[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7270-H7280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3396, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 474

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3396) to define and protect the institution of 
     marriage. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those specified in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     considered only in the order specified, may be offered only 
     by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     specified in the report are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1045

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

[[Page H7271]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, consists of two 
provisions which will protect the rights of the various States and the 
Federal Government to make their own policy determinations as to 
whether same-sex marriages should be recognized in their respective 
jurisdictions. Section 2 of the bill clarifies that no State need give 
effect to a marriage recognized by another State if the marriage 
involves two persons of the same sex. It does not prevent a State from 
giving effect to such a marriage, nor does it prevent a State from 
making its own determination for purposes of its State law.
  Section 3 ensures that the traditional meaning of marriage, the legal 
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, will be the 
meaning used in construing Federal laws.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that H.R. 3396 has considerable 
bipartisan support. In fact, President Clinton will sign this bill in 
its current form. I believe that H.R. 3396 advanced that interest. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following extraneous material for the 
Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 10, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\..............                 46                 44                 77                 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\......                 49                 47                 35                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 13
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                129                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may  
  be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany 
  it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be   
  completely open to amendment.                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 10, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-199; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-197 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         

[[Page H7272]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 249-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....  PQ: 221-197 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/15/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  C................  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/19/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                17/96).         
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   voice vote (5/8/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Science Auth.           9/96).          
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Stability.              9/96).          
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)...........  S................  H.R. 3230........  DoD Auth. FY 1997.....  A: 235-149 (5/10/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 178.  Con. Res. on the        PQ: 227-196 A:   
                                                                        Budget, 1997.           voice vote (5/16/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3415........  Repeal 4.3 cent fuel    PQ: 221-181 A:   
                                                                        tax.                    voice vote (5/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96)..........  MO...............  H.R. 3259........  Intell. Auth. FY 1997.  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                21/96).         
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3144........  Defend America Act....  .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3448........  Small Bus. Job          A: 219-211 (5/22/
                                                                        Protection.             96).            
                                 MC...............  H.R. 1227........  Employee Commuting      .................
                                                                        Flexibility.                            
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3517........  Mil. Const. Approps.    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        FY 1997.                30/96).         
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3540........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   5/96).          
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3562........  WI Works Waiver         A: 363-59 (6/6/  
                                                                        Approval.               96).            
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 2754........  Shipbuilding Trade      A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Agreement.              12/96).         
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3603........  Agriculture             A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      11/96).         
                                                                        1997.                                   
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3610........  Defense                 A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      13/96).         
                                                                        1997.                                   
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3662........  Interior Approps, FY    A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   19/96).         
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3666........  VA/HUD Approps........  A: 246-166 (6/25/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3675........  Transportation Approps  A: voice vote (6/
                                                                                                26/96).         
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3755........  Labor/HHS Approps.....  PQ: 218-202 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (7/10/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3754........  Leg. Branch Approps...  A: voice vote (7/
                                                                                                10/96).         
H. Res. 474 (7/10/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3396........  Defense of Marriage     .................
                                                                        Act.                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
  D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.   


  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. McInnis for 
yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult, very emotional issue and, my 
personal opinions aside, I do not believe it belongs on the floor of 
the House of Representatives today.
  This issues makes a tremendous amount of people extremely 
uncomfortable; it divides our country when we should be brought 
together; and frankly, it appears to be a political attempt to sling 
arrows at President Clinton.
  But, my Republican colleagues have decided to bring this issue up, 
and unfortunately for the country, here it is.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my Republican colleagues are bringing 
up this bill instead of tackling the mountains and mountains of work 
awaiting them. This Congress has yet to finish five appropriations 
bills; this country is waiting for the bipartisan Kennedy-Kassebaum 
health care bill; and a long-overdue minimum wage increase. But what 
are my Republican colleagues doing?
  This week they are doing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not what the country wants and I am sorry to see 
that my Republican colleagues are wasting precious floor time on their 
political agenda with complete disregard for the needs of working 
Americans and congressional responsibilities for Federal spending.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the rule for this bill not as unfair as other rules 
we have seen this year.
  It will allow for 1 hour of general debate, of which the Democrats 
get half, it makes in order two Democratic amendments by Mr. Frank, and 
it gives the Democrats the time requested on these two amendments.
  My Republican colleagues did not make in order an amendment by 
Representative Schroeder to exclude from the Federal definition of 
marriage any subsequent marriage unless the prior marriage was 
terminated on fault grounds.
  They also did not make an amendment in order by Representatives 
Johnson and Hobson to provide for a GAO study of the differences in 
benefits in a marriage and a domestic partnership.
  But, there is adequate time for debate of this issue during general 
debate and debate on the amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to distinguish a couple of 
remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts says that this Protection of Marriage Act 
is not what this county wants. I take issue with that. I think this is 
exactly what this country wants. This country is demanding that the 
tradition of marriage be upheld. What this country does not want is for 
one State out of 50 States, that is, specifically the State of Hawaii, 
to be able to mandate its wishes upon every other State in the Union.

[[Page H7273]]

  What this bill does is it allows every State to make their own 
individual decision. So if the State of Wyoming wants to make their 
decision, they can make their decision. Texas can make its decision. 
Colorado can make its decision. But they have the freedom to make that 
decision; it is not mandated upon them by a court, a supreme court in 
the State of Hawaii.
  I think it is particularly important to take a look at the 
traditional marriage, and we are going to have plenty of time to debate 
that. If we look at any definition, whether it is Black's Law 
Dictionary, whether it is Webster's Dictionary, a marriage is defined 
as union between a man and a woman, and that should be upheld, and 
there is no reason to be ashamed of that tradition. It is a long-held 
tradition. It is a basic foundation of this country, and this Congress 
should respect that.
  Finally, I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to address a couple of 
other issues. First of all, in regard to the Schroeder amendment, which 
was not allowed by the Committee on Rules, that amendment is clearly, 
in my opinion, a delusion, it is a diversion. It is not focused on the 
key issue which is important here, and that is, should one State be 
able to mandate on every other State in the Union a requirement that 
those States recognize same sex marriage?
  Now, in regard to the gentleman's comment about the Johnson 
amendment: The Johnson amendment would put in the statute a requirement 
that the General Accounting Office do a study. It does not require a 
mandate by statute. In fact, the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], said that he would write a letter 
requesting that study. Every Member of the U.S. Congress has that right 
to request that study be made. There is no reason to put that in 
statute.

  Again I think it is a delusion, I think it is a diversion from the 
topic at hand, from the issue that we have got to look at, and that is 
where our focus ought to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just cannot think why we could not be talking about 
getting the water cleaned up in this country right now, why we could 
not be getting the Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill before us right now, 
why we could not get the minimum wage.
  The matter before us today, nothing is going to happen for at least 2 
years. People are going to be dying very shortly if we do not clean up 
our water. People are going to be dying unless we get adequate health 
care. People are going to be starving in the streets unless we do not 
raise our minimum wage.
  So I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] may have got his 
items a little out of priority, out of whack.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Courts and Intellectual Property.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me.
  I want to say I think that this bill and bringing it up today is an 
absolute outrage. If my colleagues think there is not enough hate and 
polarization in America, then they are going to love this bill because 
this just trying to throw some more gasoline on political fires people 
are trying to light this year, and that is not what we need. The State 
of Hawaii is years away from taking final action. Meanwhile the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is right: We cannot drink the water in the 
capital city of this great Nation.
  So we got to deal today with something that might, might, happen 
years from now, but we cannot deal with the water issue today? Now, 
something is wrong with that.
  We are also saying what this bill basically says is that there is a 
tremendous threat to marriage if two people of the same sex stand up 
and vow commitment to each other, that if they do that, then my 
marriage is being threatened. I do not think so. I belong in the 
marriage hall of fame. I have been married for 34 years. I have never 
felt threatened by that issue.
  In over 200 years this Congress has never gotten into the definition 
of marriage because we have left it to the States. What we are saying 
today is even if States vote unanimously to allow this type of 
marriage, the Federal Government will not recognize it. This is unique, 
this is different, and I really am troubled by that.
  But I had an amendment that said, ``If you want to defend marriage, 
I'm going to tell you what I see wrong with marriage. It is the fact 
that we have let people crawl out of marriages like they crawl--a snake 
crawls out of its skin and never deal with economic consequences.''
  So I had an amendment saying, ``The real defense of marriage would be 
to say at the Federal level you don't give benefits to the next 
marriage until the person who left that marriage has dealt with the 
first one in a property settlement based on fault.''
  That would save us gazillions of dollars in welfare and child support 
and all sorts of things because we say we are defending marriage. But 
we know the traditional way this has been done is that people move to 
the Federal dole because we do not want to go tap the person on the 
shoulder and say, ``You have responsibility for that family you just 
left. You cannot just shed them and throw them on the taxpayers' 
roll.''
  But, no, no, they do not want to take up my amendment. That is a 
diversion, they say. That is delusion.
  It is not diversion, it is not delusion. It is absolutely to the 
point of this bill. It was not ruled out of order. So what happened? 
The Committee on Rules said, oh, ``No, we cannot take that up.'' Why? 
Because this is a political ruse. This is not about really protecting 
marriage and the things that have caused this great institution of 
marriage to crack.
  Now, I feel very strongly that if we are going to make marriage work, 
we should be really valuing adults, taking responsibility for each 
other. That is very hard for anybody to do any more. This country is 
getting straight A's in fear of commitment. Most people do not want 
anything but maybe a cat. So if there are two individuals and they are 
willing to make a commitment to each other under the civil law of a 
State and a State decides to recognize it, what right does the Federal 
Government have to say, no, they cannot do that?
  What we? Are we not human beings? Do we not respect each other? 
Should we not really be doing everything we can to try and take care of 
each other as our brother's keepers, as our sister's keepers? Taking 
care of children?
  I am shocked that my amendment was not allowed, terribly shocked, 
because if nothing else, it protects the most innocent victim of 
throwaway marriages, and that is children.

                              {time}  1100

  Children have been cast off and thrown away, and people do not want 
to take responsibility for them and say, ``I am going to have a new 
family.''
  To me, Mr. Speaker, my amendment goes to the core of the defense of 
marriage. If we really want to defend marriage in this country, then 
say to people, when you make that commitment you have to mean that 
commitment. And even if you want to leave that commitment, you may be 
able to leave it physically, but you cannot shed it economically. You 
still have economic responsibility.
  That is why I say this bill is absolutely nothing but a wedge issue. 
We are building the platform for Candidate Dole to stand on in San 
Diego. We are out trying to make candidates spend a million dollars 
defending this issue when we are not talking about the debt, when we 
are not talking about clean water, when we are not talking about all 
the real issues. I urge a no on this rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me point out first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Colorado in committee was turned down 22 to 3, 22 to 
3.
  Second of all, I think an interesting situation here, the 
gentlewoman, the preceding speaker, is from the State of Colorado. As 
Members know, I am from the State of Colorado. The gentlewoman from 
Colorado supports same-sex marriage. The gentleman from Colorado 
opposes same-sex marriage. That is a debate that ought to be carried 
out

[[Page H7274]]

within the confines of the State of Colorado.
  Neither the gentlewoman from Colorado nor the gentleman from Colorado 
ought to have their debate determined by the Supreme Court in the State 
of Hawaii. The gentlewoman is very capable of carrying forward this 
debate within Colorado, as I feel that I am, too. We ought to carry 
that out, not the people of Hawaii. That is a decision for the people 
of Colorado or for the people of Wyoming or for the people of New York.
  Second of all, I think it is important to highlight the President's 
comments. At the very beginning, I believe that the gentlewoman from 
Colorado made the comment that she is shocked that we are bringing this 
type of bill to the floor. Let me say the President's comments, of whom 
I find the gentlewoman from Colorado in constant support, the 
President, through his press secretary says, ``The President believes 
this is a time when there is a need to do things to strengthen the 
American family, and that is why he has taken this position in 
opposition to same-sex marriage.''

  This is an issue that becomes very relevant the minute the Hawaii 
Supreme court issues its decision. In addition, it is also very 
relevant because of the implications it has to the Federal Government 
on benefits that are entitled to spouses. So there are three keys we 
really need to look at: First, what will the Federal Government be 
obligated to as far as tax-funded dollars by same-sex marriages; 
second, what are States' rights? Why should not the States exercise 
their individual rights? The third point is the traditional definition 
of marriage.
  I for one have no shame, have no bashfulness, in standing in front of 
the U.S. House and saying I do not support same-sex marriages. I 
believe that the tradition of marriage, as recognized between one man 
and one woman, not one man and five women, not one man and one man or 
one woman and one woman, but one man and one woman, should be continued 
to be recognized as a tradition which is basic to the foundation of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the fine gentleman from the State 
of California [Mr. Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I speak to a specific point, the 
constitutionality of what we do today, because the issue had been 
raised. I begin with drawing my colleagues' attention to Article 4, 
Section 1: ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the 
public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'' 
But I urge my colleagues to read to the second sentence of that 
section: ``And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in 
which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the 
Effect thereof.''
  The second sentence of that provision of the Constitution is quite 
important to understand the constitutionality of the bill we debate 
today, because whereas the general rule is that full faith and credit 
is to be given to the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every 
other State, an exception is created if Congress chooses by general 
law, as opposed to a specific law to a specific contract, by general 
law to prescribe the manner in which such records and proceedings are 
proved, and the effect thereof. I emphasize the second phrase, ``The 
effect thereof.''
  A leading treatise on the field of constitutional law, the Library of 
Congress' own contracted work, the annotated Constitution, at page 870, 
refers to this power in the context of divorce, not marriage; we do not 
have any quotation from this source on marriage. But on divorce they 
say, ``Congress has the power under the clause to decree the effect 
that the statutes of one State shall have in other States.''
  This being so, it does not seem extravagant to argue that Congress 
may under the clause describe a certain type of divorce and say it 
shall be granted recognition throughout the Union and that no other 
kind shall.'' ``And that no other kind shall,'' establishing, I think 
quite clearly, what the phrases of the Constitution suggest: that 
Congress has the constitutional authority to establish exceptions to 
the general full faith and credit clause.
  Has Congress used this authority? Yes, it has, quite recently, in a 
very related context. In 1980 the Congress adopted section 1738(a) of 
title 28, which provided that ``Whereas child custody determinations 
made by the State where the divorce took place generally are applied in 
all other States, not so if the couple moved to another State.'' And 
Congress said that the second State did not have to abide by the child 
custody determinations of the first State where the couple moved to the 
second State, an explicit use of this second sentence of article 5, 
section 1, power in the Congress.
  Then most recently, in 1994, in section 1738(b) of the same title, 
Congress once again established that rule for child support orders. We 
have, thus, a rather clear example of power explicitly in the 
Constitution, recognized by treaties, and used as recently as last 
year.
  The advisability of this bill shall be debated. My purpose this 
morning was to speak to its constitutionality. Mr. Speaker, there is no 
doubt as to its constitutionality.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Honolulu, HI [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from 
Colorado, inasmuch as he continues to invoke the name of Hawaii, to at 
least try to be accurate. I understand the gentleman has his political 
duty that he is going to do today here, at least as he conceives it. I 
do not object to that. I do object to his, I must say, making 
statements like ``Hawaii mandating its wishes on the rest of the 
Nation''; his constant invocation of what Hawaii intends to do or not 
do.
  I daresay that there are not five people in this House of 
Representatives that have the slightest clue as to what is taking place 
legislatively or judicially or personally in Hawaii with respect to 
this issue. I can tell the Members that the individuals involved are 
constituents of mine, two of whom I know personally.
  I know that the kind of rhetoric that has been utilized with respect 
to this issue does not reflect either their wishes or their 
motivations. I find it at best a question that needs to be answered as 
to our definition with respect to marriage. I will not use the word 
hypocritical, but I think others might certainly question the 
motivation of people who want to define marriage when this Defense of 
Marriage Act might better be characterized as defense of marriages.
  If we intend to say that marriage, and we are writing a national 
marriage law, which is what we want to do here, is between one man and 
one women, does that mean that we will now write a national divorce 
law? Because I understand some of the people who are sponsoring this 
bill are on their second or third marriages. I wonder which one they 
are defending.
  I do not object to that. I think people are entitled to make their 
private relationships what they will and to seek such happiness in this 
life as they are able to achieve, but I think that when we move into 
the area of the private relationships of other people, that we at least 
ought to show some respect for the human context.
  When the gentleman from Colorado and others speak so glibly of Hawaii 
and the people who are involved in the legal proceedings there, they 
forget these are human beings, some human beings that I know 
personally. All they are trying to do is conduct their lives as 
reasonable, sober, responsible people seeking their measure of 
happiness and tranquility in this life, and to try to bring as much as 
they can into their lives of the values that we cherish in Hawaii, of 
kindness and responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, amendments will be offered to this bill, because this is 
more than the defense of marriage. It also gets into the question of 
benefits. We contend and I certainly contend that nothing that is 
proceeding today in Hawaii and in the courts of Hawaii affects in any 
way what any other State does. It is quite clear, and I can cite at 
great length, and I do not have the time obviously now, the fact that 
other States are able to establish already what they recognize or do 
not recognize with respect to marriage.
  The full faith and credit clause has been invoked in our Nation's 
history very few times, less than half a dozen times, and it involves 
the custody of children, the protection of children,

[[Page H7275]]

the interstate capacity to enforce child support laws. That is the kind 
of thing we have dealt with, serious issues.
  I do not doubt that it is a serious issue for individuals here as to 
what constitutes marriage, but to try to utilize Hawaii for some 
political agenda having to do with, I guess, the elections in November 
is something that I find nothing less than reprehensible. We can define 
marriage any way we want in the States right now. This bill has nothing 
to do with that. Hawaii certainly is not challenging it.
  In fact, I would like to hear from the gentleman from Colorado or 
anybody else any indication that the State of Hawaii has ever indicated 
in any way, shape, or form that it intends to, as the gentleman put it, 
mandate its wishes on the rest of the Nation. I do not think this is 
the case, and I do not think this is the bill to do this kind of thing, 
and certainly not to malign Hawaii in the process.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the gentleman from Hawaii, 
there certainly will be a mandate or an attempt to mandate upon every 
State in the Union any decision that comes out of the Hawaiian Supreme 
Court allowing same-sex marriage.
  Second of all, the gentleman from Hawaii starts out by, in my 
opinion, lecturing the gentleman from Colorado about the State of 
Hawaii and where do these comments come from. Let me quote from a 
gentleman from the State of Hawaii who represents the State of Hawaii 
in the State House of Hawaii. The gentleman is State representative 
Terrance Tom, who testified before the committee here.
  Let me quote: ``I do know this: No single individual, no matter how 
wise or learned in the law, should be invested with the power to 
overturn fundamental social policies against the will of the people.
  ``If this Congress can act to preserve the will of the people as 
expressed through their elected representatives, it has a duty to do 
so. If inaction by the United States Congress runs the risk that a 
single judge in Hawaii may redefine the scope of Federal legislation, 
as well as legislation throughout the other 49 States, failure to act 
is a dereliction of the responsibility you were invested with by the 
voters.''
  This is not politics. This is clearly, if we fail to act in this 
body, as stated by the gentleman from the State of Hawaii, ``It is a 
dereliction of responsibility you,'' referring to the U.S. Congress, 
``were invested with by the voters.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, you need to duck in here today. The red herrings are 
flying fast and furious. We hear about clean water and we hear about 
minimum wage and we hear about amendments that were defeated by 
overwhelming votes in committee, and it being outrageous that those 
amendments are not before us today. We hear about politics.
  We hear about all sorts of things from the other side, when the fact 
of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, let us do away with the red herrings, 
let us put aside the smoke and look at what we have. We have a basic 
institution, an institution basic not only to this country's foundation 
and to its survival but to every Western civilization, under direct 
assault by homosexual extremists all across this country, not just in 
Hawaii.
  This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that has arisen in a bipartisan 
manner, as the gentleman from Colorado has already stated. President 
Clinton said he supports this legislation and would sign it. I would 
also point out that our colleagues on the other side, this is not a 
Republican proposal, it is a proposal that enjoys bipartisan support. 
Just look at the list of cosponsors, both original cosponsors and 
subsequent cosponsors, and Members will find people from both parties 
who support this. The reason they do support it is because it is not a 
partisan issue. This is an issue that transcends partisan lines. It 
goes to the heart of a fundamental institution in this country, and 
that is marriage.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, this issue is not one invented by anybody who is a 
cosponsor of this bill. It was not invented by anybody in this 
Congress. It is an issue that is being forced on us directly by assault 
by the homosexual extremists to attack the institution of marriage. One 
has to look no further than the words of some of their organizations 
themselves, such as the Lambda Defense Fund. This is part of a 
concerted effort going back many years and now poised, at least in the 
State of Hawaii, for success from their standpoint.
  The learned gentleman from Hawaii took issue with any of us who might 
claim to know something about what is going on in Hawaii as if we did 
not. Well, in fact we do. One of the reasons we do know a little bit 
about what is going on in Hawaii is the fact that one of the persons we 
heard from in the Judiciary Committee, the subcommittee, was Hawaiian 
State Representative Terrance Tom, chairman of the Hawaiian House 
Judiciary Committee. He said that the Supreme Court's ruling in Hawaii 
has been met with very strong resistance on the part of the Hawaiian 
public and public opinion and their elected representatives.
  He went on to explain in some detail the background as to why this 
legislation that he was testifying in behalf of in the Congress was 
important to him and to other people in Hawaii. We do not purport to 
know certainly as much as the learned representative from Hawaii but we 
do know a little bit about what is going on out there.
  The legislation that is before this body today is a reaction to what 
is being forced on this country. It is very limited legislation. It 
goes no further than is absolutely essential to meet the very terms of 
the assault itself. It simply limits itself to providing, as the 
Constitution clearly and explicitly foresaw in the full faith and 
credit clause, that we exercise that power to define the scope of full 
faith and credit, and it also goes no further than simply fulfilling 
our responsibility in this body to define the scope of marriage as with 
other relationships and institutions that fall into the jurisdiction of 
Federal law, to define it, that for purposes of Federal law only, 
marriage means the union between a man and a woman.
  One of the most astounding things that I heard was in our committee, 
one member indicating that he did not really know the difference for 
legal purposes between a man and a woman or between a male and a 
female. I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that we all know that. And the fact of 
the matter is that marriage throughout the entire history of not only 
our civilization but Western civilization has meant the legal union 
between one man and one woman. For us to now be poised as a country, 
and this is an issue that will be presented, to sweep that away would 
be outrageous. The American people demand this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is necessary, it is essential, it is 
limited in scope, and it addresses the legal issues that properly fall 
within the ambit of congressional authority. It goes no further than is 
necessary to meet this challenge, but the challenge is there, and the 
challenge must be met. If we were to succumb to the homosexual 
extremist agenda on the other side, and this is part of a plan, then we 
would be the first country to do so. Not even the very liberal 
socialist economies of Europe or the countries of Europe have done 
this. No country in the world recognizes homosexual marriages as the 
full legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me preface my remarks that 
yesterday I celebrated my 42d wedding anniversary with my first and 
only wife. I have two children and four grandchildren that I am very 
proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I really have to say that we should be embarrassed today 
to consider this legislation. Of all the pressing needs facing our 
country, the leadership has chosen to focus on this, the so-called 
Defense of Marriage Act.
  Defending our country against enemies is certainly important, as is 
defending our children against poverty and ignorance. Defending the 
elderly against neglect is important, as is defending our families 
against crime and criminals. But defending marriage? Get real. 
Defending marriage against what?

[[Page H7276]]

Against whom? We are wasting precious time here.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation denigrates the House of 
Representatives. What this bill lacks in substance and import, it makes 
up for in shameless politics. Demonizing Communist countries, welfare 
mothers, or immigrants is now old news. So the demon du jour is gays.
  I do not doubt the sincerity of those Americans who truly fear the 
notion of gay marriage. But the institution of marriage is not in 
jeopardy because some choose to associate with the benefits and the 
obligations of marriage. We as Members of Congress have a duty to 
educate, to enlighten, and push for a society that does not punish 
people because they are different. We are here to lead our 
constituents, not leave them behind.
  The possibility that gays may marry must rank pretty low among the 
problems and the difficulties facing American families today. Everyone 
knows that the only true threat to marriage comes from within. Let us 
focus on the real problems this election year and do our constituents a 
real favor. They just might appreciate it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Embarrassed? The preceding speaker says we should be embarrassed 
because we are talking about marriage on this House floor. Let me say 
to every one of my colleagues, I am not embarrassed by defending the 
traditional recognition of marriage. I would like to quote from a 
friend of mine, Bill Bennett:

       The institution of marriage is already reeling because of 
     the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, and 
     out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its 
     devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a 
     radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on 
     an institution that is the keystone and the arch of 
     civilization.

  The issue is very simple here. No. 1, the rule that we are discussing 
today is a very fair rule. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
who has just asked for a request to yield, is going to have lots of 
time in the following hour because the Rules Committee has allowed two 
of his amendments to be debated on the floor. It will be a very healthy 
and good debate for all of us.
  No. 2, the bill is very clear in what it does. It does the following:
  First, it confirms the tradition of marriage as this country and 
every other country in the world recognizes. That is, a union between 
one man and one woman. Second, it preserves the States rights, so that 
one State, like the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, cannot 
mandate upon another State their interpretation of what marriage should 
be. And, third, it preserves the ability for the Federal Government not 
to be obligated to a particular State that may choose to recognize same 
sex marriage.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the fine gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, as I have said 
many times, that the family is the cornerstone, in fact the foundation 
of our society, and at the core of that foundation is the institution 
of marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been many that have come and said already 
this morning, does Congress not have more important things to do? I 
would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely nothing that we do 
that is more important than protecting our families and protecting the 
institution of marriage.
  I have said, too, that this current situation that is taking place in 
Hawaii, where the Supreme Court is about to rule that same sex 
marriages are in order, is a frontal assault on the institution of 
marriage and, if successful, will demolish the institution in and of 
itself with that redefinition.
  How can we possibly, once we begin to redrew the border, the playing 
field of the institution of marriage to say it also includes two men, 
or two women, how can we stop there and say it should not also include 
two men and one woman, or three men, four men, or an adult and a child? 
If they love one another, what would be the problem with that? As long 
as we are going to expand the definition of what marriage is, why stop 
there? Logically there would be no reasonable stopping place.
  Another thing that I would like to address is that there have been 
many who have said that we are doing this for political reasons. What 
political gain is there for Republicans or Democrats when the President 
has already endorsed this very bill? He has said he will sign it. This 
is not a wedge issue. This is not a line of distinction between one 
Presidential candidate and another. The President has said he will sign 
it. We just simply have to do the right thing and pass it today.
  Many are asking, why do we need the Defense of Marriage Act? Quite 
simply, the legal ramifications of what the State court of Hawaii is 
about to do cannot be ignored. If the State court in Hawaii legalizes 
same-sex marriage, homosexual couples from other States around the 
country will fly to Hawaii and marry. These same couples will then go 
back to their respective States and argue that the full faith and 
credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires their home State to 
recognize their union as a marriage.
  We in Congress can prevent confusion and litigation in 49 States by 
passing this modest bill. The legislation does two things, simply: 
First, it allows States to decide for themselves if they will recognize 
same-sex unions as marriages. Each State can affirmatively embrace 
either same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize Hawaiian same-sex 
marriages. This provision respects each State's historical power to 
establish conditions for entering into a legal marriage.
  Second, the bill defines for Federal purposes marriage as the legal 
union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and spouse as a husband 
or wife of the opposite sex.
  Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that as a concerned 
father and observer of our culture, I wonder what marriage and child-
rearing will be like for my own grandchildren. Destroying the exclusive 
territory of marriage to achieve a political end will not provide 
homosexuals with the real benefits of marriage, but it may eventually 
be the final blow to the American family. Now, more than ever, the 
institution of the family needs to be protected, promoted, and 
preserved.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York City [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, marriage does not need defense from 
Congress. Two gay people applying for the benefits and the obligations 
of marriage should stay together their whole life, that does not 
threaten a marriage. If your marriage is threatened, it may be because 
you have lost your job and cannot provide for your family. It may be 
because of emotional reasons. Congress is not going to save your 
marriage. If your marriage is not threatened, you do not need Congress 
to intervene. I will talk about that later.
  What I want to say now is that this bill is a fraud from beginning to 
end. It is a fraud. It purports to do two things: It is going to save 
the other States from having to go along with same sex marriages if and 
when Hawaii does so. No; it will not.
  First of all under the full faith and credit clause of the 
Constitution, the Supreme Court has always recognized the public policy 
exception. If one State recognizes 12-year-old marriages and New York 
chooses not to, New York does not have to recognize a marriage of 12-
year-olds if they get married in one State and move to New York, and so 
forth. If Hawaii chooses to recognize same sex marriages and Colorado 
or New Jersey has a policy against same sex marriages, they will not be 
forced to recognize it under the existing Constitution and the existing 
law. If they were, if the Supreme Court read the full faith and credit 
clause differently than it does, this could not stop it because you 
cannot amend the Constitution by a statute. So this bill is unnecessary 
for that purpose and were it necessary it would be ineffective.
  But the second clause of the bill is the really pernicious clause 
because the first clause, save all the States from Hawaii, does nothing 
at all. It does nothing. It is a fraud to talk about it, a fraud on the 
American people.
  The second part of the bill is that assault on States rights which we 
keep hearing from the gentleman from Colorado and others as sacrosanct, 
this bill is going to defend States rights, nonsense. What this bill 
says in the second clause is that if Colorado or New York or Hawaii or 
New Jersey or any State chooses whether by judicial fiat or by

[[Page H7277]]

action of its legislature or by public referendum of its people to 
recognize same sex marriages, the Federal Government will not recognize 
those marriages for purposes of Social Security or Veterans' 
Administration benefits or pensions or tax benefits or anything else. 
We will say to a State, ``Do what you want, we won't recognize what you 
do because Congress knows better.''
  Mr. Speaker, marriage and divorce has always been a State matter, 
never to be tampered with by Congress or by the Federal Government. Why 
start down that road now? And if we start down that road now, we will 
continue. This is not States rights. This is Federal invasion.

                             {time}   1130

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the campaign headquarters for 
the radical right. You see, knowing that the American people 
overwhelmingly rejected their deep cuts in Medicare and education, 
their antifamily agenda and their assault on our environment, the 
radical right went mucking around in search of an election-year ploy to 
divide our country. Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act trample 
over the Constitution, it flies in the face of everything the new 
majority supposedly supports when it comes to States rights and to 
determining marriage law.
  Let us not be pawns. Let us not be pawns of the radical right. Let us 
not turn the floor of the House of Representatives into a political 
convention for extremists. Let us not take part in this assault on 
lesbian and gay Americans and their families. Instead, let us defeat 
the rule on this mean-spirited bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The 
Republican leadership of this Congress should be ashamed of itself. 
This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Despite the rhetoric 
we have heard today in this Hall and the rhetoric of the religious 
right, one can honor the relationship between a man and a woman without 
attacking gay men and lesbians. No matter who is being attacked, 
discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong.
  You know, I have never been called by any constituent, by anyone to 
complain to me that they want me to defend their marriage. If we want 
to have a debate about defending American marriages and American 
families, let us talk about the real issues affecting American 
families. Let us talk about the rising cost of college education. Let 
us talk about the ability to get health insurance, to afford health 
insurance, to keep health insurance for our children. Let us talk about 
raising the minimum wage. That is the way we strengthen our families, 
by looking at the real issues and taking responsible action to solve 
them.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is that President Clinton now is 
being labeled with the radical right or that some of the Democrats, and 
there are going to be a number of Democrats who vote for this bill, 
being labeled, as they should be apparently, ashamed of themselves or 
extremists. These are not extremists. This is a long-held American 
tradition and not just an American tradition. It is a tradition held in 
every country in this world. It is a tradition we ought to uphold.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this act. The 
impending recognition of same-sex marriages in Hawaii is what is 
bringing it to the floor. The suggestion that somehow this is political 
or this is campaign rhetoric or campaign tactics, which I heard in the 
subcommittee, I heard again at the full committee, is simply not the 
case.
  As I will mention later, if anything, it is about the last thing that 
I or my colleagues on that subcommittee or on the Committee on the 
Judiciary want to get involved with. It is something that frankly no 
one wants to touch with a 10-foot pole, certainly not me. The fact is 
that the impending recognition of same-sex marriages in Hawaii has 
raised the probability that all other States in the United States of 
America are going to be compelled to recognize and to enforce the 
Hawaii marriage contract under the full faith and credit clause of the 
U.S. Constitution. That has very far-reaching implications, both 
fiscally as well as socially for the State of Ohio.
  For example, if two individuals of the same gender obtain a marriage 
license in Hawaii and then move to Ohio, the State of Ohio would have 
to honor that marriage license. The people of Ohio would have no say in 
the matter. The fact is that there is some question about that. It is 
not absolutely crystal clear as to whether the full faith and credit 
clause would apply in that way, but what we are going to do is we are 
going to make it crystal clear that a State will not have to recognize 
a same-gender marriage if it chooses not to.
  Second, I want to point out that there is another issue involved in 
this, and it has to do with all of the rights and privileges, the 
obligations and responsibilities that go with a legal marriage contract 
as it relates to Federal law. We are talking about probably most 
important, survivors benefits, both for veterans as well as for Social 
Security recipients, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  One of the things that was said during the debate that I think is 
probably the most preposterous, and this was said at committee. I do 
not know if it has been said on the floor today. But that is that 
Congress has no business legislating morality. That is preposterous. It 
is ridiculous and it is absurd. The fact is that we legislate morality 
on a daily basis. It is through the law that we as a nation express the 
morals and the moral sensibilities of the United States, and what is 
morality except to decide what is right and what is wrong? That is what 
morality is all about.
  Clearly we have got laws about murder, we believe that murder is 
wrong. It is a moral issue. We have laws about theft and burglary, 
larceny, rape, and other bodily attacks. Those are moral issues. To 
question that somehow we have no right to make a moral judgment on an 
issue completely misses the point of what we do in Congress every 
single day of the week.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Gerry Studds, the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, first if I may make a legal observation then 
a much more personal one. This bill has two brief sections. One 
purports to give States the right to decline to recognize marriages in 
another State, and the other denies Federal benefits to any State which 
makes such a decision. As has been said before, the first part is 
absolutely meaningless. Either under the Constitution the States 
already have that right, in which case we do nothing, or they do not, 
in which case we cannnot do anything because it is a constitutional 
provision. So, so much for the first part.
  We are then left with a bill that simply denies Federal benefits to 
any State which choose to sanction a certain kind of marriage. Mr. 
Speaker, I have served in this House for 24 years. I have been elected 
12 times, the last 6 times as an openly gay man. For the last 6 years, 
as many Members of this House know, I have been in a relationship as 
loving, as caring, as committed, as nurturing and celebrated and 
sustained by our extended families as that of any Member of this House. 
My partner, Dean, whom a great many of you know and I think a great 
many of you love, is in a situation which no spouse of any Member of 
this House is in. The same is true of my other two openly gay 
colleagues.
  This is something which I do not think most people realize. The 
spouse of every Member of this House is entitled to that Member's 
health insurance, even after that Member dies, if he or she should 
predecease his or her spouse. That is not true of my partner.

[[Page H7278]]

The spouse of every Member of this House knows that, if he or she 
predeceases, is predeceased by their spouse, a Member, that for the 
rest of their lives they may have a pension, long after if they live 
longer, the death of the Member of Congress.
  I have paid every single penny as much as every Member of this House 
has for that pension, but my partner, should he survive me, is not 
entitled to one penny. I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I do 
not believe most Americans think that is fair. And that is real. Yet 
that is what the second section of this bill is about, to make sure 
that we continue that unfairness. Did my colleagues know, for example, 
that, if my partner, Dean, were terribly ill and in a hospital, perhaps 
on death's door, that I could be refused the right to visit him in the 
hospital if a doctor either did not know or did not approve of our 
relationship? Do you think that is fair? I do not think most Americans 
think that is fair.
  He can be fired solely because of his sexual orientation. He can be 
evicted from his rental home solely because of his sexual orientation. 
I do not think most Americans think that is fair. Mr. Speaker, not so 
long ago in this very country, women were denied the right to own 
property, and people of color, Mr. Speaker, were property. Not so very 
long ago people of two races were not allowed to marry in many of the 
States of this country.
  Things change, Mr. Speaker, and they are changing now. We can embrace 
that change or we can resist that change, but thank God All Mighty, as 
Dr. King would have said, we do not have the power to stop it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Barney Frank, the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand why no Member 
on the other side agreed to yield. We have a tradition around here of 
yielding. But when your arguments are as thin as theirs, you do not 
risk rebuttal.
  Let us talk about the points here. First of all, we are told that 
this is not political. Now, people may understand why we do not speak 
here under oath. No one in the world believes that this is not 
political. We are told we must do this because the Hawaii Supreme Court 
is threatening them. The Hawaii Supreme Court decision in question came 
in 1993. The process in Hawaii, which is now still going on, does not 
end until, at the earliest, in late 1997 and probably 1998. There is a 
trial that has to take place that has not even started. Why, when the 
decision came in 1993 and the process will not end until 1997 or 1998, 
are we doing this 3 months before the election? Oh, it is not 
political, sure.
  Second, there is a very false premise, the notion that this is to 
protect States from having to do what Hawaii does. Every Member on the 
other side who sponsored this bill believes that that part is 
unnecessary. Every Member believes that the States already have that 
right. What is being protected here is not the right of States to make 
their own decision but the right of States to vote Republican in the 
1996 Presidential election.
  We will be told time and again that we have 3 weeks left in this 
session until August and then we will have a month. We have an enormous 
amount of undone work. The leadership is talking about abandoning the 
appropriations process, the Republican leadership, and doing continuing 
resolutions on issue after issue after issue. We will be told we do not 
have time to debate it. Why? Because we have to protect America from 
something that will not happen until 1998.
  And what are we protecting, as my colleague and friend from 
Massachusetts has just said? This is the most preposterous assertion of 
all, that marriage is under attack. I have asked and I have asked and I 
have asked and I guess I will die, I hope many years from now, 
unanswered: How does the fact that I love another man and live in a 
committed relationship with him threaten your marriage? Are your 
relations with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that I have 
a committed, loving relationship with another man jeopardizes them? 
What is attacking you? You have an emotional commitment to another man 
or another woman. You want to live with that person. You want to commit 
yourselves legally.
  I say I do not share that commitment. I do not know why. That is how 
I was born. That is how I grew up. I find that kind of satisfaction in 
committing myself and being responsible for another human being who 
happens to be a man, and this threatens you? My God, what do you do 
when the lights go out, sit with the covers over your head? Are you 
that timid? Are you that frightened?
  I will yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma if he will tell me what 
threatens his marriage.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LARGENT. Absolutely. I would just submit, Mr. Speaker, that the 
relationship of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] with 
another man does not threaten my marriage whatsoever, my marriage of 21 
years with the same woman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, whose marriage does it 
threaten?
  Mr. LARGENT. It threatens the institution of marriage the gentleman 
is trying to redefine.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It does not threaten the gentleman's 
marriage. It does not threaten anybody's marriage. It threatens the 
institution of marriage; that argument ought to be made by someone in 
an institution because it has no logical basis whatsoever.
  Here we go, I keep asking people, whose marriage is threatened? Not 
mine, not his.
  No one on the other side yielded once. People on the other side 
mentioned other Members, distorted their arguments and never yielded 
once. I certainly will not yield again, because I think the nonanswer 
is clear. I have asked it again and again.

                              {time}  1145

  What is it that says, and people have said this, I have had people 
when I was in my district for 9 days last week saying, I am worried. I 
cannot afford my college tuition. I am worried about public safety. I 
am worried about Medicare. No one said to me, oh, my God, two lesbians 
just fell in love and my marriage is threatened. Oh, my God, there are 
two men who commit to each other and they are prepared to be legally 
responsible for each other. How can I possibly go on with my marriage?
  What we see is very clear. There is no reason for this in terms of 
time. There is no reason for it legally, because the States already 
have that right. This is a desperate search for a political issue by 
hitting people who are unpopular. And, yes, I acknowledge the notion of 
two men living together in a committed relationship or two women makes 
people nervous and uncomfortable. I want to talk about that. But 
threaten your marriage?
  I will make a prediction that between now and the end of this debate 
tomorrow we will hear not one specific example of how this threatens 
marriage because no one who believes that the bonds between a man and a 
woman who love each other and care for each other and are prepared to 
commit to each other for a lifetime or 3 years or whatever the pattern 
may be, is somehow threatened because two other people love each other.
  What about the love that two others have for each other threatens 
your own love? What an unfortunate concept.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the last speaker's 
comments and say that, first, we need to step back from trees and look 
at the forest and try to take a long view of our culture, and we can 
look at history and show that no culture that has ever embraced 
homosexuality has ever survived.
  Second, I would say that what this same-sex marriage is seeking is 
State sanction of their relationship. There is nothing that prevents 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] right now from having a 
loving relationship with his significant other, no matter what their 
sexes are.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me point out about this yielding and not yielding. The gentleman 
from

[[Page H7279]]

Massachusetts tried to make a point, as frivolous as I felt it was, 
that our side was not yielding. Both sides are allocated a fair amount 
of time, 30 minutes each. We each get 30 minutes.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts criticized or lectured the 
gentleman from Colorado because I would not yield time to him, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts claims the reason we will not do it is 
because we do not like debate. As soon as the gentleman from Oklahoma 
begins his debate, the gentleman from Massachusetts claims his time 
back.
  I think we need to be very civil and very professional on this House 
floor. We each have 30 minutes, let us use our 30 minutes.
  Let us talk, and I think first of all understand this is not an issue 
between the parties. President Clinton supports this. President Clinton 
says now is the time to address it. And let me quote directly from his 
press agent. ``He believes this is a time when we need to do things to 
strengthen the America family, and that is the reason why he has taken 
this position in support of this bill.''
  What is the rule? The rule is fair. What is especially interesting 
about it is the gentleman who says this side of the aisle will not or 
is afraid to debate him. It is this side of the aisle who voted 
unanimously up in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and his side of the aisle, to allow the gentleman from 
Massachusetts 75 minutes on his first amendment and a certain period of 
time for his second amendment. He is going to get lots of debate time 
coming up.
  What is it that this bill does? I think we need to take our 
collective arguments here in the last hour and focus in on exactly what 
does this bill do. It does not impact the Clean Water Act, it does not 
have anything to do with domestic relations, as far as the gentlewoman 
from Colorado suggested as no fault, fault, et cetera, et cetera. It is 
very specific. It is very simple. First, it upholds the long-held 
tradition that a marriage is defined as a union between one man and one 
woman.
  Second, it declares that one State will not be bound by the decision 
of the Supreme Court of another State in regards to a marriage. In 
other words, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii cannot mandate 
upon the State of Ohio or upon the State of Colorado or upon the State 
of California that they recognize same-sex marriages within their State 
even if their State wholeheartedly rejects that type of concept.
  Third, it does not obligate the Federal Government for financial 
requirements or financial obligations because a State chooses to 
recognize it. For example, if the State of Hawaii, through their 
Supreme Court, recognizes same-sex marriage, it does not immediately 
obligate the Federal Government to pay for benefits.
  If a Member wants those kinds of benefits, and the other gentleman 
from Massachusetts spoke about that, and I thought his words were well 
spoken, if he wants those benefits, introduce a bill and run it through 
the regular process of the U.S. Congress. That is how he can get those 
benefits, not through a mandate from the Supreme Court of the State of 
Hawaii.
  So, in other words, every State preserves their right. We preserve 
the long-time tradition of marriage between one man and one woman. And 
I will reaffirm once again, and I have no shame in standing up here in 
the House of Representatives saying that I support wholeheartedly the 
traditional interpretation, the traditional recognition, and I hope for 
all time the future recognition of the definition of marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns], my good friend.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues, when we 
hear from that side of the aisle that this is a political issue, we 
have heard the President of the United States indicate that he would 
sign this bill, so I think the President is almost saying that he 
agrees with what we are doing and he would like to see as soon as 
possible the bill brought to him for his signature. So we really cannot 
say it is a political one when the President of the United States, who 
represents the Democrats, says he wants the bill, too.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. I commend the gentleman for 
bringing this rule forward. And I might point out to my colleagues that 
it is our party that brought this bill here; that this bill probably 
would never have seen the light of day if it had not been for the new 
majority in Congress, and I think it is important to point that out.
  I would like to conclude by saying that we all know that families are 
the foundation of every civilized society, and marriage lies at the 
heart, the core, of what a family is. If we change how marriage is 
defined, we change the entire meaning of the family. So what we are 
doing today, I say to the gentleman from Colorado, is extremely 
important and all of us should realize we must pass this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 290, 
nays 133, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               YEAS--290

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

[[Page H7280]]


     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--133

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Dunn
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Riggs
     Thornton
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1212

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, GUNDERSON, GENE GREEN of Texas, and HORN changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SCHUMER and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________