[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17207-17215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3313, MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                  2004

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 734

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal 
     court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of 
     Marriage Act. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.
  On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and grant a closed rule 
for H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. The rule provides 
90 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1030

  This bill seeks to utilize the constitutional authority of Congress 
to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to hear cases which 
may arise as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise 
known as DOMA. The bill reserves that authority to the States. The bill 
provides that no Federal court will have the jurisdiction to hear a 
case arising under DOMA's full faith and credit provision.
  This provision in DOMA codified that no State would be required to 
give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another 
State if that relationship is between two people of the same sex. Long-
standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes the power of Congress to 
limit the jurisdiction of courts that it creates.
  In essence, the bill says no Federal court will have the opportunity 
to strike down DOMA's full faith and credit provision. The result of 
such a decision by the Federal courts would in effect invalidate the 
numerous Defense of Marriage Acts which have passed in at least 38 
States. This would mean that the citizens of States such as Michigan, 
California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida, who have their own statutes 
to define marriage as between one man and one woman, would have to 
recognize the marriage licenses issued to same sex couples by other 
States that allow that practice.
  I believe the people of these States as well as the people of my home 
State of North Carolina should be able to defend and preserve the 
institution of marriage and that we today should support their efforts. 
This is the way it has been throughout civilization. It is our job to 
prevent unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges from striking down 
DOMA's protection for the States. To that end, I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying bill. The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 is quite simply a 
mean-spirited, discriminatory and misguided distraction. It does not 
belong on the floor of the House of Representatives, not when there are 
so many important issues facing Congress and the American people.
  Nearly 900 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, but the 
House is not talking about that today. Today the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission issues its report on what happened and how to prevent it 
from happening again, but we are not talking about that on the House 
floor today.
  This Republican leadership has failed to pass a budget, but we are 
not talking about that. Today we learn that, according to the GAO, the 
Pentagon has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for 
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to find $12.3 
billion more from within the Department of Defense to make it through 
the end of the fiscal year. We should be talking about that.
  We still do not have a transportation bill. The minimum wage has not 
been increased in years. Millions of Americans are unemployed and 
without health insurance. Homeland security needs are going unmet, but 
we are not talking about any of that in the House of Representatives 
today.
  According to the New York Times, conservative activist and Republican 
adviser Paul Weyrich's solution to the bad news coming out of Iraq was 
to ``change the subject'' to gay marriage. I quote, ``Ninety-nine 
percent of the President's base will unite behind him if he pushed the 
amendment,'' Mr. Weyrich said. ``It will cause Mr. Kerry no end of 
problems.'' As for gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might lose, Mr. 
Weyrich wrote, ``Good riddance.''
  So instead of addressing the real concerns facing American families, 
the leadership of this House has decided to throw their political base 
some red meat because we all know exactly what is going on here.
  Mr. Speaker, we can at least be honest about it. Last week the 
Republican leadership got beat badly in the other body. Not only did 
they not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Republicans could 
not even agree among themselves what to vote on. So the Republican 
leadership, including the White House, decided they needed a win on 
something that beats up on gay

[[Page 17208]]

people and they needed to do it fast, so here we are. They could not 
amend the Constitution last week so they are trying to desecrate and 
circumvent the Constitution this week.
  The intent of this bill is quite clear, to close the door to the 
Federal courthouse for an entire group of American citizens simply 
because of their sexual orientation. It is enough to take my breath 
away. One of the most fundamental, sacred principles of our system is 
that every single American should have access to equal justice under 
the law, not some Americans, not most Americans, not just straight 
Americans, but all Americans. But not any more. Not under this bill.
  Under this bill for the first time in our long history, a person can 
be denied access to the Federal courts when that person claims that a 
Federal statute violates the Constitution.
  Further, this bill takes 200 years of jurisprudence based on the 
separation of powers and throws it in the trash.
  Why? Because of the latest craze in Republican fund-raising appeals, 
the dreaded ``activist judges.'' To all of those listening to the 
debate today, I would encourage you to count how many times the phrase 
``activist judges'' is thrown around. Make sure you have your 
calculator.
  The problem is that the Republican leadership only goes after the so-
called activist judges they disagree with. They had no problem in 
activist judges in Bush v. Gore. And make no mistake about it, if this 
bill passes its proponents will be back for more. Every time there is a 
court decision they do not like, they will attempt to prohibit the 
courts from exercising their constitutional oversight. Other issues 
will be on the table, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, 
choice, environmental protection, worker protections, all will be at 
risk if a political majority in Congress disagrees with a Federal court 
decision. This bill would set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
  Finally, we hear a lot of rhetoric today from supporters of this bill 
protesting that they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Well, the 
supporters of this bill have even named it the Marriage Protection Act. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side, but my marriage does not need 
protection, and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this 
House.
  This bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no 
urgency, no credible court case challenging DOMA.
  So let us work on the issues that matter most to our constituents. 
Let us tackle health care and education and homeland security and jobs, 
let us not change the subject for political reasons, let us not 
desecrate the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Cast your 
vote with an eye toward being on the right side of history. Look 
further than tomorrow's headlines, think about more than 30 minutes 
from now, think about 30 years from now. Remember that Members of 
Congress opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. 
Remember that Members of Congress denounced a decision in Brown v. 
Board of Education in part because of activist judges. History has not 
been kind to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to clarify the actual wording of what this bill does. It 
does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any group of 
people. It is motivated by a desire to preserve for the States the 
authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to protect them 
from having to accept same sex marriage licenses issued out of State 
will hold. There is no ill will here toward anyone. It does not dictate 
the results, either. It only places final authority over whether the 
States must accept same sex marriage licenses granted in other States 
in the hands of the States themselves.
  This bill should be supported, I believe, by any Member who supports 
the proposition that lifetime appointed Federal judges must not be 
allowed to rewrite marriage policies for the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and bringing this rule to the floor. She is one of the great 
leaders in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill 
that was originally authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler).
  For 7\1/2\ years before I came to Congress I served as a circuit 
court judge in Tennessee. For many years, I have heard Federal judges 
complain about the Congress expanding Federal jurisdiction too much, so 
they are greatly overworked. This is a very reasonable, minimal 
limitation of their jurisdiction and I am sure that even if this 
legislation passes, the Federal judges will still claim that they are 
very much overworked.
  On July 12, 1996, the House passed and on September 10, 1996, the 
Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act. That act said 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 wife. I repeat that. That 
legislation said the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between 
one man and one woman.
  That legislation further said no State shall be required to give 
effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding 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, Territory and 
so forth.
  That legislation, Mr. Speaker, passed by the overwhelming margin of 
342 to 67 in this House, and by the even more overwhelming margin of 85 
to 14 in the Senate. That is 85 Senators voted for that legislation. 
Further, it went to the President, President Clinton at that time, and 
he signed that legislation into law.
  This legislation, authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostett-
ler), is a reasonable expansion of that legislation limiting the 
jurisdiction because it is true that many, many people in this country 
have been upset that unelected judges have assumed so much super-
legislative power in this country in recent years. The overwhelming 
majority of the American people do believe that the only true marriage 
is that between one adult man and one adult woman. There are other 
limitations on marriage such as prohibitions against marriages by 
family members or bigamist marriages, and I think the overwhelming 
majority of the American people feel that our society, our families, 
and especially our children would be better off if we defined marriage, 
the only true marriage, legal marriage, as that of being between one 
man and one woman.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that many outstanding people come from broken 
homes, but I also know that the greatest advantage that we can give to 
any child is a loving mother and father. That is so important to the 
future of this country. That is a greater advantage than unbelievable 
amounts of money.
  Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man who was one of the most 
respected Members of the Senate, a Senator from the other party, said 
several years ago that we have been, unfortunately, defining deviancy 
down, accepting as a part of life what we once found repugnant. We 
should stand behind traditional marriage. We should stand behind this 
legislation and support it as strongly as we possibly can.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a strong defender of the United States 
Constitution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here 
today had it not been for the courts of America, and particularly our 
Federal jurisdiction. I would not have the opportunity to speak in this 
august body, to have achieved an education that some might call equal 
in an unequal system if we did not have Brown v. Topeka Board of 
Education that broke the chains of segregation on America. I would 
argue that was a high moment

[[Page 17209]]

in America's history. We do not have the time in the moments I have to 
speak to chronicle that history of the courts providing opportunities 
for the minority.
  Today I want to explain to America that this is not a constitutional 
amendment that will address the question of their fears and 
apprehensions about loving individuals being together. This is a poor 
fix and this is a collapse of government as we know it.
  Mr. Speaker, might I say that this is an undermining and barring of 
Americans from the courthouse door. I give Members an example. Just 
suppose that farming policies of the State of Texas, my Texas, had been 
ill-conceived and some poor farmer that Willie Nelson sings for every 
year went to the Federal courthouse in Texas and asked that those 
policies be declared unconstitutional or illegal. This amendment sets 
the precedent for slamming the courthouse door to that farmer.

                              {time}  1045

  Or maybe someone in Ohio, a consumer who wants to challenge the ill-
conceived consumer laws that causes thousands of injuries to our 
children on the playgrounds of America, and that poor person goes to 
the Federal courthouse and wants to go to the Supreme Court, that door 
is slammed in their face.
  I asked the Committee on Rules in their wisdom to send this out with 
an unfavorable response. Unfortunately, they did not. So today we 
debate an ill-conceived precedent that will deny the citizens of 
America judicial review, due process, and equal protection under the 
law.
  I close by simply saying, we see in the Washington Post today that 
the Pentagon needs billions of more dollars this year in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Today we do not debate that. We have the 9/11 report, and 
today we do not have a Homeland Security authorization markup.
  I ask my Republican friends, and I ask them with sincerity, why can 
we not do the people's business and do it in the right way?
  Mr. Speaker, I close by saying I was and still stand as a minority in 
America. I cannot stand for having minority rights denied by this 
amendment being passed today. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 374, the rule issued for 
the base bill, H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act (MPA). The very 
fact that the bill itself has been brought to the floor of the 
Committee of the Whole is obnoxious and indicative of a diminished 
respect for the Constitution--with which many of us on this side of the 
aisle would rather not be associated.
  In addition to the contravention of and the disregard for the public 
policy that has been established by statutory law, caselaw decided in 
the highest court in the Nation, and most importantly the intent of the 
Framers of our Constitution, the base bill, as my colleagues from 
Florida so eloquently stated in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, 
``attempts to legislate morality'' for an entire nation.
  In debating this very important issue, I would ask that my colleagues 
put aside their personal biases and fears and examine this bill for 
what it is--a threat to the framework of our democracy that is facially 
unconstitutional. As legislators, we all take an oath to uphold the 
integrity of the Constitution and to protect the citizens of America 
from overbroad and invidious acts of the legislative and executive 
branches.
  H.R. 3313 is inconsistent with the Equal Protection clauses of the 
Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It singles out one group of 
people--lesbian and gay Americans--for different and inferior 
treatment. This unequal treatment of one group is the very essence of 
classifications that run afoul of the principle of Equal Protection.
  The bill is with the separation of powers. The principle of judicial 
review, part of the bedrock of our political system since Marbury v. 
Madison, protects citizens from overreaching by the legislative and 
executive branches. Our system of government relies on its ``checks and 
balances'' and an independent judiciary to ensure that all legislation 
complies with the Constitution. We in Congress lack the power to exempt 
legislative branch actions from judicial review and we should not 
attempt to reverse this process now.
  The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is inconsistent with Due 
Process. Removing access to Federal courts on a question of Federal 
law, such as the constitutionality of MPA, could deprive an individual 
challenging such a law of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth 
Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  The proposed Marriage Protection Act is a major departure from our 
constitutional and legal tradition. Despite many efforts over recent 
decades to adopt restrictions on Federal courts in controversial areas 
(such as abortion rights and school prayer), no bill instituting a 
broad ban on a subject matter class or cases has passed, much less one 
that disadvantages only a discrete group of people.
  In Congress, our views differ on many things, but we can unite in the 
fact that we believe in the constitution and we are here to serve the 
public. This bill will do neither, it goes against our founding 
document and it only alienates a group of people and denies them basic 
rights.
  I would ask that my colleagues defeat this bill and protect our 
fundamental rights.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
point.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as a nonlawyer and observing that there are 
many young people in the gallery today, this is actually an instructive 
debate that we are having for the second time in 2 weeks. Last week, 
with the sponsorship of Republicans and Democrats alike, we paid 
tribute to John Marshall.
  John Marshall was perhaps the most important jurist in the history of 
the United States, because despite what many people think, in the 
Constitution of the United States nowhere does it say who will settle 
disputes between the legislature, the executive, and the courts. What 
if each of the three branches come to a different conclusion?
  Well, John Marshall, in 1803, 201 years ago, said the courts are 
going to decide. The courts are going to be the final arbiter of what 
is constitutional and what is not.
  For 200 years, that has served as the way that we have operated, 
virtually unquestioned. It was even unquestioned in the year 2000 when, 
in the Constitution of the United States, it clearly says that Congress 
has the right to choose electors, and the Supreme Court took that upon 
itself. We Democrats, although we were very concerned about it, 
jurists, scholars of jurisprudence said it was a terrible decision, but 
no one says it should not be the courts to make that decision.
  I would say to the gentlewoman or anyone who supports this bill, if 
not the courts then who? Who is going to make the decision about the 
constitutionality of this law?
  We are left with essentially three choices. One, we can say the State 
courts will make that final determination. But what if we have two 
State courts that are in conflict? Who is going to resolve that 
dispute?
  Two, we can say that it will be the legislature that will always 
decide these things, and we have 50 different legislative 
interpretations, or the legislature will change every 2 years, changing 
interpretation of the law.
  And the third choice is just anyone can choose whatever 
interpretation that they like.
  Before we choose anything but the courts, before we support this, let 
us remember something here. The courts are where the minority goes to 
have their views heard. That one person who is standing outside a movie 
theater; the courts are where that one person goes who wants to protect 
his right to bear arms against a legislature that is overzealous, where 
the one person goes who has burnt a flag and wants to go to find out if 
what he has done is constitutional.
  There are dozens and dozens of places in society where the majority 
rules. The court is the only place we go to protect our constitutional 
rights.
  So to the sponsors of the bill, to the sponsors of the rule, I ask 
them, if not John Marshall's way, if not judicial review, if not the 
Supreme Court of the United States of America, then who will it be who 
will decide what is constitutional and what is not?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for just a clarification.

[[Page 17210]]

  Marbury v. Madison is entirely consistent with H.R. 3313. It 
established the principle of judicial review and stands for the 
proposition that the Supreme Court has the final say on the issues it 
decides, provided either the issues it decides are within its original 
jurisdiction or Congress by statute has granted the Supreme Court the 
authority to hear the issue. It is that simple. If a case does not fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts because Congress has not 
granted the required jurisdiction, Federal courts simply cannot hear 
the case.
  The author of Marbury v. Madison was Chief Justice John Marshall, as 
was stated, and Chief Justice Marshall himself, after he decided that 
case, dismissed cases when the Federal courts had not been granted 
jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, because this debate must be 
removed from the courts who are filled with unelected, lifetime judges, 
and the debate should be moved from those courts back into the court of 
the people, back into the courthouse square instead of in the 
courthouse.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has the constitutional right to be involved in 
this process, and I can tell that the debate has already covered that, 
so I am going to limit my comments. But the Constitution declares that 
Congress will be involved in making these sorts of decisions in 
determining what the Federal courts will and will not hear. It was, in 
fact, that judicial review process that Judge Marshall made in Marbury 
v. Madison that began the process of judicial review that is not even 
called for in the Constitution, and judicial review which has extended 
the power of the courts beyond, beyond, and beyond where the original 
Framers of the Constitution intended for the courts to have power and, 
in doing so, have eroded the power of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, we have encountered in our history a very clear, similar 
case, exactly paralleling what we are doing today. We had a time in our 
history when there were definitions that the courts began to give, such 
as the definition of slavery.
  It was the Supreme Court that decided in the Dred Scott decision that 
the issue of slavery involved the will of the minority and said that 
the will of the minority could not be subjected to the will of the 
majority. Of course, the courts at that time did a small sleight of 
hand because the minority that they were talking about was really the 
minority slave holders, the owners of slaves, and they overlooked the 
rights of the minority of the slaves themselves. We fought a Civil War 
over the Supreme Court's definitions at that point.
  Instead of really understanding that the will of the people had 
spoken and the ensuing constitutional amendments, the courts later, in 
the Plessy v. Ferguson case, established the Separate but Equal 
Doctrine that again was offensive to the multitudes of people in this 
country.
  Right now we have a Supreme Court that is willing to declare its will 
on the people no matter what the people say, and I think that the rule 
is extremely important here, because it begins to take that right back 
from the Supreme Court and put the discussion in this body who 
represents and can be elected and unelected by the people. The Supreme 
Court cannot be unelected, ever, and it is a very critical element of 
this argument.
  But to those people who say this is an emotional issue, they are 
exactly correct. Our office spent over 20 hours discussing the issue, 
and we have people inside our office who were on both sides of the 
issue. But at the end of the day, nature has described what a marriage 
is. Law only fundamentally defines what nature has already defined: 
that a man and a woman come together, they create life, and it is the 
only life-creating institution and the only life-creating relationship 
in the world, and then the bonding process of that keeps them together 
in order to nurture and to grow the children and the offspring.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the relationship that people are asking about, 
and it is a good question. Should gays be allowed to marry? Well, yes, 
they can, and they should be allowed to marry. But marriage, by 
definition of nature, is between a man and a woman, and if they are 
going to marry, they have to marry a man or a woman. The discussion is 
absolutely centered around this question, and it is not a matter of 
right and it is not a matter of discrimination.
  But what the other side of the aisle wants to do is to redefine 
marriage for all people. It is the redefinition that is wrong, because 
there is no civil rights abridgement here. Many black leaders are 
speaking in favor of this. This is the will of the people saying we 
must have a discussion among the people as to what is marriage and how 
it is defined.
  For these reasons, I support the rule, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard everything here, but 
citing the Dred Scott decision in support of this amendment is like 
citing the Ku Klux Klan in support of civil rights legislation. This 
amendment is a Soviet style attack on American freedom, and the reason 
requires a little look at history.
  The former Soviet Union had a Constitution, like we do. The former 
Soviet Union had a Bill of Rights, like we do; very similar to our Bill 
of Rights. But the former Soviet Union had another little trick. Their 
little trick was that the executive and legislative branches prohibited 
the judicial system of the former Soviet Union from enforcing their 
Bill of Rights, and what did they get? Tyranny.
  The instructive lesson of the Soviet Union is that we should not go 
down the path of getting rid of, yes, frustrating, nonunderstandable 
courts that sometimes do not agree with Congress. But I guess the 
authors of this amendment feel that they are smarter than Thomas 
Jefferson and smarter than any court that ever lived.
  This is not the only right that is going to be on the chopping block. 
Once we do away with the independence of the American judicial system, 
which has never been done in American history, ever; this Chamber has 
never, ever cut the knees out of the American Bill of Rights in 
American history, and this is not like the first time we have a 
controversial issue that may end up in the courts. Civil rights was 
controversial. Gun rights are controversial. It may be controversial if 
this Congress passes a gun rights bill like the Brady Bill and then it 
goes to the U.S. judicial system to see if it is constitutional, that 
is controversial. But where will this stop?
  I may ask the drafters, why did you stop here? Why, if you believe 
the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, why do you not just do away with the 
Supreme Court and not let them review that as well?
  This is a first step to tyranny. It ought to be rejected.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to read a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that he 
made, of course, a long time ago. He lamented that ``the germ of 
dissolution of our Federal Government is in the Constitution of the 
federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, 
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its 
noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all 
shall be usurped. . . .''
  In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individual rights to 
fellow judges employed for life was a very serious error. Responding to 
the argument that Federal judges are the final interpreters of the 
Constitution, Jefferson wrote, ``You seem . . . to consider the 
[federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional 
questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place 
us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as 
other men and not more so.''

[[Page 17211]]



                              {time}  1100

  They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the 
privileges of their core. Their power is the more dangerous, as they 
are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries 
are to the elective control.
  The Constitution has elected no such single tribunal, knowing that to 
whatever hands confided with the corruptions of time and party, its 
members would become despots.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear concerns about an 
overreaching judiciary, and I asked a simple question. I will gladly 
yield to an answer. If not the judiciary interpreting the laws of 
Congress, then who does?
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have a response?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Well, in this particular case, it is the State courts, 
the right to be left to the State courts.
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly. Well, in that case, who is to interpret 
conflicts between the two State courts or 50 State courts?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we do 
listen carefully to this debate. Why are we here today if it is not 
just a sad grab for votes after the embarrassing meltdown in the Senate 
last week dealing with the constitutional amendment that would have 
banned same-sex marriage?
  Listen to the rationale. The overworked judiciary? That certainly has 
not stopped our Republican colleagues from trying to shift the burden 
when it fits their ideology. They want the States to have the final 
authority only in this area, not for consumer protections or 
environmental policy.
  The Republican leadership do not like unelected lifetime judges 
making these difficult decisions.
  Well, frankly, looking at their efforts to pack the Federal judiciary 
with unqualified right-wing ideologues, I can understand why they are a 
little nervous about it; but, that is our system. Now they are afraid 
of their own conservative-leaning Supreme Court. This is so 
unnecessary, that the author of DOMA, our former colleague Bob Barr, 
has issued an edict. This is not needed; and Mr. Barr points out, to 
his credit, that this is a terrible precedent.
  Ten years from now the American public, especially our young people, 
are going to wonder why we tied ourselves in knots politically trying 
to discriminate against citizens based on their sexual orientation; but 
if we pass this dangerous legislation today, while the controversy 
surrounding rights for gay and lesbian citizens will be gone, this 
dangerous, tragic, ill-conceived precedent will linger and will be 
dusted off every time people want to extend their political influence 
at the expense of issues that may be controversial but demand attention 
from our Federal courts.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time and support the rule.
  The comments about conservative-leaning courts just fly in the face 
of actual fact. This court in Lawrence v. Texas was not exactly right-
leaning, and that is a fairly recent decision. In fact, the case of the 
Congress over being willing to declare what the courts can and cannot 
look at is a very recent occurrence, as our friends on the other side 
of the aisle seem to have forgotten that Mr. Daschle himself wrote into 
the legislation that the court cannot even oversee the removal of 
shrubbery and scrub brush from the national forest in South Dakota.
  And certainly if the Supreme Court and the courts can be held back 
from considering anything in the management of those forests, it might 
just reach the threshold that the American people should have the right 
to say that the Federal courts would not be the last point of reference 
there.
  I would go back again to my friend's comment that quoting the Dred 
Scott decision is like quoting from the Ku Klux Klan civil rights 
manual. I think that the mixing of conversations there was certainly 
not based on fact. The Dred Scott decision was a decision by not a 
Republican court to establish slavery as the legitimate form of 
activity in this country. The Dred Scott decision was the one that 
authorized and made slavery legal, and it was against the will of the 
people that that was done. And it is similar to the case now where the 
courts would operate against the will of the people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman's comments, in his 
concern for activist Federal judges, I just want to state for the 
record that seven of the Supreme Court justices right now have been 
appointed by Republican Presidents, and pretty conservative Republican 
Presidents at that.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the other body was in 
violation of the rules referenced on the floor. Let me just clarify the 
record there. It is perfectly legal to write into a piece of 
legislation that one goes to a certain place for a point of review but 
not another place. Nowhere in the Daschle legislation did it say one 
has no right to the courts or no right to the Supreme Court of the 
land. That is simply misstating the facts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I think it is important to understand the essence of this bill, 
because it is truly very simple. What it does is it says that the 
Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by this body in 1996, obviously 
it is a Federal statute, cannot be reviewed by the Federal courts. That 
is what it says, and it includes even the United States Supreme Court.
  So for the first time in our constitutional history since the 
decision in Marbury v. Madison, this body would strip from the United 
States Supreme Court its essential function in our democracy, which is 
the review, particularly of Federal statutes, for the determination as 
to its constitutionality. That is what this debate is about today. It 
is not about the defense of marriage. We did that in 1996; and by the 
way, if you took a look at the recent data in terms of divorce, it has 
not been very effective, I would suggest; but as the gentleman from 
Oregon indicated, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, former 
Representative Robert Barr, urges a ``no'' vote on this particular bill 
because of what it does. It establishes a dangerous precedent. It is 
clearly unconstitutional.
  Let me conclude with this statement. This bill does not defend 
marriage. What it does do, however, it diminishes our democracy; and we 
ought not to be about that as an institution. We should encourage our 
democracy and our values.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
considering H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. This is a 
critical piece of legislation that will prevent unelected, lifetime 
appointed Federal judges from arbitrarily determining the definition of 
marriage for the American people.
  In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an 
overwhelming bipartisan margin. Defense of marriage firmly states that 
no State shall be required to accept the same-sex marriage licenses 
granted by other States. To this day, 38 States have passed similar 
defense of marriage laws, demonstrating the overwhelming consensus for 
the protection of the institution of marriage.
  The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of 
jurisdiction

[[Page 17212]]

of the lower Federal courts. The Marriage Protection Act is an exercise 
of Congress's authority and is an appropriate remedy to address the 
abuses of Federal judges on this issue. States with defense of marriage 
statutes or constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage should not 
be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other States.
  Today the Federal courts are being used by activist judges to 
redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public 
debate upon those that the American people have elected to represent 
them.
  More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human 
experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected 
judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by 
judicial fiat. The American people must have a voice on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3313.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and the underlying bill; and if enacted, this would establish a 
tremendously dangerous precedent by denying the Federal judiciary the 
ability to review actions of the legislative and executive branches. It 
would eliminate the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers of 
our Nation so wisely established in our Constitution. Such a reckless 
move would cause lasting and permanent damage to our democracy.
  Since John Marshall, the Constitution has had superiority over the 
legislature. The Constitution gave us the right to speech and privacy, 
and even if we vote for 435 to 0, certain rights are protected in our 
Constitution. But if this bill were to become law, it would deny 
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and all Federal courts over any cases 
related to the Defense of Marriage Act.
  This bill goes beyond merely preventing same-sex couples from seeking 
legal redress in our courts. It would deny judicial review to an entire 
class of citizens because of passing partisan passions, and it is 
willing to trample on our Constitution in order to do so. No issue is 
worth paying such a price. This is a low moment in the history of this 
House. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. The 
Republican leadership is trying to use a wedge issue to appeal to 
right-wing constituencies in a highly charged election year, and they 
are willing to trample on our Constitution. No issue is ever worth such 
a price. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we here in America are fortunate indeed for 
our history and our law. We have a written Constitution that protects 
our liberties, and we have a system of checks and balances that makes 
sure that we do not fall prey to totalitarianism. 201 years ago, a case 
was decided, Marbury v. Madison, and in that famous case, Justice 
Marshall pointed out that we were at a cusp. Either the Constitution is 
a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, he said, or 
it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like other acts is 
alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
  He said then, and for the last 200 years we have agreed, that it is 
indefatigably the province and the duty of the judicial department to 
say what the law is. Make no mistake about it, this proposal, whatever 
you think about gay marriage, whatever you think about DOMA, this 
proposal today is a radical one. It proposes to change the system of 
government that we have enjoyed here in America for over 200 years, a 
system of checks and balances, where the Constitution is the paramount 
authority, and the executive and the legislative branches must live 
within the Constitution.
  This road leads to totalitarianism; and so whatever you think on the 
hot issue, the political issue of gay marriage, I urge you to reject 
this first step down the road to a system of government that is 
markedly different from what Americans have enjoyed for the last 200 
years.

                              {time}  1115

  I have never seen a debate of this sort in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and again today on the floor, such a serious 
misunderstanding of the system of government that we have here today. 
Do not let it happen here.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. We have got 
several comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle that 
definitely demand a closer look. First, the statement that this side of 
the aisle is bringing this highly charged issue up right now as an 
electionary issue. I am sorry, but it was not this side of the body 
that began to cause people to go down in acts of defiance of the law, 
began to get licenses and get marriages approved that were currently 
against the law. It was not this side of the aisle that brought those 
up. We are simply responding that now that the issue has come up, we 
need to deal with it.
  Also, there was a comment that we are diminishing democracy, and 
absolutely the opposite thing is occurring. We are empowering the 
democracy and we are empowering the people. But the other side is 
working under the very knowledge and the very truth that if they can 
find one court and four judges they can create law in this country. 
That is not empowering democracy. This bill and this rule empower 
democracy.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices at $40 a barrel, nearly 1,000 
young American men and women dead in Iraq, 6,000 wounded.
  What are we debating here on the floor of Congress? We are taking up 
a bill to strip the Federal courts of the power to hear cases 
challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. 
Apparently, the Republican Congress is so concerned that a gay or 
lesbian couple might someday have their marriage in one State 
recognized in another that they are prepared to take the extreme 
measure of preventing judges from interpreting the law.
  While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and 
balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans 
have decided that if you are gay you should be able to get along with 
just two branches of government. Why are they doing this?
  Conservative activist Paul Weyrich shed some light on the current 
thinking in Republican circles which explains why this bill is really 
on the floor today. Here is what Mr. Weyrich had to say: ``The 
President has bet the farm on Iraq. Right or wrong, he has done it. 
Even if you disagree with the decision, you have to admire the 
President for putting it on the line and staying the course despite 
overwhelmingly bad news for months now.
  ``Therefore, Iraq will be an unavoidable topic of discussion in this 
campaign. The problem is that events in Iraq are out of the control of 
the President.''
  Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this 
situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up 
oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are 
winners for the President.
  ``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is 
a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay 
marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end 
of problems.''
  So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in 
Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the 
economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going do rise up in 
November, and as a result they bring an unconstitutional act out on the 
floor that will strip gays and lesbians of their rights to be able to 
go to the Federal courts.

[[Page 17213]]

  Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States 
Constitution.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and, obviously, in strong support of the underlying legislation.
  I would like to bring us back to a discussion of the actual 
legislation that is being considered and a discussion initially of the 
constitutionality of that legislation.
  We have heard lots of folks that have suggested that this legislation 
is in fact unconstitutional, and I think at the outset we need to 
remember the wisdom of a law school professor that testified before the 
United States Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property of the Committee of the Judiciary in 1997, that reminded us as 
Members of Congress and the country that when it comes to the teaching 
of constitutional law in our law schools, which we will hear a few of 
those folks who graduated from those law schools today on this very 
issue, the thing that you need to understand about constitutional law 
is it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution.
  And with that in mind, we will talk today about the constitutional 
law and what is ``constitutional or unconstitutional'' and then we will 
be talking about the Constitution.
  I will be erring on the side of the actual Constitution and try to 
inform my colleagues of what the Constitution actually says with 
regards to, for example, separation of powers.
  The notion of separation of powers is this: That the legislature has 
its powers limited and enumerated in the Constitution; the Article II 
branch, the executive has their powers, his powers in this particular 
case, limited and enumerated in the Constitution; and in Article III 
you have the very limited and enumerated powers of the judiciary in 
Article III, a much smaller article in text than Article II and Article 
I; and so you have that separation of powers.
  It is interesting to note that in Article III, for example, it talks 
a lot about the powers vested in the Congress. Well, we will talk about 
that in just a moment but let us look at Article IV, Section 1 that 
talks about the power of Congress with regards to the Defense of 
Marriage Act that was passed in 1996.
  This bill, the Marriage Protection Act, seeks to remove from the 
Federal courts jurisdiction concerning the Defense of Marriage Act. 
Now, why would we take that step? One reason is because we can and 
another reason is because we should. I will tell you why we can in a 
moment, and part of that is the fact that this power granted to 
Congress that is not granted to the judiciary, that is not granted to 
the executive, is so explicitly expounded in the Constitution in 
Article IV, Section 1.
  It says, ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the 
public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State, and 
the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such 
acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.''
  So in Article IV, Section 1 we see a power of the Congress. We do not 
see anything about the Supreme Court. We do not see anything about the 
President. That is power explicit and exclusive to Congress. And so in 
employment of that power, we passed the Defense of Marriage Act that 
said no State would have to give full faith and credit to a marriage 
license issued by another State if that marriage license was issued to 
a same sex couple.
  We exercised the explicit and exclusive authority of Congress to, by 
general laws, prescribe the manner in which the effects of a marriage 
license and, for example, the State of Massachusetts, was to be felt in 
the State of, for example, Indiana, my home State. So we have that 
power.
  Once again, nothing here says the courts, nothing here says the 
executive branch, and then when we move to the idea of can Congress 
take from the courts certain jurisdictions we have to ask ourselves, 
well, how does the Constitution grant the authority to create the 
courts? Well, we turn to Article I, Section 8 and it says, ``The 
Congress shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the 
Supreme Court,'' and those are today known as the district courts and 
appeals courts. We have the power to constitute them, to make them up.
  Then it goes on to say in Article I, Section 8 that the Congress 
shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 
for caring into execution the foregoing powers, such as constituting 
the inferior tribunals, and all other powers vested by this 
Constitution in the government of the United States or in any 
department or officer thereof.''
  So we can create the Federal courts, we can by definition abolish the 
Federal courts. We do not seek to do that today, but we seek to make a 
law that will carry into execution that power of creating the courts, 
and that is to limit the jurisdiction.
  We then turn to Article III, Section 1, and we hear once again in 
Article III, which is generally referred to as the judicial branch 
creation, and what does it say in Article III? It says, ``The judicial 
power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in 
such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and 
establish.'' Then it goes on to talk about the Supreme Court and the 
judicial capacity and jurisdiction of the court system.
  It says in Article III, Section 2, ``In all cases affecting 
ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, the Supreme Court 
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before 
mentioned,'' and that is previous in Article III, Section 2, all those 
other cases, ``the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, 
both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such 
regulations as the Congress shall make.''
  So the United States Constitution is very clear. Congress has the 
authority to create the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the 
authority to make exceptions and regulations with regard to all of the 
appellate cases that come before the Supreme Court. Anyone that 
actually reads the Constitution and has a basic understanding of 
grammar and the English language in general can find that in fact the 
Constitution grants Congress the authority.
  Now, the question is, so we can do this, the question remaining 
before us is this: Should Congress do this? That question was answered 
on Tuesday.
  On Tuesday of this week a couple from Massachusetts, a lesbian couple 
who had been married in Massachusetts, removed themselves to the State 
of Florida and they entered into the Federal courts a complaint that 
Florida would not recognize their same sex marriage license conferred 
upon them.
  This battle has been engaged. In fact, the attorney for the lesbian 
couple that wishes to demand an overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act 
said this, ``With the filing of this historic lawsuit today in the 
Federal court, Florida has become a battleground.''
  Well, we want to snuff that battleground out today in Congress by 
claiming that the people of Florida should be able to determine the 
marriage laws of the people of Florida and not the State of 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know what it means to be excluded from your own 
Constitution, and after the experience of African Americans in this 
country and a Civil War, I never thought I would see a civil war in law 
where we would try to exclude any other group of Americans from the 
Constitution of the United States, and that is exactly what we are 
trying to do here today. We are trying to change the constitutional 
system that the framers put in place over one constitutional issue.
  Now, every time there is an issue like this which raises the hackles 
of the country, people rush forward to try to do exactly this, to strip 
the courts. They did it during the era of desegregation. They have done 
it with school prayer. The fact is that the issue has been settled for 
200 years in Marbury v.

[[Page 17214]]

Madison, and the issue is quite simply this: That the Supreme Court is 
the final arbiter of constitutional matters.
  Now, if that were not the case, if that is wrong, then the framers 
were wrong, because the framers were still sitting, some of them in the 
court itself, some of them in the Congress when Marbury was passed, and 
under accepted principles of constitutional interpretation somebody 
could have come to the floor and said the court has got it wrong and we 
are going to assert ourselves. Instead they accepted Marbury v. Madison 
and we must accept it.
  The Supreme Court has constitutional standing in our system, and the 
words are ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in 
one Supreme Court.'' Otherwise, we would have chaos in our system 
without any separations of powers. Congress would never have to account 
for unconstitutional laws. All it would have to do is to put court-
stripping language in every bill and we would be a Constitution unto 
ourselves because there would be no review of our unconstitutional 
laws.

                              {time}  1130

  That is unconstitutional. I think it is certainly un-American.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong 
support of this rule.
  It pains me today to think that we are even at this place in our 
Nation's history when we have to debate the importance of maintaining 
the bedrock of our country, the American family.
  As a fairly new grandfather myself, I have watched my children as new 
parents, and I am reminded that their children are each blessed to have 
a mother and father. They are uniquely suited, male and female, to 
invest in their lives.
  The legislation and the rule before us is not about discrimination or 
civil rights as some might claim. This is about the bedrock of our 
society, our community and our future. This is a big deal.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to rise in strong support across the board, both 
sides of the aisle, in bipartisan fashion. We support the American 
family.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the time on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is not just about gays 
and lesbians. I have been here 24 years. We never do anything only 
once. When you have developed a particular procedure to use in defense 
of your views, that gets used again and again. Today, I was going to 
say you set a precedent if you pass this bill, but you do not set a 
precedent. You go back in history to the Articles of Confederation.
  Passage of this bill will mean that the United States Constitution, 
in this particular area, will have different meanings in different 
States because States will then be the ultimate decider of the 
Constitution, and anyone who thinks that if we do it in this case that 
is the only time we will ever do it does not follow things closely.
  I am the ranking member on the minority side in the Committee on 
Financial Services. There is not an area in our jurisdiction with 
respect to the business community of America where the financial 
community does not come to us and say we need one uniform law.
  Do you not understand, Mr. Speaker, that if you set this precedent, 
it will apply in other areas? Indeed, it will become boilerplate. If 
you are passing legislation dealing with the second amendment and gun 
rights; and environmental land takings under the fifth amendment; the 
commerce clause, financial regulation, it will be a matter of course to 
add this language that says, and by the way, we believe so strongly in 
what we have done, it will be none of the business of the courts.
  There will be different views in different States. Forget the Uniform 
Commercial Code. We will have the ``multiple commercial code,'' the 
multiple choice commercial code. We will have the ``Multiple Choice 
Constitution.''
  I guess I am regretful, maybe I can apologize, that the sight of two 
lesbians falling in love and wanting to formalize that has so 
traumatized the majority that they are prepared to make the biggest 
hole in the United States Constitution that we have seen since we 
became one Nation. You are saying there will be no more uniformity in 
the Constitution, and you say it is only here.
  By the way, I know a few scholars who think you will lose on full 
faith and credit. You make a terrible mistake to set a precedent that 
will be followed time and again. It will become truth that you really 
care about an issue that you say that the United States Constitution 
will no longer be a uniform document, but will be subject to dozens of 
separate State interpretations.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, wrapping up my comments for this part of the 
debate, I again rise to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  This bill does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any 
group of people. It is motivated by the desire to preserve for the 
States the authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to 
protect them from having to accept same-sex marriage licenses out of 
State will hold.
  This bill does not eliminate any group from the Constitution, but 
instead, recognizes the 10th amendment of the Constitution which 
declares that all rights are reserved for the States except those which 
are specifically given to the Federal Government.
  I would comment that the observations of the last gentleman are 
completely contrary to the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many 
more speakers she has on her side.
  Mrs. MYRICK. I have no more speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what this bill is all about. It is a 
mean-spirited, unconstitutional, dangerous distraction. No matter what 
Members may think about gay marriage, the issue here today is whether 
or not we will take away people's fundamental constitutional rights.
  Gay men and women pay taxes, serve in the United States Congress and 
in legislatures across the country, serve in our military, raise 
families that participate in the political process. The idea that they 
should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their 
constitutional rights is not only wrong, it is appalling.
  Now, I am from Massachusetts and my colleagues will hear supporters 
of this bill talking today about the alleged catastrophe that has 
occurred in my State in the last few months; but you know what, Mr. 
Speaker, the world did not come to an end in Massachusetts when the 
State Supreme Court made its ruling. People got up and went to work and 
took their kids to school and paid their bills and lived their lives. 
The world kept spinning on its axis.
  In the end, I think that is what is driving the supporters of this 
bill crazy. The outrage, the mass hysteria, the political momentum they 
expected from this issue just have not materialized. The American 
people are a lot smarter and a lot more tolerant and a lot more 
reasonable than the Republican leadership gives them credit for, which 
is why, Mr. Speaker, even if this bill passes today, I still have hope.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House took an oath that they would 
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I hope we will 
do that today. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

[[Page 17215]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________