[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H6400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: WHAT IF IT WERE A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION?

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor to talk about this 
historic vote yesterday when all the judiciary Republicans voted 
unanimously against defining marriage as a nonadulterous, nonmonogamous 
relationship. I found that shocking.
  Mr. Speaker, I really want to talk about something else now after 
listening to this. I want to congratulate the Republicans for being 
concerned about FBI files, and I want to congratulate this President 
for apologizing for what happened, and I want to say to the Republicans 
I can answer the question about what would happen if it was a 
Republican administration.
  In 1972, when I was a candidate for Congress, our house got broken 
into over and over, our car got broken into, we kept having Jim's 
barber, my husband's barber show up at our house. We could not figure 
out what was going on.
  Many months after I got elected a man got picked up for breaking into 
a house, and he said, ``You can't do this to me because I've been hired 
by the FBI to break into Schroeder's house.''
  That was the Nixon FBI. Not one Republican came forward and said 
anything about it, nor did President Nixon.
  So, let us put this in context, please.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sad day for the institution of marriage. 
The House Judiciary Committee voted down an amendment I offered that 
would have defined marriage as a nonadulterous, monogamous 
relationship.
  For all their talk about family issues, not one Republican voted for 
my amendment. The party of family values failed to stand up for them 
when it counted. That's because in introducing the Defense of Marriage 
Act, the Republicans are far less interested in defending family values 
than in stirring up division and fear in the election season.
  This bill is the first attempt in history by the Congress to define 
marriage. Traditionally, the power to define and regulate marriages has 
been entirely up to the States. What is the grave threat facing 
marriage that would prompt Congress for the first time in 200 years to 
sound the emergency alarm? Well, maybe in the next 3 years, the State 
of Hawaii, might recognize same-sex marriages.
  But everyone knows that adultery is a far greater threat to marriage 
than the speculative threat of same-sex marriages, which not one State 
recognizes today.
  Well, if Congress is going to define marriage, then I think it's 
important to make it clear in that definition that we do not condone 
adultery. But not one Republican was willing to make commitment to 
marriage.
  Yesterday's committee vote showed who values families and who's just 
fooling around.

                          ____________________