[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8807-H8812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8404, RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1510

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 
     respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees. The previous

[[Page H8808]]

     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House 
Resolution 1510, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. The rule makes in order a 
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the 
House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 and provides 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight's rule provides for the consideration of the 
Respect for Marriage Act, and I am proud to support this rule to move 
that bill to the floor.
  The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the discriminatory Defense 
of Marriage Act once and for all and ensure that all across America, 
families in same-sex and interracial marriage are afforded the respect 
and legal rights and protections they deserve.
  Passage of this bill is a critical step to protect the rights and 
freedoms of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or 
race, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson 
Women's Health Organization. That decision and recent statements by the 
Supreme Court's new rightwing majority have left families across the 
country and in my district worried about the future of marriage 
equality.
  The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and 
important statutory protection for all marriages. The Respect for 
Marriage Act will safeguard the protections laid out in Obergefell v. 
Hodges, as well as prior case law, that protect important fundamental 
privacy and liberty rights, all of which were improperly called into 
question in the Dobbs decision and related dicta.
  This is a matter of respecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and 
liberties of our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens. 
Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love and live 
free from discrimination, regardless of where in this great land they 
live or travel.
  In addition to securing the respect for those marriages, this bill 
will also secure respect for families across America and in all of our 
communities and families.
  The issues addressed by this bill have been thoroughly debated in 
this body, in the Senate, and by the American public. The Respect for 
Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory 
protections for all.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental right to 
marriage equality.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I will yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak on the bill included within this 
rule, Senate amendment to H.R. 3404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this bill previously came before the 
House. Unfortunately, at the time, the legislation was a byproduct of a 
very truncated process, having received no committee markup and being 
parachuted from the Speaker's office straight to the floor.
  In response to the rushed House process, the Senate actually 
undertook a more comprehensive amendment process on the floor, giving 
Senators the opportunity to amend the legislation, something we did not 
have the opportunity to do. I am encouraged that the amended version 
from the Senate has tried to address some of the religious liberty 
concerns that myself and other Members have highlighted.
  Even though I can report that this bill is much improved from its 
original form, there are still problems with this legislation and its 
possible implications for religious institutions and matters of 
conscience.
  It is regrettable that certain amendments that would safeguard 
religious liberty, such as Senator Lee's and Congressman Roy's 
amendments prohibiting the government from removing a nonprofit 
organization's tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs, those were 
all blocked.
  Had those additional amendments received a fair hearing and as a 
result been adopted, we could have made significant progress toward 
addressing the very serious and legitimate concerns about the 
consequences of this legislation and its potential curtailment of a 
fundamental American right.
  Today's bill, while a better product than before, should have been 
better, and it is regrettable that we are at this point and this is the 
case.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, families in my community are justly skeptical of process 
arguments which have been regularly weaponized to roll back the rights, 
the freedoms, the liberties that they so richly deserve to exercise. So 
I think at this point, there has been plenty of process. There has been 
amendment process in both Chambers, and it is time to pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy), a colleague and certainly a well-spoken member of the 
House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I rise in opposition to the rule. I 
made my position clear in the Committee on Rules earlier this week, and 
I think it is very much a position held by a large number of my 
colleagues.
  It is a shame that we are sitting here debating the institution of 
marriage but without actual debate. We are here, we are going to debate 
this rule, it will be a few minutes, and then boom, we are going to go 
vote. We are not going to have any real debate on this tomorrow either.
  I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules, an amendment to add 
protections for religious liberty, and it was killed on a budget point 
of order, a budget point of order that it said would cost around 
$500,000 or more. For what? For damages that an individual American 
might receive if successful in challenging the Department of Justice if 
their rights were being infringed.
  Let me be clear. It was going to be killed on a point of order out of 
the Committee on Rules because it could be successful in protecting the 
rights of Americans, when you have got a piece of legislation that has 
a private right of action put into it, a sword to be used against the 
American people if they exercise their closely held religious beliefs. 
And that is the truth.
  It is a bill that was passed off of this floor with no hearing in the 
House Committee on the Judiciary, sent to the Senate in July, with no 
protection for religious liberty in it, and then provisions were added 
in the Senate to provide some very bare minimum, narrow religious 
liberty protections, only for the solemnization of marriage.
  When an individual tries to offer an amendment to try to protect the 
rights of all Americans to be free from persecution--if, for example, 
you are a school, a religious school, that might not want to hire 
somebody in a same-sex marriage because it is against your closely held 
religious beliefs, you might have to litigate that now. The response by 
the other side is: Oh, my gosh, the Constitution exists; oh, my gosh, 
RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exists.
  So the shield that people had before is now the thing that you have 
to go litigate in court and hire lawyers to defend yourself for 
exercising your closely held religious beliefs against the

[[Page H8809]]

sword that this legislation provides. That is the truth of what we are 
dealing with here.
  We offered an amendment in good faith, just like Senator Mike Lee 
did, a bipartisan amendment, by the way. We are getting no debate, no 
ability to offer that amendment on the floor, no ability to have a 
debate on that amendment, no ability to actually have a conversation 
about the free exercise of religion and protecting people's closely 
held religious beliefs.
  That is why people are sick of this institution. We do not debate. We 
do not amend. We simply jam stuff through the Committee on Rules and 
then we walk away and go give speeches on the steps. That is no way to 
do business. I hope we change that in the new Congress. But this is not 
the way to do business in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1915

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we believe that the 
gentleman's amendment is both duplicative and unnecessary.
  The Senate spent months crafting a bipartisan compromise to amend 
H.R. 8404 to address the religious liberty concerns that were raised by 
Republicans in the House and Senate. Sections 6 and 7 of this 
legislation ensure no impact on religious liberty.
  Adopting this new and unnecessary amendment would unsettle the 
Senate's carefully crafted compromise and delay the enactment of this 
necessary, historic, and bipartisan legislation.
  If the House passes this legislation, it will be sent straight to the 
President's desk to become law. This Congress is coming to a close, and 
we don't have the time to make changes to this legislation.
  This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and through the 
American public, and I believe it needs to be signed into law as soon 
as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this 
legislation from the Interfaith Alliance, from U.S. Jewish 
organizations, and from eight leaders of faith-based organizations 
representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious 
institutions.

                                                November 28, 2022.
     Hon. Tammy Baldwin,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: The Respect for Marriage 
     Act is a simple way to provide legal stability for all 
     married couples and their families. Within our communities, 
     we approach matters of marriage, family, and identity 
     differently. This bill recognizes this diversity of belief 
     while ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples are 
     treated with equal respect by federal and state governments.
       As faith-based organizations, we recognize that the First 
     Amendment right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of our 
     democracy. The bipartisan substitute amendment provides 
     important clarification around the interaction between the 
     Respect for Marriage Act and the robust religious freedom 
     protections guaranteed under federal law. Crafted in the 
     spirit of collaboration, the amendment protects the right to 
     believe as we choose while leaving intact the core mission of 
     the legislation to respect marriages.
       The freedom to marry who one loves is a matter of human 
     dignity and supported by a majority of almost every major 
     religious tradition in the United States. We urge the Senate 
     to adopt the bipartisan amendment in full, without further 
     amendment needed to protect religious freedom.
           Respectfully,
       Interfaith Alliance, ADL (The Anti-Defamation League), Bend 
     the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Faith, Justice, and 
     Reconciliation, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran 
     Church in America, Faithful America, Hindu American 
     Foundation, Hindus for Human Rights, Jewish Women 
     International, Keshet.
       Muslims for Progressive Values, National Council of Jewish 
     Women, NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian 
     Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, Reconstructionist 
     Rabbinical Association, The Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Union 
     for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, 
     United Church of Christ.
                                  ____

                                Washington, DC, September 6, 2022.

  U.S. Jewish Organizations' Letter to Senate Supporting Respect for 
                              Marriage Act

       On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, and 108 
     additional Jewish organizations, the following letter was 
     shared in support of the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556):
       Dear Senator:  On behalf of the 100 undersigned national, 
     state, and local Jewish organizations, we write to express 
     our support for the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556). 
     Driven by our Jewish values, we are committed to supporting 
     laws that protect the civil rights and individual liberties 
     of all people. The Respect for Marriage Act would codify 
     three landmark Supreme Court cases, Obergefell v. Hodges; 
     Windsor v. United States; and Loving v. Virginia, and 
     therefore the basic rights of same-sex and interracial 
     marriage. We urge Congress to swiftly pass this important 
     bill.
       Jewish tradition teaches that all people are created 
     b'tzelem Elohim, in the Divine image, and are worthy of 
     dignity and respect. As organizations grounded in Jewish 
     values and beliefs, we have an ethical and moral 
     responsibility to fight for a society that ensures the 
     humanity of all people. Every person is entitled to marry who 
     they love--regardless of sexual orientation or race.
       Indeed, support for same-sex marriage protections extends 
     across the faith community, and throughout the country. A 
     majority of all faith groups--including 77 percent of Jews, 
     57 percent of mainline Protestants, and 57 percent of 
     Catholics support same sex marriage. This view is shared by 
     seven in ten Americans--including 83 percent of Democrats, 73 
     percent of independents, and 55 percent of Republicans.
       Additionally, the Respect for Marriage Act would ensure 
     that all federal benefits are available to married couples 
     regardless of the state in which they live. Congress has a 
     responsibility to pursue economic equity for all, regardless 
     of geographical location, and include historically 
     marginalized groups in this pursuit.
       The right to marry who one loves is a matter of human 
     dignity. Our faith teaches us the kol yisrael arevim ezh 
     bazeh, we are all responsible for each other, and therefore 
     must take action to create a community for which we all can 
     take pride.
       As Jewish organizations, we believe firmly that all people 
     deserve the right to marry who they love, regardless of 
     sexual orientation or race. We urge Congress to pass the 
     Respect for Marriage Act.
           Sincerely,
       Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, ADL (Anti-Defamation 
     League), ADL Austin Region, ADL Florida, ADL New England, ADL 
     New York/New Jersey, ADL San Diego, ADL Southeast, ADL 
     Southwest, ADL Texoma, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, 
     Ameinu, American Conference of Cantors, American Jewish World 
     Service, Avodah, Aytzim, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beth 
     Chayim Chadashim, B'nai B'rith Connect, California Religious 
     Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-CA), Carolina Jews for 
     Justice, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Charles and 
     Lynn Schusterman Family Philantrohpies, Coastal Roots Farm, 
     Columbia Jewish Congregation, Congregation Agudas Achim, 
     Austin Texas, Congregation Har HaShem, Boulder, CO; 
     Congregation Rodeph Sholom, Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, 
     Florida Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-
     FL), Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Hadassah, The 
     Women's Zionist Organization of America, Havurat Shalom, 
     Andover MA, IKAR, Illinois Religious Action Center of 
     Reform Judaism (RAC-IL), J Street, Jewish Alliance for Law 
     and Social Action, Jewish Community Action, Jewish 
     Community Center of Asheville, Jewish Community Federation 
     and Endowment Fund, Jewish Community Relations Council 
     (JCRC) of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, 
     Jewish Community Relations Council of Broward County, 
     Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, 
     Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the 
     Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, and Contra Costa 
     Counties, Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish 
     Council on Urban Affairs.
       Jewish Emergent Network, Jewish Family Service Houston, 
     Jewish Family Service of Greater New Orleans, Jewish Family 
     Service of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Service of San Diego, 
     Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, Jewish Federation of 
     Greater Portland, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish Teen 
     Education and Engagement Network, LLC (JTEEN), Jewish Women 
     International, Jewish Youth Climate Movement, Jews for a 
     Secular Democracy, Jews United for Justice (JUFJ), Jewtina y 
     Co., JQY (Jewish Queer Youth), JYCA (Jewish Youth for 
     Community Action), Kane Street Synagogue, Lab/Shul, Makom 
     Shelanu.
       Malkhut: progressive Jewish spirituality in Queens, 
     Massachusetts Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-
     MA), MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Men of Reform 
     Judaism, Milwaukee Jewish Federation, Mishkan Chicago, Moving 
     Traditions, National Council of Jewish Women, National 
     Council of Jewish Women New York, Network of Jewish Human 
     Service Agencies, New Israel Fund, New Jersey Religious 
     Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NJ), New York Religious 
     Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NY), Ohio Religious 
     Acton Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-OH), Peninsula Jewish 
     Community Center, Pennsylvania Religious Action Center of 
     Reform Judaism (RAC-PA), Rabbinical Assembly, Reconstructing 
     Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
       Romemu, SAI-Judaism that Stands for All, Saul Mirowitz 
     Jewish Community School, Shalom Austin, Sixth Circle 
     Consulting, Society for Humanistic Judaism, St. Paul Jewish 
     Federation, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for

[[Page H8810]]

     Human Rights, TBE, Temple Beth Ahm Yisrael, Temple Beth El 
     (Tacoma), Temple Beth El of Boca Raton, Temple Emanu-El of 
     Westfield, Temple Kol Emeth, Temple Ohabei Shalom, Temple 
     Shir Tikva, Texas Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 
     (RAC-TX), The Shalom Center, The Temple--Atlanta GA, The 
     Workers Circle, Tivnu: Building Justice, Tribe 12, Tzedek 
     Georgia, USY, Women of Reform Judaism.
                                  ____

                                                November 15, 2022.
     Re The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404)
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC 20515
       Dear Senators: We are leaders of faith-based organizations 
     representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of 
     religious institutions. All our organizations hold to an 
     understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman. 
     Many of us privately expressed concerns about the House-
     passed version of the Respect for Marriage Act.
       We are gratified by the substitute religious freedom 
     language offered by Senators Collins, Baldwin, Sinema, 
     Portman, Tillis, and Romney. It adequately protects the core 
     religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax 
     exempt status, educational funding, government grants and 
     contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and 
     accreditation. If passed, it would continue to build on the 
     congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
       Attached are many statements from individual organizations.
           Sincerely,
     Elder Jack N. Gerard,
       The Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of 
     Latter-day Saints.
     Melissa Reid,
       Director of Government Affairs, Seventh-day Adventist 
     Church-North American Division.
     Nathan J. Diament,
       Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox 
     Jewish Congregations of America.
     Shirley Hoogstra,
       President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
     Rev. Justin E. Giboney,
       President, AND Campaign.
     Stanley Carlson-Thies,
       Founder and Senior Director, Institutional Religious 
     Freedom Alliance.
     Stephanie Summers,
       CEO, Center for Public Justice.
     Tim Schultz,
       President, 1st Amendment Partnership.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would inquire as to whether 
or not the gentlewoman has additional speakers.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Respect for 
Marriage Act.
  In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my 
support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first 
legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to 
same-sex couples. When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in 
1996, I was one of 67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then 
what I know now: DOMA was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a 
problem that never existed.
  It never made sense that I could get into a cab and meet someone that 
I have never met before, a cab driver, and marry a complete stranger. 
You could marry the driver that day. Yet a bold, brave New Yorker, and 
a friend of mine, named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage 
recognized. She took that fight to the Supreme Court and won.
  Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act will ensure LGBTQ equality, 
but much more work needs to be done. I thank Chairman Nadler for this 
bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), a former chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is important what we are doing here 
because our friends, the Democrats, were arguing that there is no 
additional rights of action, that this isn't going to change anything. 
In fact, this same discussion that we are having, if that is true, and 
we are going to say that we take them at their word, that would mean no 
rights of action would take place as a result of this law.
  Any judge would be able to look at the reason why we are passing this 
and the intent that would be on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, and that is what is being stated here tonight: No 
right of action; that is not what this is about.
  I would hope that we would understand, just as when I was the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, that what we did and the way we talked 
on this floor is what the intent would be for a judge, for a lawsuit. 
If something were to happen, they would open up the Record, just as we 
are doing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and a judge, magistrate, Federal 
judge, State district judge, anyone ruling on this constitutional right 
would be able to see that this is not about a right of action.
  So, let's be clear. That was stated point blank in this discussion on 
the floor of the House of Representatives. It was reiterated up at the 
Rules Committee at the time that the rule came to the floor. That is 
what is stated. I will accept that as their word.
  I thank the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, for his time and 
service to the Rules Committee. I spent 20 years on the darn committee, 
6 years as chairman, and I understood when we handled matters that we 
spoke clearly and that we spoke directly about the intent of the law. I 
have heard enough to understand that, and I appreciate Mr. Burgess for 
yielding to me.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire whether my colleague 
has any further testimony.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, if the 
gentlewoman is prepared to close.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  In closing, I would note that today's rule is, in fact, the product 
of a very rushed legislative process. The bill should have been subject 
to regular order so that it could be improved to address religious 
liberty concerns noted by my fellow Members.
  The very fact that we have had this discussion here on the floor to 
me indicates that there is some ambiguity. I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy) and Chairman Sessions for coming and raising the 
argument.
  Section 6 of this bill provides protection of religious liberty, but 
only if you are religious enough. If you are a church, you are 
protected. If you are an individual or a school, you may not be, and 
you may be subject to that private right of action.

  What we are voting on today is emblematic of how this one-party 
Democratic rule has been enforced in Washington, D.C., over the past 2 
years. I am discouraged to see the majority is still focused on passing 
partisan messaging bills which will not address the problems they 
purportedly claim to want to solve.
  This week, we are considering partisan bills instead of focusing our 
efforts on things like funding the Federal Government, maybe even the 
authorization for the Nation's defense, one of the requirements under 
the Constitution that we fulfill.
  Unfortunately, tonight, this is a continuation of a discouraging and 
regrettable trend that I hope will be revisited by a new Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote should be an easy one. The Respect for 
Marriage Act passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, and the 
bill is supported by over 70 percent of Americans. It provides critical 
safeguards for a right that many Americans have already exercised and 
rely upon for the protection and prosperity of their families.
  The Respect for Marriage Act is historic legislation to protect the 
marriages of same-sex and interracial couples. I don't think history 
will look kindly on those who, when given the

[[Page H8811]]

ability to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituents, chose 
to say no.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the LGBTQ community, my cousins, my dearest 
friends and neighbors, religious communities across the country, and, 
of course, the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, which I 
am so proud to represent, I stand in strong support of the Respect for 
Marriage Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 204, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 512]

                               YEAS--217

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--204

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sempolinski
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bergman
     Buck
     Cheney
     Donalds
     Kinzinger
     McHenry
     Murphy (NC)
     Rice (SC)
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  2001

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, please accept this personal explanation as 
I was unexpectedly detained during vote proceedings. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 512.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Axne (Pappas)
     Baird (Bucshon)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Beatty (Neguse)
     Brooks (Fleischmann)
     Brown (MD) (Beyer)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
     Duncan (Norman)
     Dunn (Salazar)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Grijalva (Neguse)
     Hayes (Neguse)
     Herrera Beutler (Stewart)
     Hice (GA) (Boebert)
     Huffman (Levin (CA))
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
     Kahele (Correa)
     Kildee (Pappas)
     Kirkpatrick     (Pallone)
     Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
     Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Malliotakis (Gimenez)
     Maloney, Sean P. (Pappas)
     Mfume (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neal (Beyer)
     Newman (Correa)
     O'Halleran (Pappas)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pressley (Neguse)
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Ruppersberger (Sarbanes)
     Rush (Beyer)
     Simpson (Fulcher)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Torres (NY) (Pappas)
     Wagner (Fleischmann)
     Welch (Pallone)
     Wenstrup (LaHood)
     Yarmuth (Beyer)    

                      ENSURING LIBERTY FOR UKRAINE

  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, today is day number 286 of Russia's 
unprovoked, illegal terrorist war on Ukraine.
  As Congress works to complete our 2023 appropriations bills, it is 
critical that the appropriation accounts for defense and energy 
security be fully funded. Let us be mindful that liberty has real 
enemies.
  Our Nation, in alliance with the free nations of the world, cannot 
miss a beat in ensuring NATO remains the strongest defender of global 
liberty.
  Vladimir Putin's criminal war on its innocent neighbor began in 2014. 
By crossing Ukraine's sovereign border, Putin violated every tenet of 
international law that has existed since World War II.
  Then in February of this year, Russia unleashed its full terror. The 
free world must draw a bold line in the sand against Russia's illegal 
behavior.
  Any nation that does not respect the sovereignty, territorial 
integrity, and independence of adjoining nations must be brought to 
full reckoning.
  The free world cannot stand by idly. Putin's war machine must be 
defeated.
  The people of Ukraine are fighting valiantly for their own freedom. 
May the bills being drafted as I speak ensure our Nation meets its 
obligation as liberty's primary defender.

[[Page H8812]]

  

                          ____________________