make a choice. Right now a lawsuit in Hawaii may lead to the legalization of homosexual marriages in that State. The repercussions of such a decision would legally affect us all. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires that every State honor the `Public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of [every other] State unless specified by Congress.' By this clause, all 49 other States would then be required by law to recognize a marriage between members of the same sex as legal for all State purposes. Further, because we currently have no definition of marriage on the rule books, the Federal Government would be forced to recognize such homosexual marriages for Federal benefit purposes. The Defense of Marriage Act would safeguard the rest of the country from the decision made by one State. The American people might be surprised to learn that this bill would not outlaw homosexual marriages ; although I believe it should--it would simply exempt a State from legally recognizing a marriage that did not fit it's own definition of marriage . States would still be free to recognize gay marriages if they so choose. However, and most importantly, this act would define `marriage ' as `only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife' at the Federal level. This Federal definition would ensure that a State could not define a `marriage ' that the Federal Government would have to recognize. If the Federal Government does not act now, and Hawaii legalizes homosexual marriage , the Federal Government would then be obliged to provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages currently receive. Unless this bill is passed establishing a Federal definition of marriage , all Americans will then be paying for benefits for homosexual marriages . Yes, we must put our foot down. Unless we pass the Defense of Marriage Act, we will putting our stamp of approval on gay marriages , forcing the rest of the Nation to follow the whim of one State. This bill simply preserves the sanctity of the act of marriage between a man and a woman. It is a bill which will ensure that each State will not have to follow the lead of another on this issue. This bill will give each State the leverage it deserves to decide for itself whether or not to legalize gay marriages . However, as we all know, this is more than just a legal discussion. We are here because the issue of gay marriages is a moral one. Marriage , no matter what your religious belief, is a sacred act. It is the joining of a man and a woman in a unity that is officially recognized by the State. Marriage is the foundation of our society; families are built on it and values are passed on through it. In our current age, where the sanctity of marriage is constantly being compromised, I feel that we must seize this rare opportunity to strengthen it. Homosexual marriages are not necessary; gays can legally achieve the same legal ends as marriage through draft wills, medical powers of attorney, and contractual agreements in the event that the relationship should end. Therefore, asking the rest of the country to recognize such marriages does nothing that the law cannot currently do, it is simply asking for special privileges. [Page: H7496] IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE While the Supreme Court has not specifically applied the full faith and credit clause to the status of marriage , we do know that there is absolutely no legal precedent for Congress to invite some States to ignore the official acts of others. Mr. Chairman, section 2 of this bill adds a section to the Federal full faith and credit statute, which is no doubt an unconstitutional attempt to do just this. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, article IV, clause 1, provides, and I quote: Sentence One: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Sentence Two: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. In other words, each State must give `full faith and credit' to other State laws, and must fully recognize the acts and proceedings of other States. For example, in the case of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 295 (1942), the Supreme Court interpreted the clause as serving the purpose of `alter[ing] the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore the obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation.' Never once has Congress implemented laws allowing States not to recognize certain `Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings' of another State. In fact, Congress has heightened each State's recognition responsibilities under the clause by enacting the following pieces of legislation: First, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1990 requires States to enforce, not ignore, other States' child custody determinations; Second, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders of 1994 requires that other States enforce, not ignore, child support determinations of other States; and Third, the Safe Homes of Women Act of 1994 requires that States recognize, not ignore, the protective orders of other States to protect victims of domestic violence. Thus, Congress has only passed legislation strengthening, not weakening, requirements on States to recognize the `Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings' of another. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear why many constitutional scholars have concluded that Congress would go beyond the scope of its legislative powers under the Constitution in passing H.R. 3396. It is noteworthy that during the subcommittee consideration of this bill, Representative Sensenbrenner stated that Utah's admission to the Union was delayed for several years because of `the fear of the Congress over a hundred years ago was that polygamous marriages that were polemized in Utah would have to be recognized in the other States.' This statement suggests that Congress contemplated over one hundred years ago that the drafters of the Constitution intended that all States, not only those which choose to, must give `full faith and credit' to the `Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings' of all other States, including the recognition of out-of-State marriage , and interpreted that requirement to its most literal meaning. Proponents of this bill argue that allowing States to not recognize the public acts of another is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under sentence two of the clause. Mr. Chairman, How can this be if this bill directly contravenes sentence one's mandate that every State is required to recognize the official public acts and judicial proceedings of other States? If we are to follow the flawed logic of this argument, it would follow that sentence two of the clause must be read to say that States must recognize the official acts of other States except when Congress passes a law that says they don't have to. [Page: H7497] Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to what I view as an unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional bill. This measure will federally codify discrimination against a group of Americans striking a blow to justice and equal treatment for all people. Mr. Chairman, less than 30 years ago many in this Nation believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would seriously denigrate American society, and many State laws reflected that. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated these laws, recognizing the freedom to marry as `one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' Should the Federal Government step in and dictate to States, it would be an abrogation of States' rights. Currently, no State permits same-sex marriages . Hawaii is debating the issue, but the final decision is not expected for another 2 years. Furthermore, States already have the capacity to determine whether they will recognize marriages performed in other States. Most importantly, in the entire history of this Nation--for over 200 years--never has the Federal Government intervened in the State regulation of marriage . Never. The 10th amendment to our Constitution--which we are sworn to uphold--states that powers not enumerated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. So, I ask my colleagues, why are we getting involved? This brings me to my final point. This measure is unconstitutional. Article four, section one of the U.S. Constitution states that the `Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.' We cannot alter the U.S. Constitution with a simple act of Congress. In addition, the 14th amendment provides for `equal protection of the laws' for all citizens. Clearly the rights of gay and lesbian citizens would be abridged by this bill. Just as the Supreme Court found in 1967 that racial distinctions between citizens are `odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,' the Court would again, I believe, invalidate this bill. The Court most recently ruled that targeting a segment of society with animus must be unconstitutional. Lastly, there is clearly a political agenda driving this legislation. Barely 30 legislative days remain before the election and we have yet to complete our constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the government. Yet we are debating this election-year ploy by a party attempting to divide the Nation. We are not debating the granting of a sacrament of marriage : Congress can't do that. We are debating States' rights and the rights of privacy. I recognize the general, pervasive discrimination gay men and lesbians face in society and in this House. I also recognize that many will disagree with me, but by advocating discrimination, we're breaking down the bonds which hold this Nation together when we should be strengthening them. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional legislation. Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment that suspends the definition of marriage for any State that adopts a different definition through its normal democratic process. Mr. Chairman, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act should really be called the Republican Offense on People Who are Different Act because it is nothing more than blatant homophobic gay-bashing. The conservative elements of our American society have often discriminated against and tried to prevent whatever they didn't like or didn't understand. It hasn't been so long ago that blacks and whites weren't allowed to marry in any State. So, devoted couples pledged their commitment to caring for each other in private ceremonies, their children were considered illegitimate, and the spouses were not legally entitled to inherit from their partners, nor share in any public benefits. [Page: H7498] [TIME: 1256] In so doing, we would not only reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage , but we would also send the signal of our sensitivity and respect to those who happen to be gay or lesbian. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and I want to thank him for his decency and sensitivity in discussing this with me, suggested that while he could not support a commission he could support a GAO study. So I drafted an amendment which calls for such a GAO study to be a part of this bill, and I shared it with the gentleman from Illinois and Chairman Gingrich. Unfortunately, others in my party insisted that this small step of basic decency and respect not be included in this bill. Unfortunately such action, I think, exposes this legislative initiative for the mean political game it is. And I am truly sorry about that. I stand here today with respect and with love for each of you as fellow Members of the human race. All I ask in return is that you do not intentionally make me any less worthy than you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsion [Mr. Gunderson]? There was no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 3, after line 20, insert: (b) Application: (1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if the State in which the persons affected by such application of subsection (a) has determined that the definition of `marriage ' or `spouse', or both, shall be different than that in subsection (a), provided such State determination is in the form of-- (A) legislation; or (B) citizen initiative or referendum. (2) In the case where such a determination is made by judicial decision interpreting a State constitution, subsection (a) shall cease to apply if the minimum time necessary in that State for an amendment to the State constitution elapses and the State's determination remains in effect. (3) In the case where such a determination is made by judicial decision interpreting a State statute, subsection (a) shall cease to apply with the adjournment of the next session of the State legislature. Page 3, line 21, strike `(b)' and insert `(c)'. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and a Member opposed each will control 7 1/2 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me reassure those Members with `rollcall envy' that they can have one on this one. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and in opposition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill is unnecessary, discriminatory and possibly unconstitutional. There is no question that we have real problems with family disintegration in this country, but this legislation is not intended to defend or improve the success of marriage , rather it is intended to further divide the country over the issue of gay rights. I'm saddened that, at a time when so many important issues face this country we are taking up valuable time discussing a bill that truly is a solution in search of a problem. Same sex marriage is not currently legal anywhere in the United States. And in over 200 years, the Federal Government has never attempted to develop a Federal definition of marriage . That right and responsibility has been left to the States. [Page: H7499] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this slimmed-down revision of section 3 to allow the States, which enact their own same-sex marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal Government. Surely, Members on the other side of the aisle can support this amendment. I hope they can. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the excellent job of whipping up the populace into a frenzy will subside somewhat and we can consider what we are dealing with. For my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the subcommittee chairman who keeps laying this 70-percent population figure on us, may I remind the gentleman that 70 percent of the population was against ending segregation when the civil rights laws passed in the United States of America in the sixties. The gentleman shakes his head negatively, but he is incorrect. Now, I wish my good friend from Wisconsin who made his very impassioned remarks would have included in the reasons for marriage being in trouble in America, if it is, that it is because of joblessness. I do not know what is going on between all the spouses, but joblessness is a huge driving force. And finally, for ex-Senator Bob Dole, who I give advice on occasion, why is he so angry that President Clinton agrees with him on this issue? What is the beef, Bob? I mean, after all, you forced him to do this. Mr. Chairman, we are going to stick with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Eventually we will all come around and realize where this is going. I thank the Members for their kind attention. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment revising section 3 of the bill to allow States, which enact their own same sex marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal Government. Around this body we hear a lot of talk about States rights. Well this amendment gives all of the Members a chance to back up their rhetoric. For more than 200 years Congress has allowed determinations of marriage status to be a purely State matter. Yet, unless this amendment is adopted, we in the Congress will be telling the States how to run their business. We will be saying a marriage that they have blessed is not good enough for Federal recognition. This amendment serves to illustrate the blatant hypocrisy which characterizes the entire legislation. The entire matter has very little to do with the Federal Government. It is black-letter law that the States are free to reject marriages approved by other States which violate public policy. It is pursuant to this authority that States have invalidated marriages consummated in other States which are incestuous, polygamous, based on common law, and involve under-age minors. Ironically, by enacting this law, Congress will, by implication, be limiting the States authority to reject other types of marriage which may be contrary to public policy. It seems clear to me that the only reason we are here even debating this issue is that Republicans are intent on creating a political issue completely out of thin air so they can demonize gay and lesbian individuals and further divide the American people. The Contract With America has been a flop, the Repubican Party is behind in the polls, and their leadership is desperately trying to manufacture widge political issues. If there were any other reason, they would slow this bill down, wait for the courts and the State of Hawaii to act, and seriously analyze the legal implications of what they are doing. Fortunatley, I don't think the American people will be fooled by this legislative red herring. They want real solutions that improve their every day lives, not legislative placebos. We can begin doing so by voting for this amendment and returning power back to the States. [Page: H7500] Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this is one of the most uncomfortable issues I can think of to debate. It is something I really shrink from because there is no gentle easy way, if we are to be honest and candid, to discuss the objections to same-sex marriage , the disapprobation of homosexual conduct, without offending and affronting an ever-widening group of people who have come to accept homosexual conduct. But, Mr. Chairman, we are driven to this debate. We are driven to this debate by the courts. The Romer versus Evans case which was decided May 20 of this year is a fascinating case, and it provides really a preferred status for homosexual people, and may very well invalidate a State's heretofore unquestioned power to reject the conduct in another State on public policy grounds. If a marriage was incestuous and it was celebrated in one State, another State did not have to accept that on public policy grounds. Now, there is a real question because of Romer versus Evans, a Supreme Court case. The fascinating thing is that the Bowers versus Hardwick case was not even discussed in Romer versus Evans. Bowers versus Hardwick is a 1986 case which said a State may criminalize the act of sodomy. Twenty-five States have laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. The defining act of homosexuality is a crime in 25 States. It used to be in all the States, but many of the States have reversed their laws because they cannot enforce them. There is no way to enforce them. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman's interpretation, I mean this seriously, if the gentleman's interpretation of Romer versus Evans is correct, and we do not know whether it is or not, would that not also apply then to the section here? In other words, if the court were to hold under Romer versus Evans---- Mr. HYDE. Yes, it could. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that this could also apply to this section equally. Mr. HYDE. It could. But that is why we need this statute in my judgment, to give a little more leverage to the States. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would continue to yield for 10 seconds, if in fact it is unconstitutional because of an interpretation of parts of the Constitution, no statute would hold against that. [Page: H7501] [TIME: 1315] Mr. HYDE. Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not is all. You cannot speculate about the court. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] said that the unfinished business of the civil rights movement is homosexual acceptability. There is no power on Earth to stop it. Maybe and maybe not. He has something, when I look around and see the entertainment stars in our country are Michael Johnson and Madonna, he could be right. The homosexual movement has been very successful in intimidating the psychiatric profession. Now people who object to sodomy, to two men penetrating each other are homophobic. They have the phobia, not the people doing this act. That is a magnificent accomplishment for public relations. Let us talk about this bill. This is the most delicate and limited measure that Congress could possibly produce on this subject. First of all, as to defining marriage in the Federal code, who else should define it except this Congress, the Federal legislature. Not the courts, the courts are usurping legislative functions. It is appropriate that Congress define marriage . You may not like the definition the majority of us want, but most people do not approve of homosexual conduct. They do not approve of incest. They do not approve of polygamy, and they express their disapprobation through the law. It is that simple. It is not mean spirited. It is not bigoted. It is the way it is, the only way possible to express this disapprobation. [Page: H7501] [TIME: 1315] Mr. HYDE. Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not is all. You cannot speculate about the court. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] said that the unfinished business of the civil rights movement is homosexual acceptability. There is no power on Earth to stop it. Maybe and maybe not. He has something, when I look around and see the entertainment stars in our country are Michael Johnson and Madonna, he could be right. The homosexual movement has been very successful in intimidating the psychiatric profession. Now people who object to sodomy, to two men penetrating each other are homophobic. They have the phobia, not the people doing this act. That is a magnificent accomplishment for public relations. Let us talk about this bill. This is the most delicate and limited measure that Congress could possibly produce on this subject. First of all, as to defining marriage in the Federal code, who else should define it except this Congress, the Federal legislature. Not the courts, the courts are usurping legislative functions. It is appropriate that Congress define marriage . You may not like the definition the majority of us want, but most people do not approve of homosexual conduct. They do not approve of incest. They do not approve of polygamy, and they express their disapprobation through the law. It is that simple. It is not mean spirited. It is not bigoted. It is the way it is, the only way possible to express this disapprobation. Now, two men loving each other does not hurt anybody else's marriage , but it demeans, it lowers the concept of marriage by making it something that it should not be and is not, celebrating conduct that is not approved by the majority of the people. Defeat the amendment. Vote for the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. RECORDED VOTE Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103, noes 311, not voting 19, as follows: Roll No. 314 [Roll No. 314] AYES--103 Abercrombie Ackerman Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Berman Blumenauer Bonior Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Campbell Clay Clayton Clyburn Coleman Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Coyne DeFazio Dellums Dingell Dixon Engel Eshoo Farr Fattah Fazio Filner Frank (MA) Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gunderson Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hilliard Hinchey Horn Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Lantos Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Maloney Markey Martinez Matsui McCarthy McDermott McKinney Meehan Meek Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Mink Moakley Moran Nadler Neal Olver Owens Pallone Payne (NJ) Pelosi Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Stark Stokes Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Velazquez Vento Ward Waters Waxman Woolsey Yates NOES--311 Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brownback Bryant [Page: H7502] Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3396, back to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the bill back forthwith with the following amendment: Page 3, line 24, at the end of the bill, add the following new sections to the legislation: SEC. 4. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1996'. SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. A covered entity, in connection with employment or employment opportunities, shall not-- (1) subject an individual to different standards or treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) discriminate against an individual based on the sexual orientation of persons with whom such individual is believed to associate or to have associated, or (3) otherwise discriminate against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. SEC. 6. BENEFITS. This Act does not apply to the provision of employee benefits to an individual for the benefit of his or her partner. SEC. 7. NO DISPARATE IMPACT. The fact that an employment practice has a disparate impact, as the term `disparate impact' is used in section 703(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)), on the basis of sexual orientation does not establish a prima facie violation of this Act. SEC. 8. QUOTAS AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROHIBITED. (A) Quotas.--A covered entity shall not adopt or implement a quota on the basis of sexual orientation. (b) Preferential Treatment: A covered entity shall not give preferential treatment to an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. SEC. 9. RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION. (a) In General: Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall not apply to religious organizations. (b) For-Profit Activities: This Act shall apply with respect to employment and employment opportunities that relate to any employment position that pertains solely to a religious organization's for-profit activities subject to taxation under section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SEC. 10. NONAPPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES; VETERANS' PREFERENCES. (a) Armed Forces.--(1) For purposes of this Act, the term `employment or employment opportunities' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces. (2) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Armed Forces' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. (b) Veterans' Preferences.--This Act does not repeal or modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating special rights or preferences for veterans. SEC. 11. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Enforcement Powers.--With respect to the administration and enforcement of this Act in the case of a claim alleged by an individual for a violation of this Act-- (1) the Commission shall have the same powers as the Commission has to administer and enforce-- (A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), or (B) sections 302, 303, and 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202, 1203, 1204), in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of such title or of section 302(a)(1) of such Act, respectively, (2) the Librarian of Congress shall have the same powers as the Librarian of Congress has to administer and enforce title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of such title, (3) the Board (as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-1; 109 Stat. 3) shall have the same powers as the Board has to administer and enforce the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act, [Page: H7503] Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask for the attention of the House because, as many of us have entered houses of worship, this debate has been wrapped more in whether one's belief in the Scriptures and Bible will carry the day. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that I am a Bible believer and a Bible reader, but all of God's children have rights. I believe that we have over these last 24 hours lifted up and increased discrimination as opposed to decreasing discrimination. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act is biblical in nature as well, for it gives human dignity to all of God's children. I will speak to the issue of germaneness, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, but in fact this amendment and motion to recommit is germane. It increases the opportunity for all citizens to be treated equally. It takes away the sting of denying people their rights. This subject matter is, in fact, appropriate, for it seems that the legislation that is now on the floor deals with gays and lesbians and separates them out from the Constitution of the United States. This Employment Nondiscrimination Act says that we will not be a gestapo, that we will respect and we will lift up the rights of all citizens. [TIME: 1345] Yes, the Committee on the Judiciary, from which this bill has come out, also has jurisdiction over the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am not running away from germaneness, but I do understand that we have been discussing over these last 2 days legislation that is to respond and control perversion that characterizes many individuals. I would simply say that this is the appropriate way for a nation like ours to go, one that embodies in this House the word `union,' stick together; the word `justice,' justice for all; the word `tolerance,' to tolerate those citizens who have given their lives for this flag and this country; and yes, the word `liberty,' liberty for all; and yes, the word `peace.' We should go in peace and harmony. So I believe that the subject matter that deals with gay and lesbian rights in the workplace is more than appropriate for a motion to recommit, for this body to stand equal with America in responding to the good aspects, to the goodness of what this country stands for; for the reason we have lost men and women overseas, for liberty and equality for all. How can we not today stand with America and the flag and acknowledge the human dignity of all of god's children? How can we not? So I ask my colleagues if they would accept this motion to recommit so we do not leave this place this day; so we, like Esther, will acknowledge that if I perish, I perish, for I must stand for what is right. It is important that we allow this legislation, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996, to give human dignity to all of our citizens. It is important, it is germane. It provides the criteria of germaneness, for it deals, as I said, with increasing the opportunities and decreasing discrimination. Likewise, it deals with gays and lesbians, and yes, the subject matter is relevant. I would hope the subject matter of equality and the dignity of all and the respect for the words of this Chamber of justice and tolerance and peace and liberty is the way that we should go. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues, can we not, can we not, can we not acknowledge freedom in America goes to all of our citizens, all of our citizens? POINT OF ORDER [Page: H7504] Mr. BERMAN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit. Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, this is a motion to recommit with instructions. This motion to recommit is simply adding an amendment to the bill and asking that the bill be reported back forthwith. If this motion to recommit passes, the body will still be voting on the bill immediately after the vote on the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit is very simple: It simply asks for a GAO study to look at the differences in benefits, rights, and privileges available to persons in a marriage and to persons in a domestic partnership resulting from the non-recognition of domestic partnerships as legal unions by State and Federal laws. Once again, the passage of this motion to recommit will not send the bill to a committee, it will not bury this bill. The bill will come back immediately for a vote on final passage. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to recommit. Clearly there is a need to understand how we enable people who are committed to one another to have appropriate legal rights and responsibilities with regard to each other. All this study does is to ask the GAO to look at the rights and responsibilities one has under a marriage contract and the rights and responsibilities that domestic partners have under current State and Federal law. We simply need to know this information. Without question, marriage has been the pillar of social organization over time in every society, because marriage helps to sustain the development of love, loyalty, commitment, and responsibility. Domestic partner relationships are not marriage , and that is what this bill says. But domestic partner relationships do encourage commitment, responsibility, love, and loyalty, and I think it is important that our society rise to the challenge of finding what legal entitles we need to develop to allow people who want to take responsibility for one another, who want to, over time, legally share responsibilities for health care, share responsibilities for planning funerals and so on and so forth, how we help them do that. This is just a study to get the information. We are proposing it in a legal form because we want to acknowledge that this information is important to us as a society; that all relationships of commitment are important to a stable society. And in the passage of this bill, which I intend to support, we do not intend to denigrate other relationships of integrity. Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I support the base bill, and I would say that I also support this motion to recommit, which does not delete, eliminate, or change anything in the present bill, as we will vote on final passage on this measure whether or not this motion to recommit passes or fails. If Members are like me, a very happily married man with two wonderful kids, this issue does not come up a lot in my household. But what this motion to recommit does is it simply adds a section calling upon the GAO to conduct a study determining the benefits, rights, and privileges given to those in marriage but not those in long-term domestic partnerships. As part of the study it will also look at how other countries have legally dealt with the long-term relationships outside of marriage . It changes no law. It only asks the GAO to give us the information requested by October 1, 1997. Then we are free to use such information to decide what if any policy changes we want to make. Let us affirm our commitment to traditional marriage , but let us do so in a way that respects and is sensitive to those in long-term domestic partnerships. [Page: H7505] Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time during which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 164, nays 249, not voting 20, as follows: Roll No. 315 [Roll No. 315] YEAS--164 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews Baldacci Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Berman Bilbray Blumenauer Blute Bonior Borski Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Campbell Cardin Castle Clay Clayton Clinger Clyburn Coleman Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Conyers Coyne Cummings Davis DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Deutsch Dicks Dixon Doggett Dooley Durbin Ehlers Engel Eshoo Farr Fattah Fazio Filner Foglietta Foley Forbes Fox Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen Frost Furse Gejdenson Gephardt Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Green (TX) Greenwood Gunderson Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Hobson Horn Hoyer Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Kanjorski Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kleczka Klug Kolbe Lantos Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney Markey Martinez Martini Matsui McCarthy McDermott McHale McKinney Meek Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Mink Moakley Mollohan Moran Morella Murtha Nadler Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Pryce Rangel Reed Richardson Rivers Rose Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Shays Skaggs Slaughter Stark Stokes Studds Stupak Thomas Thurman Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Towns Upton Velazquez Vento Ward Waters Waxman Williams Wilson Woolsey Wynn Yates Zimmer NAYS--249 Allard Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Boucher Browder Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clement Coble Coburn Collins (GA) Combest Condit Cooley Costello Cox Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner de la Garza Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dingell Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehrlich English Evans Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flake Fowler Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gekas Geren Gillmor Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Greene (UT) Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hoekstra Hoke Holden Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (SD) Johnson, Sam Jones Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klink Knollenberg LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lucas Manton Manzullo Mascara McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon McNulty Metcalf Meyers Mica Miller [Page: H7506] NAYS--67 Abercrombie Ackerman Becerra Beilenson Berman Brown (CA) Brown (OH) Collins (MI) Conyers Coyne DeFazio Dellums Dixon Engel Eshoo Farr Fattah Foglietta Frank (MA) Gejdenson Gunderson Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hinchey Jackson (IL) Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Lantos Lewis (GA) Lofgren Maloney Markey Martinez Matsui McDermott McKinney Meek Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Mink Moran Nadler Olver Pallone Payne (NJ) Pelosi Rangel Rivers Roybal-Allard Sabo Sanders Schroeder Scott Serrano Skaggs Slaughter Stark Stokes Studds Torres Towns Velazquez Waters Waxman Williams Woolsey ANSWERED `PRESENT'--2 Jackson-Lee (TX) Owens NOT VOTING--22 Brewster Clay Dickey Dunn Ensign Fields (LA) Flanagan Ford Gibbons Greenwood Hall (OH) Johnston LaFalce Lincoln Longley McDade Meehan Roberts Thompson Thornton Watt (NC) Young (FL) [TIME: 1421] The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Flanagan for, with Mr. Clay against. Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against. So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.