[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9072-S9074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1998. A bill to provide for expedited negotiations between the 
Secretary of the Interior and the villages of Chickaloon-Moose Creek 
Native Association, Inc., Ninilichik Native Association, Inc., Seldovia 
Native Association, Inc., Tyonek Native Corp., and Knikatnu, Inc. 
regarding the conveyances of certain lands in Alaska Under the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


       the alaska native claims settlement amendment act of 1996

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and Senator Stevens. This legislation is intended to 
help facilitate a settlement regarding a complex land dispute between 
five Native Alaskan villages and the Department of the Interior.
  Mr. President, the villages of Chickaloon-Moose Creek, Ninilchik, 
Selovia, Tyonek, and Knikatnu selected lands over 20 years ago pursuant 
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) along the shores of 
what would later become Lake Clark National Park and on the western 
coast of Cook Inlet. These five villages later relinquished many of 
their original selections so that the Department could consolidate 
their holdings and preserve valuable lake frontage to create the Lake 
Clark National Park in 1980. Without the relinquishment of the 
village's original land selections Lake Clark National Park may never 
have become a reality.
  In return for the relinquishment of their original selections, the 
villages were offered other lands on the western coast of Cook Inlet. 
Because there were five villages, the DOI worked with the villages to 
create different ``rounds'' of selections. This process would ensure 
that no one village would receive all the high or low priority 
selections being offered in the new lands. These rounds were similar to 
the way the NFL conducts its draft.
  After the villages made their selections, with the assistance of the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the selections were then rejected by 
the BLM because they were not ``compact and contiguous'' as required by 
ANSCA. This resulted in a deficiency conveyance agreement which divided 
the village selections in Cook Inlet into two appendices--appendix A, 
and appendix C. When the villages signed their agreement they were 
continuously assured by the BLM that their selection rounds would 
remain intact thereby preserving their highest priority land 
selections. Indeed, correspondence over the years from the Department 
of the Interior indicates that this was the case.
  However, now the DOI claims that none of the appendix C lands could 
be transferred until all appendix A lands have been conveyed. If 
allowed to continue this would result in the Native villages not 
receiving their priority selections under ANCSA.
  It is ironic that it was village corporations who gave up their 
selections so that the Department could create Lake Clark National Park 
and now the DOI is blocking the villages right to select lands they 
originally assisted in selecting by saying it would threaten Lake Clark 
National Park.
  The legislation I am introducing today is a fair compromise to this 
problem. In short the legislation would:
  Require the Secretary to enter into expedited negotiations with the 
village corporations for the purpose of resolving their remaining land 
entitlement issues with either the lands in dispute or other lands in 
Alaska;
  For any village with much the Secretary reaches agreement he must 
implement the agreement within 90 days and the issue is then resolved;
  For any of the villages with which the Secretary fails to reach 
agreement within 180 days, the Secretary must convey to that village 50 
percent of the lands they selected, in the order of their selection by 
priority rounds;
  For any of the five villages that still have remaining acreage in 
their land entitlements, the Secretary must continue to negotiate with 
them and report back to Congress on the status of these negotiations;
  Lastly, the legislation will preserve the village's right to pursue 
the issue through the judicial system.
  Mr. President, this legislation is fair and balanced. Each of the two 
parties involved have the opportunity to resolve the issue in an 
amicable way where both can walk away with positive results. Failing to 
accomplish this, each party then only gets half of what they want.
  I would like to point out that, regardless of the rhetoric coming 
from opponents of this legislation, these selected lands are not part 
of Lake Clark National Park.

[[Page S9073]]

  I understand the DOI may oppose this legislation. I would like to 
inform the Department of the Interior that I am opposed to them making 
Alaska Natives wait 20 years for their promised land 
conveyances.
                                 ______
                                 

   By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
   Faircloth, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bennett, 
 Mr. Frist, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Stevens, and 
                              Mr. Gorton):

  S. 1999. A bill to define and protect the institution of marriage; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      the defense of marriage act

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill called 
the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill does just two things. It defines 
the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law and 
it says that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any 
other State with respect to a same-sex marriage.
  This bill is a simple bill. It is based on common understandings 
rooted in our nation's history. it merely reaffirms what each Congress 
and every executive agency have meant for 200 years when using the 
words ``marriage'' and ``spouse''. That is, that a marriage is the 
legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a 
person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The current 
United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, 
presumably because most Americans know what it means. Therefore, the 
definition of marriage in this bill comes from well-established case 
law. The meaning of spouse is taken from language already in the U.S. 
Code.
  This bill also does not change State law. It allows each State to 
decide for itself with respect to same-sex ``marriage''. It does this 
by exercising Congress's powers under the Constitution to legislate 
with respect to the full faith and credit clause. It provides that a 
State shall be required to give effect to any public act of any other 
State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is 
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State. Congress has 
most recently legislated in a similar fashion with respect to full 
faith and credit in 1994 when it enacted the Full Faith and Credit for 
Child Support Orders Act and the Safe Homes for Women Act.
  This bill simply says that marriage is the legal union between one 
man and one woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or 
wife of the opposite sex. There is nothing earth-shattering there. No 
breaking of new ground. No setting of new precedents. No revocation of 
rights.
  The Defense of Marriage Act is necessary for several reasons. In May 
of 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling in 
favor of three same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses. The 
court said the marriage law was discriminatory and violated their 
rights under the equal-rights clause of the State constitution. Many 
States are concerned that another State's recognition of same-sex 
marriages will compromise their own laws prohibiting such marriages. 
Legislators in over 30 States have introduced bills to deny recognition 
to same-sex unions. Fifteen States already have approved such laws, and 
many other States are now grappling with the issue--including Hawaii, 
where legislative leaders are fighting to block their own courts from 
sanctioning such marriages. This bill would address this issue head-on, 
and it would allow each State to make the final determination for 
itself.
  Another reason this bill is needed now, concerns Federal benefits. 
The Federal Government extends benefits, rights and privileges to 
persons who are married, and generally it accepts a State's definition 
of marriage. This bill will help the Federal Government defend its own 
traditional and commonsense definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse''. 
If, for example, Hawaii gives new meanings to the words ``marriage'' 
and ``spouse'', the reverberation may be felt throughout the Federal 
code unless this bill is enacted. For instance, a redefinition in 
Hawaii could create demands for veterans' benefits for same-sex 
spouses.
  Let me cite an example. In the 1970's, Richard Baker, a male, 
demanded increased veterans' educational benefits because he claimed 
James McConnell, another male, as his dependent spouse. When the 
Veterans Administration turned him down, he sued, and the outcome 
turned on a Federal statute that made eligibility for the benefits 
contingent on the State's definition of ``spouse'' and ``marriage''. 
The Federal courts rejected the claim for added benefits because the 
State supreme Court had already determined that in Minnesota, marriage 
was not available to persons of the same sex (McConnell versus Nooner, 
547 F.2d 54, 1976). This bill anticipates future demands such as that 
made in the veterans' benefits case, and it reasserts that, for the 
purposes of Federal law, the word ``marriage'' will continue to mean 
``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and 
wife'' and the word ``spouse'' will continue to mean ``a person of the 
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''
  Another example of why we need a Federal definition of the terms 
``marriage'' and ``spouse'' occurred during debate on the Family and 
Medical Leave Act of 1993. Shortly before passage of this act, I 
attached an amendment that defined ``spouse'' as ``a husband or wife, 
as the case may be.'' I also gave a short speech on the amendment. When 
the Secretary of Labor published his proposed regulations, a 
considerable number of comments were received urging that the 
definition of ``spouse'' be ``broadened to include domestic partners in 
committed relationships, including same-sex relationships.'' When the 
Secretary issued the final rules he stated that the definition of 
``spouse'' in the act and the legislative history precluded such a 
broadening of the definition of ``spouse''. The amendment, which was 
unanimously adopted, spared a great deal of costly and unnecessary 
litigation over the definition of spouse.

  These are just a few reasons for why we need to enact the Defense of 
Marriage Act. Enactment of this bill will allow States to give full and 
fair consideration of how they wish to address the issue of same-sex 
marriages instead of rushing to legislate because of fear that another 
State's laws may be imposed upon them. It also will eliminate legal 
uncertainty concerning Federal benefits, and make it clear what is 
meant when the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' are used in the 
Federal Code.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill and I ask for 
their support when this issue comes to the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1999

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

     SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED OF THE STATES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
       ``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and 
     the effect thereof
       ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, 
     or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any 
     public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other 
     State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a 
     relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated 
     as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, 
     possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such 
     relationship.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B 
     the following new item:
       ``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the 
     effect thereof.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
       ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of 
     any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various 
     administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the 
     word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and 
     one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers 
     only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a 
     wife.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of title

[[Page S9074]]

     1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 6 the following new item:
       ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

                          ____________________